EPTProp 8 Passes/Overturned - California Bans/Unbans Gay Marr…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Raithed
China7078 Posts
| ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On November 06 2008 03:34 Raithed wrote: this is a sad sad day, i wanted to marry reach but nooooo! Just need to find a state in the union that allows gay marriage then you can marry there then live anywhere. Only reason why prop 8 got any money is that out of state payed for those commercials. Because if you can get married in a state in the union every other state must recognize that marriage because it's official legal documents. Dam people T_T | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32054 Posts
On November 06 2008 03:20 KOFgokuon wrote: the attorney general of CA said that there's no plan to annul any of the marriages that took place already well at least there's a silver lining of sorts... | ||
jkillashark
United States5262 Posts
| ||
|
PanoRaMa
United States5069 Posts
On November 06 2008 03:42 jkillashark wrote: I am so damn glad Prop 8 passed. What is this? a troll? considering the ill feelings a lot of people have in this thread and you still say this? Why are you glad, for instance, would be a good way to start. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
No one was forcing christian churches to marry gay couples in the first place. There is no argument for this last statement. NO ONE FORCED CHURCHES TO MARRY GAY COUPLES. Marriage does not belong to Christianity alone. Ignorant, intrusive, oppressive, and pathetic. | ||
|
LG)Sabbath
Argentina3022 Posts
Does anyone else find it ironic that on the night that Obama wins the presidency 70% of African Americans vote to take away the rights of so many Californian citizens? YES! It is unbelievable to me that a group that has been so discriminated against on the institutional level is willing to do the same to a different group. It is absolutely disgusting. Even Obama's stance on gay marriage is repulsive. He is for civil unions, which essentially is separate but equal. How can a black person be FOR separate but equal treatment after the last 200 years of history? Just disgusting. America still has much progress to make. Good job on electing Obama though. You gotta start with something... | ||
|
Fontong
United States6454 Posts
On November 06 2008 03:49 travis wrote: I am so sad that people can be so ignorant. No one was forcing christian churches to marry gay couples in the first place. There is no argument for this last statement. NO ONE FORCED CHURCHES TO MARRY GAY COUPLES. Marriage does not belong to Christianity alone. Ignorant, intrusive, oppressive, and pathetic. Word up man. I'm glad I was 18 in time for this election just so I could vote for Obama and against prop 8. Too bad it passed anyway. | ||
|
enthusiast
United States90 Posts
If you support(ed) Prop 8, you're a fucking idiot. You really are. Whoever said that you'll be ashamed to admit your vote to your grandchildren is 100% right. | ||
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
On November 06 2008 03:42 jkillashark wrote: I am so damn glad Prop 8 passed. Im interested to know why you are glad. Religious based? | ||
|
eshlow
United States5210 Posts
On November 06 2008 01:19 Jibba wrote: What the fuck is with this cultural analysis? It's biological makeup. Honestly, prop 8 failing might end up being a good thing. CA people are going to get married in MA instead, and if Arnie tries to deny them marriage privileges then they appeal to MA, MA sues CA and we finally get the Supreme Court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. Unfortunately it has to be challenged and can't just be repealed on its own. This is not exactly the whole truth: Only ~30-50% of the people with the same genes (aka fraternal twins) are both homosexual. The voluntary study done was 48% for women and I believe 50% for men: http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html Of the registry study done (probably more accurate), the percentage was 24% men and 20% for women: http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/2233/Genetics-Environment-TWIN-STUDIES.html To overcome these limitations, Bailey and his colleagues assessed twins from the Australian Twin Registry rather than sample those recruited especially for the purpose of their research. Using proband-wise concordance (an estimate of the probability that a twin is nonheterosexual given that his or her co-twin is nonheterosexual), they found lower rates of twin concordance for nonheterosexual orientation than in previous studies. The most striking difference was between the researchers' proband-wise concordance rates and those of past twin studies of sexual orientation. Previously, the lowest concordances for single-sex identical twins were 47% for women and 48% for men. This study documents concordances of just 20% for women and 24% for men, significantly lower than the rates reported for the two largest prior twin studies of sexual orientation. Bailey et al. concluded that sexual orientation is familial; however, their study does not provide statistically significant support for the importance of genetic factors for this trait. They caution that this does not mean that their results entirely exclude heritability. In fact, they consider their findings consistent with moderate heritability for male and female sexual orientation, even though their male monozygotic concordance suggests that any major gene for homosexuality has either low penetrance or low frequency. In any case, my reason for posting as a scientist I get kinda irritated when someone suggests something is "all genetic" or "all environmental." There is definitely a genetic component to homosexuality causing a statistically significant correlation... but one cannot say that "I'm homosexual because of my genes" nor can someone say that "it was the environment that caused your homosexuality." There are probably some unique circumstances beyond NON-familial interaction and genetics that may interact with some of genetic components of homosexuality that "lean" someone towards that route. This is, of course, is probably worse on the "debate" with obesity and genetics... but that's another topic all together, heh. ---------------------------------- Also, I don't think you can discriminate against someone for their genes or situation (see insurance policies). However, as OP said.. it's hard to break "marriage" away from religious instititions. The probably "best" thing to do (which may already be the case) is to confer the same legal benefits of marriage (tax breaks, etc.) to civil unions.... although this is probably avoiding the topic rather than confronting it, heh. --------------------------------- As far as legislating morality though which seems to be the case here... it's wrong to infringe on the minority? Well, for example, if a minority were to say "the strong survive and the weak die" therefore I can steal from the weak as I am strong and can take what I want to survive (happens all the time in the animal kingdom like in African plains). I don't think there's any difference from my limited knowledge in this case... The government HAS to legislate some constructs of morality otherwise we'd have an anarchy. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Hans-Titan
Denmark1711 Posts
 Glad Obama won, but for the sake of my uncle, who's a homosexual living in California, this is really shitty. He had to rush his marriage yesterday in order to get this shit in his way. I thought Cali was more progressive than that. Still, thanks to all who voted against prop. 8, let's hope your efforts are not in vain. And to the one who said that 25 years from now, you won't have the balls to tell your children you opposed gay marriage: spot on, agree 100%. This is the next cultural barrier that needs to be broken. | ||
|
PanoRaMa
United States5069 Posts
On November 05 2008 18:53 MYM.Testie wrote: By shedding off illogical and irrational feelings and begin to accept your fellow men and women for who they are. By treating them like equals. You cannot treat them like equals when you see them as lesser beings. If you did not see them in that way, you would recognize that love should be celebrated in a marriage. Not the gender. In 2008 it's become accepted, gay people exist. The fact you are against your brethren from obtaining the same rights and liberties you have, that you did nothing to attain, that I would not doubt you take for granted, and that they willingly fight for and desperately want. I am accusing you of being prejudiced and hiding it. You, who have done nothing to attain the rights you have, are denying those who would fight for them. You have no say in what two consenting adults are allowed to do, and you are only delaying the inevitable, because they will be allowed to get married as society progresses in the future and does away with stale mindsets like your own. So I ask you, why do you think less of gays? You don't think it is in their genes? You think guys really just like cock instead of tits? Because seriously, cock and man ass vs tits? Because what it really boils down to is people really saying, "... ewww we don't really like you. But ok we can't stop you do what you want to do. But don't call it marriage. Do something like marriage, just not marriage." Don't feed me bullshit about how it's all sacred and between a man and a woman, because we're adults here. Old traditions are fading fast, and they aren't worth clinging onto. Welcome aboard your brothers and sisters and treat them with respect. I myself think man sex is gross. I think the sex itself is gross. But woman sex is hot. That's because i'm not attracted to men. And while if I saw men kissing in public, I'd have a reaction, but it'd be one of not being used to seeing it rather than an actual prejudice. There would be no judgment, and I wouldn't tell them they couldn't celebrate their love with marriage. You should be happy that more people want to get married and experience it in all its grandeur. Instead you are just putting up another barrier that will eventually be torn down as your old way of thinking is replaced with newer, more rational thought. So yes, I am accusing you of being prejudiced. On what scale, I do not know. Needs to be quoted every once in a while, stellar post. | ||
|
JudgeMathis
Cuba1286 Posts
On November 06 2008 04:06 Hans-Titan wrote: And to the one who said that 25 years from now, you won't have the balls to tell your children you opposed gay marriage: spot on, agree 100%. This is the next cultural barrier that needs to be broken. Agreed. | ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
On November 06 2008 04:06 Hans-Titan wrote: Glad Obama won, but for the sake of my uncle, who's a homosexual living in California, this is really shitty. He had to rush his marriage yesterday in order to get this shit in his way. I thought Cali was more progressive than that. Still, thanks to all who voted against prop. 8, let's hope your efforts are not in vain. And to the one who said that 25 years from now, you won't have the balls to tell your children you opposed gay marriage: spot on, agree 100%. This is the next cultural barrier that needs to be broken. After that its the acceptance of Atheists in American society  | ||
|
yubee
United States3826 Posts
On November 06 2008 03:42 jkillashark wrote: god you are the worst poster in the world, it was acceptable when all i saw you post about was korean pride shit and ping pong shit, but now i'm going to just straight up say it. you suck jkillashark you suck really badI am so damn glad Prop 8 passed. | ||
|
SingletonWilliam
United States664 Posts
| ||
|
PanoRaMa
United States5069 Posts
On November 06 2008 04:26 SingletonWilliam wrote: There were so many more Yes on 8 signs here than No on 8. They really motivated the voters in our area. tell me about it, i live in the heart of the OC among rich right wing white folk and the only ones really holding it down on the no campaign were mainly just us college students in the area. We were obviously out numbered, out moneyed :[. | ||
|
gchan
United States654 Posts
On November 05 2008 20:19 D10 wrote: d_so, there is nothing bad into giving gays the right to marriage, your church doesnt need to marry them, but let the guys marry for god sake, enough with division already. Actually, the church would need to marry them if a gay couple went into church asking to be married. If the church refused them on the grounds of religion, they would lose their non-profit status (which is huge). | ||
| ||
