Gay Marriage Ban protesting - Who seen it?

f.sciarrillo · Post by **f.sciarrillo** » Sun Nov 16, 2008 3:04 pm

Has anyone seen the protesting going on in California? All this over banning gay marriage. Who else thinks this is nuts? They are showing how immature they are. Acting like a group of school kids in the playground who got the ball taken away from them. And to make it worse, it spread to other states as well.

They need to come to reality and wake up. Sheesh, what a bunch of idiots ...

Larry · Post by **Larry** » Sun Nov 16, 2008 3:22 pm

The government should not dictate how people live their private lives.

I have a question · Post by **I have a question** » Sun Nov 16, 2008 3:30 pm

If they are going to treat gays as second class citizens, they shouldn't have to pay as much in taxes as the heterosexual residents.

witchhunt · Post by **witchhunt** » Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:07 pm

It comes down to what's natural. You don't see male dogs fucking male dogs, do ya?

Gallowglass · Post by **Gallowglass** » Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:14 pm

What right does the govt. have to sanction ANY marriage. None. I don't think they should even have a say in heterosexual marriages.

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:20 pm

witchhunt wrote:It comes down to what's natural. You don't see male dogs fucking male dogs, do ya?

My brother in law has a gay weiner dog...it's always trying to hump my mother in laws male min-pins.....what a homo. Not hat there is anything wrong with that!!!

JakeWilliams · Post by **JakeWilliams** » Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:20 pm

This topic is so freaking touchy... Gay Marriage Ban, protests, etc. It's all because our government is too stupid to see the easy way out... Check out this logic...

First off, a little background...
1. I'm supportive of gays and their rights
2. I was raised catholic - but am now agnostic
3. I completely think that gay "marriage" is bad/stupid/wrong

However, the only reason I don't support "gay marriage" is because "marriage" is a religious term and shouldn't be used in government documents to describe what is essentially just a legal unions between 2 people anyway. The word Marriage has been defined for thousands of years... Why should the definition of a word change just because people's behavior changes (or is just more in the open)?

All the government would have to do is re-write the laws so that there is NO legal marriages recognized by the state... Just legal unions - which can be between any 2 people. Replace the word "marriage" with "civil union" and both "man" and "wife" with "person" and you're done.

If two people also want a "marriage", well - it's a religious ceremony. If they can find a priest who will marry them - that's between them and their priest.

Gay people are then treated equally by the state - but the legal definition of the word "marriage" doesn't change...

I can't believe those idiots in Washington can't figure this out.

RobTheDrummer · Post by **RobTheDrummer** » Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:50 pm

What's funny is that the government didn't decide this, the people voted for it. If you are against the people, then you are against democracy. IF the government should overturn this, the people's vote, then we are headed a step in the wrong direction. Frankly I could give a shit if gays wanna get married, but when the people vote for something, it's refreshing to see it actually work.

KyleMayket · Post by **KyleMayket** » Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:54 pm

who in their right mind can tell anybody else that they can't be happy? My G/F and I can go to the JP and get "Married" without a priest or rabbi or whatever...how does being gay prevent you from enjoying your life, or reaping the rewards of marriage, like benefits, or tax filings and such, rights on hospital visits...This blows my mind. This is the NEW civil rights issue, just like black people were discriminated against in the 50's and 60's. "All men are created equal"..."unless you're gay" , i guess that's how the people of this country are reading preamble...

RobTheDrummer · Post by **RobTheDrummer** » Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:56 pm

KyleMayket wrote:who in their right mind can tell anybody else that they can't be happy? My G/F and I can go to the JP and get "Married" without a priest or rabbi or whatever...how does being gay prevent you from enjoying your life, or reaping the rewards of marriage, like benefits, or tax filings and such, rights on hospital visits...This blows my mind. This is the NEW civil rights issue, just like black people were discriminated against in the 50's and 60's. "All men are created equal"..."unless you're gay" , i guess that's how the lawmakers are reading preamble...

It's more of a traditional point of view. I think that marriage is between a man and a woman, however I do believe that they should be entitled to marriage benefits.

KyleMayket · Post by **KyleMayket** » Sun Nov 16, 2008 5:01 pm

RobTheDrummer wrote:
KyleMayket wrote:who in their right mind can tell anybody else that they can't be happy? My G/F and I can go to the JP and get "Married" without a priest or rabbi or whatever...how does being gay prevent you from enjoying your life, or reaping the rewards of marriage, like benefits, or tax filings and such, rights on hospital visits...This blows my mind. This is the NEW civil rights issue, just like black people were discriminated against in the 50's and 60's. "All men are created equal"..."unless you're gay" , i guess that's how the lawmakers are reading preamble...
It's more of a traditional point of view. I think that marriage is between a man and a woman, however I do believe that they should be entitled to marriage benefits.

if that's all it is, then I agree with Jake, change the damn wording and let these HUMAN BEINGS be happy and enjoy their life to the fullest. Also this is going to make great TV in the future, if you think Divorce Court is good now, wait until it's Harold and Stephen fighting over a PT Cruiser and a Yorkshire Terrier!

RobTheDrummer · Post by **RobTheDrummer** » Sun Nov 16, 2008 5:03 pm

KyleMayket wrote:
RobTheDrummer wrote:
KyleMayket wrote:who in their right mind can tell anybody else that they can't be happy? My G/F and I can go to the JP and get "Married" without a priest or rabbi or whatever...how does being gay prevent you from enjoying your life, or reaping the rewards of marriage, like benefits, or tax filings and such, rights on hospital visits...This blows my mind. This is the NEW civil rights issue, just like black people were discriminated against in the 50's and 60's. "All men are created equal"..."unless you're gay" , i guess that's how the lawmakers are reading preamble...
It's more of a traditional point of view. I think that marriage is between a man and a woman, however I do believe that they should be entitled to marriage benefits.
if that's all it is, then I agree with Jake, change the damn wording and let these HUMAN BEINGS be happy and enjoy their life to the fullest. Also this is going to make great TV in the future, if you think Divorce Court is good now, wait until it's Harold and Stephen fighting over a PT Cruiser and a Yorkshire Terrier!

I mean, that's not all it is, but that would be funny shit.

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Sun Nov 16, 2008 5:53 pm

Gallowglass wrote:What right does the govt. have to sanction ANY marriage. None. I don't think they should even have a say in heterosexual marriages.

+1

Classic Libertarian viewpoint. Why do they care what the government thinks about their life choices? I pity you if you have to seek out the governments permission to live your life.

Dark Soul · Post by **Dark Soul** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:30 am

It's simply about freedom of choice. People should be free to marry whomever they choose, regardless of race, age, occupation, hair color, favorite flavor of ice cream, pubic hair length, cleaning habits...and yes...even gender. Nobody has the right to tell another person who they can and cannot spend the rest of their life with.

mistikalvalkrie · Post by **mistikalvalkrie** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:35 am

witchhunt wrote:It comes down to what's natural. You don't see male dogs fucking male dogs, do ya?

'

It depends on whose dog we're talking about. The truth is that homosexuality has manifested itself in many species of animals and is completely naturally occuring. Plus,*and the rest of this isn't specifically aimed at witchhunt, by the way* last I checked the government isn't supposed to take away the inalienable rights of a group of people just because their beliefs aren't "Christian" or "religious" enough to count....don't we still have that little technicality called seperation of church and state in this country? Just because someone's life doesn't fit with whatever crap you're being told by your god doesn't mean that they should be treated like second class citizens....but then again, you good little fundie right-wing robots were never really good at thinking either logically or for yourselves anyway.

Dude...just leave them alone and let them live their lives. What fucking business is it of yours if two consenting adult men (or women) decide that they love each other and want to spend their lives together. For that matter, what does it matter if three or more consenting adults decide that they love each other equally and want to spend the rest of their lives together, who are you to say they can't. Just because you don't understand it and you don't agree with it, it shouldn't be illegal. If tomorrow you woke up and were told that it was illegal for you to be married to your wife, what would you do? This isn't about being immature, this is about standing up for what you think is right and making your voices heard....this is what this country was founded on, people...this is our government, and we have the right to argue with our government if they're doing something stupid.

bfoust · Post by **bfoust** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:45 am

I think marriage should be between man and a woman but civil unions with the same benefits as marriage should be between anyone/anything.

I also do not like modifying the constitution for silly things such as those.

Dark Soul · Post by **Dark Soul** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 1:56 am

undercoverjoe wrote:Why do they care what the government thinks about their life choices?

It matters because the government makes the laws and ultimately decides who can and cannot be legally married. To say that gays can't be married is saying they don't have rights that straight people do, which implies they're not as good somehow, or not entitled to the same civil liberties as straight people, which is completely unfair. Of course, two gay people can have a ceremony and consider themselves married if they choose and no one can do anything about that. But it's unfair to say that one group of people don't have a legal right that another group does because of their sexual orientation.

And by the way, marriage does not necessarily have anything to do with religion. You can go down the Justice Of The Peace and get a legal document saying you're married to another person. Religion doesn't have to come into it at all. The traditional religious ceremony of matrimony is simply that: Ceremonial. Nothing more. You can have all the wedding ceremonies you want, but you're not legally married until you sign that paper. The marriage license is all that matters in the eyes of the law.

PanzerFaust · Post by **PanzerFaust** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 2:14 am

Was almost late for the AC/DC concert at the Verizon Center in DC last night cause they were marching up Constitution Ave to the White House..

If I haden't run 3-4 of them over I woulda missed "Big Balls" hehe...

insert Gay joke here......

Dark Soul · Post by **Dark Soul** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 2:21 am

mistikalvalkrie wrote:...this is our government, and we have the right to argue with our government if they're doing something stupid.

Hell...if we did that every time the gov't did something stupid...we'd be arguing all the time!

RobTheDrummer · Post by **RobTheDrummer** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 5:13 am

You know what, the whole point is this: People voted NO for Prop 8, end of story. I think they should have more voting for this kind of stuff, rather than leaving it up to politicians and judges.

bfoust · Post by **bfoust** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:13 am

you mean yes, it passed 52%-48%

songsmith · Post by **songsmith** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:29 am

Gotta agree with RTD on this one. If the people come to a consensus, it should be honored. That's how democracy works.
I like that there's a bond that's only between a man and a woman. It's kind of important to me as a heterosexual who loves his wife. It's tradition and romance and biology. I don't mind that other people fall in love and want to bond, that's cool, just call it something else, and leave what I have alone. Humor me, like I try to humor people who are different from me. Call it hetero-rights, equal means equal.--->JMS

tornandfrayed · Post by **tornandfrayed** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:52 am

What if we had a vote and it was decided that guns should be banned? Not the same thing but still an essential right. What if we voted and decided that people who smoke pot should not be allowed to have babies?

The problem here is that this should have never been on the ballot. Too many people too concerned about things that really have nothing to do with them.

If you don't believe in the civil union between two gay people then don't join into one.. If you don't believe in abortion then don't have one.

I agree with all before who are saying that a "civil union" is the way to go. As a spiritual person I believe that marriage is up to the churches and what they want to do ( God Forbid! )

But for reasons that are too many to go into we need to allow people who are "life partners" to share the same benefits as married people do. They are greatly impacted by these decisions.

Maybe we should have a vote for only gay people and see what they decide. Then we can have a vote for all the straight people and see what the difference is! Then we can elevate the issue and let's vote on drinking! What about a big group of us get together and vote on who we think the losers are so we can throw them off the island!

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:04 pm

tornandfrayed wrote:What if we had a vote and it was decided that guns should be banned? Not the same thing but still an essential right. What if we voted and decided that people who smoke pot should not be allowed to have babies?

You got it Dave. This is why we have a Republic, to help prevent ochlocracy--otherwise known as mob rule.

This is a major reason why a true democracy will not work with the prevailing human mentality and why we still have the Electorial College to elect the President.

JakeWilliams · Post by **JakeWilliams** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:15 pm

tornandfrayed wrote:The problem here is that this should have never been on the ballot. Too many people too concerned about things that really have nothing to do with them.

+1

rockpage.net

Gay Marriage Ban protesting - Who seen it?

Gay Marriage Ban protesting - Who seen it?

What if

Re: What if

Re: What if