So Gay marriage failed again...

[Sumitsu01]

Torrent_Of_Octane

Sumitsu01

M. Angel

synesthesia_death

I remember when Prop 8 was in vote, all the themes and polls here at ED somehow gave me an optimistic hope that it would approve gay marriage. I mean, I did not think the commercials of the kids with the prince/princess stories and such could have the effect of fear on people it wanted to place. The acting on them was laughable in my opinion, so the seriousness of the message for me was gone with it.

But I was wrong, and well, slightly disappointed.

Does this mean you take the position opposite to mine in that the No on 8 did everything that they could?

@Sumitsu01: You bring up a good point on the deterioration of relationships in American society, however, in order for them to "have what they want" would imply a strong central political base, which I argue to be non-existent on the larger scale in terms of gay marriage. Any thoughts on this?

This is also true. The same could be said about interratial marriages as well, though I am not sure if we are hit with as much resistance as the GLBT front is. It's interesting I will say.

With that statement right there, you have a fatal assumption. You assume that homosexuality is in the same category as race, and with that you're assuming that homoseuxality is not a choice or disease or whatever other theories there are out there. You're blatently assuming that homosexuals are the same as race and requires protection like race. That is wrong.

Look, quite frankly I honestly don't give a damn what homosexuality is. All I know, is that they are people too, regardless of their sexual prefference. It equates to racial indifference because it's on the same level. Regardless of what other people want to think, to hate them because they endulge in same sex relations, is just as. if not as bad as hating us, because our skin is darker than yours. So pass the assumption platter somewhere else because I don't want any of what you're serving.

And for the record, my statement still stands.

[Dryskale]

M. Angel

GunsmithKitten

Quote:

I do believe that a system similar to the one that existed and still exists in CA, which states that civil unions have the same rights and responsibilities as marriage

Hold it right there.

Civil Unions do NOT have the same rights and repsonsibilities. I can dig out a rather long list detailing it if you like.

As for religion, that's neither here nor there since there are religious figures and sects that have already stated they will spiritually recognize and sanctify same sex unions. This is all about legal benefits.

On the state level in CA they do.

California State Family Code 297.5
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5

If you would like to dig out this list and edit it for rights that are not covered by CA law, then I would indeed like to see it. It's a part of my philosophy that any rights not covered should be the things fought for to be added to civil unions.

I just wanted to point out that Civil unions and domestic partnerships can be terminated or superceded by family ( parents and siblings). The family can spercede the civil union and take control of all assets, hospital visitation, and quality of life demands.

Also, why do you care so much about the term marraige? Its just a word, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck. What is it?

[Torrent_Of_Octane]

Yoshpet

Torrent_Of_Octane

Yoshpet

Because opponents like you cannot be persuaded by these organized movements. People will have to open their minds, not their pocketbooks, before equal rights will be offered.

Yeah, you know, just like your side is *willing* to open your minds to perhaps homosexuality is wrong. You guys are hell bent on believing that homosexuality is normal and should be accepted as so. I disagree. But I dont b***h and whine about you guys not being open minded to my views.

There is nothing wrong with something as benign and intrinsic as my affection for another human being. Mind your own relationship, and you will find a greater peace of spirit and body.

Sure I dont give a damn what you do in the bedroom, but you're stretching this beyond just your room. You're trying to force the government... my government to favor you. I dont agree with it and why am I called "closeminded" simply because I have a different opinion than you? Like I said, gay activists are just as close minded from our prospective.

[Stygian Soleil]

M. Angel

I suggest that their representation would be strong because there were 4-5 different groups representing the pro gay marriage side of that case vs one representative on the other side.

4-5 groups with different angles and ideas presenting together is more likely to become a ******** than represent a unified front, which is probably what happened from what you describe. They'd probably be better off with just one representative like the other side.

Quote:

But the groups in the court hearing didn't focus on the judge's attempt to put these things aside in determining the outcome of the trial. I realize that I should have restated this above, but in the court hearing, the case was on the powers of the supreme court, not on what biases may be present over the legality of gay marriage.

The fact is that it shouldn't have reached the supreme court, but as I said, the American public's judgment is severely clouded by ignorance and bigotry.

Quote:

Am I to assume that you believe the No on 8 people did the best that they could?

I can't rightly say.

[Yoshpet]

Torrent_Of_Octane

Sure I dont give a damn what you do in the bedroom, but you're stretching this beyond just your room. You're trying to force the government... my government to favor you. I dont agree with it and why am I called "closeminded" simply because I have a different opinion than you? Like I said, gay activists are just as close minded from our prospective.

You obviously care what people do in their bedroom, since you think it disqualifies them from being an integral part of a family unit. You are the one who is interfering, creating legislation (and maintaining it) in order to systematically prevent same-sex couples from functioning as a family unit like they have been desiring for decades.

People want to go about their lives, and you want to parade around and scrutinize their personal sexual lives.

[Torrent_Of_Octane]

M. Angel

Torrent_Of_Octane

Stygian Soleil

M. Angel

To this I point to the supreme court case that was televised. There may indeed just be a numbers disposition that caused the loss, (me being one of them), however if you watch it then you'd clearly be able to see why I say what I say.

Clearly the polls suggest that there isn't enough support. The movement shouldn't have to be fighting in the supreme court, but unfortunately it does because of rampant ignorance and bigotry.

People dont like homosexuality and the polls backs that up. We just dont want it in our government.

And one thing you got right, it shouldnt have been in the supreme courts at all. It should have been at the ballot for the people to vote.

Although I agree that it should be at the ballot for the people to vote at, what's your view on the campaign that seems to hinder it's own cause.

sweatdrop Tries to keep things on topic...

Well I need sleep guys. I'll hang around for a few more minutes, but then I need to crash.

Perhaps they need to re-asses their campaign. Question themselves why were there contradictions? If one's side (speaking in general, not just about gays) seems to have problems, its usually something wrong with that, not the overall system.

But back to my opinion, gay marriage was flawed from the start. Not only do we not support them, but the fact that they're trying to force the state to adhere to their "agenda", ... a broken one may I add... of course will be meat with stern oppositions. In my opinion gay marriage dont belong in our government at all.

[Torrent_Of_Octane]

Sumitsu01

Torrent_Of_Octane

Sumitsu01

M. Angel

synesthesia_death

I remember when Prop 8 was in vote, all the themes and polls here at ED somehow gave me an optimistic hope that it would approve gay marriage. I mean, I did not think the commercials of the kids with the prince/princess stories and such could have the effect of fear on people it wanted to place. The acting on them was laughable in my opinion, so the seriousness of the message for me was gone with it.

But I was wrong, and well, slightly disappointed.

Does this mean you take the position opposite to mine in that the No on 8 did everything that they could?

@Sumitsu01: You bring up a good point on the deterioration of relationships in American society, however, in order for them to "have what they want" would imply a strong central political base, which I argue to be non-existent on the larger scale in terms of gay marriage. Any thoughts on this?

This is also true. The same could be said about interratial marriages as well, though I am not sure if we are hit with as much resistance as the GLBT front is. It's interesting I will say.

With that statement right there, you have a fatal assumption. You assume that homosexuality is in the same category as race, and with that you're assuming that homoseuxality is not a choice or disease or whatever other theories there are out there. You're blatently assuming that homosexuals are the same as race and requires protection like race. That is wrong.

Look, quite frankly I honestly don't give a damn what homosexuality is. All I know, is that they are people too, regardless of their sexual prefference. It equates to racial indifference because it's on the same level. Regardless of what other people want to think, to hate them because they endulge in same sex relations, is just as. if not as bad as hating us, because our skin is darker than yours. So pass the assumption platter somewhere else because I don't want any of what you're serving.

And for the record, my statement still stands.

So you're claiming that homosexuality is not a choice like skin color? Source?

[Yoshpet]

Flabbergasted Breakdancer

I just wanted to point out that Civil unions and domestic partnerships can be terminated or superceded by family ( parents and siblings). The family can spercede the civil union and take control of all assets, hospital visitation, and quality of life demands.

Also, why do you care so much about the term marraige? Its just a word, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck. What is it?

Perhaps a juvenile swan. And they're free to call it that. I mean, it has all the same rights. It's just not called duck. We wouldn't want that.

[Amelia Hood]

Torrent_Of_Octane

M. Angel

Torrent_Of_Octane

Stygian Soleil

M. Angel

To this I point to the supreme court case that was televised. There may indeed just be a numbers disposition that caused the loss, (me being one of them), however if you watch it then you'd clearly be able to see why I say what I say.

Clearly the polls suggest that there isn't enough support. The movement shouldn't have to be fighting in the supreme court, but unfortunately it does because of rampant ignorance and bigotry.

People dont like homosexuality and the polls backs that up. We just dont want it in our government.

And one thing you got right, it shouldnt have been in the supreme courts at all. It should have been at the ballot for the people to vote.

Although I agree that it should be at the ballot for the people to vote at, what's your view on the campaign that seems to hinder it's own cause.

sweatdrop Tries to keep things on topic...

Well I need sleep guys. I'll hang around for a few more minutes, but then I need to crash.

Perhaps they need to re-asses their campaign. Question themselves why were there contradictions? If one's side (speaking in general, not just about gays) seems to have problems, its usually something wrong with that, not the overall system.

But back to my opinion, gay marriage was flawed from the start. Not only do we not support them, but the fact that they're trying to force the state to adhere to their "agenda", ... a broken one may I add... of course will be meat with stern oppositions. In my opinion gay marriage dont belong in our government at all.

Would you agree that a ban on gay marriage doesn't belong in law either then?

[Tampon Popsicle]

How is it that there still people in this forum that don't know Octane is a troll?

[Torrent_Of_Octane]

Yoshpet

Torrent_Of_Octane

Sure I dont give a damn what you do in the bedroom, but you're stretching this beyond just your room. You're trying to force the government... my government to favor you. I dont agree with it and why am I called "closeminded" simply because I have a different opinion than you? Like I said, gay activists are just as close minded from our prospective.

You obviously care what people do in their bedroom, since you think it disqualifies them from being an integral part of a family unit. You are the one who is interfering, creating legislation (and maintaining it) in order to systematically prevent same-sex couples from functioning as a family unit like they have been desiring for decades.

People want to go about their lives, and you want to parade around and scrutinize their personal sexual lives.

No, I dont give a damn about your bedroom or desires. The law dont give a damn about your desires. However, the benefits that attaches with marriage, granted by the government is purely political. Marriage is between a man and a woman, thats it.

What you guys want to do in your room, out of legal marriage is completely up to you. Just dont try to force the government to cater to you guys without our resistance. We dont like it, we wont just sit back and let it pass.

Again, its all about perspective. What you call interfereing, I call my rights. Where you want to claim "civil rights" I call interfereing with our government.

[Yoshpet]

Tampon Popsicle

How is it that there still people in this forum that don't know Octane is a troll?

It's not as if it's the same person every time. They all have different personalities and whether he's being facetious or not, his arguments reflect a very real world opinion.

Think of him as a foil in order to better your understanding of the situation and better articulate your argument against it, assuming he maintains the same level of communication throughout.

[Torrent_Of_Octane]

Amelia Hood

Torrent_Of_Octane

M. Angel

Torrent_Of_Octane

Stygian Soleil

M. Angel

To this I point to the supreme court case that was televised. There may indeed just be a numbers disposition that caused the loss, (me being one of them), however if you watch it then you'd clearly be able to see why I say what I say.

Clearly the polls suggest that there isn't enough support. The movement shouldn't have to be fighting in the supreme court, but unfortunately it does because of rampant ignorance and bigotry.

People dont like homosexuality and the polls backs that up. We just dont want it in our government.

And one thing you got right, it shouldnt have been in the supreme courts at all. It should have been at the ballot for the people to vote.

Although I agree that it should be at the ballot for the people to vote at, what's your view on the campaign that seems to hinder it's own cause.

sweatdrop Tries to keep things on topic...

Well I need sleep guys. I'll hang around for a few more minutes, but then I need to crash.

Perhaps they need to re-asses their campaign. Question themselves why were there contradictions? If one's side (speaking in general, not just about gays) seems to have problems, its usually something wrong with that, not the overall system.

But back to my opinion, gay marriage was flawed from the start. Not only do we not support them, but the fact that they're trying to force the state to adhere to their "agenda", ... a broken one may I add... of course will be meat with stern oppositions. In my opinion gay marriage dont belong in our government at all.

Would you agree that a ban on gay marriage doesn't belong in law either then?

Agreed.

[M. Angel]

Flabbergasted Breakdancer

M. Angel

GunsmithKitten

Quote:

I do believe that a system similar to the one that existed and still exists in CA, which states that civil unions have the same rights and responsibilities as marriage

Hold it right there.

Civil Unions do NOT have the same rights and repsonsibilities. I can dig out a rather long list detailing it if you like.

As for religion, that's neither here nor there since there are religious figures and sects that have already stated they will spiritually recognize and sanctify same sex unions. This is all about legal benefits.

On the state level in CA they do.

California State Family Code 297.5
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5

If you would like to dig out this list and edit it for rights that are not covered by CA law, then I would indeed like to see it. It's a part of my philosophy that any rights not covered should be the things fought for to be added to civil unions.

I just wanted to point out that Civil unions and domestic partnerships can be terminated or superceded by family ( parents and siblings). The family can spercede the civil union and take control of all assets, hospital visitation, and quality of life demands.

Also, why do you care so much about the term marraige? Its just a word, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck. What is it?

First I'd like to thank you for some of the examples. Pretty much the first time that I've had someone deliver on that question of mine.

As to the term and why I care, I could pose the same question for why the opposition cares so much about the term when civil unions could be made to the same thing with less opposition and hassle than the marriage debate is getting now. That aside, since that alone would be a poor response, I feel that marriage is a religious term that is meant to describe the bond between a man and a woman. It was originally written into our legal system because couples married under their religion wanted the protections associated with their spiritual union, so it was called what it was, marriage. I feel that the name, because of it's religious meanings to a majority of religions, (I say majority because I know someone is going to whip out the argument of some sections of religions now accepting homosexual marriage as coexisting with the teaching of the christian bible), is that marriage is sacred and between a man and a woman.

I have a few more things, but the personal view above (I believe) covers your question.

UGG need sleep. 'Nite all. I'll be back in the morning.

[Torrent_Of_Octane]

Tampon Popsicle

How is it that there still people in this forum that don't know Octane is a troll?

How is it that theres still people that call others trolls because they have a different opinion? Hmm... what was the term used by the gay activists.... AHH thats right, intolerance and bigotry.