Proposition 8

[Deputy Nutz]

Oh yeah, one more thing, I ask AGAIN, why is it exclusively our forum leftists--with unanimity in their ranks--that approve of same sex ass-fucking, of promoting same sex ass-fucking in schools, right down to kindergarten, apparently, and of allowing same sex ass-fuckers to adopt children, presumably raising them with the family value that same sex ass-fucking is OK?

because ass-fucking rocks, why else

At least he's down with lesbians. It's only the ass fuckers that are evil.

Well I am sure he isn't popping in Lesbian Ass Reamers part 2.

Which in my opinion offers the insight to the best lesbian love making possible. Dildo up lesbian asian girls ass

[arcilite]

What about guys who do anal on their girls? They are ass-fuckers.

They should not be allowed to marry.

[Gunakor]

One more time for Gun: If a political party, as part of their platform, promises, if elected to pass a law to paint all statues in the country green, then I expect them to do so, if I vote for that party and they win. As such, I am entitled to expect that my opinions are passed into law.

There is a big difference between paining the statues green and imposing on people's personal liberties. People might still be offended, but they aren't going to feel discriminated against. Persecuting gays by forcing them into thier own fenced in communities and forcing them to refrain from physical contact while in public (even though the straight couple walking right behind them are kissing and holding hands) reeks of discrimination and thus seems highly unconstitutional. Even if a law is passed, if it is deemed unconstitutional, the High Court could still overrule the law.

That wasn't the proposition however. The proposition was strictly limited specifically to gay marriages. It does not extend to gay couples showing outward physical affection in public. The proposition will likely pass, with gay unions still being allowed but not using the term "marriage". That I would have no problem with whatsoever, so long as the gay unions carry the same benifits as a traditionally married couple. This proposition is not unconstitutional, and I would expect it to pass.

But that's not what I've been arguing. Partial's statement, echoed by yourself, that laws should be passed to restrict gay couples ability to show affection for one another in public IS unconstitutional. The only way to do it is to also restrict straight couples ability to show public affection twoards each other as well. Otherwise you are being discriminatory, and no law that discriminates against a person or a people solely because of race, gender, sexual preference, marital status, social status, etc. could be passed in this country per our constitution. What makes this proposition okay is that only the term "marriage" is being replaced, not the ability to have gay unions and not the benefits that come with a legal union.

I have no problem with changing the termonology to something else in an effort to protect Christian beliefs, so long as the legal definiton and the benefits that come with it remain the same. It sounds like you agree for the most part. The only disagreement we seem to have is the legality of passing an unconstitutional law, and I can assure you that a law discriminating against homosexuals has the same chance of passing as a law discriminating against African-Americans - which is zero. Regardless of anyone's opinion.

[SkinBasket]

Persecuting gays by forcing them into thier own fenced in communities... reeks of discrimination and thus seems highly unconstitutional. Even if a law is passed, if it is deemed unconstitutional, the High Court could still overrule the law.

Oh goodness, he took that seriously. Not that it's a bad idea.

[Tony Oday]

I say let them get married its not like the traditional ways of marriage are very strong right now!

[Tarlam!]

Gun, I am not arguing the pro's and cons of the proposition in my reply to you. i am merely challenging your position that people shouldn't expect personal preferences/ opinions to become law. Laws have a habit of stemming from opinions...

()But laws that apply to everyone shouldn't be made out of personal opinions. The question is whether or not gay marriage should be allowed by law. If you think it's gross, you are entitled to that opinion but you shouldn't expect the government to pass a law saying such unions are illegal just because some people think it's gross. Just the same, I respect your opinion and your right to have it even though I disagree. As far as the law is concerned, this should be a non issue because there is nothing about it that would warrant a legal ban. "I think it's gross" is not legal justification for an outright ban. Wouldn't you agree?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I think it will be far more troubling when I have to explain to my young children what is wrong with those two men walking down the street holding hands...

Please think before you speak.

Why don't you think before you speak? How do you tie in holding hands and marriage?

Homosexuals outwardly expressing their unnatural nature (genetic defect) is very traumatizing to children. I have a serious problem with it. I have a cousin who is gay. He's a totally great guy. But, I will never take my kids over to his and his partners house until they're older and will understand.

I get that its "expressing who they are" in public, but so what? I'm not expected or allowed to go and yell "F you" in public in front of children for obvious reasons. Same thing imo.

Hmm.

Traumatizing: You have some proof of that? If not, please STFU.

Genetic Defect: Again, some proof that it is a defect. Until them, STFU.

Your kids: Agreed. They will be far too traumatized by you to endure further trauma.

fuck you: Who is preventing..more to the point..most kids already know that word long before you think they do.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Homosexuals outwardly expressing their unnatural nature (genetic defect) is very traumatizing to children.

AND THEN.....

Would you really feel comfortable explaining to your young 4 year old little girl what homosexuality is, why they're different, why they want to be that way, etc.

You're contradicting yourself, P.

Dude, those are questions the very confused, very disturbed child is asking...

Sounds more like questions from a very confused and very disturbed college student.

No child is going to ask "why they wnat to be that way."

[Gunakor]

Gun, I am not arguing the pro's and cons of the proposition in my reply to you. i am merely challenging your position that people shouldn't expect personal preferences/ opinions to become law. Laws have a habit of stemming from opinions...

I hear where you are coming from Tarlam, but if it contradicts the personal liberties guaranteed to all Americans in our Constitution, you need more than a strong opinion to change the constitution to allow it. Sometimes a strong opinion leading to a majority vote isn't enough. Even if a law is passed in state government, and cleared by the President (if required), it still must comply with what is and is not allowed by our Constitution. I hope you can understand where I'm coming from here. The Constitution very clearly prohibits any form of discrimination based on a list of things including sexual preference. To amend it you need a much better reason for doing so than "I think it's gross". You would have to prove that there is an imminent threat posed, and present it as fact rather than opinion. Until that happens, if it happens, discrimination against gays simply because you think homosexuality is gross is illegal in this country. Therefore it doesn't matter what people's opinions are or who or what they voted for. Discrimination is not allowed. And people who are of the opinion that discrimination SHOULD be allowed should not expect thier opinion to become law simply because they voted for it. I hope that clears things up.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Oh yeah, one more thing, I ask AGAIN, why is it exclusively our forum leftists--with unanimity in their ranks--that approve of same sex ass-fucking, of promoting same sex ass-fucking in schools, right down to kindergarten, apparently, and of allowing same sex ass-fuckers to adopt children, presumably raising them with the family value that same sex ass-fucking is OK?

because ass-fucking rocks, why else

ROFLMAO

[Tarlam!]

[I hope that clears things up.

Indeed, it does.

[bobblehead]

Re: Proposition 8

The gay marriage ban. As of typing this It looks like it will pass.

Ugh, this is absurd.


Why do people think that something other people do that HAS NOTHING TO DEAL WITH THEM AT ALL....is wrong

Why do you need to be involved in something that does not effect you or your interests.

Man, America can be inspiring and troubling at the same time.

well...marriage has a definition, and gay isn't in it. That being said I am all for civil unions to allow gays every right a "traditional" couple has....except where it DOES affect others, like adoption.

Gay people don't have to be married to adopt, great to hear someone speak up on something they know so little about.

Uhhh....I didn't say they did, I expressed my opinion that they should not be allowed to adopt...married or otherwise. I expressed that I thought that gays should have all the rights others have except the right to adopt....never said it should in anyway matter if they are married or otherwise. I'm glad you spoke up on something you didn't bother to read and insulted me while displaying your ignorance of my stance.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Ok. I'm going to acknowledge the elephant in the room. We all are afraid to say it, but not Ty.

Gay people should just be killed.

[Tarlam!]

Ok. I'm going to acknowledge the elephant in the room. We all are afraid to say it, but not Ty.

Gay people should just be killed.

That's been tried, Ty. They keep coming back.

[bobblehead]

And for the record, my better half completely disagrees with my views and finds the idea of Gays adopting children oustanding. Just goes to show you I am capable of undyingly loving someone and still fundamentally disagree on some issues.

Her best friend, on the other hand, is fully in line with my thinking. Just goes to show, you might agree with me on something, but that doesn't mean I have to like you!!

I tend to base all of my beliefs off of one rule. My rights end where yours begin. I think a childs right to be raised in the standard setting trumps gays rights to adopt. If anyone on this forum ever sees me contradict this fundamental belief please point it out as I will gladly think my position over and decide if I'm wrong.

Does a child have the right to grow up in an orphanage without anyone to rain down love?

can you show me all the examples of gay couples that adopted kids out of an orphanage...and if you read my past posts you would know where I stand on this. I think the best interest of a child up for adoption is to grow up with a mommy and a daddy. In cases where that can't be accomplished and orphanage is the alternative then a stable gay couple would get to adopt. I believe it is our DUTY to give a child the best possible chance at a normal childhood with as little chance of instability as possible. Statistics prove that a traditional 2 parent heterosexual couple is best...its simply science. Now, if the choice is a couple where the old man is a drunk who beats the wife or a stable gay couple....yes, allow the gays to adopt, BUT as the country currently stands there are more stable traditional couples wanting to adopt babies than there are babies to adopt.

I LOVE THE GAY MAN!!!! But his ability to adopt should be down the list behind traditional families....and at present situation that doesn't allow for enough babies to be adopted by gays. Perhaps if we outlawed abortion there would be a surplus of babies up for adoption, but as it stands there is not.

Is that clear enough for everyone, or is gex/tank gonna post a short rebuttal...like, "your a homophobe dude!!!"