Jump to content

California voters approve gay-marriage ban


bodybag
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The concept of even having a vote on this subject seems insane to me. Like having a vote "Should black people not be allowed to use public transport?" - why even have this vote, it's clearly a stupid question just like the gay marriage question. And clearly it will only be people who have prejudice who will vote for these kinds of things, and who needs their opinion?

 

"We conducted a survey of KKK members and nazis, and 99% said they'd be happy if all black people were slaughtered" - well, that's great, but what KKK members and nazis think is a piece of crap, and it's a dickheaded question to ask anybody in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems many people on this site don't really understand the whole issue, but would rather finger point and name call, and strike out for the freedoms of only one side of the story.

Then Joe, please explain the whole issue to us. Answer our direct questions. Explain your side of the story intelligently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boooo shame shame shame on the ban. I thought California was more liberal... I guess not. Religion has entered the California government. I know where this is going. This subject carries really strong convictions. It is best if to discuss this politely and with out aggression from either side and name calling. Is that possible ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That really surprises me. I always assumed Cali was quite progressive on social issues.
San Diego, Orange County as well as central parts of the state are conservative. There are large parts of California that are conservative because of people who are employed by the Military Indutrial Complex and military personnel.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems many people on this site don't really understand the whole issue, but would rather finger point and name call, and strike out for the freedoms of only one side of the story.

Then Joe, please explain the whole issue to us. Answer our direct questions. Explain your side of the story intelligently.

I'm not on trial here. I don't have to do or say anything I don't choose to, especially to anyone who true talent is slinging biased insults. My intellegence is not the issue here. Read up on it watch the video listen to what is beeing said read the post that present the problem.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not on trial here. I don't have to do or say anything I don't choose to, especially to anyone who true talent is slinging biased insults. My intellegence is not the issue here. Read up on it watch the video listen to what is beeing said read the post that present the problem.

You're not making any discussion with that attitude of yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not on trial here. I don't have to do or say anything I don't choose to, especially to anyone who true talent is slinging biased insults. My intellegence is not the issue here. Read up on it watch the video listen to what is beeing said read the post that present the problem.

You're not making any discussion with that attitude of yours.

You have got to be kidding me. I only have opinions it's you and others with the attitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calif. gay-marriage ban creates legal uncertainty

By PAUL ELIAS, Associated Press Writer Paul Elias, Associated Press Writer – 11 mins ago

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081107/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage

 

"I'm disappointed in the Californians who voted for this," said F. Damion Barela, 43, a Studio City resident who married his husband nearly five months ago. He noted that nearly 70 percent of black voters and a slight majority of Hispanic voters voted for the ban.

 

"To them I say, `Shame on you because you should know what this feels like,'" he said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's funny how people on the receiving end of bigotry can be very much that way themselves. My ex, who's Native American, has experienced some of the worst racism at the hands of African-Americans, who you'd think would know better!

 

Calif. gay-marriage ban creates legal uncertainty

By PAUL ELIAS, Associated Press Writer Paul Elias, Associated Press Writer – 11 mins ago

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081107/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage

 

"I'm disappointed in the Californians who voted for this," said F. Damion Barela, 43, a Studio City resident who married his husband nearly five months ago. He noted that nearly 70 percent of black voters and a slight majority of Hispanic voters voted for the ban.

 

"To them I say, `Shame on you because you should know what this feels like,'" he said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's funny how people on the receiving end of bigotry can be very much that way themselves. My ex, who's Native American, has experienced some of the worst racism at the hands of African-Americans, who you'd think would know better!

I don't think it's as much bigotry and a type of racist issue as all you name callers pretend it to be. It's about freedom. And I don't think most people are as homophobic as many people would have you believe. (once again name callers) I thnk it's more that people don't want other peoples lifestlye crammed down their throat. i.e. The Bishop of your church will marry us or we'll take you to court and sue you. That's not tolerance. Yet tolerance is something the gay community is always screaming about. Doing it your way and forcing everyone else to do it your way, is not freedom, it's tyranny.

I have also come to understand that many gays and opposers of Prop 8 have a blind eye to this fact. They refuse to understand.

Also to use the fact of someones race and the racism that they have endured, to justify your point in this argument. Only goes to prove you don't really know what the argument is about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's as much bigotry and a type of racist issue as all you name callers pretend it to be. It's about freedom. And I don't think most people are as homophobic as many people would have you believe. (once again name callers) I thnk it's more that people don't want other peoples lifestlye crammed down their throat. i.e. The Bishop of your church will marry us or we'll take you to court and sue you. That's not tolerance. Yet tolerance is something the gay community is always screaming about. Doing it your way and forcing everyone else to do it your way, is not freedom, it's tyranny.

 

I don't think anyone involved is saying that a particular church has to marry anyone. Just that churches that want to, would be able to. These amendments take away that freedom. That's like a law being passed that says all restaurants have to have at least one meat item on the menu, because the majority of voters don't want "that vegan lifestyle" crammed down their throats.

 

(Also, coming from someone new to this site - you're coming off as very defensive here. Perhaps you've been attacked before during discussions on this issue, but I haven't seen anyone call you a name or attack you personally in this thread... )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone involved is saying that a particular church has to marry anyone. Just that churches that want to, would be able to. These amendments take away that freedom. That's like a law being passed that says all restaurants have to have at least one meat item on the menu, because the majority of voters don't want "that vegan lifestyle" crammed down their throats.

 

(Also, coming from someone new to this site - you're coming off as very defensive here. Perhaps you've been attacked before during discussions on this issue, but I haven't seen anyone call you a name or attack you personally in this thread... )

Welcome Ben. Don't get me wrong. But yes there are some people on the forum who will resort to trying to slander your name without even knowing you, all for the sake of their argument on some of these hotbed issues. And yes I have been the target of these insults.

 

 

I don't think anyone involved is saying that a particular church has to marry anyone.

This has already been done. I hope you read up on it more and discover for yourself that is's just not as simple as people would have you believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems many people on this site don't really understand the whole issue, but would rather finger point and name call, and strike out for the freedoms of only one side of the story.
VeganJoe, question: there's gay marriage in Quebec, where I live; do you seriously think it bothered me a single time? I hear about it in the news sometimes, otherwise I wouldn't even know. Explain to me in what way it could disturb my life, or how gay marriages occuring in California, in Quebec, in Japan, or on another planet, could disturb your life.

 

Explain. Once and for all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But yes there are some people on the forum who will resort to trying to slander your name without even knowing you, all for the sake of their argument on some of these hotbed issues. And yes I have been the target of these insults.

It's not unique to this vegan forum.

 

That's the Left for you - if you dare to have your own opinion, challenge their argument and don't share their agenda and 'victim group' nonsense mentality - some have to resort to slander: you're an ist, you're a phobe, you're a hater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone involved is saying that a particular church has to marry anyone.

This has already been done. I hope you read up on it more and discover for yourself that is's just not as simple as people would have you believe.

 

Well to be up front, while I want to keep a cool head and not stoop to name-calling, I am an activist and have marched for gay rights. So I'm not coming into this unbiased or unfamiliar with the topic. But, per your post, I did some googling.

 

In the articles I found, there seems to be one lawsuit that the opponents of gay marraige are focusing on, in which a lesbian couple in New jersey sued a Methodist church for refusing to let them hold a civil union ceremony at a park the church ran. The church was not being asked to perform the ceremony, and the park was registered as a non-profit entity and received state funds.

 

In any case, these new amendments were not worded in such a way that they merely protected churches. They were worded to deny legal marriage status to gay couples. That's the only "freedom" I can see that's under attack in this recent round of legislation - the freedom of gays to have the legal rights that come with state-recognized marriage.

Edited by xvx ben
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share




×
×
  • Create New...