• Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
    Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
  • Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex

Not looking good for California Prop 8

DOMS said:
As long as it took for stronger, northern half, of the US to decide otherwise.
Click to expand...

This is a great point. The fact is, many issues do not boil down to popular vote, ethics, morals, or values. Most of the time it boils down to power especially when talking about supreme court rulings and the legislative process.

If enough people get together and demonstrate their intentions to vote your ass out of office, if you don't give them what they want, those people created power. The churches in America are extremely good at this, and I have ot give them credit for it. They are creating their own power legally through the proper channels.

If gay rights advocates do the same, they might be able to take that power away.
 
DOMS said:
It's that kind of shit that'll push the fence sitters to be against gays.

Not so smart.
Click to expand...

i agree the crowd was really out of line n rude to not let that woman speak but i think it's fair to keep in mind this is not an emotionless issue. it seems to many that one group of people got their way by callously breaking the hearts of another group...
 
Gay people get married all the time they have the ceremony and the honeymoon, some take the honeymoon literally :hehe:, they live together and have rings(some even have cock rings) and joint bank accounts and buy cemetary plots next to each other. They make their wills, get power of attorney and whatever else. So what are we talking about here oh yes a fucking piece of paper that lets bureaucrats know that these 2 people who have gone through every other motion of appearing to be a combined entity are in fact married.....
 
in their words there's more to it than a piece of paper...

I can't speak for everyone, but I can speak for me.

I want to get married because I am in love and I want to make a life long commitment to my love. I want to stand up in front of friends and family and way "we are together forever."

I want to _be_ married, legally, so that if anything happens to my girl I am legally allowed to take care of her, make medical decisions for her. I want the more then 1000 rights and responsibilities that marriage grants.

But I can get a civil partnership, right? Sure, but it's only valid in California. If I was visiting my girlfriend's parents in Florida and there was an accident they could keep me out of her hospital room. She could be dying and they could legally prevent me from saying goodbye. They can't do that if you are married.

I want my kids to have two legal parents. And if something happens to either one of us I want to know that my kids are protected, not in danger of being taken away from their parent.

I want to be equal to everyone else in the country, because I am.


and

There are legal consequences to marriage that are not available to non-married people, no matter how close and committed they may be.

For example, in the absence of a will, property from one married partner automatically transfers to the surviving spouse.

Another is health care coverage. Not all health insurance plans explicitly cover "domestic partners" (although many do).

The list of such benefits is fairly lengthy.

While it is true that most of these benefits can be contractually arranged, not all of them can (e.g. tax benefits) and it would be immensely easier for the same-sex couple to just be legally married so that all of those benefits are automatically granted.

My prediction is that, eventually, we will have something called 'civil partnership' or 'domestic partnership' wherein two people can be recognized as "married" for legal purposes, but we won't call it "marriage" so as not to offend people who think God cares who marries whom.

 
Little Wing said:
in their words there's more to it than a piece of paper...

I can't speak for everyone, but I can speak for me.

I want to get married because I am in love and I want to make a life long commitment to my love. I want to stand up in front of friends and family and way "we are together forever."

I want to _be_ married, legally, so that if anything happens to my girl I am legally allowed to take care of her, make medical decisions for her. I want the more then 1000 rights and responsibilities that marriage grants.

But I can get a civil partnership, right? Sure, but it's only valid in California. If I was visiting my girlfriend's parents in Florida and there was an accident they could keep me out of her hospital room. She could be dying and they could legally prevent me from saying goodbye. They can't do that if you are married.

I want my kids to have two legal parents. And if something happens to either one of us I want to know that my kids are protected, not in danger of being taken away from their parent.

I want to be equal to everyone else in the country, because I am.


and

There are legal consequences to marriage that are not available to non-married people, no matter how close and committed they may be.

For example, in the absence of a will, property from one married partner automatically transfers to the surviving spouse.

Another is health care coverage. Not all health insurance plans explicitly cover "domestic partners" (although many do).

The list of such benefits is fairly lengthy.

While it is true that most of these benefits can be contractually arranged, not all of them can (e.g. tax benefits) and it would be immensely easier for the same-sex couple to just be legally married so that all of those benefits are automatically granted.

My prediction is that, eventually, we will have something called 'civil partnership' or 'domestic partnership' wherein two people can be recognized as "married" for legal purposes, but we won't call it "marriage" so as not to offend people who think God cares who marries whom.
Click to expand...
What I am saying is the Churches and the other haters are wasting their time and money because in all other respects besides the legal documentation gay people can and already do get "married". I was at my Gf's brothers wedding to his husband, they have all legal documents like wills and power of attorney and everything else that a loving married couple has except for the legal binding contract and ability to file taxes jointly......That's what I don't get is this sanctity of marriage thing, some people get married in a civil servants office or in a dingy little chapel in Vegas while drink off their asses for gods sake what is so sanctified about that? Young women marry old geezers basically like paid escorts what is sanctified about that?
 
maniclion said:
What I am saying is the Churches and the other haters are wasting their time and money because in all other respects besides the legal documentation gay people can and already do get "married". I was at my Gf's brothers wedding to his husband, they have all legal documents like wills and power of attorney and everything else that a loving married couple has except for the legal binding contract and ability to file taxes jointly......That's what I don't get is this sanctity of marriage thing, some people get married in a civil servants office or in a dingy little chapel in Vegas while drink off their asses for gods sake what is so sanctified about that? Young women marry old geezers basically like paid escorts what is sanctified about that?
Click to expand...

i suspected that's where you were coming from :)


in the beginning marriage was about property. the sanctity part came later.

and this debate is as old as marriage is

The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for the union of same-sex couples also occurs during the Roman Empire. The term, however, was rarely associated with same-sex relationships, even though the relationships themselves were common.[12] In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared that same-sex marriage to be illegal.[13]
 
Splash Log said:
Doesn't mean the majority is right, if we went by that logic how long would of slavery lasted in the south?
Click to expand...


But if they would have won, they wouldnt be saying that,lol
They would expect everyone to just conform to their lifestyle.
Besides,I thought gays and lesbians could already get married,isnt this just about a word?
I dont mind either way,because I think it will keep going back and forth till they win,but what I dont understand is the targeting people do....I read an elderly couple was beat up by their neighbor because they were voteing "YES" on prop 8.....and they have all these Protests outside mormon temples and vandalsing temples and churches?WTH? why...the church didnt contribute money,,,The members of the church donated money from their own pockets,not the actual church,so all this talk of storming churches and burning temples,Mormons wernt the only ones to vote,I heard a large number came from places like south central L.A and stuff too,why dont they go and protests and vandalize the churches there?
I just dont understand why they say people who voted yes are haters,yet they have these protests and beat up old people and violent acts towards people who are just doing the american thing-Voteing.....not burning property or beating up people who are diffrent,just voteing.
 
prop 8 upheld.
:clapping:
 
disclaimer: I've not read any post on this thread.

my opinion... it's not even about being a gawl dern ka-were anymore, it's just about attention. All homos are sell outs
 
Don't worry... history will view assholes like bio-chem in the same light as it now views George Wallace.
 
maxpro2 said:
Don't worry... history will view assholes like bio-chem in the same light as it now views George Wallace.
Click to expand...

A little harsh, they did put it to a vote in California and it was 52/48 against. I am for equal rights, marriage or otherwise, for gay people, but you can't just force it down the people's throat. IMO, both sides of this debate are guilty of just not wanting to budge, some people against gay marriage wanting no rights for gay civil unions and some of the gay vote taking no less than calling it marriage.

Honestly, what I don't get, is that if this is such a strong issue for gay people and CA keeps voting it down, why do you still live in CA? There are like 5 states where you are considered equal, why not move there? If there was some personal quality or trait of mine that a state was against, I wouldn't stay there knowing I am equal somewhere else. Why would you continue to keep pumping money into the economy of a state that looks at you as inferior?
 
maxpro2 said:
Don't worry... history will view assholes like bio-chem in the same light as it now views George Wallace.
Click to expand...

im an asshole because i like that the system works?:hmmm:
 
busyLivin said:
no, because you don't think like him
Click to expand...

I don't? i must admit I find it hard to like someone who calls me an asshole when i don't recall ever interacting with them before.
 
I can understand the abortion argument, with the whole ''is is murder or not'' shit.

However, what do any of you have against gay marriages? Now I don’t particularly like most gay people (I have a dark sense of humour, they all think I'm mean) and I only have 1 gay friend. But we live in a world that makes a lot of noise about equality, how can we all be equal when gays don't have the same rights?

This isn't an issue that deeply concerns me, I just find it confusing.
 
Moondogg said:
I can understand the abortion argument, with the whole ''is is murder or not'' shit.

However, what do any of you have against gay marriages? Now I don???t particularly like most gay people (I have a dark sense of humour, they all think I'm mean) and I only have 1 gay friend. But we live in a world that makes a lot of noise about equality, how can we all be equal when gays don't have the same rights?

This isn't an issue that deeply concerns me, I just find it confusing.
Click to expand...

Marriage is not a universal right to be viewed the same as voting or owning property. proof of this is in the fact that it is universally understood to be a state choice. People get to define what type of societies they want to live in. If the people wish to define marriage as between a man and a woman that is the right of the american people. i presume down the road the people will choose to define marriage as something that includes homosexual couples. that day has not yet arrived. at least not in california.
 
bio-chem said:
Marriage is not a universal right to be viewed the same as voting or owning property. proof of this is in the fact that it is universally understood to be a state choice. People get to define what type of societies they want to live in. If the people wish to define marriage as between a man and a woman that is the right of the american people. i presume down the road the people will choose to define marriage as something that includes homosexual couples. that day has not yet arrived. at least not in california.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, makes sense.
 
I'm not even sure why I'm chiming in because this issue is soooooo unimportant to me. But I'm going to anyway.

If I remember correctly the institution of marriage was "invented" by the Catholic church. Therefore it would be the church that should get to decided what is and is not allowed under the guise of marriage.

With that in mind, I don't know why on Earth the government ever got involved in the first place. (That's not entirely true, I THINK they started granting tax breaks to married couples and for children to encourage the practice and perpetuate the "species".)

Anyway, my point is that marriage as an institution should be decided by the church and NOT the government. As far as the tax breaks and other legalities that go I support civil unions. That way everybody gets equal treatment in by the government and the government keeps its hands out of the church's business.

(And in case anybody is wondering no, I'm not Catholic.)
 
bio-chem said:
Marriage is not a universal right to be viewed the same as voting or owning property. proof of this is in the fact that it is universally understood to be a state choice. People get to define what type of societies they want to live in. If the people wish to define marriage as between a man and a woman that is the right of the american people. i presume down the road the people will choose to define marriage as something that includes homosexual couples. that day has not yet arrived. at least not in california.
Click to expand...

Clearly you have not read up on any constitutional law cases. The Supreme Court has held marriage to be a fundamental right time and time again. The precedents are all there, and one challenge on a favorable Court will put an end to all this ridiculousness. If you want a foreshadowing of what is to come, go read the Iowa Supreme Court decision on gay marriage. It is right on the money.

That's why I'm not really worked up over this California stuff or biggot assholes like you saying the majority can take away a fundamental right from a minority group. Gays will be allowed to marry sooner than you know, it is inevitable.
 
ALBOB said:
If I remember correctly the institution of marriage was "invented" by the Catholic church.
Click to expand...

You dumb ignorant asshole. This doesn't even warrant a response. Go do some research.

The only thing the Catholic Church invented was molesting little boys and having their parishioners fund settlements stemming from that abuse.
 
maxpro2 said:
Clearly you have not read up on any constitutional law cases. The Supreme Court has held marriage to be a fundamental right time and time again. The precedents are all there, and one challenge on a favorable Court will put an end to all this ridiculousness. If you want a foreshadowing of what is to come, go read the Iowa Supreme Court decision on gay marriage. It is right on the money.

That's why I'm not really worked up over this California stuff or biggot assholes like you saying the majority can take away a fundamental right from a minority group. Gays will be allowed to marry sooner than you know, it is inevitable.
Click to expand...

while i don't doubt that gays will eventually get the right to marry, your unbelievably biased reasoning is off. Marriage is a state matter. thats accepted. making the argument that homosexuals are a minority and therefore a protected class is a difficult one in my mind.

there are those even on this forum that have admitted to having a homosexual experience, but consider themselves heterosexual. marriage is one that time and time again has been shown can be legislated.

and of course it is going to take a favorable court. it is a lot easier to convince a majority of 7-9 guys than it is the majority of the populace. when left to the people to decide what they want it is not yet a question. putting ones goals in an activist court just seems wrong to me.
 
Last edited:
ALBOB said:
I'm not even sure why I'm chiming in because this issue is soooooo unimportant to me. But I'm going to anyway.

If I remember correctly the institution of marriage was "invented" by the Catholic church. Therefore it would be the church that should get to decided what is and is not allowed under the guise of marriage.

With that in mind, I don't know why on Earth the government ever got involved in the first place. (That's not entirely true, I THINK they started granting tax breaks to married couples and for children to encourage the practice and perpetuate the "species".)

Anyway, my point is that marriage as an institution should be decided by the church and NOT the government. As far as the tax breaks and other legalities that go I support civil unions. That way everybody gets equal treatment in by the government and the government keeps its hands out of the church's business.

(And in case anybody is wondering no, I'm not Catholic.)
Click to expand...

That's why I personally don't care if the government allows it.. as long as the people want it & vote for it.. not a decision by an activist judge.

When the Catholic church allows it, then I may have a problem with it.
 
busyLivin said:
That's why I personally don't care if the government allows it.. as long as the people want it & vote for it.. not a decision by an activist judge.

When the Catholic church allows it, then I may have a problem with it.
Click to expand...

I guess you were against Brown v. Board of Education too then, you biggot? Protecting individual liberties is not activism--it is the job of the courts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Arnold
The U.S. government is 'looking at' banning TikTok due to national security concerns
Replies
2
Views
1K
ordawg1
ordawg1
GYMnTONIC
**Looking for Help* Steroid Research
Replies
0
Views
706
GYMnTONIC
GYMnTONIC
C
Wild and horny as fuck looking for trade partner and sexting. kik me >>>craygrif
Replies
1
Views
1K
Gena Marie
Gena Marie
Back
Top