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

It is disgraceful.
 
Conservatives will endlessly recite "I\'ve got nothing against gays..." (Remember the old phrase "Some of my best friends are...." ? Same thing) I think they don\'t want to admit their prejudice even to themselves.
 
In the mind of a reactionary conservative, it\'s basically like this: "We straights have this thing we think belongs to us (marriage). We don\'t like you gays, so we\'re not going to let you have it. You gays are taking over everything else. We see you on television, we have to listen to your funny voices in movies, and now people in our own hometowns are even talking about themselves like its OK to be a homo. But you\'ll never get this from us."
 
It\'s just like all other civil rights struggles. Sooner or later narrow minded prejudice will be defeated. It\'s just a matter of time, and you make yourselves look like idiots by prolonging it.

what an awful generalization - you seem to like to throw people under the bus

I\'m all for equal rights for gays, I even said so in my posts

Your definition of "equal rights" is inherently unjust.  As mentioned above, "separate but equal" is not equality.
 
As someone who claims to believe in individual Liberty, I am amazed that you aren\'t willing to grant it to all our citizens.  I thought Libertarians were supposed to be against the will of the masses curtailing the liberties of the individual.
 
1: the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases b: freedom from physical restraint c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e: the power of choice

[GmanJoe]

I\'m all for gay unity or civil union. Marriage is a religious thing. Civil Union is not.

Your definition of "equal rights" is inherently unjust.  As mentioned above, "separate but equal" is not equality.
 
As someone who claims to believe in individual Liberty, I am amazed that you aren\'t willing to grant it to all our citizens.  I thought Libertarians were supposed to be against the will of the masses curtailing the liberties of the individual.
 
1: the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases b: freedom from physical restraint c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e: the power of choice

What liberty am I infringing on, the union of two people, regardless of gender?  Hmm, nope all for that.  Shouldn\'t get benefits of marriage? Didn\'t say that either.

All I said was, it can be everything marriage is except be called marriage.  The analogy to separate but equal is weak, because in the pre-civil rights days the facilities were hardly equal.

If you are a gay or lesbian couple, I am all for you having the rights and privileges of a straight couple, I don\'t frown upon you, I don\'t hold any ill will toward you, I will treat you as any other person in society.  

I just sit here in shock in awe over how willing you are to throw tradition to the wayside.  It just further proves that liberalism is a mental disorder.  Good grief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act - Signed into law by your buddy Bill Clinton

[clips]

This is a touchy subject...but i do believe it should be called civil unions...in general when one thinks of marriage, they automatically believe it\'s between a man and a woman. I too feel they should have the same rights as married couples, but just call it civil unions.

I look at it like this...we both have sportcars.... i have a lambo and you a ferrari...basically the same thing, just different names.


One thing that i didn\'t like tho just recently was the fiasco with the beauty pagent. When that chic honestly and respectively spoke about what marriage meant to her, she was shamefully attacked for it, and one of the judges..who happened to be gay, went online with some rediculous charade and called her all kinds of bitches....totally unprofessional and uncalled for. I can see if she was disrespectful or was condensending, but she wasn\'t....she just honestly spoke from her gut.

I\'ll speak up for folks that are discriminatyed against or treated wrongly as i\'ve done here a gazillion times already, but the folks who attacked her, just for being honest, were wrong any day of the week.

What liberty am I infringing on, the union of two people, regardless of gender?  Hmm, nope all for that.  Shouldn\'t get benefits of marriage? Didn\'t say that either.

All I said was, it can be everything marriage is except be called marriage.  The analogy to separate but equal is weak, because in the pre-civil rights days the facilities were hardly equal.

If you are a gay or lesbian couple, I am all for you having the rights and privileges of a straight couple, I don\'t frown upon you, I don\'t hold any ill will toward you, I will treat you as any other person in society.  

I just sit here in shock in awe over how willing you are to throw tradition to the wayside.  It just further proves that liberalism is a mental disorder.  Good grief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act - Signed into law by your buddy Bill Clinton

Civil liberties...

Again I do not see the big deal.

Men and women will still get married and call it a marriage after all of those dirty, dirty people get their rights....lol...
Your right things were hardly equal then or now...but their time is now like my grandfather had his in the 60\'s.

It proves that people deserve rights. Fuck tradition if it isn\'t fair. Slavery was a tradition as well...see where Im going with this?

I dont give a fuck if jesus christ signed the bill...wrong is wrong.
I guess when logic fails..let\'s bring up a political party or political figure.....

Kennedy, you\'re arguing that it is no different to be called something other than marriage, but if that were true, this wouldn\'t be a big deal in the first place.  Someone can be gay, and the concept of marriage can be just as important to them as to any straight person arguing against gay marriage, especially after they already had that right for a time.

All I said was, it can be everything marriage is except be called marriage.

I\'m sure this sounds great from your perspective.  "You are totally equal to me.  Equal in every possible way.  Yup, no doubt about it, you have every right I have.  Oh yeah, one more thing... we\'re not going to let you get married.  Come on, it\'s such a little thing.  Why don\'t you get over it?"  Are you incapable of putting yourself in the shoes of a person who is told that?

There are a lot of fucked up traditions I would like to abolish.  Just because something is a tradition doesn\'t make it right.  Conservatives look backward.  Liberals look forward.

Conservatives look backward.  Liberals look forward.

Wow, what a fucking elitist perspective.  I can\'t even have an independent thought on this forum even if I agree with 99% of what you\'re saying.  I want more freedom for people than you\'d ever be willing to give meanwhile all you care about is giving two men/women the right to call their union marriage.  I care more about the rights associated with it than what its actually called.  Look at the big picture dog, this is about rights, and nothing else.

Liberalism is not about freedom. It\'s about control. Modern day Liberals want to have the government control much of your life, from your economics to what you think. We can\'t have freedom of discussion, because if you go to a liberal forum, you will get shouted down, spit at, or attacked. So much for \'give peace a chance\'. Liberals are the most hypocritical people in the world. It\'s fine for them to attack a conservative because they are being provoked. Apparently, they lose control of all their bodily functions when presented with an independent thought. Anyone who says that modern-day liberalism is about freedom of choice, freedom of thought, freedom of anything is reading it out of a book and not living in the real world. Look around you. Experience life, and then tell me that liberals want you to have freedom.

Marriage is a religious institution.  Goverment and the courts have no right to dictate or rather change the definition of marriage.  Aren\'t you libs all for the separation of church and state?  

Call them unions or whatever, but marriage is between a man and a woman.  All this is basically about is them receiving equal spousal benefits that married couples do.  This has nothing to do with "love".  Core and others fail to see what the arguement is really about.  Us conservatives don\'t care if they are "united" and receive the same legal benefits married couples do, but we are opposed to granting it the title of marriage.

Gays are whiners anyway.

I care more about the rights associated with it than what its actually called. Look at the big picture dog, this is about rights, and nothing else.

It\'s doesn\'t matter what you care more about. It matters that some gay couples care not only that they have their right to a union but that they want it to be a marriage. It means something to them which is what makes it worth changing.
 
You said earlier that with black and white separate-but-equal bathrooms, the facilities were hardly equal. So that justified for you that in this case, separate but equal would be ok - because it\'d actually be equal. But separate is shitty, too, and you have to understand that part.
 
It\'s kind of like the idea of a "kiddy table." We tell kids to go eat at the kiddy table. It\'s the same as our table and they\'ll eat the same food so it\'s all equal. Except that kids still know they\'re being placed on a different level than the adults. One day, they hope to eat at the grownup table, and that\'s the difference between having a "civil union" and having a "marriage." It\'s the same shit, but an entirely different status. You want to fix this for real, you let gay couples have a "marriage".
 
There actually is a bit more to this one than just the rights. I used to feel the same way as you do, but that\'s not good enough for some gay couples and they\'re right. It\'s not even worth the energy to fight it, it\'s just a title.

[Jumpman]

I thought Kennedy and Giga supported gay marriage due to the copious amounts of semen they swallow a month?

Marriage is a religious institution. ... Us conservatives don\'t care if they are "united" and receive the same legal benefits married couples do, but we are opposed to granting it the title of marriage.

Hey, if scientology gets to be a religion, then the idea that any religious institution is sacred or unchangeable is thrown out the window anyway. I could start up a new religion tomorrow that says straights can\'t be married, because our new god says so, and only gays can.
 
Besides, marriage isn\'t a religious institution. You can be legally married by a judge with nary a priest in sight. Look at some of these definitions:
 
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
 
2.the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
 
3.the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
 
4.a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.

5.any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
 
6.a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
 
7.a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.
 
Seriously, I can marry fragrance and texture. That\'s not religious in any sense of the word, nor does it have to do with men or women, straights or gays. Marriage is what we want it to be, and it\'s time for us to ... well, edit definition 4, basically.

Hey, if scientology gets to be a religion, then the idea that any religious institution is sacred or unchangeable is thrown out the window anyway. I could start up a new religion tomorrow that says straights can\'t be married, because our new god says so, and only gays can.
 
Besides, marriage isn\'t a religious institution. You can be legally married by a judge with nary a priest in sight. Look at some of these definitions:
 
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
 
2.the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
 
3.the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
 
4.a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.

5.any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
 
6.a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
 
7.a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.
 
Seriously, I can marry fragrance and texture. That\'s not religious in any sense of the word, nor does it have to do with men or women, straights or gays. Marriage is what we want it to be, and it\'s time for us to ... well, edit definition 4, basically.

I can\'t believe you are arguing over what to call it.  There is no way I will ever call a gay couple "married".  Unified, joined, etc... yes.  Married no.  You are playing games with words and that is a weak defense.  Also your analogy of being able to "create" a religion is flawed.  That would be a cult, just like Scientology is.

In biblical terms a marriage is between and man and a woman.  Civil unions are done by the government.  I do not think it is time to change any such definition to conform to what homosexuals want.  They want to be accepted as normal, which they are far from.  Why should religions such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam be forced to recognize something they view as morally wrong?  Because it is the "progressive" thing to do?  Keep goverment out of religion and vice versa.