• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EST 12:28
CET 18:28
KST 02:28
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
RSL Revival - 2025 Season Finals Preview8RSL Season 3 - Playoffs Preview0RSL Season 3 - RO16 Groups C & D Preview0RSL Season 3 - RO16 Groups A & B Preview2TL.net Map Contest #21: Winners12
Community News
ComeBackTV's documentary on Byun's Career !3Weekly Cups (Dec 8-14): MaxPax, Clem, Cure win2Weekly Cups (Dec 1-7): Clem doubles, Solar gets over the hump1Weekly Cups (Nov 24-30): MaxPax, Clem, herO win2BGE Stara Zagora 2026 announced15
StarCraft 2
General
ComeBackTV's documentary on Byun's Career ! Weekly Cups (Dec 8-14): MaxPax, Clem, Cure win Did they add GM to 2v2? RSL Revival - 2025 Season Finals Preview Weekly Cups (Dec 1-7): Clem doubles, Solar gets over the hump
Tourneys
Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2) Winter Warp Gate Amateur Showdown #1: Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament $5,000+ WardiTV 2025 Championship StarCraft2.fi 15th Anniversary Cup
Strategy
Custom Maps
Map Editor closed ?
External Content
Mutation # 504 Retribution Mutation # 503 Fowl Play Mutation # 502 Negative Reinforcement Mutation # 501 Price of Progress
Brood War
General
How Rain Became ProGamer in Just 3 Months FlaSh on: Biggest Problem With SnOw's Playstyle BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ [BSL21] RO8 Bracket & Prediction Contest BW General Discussion
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL21] RO8 - Day 2 - Sunday 21:00 CET [ASL20] Grand Finals [BSL21] RO8 - Day 1 - Saturday 21:00 CET
Strategy
Game Theory for Starcraft Simple Questions, Simple Answers Current Meta Fighting Spirit mining rates
Other Games
General Games
General RTS Discussion Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Dawn of War IV Nintendo Switch Thread PC Games Sales Thread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
Mafia Game Mode Feedback/Ideas Survivor II: The Amazon Sengoku Mafia TL Mafia Community Thread
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine YouTube Thread European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread
Fan Clubs
White-Ra Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece Movie Discussion!
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
TL+ Announced Where to ask questions and add stream?
Blogs
How Sleep Deprivation Affect…
TrAiDoS
I decided to write a webnov…
DjKniteX
James Bond movies ranking - pa…
Topin
Thanks for the RSL
Hildegard
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1856 users

Prop 8 Passes/Overturned - California Bans/Unbans Gay Marr…

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 9 10 11 12 13 57 Next
FragKrag
Profile Blog Joined September 2007
United States11554 Posts
November 06 2008 00:24 GMT
#201
On November 06 2008 07:21 mahnini wrote:
wtf cali always passes the most hippie shit and yet when it actually matters we fail.


we failed twice. lolol.

why did 2 pass? fucking animal rights hippies.
*TL CJ Entusman #40* "like scissors does anything to paper except MAKE IT MORE NUMEROUS" -paper
Creationism
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
China505 Posts
Last Edited: 2008-11-06 00:39:23
November 06 2008 00:38 GMT
#202
If you dwell too far into idealism of the definition of marriage, often you will get lost in your argument, as the OP post kind of did. The argument goes as far to say that marriage should not be defined by the state, but rather by the religion; since United States has the freedom of religion, then we should have the freedom to marry cuz we can jus make a religion where gay ppl can marry. Of course the counter arguments to this also come from the institution side, where taxes and liabilities rule the argument.

Honestly, I really could not give less of a fuck whether or not homosexuals are entering the marriage institution, or that the definition of marriage is ruining by them doing so. But rather, it is the practical matter of the institution that affects my life and that is the position that I must judge on a modern basis. The key thing here is the gays can force those around them to accept their institution, whether or not that those around them agree or disagree with it, with a certification or recognition of marriage from the government. The government's recognition of the matter is key in deciding whether or not the marriage is institutionally valid and will therefore determine what the people can and cannot accept.

Therefore, to say that the government has no role recognize and define marriage is wrong. If the government recognizes gay marriage, whether or not the people recognize it is ineffective as far as policy goes. To change that recognition of gay marriage, the people who oppose it must once again go through the government and form a law to repeal the law before. Marriage is not only a instititutional definition, but also a social definition. If you say that the government has no right to ban gay marriage, then they also have no right to recognize it.

Oh, and I do think its funny that people care more about chickens in cages than homosexuals. haha
The hoi polloi is the plague upon the world.
Augury
Profile Blog Joined September 2008
United States758 Posts
November 06 2008 00:43 GMT
#203
The only reason you would voted for Prop 8 was if you didn't like homosexuals, end of story. There's no other reason that people would vote for it. If you were fine with homosexuals you would have voted no, because you wouldn't care. It's bad enough people voted for discrimination, but they can at least have the balls to admit to it, instead of hiding behind some religion BS or whatever.
Murk
Profile Joined July 2008
Canada304 Posts
November 06 2008 00:50 GMT
#204
Ok, ill admit it! i cant stand homosexuals they disgust me !!! happy?!?!!?!?
NrG.Bamboo
Profile Blog Joined December 2006
United States2756 Posts
November 06 2008 01:04 GMT
#205
On November 06 2008 09:50 Murk wrote:
Ok, ill admit it! i cant stand homosexuals they disgust me !!! happy?!?!!?!?

You're probably joking but.. just replace "homosexuals" with "black people" and see how it goes from completely acceptable to omgban racistZ!!
I need to protect all your life you can enjoy the vibrant life of your battery
d_so
Profile Blog Joined December 2007
Korea (South)3262 Posts
November 06 2008 01:20 GMT
#206
On November 06 2008 09:38 Creationism wrote:
If you dwell too far into idealism of the definition of marriage, often you will get lost in your argument, as the OP post kind of did. The argument goes as far to say that marriage should not be defined by the state, but rather by the religion; since United States has the freedom of religion, then we should have the freedom to marry cuz we can jus make a religion where gay ppl can marry. Of course the counter arguments to this also come from the institution side, where taxes and liabilities rule the argument.

Honestly, I really could not give less of a fuck whether or not homosexuals are entering the marriage institution, or that the definition of marriage is ruining by them doing so. But rather, it is the practical matter of the institution that affects my life and that is the position that I must judge on a modern basis. The key thing here is the gays can force those around them to accept their institution, whether or not that those around them agree or disagree with it, with a certification or recognition of marriage from the government. The government's recognition of the matter is key in deciding whether or not the marriage is institutionally valid and will therefore determine what the people can and cannot accept.

Therefore, to say that the government has no role recognize and define marriage is wrong. If the government recognizes gay marriage, whether or not the people recognize it is ineffective as far as policy goes. To change that recognition of gay marriage, the people who oppose it must once again go through the government and form a law to repeal the law before. Marriage is not only a instititutional definition, but also a social definition. If you say that the government has no right to ban gay marriage, then they also have no right to recognize it.

Oh, and I do think its funny that people care more about chickens in cages than homosexuals. haha


you need to understand something. church and state is not always separate. they are not mutually exclusive. marriage is a legal AND religious institution, and you can't separate it as either/or.

if you want an example of another religious institution that gets tax relief, see churches.

manner
tika
Profile Blog Joined October 2008
127 Posts
November 06 2008 01:28 GMT
#207
On November 06 2008 08:26 travis wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 06 2008 08:05 MetalMarine wrote:
On November 06 2008 05:41 Kennigit wrote:
On November 06 2008 05:22 MYM.Testie wrote:
jkilla is religious.

Many christians support gay marriage. Lame excuse.


Maybe he just straight up hate homosexuals? Apparently a lot of people do, the results showed it. I personally don't care if they get married or not, but serious question to some people on here, Do you guys really care that homosexuals can't get married? Like deeply care, just wondering.


I don't deeply care about anything we'd discuss here

so no I guess


maybe you should tho, it might have useful feedback?
Meta
Profile Blog Joined June 2003
United States6225 Posts
November 06 2008 01:38 GMT
#208
On November 06 2008 10:20 d_so wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 06 2008 09:38 Creationism wrote:
If you dwell too far into idealism of the definition of marriage, often you will get lost in your argument, as the OP post kind of did. The argument goes as far to say that marriage should not be defined by the state, but rather by the religion; since United States has the freedom of religion, then we should have the freedom to marry cuz we can jus make a religion where gay ppl can marry. Of course the counter arguments to this also come from the institution side, where taxes and liabilities rule the argument.

Honestly, I really could not give less of a fuck whether or not homosexuals are entering the marriage institution, or that the definition of marriage is ruining by them doing so. But rather, it is the practical matter of the institution that affects my life and that is the position that I must judge on a modern basis. The key thing here is the gays can force those around them to accept their institution, whether or not that those around them agree or disagree with it, with a certification or recognition of marriage from the government. The government's recognition of the matter is key in deciding whether or not the marriage is institutionally valid and will therefore determine what the people can and cannot accept.

Therefore, to say that the government has no role recognize and define marriage is wrong. If the government recognizes gay marriage, whether or not the people recognize it is ineffective as far as policy goes. To change that recognition of gay marriage, the people who oppose it must once again go through the government and form a law to repeal the law before. Marriage is not only a instititutional definition, but also a social definition. If you say that the government has no right to ban gay marriage, then they also have no right to recognize it.

Oh, and I do think its funny that people care more about chickens in cages than homosexuals. haha


you need to understand something. church and state is not always separate. they are not mutually exclusive. marriage is a legal AND religious institution, and you can't separate it as either/or.

if you want an example of another religious institution that gets tax relief, see churches.



As I've said twice before, and yet have seen a rebuttal for, marriage can be legal but NOT religious. When religious people get married, it's both, and when non-religious people get married, it's entirely a legal situation. The church should have no say in the conduct of non-religious marriages.
good vibes only
strongwind
Profile Joined July 2007
United States862 Posts
Last Edited: 2008-11-06 01:43:08
November 06 2008 01:40 GMT
#209
I just posted this in suggestion box's blog, but decided to paste here as well:


A lot of people don't realize that the church and state have been hand-in-hand for a very long time in regards to marriage, mainly because there wasn't much of a problem with it until now. I find it unfair how some people boil this down into a deceptively simple "accept gay marriage or reject it" approach. The problem runs deeper than that.

On November 06 2008 09:43 vsrooks wrote:
The only reason you would voted for Prop 8 was if you didn't like homosexuals, end of story. There's no other reason that people would vote for it. If you were fine with homosexuals you would have voted no, because you wouldn't care. It's bad enough people voted for discrimination, but they can at least have the balls to admit to it, instead of hiding behind some religion BS or whatever.


This is a very ignorant statement. The vast majority of christians do not have any problem with gay rights. I, for one, hope that gay rights activists push to expand the power of civil unions and to try to establish them on an equal standing with marriage in all states.

The word "marriage" is what is hotly contested here. Like the op said (see suggestion box blog), marriage has been deeply rooted in christianity in our country, and many regard marriage as a religious institution. I believe the solution lies with the government and their recognition of the different kinds of relationship status, as well as normalizing the benefits among them (or ridding of them entirely).

I also understand that gay rights activists wish to avoid discrimination based on the distinction between civil unions and marriages. I think this requires, as mentioned above, a major change in the way the government recognizes relationship status and their allocation of resources and benefits. I know the answer is not a simple or easy one, but neither is the problem that is associated with it.
Taek Bang Fighting!
d_so
Profile Blog Joined December 2007
Korea (South)3262 Posts
November 06 2008 01:51 GMT
#210
On November 06 2008 10:38 Meta wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 06 2008 10:20 d_so wrote:
On November 06 2008 09:38 Creationism wrote:
If you dwell too far into idealism of the definition of marriage, often you will get lost in your argument, as the OP post kind of did. The argument goes as far to say that marriage should not be defined by the state, but rather by the religion; since United States has the freedom of religion, then we should have the freedom to marry cuz we can jus make a religion where gay ppl can marry. Of course the counter arguments to this also come from the institution side, where taxes and liabilities rule the argument.

Honestly, I really could not give less of a fuck whether or not homosexuals are entering the marriage institution, or that the definition of marriage is ruining by them doing so. But rather, it is the practical matter of the institution that affects my life and that is the position that I must judge on a modern basis. The key thing here is the gays can force those around them to accept their institution, whether or not that those around them agree or disagree with it, with a certification or recognition of marriage from the government. The government's recognition of the matter is key in deciding whether or not the marriage is institutionally valid and will therefore determine what the people can and cannot accept.

Therefore, to say that the government has no role recognize and define marriage is wrong. If the government recognizes gay marriage, whether or not the people recognize it is ineffective as far as policy goes. To change that recognition of gay marriage, the people who oppose it must once again go through the government and form a law to repeal the law before. Marriage is not only a instititutional definition, but also a social definition. If you say that the government has no right to ban gay marriage, then they also have no right to recognize it.

Oh, and I do think its funny that people care more about chickens in cages than homosexuals. haha


you need to understand something. church and state is not always separate. they are not mutually exclusive. marriage is a legal AND religious institution, and you can't separate it as either/or.

if you want an example of another religious institution that gets tax relief, see churches.



As I've said twice before, and yet have seen a rebuttal for, marriage can be legal but NOT religious. When religious people get married, it's both, and when non-religious people get married, it's entirely a legal situation. The church should have no say in the conduct of non-religious marriages.


-_- you keep thinking of individual scenarios. no shit. there are marriages that don't have church backing right now.

i'm talking about marriage in the aggregate sense.
manner
Augury
Profile Blog Joined September 2008
United States758 Posts
November 06 2008 02:35 GMT
#211
On November 06 2008 10:40 strongwind wrote:
I just posted this in suggestion box's blog, but decided to paste here as well:


A lot of people don't realize that the church and state have been hand-in-hand for a very long time in regards to marriage, mainly because there wasn't much of a problem with it until now. I find it unfair how some people boil this down into a deceptively simple "accept gay marriage or reject it" approach. The problem runs deeper than that.

Show nested quote +
On November 06 2008 09:43 vsrooks wrote:
The only reason you would voted for Prop 8 was if you didn't like homosexuals, end of story. There's no other reason that people would vote for it. If you were fine with homosexuals you would have voted no, because you wouldn't care. It's bad enough people voted for discrimination, but they can at least have the balls to admit to it, instead of hiding behind some religion BS or whatever.


This is a very ignorant statement. The vast majority of christians do not have any problem with gay rights. I, for one, hope that gay rights activists push to expand the power of civil unions and to try to establish them on an equal standing with marriage in all states.

The word "marriage" is what is hotly contested here. Like the op said (see suggestion box blog), marriage has been deeply rooted in christianity in our country, and many regard marriage as a religious institution. I believe the solution lies with the government and their recognition of the different kinds of relationship status, as well as normalizing the benefits among them (or ridding of them entirely).

I also understand that gay rights activists wish to avoid discrimination based on the distinction between civil unions and marriages. I think this requires, as mentioned above, a major change in the way the government recognizes relationship status and their allocation of resources and benefits. I know the answer is not a simple or easy one, but neither is the problem that is associated with it.


Okay 'marriage' is a religious word, why do homosexuals using the word ruin that word for you? Simple answer, you don't think their way of life is the right way.

Also I'm glad that your belief in a WORD is allowing you to ruin peoples' lives.
Sadist
Profile Blog Joined October 2002
United States7296 Posts
November 06 2008 02:37 GMT
#212
well if you wont let homosexuals use the marriage, why let muslims or atheists or buddhists or anyone else?
How do you go from where you are to where you want to be? I think you have to have an enthusiasm for life. You have to have a dream, a goal and you have to be willing to work for it. Jim Valvano
-_-
Profile Blog Joined November 2003
United States7081 Posts
November 06 2008 02:38 GMT
#213
On November 06 2008 11:35 vsrooks wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 06 2008 10:40 strongwind wrote:
I just posted this in suggestion box's blog, but decided to paste here as well:


A lot of people don't realize that the church and state have been hand-in-hand for a very long time in regards to marriage, mainly because there wasn't much of a problem with it until now. I find it unfair how some people boil this down into a deceptively simple "accept gay marriage or reject it" approach. The problem runs deeper than that.

On November 06 2008 09:43 vsrooks wrote:
The only reason you would voted for Prop 8 was if you didn't like homosexuals, end of story. There's no other reason that people would vote for it. If you were fine with homosexuals you would have voted no, because you wouldn't care. It's bad enough people voted for discrimination, but they can at least have the balls to admit to it, instead of hiding behind some religion BS or whatever.


This is a very ignorant statement. The vast majority of christians do not have any problem with gay rights. I, for one, hope that gay rights activists push to expand the power of civil unions and to try to establish them on an equal standing with marriage in all states.

The word "marriage" is what is hotly contested here. Like the op said (see suggestion box blog), marriage has been deeply rooted in christianity in our country, and many regard marriage as a religious institution. I believe the solution lies with the government and their recognition of the different kinds of relationship status, as well as normalizing the benefits among them (or ridding of them entirely).

I also understand that gay rights activists wish to avoid discrimination based on the distinction between civil unions and marriages. I think this requires, as mentioned above, a major change in the way the government recognizes relationship status and their allocation of resources and benefits. I know the answer is not a simple or easy one, but neither is the problem that is associated with it.


Okay 'marriage' is a religious word, why do homosexuals using the word ruin that word for you? Simple answer, you don't think their way of life is the right way.

Also I'm glad that your belief in a WORD is allowing you to ruin peoples' lives.


I'm not married... is my life RUINED?? BY A WORD!?
Augury
Profile Blog Joined September 2008
United States758 Posts
November 06 2008 02:40 GMT
#214
On November 06 2008 11:38 -_- wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 06 2008 11:35 vsrooks wrote:
On November 06 2008 10:40 strongwind wrote:
I just posted this in suggestion box's blog, but decided to paste here as well:


A lot of people don't realize that the church and state have been hand-in-hand for a very long time in regards to marriage, mainly because there wasn't much of a problem with it until now. I find it unfair how some people boil this down into a deceptively simple "accept gay marriage or reject it" approach. The problem runs deeper than that.

On November 06 2008 09:43 vsrooks wrote:
The only reason you would voted for Prop 8 was if you didn't like homosexuals, end of story. There's no other reason that people would vote for it. If you were fine with homosexuals you would have voted no, because you wouldn't care. It's bad enough people voted for discrimination, but they can at least have the balls to admit to it, instead of hiding behind some religion BS or whatever.


This is a very ignorant statement. The vast majority of christians do not have any problem with gay rights. I, for one, hope that gay rights activists push to expand the power of civil unions and to try to establish them on an equal standing with marriage in all states.

The word "marriage" is what is hotly contested here. Like the op said (see suggestion box blog), marriage has been deeply rooted in christianity in our country, and many regard marriage as a religious institution. I believe the solution lies with the government and their recognition of the different kinds of relationship status, as well as normalizing the benefits among them (or ridding of them entirely).

I also understand that gay rights activists wish to avoid discrimination based on the distinction between civil unions and marriages. I think this requires, as mentioned above, a major change in the way the government recognizes relationship status and their allocation of resources and benefits. I know the answer is not a simple or easy one, but neither is the problem that is associated with it.


Okay 'marriage' is a religious word, why do homosexuals using the word ruin that word for you? Simple answer, you don't think their way of life is the right way.

Also I'm glad that your belief in a WORD is allowing you to ruin peoples' lives.


I'm not married... is my life RUINED?? BY A WORD!?


Protecting marriage as a religious idea is letting a WORD run things. Treating people differently under the law has nothing to do with a WORD and yes treating people differently under the law does greatly affect lives.
Murk
Profile Joined July 2008
Canada304 Posts
November 06 2008 02:44 GMT
#215
Homosexuality is a sin, and marriage is a holy thing, it shouldnt of never been allowed in the first place. a Preist that host gay marriages is making a mockery of everything hes supposed to stand for, and im not talking out of my ass homosexuality IS A SIN read the bible
-_-
Profile Blog Joined November 2003
United States7081 Posts
November 06 2008 02:45 GMT
#216
On November 06 2008 11:40 vsrooks wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 06 2008 11:38 -_- wrote:
On November 06 2008 11:35 vsrooks wrote:
On November 06 2008 10:40 strongwind wrote:
I just posted this in suggestion box's blog, but decided to paste here as well:


A lot of people don't realize that the church and state have been hand-in-hand for a very long time in regards to marriage, mainly because there wasn't much of a problem with it until now. I find it unfair how some people boil this down into a deceptively simple "accept gay marriage or reject it" approach. The problem runs deeper than that.

On November 06 2008 09:43 vsrooks wrote:
The only reason you would voted for Prop 8 was if you didn't like homosexuals, end of story. There's no other reason that people would vote for it. If you were fine with homosexuals you would have voted no, because you wouldn't care. It's bad enough people voted for discrimination, but they can at least have the balls to admit to it, instead of hiding behind some religion BS or whatever.


This is a very ignorant statement. The vast majority of christians do not have any problem with gay rights. I, for one, hope that gay rights activists push to expand the power of civil unions and to try to establish them on an equal standing with marriage in all states.

The word "marriage" is what is hotly contested here. Like the op said (see suggestion box blog), marriage has been deeply rooted in christianity in our country, and many regard marriage as a religious institution. I believe the solution lies with the government and their recognition of the different kinds of relationship status, as well as normalizing the benefits among them (or ridding of them entirely).

I also understand that gay rights activists wish to avoid discrimination based on the distinction between civil unions and marriages. I think this requires, as mentioned above, a major change in the way the government recognizes relationship status and their allocation of resources and benefits. I know the answer is not a simple or easy one, but neither is the problem that is associated with it.


Okay 'marriage' is a religious word, why do homosexuals using the word ruin that word for you? Simple answer, you don't think their way of life is the right way.

Also I'm glad that your belief in a WORD is allowing you to ruin peoples' lives.


I'm not married... is my life RUINED?? BY A WORD!?


Protecting marriage as a religious idea is letting a WORD run things. Treating people differently under the law has nothing to do with a WORD and yes treating people differently under the law does greatly affect lives.


Totally agree about the WORD thing. I got an idea: let's take all the WORDS out of the law. Because having WORDS run things is bad. And lets not treat anyone different under the law either. That's what the equal protection clause means, RIGHT?

But back to WORDS, if I'm unhappy w/ how WORDS are running my country, what can I do? How do I know that everyone I know isn't a WORD?? Scary stuff...
DM20
Profile Joined September 2008
Canada544 Posts
November 06 2008 02:47 GMT
#217
I hope you guys realize that the main point of prop 8 was to ban the "teaching" of homosexuality in schools, and the banning of gay marriage was snuck in.

It was a dirty trick and it worked.
Augury
Profile Blog Joined September 2008
United States758 Posts
November 06 2008 02:48 GMT
#218
On November 06 2008 11:44 Murk wrote:
Homosexuality is a sin, and marriage is a holy thing, it shouldnt of never been allowed in the first place. a Preist that host gay marriages is making a mockery of everything hes supposed to stand for, and im not talking out of my ass homosexuality IS A SIN read the bible


When does God say that homosexuality is a sin? Feel free to point that out to me, BTW God didn't write the bible.
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24745 Posts
November 06 2008 02:49 GMT
#219
On November 06 2008 11:45 -_- wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 06 2008 11:40 vsrooks wrote:
On November 06 2008 11:38 -_- wrote:
On November 06 2008 11:35 vsrooks wrote:
On November 06 2008 10:40 strongwind wrote:
I just posted this in suggestion box's blog, but decided to paste here as well:


A lot of people don't realize that the church and state have been hand-in-hand for a very long time in regards to marriage, mainly because there wasn't much of a problem with it until now. I find it unfair how some people boil this down into a deceptively simple "accept gay marriage or reject it" approach. The problem runs deeper than that.

On November 06 2008 09:43 vsrooks wrote:
The only reason you would voted for Prop 8 was if you didn't like homosexuals, end of story. There's no other reason that people would vote for it. If you were fine with homosexuals you would have voted no, because you wouldn't care. It's bad enough people voted for discrimination, but they can at least have the balls to admit to it, instead of hiding behind some religion BS or whatever.


This is a very ignorant statement. The vast majority of christians do not have any problem with gay rights. I, for one, hope that gay rights activists push to expand the power of civil unions and to try to establish them on an equal standing with marriage in all states.

The word "marriage" is what is hotly contested here. Like the op said (see suggestion box blog), marriage has been deeply rooted in christianity in our country, and many regard marriage as a religious institution. I believe the solution lies with the government and their recognition of the different kinds of relationship status, as well as normalizing the benefits among them (or ridding of them entirely).

I also understand that gay rights activists wish to avoid discrimination based on the distinction between civil unions and marriages. I think this requires, as mentioned above, a major change in the way the government recognizes relationship status and their allocation of resources and benefits. I know the answer is not a simple or easy one, but neither is the problem that is associated with it.


Okay 'marriage' is a religious word, why do homosexuals using the word ruin that word for you? Simple answer, you don't think their way of life is the right way.

Also I'm glad that your belief in a WORD is allowing you to ruin peoples' lives.


I'm not married... is my life RUINED?? BY A WORD!?


Protecting marriage as a religious idea is letting a WORD run things. Treating people differently under the law has nothing to do with a WORD and yes treating people differently under the law does greatly affect lives.


Totally agree about the WORD thing. I got an idea: let's take all the WORDS out of the law. Because having WORDS run things is bad. And lets not treat anyone different under the law either. That's what the equal protection clause means, RIGHT?

But back to WORDS, if I'm unhappy w/ how WORDS are running my country, what can I do? How do I know that everyone I know isn't a WORD?? Scary stuff...

You are missing his point, whether if it is intentional or not...
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
Deleted User 3420
Profile Blog Joined May 2003
24492 Posts
November 06 2008 02:50 GMT
#220
On November 06 2008 11:47 DM20 wrote:
I hope you guys realize that the main point of prop 8 was to ban the "teaching" of homosexuality in schools,


could you explain what this even means
Prev 1 9 10 11 12 13 57 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
OSC
17:00
OSC Elite Rising Star #17
YoungYakov vs Mixu
ForJumy vs TBD
Percival vs TBD
Shameless vs TBD
SteadfastSC19
Liquipedia
WardiTV 2025
12:00
Playoffs
Spirit vs ShoWTimELIVE!
WardiTV1529
ComeBackTV 755
TaKeTV 410
IndyStarCraft 242
Rex106
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
IndyStarCraft 242
ProTech128
Rex 106
BRAT_OK 87
SteadfastSC 19
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 24409
Calm 2163
Shuttle 842
Jaedong 750
actioN 524
EffOrt 349
Hyuk 300
Larva 209
Rush 149
Zeus 112
[ Show more ]
Hyun 111
ggaemo 107
Mong 79
Dewaltoss 69
Bonyth 57
sas.Sziky 42
Mind 42
Rock 32
Movie 31
yabsab 27
Aegong 27
Shine 9
Noble 6
Dota 2
Gorgc5390
qojqva3183
singsing3003
Dendi1001
Counter-Strike
pashabiceps772
Foxcn318
Other Games
FrodaN977
hiko612
Beastyqt435
ceh9405
Fuzer 367
ArmadaUGS126
XaKoH 100
C9.Mang086
QueenE82
Trikslyr55
Livibee52
Organizations
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• StrangeGG 36
• poizon28 15
• intothetv
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• blackmanpl 7
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• WagamamaTV552
League of Legends
• Nemesis1784
• TFBlade793
Upcoming Events
The PondCast
16h 33m
WardiTV 2025
19h 33m
Cure vs Creator
TBD vs Solar
WardiTV 2025
1d 17h
OSC
1d 20h
CranKy Ducklings
2 days
SC Evo League
2 days
Ladder Legends
3 days
BSL 21
3 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
3 days
Ladder Legends
3 days
[ Show More ]
BSL 21
4 days
Replay Cast
4 days
Monday Night Weeklies
4 days
WardiTV Invitational
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Acropolis #4 - TS3
RSL Offline Finals
Kuram Kup

Ongoing

C-Race Season 1
IPSL Winter 2025-26
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 4
YSL S2
BSL Season 21
Slon Tour Season 2
WardiTV 2025
META Madness #9
SL Budapest Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 8
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
ESL Pro League S22

Upcoming

CSL 2025 WINTER (S19)
BSL 21 Non-Korean Championship
Acropolis #4
IPSL Spring 2026
Bellum Gens Elite Stara Zagora 2026
HSC XXVIII
Big Gabe Cup #3
OSC Championship Season 13
ESL Pro League Season 23
PGL Cluj-Napoca 2026
IEM Kraków 2026
BLAST Bounty Winter 2026
BLAST Bounty Winter Qual
eXTREMESLAND 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.