I'm glad that you don't live in the US. The last thing we need are more idiots who vote on a proposition based on how it sounds.God Save the Queen wrote:
Two steps forward were met with one step backwards
a bill that describes itself as "removing the rights of..." just sounds wrong.
Can I mail you a a 36 pack? That'd be good. Once religion isn't near purely fucked up, I'll consider their view.usmarine wrote:
ya well maybe when priests stop fiddling little boys then maybe we should listen to them.Poseidon wrote:
'coz God says it's baaaaaaaaaaad!usmarine wrote:
why do people give a fuck who people marry anyway? good grief.
You might want to fix that. Your post completely contradicts itself.Diesel_dyk wrote:
Wow We finally get a black president and everyone is talking about how great the nation feels to shrug off these racist a$$holes and now this.
Hopefully it won't take 50 years to shrug off these religious zealots.
We are a nation of individuals, not a series of segregated religious groups.
When the government enforces a religous definition of marrriage it breaches the seperation of church and state because it is choosing to enforce one persons definition of marriage while ignoring another religious persons definition of marriage. Hopefully the next shock after Obama will be the acceptance that we live in a multicultural society where no group acting under the guise of democracy can enforce their bigotry on individuals.
We are a nation of individuals, not a socialist state under a single religious dogma.
Prop 8 is a really bad joke propogated by the worst kind of socialists.
molson canadian or sam adams pls.xBlackPantherx wrote:
Can I mail you a a 36 pack?
The biggotry of the last few thousand years to which you refer basically invalidates the "historical argument". Those who are pro-gay marraige aren't just arguing that laws/definitions should be changed now, they are also stating that laws have been wrong for the past however-many-thousand years - why would they call for a change of laws/definition if they believed that the existing laws/definition are correct? Stating that things should remain the way they've been for the past thousand years is nonsensical if the legitimacy of those things during that time is being called into question.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Proposition 8, if passed, would ban same sex marriages. Here is my argument in support of it.
The word marriage has existed for at least a thousand years, during which, it's meaning has remained unchanged. The definition of a word cannot simply be changed by a small minority of the population that wishes to impose its will on the majority by restructuring society. There was already a vote on this several years ago, and a clear majority of the population still defined marriage as between a man and a woman. This statewide vote was overturned by California's radical liberal supreme court with very vague justification. This is a case of a powerful minority imposing its will on society. A word that has had the same meaning for such a long time cannot simply be redefined by a small amount of people who do clearly do not represent society. Marriage and Civil Unions are different words with different meanings. The only difference in the meaning is that a marriage is between a man and a woman, and civil unions can be between two people of the same sex or two people of different sex. As long as the majority of people define marriage as an institution that can only be between a man and a woman, it cannot justifiably be changed. It is not a moral issue. If I was gay, I would still define marriage as being between a man and a woman. That is simply its definition to me. We are not discriminating against anyone by maintaining the definition of a word.
You state that a marraige is performed in a church, by a pastor, on the bible. By doing so, you have effectively argued against not only gay marraige, but non-christian marriage. You're saying that Hindus, Muslims, Atheists, Jews whoever...do not have the right to marry, even though some of those groups have been practising marraige for longer than christianity has existed. You're also, incidently, arguing that people cannot be married at sea by a ships captain, but thats beside the point.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
If you don't like my first argument:
The issue is not "equal rights". The problem is separation of church and state. Marriage is not a "sacred institution" to me; I'm not a christian. However, it is a religious institution. Any couple can get a civil union, man man, man woman, or woman woman. A marriage is performed in a church, by a pastor, on the bible. The idea that a gay person would marry anyone on a bible is quite simply absurd to me, since they would be essentially desecrating the very book that they are swearing on. In Massachusetts, pastors were fined and even arrested for not marrying gay couples, something that is forbidden by their religion. The government is regulating and interfering with a religion. This is totally in opposition to the separation of church and state.
Now, I would be very pleasantly surprised to have someone prove refute me with some legitimate arguments, since it has not happend yet.
Call it what ever you want. It's the same thing. Same rights. Doesn't matter. Call it Gay Rights Fuck Union. Just don't discriminate for no/religious/personal reasons.Harmor wrote:
I live in San Diego and I voted Yes.
I have no problem with Gays getting married, just don't call it marriage, call it a civil union. Heck I believe marriage should be removed from the civil code and replaced with civil unions for all, including male+females.
If you want to get married, go to a church or whatever you believe in.
Dealusmarine wrote:
molson canadian or sam adams pls.xBlackPantherx wrote:
Can I mail you a a 36 pack?
Um... GS lives in Cali. The London thing is a joke. You do realize he's Gunslinger, right?Deadmonkiefart wrote:
I'm glad that you don't live in the US. The last thing we need are more idiots who vote on a proposition based on how it sounds.God Save the Queen wrote:
Two steps forward were met with one step backwards
a bill that describes itself as "removing the rights of..." just sounds wrong.
Who do you think wrote it?
hes got a head full of silly puttyTurquoise wrote:
Um... GS lives in Cali. The London thing is a joke. You do realize he's Gunslinger, right?Deadmonkiefart wrote:
I'm glad that you don't live in the US. The last thing we need are more idiots who vote on a proposition based on how it sounds.God Save the Queen wrote:
Two steps forward were met with one step backwards
a bill that describes itself as "removing the rights of..." just sounds wrong.
Who do you think wrote it?
Why should you get a tax break because you married someone of an opposing gender? See I don't understand this part - gay people, like straight people, can't claim child bonuses unless they have kids (adopted or otherwise). So essentially what you're suggesting is that all else equal one couple, together for life presumably, should have to pay more taxes than another couple, again together for life presumably, because... one is gay and the other isn't? Tell me that that isn't discriminatory (with a straight face asshole)Dilbert_X wrote:
I don't have a problem with gays calling their 'union' whatever they want.
I do have a problem with them getting tax breaks intended for families, husband and wife.
Otherwise why should't I get a tax break because my sister isn't working, for example?
But gays aren't siblings. And I see what you did there, be it conciously of sub conciously. Biggoted analysis is biggoted!Otherwise why should't I get a tax break because my sister isn't working, for example?
Last edited by SharkyMcshark (2008-11-06 02:08:03)
The intention of the tax breaks is to promote production of little future taxpayers.Why should you get a tax break because you married someone of an opposing gender?
So what? Thats my point. Why should gays get a tax break and not siblings?But gays aren't siblings.
Where does it say that the purpose of all tax breaks associated with marriage are to promote child rearing? I mean it couldn't have anything to do with raising the standard of living in a country could it? Also, you seem to omit the notion that gay people can in fact have children, either naturally or through adoption... but let us follow your line of thinking for the momentDilbert_X wrote:
The intention of the tax breaks is to promote production of little future taxpayers.Why should you get a tax break because you married someone of an opposing gender?
Married women get a tax break not to work, they mooch about getting bored and bingo my superannuation is funded.
If gays want to play house thats fine, but not out of my taxes.
If gays get a tax break for being married I'd like a tax break for being single.So what? Thats my point. Why should gays get a tax break and not siblings?But gays aren't siblings.
TBH I think tax breaks for couples are archaic but thats how it is.
In Aus the average two child family pays zero net tax they get so much back in credits.
I'd like a credit for my cat plz.
I guess the world has come full circle with someone accusing me of being a bigot.......
And pets. And siblingsBraddock wrote:
All marriage should be banned next I reckon... it's the next logical step.
It doesn't say it anywhere, it doesn't say anywhere the purpose of marriage is to produce fresh little believers but that is the case also.Where does it say that the purpose of all tax breaks associated with marriage are to promote child rearing?
Tax concessions are given to people who have and raise children, be they married, defacto or single, in fact you get more if you're not married. A heterosexual couple gets no special treatment until such time as they start to raise a child.Dilbert_X wrote:
The intention of the tax breaks is to promote production of little future taxpayers.
Married women get a tax break not to work
Woah, I'm just happy that some douchebag judges decision was overuled by law. I hate the fact that a 1 judges personal beliefs can actually state whether something is against the law or not when theres nothing in the law about that specific topic. I really don't give a crap whether two homos want to be legally recognized with the same rights heterosexuals have.GraphicArtist J wrote:
...Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Looks like its going to pass. Fuck off liberal legislating judges.
Yup Proposition 8 Passed! Woot woot! Cheers to the logical thinking citizens!...krazed wrote:
why is a religious matter even involved in the gov. ?
This doesn't really have to do anything with religion.
And also, you can't compare sexual desires with the color of one's skin. Ridiculous to have it categorized as "Civil liberty" It's gay sex ffs... nothing to do with family.
Do your sick shit whenever u want, wherever you want.... just don't push this immorality on us and on our schools.
...
But don't worry ya gays, I know you will be pushing this again in 2010. Here is to another wasted $74 million dollars in advertising.
Last edited by GraphicArtist J (2008-11-06 10:52:38)
