|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
J-Ro
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
Joined: 13 Jan 2003
Posts: 5662
City: Rocklin
|
 Posted: Sep 07, 2005 6:59 am Post subject: Here we go again....gay marriage |
 |
|
So California passed a new bill in both houses allowing Gay marriage. This is the same bill that lost pretty badly 3 months ago. It also comes on the heels of the public voting on a bill with 61% approving that marriage is only between a man and woman. It is looking like Arnold will veto it. Here's the article.
| Quote: | Five years after Californians overwhelmingly voted to limit marriage to a man and woman, the Assembly approved legislation Tuesday to permit gay and lesbian couples to marry.
Assembly Bill 849 now goes to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who must decide whether California becomes the first state to sanction gay marriage without court intervention.
Click here for more...
Supporters lined up to hug Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, after his bill passed the Assembly by a razor-thin margin following nearly 90 minutes of emotional debate.
The final vote was 41-35, the bare minimum needed for passage. Leno hailed the vote as a victory for liberty and equality.
"This is one of those kinds of bills that only happen when like-minded people take the step together," he said.
In a statement, Schwarzenegger spokeswoman Margita Thompson stopped short of saying the Republican governor would veto the bill, but suggested proponents have little reason for hope.
"The people spoke when they passed Proposition 22," the statement said. "The issue subsequently went to the courts. The governor believes the courts are the correct venue for this decision to be made. He will uphold whatever decision the court renders."
When San Francisco moved to grant marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples last year, Schwarzenegger said the action posed "an imminent risk to civil order" and asked state Attorney General Bill Lockyer to intervene to require the city and county to comply with state law.
Later, Schwarzenegger told Jay Leno on "The Tonight Show" that he believes in domestic partnership. But he added he wouldn't mind if Californians voted to legalize gay marriage, saying, "If the people change their minds and want to overrule that, that's fine with me."
Democratic political consultant Roger Salazar said Schwarzenegger, already struggling in the polls, would risk losing core Republican voters if he signed the bill.
"The only support he has out there right now is among the conservative Republican base," Salazar said. "I don't think he wants to rile the only friends he has left."
AB 849 opponents accused Democrats of betraying Californians who five years ago approved Proposition 22, which limits marriage to a man and a woman.
"We disrespect and undermine what we stand for as a democracy when we don't listen to the people," said Assemblyman Mark Wyland, R-Del Mar.
Mark Leno claims that Proposition 22 applies only to state recognition of marriages that occur outside of California.
Tuesday's vote reversed a June 2 vote by the Assembly, which rejected Leno's gay marriage proposal, AB 19, by four votes.
Leno subsequently amended his legislation into a separate bill in the Senate, and it passed the upper house last week, 21-15.
To survive Tuesday's vote, Leno's bill needed four Assembly members to change their minds and support gay marriage - and he got them.
Key votes in favor of AB 849 came from Thomas Umberg, D-Santa Ana; Gloria Negrete McLeod, D-Chino; Mervyn Dymally, D-Compton; and Simon Salinas, D-Salinas. All four abstained from voting in June.
"Ten years from now, there are a handful of issues that history will record where we stood, and this is one of those issues," Umberg said, adding that he decided to cast his vote for "tolerance, equity and fairness."
Negrete McLeod said that "perhaps if I had not abstained on the last vote ... we wouldn't have had to go through this again."
Leno's bill has been the subject of intense lobbying on all sides.
Latino legislators were seen as critical in deciding the fate of AB 849. The United Farm Workers union and its state political director, Christine Chavez, have been been intensely involved in lobbying for the bill. Dolores Huerta, who co-founded the UFW, has been vocal about her support for gay marriage and attended Tuesday's Assembly vote.
The bill requires California to recognize gay marriage as a gender-neutral civil contract between two people.
The legislation does not require churches to honor same-sex unions.
Two years ago, Massachusetts became the only state to recognize gay marriages under an order from its state Supreme Court.
Vermont and Connecticut recognize civil unions between gay and lesbian couples.
Assembly opponents criticized same-sex marriages as immoral and a betrayal of family values.
Assemblyman Ray Haynes, R-Murrieta, accused lawmakers of engaging in "social experimentation" that will affect generations of Californians.
"Engaging in social experimentation with our children is not the role of the Legislature," he said.
Assemblyman Jay La Suer, R-La Mesa, said supporters of AB 849 are "betraying your constituents and their moral and ethical values."
Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy, R-Monrovia, said the issue is more about acceptance of the gay lifestyle than it is about a marriage license.
"This is not acceptable," he said of same-sex unions. "And we cannot teach our children that it is."
Supporters were equally passionate about the issue.
Assemblywoman Judy Chu, D-Monterey Park, likened the ban on gay marriages to discrimination against weddings involving Chinese and whites in the late 1800s.
"Marriage laws are not made in some divine, untouchable place beyond the reach of mortals," she said. "Just as humans have passed unjust marriage laws, humans can undo them."
Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, D-Los Angeles, said he cannot support state laws that give more rights to heterosexual lawmakers than to gay colleagues Leno, Jackie Goldberg and John Laird. "I do not deserve any right that cannot be afforded to you," he told them.
"If same-sex couples want to embrace the traditional value of marriage, they ought to be afforded that right," he said.
Added Assemblywoman Patty Berg, D-Eureka: "Let us remember that slavery was always the law until some brave citizens stood up and said, 'This is not right.' " |
_________________
Steal My Book
Read My Blog
RIP Leggester |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
re re
Addict
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 723
|
| Posted: Sep 07, 2005 7:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
I heard that Arnold was going to go along with the what the courts decide when this is appealed. As a Libertarian, I'm for it.
_________________
PS- this is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated.
http://www.fairtax.org <---Learn it, love it, call your Congressman. We'll all be better off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neognosis
Ladies Man
Joined: 13 Jan 2003
Posts: 17617
City: Webster
|
| Posted: Sep 07, 2005 7:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
One of the most interesting arguments FOR gay marriage I've ever heard was given by a gay man on Bill Maher's show. He and his partner had been together for a long time, and had adopted 2 kids. But the partner was relatively less well off financially than the other guy. If the wealthy partner dies, and he can't be married to his partner, there's a good chance that his money won't go to the partner, or that any will can be contested by family, and the partner wouldn't be able to take care of the kids as well.
So where's the argument that the anti-gay marriage protects family? It seems like it could potentially wreck this guy's, if he died.
_________________
I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oshensurfer
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
Joined: 14 Aug 2003
Posts: 6325
|
| Posted: Sep 07, 2005 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
There's potentially a good chance if he writes a bullet proof will all the money will go right where it belongs.
_________________
(insert funny chit here) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chavez
Ladies Man
Joined: 22 Sep 2003
Posts: 27375
City: Roseville
|
| Posted: Sep 07, 2005 7:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
The people already decided last year. The overwhelming majority said no.
Arnie will shoot this down. His whole premise is to give the people the choice when the lawmakers failing to care about their constituents, and this is just another prime example of lawmakers failing to hear what their constituents are telling them.
_________________
| Quote: | | That's Mr. Gingermex to you a$$hole. |
RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neognosis
Ladies Man
Joined: 13 Jan 2003
Posts: 17617
City: Webster
|
| Posted: Sep 07, 2005 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
There's potentially a good chance if he writes a bullet proof will all the money will go right where it belongs.
|
Yea, "potentially a good chance."
would "potentially a good chance" be enough for you?
Also, let's not forget, just for the record, that the "will of the people" is not the law of the land. It's the constitution and the intrepretation of that constitution by the Supreme Court.
There have been several times that the law did not reflect the people's will because it was unconstitutional. That's the best plan of attack for the gay marriage idea.
_________________
I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
re re
Addict
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 723
|
| Posted: Sep 07, 2005 7:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, mob rule is the way to go.
_________________
PS- this is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated.
http://www.fairtax.org <---Learn it, love it, call your Congressman. We'll all be better off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
microman
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 5377
|
| Posted: Sep 07, 2005 7:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chavez wrote: | The people already decided last year. The overwhelming majority said no.
Arnie will shoot this down. His whole premise is to give the people the choice when the lawmakers failing to care about their constituents, and this is just another prime example of lawmakers failing to hear what their constituents are telling them. |
I don't particularly want to go through yet another gay marriage thread, but isn't it a bit worrisome when the majority is allowed to determine rights for the minority? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RampageWake
Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 23 Jul 2003
Posts: 2002
City: Houston
|
| Posted: Sep 07, 2005 7:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
CB,
Thats a poor argument the guy makes. As oshensurfer mentions, you can leave your $$ to any person, charity, church, entity, etc.... that you so desire. There is no requirement of marriage. Furthermore, wills can also specify trusts, guardianships etc... for funds to be dispersed to minors at future dates.
BTW, when he says "potentially good chance", this means only a fooking MORON could F it up and if you are that stuipd it is unlikely that you have any real assets anyway. 
There are better arguments for it than this one.
_________________
| Rhawn wrote: | You should have a less retarded friend read over your posts before you hit "Submit"
|
RIP M.H.Legge |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
re re
Addict
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 723
|
| Posted: Sep 07, 2005 7:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, but WHAT THE HELL DOES IT MATTER TO STRAIGHT PEOPLE IF GAY PEOPLE ARE MARRIED TO EACH OTHER?!?!!??
Stupid "Conseravative" Theocrats.
_________________
PS- this is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated.
http://www.fairtax.org <---Learn it, love it, call your Congressman. We'll all be better off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leggester
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
Joined: 13 Jan 2003
Posts: 6961
|
| Posted: Sep 07, 2005 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hehehe, CB, if Anna Nicole Smith can win, the 'mo will too.
_________________
I'm hung like Einstein,
And smart as a horse! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oshensurfer
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
Joined: 14 Aug 2003
Posts: 6325
|
| Posted: Sep 07, 2005 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Yea, "potentially a good chance."
would "potentially a good chance" be enough for you?
|
It was satire CB. You said potentially...good chance...he wouldn't. F-it... you know what I meant.
Bottom line...that guy can get a lawyer...that guy can transfer his money into a joint account...write a better will, etc etc etc. That guys' family value argument is retarded. It like the one you and many others bring up of the death bed cases.. They don't exist except in crazy extreme circumstances. It isn't the norm like you try to make it out to be.
As far as people's voice go... we live in a democratic republic where we elect officials to make law based on common principles.. If that is somehow a bad thing, please enlighten me.
| Quote: |
Also, let's not forget, just for the record, that the "will of the people" is not the law of the land. It's the constitution and the intrepretation of that constitution by the Supreme Court.
|
...and legislating from the bench in lieu of following the laws of the land is also a flawed concept.
_________________
(insert funny chit here) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
svt_gEEk
Outlaw
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 152
City: Tupelo
|
| Posted: Sep 07, 2005 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
They day my state allows gay marriage will be the day I move somewhere that doesn't allow it. If that means leaving the US, I'll do it. But wait, I live in Mississippi, hell will freeze over before that's allowed here.  Man I love living in the south where people actually still have some morals. I don't know if I could stand living in a state with a bunch of liberal hippies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chavez
Ladies Man
Joined: 22 Sep 2003
Posts: 27375
City: Roseville
|
| Posted: Sep 07, 2005 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
The lawmakers are supposed to work for us, no?
We told them we did not want this, repetitively.
The courts have already ruled against it here.
So, CA residents, how are we going to vote on the redistricting issue? My vote just went from yes to hell foxtrot uniform charlie kilo yes. 
_________________
| Quote: | | That's Mr. Gingermex to you a$$hole. |
RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
microman
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 5377
|
| Posted: Sep 07, 2005 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| svt_gEEk wrote: | | They day my state allows gay marriage will be the day I move somewhere that doesn't allow it. If that means leaving the US, I'll do it. But wait, I live in Mississippi, hell will freeze over before that's allowed here. Man I love living in the south where people actually still have some morals. I don't know if I could stand living in a state with a bunch of liberal hippies. |
And allowing gay marriage would affect you personally in what way? Sounds like you'd rather live in a theocracy... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oshensurfer
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
Joined: 14 Aug 2003
Posts: 6325
|
| Posted: Sep 07, 2005 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
So, CA residents, how are we going to vote on the redistricting issue? My vote just went from yes to hell foxtrot uniform charlie kilo yes.
|
Ding ding ding dink KO. 
_________________
(insert funny chit here) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
svt_gEEk
Outlaw
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 152
City: Tupelo
|
| Posted: Sep 07, 2005 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
And allowing gay marriage would affect you personally in what way? Sounds like you'd rather live in a theocracy...
|
Sounds like you're a liberal hippie  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
microman
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 5377
|
| Posted: Sep 07, 2005 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chavez wrote: | The lawmakers are supposed to work for us, no?
|
They're also supposed to work for the homosexual who just wants to marry his partner, no?
| chavez wrote: |
We told them we did not want this, repetitively.
|
The South once told everyone they didn't want integration and equal rights for blacks too... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
freerider4
Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 08 Jun 2003
Posts: 1414
City: Chattanooga
|
| Posted: Sep 07, 2005 7:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| svt_gEEk are gay people really that threatening towards you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J-Ro
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
Joined: 13 Jan 2003
Posts: 5662
City: Rocklin
|
| Posted: Sep 07, 2005 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Regardless of the issue, the fact that It was voted down once, lost by a huge margin in a vote of the people, and now 3 months later it passes?
Sniff, sniff, sniff.......What am I smelling?.....oh yeah its Prop 187 all over again!! It is the will of the few (The politicians) dictating on the will of everyone.
_________________
Steal My Book
Read My Blog
RIP Leggester |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lcap
Ladies Man
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 10973
City: Homeless
|
| Posted: Sep 07, 2005 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ditch Lickers and Butt Pirates oh my.
When oh when will my Arizona property become waterfront? Certainly can't happen soon enough.
_________________
I hope the weather is calm as you sail up your heavenly stream |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neognosis
Ladies Man
Joined: 13 Jan 2003
Posts: 17617
City: Webster
|
| Posted: Sep 07, 2005 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Furthermore, wills can also specify trusts, guardianships etc... for funds to be dispersed to minors at future dates.
|
Right, but without a marriage, a will can more easily be contested and then the intrepretation or enforcement of said will can end up in the hands of the courts.
A court that is anti-gay marriage, anti-gay adoption... the implications could be pretty bad for the surviving member. Kind of like in a hospital, when a gay partner is kept out of the room of the dying partner by the family. Like Chavez says, an extreme case, but nonetheless, it's the principle...
| Quote: |
Hehehe, CB, if Anna Nicole Smith can win, the 'mo will too.
|
Possibly, after a long and expensive and painfull court battle during which it is possible the kids could be taken away.
I'm not saying it's not an iron clad reason for gay marriage, but it does bring up an interesting viewpoint for it.
| Quote: |
As far as people's voice go... we live in a democratic republic where we elect officials to make law based on common principles.. If that is somehow a bad thing, please enlighten me.
|
No, it's not a bad thing when those "common principles" are parsed against the constitution. If the majority decides that blacks have to drink from seperate fountains, that won't parse against the constitution.
Sorry to bring that up, but it's the gold standard when you argue "will of the people" vs "the constitution" because it's simple and potent.
| Quote: |
Man I love living in the south where people actually still have some morals.
|
You mean where people have "your" morals. Is it moral to keep two people who love each other apart? Is it moral to judge and condemn behaviour that doesn't affect you? Is it moral to tell people that they are freaks and that their behviour makes them something less than human, or that their lifestyle is a mental illness, when it hurts nobody? And why? Becuase it says so in the Bible? That magic book from the man in the sky?
somebody explain to me, seriously, not being a wise-guy, what you think will happen if they legalize Gay marriage?
Anyhow, as far as the legal side, the ban on gay marriage will require an examination and intrepretation of the constitution. And it will probably have to happen once a decade or so from now until the end of this great country of ours.
_________________
I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
microman
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 5377
|
| Posted: Sep 07, 2005 7:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| svt_gEEk wrote: | | Quote: |
And allowing gay marriage would affect you personally in what way? Sounds like you'd rather live in a theocracy...
|
Sounds like you're a liberal hippie |
Is that the only response you have? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wallrat
Soul Rider
Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 328
City: Huntington Beach
|
| Posted: Sep 07, 2005 7:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
I wonder which generation will look back on us in disbelief. My kids? My kids' kids? As with any issue that targets a minority (seperate but equal, woman's right to vote, etc.) eventually after enough time has passed people look back and think, "how could people back then be such schmucks"?
_________________
A good friend will bail you out of jail. A great friend will sit next to you saying, "man that was cool as f*ck!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
svt_gEEk
Outlaw
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 152
City: Tupelo
|
| Posted: Sep 07, 2005 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nope, it's just not right. This country was founded on the Bible and it appears these days we're going farther and farther away from God. I'm not saying we're going to be destroyed, but look at Soddom and Gamorrah (not sure how either are spelled), prostitiution, homosexuality, etc was everywhere in that city and God destroyed it. Personally, they aren't bothering me but I won't condone sin by voting for it and I'll fight it until I die. If it even becomes an issue in my state you can guarantee I'll be calling my representative every day expressing my dissapproval of the issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chavez
Ladies Man
Joined: 22 Sep 2003
Posts: 27375
City: Roseville
|
| Posted: Sep 07, 2005 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
microman, I've heard all the arguments. They don't fly with me - got too much racial integration going on in my family, and have some homosexuals around as well. I know what it is like for all parties.
Can't say that we the people of the State of California want this. This is nothing like rights movements of the 60's, so please don't insult everyone by trying to draw connections.
IIRC even in places like SF, it was a 60/40 split. Appx 40% of the mecca for homosexuals said no to this.....
Marriage is founded in religion, but is now the catch word for all unions.
How many times have I said it? CIVIL UNIONS with all the same benefits are the way to go. If the ass holes pushing this legislation were not hell bent on modifying the meaning of a sacred passage, we would not be here.
CIVIL UNION. Everyone is happy.
_________________
| Quote: | | That's Mr. Gingermex to you a$$hole. |
RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Erik
Old School Freak
Joined: 10 Mar 2003
Posts: 2830
City: Boston MA, Wolfeboro NH, DelRay FL, Montego Bay, Jamaica
|
| Posted: Sep 07, 2005 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
I absolutely loathe these threads.
Last edited by Erik on Sep 07, 2005 7:47 am; edited 5 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chavez
Ladies Man
Joined: 22 Sep 2003
Posts: 27375
City: Roseville
|
| Posted: Sep 07, 2005 7:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
cameraboy, believe it or not, I agree with you on your response to the "southern morality" issue.
I definitely would not live in a state that was governed by bible thumpers. No thanks, keep that horsecrap to yourself.
_________________
| Quote: | | That's Mr. Gingermex to you a$$hole. |
RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
impulse
Addict
Joined: 13 Jan 2003
Posts: 807
City: Snyder,TX
|
| Posted: Sep 07, 2005 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
How does it affect you Microman?
If the majority do not get to have their way then what is the point of voting? It has been voted on and it lost.
The main problem in my opinion with this country is the people thinking that they are entitled to always get their way. I am against gays and gay marriage, I dont believe in either one of them. If thinks makes me backwoods so be it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neognosis
Ladies Man
Joined: 13 Jan 2003
Posts: 17617
City: Webster
|
| Posted: Sep 07, 2005 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Nope, it's just not right. This country was founded on the Bible
|
No it wasn't.
Show me democracy in the Bible. YOu can't, becaust it AIN'T THERE.
This country was founded on the constitution, LITERALLY.
Do you know anything about the Puritans who came here first? Did you know that they outlawed dancing and colorfull buttons? Simply because the first European colonists from England had a stick wedged in, does that mean we have to stay that way?
| Quote: |
I'm not saying we're going to be destroyed, but look at Soddom and Gamorrah
|
ARe you also afraid to plant magic beans in your front yard, because they might grow up to the sky and attract the attention of a giant?
| Quote: |
This is nothing like rights movements of the 60's, so please don't insult everyone by trying to draw connections.
|
Hm, nothing like it? One group denied at least one basic right of a majority group. Sounds like a parallel in at least one way.
CIVIL UNION- Not happy. Civil union is an insult to many homosexuals, that's why it won't be accepted by a lot of them. And I can understand that.
_________________
I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
microman
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 5377
|
| Posted: Sep 07, 2005 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chavez wrote: |
Can't say that we the people of the State of California want this. This is nothing like rights movements of the 60's, so please don't insult everyone by trying to draw connections. |
Granted homosexuals have it better than blacks because most can hide it, it doesn't change the fact that they are still a minority struggling for equal rights.
| chavez wrote: |
Marriage is founded in religion, but is now the catch word for all unions.
How many times have I said it? CIVIL UNIONS with all the same benefits are the way to go. If the ass holes pushing this legislation were not hell bent on modifying the meaning of a sacred passage, we would not be here.
CIVIL UNION. Everyone is happy. |
Civil unions imply that there is something wrong or abnormal. Nothing bad will happen if gay marriage is allowed. Believe it or not, Canada hasn't fell apart because gay marriage is suddenly legal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
re re
Addict
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 723
|
| Posted: Sep 07, 2005 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| svt_gEEk wrote: | | I'm not saying we're going to be destroyed, but look at Soddom and Gamorrah (not sure how either are spelled), prostitiution, homosexuality, etc was everywhere in that city and God destroyed it. |
Genesis 18:26 And the LORD said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.
_________________
PS- this is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated.
http://www.fairtax.org <---Learn it, love it, call your Congressman. We'll all be better off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jason_ssr
Wakeboarder.com Freak
Joined: 13 Jan 2003
Posts: 4054
City: Dallas, Tx
|
| Posted: Sep 07, 2005 7:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| re re wrote: | Yeah, but WHAT THE HELL DOES IT MATTER TO STRAIGHT PEOPLE IF GAY PEOPLE ARE MARRIED TO EACH OTHER?!?!!??
Stupid "Conseravative" Theocrats. |
Nobody cares if gay couples unite and have ALL the rights of married folks. In fact in 99.9% of the time, they already do. This isnt a rights issue. it is a political battle for one group to attack the core of those who oppose their lifestyle. Marriage is a term derrived from religious ceremony between a man and a woman. They dont want the rights, they want the term. They want the term to apply to an act that the originators of the term consider an abomination. Its a political game.
its funny, when rappers or any other source of publicity use "gay" or "queer" or "homo" negatively. They find the use of their term in a negative light insulting. To them, the term to which they use to describe their specific way of life should be positive and included in the norm, and in the way they mean it to be used. Both sides need to see it from the other side.
Im a very religious person, and Im stoked that gay couple have equal rights. Im proud my company is one of the leaders in this area. While their actions may go against what I believe, they are good people and Im glad for them. This is 2005 and it is no longer odd or shocking to be gay. Another pride victory isnt really necessary. I think the biggest step to mutual understanding is allowing each other to be different and equal without treading on each others beliefs.
_________________
TONA
My avatar is NOT a pic of me! HAHA! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RampageWake
Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 23 Jul 2003
Posts: 2002
City: Houston
|
| Posted: Sep 07, 2005 7:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chavez wrote: | | CIVIL UNION. Everyone is happy. |
Scoreboard.
_________________
| Rhawn wrote: | You should have a less retarded friend read over your posts before you hit "Submit"
|
RIP M.H.Legge |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neognosis
Ladies Man
Joined: 13 Jan 2003
Posts: 17617
City: Webster
|
| Posted: Sep 07, 2005 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The main problem in my opinion with this country is the people thinking that they are entitled to always get their way. I am against gays and gay marriage, I dont believe in either one of them. If thinks makes me backwoods so be it.
|
No, the main "problem" with this country is that we prize dissention, and we admire those who stand up against unjust laws. IT's in our blood.
You're against gays? What does that even mean?
_________________
I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Add To Favorites
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Copyright © 2012 - Wakeboarding - Wakeboarder.com - All Right Reserved
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Stats
Favorites
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
