Gay marriage ban overturned in California


SLM
+2
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by SerryahView Post

Maybe the word "adults" should be emphasized, overemphasized, underlined, surrounded in flashing lights and neoned that way Coldstream will see it and not equate homosexuality to pedophilia or marrying someone's dog.

It won't make any difference to that one and personally I don't care. That attitude is a dying breed, in my opinion. It's just not dying fast enough.

Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

I agree but should it be any more of a news item than a heterosexual marriage. It belongs in the social pages of a gay newspaper!

I'm curious, was it newsworthy the day that coloureds were allow to drink from the whites only fountain? Because that's the analogy.
 
Serryah
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

Prop 8 was legally on the ballot in 2010. A majority of voters in California voted for the proposition but the courts, so far, have overturned what the people voted for.


And a lot of people were confused by the wording of it, voting yes when they meant to vote no as I read in some places. It also didn't help that people from OUT of the state were fueling and backing the whole "Vote yes" thing. What people in Utah do is their business, but what business is it of theirs what another state does?

Too many questions/problems around the original vote for it to actually stand, even if it was constitutional, but that's just my opinion.
 
WLDB
+4
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

Prop 8 was legally on the ballot in 2010. A majority of voters in California voted for the proposition but the courts, so far, have overturned what the people voted for.

Tyranny of the majority overturned. Not bad.
 
Serryah
+2
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

It won't make any difference to that one and personally I don't care. That attitude is a dying breed, in my opinion. It's just not dying fast enough.


Oh don't get me wrong, I agree with you and I know Coldstream won't ever change and the sooner people like them are gone the better for the rest of the planet.


Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

I'm curious, was it newsworthy the day that coloureds were allow to drink from the whites only fountain? Because that's the analogy.

I'm sure to those who thought the blacks were just jumped up animals, it was horrifying to hear about.
 
SLM
+2
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by SerryahView Post

And a lot of people were confused by the wording of it, voting yes when they meant to vote no as I read in some places. It also didn't help that people from OUT of the state were fueling and backing the whole "Vote yes" thing. What people in Utah do is their business, but what business is it of theirs what another state does?

Too many questions/problems around the original vote for it to actually stand, even if it was constitutional, but that's just my opinion.

Yes, I think there was a lot of confusion in the initial vote. To me it says a lot that those opposed need to obscure their message in order to gain some kind of support.

Quote: Originally Posted by SerryahView Post

Oh don't get me wrong, I agree with you and I know Coldstream won't ever change and the sooner people like them are gone the better for the rest of the planet.
I'm sure to those who thought the blacks were just jumped up animals, it was horrifying to hear about.

I tend to think that the majority of people really aren't vocal on either side of this, or any, issue. Not because they don't care, but just because it doesn't affect them in their every day lives. They don't 'feel' the injustice of it, but will often, at minimum, recognize it for what it really is, discrimination. I believe when posed an honest, straight forward question, most would come out on the side of equality and fairness. Perhaps I'm naive or overly optimistic but I think there is more potential for good in people than not. This is the main reason I feel it is so important to keep talking about this, why it needs to be newsworthy. It's not to change the mindset of the few but the 'wake up' the complacency of the majority.
 
Serryah
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

Yes, I think there was a lot of confusion in the initial vote. To me it says a lot that those opposed need to obscure their message in order to gain some kind of support.

And those same people are fueling the attempt to take it to the SCOTUS, but there are a lot of law types now saying it won't go that far because of the wording of the decision making it California affected only. In that case, the SCOTUS won't bother with it. Time will tell I suppose but if it doesn't go there's going to be a lot of PO'ed people from Utah.



Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

I tend to think that the majority of people really aren't vocal on either side of this, or any, issue. Not because they don't care, but just because it doesn't affect them in their every day lives. They don't 'feel' the injustice of it, but will often, at minimum, recognize it for what it really is, discrimination. I believe when posed an honest, straight forward question, most would come out on the side of equality and fairness. Perhaps I'm naive or overly optimistic but I think there is more potential for good in people than not. This is the main reason I feel it is so important to keep talking about this, why it needs to be newsworthy. It's not to change the mindset of the few but the 'wake up' the complacency of the majority.

A good point; why be vocal if it doesn't concern them? And I think the more people that are woken up to this the better chance there is to end the unfairness.

Honestly, while the Gay Marriage fight is important - for a lot of people - the big issue that should really be kept in the mainstream is the rate of teen suicide. I read an article yesterday - out of Rolling Stone so take it for what it's worth - about Minnesota and Bachman's home district and the rate there and how seriously high it is, and how some of it is based on people either gay or looked at as gay being bullied, and teachers in schools not being able to do anything about it due to a "neutral" policy regarding homosexuality. In the end, what got me was the absolute stupidity of the Right on this issue. "If gays would only stay in the closet there'd be no problem" is the basic belief. Infuriating and no wonder kids were killing themselves.
 
mentalfloss
#37
How backwards are we when gay marriage is still an issue?

Social issues like these still exist today because we expect government to focus single-handedly on the economy and nothing else.
 
karrie
+3
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

Prop 8 was legally on the ballot in 2010. A majority of voters in California voted for the proposition but the courts, so far, have overturned what the people voted for.

Yes, that's what constitutions are there for... to ensure that a majority can't strip rights from a minority.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

How backwards are we when gay marriage is still an issue?

Social issues like these still exist today because we expect government to focus single-handedly on the economy and nothing else.


We, aren't. Some are.
 
WLDB
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

How backwards are we when gay marriage is still an issue?

Fortunately, its not an issue up here. I imagine it'll continue to be an issue in the US state by state for many years to come.
 
Cliffy
+1
#40
Someone should thump some tolerance into those bible thumpers. Jesus was all about tolerance. Fundamentalists a whack jobs.
 
Walter
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Someone should thump some tolerance into those bible thumpers. Jesus was all about tolerance. Fundamentalists a whack jobs.

Jesus did not promote homosexuality.
Matthew 19:4-6

New King James Version (NKJV)

4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made[a (external - login to view)] them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’[b (external - login to view)] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?[c (external - login to view)] 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
 
lone wolf
+2
#42
Where's all the cool stuff with swords and lakes of fire?
 
Walter
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

Where's all the cool stuff with swords and lakes of fire?

Look it up.
 
lone wolf
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

Look it up.

Don't have to.... You already posted it. The way one of the other interpretations in here goes, He's a mean bugger who'd just smote 'em all dead and chuck 'em into the depths of a warm lake....
 
Walter
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

Don't have to.... You already posted it. The way one of the other interpretations in here goes, He's a mean bugger who'd just smote 'em all dead and chuck 'em into the depths of a warm lake....

So why'd you ask?
 
lone wolf
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

So why'd you ask?

...to see if you read the same book....
 
Cliffy
-1
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

Jesus did not promote homosexuality.
Matthew 19:4-6

New King James Version (NKJV)

4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made[a (external - login to view)] them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’[b (external - login to view)] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?[c (external - login to view)] 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

I didn't say he promoted it. I said he promoted tolerance. I doubt homosexuality was an issue back then, it was a common practice just as it is today. Or did you think it was a phenomenon of the 21st century?
 
Walter
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

I didn't say he promoted it. I said he promoted tolerance. I doubt homosexuality was an issue back then, it was a common practice just as it is today. Or did you think it was a phenomenon of the 21st century?

Homosexuality is mentioned in the pentateuch and those practising it are destroyed.
 
Cliffy
+1
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

Homosexuality is mentioned in the pentateuch and those practising it are destroyed.

Well, I'm not going to get into an argument about what the bible says or doesn't say about it. One thing it does say is "judge not lest ye shall be judged.' If god has concerns about it it is god's problem, not yours.

Oh, and thanks for the neg rep on this:
I didn't say he promoted it. I said he promoted tolerance. I doubt homosexuality was an issue back then, it was a common practice just as it is today. Or did you think it was a phenomenon of the 21st century?

Just proves what an intolerant fundamentalist you are.
 
Walter
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Oh, and thanks for the neg rep on this:
I didn't say he promoted it. I said he promoted tolerance. I doubt homosexuality was an issue back then, it was a common practice just as it is today. Or did you think it was a phenomenon of the 21st century?

Just proves what an intolerant fundamentalist you are.

You got it. See the thread on thumbs.
 
Goober
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

Jesus did not promote homosexuality.
Matthew 19:4-6

New King James Version (NKJV)

4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made[a (external - login to view)] them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’[b (external - login to view)] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?[c (external - login to view)] 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Walter - God made us all. Do you believe it was God's plan to place people on this earth to suffer?
 
JLM
+1
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Oh, and thanks for the neg rep on this:
I didn't say he promoted it. I said he promoted tolerance. I doubt homosexuality was an issue back then, it was a common practice just as it is today. Or did you think it was a phenomenon of the 21st century?

You ain't seen nuthin' yet, I got nine in one day from one genius on here!
 
gerryh
#53
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

You ain't seen nuthin' yet, I got nine in one day from one genius on here!


How about lately?
 
JLM
+1
#54
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

How about lately?

That would have been two or three weeks ago, nothing I can recall since then, except his normal rantings.
 
gerryh
#55
shyte..... hit the wrong button.
 
Spade
#56
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

shyte..... hit the wrong button.

AC or DC?
 
L Gilbert
#57
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

Prop 8 was legally on the ballot in 2010. A majority of voters in California voted for the proposition but the courts, so far, have overturned what the people voted for.

Uhuh. Things like that are why they have their Constitution.

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government." - Patrick Henry .... and the courts are the tool the people uses to keep a handle on the gov't.

"It is sufficiently obvious, that persons and property are the two great subjects on which Governments are to act; and that the rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted. These rights cannot well be separated." - James Madison
Implication; person A should have the same rights under the Constitution as person B and the gov't should uphold that.

Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

and the other thing "people" like you need to do...is take a fu cking step back and don't over step your bounds. In Canada, for example, Gays can legally be married. They have the option of being married by a JP or being married in a Church that allows Gay marriages. Churches and Religions that do NOT believe in Gay marriages should NOT be forced to preform them. There are plenty of other options without stepping on the RIGHTS of those that do NOT agree with SSM.

Yup. That's under the religious freedom part. It means freedom from religion as well as freedom for religion.
 
gerryh
#58
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post


Yup. That's under the religious freedom part. It means freedom from religion as well as freedom for religion.


Freedom "from" religion? Nobody, at least in Canada, is subjected to any religion unless they choose to be.
 
L Gilbert
#59
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

Yes, that's what constitutions are there for... to ensure that a majority can't strip rights from a minority.
We, aren't. Some are.

Yep.
 
JLM
#60
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Uhuh. Things like that are why they have their Constitution.

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government." - Patrick Henry .... and the courts are the tool the people uses to keep a handle on the gov't.

"It is sufficiently obvious, that persons and property are the two great subjects on which Governments are to act; and that the rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted. These rights cannot well be separated." - James Madison
Implication; person A should have the same rights under the Constitution as person B and the gov't should uphold that.

Yup. That's under the religious freedom part. It means freedom from religion as well as freedom for religion.

I have a slight problem with people or minorities (or even majorities) who are presumtuous to take it upon themselves to change word meanings.
 
no new posts