California Proposition 8 PASSED

[X Dragoon]

I heard Supreme Court's already going against it....

 

[Mooites]

People have already started sueing and crap. Pretty much everyone I talk to has an opinion on Prop 8, and Im just glad the elections done and overwith. What Im really pissed about it the shitty train thing passing. I'd like to take the train, but still, weve got an economy in the toilet and dont need to be wasting money on trains. D:

 

[Snake Bandage]

All I heard was Sean Hannity starting to go on about it, and thus I turned the TV off because he's already voiced his fear of Obama on his program today and I don't feel like listening to his opinions on Prop. 8 as well.

(And I'm not watching Fox News ever again unless my cable provider doesn't come up with any good alternatives by November 2012.)

What Im really pissed about it the shitty train thing passing. I'd like to take the train, but still, weve got an economy in the toilet and dont need to be wasting money on trains. D:

Trains are nice, but when you don't have money for that crap then you don't bloody need one for the moment. We've been pissed at our city council for their stupid rail for years, and they keep wasting precious money on crap.

 

[Zeta]

On the bright side, Obama said he would knock down the Federal Defense of Marriage act which would open the door to the Supreme Court nationalizing gay marriage in one swoop. Also, New York,
New Jersey, Maryland, New Hamshire, and Rhode Island will soon vote on PRO-gay marriage bills, and with the election over, we'll probably see success in at least one of those states, especially being so close to Massachusetts.

 

[ShadowDeeps]

That's the power of hate for you - so powerful and indelible that it's directed everywhere. Even inside. When I saw Prop 8 I didn't see "eliminate the right for same-sex marriage" but "eliminate the right for different people marriage". Condescending how society separates themselves as such. I mean.... because they're... different.... their legal union is denied with but any thought? Ummm... no, maybe? Legal unions are about equality in full, not sex.

It shouldn't matter what anyone looks like or prefers as long as they can love each other devotedly in a relationship. No matter what state or country, either. Or location, period. Why it was even passed or was even a prop still is a conundrum to me but at least the percentages were close, which may bode well in the future should issues along the nature of this arise again on props.

 

[Mooites]

Helping legalize gay marriage? bad move for Obama. He'll be fresh in office and already getting the super-Christians and homophobes against him.

 

[Blackjack Gabbiani]

And the hell of it is that no one seems to want to publically *call* these bigots what they are--plain out discriminitory brainwashing bigots who're shutting the future on their own children and who wouldn't know what REAL love, or real HISTORY, was if it came up and bit them in the face.

And Mooites, honestly, history would vindicate any president who did that. Who legalized interracial marriage?

 

[Zeta]

Helping legalize gay marriage? bad move for Obama. He'll be fresh in office and already getting the super-Christians and homophobes against him.

He has a lot of leverage right now, and he could politically afford to do it either very soon or after the financial situation is starting to recover. Either way. In the end, it wouldn't be Obama doing it, but really his appointment(s) to the Supreme Court.

 

[Eredar Warlock]

In the same way, the schoolteacher who had a group of kids singing praises for Obama was just as creepy, in my book. If you're going to say kids shouldn't be involved in politics, then stuff like that needs to be addressed, too.

Also, consider that in every state this measure has come to a vote, it has been voted out. This really isn't religious influence, as much as the left wants everyone to believe, but a psychological one. I've friends who don't go to church, and they believe marriage should stay between one man and one woman. Not, again, in a religious sense, but because they feel that marriage as a whole loses meaning when homosexual marriage is allowed.

I'm not married - I'm not likely to be married because I am a crazy, nerdy sunuvabitch - but I can see where they come from. This isn't a race relation issue - I consider it a personal taste issue,something that should be left up to the individual, not as some kind of legal, official issue. Quite frankly, I don't care if you're gay, straight, bowlegged, or shaped at right angles. I sat next to a gay kid in my guitar class. We palled and joked around, although he would flirt with me on occasion and make me uncomfortable.

You might sat then "if it's a personal taste issue, then they should just let them go ahead anyways". The difference is, in a legal/state minded sense, a man and a woman is the one producing more taxpayers and more population. This isn't a moral statement: it is simply the truth. One man and one woman are likely to produce a child. Two women might produce a child through invitro (Totally butchered spelling that I bet) or something, but only in crappy fanfiction stories do you see males getting pregnant. Long and short: You can be gay and love each other all you want, but there isn't a whole lot of reason to go farther than a civil union if you want state recognition of that union.

 

[Mooites]

He has a lot of leverage right now, and he could politically afford to do it either very soon or after the financial situation is starting to recover. Either way. In the end, it wouldn't be Obama doing it, but really his appointment(s) to the Supreme Court.

yes, but most americans dont see it that way. They'll patronize Obama, since its easier to blame one person than a whole group. sad but true. look at Bush.

 

[Irinya]

In the same way, the schoolteacher who had a group of kids singing praises for Obama was just as creepy, in my book. If you're going to say kids shouldn't be involved in politics, then stuff like that needs to be addressed, too.

If I knew about this, I would be creeped out as well. But this was not addressed in this thread.

You might sat then "if it's a personal taste issue, then they should just let them go ahead anyways". The difference is, in a legal/state minded sense, a man and a woman is the one producing more taxpayers and more population. This isn't a moral statement: it is simply the truth. One man and one woman are likely to produce a child. Two women might produce a child through invitro (Totally butchered spelling that I bet) or something, but only in crappy fanfiction stories do you see males getting pregnant. Long and short: You can be gay and love each other all you want, but there isn't a whole lot of reason to go farther than a civil union if you want state recognition of that union.

So, in short you are saying that heterosexual couples who choose to not have children should not get married? And the children are the point of marriage? That is just total bullshit which I don't even want to address. And the entire 'personal taste' thing? I bet people were saying the exact same thing when the legalized inter - racial marriages. Unions are great and all, but some people need to know that they are truly married to their life partner to be happy. Who are we to deny them that happiness? Oh, that's right, we are no one! We all deserve a fair chance at happiness and fulfillment.

I respect your point of view, and I'm sorry if I seem rash and angry, but topics like this tend to set me off.

 

[Eredar Warlock]

So, in short you are saying that heterosexual couples who choose to not have children should not get married? And the children are the point of marriage? That is just total bullshit which I don't even want to address. And the entire 'personal taste' thing? I bet people were saying the exact same thing when the legalized inter - racial marriages. Unions are great and all, but some people need to know that they are truly married to their life partner to be happy. Who are we to deny them that happiness? Oh, that's right, we are no one! We all deserve a fair chance at happiness and fulfillment.

That isn't what I said at all. You're putting words in my mouth here. I'm looking at it not as an emotional level, but on a legal level. Ultimately, a man/woman union is more likely to produce a child than man/man or woman/woman. Whether they actually do or not is another matter (And given that most married couples have plenty of sex, especially early in the marriage, it's very easy to produce a child - planned or not).

 

[Zeta]

The difference is, in a legal/state minded sense, a man and a woman is the one producing more taxpayers and more population.

Gay people put more money back into the economy than straight people, though.

(And given that most married couples have plenty of sex, especially early in the marriage, it's very easy to produce a child - planned or not).

So frigid/sterile and the elderly should not be allowed to get married, or would you hope for some divine miracle? There ARE, believe it or not, heterosexual people who are physically 100% incapable of reproducing. Why should a 80 year old man and woman be able to get married. Or for that matter, hypothetically, a man who was in an accident that totally removed his genitalia. Or a woman who had her ovaries removed due to cancer? If you follow your logic, these people should also not be getting married.

 

[h1tm0nl33]

i got banned from one forum because i was for it so all ill say is i feel bad but i know if prop 8 had not passed christian churches would have been sued because they will refuse to marry gays a voilation of there 1st amendment right of freedom of religion

 

[X Dragoon]

In my area, I saw some say no to prop 8 signs. Some people holding the signs up in the city.

 

[Zeta]

i got banned from one forum because i was for it so all ill say is i feel bad but i know if prop 8 had not passed christian churches would have been sued because they will refuse to marry gays a voilation of there 1st amendment right of freedom of religion

No they would not have. That was a complete and total lie. The law had nothing at all to do with forcing religious institutions to do anything. Marrying gays was totally up to the church, it was only the state who had to recognize it. It's ignorance like this that causes inequality.

Other lies put forward by Yes to Proposition 8:
* Children would all be indoctrinated into the gay lifestyle.
* Priests would be fired if they didn't marry gay people.
* People who spoke out against gays in any way would be arrested.

 

[Blackjack Gabbiani]

You know, I hate to pull this out again but I really *haven't* seen this answered--if marriage is about children, why not let gays marry and then adopt? Why did states also vote to ban gay couples from adopting? Why are SINGLE people allowed to adopt--they're not married!

And another one that's come up before that I haven't seen answered--why also are infertile or childfree straights allowed to marry then? If marriage truly is about children, why?

(edit--dammit, everyone got to it before me. Sometimes clicking on the "last post" thing takes me to the real last post in the thread, sometimes it takes me to the first one posted since I last visited the thread. This makes no sense)

 

[Fig]

i got banned from one forum because i was for it so all ill say is i feel bad but i know if prop 8 had not passed christian churches would have been sued because they will refuse to marry gays a voilation of there 1st amendment right of freedom of religion

Bull.

If Churches were going to get nailed over equality laws, the Catholics and a lot of other would have long since have had their assess sued off over the gender inequality (ie, no women priest).

So get real.

 

[Zeta]

You know, I hate to pull this out again but I really *haven't* seen this answered--if marriage is about children, why not let gays marry and then adopt? Why did states also vote to ban gay couples from adopting? Why are SINGLE people allowed to adopt--they're not married!

Gays can't have children because we won't let them adopt, we won't let them adopt because they're not married, we won't let them get married because they can't have children. Perfectly logical.

And another one that's come up before that I haven't seen answered--why also are infertile or childfree straights allowed to marry then? If marriage truly is about children, why?

The only reasons I've heard is that God will use his magical powers to make infertile couples fertile if they wish. Also, God is omnipotent but incapable of allowing women to get pregnant without a man. Except that one time with JESUS.

 

[evkl]

This was the only bad news out of last night.

But it's very upsetting and disappointing.