I have no problems with those who wish to indulge in a different sexual lifestyle
I have no problems with homosexuals fighting for equal rights accorded to heterosexual couples.

But i have a problem when homosexuals forget the rules of democracy and instead choose to force their sexual orientation on others. To say that i have no right to use the ballot to reject the redefinition of marriage to suit a narrow and selfish agenda is to be ignorant and intolerant.
I have a problem when homosexuals try to tell us that gay rights are similar to civil rights. It is an insult to every black man on earth. To say that fighting for pecuniary benefits as a result of a lifestyle that only 20yrs ago was considered a "disorder" in psychiatric textbooks is akin to fighting for the right to be regarded as a human is incomprehensible.
Homosexuals were never slaves, sexual orientation can be hidden . . . skin color cannot. Until you have been hosed down by police, refused voting rights, the right to ride on the same bus, been forced to work on cotton farms and barred from schools . . . homosexuals have no right to define their "struggle" as a civil rights movement.

Gay relationships depend on the society and heterosexual unions to survive. Why do they feel they MUST co-opt the term "marriage" by force? Is democracy no longer the wish of the majority?

The idea that the courts can be used to deny the will of the people by the stroke of a pen is frightening. It is a slippery slope that can only get worse. If indeed homosexuals argue a right to recognised, will they also agree that cousins can now marry each other and polygamous relationships should now become legal?

Many gay rights activists have a lot of apologies to make to Warren Jeffs.

If polygamists cannot claim that marriage is a civil right, then gay activist cannot claim to be fighting civil rights. I was listening to some folks who were of the opinion that blacks and hispanics cames out in droves to vote for Obama and voted NO for proposition 8 and wondered why minorities did not see gay issues as their own. My question is how many gay activists were in immigration rallies organised by Hispanics in the last few years? How many gay activists would lend their support for better funding of inner schools in California? Folks voted on issues.

Civil Rights issues shouldn't have been brought to voters in the first place. This issue should have went directly to the California State Legislature instead, because even the governor can see the civil rights violations in this.


If the civil rights act was instead put on a national ballot, do you think it would have been passed (in the 1960s)?

Lets get one thing straight no one picks their race you are born into it.

You can pick your sexuality though!
Therefore race and sexuality are NOT the same thing!

Therefore David my love I agree with you 100%

As long as Gays dont try to join the church or have their weddings with religious blessing I really dont care.  We are all sinners after all

blackspade:

Civil Rights issues shouldn't have been brought to voters in the first place. This issue should have went directly to the California State Legislature instead, because even the governor can see the civil rights violations in this.


If the civil rights act was instead put on a national ballot, do you think it would have been passed (in the 1960s)?

probably not but u're getting the whole thing twisted. Look lets be honest - the gay rights issue is primarily a white thing. Do you think anyone would care if 90% of gay people were black?

Here is the problem you dont see - forcing the courts to accept gay unions as legal "marriages" will spark off a systematic muzzling of my right to freedom of religion. Imagine churches being sued for refusing to marry gay couples.

If you advocate that this issue shld go to the supreme court then shld McCain also head there to try and see if the courts can rule the election in his favour?
If this was about "equality", gay folks would be fighting for equal rights for me to marry my cat, 3 wives or my cousin. In the end its not about equality at all but about selfishness.

What gays choose to do whether it be marry, adopt, or whatever ----- that does not effect me in one bit. Why should I and others keep them from having the privileges the rest of us get to take advantage of?

What I want to know is Im hearing a lot of people saying Gay marriage is to protect rights and properties.

But cant you just sign a contract or make a will.  Have an agreement if we part ways after this amount of time I owe you this and that.

Gay marriages have no place in Church

blackspade:

What gays choose to do whether it be marry, adopt, or whatever ----- that does not effect me in one bit. Why should I and others keep them from having the privileges the rest of us get to take advantage of?

the problem is a lot of us who glibly "support" gay marriage cant see beyond our noses. Gay couples already have the priviledges and rights they seek - it is not against the law to be gay, it is not against the law to have a partnership with someone of the same sex, it is against the law to discriminate against someone on the basis of sexual orientation . . .

So what else do they want?

I'll tell you - the immediate repeal of the DOMA act of 1996 and the legalisation of the term "marriage" to include gay couples.

It is but one small step, 20 yrs ago gay folks werent fighting for any rights. 20 yrs from now those who wish to marry their cats or 5 wives or remain as swing couples will begin their own "civil rights" campaign.

So David if you had to vote what would you do?

if i could, i would vote to ban same sex "marriage". They can have civil unions but we cant suddenly re-invent an institution that has survived for 6000 yrs to suit the feelings of a minority.
I cant wait for the Mormons to come out asking for their own polygamy rights too.

DavidDylan:

the problem is a lot of us who glibly "support" gay marriage can't see beyond our noses. Gay couples already have the priviledges and rights they seek - it is not against the law to be gay, it is not against the law to have a partnership with someone of the same sex, it is against the law to discriminate against someone on the basis of sexual orientation . . .

So what else do they want?

I'll tell you - the immediate repeal of the DOMA act of 1996 and the legalisation of the term "marriage" to include gay couples.

It is but one small step, 20 years ago gay folks werent fighting for any rights. 20 years from now those who wish to marry their cats or 5 wives or remain as swing couples will begin  their own "civil rights" campaign.

I think you're starting to get a bit paranoid with that nonsense.

In case you didn't know, gay marriage was legal here for over a year, but with the passing of prop 8, it has now ended. During this time, I haven't noticed anyone taking 'larger steps' or anything having to do with that. This sudden resistance from gays and lesbians just now started with the passage of prop 8.

Again, I see nothing wrong with them wanting to marry --- it's not my position to judge or decide what others should want to do.

blackspade:

I think you're starting to get a bit paranoid with that nonsense.

In case you didn't know, gay marriage was legal here for over a year, but with the passing of prop 8, it has now ended. During this time, I haven't noticed anything 'larger steps' or anything having to do with that. This sudden resistance from gays and lesbians just now started with the passage of prop 8.

Smart people take one step at a time.

I have 2 questions for you:

1. Do you still believe in democracy?

2. Should the term "marriage" be ammended to cover gay couples or expunged completely?

blackspade:

Again, I see nothing wrong with them wanting to marry --- it's not my position to judge or decide what others should want to do.

Neither do i see nothing wrong with them wanting to get together . . . i see a lot wrong with forcing the state to regard you as "married". The institution of marriage is sacred.

No no no Blackspade

Davids point is very valid!

If you allow them to marry soon they will demand they want to marry in the church.  Which is madness.  Its like a black person trying to join the KKK.

Whats wrong with civil union?

DavidDylan:
1. Do you still believe in democracy?

Yes, I absolutely believe in democracy, but I also believe in equality. I understand 'the people have spoken', but the proposition itself is seriously flawed, and conflicts with the fundamental rights of the California state constitution.

DavidDylan:
2. Should the term "marriage" be ammended to cover gay couples or expunged completely?

You act as if same-sex marriage is going to automatically void traditional marriage.

To answer your question, I think the term marriage should coordinate with the fundamental rights of human beings in the state of California. If more research had actually went into this proposition, and more red flags were arisen, this would have never been presented on a statewide ballot, especially when there are those who insist on misleading the public.

You can pick your sexuality though!

so when did you pick your sexuality. did you have to make a choice between carpet munching and sucking d**k. pardon my vocab

bawomolo:

so when did you pick your sexuality.  did you have to make a choice between carpet munching and sucking d**k. pardon my vocab

If I decide today to become a lesbian.  Have I not picked a sexuality?
Does that make me less of a lesbian than someone who came out age 13?

Please don't give me that nonsense about the gay gene or people knowing they were Gay from age 3!

You make a choice!

Not the same as being born black or white

If you allow them to marry soon they will demand they want to marry in the church.  Which is madness.  Its like a black person trying to join the KKK.

funny enough there has been a case of black detective who infiltrated the kkk for two years. your assertion is absurd considering homosexuals prefer to get married in city hall.

Whats wrong with civil union?

what's wrong with separate but equal during the segregation era? basically an half ass attempt at correcting what is wrong.  unmarried couples have been stopped from adopting kids in arizona and florida. this was obviously targeting gay couples.  you now see why civil unions aren't the same as marriage?

Neither do i see nothing wrong with them wanting to get together . . . i see a lot wrong with forcing the state to regard you as "married". The institution of marriage is sacred.

why not put a ban on divorce if the institution of marriage is sacred?

I can't wait for the Mormons to come out asking for their own polygamy rights too.

correction, the official mormon church has abandoned polygamy. it's the renegade groups that still continue the practice.  i have no problem with polygamy by the way. adults have a right to choose their marital patterns. your argument seems to be that the minority should be at the mercy of the majority when it comes to civil liberties.

bawolomo have you heard about the gay drama in the anglican church globally?

LadyT:

bawolomo have you heard about the gay drama in the anglican church globally?

do you mean the argument over admitting in gay clergy. i really don't see what does that has to do with gay marriage.  that's like me claiming women are trying to force their views on men just because some people want female priests in the catholic church. that's a separate issue on its own. 

you shouldn't agree with discrimination just because you don't agree with homosexuality

If I decide today to become a lesbian.  Have I not picked a sexuality?
Does that make me less of a lesbian than someone who came out age 13?

simple question, have you ever felt a sexual or emotional attraction to a woman?

Please don't give me that nonsense about the gay gene or people knowing they were Gay from age 3!

so when did you realize u like guys. where you over 20 when you made the choice?

Sexual no. Emotional YES!

My mother, my friends etc

I think breasts are beautiful but no Im not gay.


My point about the Gay priest is that there is a section of the Gay community that want inclusion in the Church.

Shouldnt Gays be fighting for civil union with more rights then? Like adoption?

LadyT:


I think breasts are beautiful but no I'm not gay.

hehehe

My point about the Gay priest is that there is a section of the Gay community that want inclusion in the Church.

aren't they a minority within a minority though. are most gay people really so concerned about getting married in the church

Shouldnt Gays be fighting for civil union with more rights then? Like adoption?

the thing is why not call it marriage if you are going to give them these rights. what's so sacred about "marriage" if people are divorcing at an alarming rate. calling it marriage shouldn't be that big of a deal

This issue again!

blackspade:

To answer your question, I think the term marriage should coordinate with the fundamental rights of human beings in the state of California. If more research had actually went into this proposition, and more red flags were arisen, this would have never been presented on a statewide ballot, especially when there are those who insist on misleading the public.

Even if you disagree with the process, don't argue blindly that it is unconstitutional.  If you had done more research on the matter--as you claim others haven't-- you will not make the statement you did.  California's constitution can be amended by initiative. When a number of signatures from voters in the state have been collected, the initiative can be placed on the ballot for the masses to vote on, as long as it is not in conflict with the federal constitution, or the state's. State Constitution does not restrict rights guaranteed under the U.S. constitution.

bawomolo:

aren't they a minority within a minority though. are most gay people really so concerned about getting married in the church

So what? Should we in turns exclude one minority sect in favor of another minority group? If you say yes, that totally nullifies all your other points.

H2O2:

So what? Should we in turns exclude one minority sect in favor of another minority group? If you say yes, that totally nullifies all your other points.

of course we shouldn't considering that the church is separate from state according to the American constitution. am talking about the state granting them the right to marry. i don't care whether the church wants homo priests. lol@ you using the word sect.

bawomolo:

of course we shouldn't considering that the church is separate from state according to the American constitution. am talking about the state granting them the right to marry. i don't care whether the church wants homo priests. lol@ you using the word sect.

Should they be allowed to "marry" in the Church if they want to?

LadyT:

Should they be allowed to "marry" in the Church if they want to?

the church is separate from state. that is not an issue at all. the church has special privileges. i really why an homosexual would want to get married in a church though. maybe the united church of christ would allow such marriages.

bawomolo:

lol@ you using the word sect.

LOL.

So, why do you think those in support of proposition 8 are bigots? What makes us bigots.

H2O2:

LOL.

So, why do you think those in support of proposition 8 are bigots? What makes us bigots.

bigots because what really scares you about prop 8. really other than the "gays are taking over" excuse.

People that believe marriage is a union between man and a woman are not bigoted. I think you can even make the argument that gays are the ones trying to force others to accept their union as 'marriage'. If I call a square a circle I would not be a bigot; it is just an incorrect statement.

H2O2:

People that believe marriage is a union between man and a woman are not bigoted. I think you can even make the argument that gays are the ones trying to force others to accept their union as 'marriage'. If I call a square a circle I would not be a bigot; it is just an incorrect statement.

marriage was once define as marriage soley between a man and a woman of the same race. people had similar views about interracial marriage decades ago but hey who cares about the gays

bawomolo:

marriage was once define as marriage soley between a man and a woman of the same race. people had similar views about interracial marriage decades ago but hey who cares about the gays

As someone said earlier, that's a civil rights issue.  The reason that was repealed was because it violated basic civil rights by attempting to redefine marriage.  Marriage is between a man and a woman. Gays want to change society's rules just so they can feel normal.

Now, some people will always try to justify their way of life by classifying themselves as "minorities", as if being a minority automatically rights their preference.

Suppose a  new group of consenting adults want to marry themselves.  Up to 100 of them, all married to one another.  If gay marriage is legalized, what's stopping their union from being recognized as marriage? Should they be allowed to do what they want because they're a minority?  Wouldn't it be discriminatory and a violation of the constitution not to let them?
That brings me to my next point.  If gays are truly fighting for a "just cause", or "equality for all" as they call it.  Why aren't they trying to extend marriage rights to these groups too (polygamous groups, marriage between sibblings, etc) instead of selfishly for "gay marriage" alone?

Those of us who respect the natural establishment and history of marriage do not want these defects categorized as marriage.  Marriage is between a man and a woman.  If they like, let them create a new term and call it "civil unions" - it can be between all consenting adults if they so choose.  At least it will not create too much of a raucous, or draw as much disapproval from the legal community.  Gays want to be seen as the same as straights, but we all know that they are NOT.


Individual practices or personal agenda do not necessarily have to be forced into the teeth of the law, especially when they have no beneficial significance.