Prop 8 Upheld. California gays can\'t marry.

What do we think about this decision?

Personally, I think gays should be allowed to have a legal civil union or "marriage" and then if there\'s a church that wants to  jump on board with its blessing, so be it.
 
I really don\'t get why the big fuss... A lot of gays want that title of marriage because they\'ve placed the title on the same pedestal as the Christian groups. It\'s just as important and sacred to them, so it doesn\'t de-value the term like is being argued by some, in my opinion.

I look at it as a basic civil right and I think it\'s weird that we can vote on it at all.

[Paul2]

i can\'t even take care of myself, so i have no comment on big issue like this.

[Viper_Fujax]

yea, if anyone was going to legalize i thought itd be california. everyone from up north comments on how conservative san diego is to the rest of the state (probably because the military is big here...thats my only guess), and san diego is far from right wing

as for gay marriage, I dont see why they shouldnt be allowed to either. The only reason to not allow it is because of religious purposes, right? how is that separation of church and state?

I\'m down with civil unions them getting all the rights of those who are married.  

I just refuse to call it marriage.  Marriage is between a man and a woman, if we change that, we go down a slippery slope. What about the person who wants to marry their pet? Their sibling? A farm animal?  People will want to push the envelope more and more.

Please............ kennedy STFU.




Personally I think that whole situation is a damn shame and would like to here one legitimate argument against it.

[Viper_Fujax]

I\'m down with civil unions them getting all the rights of those who are married.  

I just refuse to call it marriage.  Marriage is between a man and a woman, if we change that, we go down a slippery slope. What about the person who wants to marry their pet? Their sibling? A farm animal?  People will want to push the envelope more and more.

so a gay chick/dude marrying another chick/dude is the same as marrying an antelope?

the arguement makes no sense. it\'s a person marrying another person.

Please............ kennedy STFU.




Personally I think that whole situation is a damn shame and would like to here one legitimate argument against it.

because you\'d be changing the definition of marriage

I am not an evil person, I said they should get all the rights, just can\'t call it marraige, why is that so wrong?

so a gay chick/dude marrying another chick/dude is the same as marrying an antelope?

the arguement makes no sense. it\'s a person marrying another person.

So right now you have people arguing they should be able to marry whomever they want, man or woman.  Fair enough.  So the next person comes along and says, "well you let these two men and two women marry, why can\'t I marry my dog, I love my dog as much as they love each other."

When you do shit like change the definition of something, you open up the door to further, and more ridiculous changes.  I have nothing against homosexuals, i believe they deserve all the rights of heterosexuals and such, but I just can\'t call it marriage.  I don\'t understand why that is so wrong, I would argue they deserve all the rights of a married couple until I\'m blue in the face.  Please, someone explain what I am missing here.

Oh, so you don\'t approve of beastiality. Good. It\'s sad that this is the main reason a lot of people won\'t let two people in love get "married".
 
Definitions change all the time, it\'s time to update our definition for marriage to allow gays to be married. It happened already. 18,000 people in Cali are "gay married" and no one has even tried to elope with a giraffe. Don\'t be silly.
 
Besides, if you want to go down that slippery slope, a pet can\'t be consenting so it\'s animal abuse and not allowed. End of debate. The arguement for polygamy is a better one, and I don\'t know enough about it to say anything one way or the other.

Essentially I agree with you about civil unions, but call them state marriages or something even across the board whether you\'re straight or gay. Then if a church wants to recognize your marriage, let it.

whatever

mar·riage Listen to the pronunciation of marriage
Pronunciation:
    \\ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\\
Function:
    noun
Etymology:
    Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date:
    14th century

1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities3: an intimate or close union


Separate is not equal.......


Again, I\'d like to see one legitimate argument against it.

[GmanJoe]

They need to call it "Civil Union" and not marriage. That way, Christians won\'t care coz it\'s not "marriage". Gays get a different type of certificate compared to straight couples. Like a pink sheet of paper, straight gets white. Butches and Bambies get theirs in a scroll within a dildo.

Heh. Nah, just "offend" the Christians and be done with it.

[GmanJoe]

Heh. Nah, just "offend" the Christians and be done with it.

Christians won\'t care if they just give the butt munchers/ball breakers another title for "unity".

50 years from now, we\'re gonna look back on decisions like this one the same way we now look back on Jim Crow laws.  And rightfully so.

"Let\'s just give them a separate but equal type of union (if even that)!"  What a disgrace.