Prop 8

[Coral]

Apple says no. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=19&entry_id=31899)

I say no.

You say? *If Yes you're dead to me* :rolleyes:

[blokeymon]

Way I see it, if gay people want to get married and enter a world of misery, money worries and expensive divorce proceedings like the rest of us married people, I say let them. :D

*hopes Cas doesn't see this*

[MR EPIC]

Nice gesture by Apple but with only $100,000 being donated I wonder if it's just enough to get more people to buy their products. With the type of money they make I'd expect them to kick in a few million if they were that serious.

[cooperthefool]

I would vote no if I were 18.

In my opinion, A person is a person, no matter who they decide to live their life with.

[Z.E.I.D.A.N]

I'm against Prop 8, and I advise everybody else to stand against it too. The conservative attitude toward gay marriage is rubbish; nobody's forcing you to marry a guy, it doesn't affect your life one bit, and all it does is give people who don't have full rights for something they can't choose an even footing with everybody else. It's the same thing with abortion; if you don't want abortions then don't have any, but for crying out loud don't force people in different situations than yourself to conform to your narrow-minded point of view.

Meh, I'll just say it. If you support Prop 8 you are more or less a fascist. So there ya go.

[MR EPIC]

^I'm not in favor of Prop 8 either, but it's not quite as simple as you say JGZ. Many parents who raised their kids a certain way or who were raised a certain way themselves are basically going to have to go back and say now "Oops, I was wrong about marriage and relationships or kissing boys and girls". And before anybody decides to reply to this in some smartass way (not you jgz) you had better have kids or I don't even want to hear it.

[Lizzaroni]

What??? How do personal morals play at all into justifying legally implementing those morals? Do Jewish parents have to go back on teaching their kids what is and isn't kosher just because it isn't coerced through proposition Jew?

[Coral]

They have to deal with it. If you preach bull**** to your children, its your problem.

[Z.E.I.D.A.N]

^I'm not in favor of Prop 8 either, but it's not quite as simple as you say JGZ. Many parents who raised their kids a certain way or who were raised a certain way themselves are basically going to have to go back and say now "Oops, I was wrong about marriage and relationships or kissing boys and girls". And before anybody decides to reply to this in some smartass way (not you jgz) you had better have kids or I don't even want to hear it.

John, I don't need a kid to understand how the parenting mindset works and how it might challenge the idea of gay marriage, and for many parents that will happen, but that's still no excuse for forbidding people who love each other the right to marry. And besides, I think your scenario is extremely unimportant in the grand scheme of things. If you teach your kid that boys shouldn't kiss other boys, then you're at fault for indoctrinating your child with homophobia. If people are gonna have to say "oops, I was wrong about marriage", then I welcome that epiphany. Why should we deny gay people a simple right just to protect the old timer's mindset? Out of respect to your point of view, I just think that this reasoning behind supporting Prop 8 is just sweeping dirt under the rug; people need to acknowledge the fact that there are gay people and that many of them fall in love and therefore deserve the same matters of treatment regarding marriage as everybody else. So yes, I think it is as simple as I described. We've been through these things before: women's rights, minority rights... You'd think that America as a body has learned from an intolerant past to start embracing people who many deem "different" and do things different this time around.

[HGW XX/7]

Live in Nevada, so I don't vote on Prop 8 come November.

[Lizzaroni]

If you teach your kid that boys shouldn't kiss other boys, then you're at fault for indoctrinating your child with homophobia.
The thing is, it doesn't even matter! If you teach your children to hate black people, you're indoctrinating your children with racism, but what is most important is that the state doesn't enforce this same abhorrent position upon its populace.

[Tanooki]

How about this for an answer... Yes and No. :D

The entire issue should be avoided, legalize civil unions, and then let the people sort out on a personal in their own realm level decide what the hell to go and call it. Marriage as a term is a religious based principle which causes people to get all hot and bothered by it, and to some traditionalist too. Why piss on anyone, legalize civil unions on gov't paper, and people can do whatever the f they want as they all get the same legal status without hosing anyone in the process. It's not PC lameness, it's not butt kissing, and it's not being stupid about it either to one side or the other.


And zeidan that crosses the line there I think picking on John there saying that if you tell your little boy that boys shouldn't kiss. A vast majority of people don't live that lifestyle, and little children don't need to be having crap complicated to them at that age causing confusion. He has a right to tell his kid that's not normal, but accepted in society without being tagged as a homophobic hater. It's not indoctrination, it's just reaffirming the greater social norm.

[HGW XX/7]

Not to mention CA voted just a few years ago in favor of making the term "Marriage" exclusive between a man and a woman.

Only to have a renegade communist mayor of San Francisco be like, "HAHA< TOO BAD BITCHES!"

Which then pissed off a rather large part of the CA voters who just don't care about the issue, and is causing them to lean towards voting yes.

Just givin' out the info here.

[Rensa]

Sounds cool.

Cool to fight, I mean.

[Tanooki]

HGW that's true enough. San Francisco currently is just out of control across the board in going ahead and ok'n a lot of illegal activities, or just being so outspoken on stuff it pisses off the rest of the state and/or nation with it. Gavin Newsom is a true piece of crap that needs to be impeached for the greater good of that city as they did a hell of a lot better under the last one Willie Brown.

[Z.E.I.D.A.N]

And zeidan that crosses the line there I think picking on John there saying that if you tell your little boy that boys shouldn't kiss.

I wasn't even picking on him, I was pointing out the truth as far as the parenting mindset goes.

A vast majority of people don't live that lifestyle

Not a lifestyle.

and little children don't need to be having crap complicated to them at that age causing confusion

I've heard alot of silly excuses lately, but that right there is especially silly. Come on, telling your kid that some people are gay is confusing to him/her? Parents teach way more complicated things to their kids, and it wouldn't be complicated at all if said parents taught that to their kids from the get-go too.

He has a right to tell his kid that's not normal, but accepted in society without being tagged as a homophobic hater. It's not indoctrination, it's just reaffirming the greater social norm.

Everybody has the right, I'm just saying it's wrong. When you tell a kid that something isn't "normal", that's the same thing I was talking about. It is indoctrination because you are reaffirming the social norm by pointing out that homosexuality isn't a part of it, so the kid will take it as "gay = foreign/bad/strange/etc.".

[Coral]

Some people think marriage is a christian creation.

[Lizzaroni]

Some people think marriage is a christian creation.
So?

[MR EPIC]

JGZ - You're speaking of things you have no idea about. Parenting is one of those things that you can hypothesize about all day long, but until you actually have a kid you have NO idea how you would react to ANY situation at all. Let me give you another example of a situation that you can't predict how you would react until it actually affects you: Capital punishment. An individual can say all day long how he or she is very much against it, but if that same individual sees his or her son's head blown off right in front of him I guarantee you there would be a much greater probability of that person feeling differently about the situation. I'm not saying for sure, but you don't know until it happens to you. Same thing with kids so unless you're Blokeymon or ROBBMAC I don't think anyone else here is at liberty to even speculate on that aspect of the situation.

Again, I'm not for Prop 8 personally but Jeff does bring up a damn good point which makes the situation a bit less clear. Marriage is a religious word and therefore implies a union of a man and a woman. I don't think that same sex couples should be held back from receiving the same rights as the rest of society, but to use the world marriage might just be too big of a compromise.

[Lucas]

Either legalize gay marriage, or degrade/revoke the federal marriage benefits for hetero couples. All or nothing. You can't segregate people like that under the law and still call this the land of equality. If marriage is going to have federal benefits, then government's definition of it shouldn't be based upon religious doctrine. That's just the legal side of it. The moral side is just downright hateful.

Proposition 8 should be burned, and I wish I could help you guys vote it down.

[Tanooki]

JGZ obviously is so Epic. I don't have them, but I have 3 young nephews/nieces I would never think if I were in their parents spot of exposing them to that stuff until they were of an age to get into relationships of any sort outside of friendship. I love the argument that it's homophobic, silly, preaching hate, and that it's 'normal' to give this expose as it's comedic.


Lucas: I nor Epic are talking of segregating anyone...we're simply saying change the laws on the books from saying 'marriage' to civil unions for EVERYONE as to not degrade the meaning of marriage to those who have a mindset what it is (which is the majority of people.) This way that group is happy, and gay people are happy too because it's all equal and no one gets hosed.

[Rensa]

A vast majority of people don't live that lifestyle, and little children don't need to be having crap complicated to them at that age causing confusion.
Mmm, not sure I follow your logic there. I'd have thought exposing the kid to a variety of 'lifestyles' from the word go would be less confusing for them than steering them away from non-hetero couples until they're ten or eleven and then trying to explain that there are other arrangements out there.

I'm not talking about playing pornos for them, just stuff like... well, something like this (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/03/1086203545676.html), which happened a few years ago here in Aus. I know Epic just considers this speculation as I'm not a parent, but I feel I can safely say I would be fine with my child being exposed to this sort of stuff from an early age.

[Coral]

Many parents who raised their kids a certain way or who were raised a certain way themselves are basically going to have to go back and say now "Oops, I was wrong about marriage and relationships or kissing boys and girls".

Umm.. what’s wrong with telling your kid you’re wrong? Do you somehow think that this is going to ‘turn them gay’? This is such a ridiculous and absurd argument.


The entire issue should be avoided, legalize civil unions, and then let the people sort out on a personal in their own realm level decide what the hell to go and call it. Marriage as a term is a religious based principle which causes people to get all hot and bothered by it, and to some traditionalist too. Why piss on anyone, legalize civil unions on gov't paper, and people can do whatever the f they want as they all get the same legal status without hosing anyone in the process. It's not PC lameness, it's not butt kissing, and it's not being stupid about it either to one side or the other.


Hey, I know! Let’s remind gays that they're unequal lesser citizens in the eyes of the state! First and foremost, it's a legal and well known precedent that separate but equal is NOT equal. I don't want to feel like I'm a second class citizen because I'm now in a ****ing domestic partnership/civil union. You clearly have no idea what discrimination is, don't you? Marriage is a civil right, not a privilege and it's granted by a secular government, not a theocracy.



And zeidan that crosses the line there I think picking on John there saying that if you tell your little boy that boys shouldn't kiss. A vast majority of people don't live that lifestyle, and little children don't need to be having crap complicated to them at that age causing confusion. He has a right to tell his kid that's not normal, but accepted in society without being tagged as a homophobic hater. It's not indoctrination, it's just reaffirming the greater social norm.

If it’s not homophobia, it’s definitely being a discriminatory asshole. If he or anyone else wants to teach their kids to be bigoted assholes, than that’s their call I guess. Discrimination is flat out wrong, period. Everyone deserves the same rights, whether you like it or not. My rights are not subject to your opinion or approval.

Not to mention CA voted just a few years ago in favor of making the term "Marriage" exclusive between a man and a woman.

Only to have a renegade communist mayor of San Francisco be like, "HAHA< TOO BAD BITCHES!"

Which then pissed off a rather large part of the CA voters who just don't care about the issue, and is causing them to lean towards voting yes.


Oh Jesus, here we go with Prop 22. The problem with your argument was that Prop 22 violated the state's constitution. Are you saying then that it's ok to pass propositions/etc. that violate one state's constitution?

[Luis Sera]

sees his or her son's head blown off right in front of himI ****ing lol'd. Witnessing your child's head being blown off, two dudes dressing up in tuxedos and pledging their eternal love to each other. I can see the correlation.Many parents who raised their kids a certain way or who were raised a certain way themselves are basically going to have to go back and say now "Oops, I was wrong about marriage and relationships or kissing boys and girls".Tough **** brah. They were wrong.

[MR EPIC]

I ****ing lol'd. Witnessing your child's head being blown off, two dudes dressing up in tuxedos and pledging their eternal love to each other. I can see the correlation.

That wasn't the example I was making. In both scenarios (regarding parenting and the death penalty) a person can't know how they are going to feel and/or react until they actually experience it for themselves.

Tough **** brah. They were wrong.

I'm not arguing wrong or right in this situation. I'm saying that JGZ is implying that it's going to be an easy thing to do for potentially millions of families, when he has no idea what it takes to be a parent.

[Rensa]

Wow... I've gotta say, Coral, that was pretty damn eloquent.

[Tanooki]

Mmm, not sure I follow your logic there. I'd have thought exposing the kid to a variety of 'lifestyles' from the word go would be less confusing for them than steering them away from non-hetero couples until they're ten or eleven and then trying to explain that there are other arrangements out there.

I'm not talking about playing pornos for them, just stuff like... well, something like this (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/03/1086203545676.html), which happened a few years ago here in Aus. I know Epic just considers this speculation as I'm not a parent, but I feel I can safely say I would be fine with my child being exposed to this sort of stuff from an early age.

Well most people would find the entire gay culture thing abnormal and wouldn't want children near it is what I'm getting at and I can totally see it. I looked at your link there and it seems to discuss both sides of the matter fairly well. I can see your side and Epics, I just happen to stand on his side with it as it's abnormal (and as the article said) race is an innate thing, this not so much so.


And Coral I don't think that Epic is afraid of turning his kid gay, he in his personal space feels such issues aren't meant for his child and that should be respected. You really do love getting off on your gay power tripping don't you considering you didn't even get what I said originally.

Have you a problem if ALL unions gay and straight are not called marriages at the gov't level? I said call every last one of them a civil union and move on. There's nothing wrong with that as straight and not types all get the same union in a civil ceremony acknowledged by the state and federal governments with no difference between any. Are you that tied up on rubbing the word marriage into religious and traditionalists faces you can't see that? Also I get what you're saying, but in this country on the federal level and most states it actually is our opinion and approval on what your 'rights' are considering how things have been voted...be mad at the whole state/country not individuals. Mind you it's kind of lame you're getting ticked about it anyways kind of, considering you're not even a citizen here.

[Rensa]

Well most people would find the entire gay culture thing abnormal and wouldn't want children near it is what I'm getting at and I can totally see it.
Ahh, well, that's a matter of perspective, isn't it? I'd have said most people consider homosexuality normal, but then I was brought up in a very tolerant environment where there was never any problem with homosexuality. My best friends and I have all grown up around plenty of gay or (more commonly) sexually fluid friends, and while the four of us are straight, we've all experimented a bit. Certainly, I can't think of anyone my own age (as in, late teens to mid-twenties) who would be even remotely surprised anymore to meet a non-heterosexual couple.

Anyway, as I said, it's a matter of perspective. I'm just pointing out that, at least on a speculative level, it would seem confusion for children would be more likely to arise if they'd been brought up to believe that only men and women hook up, only to meet two men together or something. Certainly, the most fuss I ever saw over homosexuality within my own environment was in the middle of high school, when people came out and it became obvious that some people just hadn't been raised around gay people at all.

[Tanooki]

Oh no I get what you're saying, but so far we're discussing matters between three different countries too. In this one, the majority don't consider it normal, and to a good deal of religious types it's considered reprehensible, unholy...and all that drivel including just being mentally ill. Percentage wise many people aren't exposed to what you have been here in this country so many would have that comfort issue you were graced with not having. I guess depending how you want to see it, some places are just more socially accepting or repressive than others.

Again that's why I proposed banning the entire use of the word marriage on government paper and calling every last union of any form of a couple as a civil union. It segregates no one, demeans no one, sets no form of inequality, and allows personal people within their own confines of personal ethics, code, religion, beliefs, etc to call their 'union' whatever they damn well please. This way religious types and traditionalists keep their marriage as they see it sanctioned by the church, gays can have their marriages as well, and since neither form are legally by the gov't called a marriage it doesn't step on either parties toes. Make sense?

[Rensa]

Yepyep, I totally agree. I think that's what agreed on last time too, lawl.

[Tanooki]

Probably so, I just can't understand why some people don't even find that agreeable as it's really the only sensible option.

Any other direction would just be done for cold plain vindictiveness. If you played the keep them separate in title married vs civil union (straight religious/traditionalist) argument then gay people feel they're getting the shaft in the deal. If you force using marriage across the board gay people are happy but then a majority of straights who have those values are furious and its just done to be vindictive to get even.

[Kaizoku_Kouji]

Well most people would find the entire gay culture thing abnormal and wouldn't want children near it is what I'm getting at and I can totally see it.

I have to ask what you mean by gay culture. Like, men wearing crazy feathery costumes, prancing around and lisping? Women with mullets and gruff voices wearing sleeveless flannel shirts and crushing beer cans on their foreheads?

What about the majority of gays and lesbians who are just your average, everyday men and women who just happen to be attracted to the same sex? Can't a person be gay without their sexuality being given the label of a separate culture or "lifestyle?"


Anyway, as for using "civil union" or something for all couples, I agree; it would get rid of all the religious rigmarole surrounding legal marriages and be best for everyone. But think of how much the Right would try to fight that one. The Prop. 8 fight would be nothing by comparison. The claim that it would affect existing marriages would actually be valid, and I doubt it would ever be passed.

[Rensa]

Well, IIRC correctly, last time this came up Liz and I suggested that civil union (or legal union or whatever it was) refer to the legal concept of union between people and marriage refer to the ceremony that celebrates the civil union, which is pretty much wha tyou're saying. Someone cited the idea that there are plenty of Hindu/Jewish/whatever wedding ceremonies that don't follow the idea of a Christian wedding. If you're going to 'protect marriage', you sort of have to go the whole hog.

But in any case, this is probably idealism for now. As to the issue at hand, I think people's civil rights take priority over the other people's sensibilities. So nay to prop 8.

[Tanooki]

A simpler matter, while not the right thing for gays mind you, would be to bust the mayor of SF for what he did as it is in violation of existing rules on the books.

Kouji, actually it is a lifestyle, everything is a style of life that is led, single, married, straight existence, gay existence...it's how you choose to live your life and the way you do it. I'm not singling out the minority gay freakshow that go around as you said 'feathery costumes, lisps, flannel shirts, beer cans, etc.' trying to draw attention to themselves like it helps matters considering how so many are so touchy about the whole thing. As you said most gay people don't make it a public matter and just lead normal lives, just like most straight people do and don't make some PDA or other out there public displays of themselves either.

[Rensa]

My friend says flannel is back this year.

[MR EPIC]

gay existence...it's how you choose to live your life and the way you do it.

This is incorrect. Gay people don't "choose" to be the way they are, rather it's a tendency they have that others don't.

[HGW XX/7]

Oh Jesus, here we go with Prop 22. The problem with your argument was that Prop 22 violated the state's constitution. Are you saying then that it's ok to pass propositions/etc. that violate one state's constitution?

Don't care. It isn't my state. California's business isn't my business. All I'm saying is that vote made it quite clear that a majority of California voters weren't down with gay marriage. It's looking like that will be the same outcome this time.

[Z.E.I.D.A.N]

Kouji, actually it is a lifestyle, everything is a style of life that is led, single, married, straight existence, gay existence...it's how you choose to live your life and the way you do it.

Actually it's not. I don't understand how this is so hard for you to grasp. Homosexuality is not a choice, just as heterosexuality isn't a choice. It's not an opinion, it's not subjective, it's a ****ing fact. So let's move on from that point please.

[HGW XX/7]

Actually, you'll have a hard time proving that it's a fact without actual evidence. It's not proven one way or another. If it were, it'd be all over the news. Religions would cry foul. The media would be jumping for joy (aside from FOX News and Conservative Talk Radio). There'd be dancing in the streets, and it'd be raining men.

Hallelujah. Raining men.

Raining men.

Joking aside, it HASN'T been proven one way or another. I'm straight, but I certainly could CHOOSE to start sleeping with men. I don't think it's a 100% you're born with it, or 100% you choose it type of thing.

Edit: That said, I think the topic should start steering back towards Prop 8. Especially since neither side can prove it's a choice or not. Maybe start another thread for that if you really wanna back and forth about it without getting anywhere?

[MR EPIC]

HGW speaks the truth. It has never been proven either way. Scientists even tried to do homosexual studies on mice but the results were inconclusive (true story). Gay people do not choose to be gay nor are they born that way. The only way I could personally describe it would be in a religious fashion, but we all know that theological reasoning doesn't carry much weight with most as there's always a demand for proof that can never and will never be given.

If you want to believe that gay people choose to be that way Jeff you are definitely entitled to. However, using it in a definitive way rather than saying "In my opinion" is only going to cause problems and offend people here as there is no proof to back up your claim. I agree with you as far as the term "marriage" being a religious/Bible-based word and for that reason I'm a bit torn on my overall feelings of prop 8, but I'm not out to offend anybody by calling what they do "freak shows" and telling them they "choose" to be a certain way when I have no proof of that.

[Lizzaroni]

I would just like to point out that arguing on the basis of one's hypothetical emotional reaction to a particular act (gay marriage, capital punishment) is inherently flawed when talking about the objectivity of the law itself. You do not ask yourself "How does this make me feel?"; you ask yourself what framework maximizes individual freedom without impeding on others' (ie. protects said freedoms.) Interpretation is up to judges, not legislators.

In other words, legalizing gay marriage infringes in no way upon parenting. There are plenty of things, as a parent, you can oppose: certain medical treatments, video games, R rated movies, bad language, kinds of clothing, etc. But we do not create legislation based on these preferences because when they are placed in less politically and emotionally charged contexts, such a proposition can be seen for what it truly is: blatantly absurd. We would not give creedance to these propositions because "you wouldn't know since you're not a parent."

The same principle applies here. Parents can indoctrinate their children with racist, homophobic, sexist, blah blah blah ideology until the sun fails to rise. That does not mean we as a society need to indulge those who cannot socially evolve with the rest of us. In the US, we embrace individual Freedom and Liberty and use the law to protect these rights, not to coerce others and force them to live within some arbitrarily defined framework of religious morality. To quote Lord Acton, "The object of civil society is justice, not truth, virtue, wealth, knowledge, glory or power. Justice is followed by equality and Liberty."

[Darc Requiem]

I don't get the mindset behind the "gay is lifestyle" point of view. So you think all of these people are making a conscious choice to be persecuted and discriminated against?

[Tanooki]

Actually it's not. I don't understand how this is so hard for you to grasp. Homosexuality is not a choice, just as heterosexuality isn't a choice. It's not an opinion, it's not subjective, it's a ****ing fact. So let's move on from that point please.

Can't do that just because it's convenient for you and some others. Do we really need to go into the entire argument about it being a mental problem we did before that put Coral into a rage as I really don't want to go there. Stop telling me I have to agree with your side of the argument and move on as I don't have to, and I don't want to. As HGW said you can 'choose' do to whatever you want, but primarily this post was about Prop8 and really needs to get back on that before a fight breaks out, it's locked, and potential bans are set. Like he said, Epic, and I before...science has never proven conclusively that it's biological or neurological, whether it is choice, or if it's ingrained in someone so staying on that topic will do no good as neither side is going to agree until something comes out as indisputable fact one way or the other.

On the matter of Prop8, it's crap, on the matter of legalizing gay marriage, that's also crap. Doing either or screws another chunk of people with politically correct (or incorrect) bull**** that doesn't need to be there. The only solution is to call all unions/marriages a civil union on gov't legal paper, and let the individuals call it whatever the hell they want between themselves. Doing this everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, gays get their equality in union, those who value the word 'marriage' as it has generally been known as for ages don't get their values stepped on either. That's exactly why all those damn states banned it because it was being rudely shoved down their throats often backed by right wing religious fanatics on a bender and moderates too who just don't like it due to infringing on their concept and value of what 'marriage' is. By coining everything legally as a civil union puts everyone on the same footing and doesn't crap on anyones values at all.

[MR EPIC]

Just because something has been done a certain way for years doesn't make it right. I'm sure there are a lot of black people out there who would agree with this point.

[PF the Kitsune]

Chalk me up for one vote against prop 8 ;)

Well, sort of. I just hope my absentee ballot comes in the mail in time. Being 18 and voting = awesome.

[cooperthefool]

Whatever, gay marriage is gay marriage, even if its legal the people wont not be gay anymore, it'll just be legal for them to get married, which is how it should be..

But their still gonna be a minority, I mean, we don't try and tell our kids that asian people are white, but we teach them that all people are equal, we're not gonna try and teach our kids that gay people are strait, their just gonna have equal rights, and our kids are going to know that there shouldn't be any difference. I mean after all being gay IS NOT a choice.

[Coral]

So pretty much Jeff believes that people who are gay or bisexual or different from the majority have mental issues.


He also doesnt seem to understand that regardless of whoever thinks theyre being screwed over, the bottom line is the United States of America has a constitution and to have exclusive marriage for straight couples is unconstitutional.


Pretty much anything and everything he says can now be placed in the toilet.

No need to go into a rage Jeff. Just say that in a public setting and theyre will be enough straight and gay people raging on you. You wouldnt, but youll say you would.

[blokeymon]

Way I see it, if gay people want to get married and enter a world of misery, money worries and expensive divorce proceedings like the rest of us married people, I say let them. :D

Also, I have a child too. A boy. Called Zack. Yes, named after Zack Fair from FFVII, what of it, bitches? I am a parent. I therefore have the right to speak as though I have experience of being a parent. Cos I ****ing well am one.

Anyways, I have been brought up to see people for WHO they are, not WHAT they are. If my best friend suddenly decided to like the penor rather than the flap, then so be it.

Hell, the gay people I do know, know that I don't give two ****s what they do in their own spare time. I'm not into willies, so they know that as long as they don't approach me for some man-on-man action, they know I'm fine with them.

And this will be how I raise my kid. He will see people for WHO they are, not WHAT they are. Seeing them for what they are is discrimination, regardless of what you think about them. And if he grows up with the whiff of man-juice on his breath, then so be it. So long as he doesn't hurt anyone else in the process, he can live his life how he wants.

Its all well and good telling your kids what the general consensus of "right and wrong" is, but its another thing altogether when they learn it for themselves.

Teach your kid to be the leader of the pack, and not just another sheep in the herd.

Yes to gay marriages.

[HGW XX/7]

So pretty much Jeff believes that people who are gay or bisexual or different from the majority have mental issues.


He also doesnt seem to understand that regardless of whoever thinks theyre being screwed over, the bottom line is the United States of America has a constitution and to have exclusive marriage for straight couples is unconstitutional.


Pretty much anything and everything he says can now be placed in the toilet.

No need to go into a rage Jeff. Just say that in a public setting and theyre will be enough
straight and gay people raging on you. You wouldnt, but youll say you would.

1. The consitution doesn't guarantee marriage to citizens of the United States. Unless I'm just terribly ignorant of our Constitution (which I just might be. I am an American after all. xD).

2. He could say that in a public setting in the state he lives in and a majority would agree.
He could say that in a public setting in nearly ANY state and some might call him on it, but others would support. It'd hardly be a majority going against him (which is illustrated by the fact that a majoirty oppose gay marriage).

It isn't a right to get married. Isn't that why it's called a "Marriage Liscence"?

Then again, what would I know? I'm not gay. I'm not married. I'm not Californian. I don't hold a stance one way or another on this issue, because it simply doesn't affect me. It's actually something that I'll NEVER vote for or against in my entire life. I'd vote to remove any federal perks to marriages, so it'll be all up to the states (as it should be), but I don't care who is allowed to get married. It's not an issue to me.

Though I do have to point out shenanigans that people toss around as facts when they clearly aren't.

Jeff has no way to prove being gay is a mental issue. It's purely his opinion (and some others I'm sure), but it's hardly a fact.

The topic is an emotional one for people on both sides, and I simply have no emotional tie to it. There's also so much crap on a state/federal level that is tied into marriage which turns this into a more jumbled mess.

Would you rather have marriage for everyone with no benefits to being married? That would be my ideal, because giving perks to people because they're married DISCRIMINATES against single people.

"You're single, we're not going to give you some inscentives that are available to married couples."

[Tanooki]

Coral that's been established a good year now I think that it's a mental condition, but that's not the argument here anyways. I'm trying yet again to say that legalizing gay marriage is not the way to go about it. Remove the current law, rewrite it, and say that ALL unions of two anybodys is a civil union and should be seen as such equally across the board on the books. Leave the term 'marriage' for those on the personal, and not legal level to use as they please either traditionally, religiously, or whatever other reasoning. I don't think that should be a problem unless someone just wants to be a jackass and screw another party just to tick them off and rub it in their nose.

And actually coral I have said it publicly before thank you...not everyone agreed, but a good deal did though, and to be fair both in So. Calif and in KY too. Until someone can prove it's genetic and not persuasion it will remain an open debate whether ya like it or not. I think it's a joke you're trying to throw equality under American law at me like some smartass when I'm clearly saying that under American law to be equal all forms of union should just be recognized as a civil union...my marriage, one you would want, a pair of transexuals would want, and so on. Everyone can have a civil union which would be equal under the laws of this land and equally protected as such, while the use of marriage can be one left to a personal level between people as that in itself, the word, needs no legal constraints.

For some reason you're enjoying ignoring my ****ing point don't you? I keep stating equality by a rewrite of the law to everyone including my current marriage being legally seen as a civil union, and under the walls of the church I was in and within my wifes belief system (she's religious, I'm not) it's a marriage. Where in that is some form of unequality?

HGW No the constitution and bill of rights do not address marriage. I also agree with you it's a crap double standard that singles don't get the same benefits as the married.

[HGW XX/7]

I want to file my taxes jointly with someone that I love. Why can't I?

Also, does ANYONE need a piece of paper from the government to prove that they love eachother? I'd certainly hope not.

In fact. Taking away the perks to marriage would be ideal. You don't get the people marrying for money, because the estate won't be guaranteed to them unless it's in a will. You won't get people marrying just to enter the country, because the federal government just wouldn't care whether you're married or not. Marriages wouldn't have to have anything to do with tax dollars (government offices processing all the crap).

It'd actually bring back meaning to marriage. And the best part about it? Anyone would be able to do it, because the government wouldn't have any hand in it at all.

Looks like I just found my stance.

[Tanooki]

You know that actually makes sense, recognize NO unions between anyone, leave it up to personal joinings that happen already today. People could still get the licenses and the rest to make it on file, but no benefits at any level from it other than just that...being on file somewhere saying the deed was done. That truly would be for anyone just a general civil union on paper held in some file cabinet somewhere and in digital format showing it was done and nothing more.

[HairwayToSteven]

Damn, and I was planning on moving to Cali for this very reason too! And now they want to revoke it with this ridiculous Prop 8 plan?

And for god's sakes man, being gay is not a lifestyle. It's as much of a lifestyle as being straight, autistic, disabled, white, black, etc. If being gay was a choice, I'm sure many of us would choose to be hetero. Why? Because in this society, being gay is almost akin to painting a big red target on your chest. It's not something you choose.

Either way, it's very hard for me to remain calm in discussions such as these. So I'll take my leave.

[Kaizoku_Kouji]

Until someone can prove it's genetic and not persuasion it will remain an open debate whether ya like it or not.

Hang on, so it can only be either a genetic condition, a mental illness, or a choice? That is simply not the case.

Now back on topic:
I want to file my taxes jointly with someone that I love. Why can't I?

Also, does ANYONE need a piece of paper from the government to prove that they love eachother? I'd certainly hope not.

In fact. Taking away the perks to marriage would be ideal. You don't get the people marrying for money, because the estate won't be guaranteed to them unless it's in a will. You won't get people marrying just to enter the country, because the federal government just wouldn't care whether you're married or not. Marriages wouldn't have to have anything to do with tax dollars (government offices processing all the crap).

It'd actually bring back meaning to marriage. And the best part about it? Anyone would be able to do it, because the government wouldn't have any hand in it at all.

I'll agree with Jeff here: that actually does sound like the way to go.

[HGW XX/7]

HGW XX/7 : Anti-ALL Marriage.

[Smokey]

Hey, I know! Let’s remind gays that they're unequal lesser citizens in the eyes of the state! First and foremost, it's a legal and well known precedent that separate but equal is NOT equal. I don't want to feel like I'm a second class citizen because I'm now in a ****ing domestic partnership/civil union. You clearly have no idea what discrimination is, don't you? Marriage is a civil right, not a privilege and it's granted by a secular government, not a theocracy.

Coral, you guys have civil unions, if not actual marriage, up there, right? So, what exactly are you getting all hot under the collar for? It's not as though Canada is an extension of California, so whatever happens there isn't going to affect you one way or the other. So for God's sake, quit waving the rainbow banner for every homosexual that's ever lived and leave this to the people it actually concerns: CALIFORNIANS.

[HairwayToSteven]

Coral, you guys have civil unions, if not actual marriage, up there, right? So, what exactly are you getting all hot under the collar for? It's not as though Canada is an extension of California, so whatever happens there isn't going to affect you one way or the other. So for God's sake, quit waving the rainbow banner for every homosexual that's ever lived and leave this to the people it actually concerns: CALIFORNIANS.

We don't want change to be exclusive to that region. That's the thing. If we could have gay marriage legalized in every corner of the globe, then everything would be just fine. In essence, it's the same thing as a black guy being pissed that there's only racial equality in one state, rather than the entire country.

Hope that made sense.

[Smokey]

It makes sense, but it's barely relevant to the actual issue here. Coral's Canadian. This isn't going to set any precedents up there one way or the other.

[HairwayToSteven]

It makes sense, but it's barely relevant to the actual issue here. Coral's Canadian. This isn't going to set any precedents up there one way or the other.

It's supporting fellow gay people around the world. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

[Smokey]

No, there isn't. You're new, though, so you don't know all the history here that partly influences my initial post. Basically, I'm sick of the cyber-gay pride parades that Coral tries to organize here, and this is just another one, and not even one with a decent excuse.

[Coral]

No, there isn't. You're new, though, so you don't know all the history here that partly influences my initial post. Basically, I'm sick of the cyber-gay pride parades that Coral tries to organize here, and this is just another one, and not even one with a decent excuse.

Youve got issues. You need to mind your own business, and stop accusing people. Youre tired of me, do not reply to me, or read my posts. You dont get to decide whats a good excuse for me or anyone else. So get that into your thick skull. Youre back on ignore for good.

[MR EPIC]

I agree. Smokey does need to mind his business more often otherwise it just leads to self-gratification for him and irritation for others.

Smokey, there is no need to follow people around and try to impose your mere 18 years of knowledge on other people. You've followed around Mike, Coral, Reagan, hell even myself and it really gets old. If you don't like what Coral or anybody else is saying, you have the right to stay out of their thread or threads.

[Darc Requiem]

Smokey you don't have to read his threads you know. Coral and I aren't BFFs and we manage to remain civil.

[blokeymon]

I like how you just assumed that cos he's 18 he has neither the right nor the knowledge to comment on this situation.

Age equals wisdom, not actually living and experiencing, amirite?

Also, while I agree that this really only directly affects Californians, it does have a knock-on effect to gay people in other states/countries.

Think about the human rights violations in China, or the starving millions in Ethiopia, or the French (not actually doing anything, just being). Doesn't affect us in the USA or UK, but you realise that its wrong and something needs to be done about it.

[MR EPIC]

I like how you just assumed that cos he's 18 he has neither the right nor the knowledge to comment on this situation.

That wasn't my assumption at all, but rather that an 18 year old shouldn't be so insistent on calling out people over the internet and constantly trying to prove he's/she's right, especially with so many years ahead of him or her.

Age equals wisdom, not actually living and experiencing, amirite?

That's the thing blokey, which you of all people should know. We have far too many members on these forums that think because they do/did well in high school and are fairly book smart that it gives them the right to try and challenge other people in other areas in life. The problem is that they lack the experience or the well-roundedness to do so. I won't attack Smokey personally because I believe he's a good kid, but we've got people here who've never had sex, never lived on their own, never been in a fight, never partied, never been to jail, never cared for a child, never made a mortgage payment, or anything else outside of sit their asses down at a computer screen and try to prove how big their internet penis is. To that I say STFU and don't worry about being right all the time because chances are you're not.

Again, I would expect someone like yourself to understand these things Bloke. An 18 year old who truly had experience wouldn't sit around on the internet trying to prove it. He/she would have the confidence and maturity to know that it's better to hold their tongue sometimes rather than trying to bring attention to his or herself.

[HGW XX/7]

Last call for the derail train to depart, before closing.

[HairwayToSteven]

I has experiance! But I don't need to prove anything to anybody. :P

Back on topic, Prop 8 is gay.

[blokeymon]

Mr Ep - I believe that we're all guilty of arguing on the internet over stupid things despite our ages/experience. Remember our first few days as a happy couple? :D Its the internet, it happens, fighting it does nothing, but ignoring it and not rising to the bait works wonders.

Back on track though, the second part of my post:-

"Also, while I agree that this really only directly affects Californians, it does have a knock-on effect to gay people in other states/countries.

Think about the human rights violations in China, or the starving millions in Ethiopia, or the French (not actually doing anything, just being). Doesn't affect us in the USA or UK, but you realise that its wrong and something needs to be done about it."

-:I believe this to be pretty much the most balanced post of this thread so far. Big headed, possibly, but no-one's argued it so far.

Sure, it was 2 posts ago, but still. :P

[HairwayToSteven]

-:I believe this to be pretty much the most balanced post of this thread so far. Big headed, possibly, but no-one's argued it so far.

Sure, it was 2 posts ago, but still. :P

That's because most people don't argue with facts, like you did.

[MR EPIC]

Mr Ep - I believe that we're all guilty of arguing on the internet over stupid things despite our ages/experience.

I completely agree. I was actually going to edit my post and point that out after I had finished writing it, but sometimes I just hate when it says "Edited by" at the bottom. I know, it's stupid. :)

[HairwayToSteven]

Just one more thing I'd like to add.

Unfortunately, the USA is perhaps the most influential country in the world. If anti-gay laws where to be passed here, influencing the rest of the country to pass them, who's to say that other nations (including Canada) wouldn't follow suit?

[Smokey]

Youve got issues. You need to mind your own business, and stop accusing people. Youre tired of me, do not reply to me, or read my posts. You dont get to decide whats a good excuse for me or anyone else. So get that into your thick skull. Youre back on ignore for good.

I've got issues? I need to mind my own business? Take a gander at your posting record and think that statement over for a bit.

Anyway, back on track, while you guys know my stance on marriage, I fully agree that gay couples shouldn't be discriminated against. As far as legality goes, an earlier post (by whom I can't recall) made a lot of sense. I believe that the term "civil/legal union" should be applied across the board, and marriage should be used in a strict religious sense.

Otherwise, I won't say yea or nay to Prop 8. It's not my place to say, as I'm not Californian (thank God:P), and I will not presume to say it should or should not be passed.

[Lizzaroni]

Does it really matter if it affects you? You can still take a position on an issue, which is why I say "no", it should not be passed, for the same reason I would say "no" to anything else I believe to be wrong.

[Smokey]

You can take a position, but if it doesn't affect you I don't think you should act like your family will die a horrible death if it turns out in a way that you don't like. I'm just tired of the melodramatics. And before someone opens their smartass mouth again, if it's in the War Room, I reserve the right to call bull**** as I see it.

[Lizzaroni]

Has anybody here acted in such a way, honestly? Coral's passionate about gay rights - who cares? My family doesn't die if children in Africa starve because of our bull**** farm subsidies, but I'd still be gun-ho about stating my opposition to them if the subject came up. Does your world end if Little Big Planet is delayed a week? No, but no one stopped you from making a whoooole thread about the problems sweeping Islamic culture. It's as much a prompt for raising awareness about an issue that does or could potentially affect you.

[Smokey]

Um...the LBP delay did affect everyone. It was worldwide. This vote will only affect Californians, yet Coral's up in arms about it like this actually concerns him. There's a world of difference there if you look closely enough.:rolleyes:

Again, there's nothing wrong with stating opposition, but there's no call to wave someone's flag for them like it was your own, especially if the outcome doesn't even remotely concern you.

[HairwayToSteven]

I oppose Prop 8 because I am a bisexual, despite not living in California. I do so because I am passionate for positive change in every corner of the globe. Am I gonna march down to Cali with picket signs and torches? No, but I can express my thoughts about it on the internet. That is what Coral is doing, and he has every right to do so.

Still luff U tho.

[Smokey]

And again, nothing wrong with expressing your opposition, or even support. That isn't what Coral is doing, though. Anyone that doesn't agree with him is too stupid to live and deserves to die a terribly unnatural death. If he didn't act like such a drama queen/attention whore about this business I wouldn't have nearly so much of an issue with this.

[Lizzaroni]

Um...the LBP delay did affect everyone.
Including all those people who don't own a PS3, don't plan to buy it...

[Tanooki]

I think he meant in relation to the continued shenanigans of pandering to a minority of religious extremists who like to threaten over anything that they feel they can use to an advantage. First Sony buckles on a game, then they'll do it in a movie, then other movies won't possibly want to go there. Snowball effect basically. If that's not what he's on about then I dunno.

[HGW XX/7]

Nice to see we're talking about Little Big Planet. I'm going to close this. Coral, you're welcome to make another thread, and I'll just delete any posts that are like the majority of the past 3 pages or so.