Cool News
Obamanation!? Jack Black, John C. Reilly & More Hit The Nets With PROPOSITION 8: THE MUSICAL!!
Merrick here...
On November 4, in what is almosty certainly the most shameful element of the election, Proposition 8 was passed in California - essentially amending the state's Constitution to restrict marriage between same sex couples. Because, you know, love and commitment should only be honored and respected as prescribed by strangers.
In answer to the events, a buncha Holld folks have banned together for PROPOSITION 8: THE MUSICAL - now arriving on the Internet.
Marc Shaiman (the first two ADDAMS FAMILY films, THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT, THE BUCKET LIST) wrote the music, Adam Shankman (HAIRSPRAY, THE WEDDING PLANNER, A WALK TO REMEMBER) staged and directed. Jack Black, John C. Reilly, Neil Patrick Harris, Margaret Cho, Kathy Najimy , Andy Richter, and more.
The video originated HERE, or you can watch it via the embed below...
-
+ Expand All
-
never have I been. Whoopee!
-
He's got that star thing going.
-
and will only serve to polarize more people to Hollywood for thinking they know better than everybody else.
-
Dec 04, 2008 12:21:51 PM CST
So what, they can still estimulate their prostate with a penis.
by ricarleite
Or the clitoris with a finger. Right? So, no problem!
-
but the second i'm out, i'm putting this on full blast. Still can't believe that prop 8 passed...embarrassing.
-
I mean, who needs majority rule? Putin doesn't. Why don't we just appoint a few good liberals to run the country forever and forget about this democracy thing.
-
"JESUS! What are you still doing here? I thought you left?"
I'm just waiting for everyone to go so noone sees me eat that yummy shrimp cocktail.
Booming voice from above (Adam West??):
*I* am still watching, son.
AWWW, dad!
FREEZE like the end of TJ Hooker. (with maybe Heather Locklear standing there for no discernable reason) -
Get it? I'd imagine this will end up at the Supreme Court. But, guess what folks, if people vote overwhelmingly against it, it's not going to pass. And the people can overturn the Supreme Court.
It's called checks and balances.
-
You'd be watching season 38 of Full House and thinking about how much food to give the Mexican family living on your lawn this week and how much you can afford to pay the neighborhood police for protection while writing a letter to your dad who is in prison for life after getting caught smoking a joint. You people are AMAZING! No wonder god loves you best.
-
and have tailgate parties to celebrate while they're at it. But the constitution stands. And this voting over the heads of the supreme court sounds fascinating. When was the last time it happened. Just curious.
-
Last time I was there I had a hard time getting the homeless lady next to me to stop screaming rape while I was beating the shit out of the homeless guy rummaging through my pocket for spare change. Or was it? Hahaha!! See? I can be funny, too. Gay homeless guy. Hahaha!!
-
California's "smug" pollution levels are at an all-time high
-
Sorry if you don't like it.
-
and this is a bad video. i think it's way too polarizing to say that this was a case of older rich church people in suits versus the good guy gays. you think you're going to win hearts with that angle? by making the insulting suggestion that if we just appeal to the bad guys' greed we can get what we want? instead of with reasoned discussion and debate? ugh. this stupid ass country. obama had better be the next lincoln because we sure as hell need a leader right now who can inspire.
-
This ain't America, honkies
-
Which this is not. It's a democratic republic. Democratic as it strives to be, you of all people should know this.
-
Band aid?
-
All the qualifications that guy needs to run our country.
Less than four years now 'til 2012. Yee Haw!!!! -
Constitution will win.
-
...so I guess by the logic in this video, we're free to do those as well.
-
Take rights, prepare to fight.
-
Anyone have a torch?
-
Which makes so many of you look so much stupider than you did about 15 seconds ago.
-
Wasn't this a referendum that the majority of the people voted for? It's not like this was a law that was passed under the table. The people spoke, they don't want gay marriage. End of story.
-
Dec 04, 2008 12:40:55 PM CST
It's kinda frickin' retarded that this is the civil rights...
by soylentmean
issue of the moment. So much more to be worried about. Like children not getting educations, home foreclosures, job loss, the declining value of the dollar and subsequently the quality of life for Americans.
Making a gay relationship official for tax purposes doesn't seem all that important in light of all that. Still, I guess to some folks it is.
-
In a world where end of story means that the story is over, which it is not. Which means you are wrong in ways that only be compared to the kind of wrong usually associated with whispered takes of your mother's sexual history.
-
he's never been for gay marriage.
-
Maybe she should go back to silent films and stop giving these fools a voice that most people do not want to hear.
-
one another. They just can't call it marriage. It's a civil union. Big deal! You guys act like the US government is rounding up gays and lesbians and putting them in concentration camps or something.
If homosexuals want to marry, they need to decide to sleep with members of the opposite sex. Otherwise they can have civil unions and enjoy the same rights as everyone else. -
Was it really all that bad? Cheaper than prison and more action than mma
-
STRAIGHT PRIDE!!!!!
-
It's important because we can never let the majority decide rights and freedoms. Those who feel their majority gives them moral authority deserve no authority at all. It's our bread and butter. What makes us stand out in the world. The little guy, the unpopular guy. The guy with new ideas. He can thrive here. But not if we send this kind of message. We've spent the last decade limiting each other, censoring each other, suing each other, restricting each other, judging each other. Worshiping the mistakes of our celebrities while villifying them when they have an opinion. All while it turns out many of them were SPOT ON CORRECT!! I'm sick of it. Face it, your time is up. YOU get over it.
-
Or some really confuesd test tubes.
-
two things: 1) you're right. one way things get done is exactly as you say: take rights, then fight to keep them. it's how the europeans took the u.s. from the indians. it works, and it's neither good nor bad, but it's more painful and less civilized than talking it out. either way, who cares. 2) i wish i was drunk right now.
-
You could have just as easily said with your bigoted mouth : If blacks want to marry, they need to decide to sleep with members of their own race. Otherwise they can have civil unions and enjoy the same rights as everyone else
-
Like white pride. You already had it, quit whining. Go fuck your cousin or something so we can make it a federal offense by referendum.
-
You are one angry drunk.
-
So excuse my reactionary tone please.
-
"Still, I guess to some folks it is. "
yeah to a lot of people its very important, especially gay people who feel as though they are being treated in the same way blacks were during the civil rights era. Put yourself in their shoes for just a second and maybe it will help you understand the emotion.
It's very easy for a heterosexual to brush it off because it doesn't directly effect them -
Did I miss the memo that said each talkback post must be directed at an individual?
If I did. Sorry. I don't care. -
Obama is against gay marriage, so I guess a vote for him was a vote against gays. "but he was better than mccain blah blah blah" He is still against it. But that is ok because he is beyond criticism. That is the problem with being a psychotic PC-minded zombie. You don't like the fact Prop 8 passed but you can't take Obama to task for being against gay marrige because of the color of his skin.
-
I'm a loner drunk. Only angry on the Internet.
-
The government shouldn't marry anyone. It should grant civil unions and the same legal rights to any two people who want them. Why do people want government to santify their love? Don't people want government out of their personal lives? Marriage should be something you get from your church or whatever moral communinty you belong to. Your priest/pastor can then sign a document for you that means for legal and tax purposes you have a government granted civil union as well. And if you're really into getting spiritually married but your church won't marry you, you're free to join another one that will. There, everybody's happy.
-
Gotilk= So straight his genitals are stained pink.
-
which is such a fucking awesome thing to know.
-
I gots no style.
-
But the real straw man is found in the video. I didn't misrepresent their position incorrectly, they said exactly what I was alluding to: we should throw out the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality because the Bible also condemns things we now have no problem with. So why not the condemnation of rape, incest, murder, or any other prohibitions? We can't "pick and choose," after all. The real straw man is in the video, because they portray those who were against Prop 8 as operating solely from hate or from an adherence to the book of Leviticus. There are many who have worked hard to develop an understanding of sexuality in the Bible that takes a look at the whole picture, not just a few selected verses. Some of those folks still find homosexual behavior incompatible with a Biblical ethic, while others find no conflict between the two. What's funny is that the Prop 8 opponents (especially the reactionary ones who threw this shoddy video together) who decry "picking and choosing" are just as guilty of proof-texting. In their focus on one aspect of the Bible they pick and choose poorly, and end up shooting themselves in the foot. There's your straw man.
-
Dec 04, 2008 12:57:05 PM CST
I'm just wondering why anyone with an iota of intelligence...
by blood simple
-
No, the whole logic behind it is that The Bible is a contradictory assortment of texts and full of shit, thus shouldn't be taken as gospel...but it is by alot of stupid people in this planet.
-
I imagine a lot of black people who lived through the civil rights era are tired of saying gay people are going through the same thing. Last time I turned on the news they were being blasted with fire hoses for sitting at a diner or being attacked by police dogs. Also, another hilarious side note: only 31% of black people approve of homosexuality. Oh how the poltically correct mind reels as it trys to reconcile these two pieces of information.
-
And I'm not even drunk.
-
can someone explain to me this civil union thing? are gays allowed to do that or is it some kind of conservative proposition?
-
...still believes in talking to a big bearded man in the sky? Haven't we moved past our need of comforting myths and stories as a species?
-
Nice argument...I'm sure it gets you real far.
-
he has publicly condemed Prop 8. Or am I missing something here?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73oZ_pe1MZ8
-
Wacka wacka
-
If we were the ones picking and choosing, I'd agree. But it's them. Our laws are based on religion like all comedies of error are based on Shakespeare. To put it bluntly, not all things mentioned in the bible occur in a vacuum. Morality emerges without a bible to guide it. And theirs is not the only religious text. We have religious freedom here, not christian freedom. Straw man remains where it belongs.
-
The entire argument they posed was juvenile as hell. This isn't a bunch of religious bigots trying to keep gays from being happy. It was in California! Not exactly the Bible-thumping capital of the world. But hey, let's just pretend like it's all about religion, since religion is so evil!
This is a situation where a very vocal minority is desperate for acceptance by the mainstream and will do anything to achieve it.
They are trying to convince the world that this is a Civil Rights struggle like the black civil rights movement of the 1960s. It isn't even close to that. Gay people can vote, run for office, hold jobs and do everything else straight people can do in this country. But don't you dare point that out or you'll be called a homophobe!
The gay mafia won't let the voters decide, even though that's the very foundation this country is built on. Instead, you can expect all sorts of lawsuits and claims of bigotry and hatred against anyone who dares disagree with their agenda.
It's not straight people's fault that homosexuality isn't the norm. Don't make straight people out to be evil for wanting to keep marriage as it always has been - between a man and a woman.
There was nothing amusing about this Hollywood garbage. Except that they thought this was somehow ingenius. More like disingenuous. -
Genuinely.
-
Is that some kinda Liza Minnelli jab vis a vis Judy Garland playing Dorothy?
-
I just love being lectured by self-important, self-righteous celebrity retards. But then again, I also love slamming my balls in the car door too.
-
Boil it down and it's truth, it's why alot of the world's most creative people don't follow an organized religion or at least not christianity.
-
Like it ruled all those years when slavery was legal, and when segregation was mandated, and when interracial couples couldn't marry. The MAJORITY of people at that time also thought all those things were fine. Or are we going to do that thing where we try to act like nobody was ever really racist or hateful, and that most of the people back then were, conveniently, actually secretly against all those bad things? The same way conservatives try to take credit for Lincoln based on the fact that he was Republican (which was actually the LIBERAL part at the time). Yeah, in a Democracy, the largest number of votes should decide important things, like who should be in charge and how much taxes we should pay on whatever. NOT on what people do in their personal life. To all of you saying "Majority Rule," would you really like it if the entire nation got to vote on whether you can marry the person (of the opposite sex) that you love? Every time somebody applies for a marriage certificate, a bunch of people that have nothing to do with you would get a say in whether you should get married, based on stupid opinions like "She's too pretty for him," "They're too young," or "I just don't think they should be together." That would be majority rule, so you'd all be for it right? Or would that be wrong, since in that case it would be infringing on YOUR civil right? Trying to control people on a personal, private level is just a Dictatorship, even if it is by the masses. But I'm not worried about prop 8, or 2 in FL, not passing. Because eventually ALL these civil rights issues will be resolved. Progressive ideas always win out because, eventually, those against them die out and their ideas fade away. Slavery was once written into the Constitution too.
-
By all of the hateful homophobic fucks on this board. WHO FUCKING CARES IF GAYS MARRY? Who the fuck are you to deny ceremony to a happy couple. Grow up you dumb, hardwired, mean, repressed babies.
-
But you are evil. jeeze... get with the program. I REJECT YOUR HATE disguised as pseudo-intellectualism!!
Maybe that was harsh. But fuck it, I have an excuse this morning. At least mine doesn't rely on imagined standards based on a book written by a sky daddy replacement for your absent father. Real men drive muscle cars AND give their gay friends big bear hugs at their weddings. -
On the subject of religion and law you have a point, and that's a much larger argument. But I was referring specifically to the argument in the video--that Christians should approve of homosexuality because they eat shrimp cocktails, don't stone their wives, and don't sell their kids into slavery. The argument from the video is "The Bible condemns homosexuality. The Bible also condemns these other things. We now know these other things are OK, therefore homosexuality is now OK as well." That's a classic straw man argument, and that's all I'm referring to. On the issue of how laws are written and how we should or shouldn't legislate morality...that's a bigger debate with a whole new set of straw men on both sides.
-
I still don't understand - and perhaps you could clear this up for me - I still don't understand why all these "straight people" you speak of care in the least about keeping marriage between a man and a women. How does it effect them, or anyone for that matter, in the least?
-
Hmmm...given the choice between Bach and Jack Black, I'll take Bach.
-
there's another one where he clearly says that prop 8 is discrimination etc.
-
yeah cos Jack Black is the only 'creative' guy who would be against Prop 8.
-
As much as I'm against legislated morality, sometimes the only way tolerance happens is when it's forced. Majority shmajority!! The point is, eventually all you fucktards will have to deal with this. Like it or not. The ad the pro-prop hate people ran with Gavin Newsom saying "like it or not" was not a threat, it was prescient reality. That's why so many were scared of it. It was truth spoken, which is much more frightening than a mere threat.
HOMOPHOBIA IS SO GAY! -
It just might not be legal. It's important to them. Nice to know. It's important to me that America doesn't wither and die. So fix America's truly pressing issues (I dunno, like sweeping and total economic collapse) first. Then we can worry about stuff like this.
-
Dec 04, 2008 1:17:50 PM CST
As if gays can't have love and commitment without the custom of
by mr. waturi
Who cares why people voted for prop 8? They are entitled to their opinion, just like the rest of us. And like it or not, majority rules. There is no law saying that gays can't create their own version of marriage and call it something else. If somebody doesn't want you in their club, have some balls and go start your own club. That's the American way.
-
for the simple reason that modern marriage laws are simply a hold over from post Civil War laws limiting interracial marriage, and more recently, as a way for the State to collect money. The State should have NO SAY in defining what is, or who may enter into what is basically an agreed upon civil contract, accept in those ways already in the Civ law books to protect those of limited capacity.
HOwever, with a population over 50% Hispanic/Latin and Catholic you KNEW this was gonna pass...and silly divisive things like this will only hurt their entirely just cause further. -
Dec 04, 2008 1:20:30 PM CST
Gays shouldn't be married, but neither should straight people
by dapper swindler
If marriage is an institution recognized by the federal government, then it should be abolished completely because that is not a separation of church and state. If marriage is a sacred union between two people, the government should have nothing to do with that. If a civil union is necessary for taxes and hospital rights, then the government should let gay people have it and call it something other than marriage.
-
yeah, fuck off weirdos.
-
...the MILLIONS of dollars the Mormon Church poured into "yes on Prop 8" campaigns?
If you're going to call their argument juvenile, at least try to understand what their argument is in the first place. -
Maybe the drink is wearing off, but I kind of see what you mean. But is what they created a misrepresentation of the opposition's view? Really? They say marriage is a thing reserved for a man and a woman. Where does that come from? Other than religion? What about between blacks and whites? Where did that come from? Are you aware of how recently blacks were allowed into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? What other texts provide moral history in regard to the marriage of human beings? Or better yet, how can we disregard the millions married, man and woman, without any substantial christian or even religious beliefs? How can we claim tradition as the only claim to back our propositions (ignoring the religious implications) while at the same time ignoring the marriages that have occurred without any religious context, but yet still calling themselves married (and accepted as so by society)? And have we forgotten that this is comedy? Not the kind of discussion we're having right here and now. It strikes a nerve and is funny because it speaks truth. Even funnier when comedy speaks to uncomfortable truths. When you really get to the bottom of the opposing view, it always seems to come back to either "religion" or "just not right". Well, "just ___" DEgeneration aside (just do it! just say no!! Just this!! Just that!!) You're going to have to do a little better than "just" anything to get this kind of crap past relatively smart folks. And as an aside to all those spouting about majorities? This didn't win by that much. And the constitutionality itself is still in question.
-
I don't buy that, now that guy from Alaska running again with several felonies might be it.
-
How you been you old, disgustingly fat, hate-filled, racist, right-wing fuck? Long time no see. For a minute I thought your Rascal might have shorted and ran you into traffic.
-
Jesus, pay the fuck attention to other shit than Jack fucking Black.
-
The treatment of blacks prior to the civil rights movement and the so-called gay rights struggle are not at all equal. Homosexuals are afforded every right under the law that straight people are.
The only thing that is being withheld from them is the opportunity to call their civil union "marriage".
When you think about it, it's actually quite comical. Unlike that video. Is that really the best argument Hollywood can come up with for gay marriage? If so, that's lame!
As someone else on here said, blacks take offense to the notion that gays are mistreated in this country. Most blacks don't even approve of homosexuality. So the gays are barking up the wrong tree there.
They ought to thank their lucky stars that we like them so much. They aren't being lynched, forced to ride the back of the bus, drink from different fountains, eat at different restaurants, are they? No! But they can't be happy with living their lives quietly.
Instead, they are throwing their sexuality in our faces at every opportunity. Gay Pride Parades in every major city. Then they're bitching and moaning about how everyone hates them so much. Do you have any idea how much money gay people make?
If we hate gays so much, why are they so successful in business? Why do they have so many shows on the air? They run the fashion industry and much of the entertainment industry.
Being homosexual is about as accepted as it's going to be in this society. The thing is, they don't want to admit that they are different, that their behavior is abnormal. Instead, they want to cram it down our throat and change the very definition of marriage to suit their own situation.
The INCONVENIENT TRUTH is, marriage was invented to be between a man and a woman - between members of opposite sex. It started off that way and it has been that way ever since.
I am sorry that homosexuals think they can't lead fulfilling lives without being able to be "married". The truth is, it's petulant behavior from people who aren't used to not getting their way. The sad thing is, they are going to lose a lot of the tolerance that they have been shown if they keep pushing things.
Straight couples will not allow the definition of marriage to be changed just in order to accomodate a liberal political agenda. So what are homosexual advocates to do next?
The next step will be to outlaw all marriage and force the State to issue civil unions to couples instead. The gay mafia would rather ruin it for everybody than not get their way.
Expect a lot less support from the majority of Americans if shitty videos like this keep cropping up. Jack Black and his friends won't be changing any minds in their favor by making religious belief look evil. -
Stop being smart and having an opinion! And especially being right, it turns out, a couple of years later, about a lot of stuff. Yeah, fuck you hollywood.
As long as you keep worshiping/judging their public mistakes and private lives, you have NO right to tell hollyWEIRD to shut up about jack SHIT, you gossiping, shriveled old hateful shrews. -
Rabble... rabble...rabble... How dare they speak out on behalf of things that mean something to them... Rawr... shut up and make movies... stupid actors... what do they know... blah, blah, blah... from my office desk, laptop between classes.... I can't wait for the weekend so I can get drunk and cheat on my wife (as long as I'm not late for church on Sunday morning...) Woo hoo... gays wanting to get married... LOL, fuck them, I'm on my third marriage... the people have spoke... majority rules... woohooo... maybe we can make the gays our slaves??? ******I'm just paraphrasing and summarizing all of the idiocy I read in all talkbacks on this matter. First, Hollywood actors are people who are educated, have traveled and experienced the world in ways many of us will never do. They have a broader and more open view than people who have never left the state they grew up in. I trust a Hollywood actor and appreciate their commentary (even when I don't agree with it) more than the jealous and bitter, close-minded bitches on the internet. It isn't the Hollywood actors that need to shut up, its the people spewing hate on internet forums (perhaps myself included.) Seriously, the people voted in California but it wasn't 70 to 30, it was pretty even which means half of the people feel one way and half feel another. Despite narrow minded attempts to block the civil rights of these people, this issue will not go away and it shouldn't. If you knew any gay people and had them in your close circle of friends, you wouldn't EVER vote to hinder their rights! If most people went out and explored the world instead of adapting their parent's beliefs, religion and ideals, they wouldn't be such hateful and miserable individuals. There is a very good chance the bible was fabricated by people and passed on through the ages and millions of people will die and will be surprised to learn there is no heaven or hell and they wasted their lives at Church every sunday and running around hating on people you don't understand. I for one, hope there is a Hell because I think a lot of "religious" people will be there for perverting their religion. For those against gay marriage, you would hear a lot less from them if you just let it happen. Chances are, you won't see them, go to their weddings, befriend them or have to worry about your kids being converted (chances are most of your kids will grow up gay anyway because karma is a bitch.) In my Catholic family, there is divorce, abortion and so much unhappiness and stupidity and it is the same with every Catholic and strict Christian I know. I think faith is an amazing thing but organized religion is one of the ugliest things I have ever seen. Hollywood doesn't need to shut up, people who spend all of their time hating when they could be making the world a better place do. I'll follow my own advice now and shut up because these rants don't change any minds. Common sense seems totally absent from these discussions.
-
We settled the "Separate but equal" question with Plessy v. Ferguson. The answer, in a nutshell: Separate but equal ISN'T. Attempting to establish some kind of "alternative" to marriage for same-sex couples is therefore a violation of our Constitution, and the Supreme Court will eventually see that.
-
You did it better than I and with a lot less words...
-
Rape and murder is just wrong. It's something we KNOW is wrong. Children, instinctively, know it's wrong. We don't need the Bible to tell us this. Rape and murder is not wrong BECAUSE the Bible says so. But ask any anti-gay people why being gay is wrong. and their only answer is "Because it says so in the Bible." One day, I'd like somebody to go "[Such and such] is wrong, because it says so in the 5th Harry Potter book," because it's the same thing: a book, written by people, that happens to be very very popular. Rape and murder is OBVIOUSLY wrong, and two people in love getting married is not, regardless of what some book says.
-
standing in your front yards yelling about how wrong the war was a few years back. At least they had the guts to speak in public about how they really felt, cowards. And as for the rest of you, if you really supported the troops, let's see the canceled checks for body armour or shut the hell up.
-
The video was a little funny but lets face it, it's bitter and meant for the choir. You're never going to win over a fundamentalist Christian by telling them "Hey, don't take your bible so seriously - see, it's wrong in lots of places." Pointing out hypocrisy doesn't work either. It's smug and condescening. I feel like the issue is framed wrong on both sides. The problem is the government granting something called "a marriage" that isn't the same thing that a church grants. If your church marries you you're pleging yourself to your spouse and also a community and its ideals, God gets involved, it's a whole thing. If the governement marries you, you're basically making a legal contract that entitles you to tax breaks. The government should call what it grants something else because by calling it a marriage the government (from a certain religous perspective) is making claims to moral and spiritual authority it doesn't have and shouldn't pretend to. If the government doesn't "marry" anyone, it puts anti-gay marriage activists on much more shaky ground because they'd have to take on the authority of other churches to marry whomever they want (and they'd lose, easily).
-
Dec 04, 2008 1:36:14 PM CST
There is no rational explanation for prohibiting gay marriage
by mooseaka
"We need to protect the sanctity of marriage" ----- Then by that logic why haven't we made divorce illegal?
"We need to prevent against fraudulent marriages for the purposes of scamming insurance companies, etc." ----- What is to stop hetero couples from doing the same?
"Marriage is intended for families who seek to reproduce" ---- Then by that logic, shouldn't we refuse marriage licenses to sterile couples and compel all married couples to procreate within a set amount of time or have their marriage revoked?
"We must define Marriage the way it is defined in the Bible as being between a man and a woman" ------ Have you heard of something called the Separation Clause in the Constitution?
"We need to uphold the values upon which marriage was based in this Country for 200+ years" ---- You realize that this is the same Country that once permitted slavery and only began to allow non-whites or non-males to vote in the past 100 years?
"We can confer the same rights to same sex couples by letting them have Civil Unions" ----- No, the rights are not the same, and didn't this "Separate but Equal" thing not work out too well the last time we tried it?
"It should be left to the states to decide" ----- No, any state legislation that contains discriminatory language immediately becomes a Federal Question to be decided in Federal Court, appealable to the Supreme Court. So leaving it to the States to decide (which is something regrettably many Democrats have said to side-step controversy), is only just another hurdle on this issue's ultimate date with destiny in the Supreme Court. -
I almost wet myself watching this. Shaiman is a genius... A bit melodramatic on the text heading Merrick, but you have a right to your opinion. This similar issue has NEVER won in any state. Though I thought CA would have been different...This video is not crass, nor is it offensive. It is pretty darn funny...
On my soapbox for a moment... I voted against prop 8 because it was the wrong way to go about handling the issue. I can understand people being for and against same-sex marriage. It is a matter of your personal beliefs. Everyone is welcome to their beliefs, as long as they are not causing others undue suffering. I honestly think there are more important things to worry about in our world today than whether or not people of the same gender get "married". I think the big issue is the word "marriage". A rose by any other name is still a rose. Give same-sex couple ALL the same rights as "married" people and call it something else. They do that in the UK, and Elton John was fine with it. You also cannot get "your rights" by crapping all over the beliefs of others. You do not win any arguments that way, you only create more opposition. One step at a time... Today the rights that you get in a "marriage" under a different name. then maybe someday when people wake up to the fact that civilization has not destroyed itself, the title of "marriage" will follow. -
And I'm sure the Bush appointed additions to the supreme court will agree, in spite of the whole thing being full of holes and not even remotely applicable.
-
See if what you voted for doesn't get enough votes YOU LOSE. How does that not make sense? Seriously, learn how to fucking lose you faggots. And stop blaming religious people. Last time I check Democrates go to church too you arrogant fuck faces. Just freaking stop for a minute and accept the fact that just because you believe in something doesn't mean everyone else should. In other words THINK OF OTHER PEOPLE YOU SELF CENTERED BASTARDS!!
-
Dec 04, 2008 1:38:53 PM CST
"Like it or not", being gay is abnormal. Like it or not.
by snake foreskin
Like it or not, the majority of Americans and those around the world would rather define marriage as between one man and one woman. Like it or not.
Like it or not, the homosexuals in this country are facing nothing like what blacks in this country faced in the 1960s. And because marriage isn't a Constitutionally-protected right, you can't really define the marriage issue as a Civil Rights issue. Like it or not.
Like it or not, the majority of blacks do not approve of homosexuality, so gays really shouldn't try to liken themselves to blacks in their attempts to draw parallels between gay rights and civil rights. Like it or not.
How's that, Gavin Nuisance? -
Margaret Cho has lost weight.
-
You idiot!
-
You are on the wrong side of the issue just like racists were when it came to African American rights. DigitalDong, my gay friends would beat your ass for using that term and you would have it coming.
-
Dude, you need some new material.
-
I think what this case points out ultimately is that in spite of how wrongly those in power can rule in favor of a majority hatred, eventually the good in people will rule above the law. Do you think train cars went unsegregated by law? Hell no. It was because the act of segregation was eventually considered so dispicable(why can't I write that word without hearing Daffy Duck's voice.. it's downright distracting!!!, it was impossible to continue the practice. Thus pointing out the ignorance and waste of time and money all of this prop hate stuff was in the end. Eventually, the truth will reveal itself to the good hearts of the American people, in absence of fear mongering or in presence of reason. Whichever comes first, but know that both will come, like it or dislike it.
-
Stop drawing parallels where there are none. Gays can vote, blacks couldn't. Gays can own property, blacks couldn't. Gays can work and live side by side all other Americans. Blacks couldn't. Your heart may be in the right place, but your arguments are pathetic.
-
Saying marriage "isn't a constitutionally protected right" is specious.
Having a job isn't a constitutionally protected right, but your boss cannot discriminate because of your sexual preference.
Going to public school isn't a "constitutionally protected right", but they can't kick you out of school because you are gay.
While I disagree with your position, you are obviously smart enough to know that any law that has any discriminatory intent towards a class of people, whether it is age, sex, race, or sexual preference, is a Federal Question, and therefore must ultimately be decided by a Federal Court - namely the Supreme Court. It's only a matter of time. So, blowing it off by saying "it's not in the Constitution" is inaccurate, misleading, and a distraction.
In five years this will be moot, but hey, enjoy the exclusive right to marry while you can. I'm sure when 1000's of gay people you don't know and will never meet get married it will ruin your life.
-
You are likely a good person who has just been raised with those crazy thoughts. You need a big Gay hug!
-
Anti-gay hate mongerers will never truly pit blacks against gays. They will eventually ALL see through it. And let's not pretend that's not what they did.
ARE YOU GUYS gonna let those faggots compare their struggle to yours? Are they kidding??
Transparent as an open window in the locked bedroom of an alter boy. -
Your argument is that gays can't compare their struggle with that of the blacks in this country because they aren't being... attacked by dogs? I guess blacks should be really happy about those dogs then? They should thanks their stars everyday that those cops showed up with the dogs and the fire hoses. And lets not forget the lynching, thank god for the lynchings! Because if it weren't for those things, they wouldn't deserve the rights they won! African-Americans went through all of that SO NOBODY ELSE WOULD EVER HAVE TO. That was the point. Plenty of blacks and other minorities have fought and earned right since then, without ever having to go through any of those awful things, and they're no less deserving of them. Or maybe the blacks in the 60s should have just been happy with their "separate but equal" situation, because, you know, it's not like they were being rounded up in camps and gassed, right?
-
Do you really think blacks are that easily duped? Talk about racism.
-
And so is Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
-
Let's give them all big gay hugs. I know I'm not gay and all, but I can still give a gay hug, right? We should youtube it.
Signs around our necks downtown that say BIG GAY HUGS! FREE TODAY!
Or we could decide to live another day instead. -
...if people can act on their prejudices, then that is a parallel between them and the civil rights movement. You're gay, so you can't receive inheritance rights or visit dying loved ones in the hospital or raise children. Sounds kind of similar to "you're black, you can't eat at this lunch counter, and your vote doesn't count as much."
Marriage isn't YET a Constitutionally-protected right, but not because it can't be interpreted as such nor because its benefits shouldn't be protected, but only because the current state and federal Supreme Courts are, for the most part, afraid of stepping on too many toes to do what's right. Luckily for black people, they didn't do the same thing in the 1960s.
People don't need your f***ing approval to be who they are, its not a f***ing lifestyle choice. I'm not gay, but I hate having some self-righteous, condescending ass trying to tell other people how to live their lives and what is right or not, especially when it has nothing to do with them.
The beauty of the Constitution and its checks and balances is that it can rise above the prejudices of the people. Hopefully, the U.S. Supreme Court will one day gather up its nuts and put them in its pants, and call out the commonplace prejudice which deprive some Americans of rights that most others take for granted when they have shotgun weddings in Vegas and get annulled or divorced a day later. -
NO LAW RESPECTING is very, very clear language. It's not up for "interpretation".
-
For those out there who say, hey, the gays have Civil Unions, same thing, calm down and go away... okay, I have a proposal. Since it's all the same thing how about we do away with marriage as a legal government recognized thing. Civil Unions for everyone. Since it's all the same that shouldn't be a problem for you. Marriage could then be left as a non-legally binding religious ceremony. And as such it would be up to the individual churches as to who they would allow to marry. But legally, nobody is "married". Everybody would be civil... unionized.
-
As much as I would've like to see Prop 8 fail, since personally it's not a big deal to me, I can understand the opposing viewpoint. Or at least some of them. Like it or not, "marriage" is an inherently religious concept. Sure, the government recognizes it as a means to provide benefits to couples, yes, but it's origins are inherently religious. And most of what I've heard from people who voted Yes On 8, is that they simply want the word "marriage" to apply to solely a man and a woman, which is part of their religious belief. They're not saying they want to take away the rights of a gay couple (although I have a sneaking suspicion a good portion of these people would just as soon vote to take away some of these rights if they had the chance). Basically, they want their word back, and continue to define it how they choose. Fine. Here's what we should do. As for a government is concerned, call EVERYTHING a civil union, for both straight and gay couples. Leave marriage up to the churches hands. If a gay couple wants to get married, they have to find a church that will marry them. As much as I'd have like to see 8 fail, I'm not going to deny that marriage is inherently a religious institution (or it at least started out that way). So we should just leave that in the churches hand, and the government just issues civil unions to EVERYONE and under the eyes of the government and this country, everyone has the same rights. Then the government can't be accused of discrimination. That would be TRUE separation of church and state. There would probably still be some disagreements, but at that point it would be on a theological level, not concerning and institution that's supposed to serve the people. Just my two cents.
-
Jinxo, you snaked my idea right out from under me. Damn you!
-
Who gets to decide if polygamy should be practiced? Is it constitutional? What about changing the age of consent? After all, it's pretty arbitrary, yes?
There is always going to be the need for boundaries to be placed in order for a society to thrive.
The boundary for marriage may be uncomfortable and inconvenient, but it has been decided upon by the voters.
The truth is, things aren't always "all-inclusive" in life. Not everyone can be a super-model, for instance. Or date one. Not just anyone gets to go to Harvard Law. Marriage is just another one of these things.
But we can pursue happiness even knowing there are things out of our reach. Right? Do you really want to legislate happiness? Because that is what I am hearing from a lot of the gay rights advocates. They are saying that they just want gays to have the same chance at happiness.
Well, why stop at the marriage issue? Why not have a constitutional right to a job that makes you happy? Or why not a constitutional right to a million dollar mansion to live in? How about a constitutional right to whatever floats your boat? Whatever makes you happy, you should have a constitutionally-protected right to it. Right?
Sorry, but that's not how life, let alone our society, works. -
... is that anyone who opposes gay marriage does not really believe in what it means to be gay. Gay people do not choose to be gay. It is not a fad, it is not a disease, and it is no more a psychological condition than heterosexuality is a psychological condition. What drives me fucking crazy is that people somehow think or believe that gay people are incapable of loving each other the same way I love my wife. I have gay friends who would jump in front of a bus to save their "partner", and half this fucking country is getting divorces - so why deprive people of the right to experience the joy of a REAL wedding and give them all of the same legal rights. Again, there is absolutely no legal or rational explanation for prohibiting gay marriage, and I am confident this issue will be moot within the decade. But I just don't understand why the Snake Foreskins of the world get so worked up about keeping the prohibitions on gay marriage, and are willing to hide behind flimsy arguments rather than just say "Fuck it, if you want to be married too, have fun." How does this hurt you? Why do you care so much? Is it the Bible? Are you afraid of gay people? Do you even know any gay people? (I bet not).
-
Dec 04, 2008 2:02:55 PM CST
Rather than reading wikipedia, try reading the Constitution.
by snake foreskin
-
then it's unconstitutional. Sure, marriage rites (rites, not rights) can be considered pre-christian by some accounts. But considering the modern context, is it intellectually fair or honest to consider this an issue that is NOT inherently judeo-christian? If the majority opposition is christian, and the majority rules, why are we all pretending that this is NOT a christian issue?
-
I love my gay friends so much. Gay men are so much cooler than straight guys 99% of the time. Tell a gay person that has endured ridicule and the pain of being different that their an abomination or that their rights are less because of who they choose to love. And Civil Unions are indeed not the same and are very restrictive when it comes to health care and property rights. My father in love had to fight to see his dying partner in the hospital because he wasn't "family" even though they had been together for 8 years and I have heard countless stories over the years like this. The gay rights movement is real and it is one where many people have suffered as a result of the ignorance and hate of people who it really doesn't affect. If people lived their lives and minded their own business, these problems wouldn't be an issue.
-
The argument is that this is a civil rights issue, but is it? Or is it more about the definition of marriage. Nearly all cultures that I am aware of, have defined marriage as between one woman and one man. This is why polygamy is outlawed, and why people have questioned homosexual unions as being considered marriage, because it changes the definition. But that argument is challenged as inconsequential. I'm just sayin', I think its pretty simplistic to compare this to interacial marriages, and there are a lot of African American's who would agree. African American's have been subjugated against by the color of their skin, something they can not keep private. Sexual preference is not something you can just spot upon sight of someone. To me that makes it pretty dramatically different.
-
I think polygamy should be legal... and they should change the age of consent thingy too.
-
Don't act like everyone who is "gay" is equally committed to the behavior.
You think Lindsay Lohan is gay? She may be right now, but that can change, depending on her bank account. Is Anne Heche gay? She was when she was with Ellen, then she wasn't. Same with David Bowie and Elton John. But then Elton is gay again. It can get oh so confusing!
They should have a ticker like they do in the Stock Market. Like the DOW JONES INDUSTRIALS. Throughout the day you can check on people to see their gay stock rising and falling. -
Rather than reading wikipedia, why not check the text yourself? No matter where you copy-paste, the words are what they are.
And you may be on to something when it comes to the motivation behind prop hate as it relates to polygamy. ( in respect to full disclosure, I am technically Mormon, but maybe not after all this.. officially ) Could the gay marriage thing have been just too much to take for the church? Did it press all the wrong buttons in regard to their own struggles in the past? Did they think to themselves, to simplify a bit...
HEEEEY!! Wait a second!!!
-
I mean, it definitely has some pretty heavy religious connotations. I think that opposing murder should be unconstitutional since it was one of the Ten Commandments. After all, we have a Separation of Church and State!
-
You will have to do a bit better than your imitation of "slippery slope guy". Not everything leads to everything else. Who knows what we will consider progress in 20 years?? Maybe we'll agree on something then. Hard to say. Doubt it.
-
If love does conquer all then where is the uproar over the bigots who condemn multiple marriages? When will polygamy see its nice and funny musical against those who hate against them? Just wondering because those folks, some of them Mormon, really do love each other yet, for shame, it is still illegal for them to live their lifestyle. Not right and no state works to overturn that injustice which the Bible is also against.
-
That makes NO sense at all. The only way that makes sense is if you view the bible as the source of ALL morality in the world, in spite of proof that it emerges naturally in the absence of biblical history. Christians, Muslims, Jews... or any of them.. DO but CANNOT lay claim to morality. Some things are inherently wrong, no matter when or where someone passed it along as a law over a campfire along with their "embellishments".
-
This video came out a month after the election, Nice timing.
As for my opinion on gay marriage...It's none of my business if gays decide to get married and neither should it be government's. -
OK Snake, let's say for the sake of argument 5% of gay people are gay by choice. And of these "Gay by choice" people, 10% decide to get married, since the other 90% aren't even sure if they are gay or not, so they aren't going to just dive in and get married. My question is then:
WHO CARES?What difference does it make considering so many straight people get married because (a) they got knocked up; (b) they are under pressure from their families/parents; (c) they assume they can't do better; (d) they are compulsive; (e) they want a green card; (f) they want an inheritance; (g) they are in Vegas for the weekend; (h through infinity)..... There are so many ridiculous reasons why straight people get married, why in God's name are we preventing a majority gay people who really want to get married for all of the "right" reasons from doing so? -
I think a feature should be added so that our top ten favorite movies are listed when you click our profiles. This way when someone is ranting about Hollywood and shutting them up or making some crazy statements, we can judge them by their favorite movies and not just by their crazy words and recycled ideas passed down from their bitter parents and backwards churches. Just saying.
-
A man is born with no legs. He did not choose this, he was born this way. There is nothing "wrong" with him, nor should society in any way discriminate against him for any reason. However, he wishes to run a marathon, using a wheelchair. The marathon organizers say "fine, you can compete, as part of the wheelchair division." The man says "no" I want to "run a marathon" I want the same rights as those with legs, to deny me this right is to deny my civil rights. The race organizers reply "but running a marathon, means you have to run, that is by definition what it means. You can still compete, you can still enter this race, you just can not have your times compete against those who run." The man replies "No! That is patently unfair and offensive to me, I was not born with a choice, and by telling me that I can not "run" a marathon you are taking away my right as a human, change your definition to include wheelchair racing as "running" do it! Do it now!" The race organizers again plead toward the logic of this statement, "But what you are asking is to radically change a known and defined institution, which is the concept of running a marathon, simply so you can have the same public sentiment that you "ran a marathon." You can race a marathon, but by nature you can not run a marathon, based upon who you are that is simply the case. There is nothing wrong with you, it is simply the definition of what it means to run a marathon. The man responds "I reject your notion and your discriminatory policies, I don't want to be known as "racing a marathon" I want it to be known that I "ran" a marathon. I will not take any other position on the matter. If you deny me this, than you are saying you hate all people who have my condition, and you are subjugating us to draconian rules, this is not only unfair, it is unconstitutional, and I for one will not stand for it!!!" I don't know, to me this is what the argument amounts to. If civil unions and domestic partnerships were created to provide gay relationships the same legal and civil rights as married couples, then why the need to define it as marriage? Why re-define an institution like this? I'm asking.
-
The fact that you see the differences between the struggles does not invalidate either as a legitimate struggle. There are those that would love for you to see this as a "competition of struggles" and whoever struggled the most WINS! But that's not how it works. Should we discard the struggles of the Jews because we think their struggle was not as hard as blacks? Should we consider the struggle blacks face as illegitimate because some of us personally see the Jew's struggle as harder? See what I mean? I think may people have fallen into this trap of intellectual dishonesty. This is not a competition, no matter whose side will benefit from it being seen that way.
-
I can accept that we shouldn't compare the plight of individual groups. But what about my marathon analogy. Am I way off?
-
Let the government give gays the right to marry. I honestly think they should give this to them, and call it a day so we can work on things that are truly relevant to all members of society. And that's not a slight at gays either. I'm just saying the fact that there are so many people intent on preventing something from happening that doesn't even affect them to me shows that there's a serious disconnect on what should be important. And for those opposing it for religious reasons, fine. Oppose it in your own religion, but let Ellen and Portia pick up a marriage certificate and give them the union they're looking for under the eyes of the law. If, under the eyes of your God, it's an abomination, then that's your problem, don't marry them in your church (as if God cares more about preventing the tiny percentage of gays from marrying than preventing the dozens of millions of children starving and suffering all over the world.) I just don't think these religious reasons should interfere with the laws of the land. But whatever.
-
Don't tell me what I can't do! Ever! *ahem* Anyway, someone needs to overturn this crap law as soon as possible. That is all.
-
Dec 04, 2008 2:26:01 PM CST
The fact is the only people who voted for prop 98 are the bigote
by hst666
and the ignorant. I mean if California passes a law banning interracial marriages, are you people going to support it.
And if any of you out there disagree, please cite me one argument that is not based in bigotry, just one. -
i totally see them being torn from their families to be sold as slaves, beaten, whipped, tortured, forced to ride the back of the bus every day, and use different bathrooms or water fountains, and having bricks thrown in their windows, burning crosses planted in their yards, or having their churches burned to the ground, forbidden to VOTE in elections and referendums, and not being allowed to marry straight people. wait, no, I've never seen those things, that's just what you're comparing prop 8 to. stupid.
-
to think I came here looking for the dvd picks column
-
Seriously, when I saw the anti- prop hate ads, I always thought... wow.. they should have had someone else oversee the campaign. It should have been simple. They should have never even referenced the issue of "civil rights" (since it's a hot button race issue and could be used against them)... they should have stuck to simple ads saying "NO ON PROP HATE" and never even references the number 8. It would have stuck on a subconscious level. We should have stayed the hell away from ALL polling places with our signs. (make the other guys look like freaks, which they are) There were a LOT of bad choices, but this is all Monday morning quarterback stuff.
heh
Heh. STUFFED quarterback. Another gay funny reference. See, I gotta sense of humour about all this still. -
Dec 04, 2008 2:28:05 PM CST
If all hetero marriages are recognized as civil unions by the st
by hst666
then it would be OK for the state to only recognize civil unions and all would be treated equally. It's the disparate treatment under the law that is the problem.
-
You believe that I woke up one day and said "hey, it'd be cool to be gay!"? You believe that?
Your example of 4 celebrities is a really convincing argument. A couple of douchebags who want to be edgy, and you're convinced? A real powerful mind you have there.
If being gay is a choice, then do it for 5 minutes. Come on Snake, turn on the switch, and be attracted to Brad Pitt just for 5 minutes. Oh wait. That's impossible... Do you honestly not see how ridiculous your argument is?
I'm attracted to men, and I'm a man. There's nothing I can do about it. I have never, ever, even once been attracted to a woman. Same as you've never been attracted to a man. It's just the way I am. Lay off the hate man.
Either way, it's nice to know that progress is progress, and you're going to lose eventually. Hope you know that. Doesn't matter too much to me anyway; I live in a sane country: Canada. -
Dec 04, 2008 2:29:58 PM CST
why do people get upset when it's beaten fair and square?
by tennisboygr
We live in a Democracy. It got voted down, deal with it. Not saying it's right, but that how we do things. We vote, and if your side didn't get enough votes, then too bad. Get some signatures, get it back on the ballot, and vote again.
-
Yes, your analogy is off, though you did a nice job of presenting it. There is a huge difference between the rules of a privately organized recreational event, and the legal significance of having a marriage recognized by the government. If the government is willing to confer certain rights on people who are eligible to marry, then any people excluded from those rights are being discriminated against. Your analogy would only work if the marathon was sponsored by the government and participants were awarded some benefit, such as lower taxes. In that case, your legless protagonist would have a claim of discrimination. Nice try though (and I'm not being a wise ass, I really did think it was a nice try).
-
Yep, the largest African American turnout in US history coincides with the banning of gay marriage. So what have we learned? That hate and bigotry is rainbow flavoured and applies to everyone.
I don't know why people get so upset if a couple of fruits wanna put on a tux and swap rings. Does it effect the price of beer, gas, cigarettes, pot or porn? If the answer is no, then who gives a fuck? -
Ya know...this is just patently offensive. Why is it ok for people to rag on Jesus, and those that believe in Him...but if I ever ragged on a muslim, jew or other religion...then I'm a bigot.
I'm sorry...the hypocrisy is SOOO bad. Yes there are Christians out there with their own agendas...who misinterpret, or misread the bible. Here's the thing...Yes...Shrimp in the bible was considered bad...but guess what...that was removed later. However...at NO POINT in the bible is it OK to be gay. There are MANY contradictions sometimes in the bible...but being Gay is NEVER considered ok. That's not to say that Prop 8 was right or wrong. Just saying it's what it is.
Frankly I'm tired of these freaking 'lottery of life' winners and their holier than thou attitude toward me. It's insulting and I for one am tired of it.
Let the flaming begin. -
Take a look at my example of the marathon runner. Is it really an issue of civil rights, or of defining and re-defining institutions? Are we prepared to allow polygamists to marry? Maybe we are, I'm not one who pays a whole lot of care to these issues, but I can see where people are concerned about how are society allows definitions to be changed, when rights can still be given without changing definitions.
-
Whether gays have suffered as mush as the black man in America is irrelevant. By denying such things as hospital visitation rights, access to benefits, inheritance, etc. you are tacitly condemning a way of life. I realize your perception may be so narrow as not to see that, but please try to educate and think for yourself before spouting such stupidity.
-
there WILL be gay marriage in 20 years. You might not think so today, but in 1988 who would have ever thought we'd have a black president.
-
THIS ISN'T AN ARGUMENT. People going against prop 8 are saying the proposition ITSELF is unconsitutional in and of itself, therefore it can't be validated.
Why do none of you guys saying "it's a democracy, live with it" respond when we bring up past issues like slavery and inter-racial marriage? There're TONS of issues that people would've LIKED to have voted on, but didn't. Popular opinion should NOT be imposed on people. If it was, then bigotry would be the norm everywhere. -
like in India. A guy there married his grandmother, and another guy married...an elephant! No lie. Why don't we change all the marriage laws? Slippery slope, isn't it? Especially seeing how gays get all the rights and benefits of a civil partnership right now, anyways --
-
Okay, thanks for the reasoned response. I do have a question, does anyone know the legal differences set out between what is afforded married couples and what is afforded civil unions? The reason I ask, is that I find it interesting that there are no propositions that are seeking to allow Gay civil unions to get the same rights as hetero married couples. Honestly I don't think they care as much about the rights from a tax and legal sense, as much as the societal inclusion that "marriage" provides. To me that was my point with the marathon example. It isn't that the "racer" gets any different prize money or whatever, it is the societal adulation and understanding of what it means to "run" a marathon.
-
just because the details are different to a small degree doesn't mean they are not civil rights issues. Anyone who thinks its okay to ignore this issue because they think other issues are more pressing and important probably also feels its okay to temporarily suspend the constitution from time to time when things get a little tough. Yea the economy is a priority, but dealing with this issue doesn't interfere with the economy unless you want to criticize those organizations that spent millions of dollars getting the proposition passed.
-
Honestly, you think that will happen? You think people are going to legally recognize marrying animals? First off, it's not going to happen and you know it. Secondly, how can you refuse rights to a group "because it might lead to something else"? Uh oh! Better not give black and white people the right to marry, because then Asians and whites will want it too!
Can anyone come up with a SINGLE valid argument against gay marriage? Honestly? There hasn't been one in this entire talkback.
It blows my mind how some of you guys think like this. You guys that are so anti gay marriage: have you EVER met a gay person, aside from the one flaming guy in your high school? -
is that our demographic is about 90% males under the age of twelve (in terms of emotional/social development, if not actual age). There is no way to have a coherent discussion on this subject without giving most of us the shits and giggles. (An advance to those who will flame me for this stament: yes, in fact, I am speaking specifically about you.) That said, the idea of the mnajority voting on rights for the minority is ... well, it's nothing short of fascistic. Don't you all wish we'd had ballot initiatives in the south in the early 60's? Then we would have kept everybody in their place, and the gays wouldn't ever have considered seeking fair treatment. As a whole, you really are a bunch of mouth-breathing reactionaries.
-
"Seriously though - Get out and VOTE today. For the last 2 years this Election has been dominating our media in this country - and we're about to have the results tonight, but will you be represented in all those tallys? If you're not voting, I hope it's because you're either not a citizen or you're too young to vote. Otherwise, VOTE! Seriously - Get away from your computer and VOTE!"
"On November 4, in what is almosty certainly the most shameful element of the election, Proposition 8 was passed in California - essentially amending the state's Constitution to restrict marriage between same sex couples. Because, you know, love and commitment should only be honored and respected as prescribed by strangers."
CONCLUSION: (parody)"Everyone needs to get out and make sure their opinions are counted - unless you disagree with me, then you shouldn't get to vote and your opinion should not count. My opinion is the only one that matters here because I deem you not smart enough to participate." (end parody). -
Though the slippery slope argument is fallacious to begin with, but it stands to question. Should we allow marriage to be redefined to let a man marry his sister? To let a man marry a woman AND his daughter? I know, I know, slippery slope arguments are not logically strong cases, but I do think in this case by redefining what "marriage" is you open the door to questions about other types of unions. I think the biggest argument against that is that Homosexuals are a class of citizens, where as "Elephant Lovers" are not a known or recognized class of citizens, that I know of...hmmm, maybe they should be.
-
The point is the law should treat every one equally. Not everyone can be a fireman, an astronaut, or a surgeon because of either mental or physical issues. However, as a citizen, everyone should be treated euqlly under the law.
A more apt analogy is the one I posed. There is no difference between banning gay marriages and interracial marriages. Further, I would argue that if three or more consenting adults want to enter into a marriage they should be allowed to. However, in this case, I believe it would be equal treatment under the law to, for example, only require the employer to provide benefits for one of an employees spouses. -
As it stands, civil unions DON'T have the same rights as marriages do. On a state level, maybe, but since the federal government does not recognize gay marriage/civil unions (Due to the Defense of Marriage Act). That means that gay couples can't file joint tax returns, they can't collect social security benefits when/if thier partner dies, etc.....
-
Call it "Eternal Love and Devotion Ceremony" or something but give the EXACT SAME RIGHTS as Married people enjoy. Opponents seem to be stuck on the name alone mostly so let em have it. Its better to have something new and unique then to inherit the baggage and bad name marriage has anyway. It's THE RIGHTS that are the most important part of this, NOT the name
-
I might have more of a problem with these guys speaking out if they were not obviously correct the vast majority of the time.
-
Yes, in answer to your question, I have gay friends and some of them totally disagree with the whole gay-marriage thing. I also have black friends, asian friends, etc. and they all disagree with the whole gay-marriage thing too. But look at the facts - we are still talking about marriage between a man and a woman as far as ethnicities go. And why wouldn't marriage be granted in the future to people practicing bestiality if you start messing with marriage laws? Why would you want to deny them their basic rights? Or what about pedophiles? What about their basic rights to marry a little kid? Of course I'm not in favor of any of this, I'm just saying...slippery slope like I said.
-
I am still looking for a reasoned argument against my example. Mooseaka is the only individual who has responded, but I still challenge what legel differences exist currently between civil unions and marriages, and why homosexuals are not challenging to change the rights of civil unions, but rather to change the definition of marriage? Why is that? Why do we have to change the definition of a known institution in order to provide individuals the same legal protections, tax benefits, and status? I think it is because (though I could be wrong) that it is not really about that, it is more about the need for gays to tear down any and all definitions or institutions that might point to their relationships as in anyway different.
-
Civil unions just aren't good enough. Period. It's the same as telling someone to drink from a different water fountain. "Separate but equal" doesn't work. Don't pull your "sacred institution" crap either. If you really believed in that, you'd want to ban divorce, plain and simple. Regardless, the church's opinion is irrelevant.
And to those talking about the slippery slope: there're billions (yes, billions) of gay people in the US who want to get married, and can't help being the way they are. No one will possibly argue to me that a man wanting to marry his sister is the same; no one is completely unable to control wanting to fuck their sister. Secondly, even if they do, their relationship is outlawed because the children could be genetically deformed, which is a whole other issue...
Anyone? Anyone with valid arguments? -
read the Coyote's post
-
for granting me that point. That is exactly what I was trying to get across. Although I think I have heard of an "Elephant Lovers Club" in India...
-
Why does AICN keep posting all these inflamatory topics when you know it's just gonna turn into a shitstorm in the talkbacks? Unless of course you get paid per hit, in which case it brilliant!
-
Many in the Gay community will want to be recognized by the state as married as long as hetero marriages are so recognized. To them it will be perceived as "separate but equal" and I can sympathize with that position. And the right to gay marriage is not a democratic issue. If prop 8 had passed by a margin of 9:1 it should still be overturned by the Courts as unconstitutional.
-
Agreed. At least somewhat. It all comes down to the word "marriage". It's ultimately not about civil rights or discrimination or any of that. It's a bunch of people fighting over a word. And the people who don't want to change the word because of what thier religion dictates, well, let them have it. It was thiers to begin with. On a government level, just call EVERYTHING a civil union. That way everyone's equal under the eyes of the law, and straight couples can have a civil AND be married by a church in a religious ceremony. And a gay couple can have a civil union just like a straight couple, but if THEY want to get married, it'll be up to them to find a church that'll marry them.
-
Merrick, thank you for sharing your opinion, but you are in the minority. It is a wonderful thing Proposition 8 was passed. Some of us understand the financial, social, and legal problems which would arise from changing the cornerstone of society from traditional marriage. Again thank you to all who supported traditional morality and do not be over influenced by the opinions of movie critics when making political decisions.
-
gays make up only 3 percent of the population? Anybody?
-
Dudeone, you're an offensive biggot. You're comparing me to a pedophile and a guy who likes to fuck sheep. Thanks. First of all, those aren't even arguments. Animals and children can't enter into legal contracts, and can't make decisions for themselves about who they love. Done. Next.
Mel, thanks for being actually curtious. To your point: Gay people (like me) want marriage instead of civil unions because we're tired of being treated like second class citizens. Forgive me, but you're probably a white, straight male. Not to act like some holocaust sufferer or anything, but you have no idea what it's like to spend the majority of your adolesence with people calling you a "fag" or when a movie sucks, they say it's "gay". It may sound trivial to you, but it's insanely hurtful.
Gay people want it to be marriage, because separate but equal is not equal. Period. We know our relationships aren't "the same", do you think we're idiots? But the only thing that's different is genitalia. I've loved boyfriends in the past as much as you've loved girlfriends; my love isn't anything less than yours, and shouldn't be treated as such. -
I believe that is exactly the case in some European countries (any foreign readers want to comments?)
-
So what that we're only 3%? If a group is small, it doesn't serve fair treatment? Are you kidding me? Let's deny rights to Laos-born people because they're <1% of the population!
-
Good on you both; my hat is off to you both. Keep up the good fight, just remember that you are arguiing with 12 year-olds who learned everything they know from Ruch Limbauch, so there is no way for you to win this argument. Me, I've done this too many times on this site, so I'm going to sit this one. The hormonal stink exuded by terrified adolescent males is just too much for me today ...
-
...why don't we just make marriage totally ileagal and solve this problem for good. Kind of like in grade school when the teacher takes your candy away cause you didn't bring enough for the entire class. Everybody loses but at leasts its fair.
-
Marriage has always been en exclusive institution. Siblings and other close relations can't get married and bigamy and polygamy aren't legal in the United States anymore than homosexual marriage. Only marriage between one man and one woman is legal in this country, and as the citizens in even liberal California so clearly demonstrated, the VAST majority of the people in this country want it to remain so.So, unless you're willing to argue that you believe that two brothers should have the same rights to marry as you think two non-related homosexuals should have, you're pretty much just a hypocrite whose opinion isn't worth listening to.And if you DO think that two siblings should be allow to have the same right to marry as heterosexual couples, you're a sick, twisted nutjob whose opinion isn't worth listening to. :)
-
with another man, a midget, and a donkey, is their own gosh darn business. -Dave Attell
-
"Some of us understand the financial, social, and legal problems which would arise from changing the cornerstone of society from traditional marriage." Can you explain what you mean by this? How would any of this "change" because of gay marriage? Betcha $5 you can't ...
-
Of course that will happen, too. But at that point, it would be "Separate but equal" under the eyes of the CHURCH, not the state. And the church is certainly something that isn't subjected to democratic legislation. That would be a whole different thing. If we wanted a TRUE separation of church and state, we'd leave the word "marriage" to the churches and have government recognize every couple equally under a civil union.
-
that's what civil partnerships are for. Have everything legal to provide for both partners as it would be in marriage. But why should your group hijack the very definition of marriage to redefine it? Or any group for that matter. And why should the majority of the population go along with gay marriage if they don't agree with that redefinition? I also don't agree with people losing their jobs after contributing to pass Prop. 8. Is that fair to you? Or is it being discriminatory, hmmmm?
-
... Adolf Hitler won the election. So, think twice before saying such a thing. Prop. 8 was unfair. I thank God for living in a country that is allowing me to marry my other half in same equallity to any straight couple. It's about love, not lifestyle.
-
This board is moving so fast I'm falling behind. If my last post sounded argumentative, hst66, I didn't mean it to be. I agree with you.
-
It's a crappy little temper tantrum by effete Hollyweird liberals, to be sure. But if it keeps them from ripping the crosses out of the hands of little old ladies, I'm all for it. On the other hand, you know who else voted for Prop 8? By a supermajority? Blacks. Big time. And any casual listen to modern rap music will give you an idea of just what a lot of black youths think of gays. So what I propose is that all these limousine liberals should go down so south central L.A., find a group of young men wearing primarily red or blue colors or perhaps Raiders logos, and start sniping at them about the issue. Go on, really get in their faces about it! Let me know how that works out for you, lim libs. Or if you're in no condition to do so afterwards, at least have your next-of-kin drop us a note.
-
I wasn't comparing you to pedophiles or people who like sheep (you did that yourself). If you read my post correctly, you'd see what Mel picked up on, that when you start changing laws and definitions, anything can happen and often does.
-
there had been a vote on civil rights in Alabama? It is utterly ridiculous to think that a civil rights issue could be decided by vote. The point of civil rights is to protect those who are being discriminated against, especially by a bigoted majority. And here you have SnakeForeskin once again with his "cram it down our throat" argument. Seriously, why can no one tell me why homophobes always use this phrase? Can you tell me, Mr. 'being gay is a choice'?
-
As long as it's between consenting adults, I don't see why I should care who marries whom. A child or an animal or a corpse can't consent.
As for the difference between civil unions and marraige, I can see where the gay community would have an issue. This is basicly codifying descrimination against them into the law, if only in terminology. It boils down to a bunch of religious fuckwits using and abusing the laws and propositions to tell others how to run their lives (much like conservatives don't like laws banning religion from the public square), which in general will piss off whoever is being told how they should live. Why should YOU have the right to define THEIR relationship? That said, I think for now the gay community should push for equal civil union laws in every state, then revisit the terminology in a decade, after more of those old religious assholes are in the ground. They also should try to get the Mormon Church's tax exempt status revoked for playing politics in this case. -
so, you are saying that an older pedophile can marry a little kid because he's not in the majority? Because he's in the minority he can still have what he wants? That's okay?
-
...I would argue that two brothers should have the right to marry, or to form a civil union. I could think of any of a number of scenarios when that might be economically or fiscally beneficial. Just because you get married DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE POGO STICKING EACH OTHER. It's a social partnership recognizing certain rights in the eyes of the law. Take sex out of the equation because it is NOT relevant in this discussion.
-
Why do we all have to follow your version of the bible? And what's your bible belief got to do with our government? Our laws come from the constitution, not a bible. Would you agree that the government shouldn't have the right to "marry" anyone? Doesn't that power come from churches? The government should stay out of churches and churches should stay out of government. The gov. should only grant civil unions for legal/tax purposes (...to any two people who want them). I'm all for Jesus and the bible as a way of life, but it doesn't have any legal authority here and we're not a theocracy.
-
Why should you have to go along with it? Because it DOES NOT AFFECT YOU. How does two guys, who love each other, getting married affect you? Please tell me. Hijack the definition? Don't try to act like you're getting punished or something, it doesn't hurt any straight marriage. You guys should have to go along with it because it's the fair thing to do; just like how racists "had to go along" with the end of slavery and civil rights.
No, I don't agree that people who voted for prop 8 should've lost their job. I bet 99.9% of gay people agree with me. What? You expected me to disagree? LOL -
Consenting adults, asshole.
-
but the adults can. Like they do in Islamist states. The children have no say-so, they get married to whomever their parents want them to. And you are mad at Mormons only about Prop.8? Why take it out on them, it was the Hispanics and African-Americans who actually decided the vote in California. But it's less dangerous to accuse the poor Mormons, isn't it?
-
I'll have to study it closer, but right away I see a problem. We already have a constitution that essentially starts out with the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."
thing.. which is clearer than a lot of people would like us to think.
Your analogy assumes a comparison between a wheelchair bound person being able to compete in a running competition. There is nothing even remotely close in the marriage comparison. Legal males can have babies (women legally changed to males due to levels or hormones, examination, surgeries, etc), which means the equipment CAN be there in a marriage between males and males. Lesbian couples can have babies and adultery as grounds for divorce must first begin with a complaint and filing for divorce. No such filing or claim, and by law the adultery is inactionable. (this is not to say that someone in Pudunk, Where-ever does not have a law on the books that allows the state to press adultery charges without the consent of either married party) There we have the physicality aspect covered in the realm of at least possibility. (precidented loosely by the aforementioned case in which a 1/8th African American man was not allowed to ride in the "whites car") If it can happen, it must be considered.
Hope I haven't lost my train of thought here, but essentially you have something that is defined by religion. (stop denying it, folks, the definition of marriage you are using IS judeo-christian) You are comparing it to rules made by committee. We have already said in our most sacred legal text that we shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. No such precedent exists in regard to modern sporting rules.
Having said all that, we are talking about sharing a life with one other person, not participating in a sporting event. And even in the case of the sporting rules, we all go into them admitting we agree on the rules as they stand. Such is not the case when it comes to marriage, clearly. Majority is not really what I'm talking about.
People struggling for rights will NEVER BE THE MAJORITY!!!
If we did all agree that these rules should remain unaltered, we wouldn't even be talking about this. Here we are saying MANY of us want these rules to change. These rules changing do not do anything to harm your own personal unions. If they are lessened or cheapened in some way, it's a personal issue. Were there people who thought their experience riding in the same seats blacks sit in would be lessened, cheapened? Sure. But did we let these feelings interfere with the equal rights of other human beings? Just those feelings alone? No. Why? Because we all deep down know it would be wrong.
Here's a simple analogy I thought of recently that I think at least younger people can understand. Ever have that neighbor? You got a set of drums for your birthday. You soundproofed a room, made sure that you only practiced during working hours, never late at night? You go outside and discover that one house over, you can HEAR that drums are being played. Sure. But it's not even remotely loud. By any estimation. But then one day, the cops show up at your door at 5 pm. They ask you to keep it down. You know there's no real way to "keep it inaudible" except to stop playing. Yet, here's this neighbor, not "disturbed" by the noise. No. He's AWARE of it. It's not by any measure a disturbing level. But this guy wants it stopped. There's no way for you to explain to parents, cops.. anyone. They side with the disturbed man over the active young man doing something. There's no way to measure , prove or even explain why things "disturb" others, but we all know that there are those that do not want to be AWARE that any other human being is doing anything, anywhere near them. No matter how loud it is. Just knowing is enough for them to be "disturbed". Do we know the man's motivation? Never. But we do know that one young man was stopped from doing what he wants to do, in many cases completely. We all know that in most cases in society the DISTURBED amongst us usually win out against those DOING things. But is that right? In many cases, we require that the disturbed party prove that whatever action the accused is accused of is disturbing by some standard. And how do we define standards? By majority. There's the rub, eh? Well, not always. I had a neighbor that would stay up all night doing meth (not an assumption) and sit at his table. The moment we would close a cupboard, he would POUND on the wall and yell. We observed this behaviour. In front of the apartment manager one night, luckily for us. A lot of times, the disturbed need to be called out and made to prove the damage they claim. This is one of those times. Majority must NOT always rule. And the majority do not always even define standards. Should the Amish in a community be able to decide the rights of drivers in a community if they do not drive vehicles? If so, please explain below. There will be a test. ;) -
retty easy Mr. Monkey. You are looking at flooding the health care system with a significant influx of new partners which based off of even the most conservative findings would increase the cost of health care for the rest of us. The stability of gay relationships is by the numbers much less, you are looking at flooding the legal system with at least twice as many divorces and legal separations. You would also make any church, synagogue, child care provider, etc. prosecutable if they were unwilling to treat homosexuality as normal and healthy. There is plenty more, but hopefully most people care enough to research on there own. Thank you for asking.
-
We're so pissed at Mormons because they're a tax-exempt group that's playing politics, and contributed 25% of ALL money spent on the pro-prop 8 campaign.
-
Because it made crystal-clear how offense the idea of homosexual marriage is to most Americans, even in the state most friendly to that "lifestyle." If it'd been voted down, gay rights supporters would be CHEERING the "intelligence" of the voters. However, since they lost, the will of the voters is the FIRST thing they want to overrule.They're selfish hypocrites to whom "Democracy" is merely a tool to be used or discarded, depending entirely on whether it gets them what they want. How sad... :(
-
I would certainly NOT take it out on the Mormons in California. They are only responsible for bankrolling it.
-
All of you haters out there just don't like to see the truth do you? If you think that wasn't, you have your heads so far up your asses I'm surprised you actually know what a computer is, let alone how to use one.
This is a civil rights issue. Period. When civil unions give the same rights and privileges that marriage does, and is recognized by society as the same as marriage, this won't be an issue anymore. When I hear one argument that's against this, just ONE, that doesn't have religion as it's base, I will listen to it. You people for this disgust me because you have no clue that this basically writes into law in this state a discriminatory measure against a group of it's own citizens. Can any of you even begin to see the ramifications of that?
And Mindcrime - I'm pretty sick and tired of stupid and gullible people trashing my reason and common sense by saying christ, or allah, or zeus or whatever is imaginary. Personally I can't trash anything that doesn't exist, so I don't waste my time, but I WILL trash the idiots who believe in ANY of that crap. I'm an equal opportunity trasher when it comes to religion. I can only hope that you and everyone else like you somehow come out of your comas and back to reality. For all our sakes. It's not too late bro. Come on back.
And Dudeone - Seriously man, did your mother do drugs while pregnant with you? Or maybe drop you on your head at some point? I'm really curious. -
Whatever you say about consenting adults, changing the laws changes the definition. And no, Infinite Zero, I don't have to go along with it. It's not racism and it's not bigotry. But you can always say that to make people lose their jobs...I'll bet you cheered when they did. Seems like a whole new kind of fascism operating there.
-
Yeah, but they would never be stupid enough to put their rights, as a minority, up for VOTE! Are you kidding me? VOTE for or against rights? The only people FOR such things are those would would want to remove or prevent rights. It's pretty simple math.
-
but it's easier to attack them, isn't it?
-
How are same-sex couples "less stable" than straight couples? Have some statistics? Or just your own biggotry? I thought so. Also, straight marriages fail 50% of the time. Don't see how it can get much worse.
And you say "flooding the medical system"? Are you kidding me? Gay people have had to pay for YOUR straight marriage benefits for hundreds of years. Deal with. Equality is coming.
And churches WOULD NOT be prosecutable for not treating gay couples equally. That's a lie. Plain and simple. No one is trying to force churches into anything. -
Good for the Islamists. I know you long for a similar theocracy here, but there are laws which state a child cannot consent. Therfore you are an idiot. I'm suggesting they go after the mormons, because A. I hate the mormons, they are a sick cult. B. They are a religion, which is banned from politics and the government by the constitution. If they want to proselytize about their ideas of right and wrong, then fine. If they want to use their religion to raise millions to pass discriminitory laws, that is crossing the line into politics. And that is what they did.
-
I'm not saying "it's the Moron churches fault", but they definitely contributed. And why SHOULDN'T I be angry? Would you pissed at a group that bank-rolled 25% of the funds targeted at limiting your rights? Be honest.
-
Do you have any idea what it costs us all every year to treat uninsured people with COLDS in hospital emergency rooms???!! Seriously. Come back when you wake up to reality. This would SAVE money.
-
Or the government by the Constitution. You only make yourself sound ignorant by making such foolish statements.
-
I'm sure I have no idea what you have gone through, and I agree that homosexuals in our country have been shamefully and woefully treated. Including during this past election. I have no doubt that so much of what has been behind the support for 8 is pure and unadulterated homophobia and ugly hatred. This is sad, this is what makes me really upset. However, I still question the need to call homosexual unions marriage, it is completely re-difining the term, and that is where I have taken issue. I believe that homosexuals should have the same rights, and would absolutely support a proposition that would grant civil unions the same legal and protected status, but why marriage? I dissagree that it is the same as blocking interacial marriage. To me that was singling out a specific population and saying "you can not do something exactly as others do" However, with homosexual marriage, I see a specific population saying "we want to do something others do, and change it fundementally to allow our version." I think the problem with this proposition is that it is impossible to have a reasoned discussion without the bigots and the hatemongers jumping in to spew their crap.
-
So, you hate Mormons, that's your point??? And you call me an idiot, ha ha. If you aren't afraid of Mormons and want to go after the people who voted on Prop. 8, I suggest you go stand in East L.A. or South Los Angeles and yell "I Love Gay People" and see what happens. Go on. I double-dare you.
-
Marriage is the union of the two sexes, not just the union of two people. It is the union of a mated pair and it is signified by sexual acts which are procreative in nature, even if pregnancy does not happen. Two members of the same sex can never be said to be sexually married because it is not an act which can result in conception.
-
No, religions are not banned from politics. But tax exempt status is OPTIONAL. And they are on thin ice.
-
Sorry for getting heated. It's nice to actually be able to talk calmly in a talkback!
Like I said, why shouldn't the definition be changed? Marriage, in the legal term, is just that: a legal term. We want it changed, because we want to be equal. What I don't get is this: why DON'T you want it to be changed? I'm not trying to be rude, I just want to know. I don't see how it affects any straight person that gay people want to be treated exactly the same.
True, inter-racial and same-sex marriages being recognised are different in that the genitals aren't the same, but like I said, my love is the same as anyone else's. Do you understand how it feels to be told that you're "less than" or need "a separate definition"? God, I love being Canadian... -
I am making no religous claim whatsoever. Who says I even perscribe to a religion. I simply question why a societal constructed institution must be radically altered and redefined in order to provide individual groups "rights." My point, and ifinitezero is actually brave enough to explain this, is that it is more about perception of being a second class citezen and taking back legitimacy. But changing the definition of an existing institution, which matters to many people, seems arbitrary and radical for no reason. To me it is more about making a statement than issuing rights. Again, I do not see a proposition requesting the same civil rights for domestic partnerships as marriage, because I bet you would see that pass.
-
Show me a science text book that backs up what you just said. Please do. Marriage has NOTHING to do with science. By your argument, infertile couples shouldn't be able to get married since they can't reproduce.
-
Mormons. Hell, I don't hate Mormons. Some of the best people I've ever known have been Mormons. I just think this was a dumb move considering the history. (marriage rights... no blacks in some aspects of the church at a UNGODLY late hour..1978!!! people... 19 fucking 78)
-
Many gay rights supporters throughout this country are proving more and more that they're just as — if not more — intolerant, judgmental and "hateful" as they claim the people who oppose them are.
-
That is a pretty weak argument. I would guess you do not know how much it cost to cover uninsured cold victems and there is no apparent connection between colds and gay marriage.
-
But it IS for a reason! I don't know how else to say this, other than it makes you feel like sitting in the back of a bus for someone to give your relationship a different name, just so it doesn't offend other people.
Saying that we should just go for civil unions because it's more plausible is like saying black people should've been happy with their "3/5 of a person" treatment, since it's better than nothing at all. Gay people won't stop until we're completely equal. -
What's the point of arguing with these assholes? In their mind the USA was founded as a christian theocracy, and any evidence to the contrary is part of the liberal conspiracy. They all spout the same gibberish and ignore actual logic because they are incapable of rational thought. It's like arguing economics with cave men. They are only capable of parroting the same nonsense some higher bigot ejaculated onto the airwaves or into the pews. Just wait a few more years, there are very few of these morons among our generation. Once the old uptight "greatest generation" and Boomer fucks start getting put in the dirt where they belong, then we can move this nation out of the nineteenth century. They see the future and are afraid, because they fear actual freedom, and realize they are slowly losing the majority, and with it the ability to dictate the lives of others. In 20 years they'll be an angry, crazy minority shaping their lives around ancient mythology while trying to pretend science doesn't work and their god exists. Oh, and fuck the Mormons and the Christians.
-
Oh come on. Misrepresent? Misdirect? Misinterpret? Sure. No problem. But to LIE? Come on. Let's at the very least be genuine here.
-
Thanks for demonstrating my point.
-
Wow. That's insanity. You're actually usually the argument that because I don't sit down and shut up, I'm INTOLERANT of intolerant people? Are you serious? Really?
I'll paraphrase Dan Savage: gay people are sick of this. We're no longer willing to just accept "that we have different opinions on the subject"; how can this be an opinion?!?! I'm a PERSON just like you. It's not a political thing; it's whether you have a mind and can think, or not.
That makes me a biggot? That's the most ridiculous joke of an argument I've ever heard. -
when it's the only thing keeping them from shitting into bags strapped to their legs.
-
Can I get a collective WTF? It DOES cost ALL of us more to pay for uninsured sick people. Period. And I was not connecting it to the issue at hand, just responding to that issue alone, which I can... did... and will do from time to time, so do us all a favor and try to keep up.
-
I'm not really a gay rights supporter. I'm a militant atheist, sort of an anti-religious bigot. I think religious people believe in nonsense, and so are therefore only the weakest minded and most gullible of damaged minds. So yes, I am intolerant. How does it feel, bitch?
-
so, gay partners shouldn't have health benefits? - bullshit argument because they already have that under your wonderful domestic partnership solution. And gay relationships are less stable? With the average hetero marriage lasting now 4.8 years, I'd say you pulled that one straight out of your ass. But that's alright: there are infinite ways an intellectually dishonest person can support his position ...
-
Europe would be doing goosesteps and saluting the Swastika and how tolerant do you think they would be of gays then? Like Hitler was tolerant of gays? Gay people were his first target. But you are so full of hate you can't even see that.
-
That old "intolerant of the intolerant" thing is weak, old and the epitome of FAIL. It's almost as predictable as Godwin's Law.
Excuse me while I take out my tiny violin. Oh, poor you. Did we create an environment that is not conducive for your intolerance? -
The "Greatest Generation" single handedly stopped Hitler so they can oppress anyone they want! Thanks for clearing that one up DudeOne.
-
They actively believe in fairy tales, and seek to dominate political discussion and the government of this country. Their guidance has ruined this country. They seek to shutter science which works, and allows us to live our western lifestyles, while boosting faith, which in my mind, has never powered a vehicle or cured a disease. Someday mankind will outgrow the puny crutch that religion provides those who can't face the world without some invisible daddy figure watching their backs. Weak, pathetic, stupid people.
-
Funny how the same hollywood liberals that bitch constantly about "voter disenfranchisement" are the same people advocating overturning the Prop 8 vote. You guys lost! Deal with it by changing hearts and minds (mostly the 70% of African Americans that voted for it). The support of Prop didn't come from a minority of Bible-thumpers. It was voted in by a majority of staunch BLUE state voters.
-
...I'm with you all the way on this equal rights topic...but saying that churches would not be prosecuted for discrimination may be a little hasty. I mean even in some churches now there is a debate over gay priests and paritioners. If homosexuals were officially recognized with an institution like civil unions, there very well may be grounds for a discrimination suit. Also, what about church based hospitals and health centers and other charities. It's a pretty slippery slope...
-
Mr. Monkey, I'm not sure who you think I am, but I did not originate a domestic partnership solution. You are also refering to the average number of years for new marriages to last, that is quite misleading, you need to look at the numbers as a whole. A gay newspaper survey of nearly 8,000 found that gay couples lasted 3.5 years at the most, and lesbian couples lasted 2.2 years (P. Blumstein & P. Schwartz, American Couples, 1983). A recent study done in The Netherlands, which already has same-sex "marriage," showed an average of a year and a half.
Pulled the figures out of the newspaper not my back side, but thank you for showing me just what an intellectual dishonest person will stoop to. -
Wow, read the rest of the talkback please. So what that we lost? Prop 8 isn't constitutional, and the courts will decide as such. It doesn't matter that we lost.
-
the greatest generation. Let's not get confused on that. I just think a lot of people get sick of SOME of them forgetting the core of what they fought for. That upsets us. And it's not that we don't "get it". We do. Things change. And I know plenty of older folks that didn't carry all of those old intolerances into their old age with them. Don't let these guys drag you into the dirt and take you out of context selectively.
But we must also remember that the so-called "intellectual elite" thing didn't come from the Religious Conservative movement.
And don't try to invoke Godwin on me. I didn't say the word. -
I guess to you, the Greatest Generation only killed poor little Nazis who didn't deserve it after the Nazis had already killed millions of people by gassing, skinning and dissecting them alive...thanks for clearing that up, Chairman Koga!
-
infinite zero, I appreciate so much your candor and your reason, so thank you for that. I think what I see is a traditional and societal created function that has existed for centuries being redifined by those who have been subjugated to horrendous hate. However, these are mutually exclusive. Hate and homophobia should absolutely be destroyed in every form, but redefining marriage does not do this. Again, I think about the example of a racer who wishes to be called a "marathon runner" because of what it means societally. Does the individual who happens to be missing legs deserve to be treated the same? Yes, however they are different, in fact they acknowledge they are different, but why are they not celebrating this difference, instead they are looking for society to iradicate hatred by forcing a traditional definition to be radically altered to fit their needs. You have equated difference as being second class, yet you also (and rightly so) celebrate your differences and your uniqueness. So I fail to see the need to redefine what has been in existence for so long. If it was only about rights, then we would be talking about domestic partnerships, but we are not, we are talking about changing what is. Does this affect me? I don't know, does something that fundementally changes what it means to be married affect those who are married. On the outside, no, it really doesn't. But the precedence of making the change to be inclusive is a bit stupefying to me, I simply do not see the purpose. Finally, and I will say this, I am also dissapointed in the "No on 8" crowd for recasting the same hatred they have back towards those they oppose. They see homophobia in the "Yes on 8" crowd, and it certainly exists, but the epithets and the abusive spew I have seen lobbed against certain religions is astounding to me. I have friends who are jewish, mormon, and even (gasp!) the dreaded born again christians, and I am always suprised at how the latter two can be treated with such incredible hatred and distain, as though to hate this group is perfectly acceptable. To me this is hypocritical and counter to the very charge and cause that the liberal and open minded community is trying to make.
-
Marriage is not the scientific union of the two sexes. The biological union of the two sexes is a man and a woman getting it on and producing a baby. Given that, I vote we pass a law that says people who cannot reproduce in any capacity -- such as a woman who has had some of her parts removed, or a man who fires blanks -- are forbidden from marriage. And not just from marriage, it should be a crime for them to have sex. In fact, let's make sex a crime when it's done for pleasure's sake instead of for the sake of makin' children. You think our economy's bad now? Wait for the birth control and porn industries to crumble into dust.
-
First off, you didn't link us to any real sources. You couldn't made that up. Secondly, since when did a couple's length of being together mean anything? Britney got married for a day. Do you support a law saying that all marriages are on probation until they've lasted a certain length?
Also, your sources (which you didn't seem to cite...) talk about RELATIONSHIPS. Not marriages. Fail'd. -
The gays have kiled no one. The religious have murdered millions. We need to learn to ignore these bloodthirsty neanderthals. The liberals popularized the idea that everyone is entitled to their opinions, and all beliefs are equal. THIS IS WRONG. Some beliefs are demonstratably wrong, and the religious need to get the public derision their ridiculous fairy tales deserve.
-
What part of consenting adults do you not understand? An adult is someone who is at least 18. Therefore, any marriage between an adult and a kid is not between consenting adults. Do I need to break it down further for you?
-
the Greatest Generation ever forgot what they fought for. I know quite a few of them. But why even bring them into the conversation that the whole Prop 8 thing has anything to do with them? I mean, what the..?
-
That Chairman Koga guy sucks!
-
But if they want to do things like discriminate, perhaps they should consider paying taxes?
-
Aren't you reading these posts? I already addressed that. Like twice.
-
I still don't agree with your argument, RE: the marathon runner. No one thinks that gay marriage will eliminate hatred, what it will do is finally stop gay people from being a "separate thing", we just want to be like everyone else. I know I keep coming back to this "equal" thing, but that's really all I have. Just to try to imagine what it'd be like yourself, and you might agree with me.
And yes, the select few who've gone on attacks against groups who supported prop 8 are shameful. But what I find even worse, is black people trying to vote down another group's rights. It's so backwards that it makes me physically sad. -
...is that even possible?
-
I was trying to use hyperbole... :P
-
I didn't bring it up. And yes, I know quite a few and MOST did not forget but many did. (support of the "patriot" act is an example) Older people sometimes find it difficult (or uncomfortable maybe) taking the time to put things in context. A lot of us grew up in a world they made free, that taught us to put things in context with a magnifying glass. I'm forever indebted and thankful to them for that. But it doesn't negate reality. And pointing it out does NOT negate their sacrifice and TRUE patriotism.
-
You may have explained twice how gay marraige = pedophile marraige, but no one understood it because it was so stupid. Could you try again, and this time find an adult who understands cause and effect to help you with it?
-
with the term "SUPERFRIENDS". All uppercase like that. Problem solved, right?! YEAH!!!!!! Actually, I'm for gay marriage in the fact that I don't care if gay people get married. I don't care if someone marries a goat. I really don't care what anyone does honestly, as long as I don't have to do it and it doesn't hurt anyone. I don't think that slippery-slope exists that much either. I can't imagine that many people want to marry an animal or a relative. More then I want to believe, but not that many.
-
It's nice to see the non-biggots take over the talkbalk for once.
-
Your hatred of those who perscribe to a religion is truly horrifying. You know there was similar sentiment that floated around toward a certain Hebrew tribe in eastern Europe during the 20's and 30's. I think that sort of talk is dangerous, personally, not to mention incredibly ignorant as well.
-
and bears... oh my.
Seriously, the closer analogy would be THEOCRACY=Pedo Marriage. -
Why should people be asked to tolerate bigots? Why shouldn't they condemn them for the narrow-minded simpletons they are? Are you saying I should not criticize the clan? What about the Chinese Government?
-
Honest question: If religion is as detrimental to individuals and society as you say, why have millions of years of human evolution produced a planet vastly populated by God-believing/religious people groups. To me, the prominence of God/religion, from a Darwinist perspective, makes no sense. Any organism(s) believing in a God to help it cope instead of adapting to its environment would have died out immediately.
-
There is a simple reason why tax exempt status will never be taken away from religous groups, no matter what they preach. And that is our friends in Scientology. Those people are the true Illuminati of our time and have more power than you could possibly imagine. Just typing this statement is getting me red flagged by their lawyers.
-
Best part about being gay: chicks will tell you dirty shit, and you get to piss off straight guys that you know it. Also, when girls will make out with you just to annoy/drive straight guys crazy. It's fun.
-
Societal issues don't play into evolution. Your argument makes no sense. Are you trying to argue that because the majority of people have religion, from an evolutionary standpoint, God must exist? Are you serious?
-
Wasn't that hatred for ONE religion? And criticism is not hatred, although many religious folk would have us all think it is. Since it's all sacred and stuff. You know, makes it kind of hard for anyone to criticize it. Kind of why they've all been around so long. It's like a textual defense mechanism.
And the sad reality is that statistically, Atheists are more hated and distrusted. See any in office? Lack of qualification? Hardly. The opposite in many cases. -
Isn't it refreshing?
-
So pointing out that religion is a dead ideology that has killed more then it has helped is the same as the Nazis? The crazy crypto-christianity of the Nazis helped lead to the Holocaust. I'm not advocating murder. How many hebrews have died due to fanatical islam? Or christianity? The Catholic church aided the holocaust. Churches are just social clubs where idiots get together to decide how much better they are then everybody else. I'm just tired of people who believe in an invisible boogeyman living in the sky trying to tell me how to run my life.
-
this other video @ FOD:
http://tinyurl.com/5jpr47
HAR! Argue with that, prop 8aters!.... Huh??? Oh, crap! I meant this link: http://tinyurl.com/62le9v (gotta keep my private life outta these talkbacks...) -
Like a tall, cool drink of WIN.
-
Actually there is some evidence of a "God gene"; e.g., a genetically inherited tendency to believe. There are lots of Darwinistic reasons that may have been passed along. For example, as our brains got bigger, it may have contributed to tribalism, which helped our ancestors survive.
-
"WIN" tastes like cinnamon toast.
-
I need to study for exams. I'm out of this talkback. Later haters (and some non-haters).
-
I was getting a kind of cinnamon toast crunch thing. But yeah! Yum. Win is tasty.
-
Yeah, but by definition you don't truly enjoy the dirty shit or the making out, at least like a straight guy would...
-
Nearly all modern religions prosthelytize. They exist because they are social groups that get together and force their beliefs on others, often times thru extortion or murder, historically. It has nothing to do with the biology of our species, aside from the fact there are a lot of stupid people in the world, and religions seem to put a high value on pumping out tons of kids...
-
I find that stuff infinitely fascinating. Did you hear about the experiments with that one scientist's "god machine". He'd stimulate this one area of the brain and people would have religious OR alien visitation visions. Or a sense of an "other" presence.
http://tinyurl.com/5dgtj5
(links to Discovery article about it)
What I always found funny was the link between religious experience and sexual pleasure. No wonder it's so friggen powerful. And it makes it SO much more interesting when you see those videos of people experiencing "religious ecstacy". Convulsions? Glossolalia? Hmmm. Sounds familiar. -
Non-secular swindlers! You wanna play? You gotta pay! Then you get to have a say! Otay?You know what...agree or not...if you can't enjoy the circling of the drain...what's the point ya know? Fortunately, I've practically got front row seats and the show gets better and better every year! Bring on the dancing girls with exposed boobs on public TV again! We need more fines so we can buy more god damn pop corn! I don't want to see talking heads on my tv..I want to see BOOBS! With nipples! Attached to female bodies not collecting social security! As deep as a bird bath I tells ya!
-
I'm thinkin' your missing the point. But if your name is right, you ain't missing a meal! ZING!
-
We had this conversation the other day in Massawyrms review of MILK. There were some hardcore anti gay marriage motherfuckers and not a single one of them could explain without a religious fervor why gay marriage is wrong. They would always eventually cave and resort to non arguments like pedophelic marriages would then be legal or it would hurt society. When asked to provide any examples of that using Massachusetts as an example not a single one of them could even begin to do so. It's a non argument and it WILL be legalized. You fucking conservatives just fight one losing battle after the next. You've galvanized the community with Prop 8 and we arent shutting up until gay marriage is legal. It will be brought to your doorstep and be on the news EVERY. SINGLE. NIGHT. until it happens, so get used to A LOT more talkbacks just like this one.
-
'Cause I'm gay and stoopid. Like, I hear straight, married people NEVER engage in sodomy. Or multi-partner sex. Or have affairs. Or get divorced. Or marry someone of a different race or religion? Is that true?
-
Religious nutjobs are always prosthelytizing! They are always trying to force their beliefs on us! They always think they know better than everyone else!!! It's arrogant madness!!! Someone needs to tell all these fanatical Hollywood no-on-8 people that they don't know better than us! To quit with their constant propaganda! And to quit judging the majority of the people out there just cuz they're against gay marriage!
-
It's a democratic republic. If this were a democracy, you'd be typing that on WEB-TV.. or writing to a paper. Owned by Murdoch. And it would never be published. You used the F word, which was made illegal by VOTE back in 88.
No matter if the so-called "democracy" leaned left OR right, the minority would always be the loser. Not a great environment for innovation, prosperity... hell it wouldn't be a good environment for much at all except REALLY poor, unsatisfied people who wished they lived in a democratic republic. With porn, and booze. Which would be illegal. Because chronically masturbatory drunk people are lazy and do not vote. (present company excluded) -
I mean by your logic that's what Democracy is all about right?
-
That's one. Oh wait. Well, I guess just because I disagree with him doesn't mean I have to be mean to him. So yeah. I vote he never be married, so he can be happy and fulfilled and complete. A few times.
-
How about we get together and try to make marriage ITSELF illegal. That way more people will live full, happy lives. And there will be more SPILFs in the world.
-
People are not "granted rights" based upon how people vote. This country has always held people are "endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights." And, BTW, this same creator made your butthole so you could poop out of it, and made woman for man and man for woman. Enough with all the hateful hollywood propaganda against people not socially validating people's prison-sex proclivities!
-
When a member of a gay couple is sick, his lover cannot enter the emergency room, cannot help decide the best care for the one they love. Gay couples are discriminated in the most evil and inhuman way. Their love is said to illegitimate and not worthy of societies recognition. Then the right wing and religious families who've abandoned these sick gay people, take over and act on behalf of the person they abandoned. Imagine watching the love of your life dieing, then going home to changed locks. This has happened over and over and over. I don't care about gay marriage, I care about equality and a society that complexity accepts all forms of adult love.
-
Chronically masturbatory drunk people are tired and dizy, and need fluids. I'm not lazy.
-
ONLY, then why do so many people (not just gay males either.. I'm talking your girlfriends, guys.. yep) seem to enjoy things going in both directions? A LOT. I mean this one time.. ok I'm gonna stop now.
-
Good pint. I mean point.
-
a society that completely accepts all forms of adult love.
-
"The BIGOTS always come out in force on AICN"??? Really Industry Killer??? That's so typically juvenile of the left. AICN has thrown out the first salvos, the first attacks, by posting all this in the first place. The pro-8 people then defend themselves against the crap AICN political posts. How do you really expect people to respond when they're being attacked as shameful and biggots when they log onto a site supposedly devoted to movies, but has henceforth turned into a forum for leftwing propaganda? Don't attack us, don't bring this shit up on this site and there won't be a problem
-
You know, that's really really sad. And what's even more sad is that I never even considered that part of it. The one person who cared for them coming home to changed locks, locked out by the people who abandoned their children/brothers/sisters in life. Sick, sick and evil. Truly.
-
...Of two scenarious. 1. They actually believed they were voting FOR gay rights, or 2. They are backwards savages who would do humanity a great favour by being dead. That said, this is as true a demonstration of democracy as you can get. My issue is, if you can vote out gay marriage, why can't you vote out drug laws?
-
we would all be more free.
-
You're ignorant. Civil unions are NOT equal to marriage. Not by a fucking long shot. Do some research.
-
hands down, you don't get it. You don't have a right to dictate honest Americans lives.
-
or Tradition are not good arguments in America. I believe in God and I'm a christian. I'm also black and think that separate but equal is demeaning and purely bigoted. Our country is founded on the idea that everyone is equal and has the same inalienable rights. There's no equivocation of that fact... we all have a right to what we all have a right to. That is it. When the next President of our country was born into a relationship that used to be punishable by lynching, the idea that what has always been should NEVER be acceptable. America is about getting it right... sometimes we screw up but the people don't have to let the government or even the establishment off the hook for that. We can march, we can protest, we can file lawsuits, we can elect officials who will work for our goals and nominate to the bench judges who will do the right thing. Prop 8 the Musical is just one little piece of politically motivated entertainment. It will be spread virally around the internet and people will discuss the issue... You disagree with the piece? Fine.... don't pass it along... just know that the Majority Rules argument disappears as the old and out of date pass on. The old Majority always dies and falls out of power then the new majority rules. In the case of Prop 8 regardless of race, religion or orientation 70% of Californians under 30 voted against prop 8. This thing got by with something in the neighborhood of 51-52%. How long do you think that percentage is going to hold out? The day will come in our lifetimes when every American couple can marry in every state in the union. Count on it... This is the newest front in the fight for civil rights. I wasn't here for the 60's or 70's but I'm here now.
-
Bigots never admit their own bigotry. I'm sure there are Klansmen who say the same thing about wanting the best for society and blah blah blah. But what is your reasoning against gay marriage? I bet you'll flail impotently with irrational arguments like allowing beastiality or this imaginary fabric of society your ilk seems to talk about but never define, but what it comes down to, in your little minds, is that you find homosexuality to be disgusting. And denying a basic right, something we let mass murders do, to a group of perfectly capable consenting adults is rank and file bigotry and I'm not gonna sugarcoat it to avoid hurting your feelings. I find religious fundamentalism disgusting, but I would never dream of taking your basic rights to life away, and I don't expect you to do that to anyone else.
-
This is not going away. So if it bothers you that much, maybe there's a nice Limbaugh forum where everyone agrees with you. Honestly. I mean, suck it up or get out. Or stay and disagree. But whining about liberal "propaganda" and left wing bias is getting real old, real fast. Remember a few years back when junior first was elected? Well it's basically that in reverse. There's gonna be some gloating. And not every opinion that you disagree with is the spouting of propaganda and talking points. Just some of it.
Take for instance the health nazis that basically want to do everything except ban legal substances like tobacco. Bad for you, sure. But do we need all these "it takes a village" liberals to tell us what to do with our bodies? Last time I checked, we PAY.. a LOT for health care. Even if health care becomes a right, they have NO business enforcing what I put into my body. Educate me? Sure. Convince me? You bet. But by law? By force? Screw that. Pretty much, "for your own good" friendly fascist liberals piss me off in some ways worse than a lot of religious conservatives. So, get in line. We all have opinions, and not all of us are the same. We'll agree, we'll disagree and we'll flame like HELL. But it's NOT going away. Especially not right now.
And let me add as an offering of peace, a little... maybe? Even those I have disagreed with here are mostly NOT idiots. We're a smart bunch, we talkbackers. For the most part. Go look at youtube some time. wow. -
Guess what, all these people who make films, all these artists, big time Liberals. So if you wanna watch our products you better get used to it because the liberalism aint going anywhere. Not in our films, not in our film websites. Otherwise you can make your own conservative slanted films. I'm sure you'll have a blast watching An American Carol and Birth of a Nation for the 78th time.
-
Encore.
-
It's almost kind of exciting how this movement is really galvanizing people. I went to a rally a few weeks ago and it''s just really brilliant seeing everyone fight for something unequivocally right. After this fight is over and we are all equal it will be nice to be able to look at myself in the mirror and not be ashamed, I doubt the other side, deep down, will be able to do the same.
-
2% of the population have the same legal rights as married people but can't call it marraige. OH NO!!!! Anyone who wants to say it is more than 2% is full of shit. Drunk college chicks making out at bars to tease the guys are not lezbians.
-
Minority rights should never be decided by the tyranny of the majority.
-
Honestly, I was never really that drunk. I'm just a lightweight with a single can of malt liquor looking for an excuse to say "ooh, I didn't mean to be THAT rude" tomorrow.
Having said that, I meant every word.
In any case, ALL of you have a great and safe day. I'm out. -
Wait, your last post riffed on ME! Does that mean you're desperate as well? And, thus, are you free tonight? [Fluttering eyelids, making kissing motions with lips]. I've never been a chubby chaser, but any port in a storm, as they say... Oh, was that riffing again? Damn! I'll never get a date....
-
You must have a very busy, productive, intersting life, huh? Were you cranking Indigo Girls on your Ipod while marching?
-
MorbidObesity, it's called "levity", not goofing (although I called it "riffing"). Everyone in this talkback seems SO tense. I think they all need a back rub (Music cue: "Thump, thump, thump..."_
-
When a member of a gay couple is sick, his lover cannot enter the emergency room, cannot help decide the best care for the one they love. Gay couples are discriminated in the most evil and inhuman way. Their love is said to illegitimate and not worthy of societies recognition. Then the right wing and religious families who've abandoned these sick gay people, take over and act on behalf of the person they abandoned. Imagine watching the love of your life dieing, then going home to changed locks. This has happened over and over and over. I don't care about gay marriage, I care about equality and a society that completely accepts all forms of adult love.
-
There were so many conservative twats on this site! You guys are literally losers - you just lost the White House, the congress, and any shred of self-respect after the McCain campaign. And whether now or down the line, you're gonna' lose the anti-gay bullshit as well. Tough luck, assholes. Your desperate old man candidate and Caribou Barbie couldn't hack it and your god-appointed savior of the last 8 years is the worst president in US history. Wow, it sure sucks to be you right now. So yeah, by all means, take it out on Hollywood and this amusing little video. Fuckin' pathetic right-wing pieces of shit.
-
Why is the % of the population relevant? Are you arguing that because a group is relatively small (even though 2% is what, 6 million people in the US?) that it's OK to ignore them? Are you serious?
-
Dec 04, 2008 5:07:58 PM CST
Society has no interest in "all forms of adult love"
by whinynegativebitch
Most people don't like homosexuals. Most people don't like homosexual sex. Why would most people vote to support their right to marriage, when it's just as easy to vote against it? Sure, it won't affect them in any personal way, but the U.S. isn't about personal freedom, and laws in most countries aren't made to protect the people in general's person or property. They are for the benefit of a small few. Thats why they throw out unimportant legislation like this for people to vote on. It makes no difference to those who matter wether fags get hitched or not.
-
because it was a movie site, I'm not sure what the fuck it is anymore. Nobody gives a shit about your political views. MOVIE NEWS please.
-
I can't even tell if you're for/against gay marriage, but either way, please don't say "fag" man. It's not cool.
-
It's Religious/tribal bullshit for the primitives. When you find your mating partner just go visit the old Lawyer and have a parenting contract drawn up that will give you a little safety if things turn sour... oh wait the gays can't do that! Assholes and rubbing fannies together don't make babies!
Besides what is with all the people here and their "Majority rule" bullshit? Wasn't the voting definition of "majority" changed from 50% to 60%? I'm sorry but the Majority lost!
And the video is funny. Nothing wrong with it the religious people who are offended are just touchy and are willing to don their KKK battle armor to ease their blood lust when their religion of choice is politely question by those of no faith/other faith. -
I SO agree with you. That's why my posts have been so self-mocking and stupid. Let's get back to takin' MOVIES, people!!! Maybe AICN needs a new section: "Sticking the Pole in the Hornets' Nest" for political, etc, posts.
-
g-ride, you're about 10 years too late with that argument.
Rebeck, be aware that (like most liberals) you will always be an incredibly unhappy, frustrated person no matter who is in control of government. So march at the rallies and cry about the injustice of the world but in the end you still are who you are and no external force (government or otherwise) will help you. In other words, Nancy Pelosi or Obama can't save you from being this bitter little loser you are. Now feel free to swear some more you happy-go-lucky fella. -
Ummm... "Birth of a Nation" was a liberal film. As I recall, Woodrow Wilson was its biggest fan and thought every American should see it. And Hollywood is liberal because they are intolerant fascists who black list those who disagree with them.
-
I like to meld a punk rock aesthetic with my latent homosexuality. I have very ecclectic tastes though, I'm also into Melissa Etheridge, Sleater Kinny, Frankie Goes to Hollywood, solo Freddie Mercury, Liberace, Elton John, Tegan and Sara, KD Lange, the B-52's you know, your typical middle American tracklist.......Douche bag....
-
and I hate it! Keep hitting the wrong keys at the wrong moments. Anyway, I meant to say, that should be "talkin", not "takin'". Still hate this keyboard...
-
Prop 8 was approved by a majority of voters in California. The reaction by so many of the losers is truly disturbing (and childish).
Don't like it? Get enough votes to repeal it. Trying to redefine marriage after, oh, about 4,000+ years of human history is bound to run into a few snags, eh? -
I think its cool. Legally speaking we're allowed to discriminate against the homo's now right? I mean, didn't the vote clear up the whole equality issue? It was decided that homosexuals are not actually worthy of the same rights as normal people? Seriously, don't take it out on me just because the law makes it clear that some are more equal than others. On a very slightly more serious note, I refer to my gay friends as fags all the time. Although I do use the term poof more. But then again, I grew up in the homo capital of the world and sucked cock, so I guess I'm not up to date on what is and what isn't offensive for the straight gay issue sensitive community at the moment. Can we still use queer, or is that only a regional thing? I think the thought police need to really get a good publicly accessible list drawn up.
-
And I say this with all the respect you're due - you're a fucking moron! And a bigot! Sorry to tell you, but your lame justifications for putting hate in the constitution are going out of style. But keep it up - because it's those kind of "Republican Values" (you know, where godly senators troll public restrooms) that will keep you out of power for the next 20 years. You're about to become a dinosaur, buddy.
-
"This is not going away. So if it bothers you that much, maybe there's a nice Limbaugh forum where everyone agrees with you"
Thats the whole issue... if I WANTED to initiate conservative rants I would. If I WANTED to read liberals attacking conservatives, I'd go to such a site. I don't want to come to AICN for that.
You're right, as far as larger society goes, the issue isn't "gonna go away." Nor am I suggesting it should. But as far as AICN goes, it SHOULD go away. -
For someone who claims to be ambivalent on this whole marriage thing, you sure don't seem to have any sympathy for the pro-marriage side. Really. We could talk this over dinner. And then maybe go see "Twilight" and...........
-
"This is not going away. So if it bothers you that much, maybe there's a nice Limbaugh forum where everyone agrees with you"
Thats the whole issue... if I WANTED to initiate conservative rants I would. If I WANTED to read liberals attacking conservatives, I'd go to such a site. I don't want to come to AICN for that.
You're right, as far as larger society goes, the issue isn't "gonna go away." Nor am I suggesting it should. But as far as AICN goes, it SHOULD go away. -
Dec 04, 2008 5:18:32 PM CST
We blacklist, just look at that flaming Liberal McCarthy
by industrykiller!
Yeah just a bunch of blacklisters the lot of us. I mean it's not like Jon Voight is in a metric fucking ton of high profile films every year or on one of the most popular TV shows out there.....oh wait.
-
I agree with your general intent, but your statement is incorrect. Majority does rule in a democratic republic like ours. However, you are absolutely correct that individual rights are not subject to a democratic vote. That is what is meant by protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority (and has nothing to do with the electoral college as some of the less informed on here have stated in previous talkbacks).
-
I still have no idea what you're even getting at in your post. On the "fag" issue, I'm not being the though police, give me a break. It's not socially acceptable to use the "n" word, and if someone calls another on using it, they're not called the thought police. It's the same issue.
-
Is your Ipod skin pink or sparkly?
-
PUH LEEEZE bitch! Get with the times.
-
make your arguments worthless...just saying
-
against gay marraige? Are they hate-filler, bigoted homophobes or just political cowards?
-
...What is it with NeoCons and giant Hollywood conspiracies. Your almost as odd as the Alex Jones supporters. There is no great big blacklist of right wing film makers. There is a black list of film makers who are perceived to be financial losers. Sure, more patronage gets tossed the way of the liberal arts, just as it has done through the entire history of western civilisation. Thats because thats where the good work is being done. Most neocons don't produce good art work for the same reason they fail adhering to a sound political idealogy; Being Great Big Fucking Morons.
-
Thats right Morbid, its those terrible Mosque dwellers that really deserve protesting. Bunch of terrorist loving savages the lot of em.......My God do you see the bigotry and racism that comes out of these peoples heads the further down the rabbit hole you go?
-
Well played sir!
-
Don't worry, guys. I'm perfectly HAPPY since the election. I'm very happy and very proud to be American. Unlike your loser-ass Republican party that is on suicide watch at the moment. Or in the Intensive Care Unit - choose your analogy. You guys are completely fucked either way. And what a glorious affirmation of the American way that after the clusterfuck of this idiot dictator we've been saddled with for eight years, the US has rejected all your fear-mongering and hate-filled ways. Oh I'm happy. You're the ones who are bitter. And like I say, by all means, don't learn anything from this total failure, keep spouting the same crap... That's what we want. It only makes our point for us and makes you more irrelevant.
-
No its not right for you to call me on it, and it IS socially acceptable to use the term. Thats why I use it my everyday life. The only time it's been an issue is when I've used it as an insult directed at straight people, who find it slightly less hard to take than Bitch. If you don't like people using certain words, why don't you draw up a proposition 9, outlawing the use of words that offend thee.
-
Check the receipts for the last 10 Oliver Stone movies and rethink your last argument.
-
I would say Obama is unequivocally for gay marriage, he just cant say it out loud. I agree its political cowardice, Im not above criticizing that. Hopefully he makes up for it with action though, Im guessing in his second term we'll begin to see him get more involved and he'll appoint judges with empathy for the cause.
-
Okay, for the last time: I'm trying to make a joke! HAH! HAH! Not at your expense, but at both sides of this argument. I'm not trying to "shock" anyone, just poke some fun at both sides. The only reason I keep responding to you is, you're the ONLY one who keeps responding to me. And now, for another joke in your last reply, "Have the angry gay protesters been marching INSIDE a mosque up until now?". See, joke. J-O-K-E.
-
While I think TonyTodd's a toad, I still wanted to inject a little light into the dark anger here on the talkback. I just watched this with my little boy wandering around the room, playing with justice league action figures. He stopped to look at the computer screen and said, "That's not Jesus Christ. That's Jack Black." Pretty good for a six year-old.
-
Has ANYONE ever, EVER bought one of those stupid "Busted Tees" that advertises on this site? My jokes may not be the best ever (that's for sure), but at least I'm not printing them on shirts and hoping some poor soul buys one.
-
He doesn't care about gays, straights or inbetweens. All he gives a fuck about is serving him and his. The biggest CHAAAAAAAAANGE you can expect from Obama is the letter head on white house stationary. For all the homosexuals crying about prop 8, why not pick up hollywood and move it to one of the states/countries that allows gay marriage. Let Arnie figure out how to get the mormon film industry to generate the same income for the state.
-
Political Cowards 100%
-
No I haven't bought any of the Tees but i have jacked off to a few of the models wearing them. The red head with the big tits is my fave.
-
...Are both films that had nothing to do with his liberal politics. One even played to the reatarded conservative heart. His biggest success' have been about football and left wing politics. Retard.
-
I would prefer Obama to appoint judges that objectively interpret the law as opposed to showing "empathy" and championing a cause by legislating from the bench. This is my major problems with liberals.
-
we have two completly irrelevant posts, one about Harry's eyeballs (which is actually WAY more relevant than this post) and this one. No wonder Mori went to work for a new movie site.
-
Once again, look at the receipts from his last 10 movies. Not 1989!! I'm sure the Hollywood Execs believed that W. would be a massive Blockbuster. Oh and that Castro Doc really almost beat out STAR WARS for all-time box office. You're very good at this debate thing, aren't you?
-
Once again, look at the receipts from his last 10 movies. Not 1989!! I'm sure the Hollywood Execs believed that W. would be a massive Blockbuster. Oh and that Castro Doc really almost beat out STAR WARS for all-time box office. You're very good at this debate thing, aren't you?
-
Your problem with liberals is that they objectively interpret the law which recognises that homo's getting married is legal. What the fuck does any of this shit have to do with liberals and obama. Its about wether two men (cause lets face it, buttsex is what makes the right feel ill, not lesbots being touchy feely) can have the same legal rights in a partnership as a man and a woman. Its that simple. If you don't believe they should be able to, tell me why, without blathering on about The black messiah and stalinesque berkley students. Why don't you want to afford a man and a man in partnership the same legal rights as a man and a woman?
-
Are stupid enough on first reading, we don't need to see them all twice.
-
anyone else notice that when subjects like this come up we are inundated by a whole bunch of angry, bigoted assholes we've never heard of before? This is an organized attack by a bunch of right wing "christian" (and I mean that in the "our way or die" sense of the word, not its ture meaning) idealogues. Go home, you assholes.
-
conservative judges are unbiased?
-
They have the same rights right now to property and everything else. Every major politician is for Civil Unions. They just can't change the definition of marraige. That is all this is. So fucking what??!! If it gets voted in and the definition is changed, then fine. I totally accept it. I don't want the Mass. Supreme Court ordering their state legislature to create a law. It is not the place of judges to create laws. My argument goes a little beyon emotional hysterics so guys like Rebeck will have a tough time following it.
-
Like W was a good caretaker? I WISH Bush Jr. had been an empty suit and not a walking catastrophe whose destructive ignorance was only surpassed by his arrogance. Who did you vote for in 2000 and 2004? Hm? Can you tell me that? And if it was for the "complete disaster", shouldn't that kind of ruin your credibility when it comes to judging (or rather, prejudging) Obama's character?
-
Budget/Gross
W. 25mil/25mil
WTC. 63mil/70mil
Alexander. 155mil/85mil
Commandante. No info
Any Given Sunday 62mil/75mil
U Turn 19mil/6mil
Nixon 50mil/13mil
Natural Born Killers 34mil/72mil
Heaven and Earth 33mil/5mil
JFK 40mil/104mil
So, his two biggest hits from his last ten movies were an ultraviolent left wing treatise on media exploitation and a paranoid left wing conspiracy theory regarding the liberal god JFK.
Again, whats your point? Why don't we tally up the box office takings of An American Carol...
Budget 20mil, revenue 7mil.
I guess you will always have The Passion Of The Christ. -
...Because hes an anti semite and staunchly religous. Thats why he couldn't get the funding to make his crazy indian movie!
-
That's why NO ONE can follow it. Bottom line: Should gay people be able to do anything that straight people can do? Yes or no. That's the only question, so answer it without evasion. Yes or no. Real simple. Human rights, schmuck. You're on one side of the line or the other. No finessing or massaging your bigotry.
-
No, they are not afford the same rights at all. Thats an issue that has been covered over and over and over. Like many butt lords have said, if civil unions afford the same rights, some of them would be happy with that and stop complaining.
-
Thanks, buddy. I think that says it all. I'll let other people decide who has lost his mind.
-
...President in the history of the United States, DOESN'T mean that Obama is the second coming of Nelson Mandela/Jesus/Ghandi/JFK-RFK/Claudius/FDR. It just means he's a more stable choice than the halfwit who came before him. You need a little stabillity to right the boat, but don't start thinking hes actually going to change things for the better of all U.S. citizens, he will just ease the pain a little by not fucking things up as much. He's still just a tool of an essentially one party system.
-
LOL. You're the gift that just keeps on giving.
-
Let's make it questionable proof. Let's quote shit from it to justify our actions. Let men use it for power and control!
-
You used world wide gross as opposed to domestic box office. Did you factor in the world-wide advertising costs to your prodiction budgets? Even with your BS data most of his movie lose money. Thanks for informing us that ALEXANDER was a hit. LOL
But it's all about money and not an ideology for Hollywood? That must be why we haven't seen the Clinton movie yet. Nobody wants to see an impeached Pres. sticking a cigar up a chubby intern's cooz while searching for Bin Laden as his Lady Macbeth-like wife plot her own rise to power. BOOOORING!!! -
...Has some fairly sound ideas that can be adopted. But then again, most philosophy, be it western or eastern either already shares or adopted those good points. Why freaks need a bunch of magic horse shit to force themselves to adhere to "Be cool to each other and don't be so greedy" is beyond me. Kind of speaks to a weak mind and will.
-
re: you're reaction to the redhead in the Busted Tees ads. Wow, you truly are Mr. Incredible. (insert rolling eyes heavenward here).
-
That you chose not to answer my simple yes or no question: Should gay people have to right to do anything straight people can? Yes or no. I guess that means you know your answer reveals the plain truth behind all your diversionary "arguments".
-
I used domestic gross only. Mong. Alexander was a flop. Mong. learn to fucking read. We did see a fucking Clinton movie, one that featured a Lady Macbeth like rise of Hillary too. It starred fucking Emma Watson and John Travolta. Jesus christ your dumb. But its true, one of the reasons you wont see a Clinton film but you will see more about the Bush years, is because Bush's tenure is more cinematic. He's got massive disaster and fuck ups to make for good movies. Clinton has a rich guy fucking his secretary. Yeah. Real fucking exciting. The only war he had got turned into a lame action flick with Owen Wilson.
-
Otherwise, I agree completely.
-
to the fact that liberals are the biggest racists around. Rather than confront black culture (the reason this passed) and treat blacks as adults who should be able to handle criticism for the way they voted, liberals attack their favorite whipping boy...Christians. Because of course the reason liberals support social engineering programs that target minorities is that they think minorities are too stupid to compete in society or even be dealt with as fully functioning adults.
-
It's a joke you dipshits. They're not attempting to convince anyone that gay marriage will save the economy. The characters on both sides are ridiculous stereotypes. For fun. IT'S A JOKE for pete's sake.
-
Interesting. I notice the money was raised by Christian fundamentalists, but that African Americans by far were the strongest opposed to gay Marriage. But then, African Americans have always been strongly homophobic. It is funny that people who apparently believe they live in a tolerant and open society are too scared to appear racist if they bring this up.
-
First let me give youa link to a story I put on my facebook yesterday http://news.yahoo. com/s/ap/20081204/ap_on_re_us/ gay_marriage_poll
Don't forget to remove the spaces. Secondly we ARE confronting the black community. There was just a rally here in LA that went straight through minority neighborhoods. So that's that. -
Like it or not homesexuality is abnormal. We were designed to reproduce with outdoor plumbing and indoor plumbing. Marriage is an institution that has been based on the natural order of things when it comes to pairing off.
Everyone should have equal rights and this issue is NOT about denying rights to others. If you chose to fall out of the norm you cannot expect to have the same titles and benefits of the norm.
Gays and lesbians are not going away and are multiplying in numbers as it is deemed more and more acceptable as an alternative.
Our society is rapidly decaying and unfortunately the face of gays and lesbians to the majority are the over the top flamers and the dykes.
I think gays and lesbians should be allowed all the rights of marriage except for the title. They are not husband and wife; they are an abnormal minority.
Our society is rapidly decaying and many see greater acceptance of this issue as the proverbial slippery slope and it very well might be. If we accept this then what is the next step? Do we accept pedophiles and incest? -
The guy is just a trolling asshole, he adds nothing to the discussion. Let's just ignore him and continue.
-
You got this number 85m next to Alexander and it made less than 35m...Whoops!! That isn't your only "error" and your definition of a "flop" is interesting. I guess U-Turn and Heaven and Earth were huge hits as well. The point is everyone knew W. wasn't going to make money for a variety of reasons but they made it anyway.
PRIMARY COLORS was quite the hit piece. I was ready to vote for him after that movie. Did they actually address his presidency, purgury, impeachment, pardons, or last minute legal plea bargaining in that film? Did they actually use the word "Clinton" in it?
Rea, read closely. I will try to limit the syllables. The definition of marraige is currently LAW. If you want it changed then it will be voted in by the public or duely elected representatives. The Constitution that you claim to love so much kind of wants us to do it that way. So it would be just so wonderful and I'm sure improve the society 10 times over and make you a very happy, productive member of society if the law was changed to let homosexuals marry. But they sorta, kinda have to follow our nations laws to achieve it as opposed to backdoor it in through judges. I personally don't care either way. As long as it is done legally and Constitutionally. Oh crap, that last word had a lot of syllables. Sorry about that. PEACE OUT Y'ALL!! -
as others have mentioned, is the precedent it would set in regards to the majority being able to take rights away from the minority. I know the "will of the people" argument is there but that's not the country we live in and it never has been. We don't live in a pure democracy, we live in a democratic republic. We don't get to write laws ourselves, we elect legislatives to write laws and executives who appoint judges to interpret laws based on the Constitution.If the will of the people actually determined civil rights issues, we would have had Jim Crow laws into the '90s. No, I'm not saying the gay community is going through the same legal violence that blacks have had to face -- no one in this country CAN compare to that -- but it is an issue of the minority being denied equal rights. It shouldn't matter where it fits on your sliding scale of injustice, discrimination is discrimination.I think the gay rights movement compares favorably to women's suffrage. Women never faced legal violence but they were clearly inferior in the eyes of the law. Their move for equality was justified and eventually substantiated. For the equal rights movement to gain traction, it's better to play up that analogy.
-
Nothing in that story proves anything I said wrong. The poll cites "non-white" voters, in a clear attempt to do exactly what I was talking about, avoid confronting black voters directly. When broken down by race blacks voted 70% against and as you know the black vote turnout in CA was HUGE. So you strike out on your first point. Got any proof of this "rally" you are talking about?
-
The purpose of the Court is to interpret laws. If a law is unconstitutional, they do something about it. It's not judicial activism, it's not legislating from the bench, it's fulfilling their responsibility as called for in the Constitution. If voters approved a ballot measure to strip rights away from minorities or the elderly or the disabled should the Courts sit back and twiddle their thumbs? Of course not.
-
I agree with you in regards to homosexuality being abnormal or unnatural. But I disagree that it has anything to do with society decaying. I don't care wether gays or lesbots have the title or not. But I would prefer it if they were afford all the same legal rights. I've had this arguement with gay friends and over and over who insist on being accepted by the church. Get married, adopt, etc, etc. But don't force a religous institution to accept you. Stay out of their business. "Our society is rapidly decaying and many see greater acceptance of this issue as the proverbial slippery slope and it very well might be." Actually, the many who see this way are whats causing society to come apart. Fucking backward halfwitted morons. If you could cull a large part of that population, especially the religous fundamentalists/catholics who have either destroyed or held western civilisation back for thousands of years, you'd see a much healthier society. BOOOOOOOOB...See, this is where people like you strike me as pathetic failures...Primary Colours was far, far more reflective of evil intentions than W. It made Clinton look a lot worse than Stone did with Bush in W. Also, again, it focused on the REAL problems with Clinton, not some fucking cigar in a vagina and some retards using that as a desperate attempt to impeach the opposition. Also, if you don't actually oppose gay marriage, why do you have your panties in a bunch so much about those who support it?
-
It isn't the issue but the process. Voting on Prop 8 is the legal way to do it. It was voted down so be it (for now). If it was voted in then so be it. A judge can deem almost anything "Unconstitutional" and create any law they like. It is a slippery slope and I want our laws created by elected representatives and not a Star Chamber. I'm also turned off by the hysterics and hyperbole of The Left when they don't get their way. Grow a fucking sack!! I didn't vote for Obama but he won and I accept it. I hope he proves me wrong and does a great job. I can't stand the partisan hatred.
-
Bigotry and hatred have no place in our society. We need to be tolerant of one another or our world cannot survive. I'm amazed at the ignorance and close-mindedness in this talkback. Oh...and all you Christians are ignorant fucks who couldn't pull your heads out of your assholes to save your life (oh, sorry...your imaginary fairy-savior did that already, didn't he?).
-
If we "choose" to fall outside the norm? Would you tell me when I CHOSE to start wanting men? Also, could you tell me the day that you CHOSE to start liking women? It's not a choice.
-
Do you have any argument that doesn't fall back on "slippery slope"?
-
I'm sure you've noticed this by now but your first couple sentences don’t really mesh to well with your last one...
-
"no one in this country CAN compare to that" True, Native Americans had it much, much worse.
-
Has anyone managed to come up with an argument against gay marriage that DOESN'T rely on circular logic, blind devotion to their own interpretation of a very old book which has been translated numerous times, or a complete misrepresentation of opposing arguments or of the current legal state of affairs (such as the bullshit line about gay civil unions conferring all the same rights as marriages, or ignorance of the unconstitutionality of Prop 8)?
Thought not. -
Dec 04, 2008 7:15:20 PM CST
If your arguing a vote should be the deciding factor...
by whinynegativebitch
...In the true democratic sense, then I'll have to say fair enough.
-
Bob Parr said he's siding with democracy on this one. The people have spoken, and they want you to know they don't like homosexuals. Why they don't like it, I don't know. Could be one of your above mentioned items, or all of them, or perhaps some people just have an affinity for biological corretness. Doesn't matter now, because the vote has been cast. I guess you could raise another million or so people for a petition, pour some more money into it and start again.
-
Dec 04, 2008 7:21:45 PM CST
The Status Quo Must be Maintained! Lawyers Gotta Eat!
by shut the fuck up donny
I mean, Estate Lawyers are always working on creative ways to confer benefits to gay couples, and Family Lawyers are getting good money to set up adult adoptions!
-
How is homosexuality unnatural, exactly? Sounds like bullshit to me. And even if it WERE unnatural, How many things do humans do that aren't strictly prescribed by our bodies? There are literally thousands of behaviors.Even without that dicey assertion, the outside-the-norm argument is pathetic. Talk about slippery slopes.
-
Yeah, that's my bad.
-
Thats why its unnatural. Doesn't make it WRONG, or less enjoyable. But unnatural for sure. But so is walking on the moon, and Tom Hanks made a mini series about that. Hmmm. HBO presents Tom Hanks's first anal penetration.
-
I'm not religious and yet since I'm straight I could be married through the State. If a state official can oversee a marriage then it is no longer only a religious union.
In terms of the majority ruling, well for a long while the majority felt women couldn't vote, blacks couldn't marry etc. Does that make it right? No. The majority cannot hinder the rights of the minority, that's why our country was founded in the first place, although it was more about a religious minority at that time.
And as was stated above it sure as hell is stupid to be arguing about an issue like this when we have bigger problems to solve. Which is why it's ridiculous that the religious right sunk many tens of millions of dollars into passing prop 8 when gay people getting married doesn't hurt anyone. Think about what good that money could do elsewhere.
Quit being pussies. Gay people aren't going to come molester you in the night because they want to get married. -
At the end of the world there will be two things left....Mexicans and homos.
-
was pure unadulterated win. Maybe he can follow up with "Band of Ben-wa Balls"?
-
Here's your proof
http://www.connexion.org/rssitem.cfm?src=1&tabnum=0&subtabnum=0&q=&p=0&id=67328
It took place on the 23rd of Nov.
As for the "racism" that article clearly shows it had everything to do with socio economic boundaries, lack of education, and nothing to do with peopl being black. In LA alot of poorer areas are minority but I bet there was a lot of poor white trash voting for prop 8 as well. Im sure many black folks in more middle and upper class communities didnt vote for it. Your aspersion that we should be blaming all blacks is flawed. We should be educated people in poorer communities black or white. -
totally forgot to put spaces in that link. Sorry didnt mean for that.
-
I think it will be overturned. If not soon, then definitely eventually. The bigoty in America that has led to this (and let's face it, whatever justification or thought process is involved it's still bigotry) is lessening with each generation. Though it is kind of shameful that historically put-upon groups like African Americans have voted in such numbers against this. I think, though, that the sheer lack of equality in this situation means it cannot last that long, not in today's world.
As for the unnatural thing, I fail to see how something that occurs naturally (and it occurs a LOT in nature, across a massive range of species) is unnatural. The fact that gay sex doesn't lead to procreation, or isn't in harmony with our evolved reproductive processes, doesn't make it necessarily unnatural, in my view. -
Not to mention that there are various ideas about homosexuality's role in an evolutionary context. Nothing concrete, but thought-provoking all the same.
-
If animals are driven purely ont eh instinct tehy were born with, and that instinct says intercourse is only for reproduction, then why is there still plenty of homosexuality in other species of animal? Is it a small percentage? Yup, is it unnatural? No more than being an albino is unnatural and we don't keep them from marrying.
-
There are many arguments for gay marriage that are much better than "well you think shellfish is an abomination." Clearly they are picking and choosing verses and not understanding the difference between the new covenant in the new testament and the foundation that the new testament gets from the old. Its a specific relationship and its a little offensive to presume to know one's doctrine when clearly they have no clue. That's all I am saying. It just lowers the debate further and turns more people away from their cause.
-
...as a political slur should be sterilized. Honestly, you're not debating anything, you're not smart, you're not clever, you are the root of most every problem in this country and your every word is a turd falling out of your mouth and into my drink, please remove yourselves from the gene pool and give humanity a chance to evolve. Holy fucking shit, fuck off you unbelievable cunts.
-
Yes, there are penis' and various orrifices that can be penetrated in nature, but nothing will come of it other than sexual satisfaction. Show me one mammal that can reproduce when two males bonk. Also, trust me, bigotry can remain in the U.S. for a long long time. It's a country that was founded in large part by religous bigots driven by their crazed hatred from their homeland to a new land that they could practice their ass backwards beliefs in. So, despite the great work that 3 per cent of the population did in overthrowing their colonial masters, there was still a large chunk who liked to burn witches. Thats going to be part of your nation forever. Just compare the almost insane levels of religous extremism in the U.S. with the subdued levels in most other european derived nations. Like Communism, The U.S. constitution is a great idea, that people will never let take full effect. Yo. I don't get why Homosexuals would think African Americans would be sympathetic to their cause anyway. Race and Lifestyle Choice are two different civil issues.
-
I agree there's a tendency not to vilify blacks and more of a focus on putting the blame on Christianity. Do you know why? It's not because of racism (or reverse racism or whatever sort of liberal pandering label you want to put on it). It's because "Yes on 8" was a question of IDEOLOGY, not ethnicity.70 percent of black voters did vote for Prop 8, but I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of those people cast their vote based upon their religious beliefs. See the difference? Ideology is a choice. Ethnicity is not.Take a look at those Prop 8 exit polls again. You'll see that substantially higher than the black voter tally are the labels of those self-identifying as "conservative," "white Republicans," and "Republican." Those three groups all voted yes on 8 at an 82 percent or higher clip. So don't even try to sell me this concept that "black culture" is the reason that Proposition 8 passed. "Black culture" didn't send out letters to all of its parishioners nationwide (as the Mormon church did) asking for funding for the Prop 8 campaign.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1 -
Dec 04, 2008 7:42:59 PM CST
"Unnatural" I do not think it means what you think it means
by industrykiller!
Why is a lack of reproduction indicative of a lack of being natural? It occurs all the time across many species. It's not something engineered or forced. its something someone or something is born with. Its the way it was when they were created. Ergo it is natural. It occurs naturally, that's just a fact. Reproduction is absolutely no grounds for calling it anything else. Now you might want to give it a different name, but "unnatural" is just a flat out incorrect term.
-
Sorry but you fail yet again and this time on two levels. According to Wikipedia - "initially white-dominated, (it was in this neighborhood in January 1947 that the bisected and mutilated body of Elizabeth Short, the victim of the infamous Black Dahlia murder was found in a vacant lot on the 3800 block of South Norton Avenue) Leimert Park and the neighboring Crenshaw District eventually became one of the largest Black middle class neighborhoods in the United States, and is now considered part of South Los Angeles.
Leimert Park is considered the center of the African-American arts scene in Los Angeles, with flourishing blues and jazz clubs; as well as venues for Hip Hop and numerous dramatic performances and poetry readings. (One resident, filmmaker John Singleton, has called it "the black Greenwich Village.") The park at the district's center, adjoined by shops and a theater, is a popular place for performances and gatherings"
This is not even close to the uneducated "socio economic" (liberal for the N-word) class of people you claim are responsible for the voting for the measure. So why choose it? Because its a way to appear to be directly confronting the 70% of black voters who don't support gay marriage (something I support by the way)by intentionally targeting a "black" neighborhood that doesn't include anyone who voted for the measure. Also, if these liberals don't think this is a racial issue why are they bringing race into it? Sorry, but your bigotry against both black and Christians is clear. -
Only means something if you are a religious or science fanatic. If something exists, it exists, whether by choice or chance. Naturally.
-
Coma Baby is the only one on here saying anything logical and unemotional.
-
There's the problem. You think it's a choice. Fundamental attraction, sexuality, and what genders you are driven to love are not a "choice." Plenty of African-Americans have expressed their sympathy for the cause. The most prominent anti-Prop 8 advertisement prior to the election was narrated by Samuel L. Jackson, and he directly compared the issue to the Civil Rights movement, placing in Japanese internment camps, etc.
-
Nothing comes of me doing the dirty with my girlfriend but sexual satisfaction either, and hopefully won't do for a good number of years. Doesn't make it unnatural, though, even if our intent is to NEVER reproduce. I couldn't show you any mammal that can reproduce when two males bonk. But despite this they do do it, don't they? I don't see how procreation is the be-all and end-all yardstick for what is natural. Why else would non-human animals consistently show themselves to do it? Seeing as they serve only their natural instincts, how can their actions be unnatural? Seems a bit of a contradiction to me. What else do animals do which people claim to be unnatural, other than gay sex? Fact is, nature is a sprawling, hugely diverse entity which we are still learning about, and which often can't be summed in such a black and white fashion.
I do know what you mean about religious bigotry in the US, as well as the sometimes appalling levels education that feed into that. You're mistaken to include me as an American, though. I'm English, and do believe that gradually and inexorably science and reason will pervade more and more of the US. They're a bit behind the Europeans on a number of social fronts, but they're a younger country. They'll get there. I hope. -
The unnatural thing is a red herring anyway. Who cares?
Bottom line: two consenting, happy adults = nobody else's business or right to legislate to remove rights from them enjoyed by the rest of society. -
Most are aroused by the proposition of fucking, because they are biologically wanting to reproduce. Of course, jerking off, humping a pillow or putting your penis in an anal passage will give you the same or similar feeling as actual reproduction. I refer to it as unnatural in the same manner as someone who gets killed by a falling tree. He didn't die of "natural" causes, yet you could argue that trees are part of nature, and squished him. Or a squirrel. So it happens all across the animal kingdom. But your just being semantic. Its not NORMAL, never will be, and as such, a great deal of plebs will never be able to grasp the concept of commiting the act. You should stop trying to stress this point that its a naturally occuring event though, because it will always be dismissed. Your better off pointing out that its no one elses fucking business who you choose to have sex with, as long as its consenting. Also a hard point to prove in a country that tells you what you can and cant ingest into your body, or what sounds you can make with your vocal chords, or which part of the perfectly fine human form can and can't be exposed to fresh air. By the way, while Racism is unproductive and mostly unfounded, bigotry towards Christians IS fine. Your an ass fucking backwards cult that has been fucking up western civilisation for millenias now. Seriously, can't you go practice your voodoo hoodoo shit in a community center somewhere and stop dragging humanity into your own personal dark age.
-
I agree with them in principle, but which is going to be easier? Convincing the electorate and the courts that the word "marriage" doesn't belong in government at all or convincing them that same-sex "marriage" should be legal? The latter is not only easier, but it's not the logistical nightmare the former is. What people are ignoring is that "marriage" has two definitions - a civil and a religious one. That's just the way it is, and to override civil "marriage" would require a complete overhaul of every state constitution and set of laws. The word "marriage" is too ubiquitous therein. (In the California constitution it's there but not in a religiously-driven context - prior to the passing of Prop 8, of course. It was only used for reference to property rights.) We're only asking for the civil definition to be granted. I doubt many same-sex couples have much interest in getting married in a church populated by the bigots who voted in favor of Prop 8.
-
Why don't you show me the numbers on how many in the Leiman park area voted for prop 8 or not. Now the point is they went to a black community, where people of every economic boundary are. It's just a big place for the african american community. It wasn't about "confronting" blacks, I'll admit I used that terminology erroneously before, it was about putting a face tot eh gay community, which is the best education you can have. And calling it the "black greenwhich village" doesnt mean there are effete hipsters hanging out there, it's pretty fucking different.
-
Regardless of their sympathy, it still stands as a behaviour, not a race.
-
So fuck you. Seriously.
It amazes me- a small minority of people want to redefine my religious views- go fuck yourselves. You won't be happy until gender is some abstract concept and male / female check boxes are replaced with sliding scales.
Seriously- it "Waahhhh!!! We can't get married- OK we''ll vote- oh wait! We lost! Now let's overturn democracy!"
And as for a bunch of faggot celebrities telling me how my religious views on marriage are all wrong / backward / insensitive- fuck you!
It's not my fault that you had to blow Geffen or someone to get your first movie role- and now you want to do something about the shame. It's Adam and Eve- not Adam and Steve / Bruce / a goat / a roomba / your own sister / whatever. Fuck you.
So piss off fags. -
On the use of the word "Unnatural": (1) gay sex is prevalent among many species. In particuar, among our closest eolutionary relatives, bonobo chimpansees, where sex (same or different sex) plays various complicated social roles, related to trade, conflict, social hierarchy and so forth, that are far more encompassing than merely "procreation". (2). The scientific literature in an innate component to sexual orientation is quite large now, and one would be foolish to dismiss it in its entirety without having studied it. (3). There are several theories (including ones supported by computational models) that have suggested scenarios by which a homosexual orientation could evolve by natural selection, for the benefit of the species. (4) Data from social studies have shown that sex is (strategically) used by heterosexual couples for much more than mere procreation, including pleasure, establishing partnership/romantic bonding, friendship, conflict resolution, stress reduction, and so on. (References to relevant scientific papers available upon request, but only to those who are too stupid to do a literature search in scholar.google by themselves). These facts (and they are facts - I've not posted anything that is an opinion) do strongly discourage use of the word "unnatural". In fact, the use of the word despite of these facts would demand that you define what you actually mean by the word "unnatural".
-
...for reasons that have very little to do with reproduction. That argument holds no weight.
-
No. It's exhibited via behavior, but the impulse itself is innate and unchangeable. You can be gay and celibate. Thus, it is analogous to race.
-
Dec 04, 2008 8:03:02 PM CST
And one other thing- quit picking on Mormons you bunch of fags!
by particularly hard vato
I would love to see the loud flaming gay movement go protest in South Central, Inglewood, the LBC, Cypress- yeah- you won't will you? Just pick on the Mormons! Hah! Little bitches- you know why? Cause' Compton would smear you queers all over the place! Go do some real protesting!
-
According to the "Defense of Marriage Act" from 2004, marriage is associated with 1138 legal rights and responsibilities according to national law. This IS a civil rights issue.
-
Actually, if you want to get technical, it probably IS Adam and his own sister...I mean, if you take the Bible literally, Eve was created from the dude's rib. There has to be at least *some* DNA in common, right? Unless, through God's holy Quesada-esque magic, they didn't.
-
Wow. Compelling, intelligently argued stuff there. Well done on that.
Incidentally, no one wants to redefine your religious views, or tell you what to think. People are free to believe any irrational unsubstantiated medieval bullcrap they want. The problem comes when you don't keep it to yourself and try and legislate said views, and deny others rights as a result. -
No. Fuck you. I couldn't give a shit about your religious views, so as long as they stay out of my government. Define marriage for yourself in your church however you want. But your civil definition of the term - and it is a civil contract as well as a religious one - is offensive and unconstitutional.
-
I'm done addressing you. Attempt some rational thinking and discourse and let me know when you've caught up with civilization.
-
I'm sick and tired of this thing where religious people are pissed on by Hollywood and celebrities- "Oh- look at the dumbass Christians- they're so antiquated. We are soooooo smart that we can just tell them to go fuck themselves, take their traditions, and make them our own." I am rational- I am quite rational. It's called democracy fuckheads- the majority of people in CA and the COUNTRY agreed with Prop 8. They agreed with the idea that its not fair to take someone else's religous views and use government judicial systems to redefine them. That's the start of the mixing of church and state. And the mormons helped out- good for them- but they were far from the majority. Loud and proud- whatever. But loud and defeated.
-
...Its unnatural. You can bring together all the double speak you want, but your arguing against basic fucking biology. I've also sucked man cock and fucked my girlfriend in the ass and used condoms. And no, its not a natural impulse for me. I just did it because I liked it. Like I said, stop trying to force bullshit down peoples throats, and maybe they will buy your right to get married a little easier. Okay, its "naturally" occuring, but so is killing/attacking other members of your species to rape their women and children. In fact, thats MORE naturally occuring than homosexuality in the animal kingdom. I've also seen animals fly headlong into fucking windows on a regular basis. Does that make it a "natural" behaviour. Ass love is ABNORMAL, unnatural, or whatever else you want to use. Trying to force people to ignore reality is not going to win anyone to your side. Even correlating it to African American struggles is not going to work. Why not just stake your ground alongside the same religous fundamentalists trying to wipe you out. If they are allowed to practice what I would view as retarded, bizare, unnatural beliefs as long as they don't directly affect others, why can't you?
-
"Particularly Hard Vato", why do you feel the need to force others to comply to your religious beliefs?
-
You failed to do what I asked you. I asked that individuals who use the word "unnatural" is this context define what they mean by it.
-
...You DESERVE the scorn of everyone for being a Christian. Its a fucking idiotic belief system. I personally don't give a fuck if you mentally deficient cultists want to go off and practice your nutty rituals in peace and quiet, but when you fucking cloister around abortion clinics, or block stem cell research or want to deliberately fracture decent society by disallowing gay marriage, or fuck, burning scientific genius's on a bonfire alongside their collected knowledge, yeah, I fucking hate you. Its a shame Nero didn't do the job properly.
-
The suggestive name, the overzealous bigotry. I think we both know whats going on here. Just come out of the closet and I promise you'll feel better about yourself. Look at Ted Haggard. Your saying nothing but your telling me everything. Your a closet case if Ive ever seen one.
-
Dec 04, 2008 8:17:17 PM CST
And in case you don't know what I am talking about with mixing c
by particularly hard vato
Prop 22 was prop 8 before- as a law. It was voted yes in CA, but then a bunch of activist judges overturned it. So much for democracy. So now Prop 22 comes a long, and is approved AGAIN and as a constitutional amendment cannot be overturned.
-
"They agreed with the idea that its not fair to take someone else's religous views and use government judicial systems to redefine them. That's the start of the mixing of church and state."
It's wrong to stereotype all members of a group together, including theists (even though there is more basis for that than with race), but with reasoning that fucked up, selfish and backwards it's no surprise that Christians are viewed by so many as antiquated and irrational. You only have your own actions and words to blame for it. Fucking hell. -
Inconsistent with an individual pattern or custom. - The bulk of modern western society is heterosexual.
In violation of a natural law - We primarily fuck to breed. At least thats what the process is for.
Deviating from a behavioral or social norm - again, social norm for modern western countries is heterosexual partnership.
In violation of natural feelings; inhuman - There's one definition that suits your arguement. It would be hard or impossible to define it as an unnatural feeling. Of course, anti homosexuals will say "so hey, its fine to fuck babies now, cause thats a natural desire" blah blah blah. Thats why I think the arguement that its okay because its natural is a lost cause. It should be a civil liberties issue. -
Thats just called a mistake. Like when one trips over their own foot. its not natural or unnatural. It just a stupid mistake someone or something makes. I stated clearly above why the term "unnatural" is just a flat out false way of putting it. You want to call it "abnormal" fine. Its not the majority, so if that means abnormal to you then its your opinion.
-
Is anyone aware that on the same day Prop 8 passed in Canada, Arkansas also voted against unmarried couples adopting? Fucking backwards cretins. I'm so sick of all this religious, reactionary thinking and the shitty insidious effect it has on the world.
-
Ahhh. Nah. That joke is too easy.
-
I DON'T! You don't get it do you- I'm not forcing anyone to conform to my religious beliefs- marriage is a RELIGIOUS PRACTICE. It's not something a bunch of gays can just take and make their own.
-
...My favourite part in All The Real Girls.
-
"Inconsistent with an individual pattern or custom. - The bulk of modern western society is heterosexual." that doesn't render it unnatural by that definition. "In violation of a natural law - We primarily fuck to breed." We most certainly do not fuck primarily to breed (as I've explained). "At least thats what the process is for." that's only one purpose of the process, as I've argued. "Deviating from a behavioral or social norm - again, social norm for modern western countries is heterosexual partnership." No, it isn't, only to bigots. "In violation of natural feelings; inhuman - There's one definition that suits your arguement." In that particular definition, you're contradiction yourself in the space of two sentences when you wrote "And no, its not a natural impulse for me. I just did it because I liked it." "Thats why I think the arguement that its okay because its natural is a lost cause. It should be a civil liberties issue." It IS a civil liberties issue (as I've argued) - we're not talking mutually exclusive points. But when you're saying it's "unnatural", YOU are the one who is ignoring basic biology (as I've argued).
-
This land mass we're living on used to belong to a bunch of Native Americans. It wasn't necessarily something Europeans could come along and make their own, but, well...
-
That's funny, because the vast majority of people I know who have gotten married have done it to for a number of reasons, and none of them have (except in one case) have been religious. I'm an atheist and I'll more likely than not be married one day. Fancy that.
-
Stuff like this video and the anti-religious and racist stuff that came out after it passed was pretty ugly. Not saying that the anger wasn't justified, but it's not helping change minds. Maybe if the anti-Prop 8 people had shown more passion in a positive way during the campaign (the No on 8 campaign was terrible, as far as I've read), they wouldn't be in this position. And yeah, Obama has said he's against gay marriage on religious grounds. Does he mean it? I don't know, but the people who voted for him and for 8 probably thought he did.
Massyworm's Milk review did more for gay rights than this stupid video anyway. More real movie discussion! -
If Marriage is a religous practice, and a religous practice alone, you'll be happy if we abolish ALL laws pertaining to it then, right? So none of your spouses social security pension, none of your dead veteran spouses compensation, no survivor benefits, leaving the state to decide what to do with the body of a loved one post death, no sponsorship for immigration benefits, no benefits in regards to property or income tax, no joint parenting rights, no next of kin status, custodial rights to children, shared property, access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods, Tax-free transfer of property between spouses, Joint adoption and foster care, Funeral and bereavement leave, Right to inheritance of property etc. Thats cool.
-
(Page, I think you mean California, not Canada :P)
Particularly Hard Vato, have you read ANY other part of the talkback? Your argument about "the people having their say" holds no weight. The majority DOES NOT get to dictate the rights of the minority. Do you want to go back and hold votes in 1960 about civil rights too? -
No, Hard Veto, marriage is NOT a religious practice (would you vote against atheists, or non-religious people, or non-Christian people getting married?), it's a legal contract. It can have a religious aspect to it, if you're religious, but it doesn't need to. As I've stated, marriage is associated with 1138 legal rights - or so says the 2004 "Defense of Marriage Act". If you're stating marriage is a religious practice (based on your own religious views), and you're voting in a way that prevents certain people to participate in that practice based on your own religious views, you are basically forcing people to comply with your religious views. Your religious views or practices would not be hindered by gay marriage.
-
I just provided you with the dictionary definition, and you just dismissed it as bigotry. Basic biology is on my side here. Sorry. Yes, abnormal social and sexual practices do develop in certain species. But so do people with 6 toes on one foot.
-
Yeah I did. In my defence it's half two in the morning and I've just enjoyed something rather nice to smoke.
-
Per you: "Of course, anti homosexuals will say "so hey, its fine to fuck babies now, cause thats a natural desire" blah blah blah."Those two things aren't analogous either. Can we get over this concept of inherently linking "marriage" with "fucking." There's substantially more going on there, and love and commitment between two consenting adults with the legal privileges that accompany that are the critical elements. Some pedophile's desire to "fuck babies" might very well be natural, but society would never allow that because it's an infringement upon another individual's rights (in this case a minor, no less).
-
i support all of those thigns for gay couples- it's calle da legal civil union. Just don't piss on my religious traditions, as backward as they sound to you. To be honest, prop 8 should not have been written the way it was. It should have been an affirmative proposition guaranteeing the same rights of married couples in civil unions, but keeping the definition of marriage the same.
-
Retard. I said FUCKING. Not Marrying. The discussion was not about marriage. It was purely about sexual instinct. As I said, Im all for gay marriage, and I don't care what two grown adults get up to.
-
But the way civil unions stand now, all those things aren't being provided for.
-
WhinyNegativeBitch, you've posted several dictionary definitions; you stated or implied that they all apply. "you just dismissed it as bigotry" I've only claimed that one of them would be bigotry if someone claimed it applied. None of the other definitions factually apply. Certainly, basic biology is NOT on your side; there's a host of evidence for a genetic contribution to sexual orientation, an evolutionary purpose, a large prevalence in our society and other societies (both gay and heterosexual), and occurrence in various species including the species closest to our own.
-
marriage is not just a religious institution, it's a civil one. The term marriage comes from a time when the church WAS the state, so in this country, with a theoretical seperation, both sides have an equal stake in using it. To say the church should have it and the state should use civil union is to imply that the church has dominion over the state.The religious definition of marriage is something specific to each individual church and the state cannot dictate how a church manages its private property. That definition is not at stake here. Churches that refuse to acknowledge gay marriage would be under the same legal protection as churches that refuse to accept interracial or interfaith marriage or even marriages of people who have been divorced. What's at stake is the civil definition of marriage. If a heterosexual couple gets married in City Hall with no church, no pastor, no mention of spirituality whatsoever, does their marriage have less value in the eyes of the law then a couple that is married in a church by a pastor with yes mention of spirituality? No, it doesn't. Their marriages are the same under the law. In fact, the pastor in the church wedding still has to say, "By the power vested in me by the state of..."Same-sex couples are asking for equal access to rights and recognition that only the civil definition of marriage can give them.
-
...If you and your fellow christians would be happy to allow a civil union to receive the same rights as a marriage, then I'm sure people could get along happily.
-
There are civil unions, sure, but those 1138 rights and responsibilities I mentioned don't come with civil unions.
-
Never seen any proof of this. And I've googled. You can argue you all you want, but the very complex biological system designed to reproduce babies does not work with man on man sex. Yes, you may be able to bring up some social needs for homosexual behaviour, but it still doesn't change the fact that biology intends sex to primarily be for reproduction. If you can give me a link to a legitimate source to disproves this, I'd be happy to read it and have my mind blown.
-
I want to know specifically what rights are not provided for under a legal civil union that are under a marriage in California, because it is my understanding that civil unions are identical. Besides the whole penis in vagina thing.
-
I support Civil unions as guaranteeing the same rights as marriage for committed homosexual couples. No redefinition of marriage, but give them equal rights- I'm serious.
-
From our good friends at mariam webster is as follows: "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities3: an intimate or close union"
Gay marriage is already in the definition. Sorry, but Christians don't get to define these words on their own. Plenty of non religious and religious people who disagree that its simply between a man and woman. It has NOTHING to do with Christianity. -
"Civil Unions exist in only a handful of places: Vermont, New Jersey and Connecticut. California and Oregon have domestic partnership laws that offer many of the same rights as civil unions."
"Vermont civil unions were created in 2000 to provide legal protections to gays and lesbians in relationships in that state because gay marriage is not an option. The protections do not extend beyond the border of Vermont and no federal protections are included with a Civil Union. Civil Unions offer some of the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, but only on a state level."
Recognition in other states. Some states recognise it, some states don't. All states recognise marriage.
"Dissolving a Civil Union v. Divorce:
Vermont has no residency requirement for Civil Unions. That means two people from any other state or country can come there and have a civil union ceremony. If the couple breaks up and wishes to dissolve the union, one of them must be a resident of Vermont for one year before the Civil Union can be dissolved in family court. Married couples can divorce in any state they reside, no matter where they were married."
"Immigration:
A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege."
"Taxes:
Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples."
and on and on and on. I already listed all these fucking things, as have many others. So theres your answer. -
Maybe thats why you've heard it so much. The Bible is full of wacky shit that no longer holds any place in our modern society. And the whole gay thing is up to interpretation at best.
-
If an employer offers pension or other benefit plans that extend to an employee's spouse, they can legally ignore spouses of civil unions. These employers are protected by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which means same-sex couples in civil unions would have to pay more to receive the same coverage a married couple receives. Marriage, as it is defined in the civil sense, is the only thing that would guarantee same-sex couples the same recognition and protection as everyone else. The civil definition does nothing to the religious definition.
-
Dec 04, 2008 9:01:09 PM CST
On November 4, in what is almosty certainly the most shameful el
by tacoloft
Harry, your an exquisite douche. If all the fags there didn't get out to vote then it is their own damn fault. Too busy getting gay or something… Gay marriage IS in fact legal in California. A gay man can marry a gay woman...think about it.
-
"it still doesn't change the fact that biology intends sex to primarily be for reproduction" nor did I say otherwise. It's just not the *only* biological purpose of sex. Anyway, I'm not sure which one of my claims you want me to reference here - if you're interested in] evolutionary models of homosexuality, you might want to start here http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7124/full/445158b.html or http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/m57460l217u54p07/ or http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2427196 ...
-
"it still doesn't change the fact that biology intends sex to primarily be for reproduction" nor did I say otherwise. It's just not the *only* biological purpose of sex. Anyway, I'm not sure which one of my claims you want me to reference here - if you're interested in] evolutionary models of homosexuality, you might want to start here http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7124/full/445158b.html or http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/m57460l217u54p07/ or http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2427196 ... cheers.
-
So why not propose a federal law guaranteeing civil unions for homosexual couples? Why redefine marriage?
-
...because its easier to define marriage as a union between consenting adults than it is to create another beuracracy devoted to civil unions. That would be why I would do it. I don't think defining it as a union between homo's will mean churches will be forced to accept them in or anything, so I don't get the big deal. Also, your incorrect in stating that they want to "re-define" marriage. The defintion of marriage also pertains to same sex partnerships. Theres no exclusion of same sex deals from the defintion of marriage.
-
And Biden clearly stated in his masterdebate with that one chick you all hate "Palin" that he would not grant marriage to same sex couples. In fact they agreed on the matter. So I guess the jokes on the people who voted for the great O...bama. That's you Har-bear...
-
...I mean Merrick.
I Totally meant to do that...like a fag on election day... -
Dec 04, 2008 9:24:00 PM CST
OBAMA OPPOSES GAY MARRAIGE AND SUPPORTS CIVIL UNIONS
by bringingsexyback
But he also wants individual states to be able to legalize gay marriage, such as in CT and MA. I believe Governor Patterson would like to do the same in NY - the last time I heard him speak on the matter was that he wanted to recognize gay marriages originating elsewhere.
-
Yeah...that was the point (check out the title of my post).
-
"...he wanted to recognize gay marriages originating elsewhere." Spoken like a true professional politician. I'm happy to reap the rewards of any effort put in elsewhere by anyone else as long as nothing can blow back on me.
-
everyone else is wrong.
That is all. -
I'm real lazy though, so might need two Saint Pauls to get the ball rolling on Whinyanity.
-
His reasoned argument is sound. Anyone who really cares about gay marriage has too much time on their hands and really dosen't know or care what's really happening in the world. Famine, genocide, terrorism, poverty and injustice are happening all over the planet and all you can think about is Mr. and Mr. Fruity getting wed. For shame losers. For shame.
-
Thanks for keeping it civil. I guarantee I'm as intelligent as you are. You were getting into this discussion of "abnormal" and "natural," and while it might have been a tangent, it followed from a discussion about same-sex marriage and the logistics behind justifying it or banning it. A pedophile's instinct might very well be innate, but I don't see it as productive to bring into this argument. I don't care what someone else uses in a slippery slope argument. All slippery slopes are empty rhetoric. It was a tangent, and I apologize for jumping in and drawing the parallel.
-
In its definition. Just because you dont recognize it doesnt mean it isnt true.
-
...Just don't like Gays. I wish I heard that more often. Especially from NeoCons. Always trying to justify everything. Just be honest "We hate you all and we want your money and cheap labour. Fuck off and don't try anything funny, because we also own the fucking Army."
-
Only chicks and homos like weddings, fact!
-
Thanks be to Jesus for your heroic efforts here. They will likely be 100% wasted, but I appreciate them because they save me from the compulsion to write a bunch of stuff I haven't the energy to write, and which will be largely ignored or at best misconstrued.I would just like to say though: Minority doesn't necessarily equal abnormal doesn't necessarily equal unnatural. People use those terms as a pejorative then try and pass it off as some kind of technical terminology. Well, it's inappropriate either way. The lowest-common denominator "science" of using the reproductive function as the exclusive definition of natural use is either specious or disingenuous, probably depending on who's wielding it. Because something carries out a primary function does not mean application of secondary functions is unnatural. That's just overly simplistic. And finally: Gay animals. God bless 'em.
-
End of Story.
-
That's why he's President and you're not. Far be it for someone to look at all sides of an argument and back a compromise position.
-
No more state-performed marriages for ANYONE. Civil unions across the board. Churches can marry whomever they want and the state recognizes them LEGALLY as civil unions. Presto!
-
Just to complicate the issue some more.
-
Not really, but I thought it might be funny.
Speaking of which, how come he didn't marry anyone? How very suspicious.
News just in, gay dudes get married, world doesn't end shocker. -
His treacherous "disciples" and, subsequently, the Catholic regime whitewashed it with a myth about rising from the dead and labeling Mary a prostitute.
-
Go to bed and hit yourself several times with a wet bible.
-
"That's why he's President and you're not." Thats also why he's subhuman scum, and I'm just scum. Jesus didn't have time for marriage. He was too busy frothing at the mouth and being perpetuating anti-semetic cliches. "NO ONE MAKES A PROFIT IN MY TEMPLE!" Dude should have just looked at the problem from all angles, and gone with the most selfish and self rewarding, the people be damned, tact available. Maybe then he'd be kicking back in a nice big white house with an awesome CHAAAAAAAAANGE campaign t-shirt instead of moaning and groaning up on a Roman fence post.
-
Dec 04, 2008 10:03:47 PM CST
I FIND IT HILARIOUS THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DENIES MARRIAGE
by bringingsexyback
to its priests, which forces them into acts of homosexuality. Ah, religion. Always good for a laugh.
-
I'll bet Barry would be okay with that.
-
Theres that slipper slope again.
-
Terrible.
-
Whiny? I was agreeing with you all the way. But you had to go all 'crap'.
Jesus wasn't being anti-semetic in the clearing of the temple, you dumbass and equating his actions to the current administration is just foolish.
I now retract any kind of intellectual support I had for you previously. You am a twat. -
Jesus may have gone...well, a little funny in the head, with all that son of god talk, but it had great effect on the desert people around him, so I guess it had its purpose. And he raised some very valid, genuine points, and had the nerve to actually act on them, despite the punishment of a not so pleasant death. Obama/Whoever are just fucking lackeys on a pay roll. At best they are cynical liars looking to cash a cheque, at worst they are fucking monstrously evil and stupid human beings like Bush. I'm sorry, he's not monstrously evil, that should be reserved for Hitler and shit. He's just a cunt. Like the guy who steals your car for an armed robbery and then burns it instead of just wiping down his finger prints.
-
He tried to shut down the fucking gift shop and close the ATM inside the temple. How else are you gonna pay for the upkeep? Donations? From Sheer Herders? And no, I didn't compare him to the current administation. I just mentioned that if he adopted their tactics, he probably would have had a much better retirement plan.
-
All your good deeds have come undone with your latest paranoid rant against society.
Yes, bad men do bad things, we get it. Please try and reason your arguments in a more coherent and sane fashion.
Take a deep breath...and relax. -
Not pretty.
-
Dec 04, 2008 10:19:25 PM CST
If an angry hippy claiming to be the son of god...
by whinynegativebitch
Can get not one, but TWO public holidays, I don't see how reigning in my rhetoric to sub Alex Jones levels is going to help me. No, I'm fine right here. I expect the NWO to delete my posts sometime soon anyway.
-
Obama is on the record as having plans to repeal DOMA. I don't appreciate that he essentially equivocated during the campaign for political expediency, but ultimately I think he's in favor allowing for the existence of same-sex marriage, and he was certainly publicly on the record against Prop 8.Vatos>> Since you're now speaking calmly and aren't irrationally and rudely hurling insulting epithets, I'll respond.http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm That's not all of the info you requested, but it's a start. Google "civil unions domestic partnerships marriage differences," and I'm sure you can find more if you're genuinely curious. Federally mandating civil unions doesn't do it, because as you can clearly see from that link, they are not equivalent to marriage. Aside from that, civil unions/domestic partnerships aren't even allowed in the vast majority of the states. Many states even have bans against same-sex civil unions just as they have bans against marriage. If you didn't read NoodlesHahn's post above, check it out. It's a good summation of the importance of "marriage" in its civil and religious spheres. I really think that you're getting hung up on semantics.
-
Or should I say "hoped". Anyway the point of Jesus > Obama is - no shit. I'd expect the son of God would outdo the Son of a Woman Named Stanley.
-
...You do know he's not actually the son of god, right...?
-
Well, of course, this is just the sort of blinkered philistine pig-ignorance I've come to expect from you non-creative garbage. You sit there on your loathsome spotty behinds squeezing blackheads, not caring a tinker's cuss for the struggling artist. You excrement, you whining hypocritical toadies with your colour TV sets and your Tony Jacklin golf clubs and your bleeding masonic secret handshakes. You wouldn't let me join, would you, you blackballing bastards. Well I wouldn't become a Freemason now if you went down on your lousy stinking knees and begged me.
-
http://www.grassfire.org/111/about.htmGet to it you paranoiacs.
-
...You do know he was actually Jewish, right...?
-
There are accounts he got an erection during the scourging.
-
Blaspheme!!!!
-
BLASPHLEGM!!!
-
Dec 04, 2008 10:33:13 PM CST
I request a moratorium on the use of the phrase "slippery slope"
by johnny smith
I vote we replace it with "ice-skating" for the rest of the month.
-
look it up
-
...As they should be called. Johninite? Johnian? Wet Head? Wet Back?
-
He *loved* johnsons!
-
Jesus the wet back I mean.
-
It's a joke, dude. Lay off. If you can't recognize humor, you're probably about as hard-headed as your namesake.
-
I know you're not talking at me
-
Still is!! Damn you Japanese fishermen!!!!
-
I totally respect that
-
Hey bigots: What Maestro610 said.
-
I'm talking *to* you, not at you.
-
"My name is Jesus H. Christ!!!"
*Cue trailer music* -
If you're *talking* *to* me, I feel obliged to let you know: I can't hear you. Get well soon.
-
Something to ponder.
-
And a nappy. Lol.
-
Oh, ha ha, a semantics trap. You're a clever one, alright. And I'm feelin' great; thanks for the well-wishes. The gift basket was especially considerate.
-
Dec 04, 2008 10:48:28 PM CST
JESUS TOOK A SLINGSHOT AROUND THE SUN AND WENT INTO TIME WARP
by bringingsexyback
He arrived circa 2008, sunburned and a new Messiah.
-
... rode a crucifix off a cliff and a red-haired Judas scolded him, "you don't fuck with the infinite".
-
Dec 04, 2008 10:50:21 PM CST
*ahem* WHO CARES WHEN BIGOTRY IS FUCKING YOUR EYEBALLS IN 2008?
by johnny smith
I never thought I'd do that, but...
-
Jesus forgives, but the grammar cop does not, apparently
-
Dec 04, 2008 10:53:16 PM CST
Says the guy who continually forgets to punctuate his sentences.
by johnny smith
-
Gay marriage, right? I don't even know what side of that debate you're on. This is stupid. I'm going to bed.
-
This ... is ... THE INTERNET!!!
-
You should know that you initially addressed me and I still don't know why.
-
Dec 04, 2008 10:58:02 PM CST
I HAD NO IDEA WHAT YOU TWO WERE FIGHTING ABOUT EITHER
by bringingsexyback
But it was fun to watch.
-
It was in regards to the ice-skating thing. You know, "Ice skating is ice skating. Look it up?" I made a joke. You apparently did not find it funny. That's alright. I don't find Adam Sandler amusing, but I don't address my complaints regarding each one of his jokes.
-
I was going along with it. Get it?
-
but not funny. Just like Jesus.
-
I'll be absolutely clear, right here, right now: I was using "ice skating" as a substitute for "slippery slope", as you requested. The "look it up" part was kind of random, I guess, but just a bit of emphasis for the punters, not you, chum. You're classy/not like THEM
-
Ooooh Sandler, that anti-semitic jerk!
-
I appreciate that, and I'll be honest when I say that the "look it up" part is what, frankly, confused the hell out of me. Glad that's been cleared up. :) Let's keep this "ice-skating" thing going. Maybe we could make a meme out of it.
-
...because he's an alien.
-
Slippery slope alert!!!
-
Dammit! It's "ice-skating alert"!
-
There is hope for humanity yet
-
There damn well better be. If not, we've got nothing going for us. And with that, I'm going to bed.
-
I wonder what the come back is going to be when two siblings want to get hitched, "They are adults, not the government's business." Play with the term "marriage" and see where it leads. Maybe the government should'nt make a stand either way.
-
Ice-Skating alert!!
-
"I'm pretty pleased with Bush in most ways, although he ended up a Leftist like Nixon at the end." ?? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! Whooo, that's rich. *snif* Please, stop man, you're killing me...
-
That sure sounds like him. I guess he found free wifi somewhere. God I miss him!
-
Dec 04, 2008 11:36:27 PM CST
MORBID WAS CONSPICUOUSLY ABSENT DURING THE ENTIRE ELECTION SEASO
by bringingsexyback
Now that's what we call a coward.
-
I'm slow :(
-
Adam Carolla did this bit with who he called "slippery slope guy", which was usually pretty funny and accurate in it's skewing of the common slippery slope technique. I tried my best to find clips, and for once was stumped. Nothing out there, nadda. Good luck to anyone else. He quit doing it in favor of .. I think something like "1800's guy explains ____", which was great but just not as great as slippery slope guy.
Wow. This talkback is going to bypass that obscure one soon. -
Gay marriage and "Normal" marriage are apples and oranges. Except that gay people are now trying to tell me that the orange in my hand isn't and orange at all..its really an apple. And now they are going make sure I call it an apple. It does not mater that the people voted on it and that the majority of people know it an orange, it only matters that they believe its an apple and if you dont conform than you are an apple hater and evil. You will call an apple, you have no choice.
-
Dec 05, 2008 8:13:41 AM CST
Blacks & Whites weren't allowed to marry until 1968!!
by bob cryptonight
Social progress is slow in this country of half-wit religious, xenophobic jackasses.
-
did that skit focus on a good argument for gay marriage (equal rights argument, psychological impact, unfair tax advantages). Instead, it spent the bulk of it's time with an obvious joking/fluff argument about what it would do for the economy and taking Christian religious beliefs out of context (in the Gospels, Christians AREN'T bound to Kosher laws and can't go around beating up their loved ones. On the other hand there are strict prohibitions against sexual immorality, among which homosexuality is listed). Way to assert a smug superiority. Typical from Jack Black.
-
terrible argument. Please stop that.
-
That sounds delicious. Someone fetch me some. My girlfriend hasn't been to the market enough lately. :(
-
Doesn't matter to me if you are a man loving a woman, man loving a man, or woman loving a woman. Am really surprised by how many don't want that for others. There is nothing more rewarding and fullfilling than finding someone to love and receive love back.I think the thing that bothers me is that why worry about it? What does it have to do with you specifically? Are you that insecure in your own skin or jealous of other positive relationships that you have to hate it. If two consenting adults of either gender feel that they want to be together then let them. This country needs to see more positive than negative.
-
Dec 05, 2008 9:23:43 AM CST
Honestly....this video is not funny and will do more harm than g
by dannyglovers_dickblood
If I was on the fence about hating gays, and I saw this. I would want them to internally combust.
-
Dec 05, 2008 9:37:45 AM CST
MORBID! WELCOME BACK!! AS IF YOU ACTUALLY WENT ANYWHERE!!
by bringingsexyback
It costs nothing to humor your fantasies so what the hell. How was that Weekly Standard / National Review cruise to Alaska? Find anymore political stars to run for Veep? Any blooming romance with Bill Kristol? Maybe you lobbied Sarah Palin for gay marriage in Alaska? I'd sign your petition, buddy!
-
Maybe it'll rebound now that he's "back". Time to buy more stock!
-
Slippery slopes, anyone?
-
Are you sure? Obama was born before that.
-
Dec 05, 2008 9:44:30 AM CST
JAMES CAMERON took it in the ass from LINDA HAMILTON
by dannyglovers_dickblood
-
Just ask Ron Perlman and Edward Furlong.
-
So sayeth some rabbis. Slippery slope!!!
-
as long as it's with a person you love. And not with the editor of The Weekly Standard.
For shame, Morbid. -
The black diamond of slippery slopes.
-
...so I don't have to pay for my prostate stimulation. Right now I'm putting down a pretty penny each week to get milked. And the bitch that does it smells like fucking Bok Choy.
-
A silicone spatula works great. Trust me.
-
The subject is anal stimulation techniques. Pay attention.
-
Will have to drop by BB&B tonight.
-
Glad to see you were keeping up with my posts while you were "away". hee
-
You're an unoriginal douche bag. Go the fuck away. You weren't missed.
-
I had Coughlins Laws, you got Obesity. They both read our posts in the shadows and touch themselves. Fucking losers. Maybe they are the same guy....hhmmmmm....
-
Except Coughlins actually had balls to talkback during the election. My troll here was in hiding. I'm not proud of him.
-
Whatever you say! Maybe you can post a whole October/November itinerary to prove you were "away"? The proof is in the eating of pudding!
-
to get it up the ass from Linda Hamilton? gotta revise my christmas list...
-
Too bad her show could not survive on an audience of 1.
-
Dec 05, 2008 10:33:38 AM CST
yeah I want fans. Thats why I reach out to everyone....
by dannyglovers_dickblood
...here!! The only fan I want is Coughlins Laws. He's not easy on the eyes, but boy can he suck a mean cock.
-
Very important talent.
-
Dec 05, 2008 10:36:26 AM CST
I love when these fucks try to turn this shit around...
by dannyglovers_dickblood
....now you hate gays BSB? Hahahaha. Thats almost as good as my piss ladel (Coughlins) trying to say I was a racist after I repeatedly used the term "GOOK" while quoting John McKKKain.
-
I believe that line starts at Morbid ...
-
He's very politically correct ... when it suits his agenda, of course.
-
than have Morbid's sloppy seconds...
-
I'm so glad he keeps us updated on his life. Maybe I'll look him up on Twitter later.
-
Unless you're Bill Kristol, or Peter Schiff, you don't want anything to do with Morbid's anal activities.
-
Baby boy. Node and BSB really missed you. Isn't it nice to be wanted?
-
Pretty much summarizes Morbid's Alaskan cruise.
-
Can you believe it? I pay homage to the missing (lurking) Morbid and the first thing he does when he "returns" is insult me. What an ingrate. Never trust a NeoCon wannabe.
-
Just breaks my heart to see Morbie treat you like a three-legged rented mule.
-
1. People coming into a TB named "Obamanation..." about a faux musical in essence mocking those who voted for things like Prop 8 and then complaining about this being a political TB on a movie sight need to be smacked with the DUH stick (or 'dumbass' stick if you prefer). What part of the title of this TB made you think it wasn't going to be political? Have you been on this site long? Not to mention you came in, read at least enough to establish its political nature, and then took the detached view that we should really be talking about movies. Which one? Did you guys miss the huge TB thread on Twilight?And 2. This is for those who voted for Prop 8 and want to deny homosexuals the right to marry. You people never get to complain about this bullshit war on Christmas EVER FUCKING AGAIN. I heard all the false victim-hood of how you were being denied your 1st amendment rights and how this country and the "secullar left" had it out for you and how you we're now the "oppressed". Ok, fine. Now that your views are truly being forced upon everybody else, you no longer get to play victim over people being inclusive of other relgious holidays, mkay? You can't claim oppression when you're the one doing the oppressing (and yes, denying a homosexual the same rights you have is oppression, not violent or murderous of course, but oppression none the less).And, one last thing...those of you saying "tough shit, the majority voted for it" must never have heard about Jefferson's notion of "The Tyranny of the Majority" and why he questioned some of the notions of a democratic republic. Just because the majority vote a particular way does not mean they are right. I won't even go into the other historical aspects the "majority" believed in or voted for that were wrong then as they are wrong today.Damn...I'm just a schmuck trying to get by on what's left of my grey jelly floatin between me ears but so many people are so very passionate about thing they seemingly haven't thought very deeply about.
-
in the brains department. A local free paper asked a bunch of people on the street about prop hate and asked them why they were going to vote for or against it. One lady said this:
"I'm voting for it, because it clearly violates my religious freedom."
BOOONG!!!
Do people really define "rights" in this way. As if their "rights" include legislating their lessened COMFORT!???!!
The CLEAR solution to all of this is an upgrade in the general education requirements. And I DO NOT mean english and math. I mean things like critical thinking, arts, literature. Or even simple social studies. In a comfortable environment where a teacher can whip out a trust dictionary at just the right moment to read of the definition of "rights" as opposed to "opinion". If I had a god, I would scream to him right now and the crane would pull up to the sky as I sreamed "WHY!!" toward the sky. We are in truly bad, sick shape here in California.
Granola eating, liberal nutbags my ASS. This place is the shallow end of the gene pool, and we're all stuck in the mud while the world is still stuck in the 70's as far as the general perception of our majority populace is concerned. This place hasn't TRULY been a liberal comfort zone since about '78. -
the shit stuck in the drain of the shallow end...
-
Or that we should abandon majority rule, and allow only a special select few to make the rules?v Yes, I know the constitution does not mention the word 'democracy'. I know the pledge says 'To the republic'. I know that Pat Buchanan wants a Republic and not a democracy - which should scare the hell out of anyone who thinks a republic is better. Democracy can produce bad results, but Republics have not shown they can be any better. Slavery anyone? I apologize for calling you surely.
-
You guys are frickin'-frackin' geniuses!
-
We're just pissed and on fire. Pretty much get used to it. People with half a brain are usually pretty upset when the brain-dead majority decide on something like this. At least when they assume rights can be voted upon by the majority. We can argue and fight and bitch until the beef show up at the door with tagged luggage, but anyone who thinks right should be voted on by a majority is just a few cells short of retardation. The functionally tolerated.
-
Just throwing out ideas. You guys like Alaska? It's pretty country.
-
....and both gays and people from Israel were shipped to Utah. Would there be any problems in the entire world?
-
Pun intended. Some far rightwingers want to abolish the democracy - that allows common folks to vote on such things as propositions. They want the right to make laws restricted to the elites, and only the elites. Why would right wing Republicans want that? Because they want to be the elites. The bigger question, is why would people on the left want that? Losing a vote is not the end-all. Losing the right to vote, is. Proposition's come and go. What is voted for or against today, can have a different voting result next year. But if you remove the right to vote altogether, you will get what you richly deserve.
-
and all their followers would join them, we'd solve a lot of Earth's issues.
-
Dec 05, 2008 12:19:15 PM CST
anyone wanting to do away with propositions...
by dannyglovers_dickblood
...is a fucking moron. Its the only power the people actually have. There is nothing wrong with that.
-
And once those dickheads had a foothold on the moon, then comes Mars! And they would breed like rabbitses!
-
Dec 05, 2008 12:31:26 PM CST
Losing a vote is not the end-all. Losing the right to vote, is.
by toadkillerdog
Yes, I am posting my own quote again, but it is necessary for any nutcase who thinks that because they have lost one vote the majority should not be allowed to vote. I would bet my life if the vote had gone their way, they would not say such a dumbass thing.
-
I like it when we 69 and his mustache tickles my balls, it makes me giggle like the Snuggles bear.
-
http://tinyurl.com/58efnm
-
...she reverts back to old habits. Maybe there is no hope for you guys.Seriously, don't you think your country has a few more important things to worry about than whether loving, consenting adults should be allowed to get married?
-
Dec 05, 2008 1:34:24 PM CST
Next, the "functionally tolerated" will want to marry!
by snake foreskin
And that can't be tolerated!
-
Have you ever been violently fucked in the ass by another man? There is nothing loving about that.
-
Dec 05, 2008 1:43:02 PM CST
Why can't 6 loving, consenting adults all get married?
by snake foreskin
To each other? Gays can have civil unions and share all the same rights as straight couples. Just don't call it marriage.
Why can't loving, consenting adults of opposite sex be allowed to hold on to the most basic definition of the institution of marriage that has existed since time immemorial?
Why can't loving, consenting adults of same sex simply accept the idea of civil unions and enjoy the same rights heterosexual couples enjoy? The answer: because they have a desperate need to feel accepted by the mainstream who make up the societal norm. The problem is, being homosexual is abnormal sexual and social behavior, and a lot of gay people don't want to admit or accept that.
They'd rather ruin marriage for heterosexuals than be denied it themselves. Talk about spoil-sports! The gay mafia wants to force a false sense of normalcy on the public. What they don't get is that they are actually pushing many straight people to become less tolerant of them. -
In what way do you believe any attempt was made to redefine religious views? Can you provide a rational, reasonable answer or are you only capable of emotional, barely intelligible rants?
-
You better bone up on your Marriage History.
-
"Just don't call it marriage"? Why not? The only thing threatening marriage is divorce. Why not outlaw that?...and besides, all that's not really what's behind this opposition. What's behind the opposition is a disapproval/fear of gay people. Don't hide behind the marriage thing if you think being gay is immoral or a sin, grow some balls and just come out and say it. If you're going to be an intolerant fool and least be a brave intolerant fool.
-
He's so cool I almost wish I was gay!
-
We've discussed this before. You're a fucking paranoid asshole. Ruin marriage for heterosexuals? Okay, you must be from the Midwest. Fuck off. Once you've sucked my cock once, I guarantee you'll want to marry it. The thing is so beautiful and wrinkle-free, you'll want it cemented to your fucking face.
-
STONE THEM!"You claim it's all about hate, I don't hate homosexuals, but the fact that this is all about tax breaks seems to go way above the heads of the people who made this thing. Yes, the musical was funny, but all it mainly did was say "You, you out there who voted against this! You're ignorant and STUPID! You so STUUUUPIIIIIID!!!!111" Not the best way to reach the masses and spread your message. Personally, I say either let gays marry and be as miserable as the rest of us (what with divorces and alimony), or stop all gov't marriages and just let churches handle that shit... Honestly, why is the gov't involved in marriages anyway? Marriage has always just been a church thing since the beginning of civilization. How did the gov't get involved?
-
Dec 05, 2008 4:14:32 PM CST
make all marriages under government "CIVIL UNIONS"
by dannyglovers_dickblood
If people wanna take it farther, go get married in your own church and fuck off. Simple ass that.
-
...Philosophy at a grade school level. But that means teaching children to read, which is getting harder and harder. Anyway, better education is not the answer. Like George Carlin said, they WANT you dumb. People voting for Proposition 8 is a great litmus test to see how retarded the populace is. And Snake Foreskin, it being obvious you have not read the TB, let alone anything regarding the issue, Civil Unions do not provide the same lawful benefits of marriage. If you upgraded civil unions to the same legal and social standing as a marriage, I'm sure that would be fine. You should also look up the definition of Marriage, as it is inclusive of same sex, or multiple partner marriage. Mongtar. Alifemde, the government is involved in every facet of our lives now. From what you ingest to what you say or which body part you expose. Marriage is just another avenue for them to meddle in. For instance, if your a homo and you show up to a hospital, you need to bring a stack of paperwork to verify that you're legally linked to the dude in the ER. If your married, you just say "Hey, thats my husband in there with the broken glass jar in his anus". Of course, common sense, rational thinking, personal responsibility could be used in the situation, but triplicate beauracracy is how we run things now.
-
...Them marry. Can you imagine a Department Of Civil Unions? How many more agencies do you want?
-
I fucking hate Reno man.
-
Comparing the "War on Christmas" to Prop 8 is ridiculous.
The whole "Christmas" thing is an effort by Christians (and some of varying other beliefs) to stop a political correctness movement which is attempting to remove the entire "reason for the season" from the public and private sector. They aren't trying to force people to celebrate Christmas if they don't want to. They are trying to keep the word "Christmas" in retail stores and various other arenas. It is so silly to ban "Christmas" because it *may* not be applicable to all people. I don't know too many people who get up in arms when they hear the word Christmas uttered or see it on a sign at Wal Mart. And yet, the PC Nazis are trying to strip Christmas out of our culture almost entirely.
Now look at what the gay mafia is trying to accomplish. They want to force all Americans to accept them as the norm and allow them to marry the same sex and change the definition for everyone... ah, I can't even deal with this anymore. Have a great weekend!
-
BS. "Traditional" marriage evolved from property. Romantic marriage as people know it nowadays has only emerged relatively recently. There's absolutely no need to restrict romantic marriage - and, more importantly, the legal rights and responsibilities that come with it - to heterosexual couples. Gays marrying won't affect anyone except gays. Gay marriage has existed in several countries for several years now (The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, Norway, South Africa) without any negative societal impact whatsoever.
-
In my pants.
-
the state issuing marriages in the first place. If we treat "Marriage" as a religious institution, then the state shouldn't go near it. The state should give you civil unions, while the church gives you marriages. The problem here is not that "poor gays can't say they are married" it's that "laws are being made taking the feelings of a bearded man in the sky into consideration". And not only in America. 21th century. Goddamn ridiculous.
-
Dec 05, 2008 5:23:12 PM CST
The most vehemently anti-gay are always closeted homosexuals the
by luscious.868
See Tedd Haggard for a shining example. Those of you making a big deal about gay marriage were buggered as children and you secretly loved it.
-
Dec 05, 2008 5:23:16 PM CST
The most vehemently anti-gay are always closeted homosexuals the
by luscious.868
See Tedd Haggard for a shining example. Those of you making a big deal about gay marriage were buggered as children and you secretly loved it.
-
Dec 05, 2008 5:23:23 PM CST
The most vehemently anti-gay are always closeted homosexuals the
by luscious.868
See Tedd Haggard for a shining example. Those of you making a big deal about gay marriage were buggered as children and you secretly loved it.
-
We're bagging on the idiot hate mongers who do the exact opposite of what Christ taught. I'm looking at you Rick "let's kill the president of Iran" Warren. Talk about a walking, talking example of somebody who claims to follow Jesus's example yet advocates something he'd find morally reprehensible.
-
... is: Tai_Pan.
-
... the level of stupidity displayed by the 'Pro-Prop-8ers' in this TB, especially over the last 24 hours or so, is truely mind-boggling. What I am looking for is an anti-gay-marriage argument that conforms to the the tenants of classical debate. IE: One that relies on empiricism, vs hearsay and/or opinion. IE: How specifically, does it detrimentally affect social order, heterosexual marriage, child rearing, or religious integrity? I have seen no evidence of any such argument in this TB thus far, and I'm pretty sure my head would explode if I tried to catalog and refute all the fallacious bullshit being slung by the bigots here. It would require a 50 meter post, hmmm... Nope, fuck it, not worth the time. It's all been successfully refuted piecemeal already anyway. It's like trying to debate a lamp-post. Unless someone finally mounts a logical argument after all this blather, I'm out. Peace to you all.
-
No one is even asking you to allow homo's to marry in your churches. Just the basic right to marry. You zealots DEMAND that retail stores and other outlets bare your insignia. Nah, it's not similar at all, because your side is motivated by religous fanaticism. And yet again, NO ONE IS ASKING THEM TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE. Are you willfully ignorant?
-
They are the rich and powerful after all. They wanted Obama and got him. They want gay marriage, I am sure it will come soon enough somehow with this fucked up country.
-
'Tis the reasons for the season!!!!
-
to get an LCD TV on sale? Apparently there are around 2,000 people who would (and did). Tragic.
-
The impossible is possible tonight!!
We'll crucify the insincere tonight!!
We'll make things right, we'll feel it all tonight!!
Believe in me as I believe in you ... tonight. -
... are likely the ones who secretly desire the cock. Sad. Let two people who love each other get married. It has nothing to do with you. Marriage is not taught in schools. Prop 8 won on lies. Hey, I do not want to see two dudes getting it on just like any other straight dude. So, I don't attend gay pride parades or go to gay bars or watch gay porn. The bible is filled with lies. Sodomy? Holy shit, most straight porn is dudes reaming chics asses and for good reason. I've nailed two chics in my lifetime up the ass. It was awesome! The first time was nasty though due to our utter lack of experience in it. When I was in college my gf begged me to fuck her ass. I came up her ass and when I pulled out my dick was coated with smegma and shit. I gagged but that was a lesson learned. Fuck all you militant Prop 8 supporters. I wish I could kill you with my hate.
-
Seriously? "Hey, Tony, bada bing bada boom. I gotta whack a guy, but marron, I tink I wanna kiss im."
-
Love it or leave it. Isn't that what your people told us back when you decided on Bush (wow!! how was that possible without the hollyweird elite on your side.. I mean they decide everything, right?)??
-
sending tax incentives to married couples, gay or straight. It has been a gross failure in term of its stated purpose. Take the government out of personal and religious social contracts and we won't have to deal with this issue at all. The amount of histrionics and narcissism attached to this debate is incredibly over-pronounced. Hospital visitation rights? Fix them at the hospital policy level or local government level. Survivor rights/rights of recovery? State law can distribute that without even bothering with whether or not the person is married. Death tax and inheritance? Same solution. But some people would rather have all this drama and heartache because they want to feel special by having the government recognize that they *really* *really* like somebody. Commitment to your partner is at such an all-time low that people don't want to abandon that thin string. I'm against the state recognizing gay marriage. I'm against the state recognizing special rights/tax benefits for straight marriages. Let people decide for themselves how they wish to be identified. That way, it's between people and churches, friends and family; not a matter of a cumbersome government forcing divisive labels and offensive perceptions on people. Society legislates morality: always has, and for the most part we are willing to accept that, but this is a very simple bypass where we don't even have to resort to that measure. Cut the government out of this equation (as we easily could) and there'd be no problem.
-
“In June 1958,” Warren explained, “two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a negro woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws.” But not pursuant to the laws of their native Virginia. When they returned to the state and set up home in Caroline County, a Virginia grand jury indicted them for violating the local ban on interracial marriages. “On January 6, 1959,” Warren continued, “the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. He stated in an opinion that: ‘Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix'." The Supreme Court unanimously rejected this argument. “The Fourteenth Amendment,” Warren wrote, “requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.” He concluded: “These convictions must be reversed. It is so ordered.” http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article5126706.ece
-
So-called conservatives. Most of which, in our modern world, are a sick perversion of the ideals and precedents of their ideological forefathers. Here's something for you to take a moment to look at. Seriously. One of your heroes, the objectivist heroine Ayn Rand, on rights...
It's at about 1 minute 30.
http://tinyurl.com/5cxwcq
Consider these ideas the next time you call yourself what you will to justify your stands. -
Ayn Rand is *not* a conservative. She is an objectivist. Don't mix the two. Those two groups only agree on some economic theory and their only joint campaigns were victories in the 70s and 80s when they fused together due to a shared hatred of communism. They have since parted ways, as they tend to do. But AYN RAND IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE. Arguably, she is a libertarian, but even that is far removed from a conservative. Take a poly sci class and come back to the boards before posting that junk.
-
After reading your "contributions" to several TBs, I can unequivocally opine that you are in fact a racist, misogynistic, small minded, dickhead. I seriously doubt that you have the intellect to comprehend the writings of Ayn Rand, and that you probably draw most of your "opinions" regarding literature from Cliff Notes.
-
Dude, just fuck off. I simply dismiss your charge about me being small-minded and dickheaded because I don't credit you with enough subjectivity to respect opinions that differ from your little world view as being anything other than heresy (as is evident by the fact that you failed to dispute a single thing I said about Rand; either you know I'm correct or you don't know what you're talking about). You have absolutely no basis for calling me a racist or a misogynist. If you want to compare brain pans, I'll gladly comply because I'm more than confident I'm smart enough to understand Rand's bullshit or yours for that matter. I've degrees in Political Science, Criminal Justice, and a legal degree and MBA in progress with more than enough academic awards and distinctions to deflect meaningless accusations of below-average intellect from whiny little pikers like yourself.
-
Sit down boy. As I've opined before: You are unworthy of debate. Therefore, I say again: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! You truly are RIDICULOUS.
-
I took second in regionals for CEDA policy debate in college when I was on deabte team. You, on the other hand, have a bunch of posts on a movie news forum where you whine and throw tantrums and hurl insults. You're a piker, plain and simple... and your inability to understand modest concepts as well as your eagerness to insult people without provocation leads me to the suspicion that you are probably just another one of the Internet's garden-variety mental midgets. If so, that's pretty sad: rudeness, stupidity and a compulsion to show it off.
-
Why do you continue to spar with a garden variety mental midget? You and your gigantic ego can kiss my retarded ass.
-
The only person I'm "eager to insult" is YOU. I TRIED to have a respectful, logical argument with you about same sex marriage in previous TB and you weren't having it. There was a whole group of us trying in vain to engage you in a logical debate of the subject, but you just kept repeating the same talking points, over, over, and calling us all stupid for "refusing to see" the validity of your position on the subject. So I wrote you off. Get over yourself man. Your opinion just isn't that important, and it's high time you figured that out. You'll be a happier person for it. Humility is a virtue, not a liability. Bye bye Tai, and don't worry, I won't bother with addressing you in the future.
-
"The only person I'm "eager to insult" is YOU."- I highly doubt that, but it's irrelevant. You're still a jerk whether you intend to antagonize one or several. And don't lie about trying to be respectful. As soon as I gave answers that you didn't like you turned into an asshole. I never demanded my opinion be considered important or accepted as gospel for everyone; just that it not be misunderstoood, and to let people know that not everyone who disagrees with gay marriage hates homosexuals or wishes to deny deserving individuals their equal protection under the law. Politeness is a virtue as well, and you are sadly lacking. If you won't bother addressing me in the future, then that would be just wonderful. There's a world of jerks out there, and it's nice to cross one off the list every now and then.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 325 total posts 322 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 106 total posts 106 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 63 total posts 60 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 74 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 159 total posts 51 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 47 total posts 41 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 161 total posts 34 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 488 total posts 33 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 121 total posts 23 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 70 total posts 20 posts