Californians to vote on same-sex marriage ban, again

Alright. I have just had my inbox filled with "bogus and a lie" from your responses. Before I cut that feature off, I just want to point out that gays aren't trying to steal your Upstanding Family Values car and drive to violent leather orgies, while screaming "EQUALITY BITCHES." They are two men or two women in love who want to go that extra, last step to the ultimate commitment.

These are men and women who have been raised on Disney cartoon and in a culture that fetishizes commitment though a large ceremony and official government papers. For some people, no matter how long you are with someone, it doesn't seem to be a "done deal" as a relationship. They're not "lying" and they're not trying to deceive anyone, they just want the ability to be bound to each other in love and law.

Seriously.

Then they can call it something else.

They can have all the ceremonies they want.

The definition of marriage has nothing to do with what they have in mind.

It is actually the opposite

You don't care what they call it, you just don't want it. They're usually called Civil Unions anyway. Gay marriage is the slang.

The -original- definition of marriage is an agreement between a woman's father and a suitor. It was a legal arrangement to shift around property, also known as women, and to set up a lineage to which capital could be inherited and shared.

Nothing to do with love, nothing to do with some universal power.

It was politics, nothing else. Which is why mistresses were so common back in the day.

There has never been any "sanctity" in marriage.

WE, the people, changed the definition as the times changed.

Furthermore, how is it any of your business? It's not "your" definition. It is not owned by the population. It's a legal precedent, one that needs to be changed to accommodate for a significant portion of the population.

And I love how you act like you're being hijacked when it is -you- who is trying to -change the constitution-, which is the ONLY WAY this can be legal. If you re-write our constitution. Otherwise, it falls under the same category as segregated schools or interracial marriage.

Made their own petition? Oh, so that's what it called when you take something to the SUPREME COURT. Should Brown have taken it to the voters? How do you think the voters -felt- about segregation?

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The constitution is clear, that's why you have to change it to ban gay marriage. So don't act like you're not trying to write prejudice into our Republic or like we're acting unfairly.

All I see from gay activists like you is hate, bigotery, hetero-phobie, lies, distortion, rewriting of history, harassment, discrimination, taking other people rights, trigger happy with suing everyone in your way, intolerence, on and on and on.

You want to force other to accept your life style at gun point, playing victims, screaming whatever fit the moment etc.....

So instead of addressing my points, you're going to make broad generalizations and repeat the argument I just discredited.

I'll translate that as a "I have no idea how to respond to what you just said."

Come back when you know how to argue.

You have never answered my arguments. All you have done is just spread your hate.

Your were never interested in a real discussion.

Just be honest once in you life.

Hurrrrrr

I DID answer your arguments, all over this thread!

You don't HAVE any questions or points you've made. What IS your argument?

Are you calling activism against writing discrimination into our constitution hatred? If so, 1. can you prove that and 2. why does that matter?

Like I said earlier. You haven't seen many anti-gay activists beaten to death have you? Guess where the hate is really coming from?

Your point is fine and to some extent I agree, but think about this.

This went to the supreme court, did the voters in Kansas get to vote on whether or not schools got to be segregated? Did the nation get to try and vote for a constitutional amendment to enforce segregation?

Sorry, but the voters shouldn't get to choose to discriminate against other people. I'm not against shutting down the vote for this for a second.

You're talking about voting in discrimination, as a -constitutional amendment-. Amendments shouldn't even be up to voters.

It's because some people hate so blindly they can't help it. There is no concept of live and let live, "believers" have been brainwashed into thinking that if there is sin anywhere, the whole world goes to hell.

The hate is coming from the gay activists.

So much hate.

Look in the mirror

Remind me again how many anti-gay activists get the shit beat out of them?

How many get shot killed, tortured or mutilated for their beliefs?

Who's the anti-gay Matthew Shepard? I've yet to see -one-.

You can mouth off all you want, righteous anger is not hate.

Moreover, this isn't about hate. You don't have to be hateful to be bigoted or prejudiced. You can even be positive in a prejudice.

When you enact in a law that actively denies rights to a selected segment of the population, that IS bigotry and that IS discrimination. It doesn't matter whether you hate them or not, that's a total non-issue.

Agreed I've come to find that no matter how I try to talk to these people ultimately it's a Sisyphean task.

They knew it when they went to city hall.

The court refuse to wait until November

The court shouldn't have waited. It's their job to enforce the constitution, not listen to whining, ignorant citizens.

Your bill is a proposed amendment for our constitution, because there's no other way that this can be legal. So please don't act like you care for our Republic.

If you cared, you wouldn't be writing discrimination into our constitution for your purely religious beliefs.

Nice I was hoping for a thought out coherent statement but irrelevant statistical data works too...actually you didn't answer anything. Let's try this one more time; does being gay, in itself, put someone at greater risk for disease?

Actually I'm done with this rhetorical nonsense...gay people in themselves aren't at any higher risk for stds. Stds are more prevalent because statistically there is less condom use in the gay community, not because for some magic reason gay people get sicker easier than their straight counterparts.

As long as people practice safe responsible sex they have a good chance at not getting a STD.

You didn't answer the question.

At all.

Let's repeat this a couple of times until you get it.

"does being gay, in itself, put someone at greater risk for disease?"

"in itself"

"in itself"

"in itself"

Higher prevalence of anything among any portion of the population is irrelevant unless it can be directly attributed to that characteristic.

Plenty of black people in Africa have AIDS. Obviously, it wasn't being black that gave them AIDS.

So once again, answer the question.

"does being gay, in itself, put someone at greater risk for disease?"

And don't forget the important part this time.

In and of ITSELF.

I don't think being gay is the reason for having a higher rate of STD's. I think that being stupid is!!

Your argument still fails.

It's not always circumstantial and even if it was, that doesn't change the fact that it's natural.

What can you argue? That it's not natural even though it happens without any outside stimuli? Makes perfect sense.

Oral sex isn't natural and neither is protected intercourse. Is it equally as wrong? You never answered that question either.

For that matter, are glasses wrong? They're not natural, along with dozens of other things we use everyday.

And in case you forgot, sexual orientation refers to sexual preference, not "body compatibility." Your argument by definition doesn't make sense.

And until you answer my questions about oral sex and protected sex, it will remain entirely contradictory.

A straw man is setting up your argument for you.

An example of a straw man would be, "America_Again thinks gays are wrong because he thinks all unnatural things are wrong, like glasses."

That would be setting up your argument for you.

I asked a question, one that you chose to ignore instead of answer. Along with THE REST OF MY POST.

Learn what fallacies are. Ironic since you keep using a slippery slope fallacy.

And I love how I pointed out that your definition was wrong, therefore invalidating the argument, and you told me to go take a break. Sexual orientation, by definition, refers to the sex which someone is naturally attracted to. Sorry my simple logical questions are too much for you.

Can you answer them? Or are you going to ignore and belittle them?

"It is important to note that the desire to measure, define, and keep statistics on sexual orientation and gender is a relatively new phenomenon in human history. The terms homosexual, heterosexual, and transgender did not exist until early in the twentieth century with the advent of modern psychology. In ancient times, same sex erotic behaviors and romantic love for those of the same sex existed as part of normal and everyday life. Some researchers and theorists believe that society has created categories for sexual orientation and gender to control sexual behavior and to create a catalogue of sexual deviancies. Society's need to classify sexual orientation and gender and attitudes toward people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, or questioning (i.e. sexual minorities) reflect society's assumptions about what is normal and who is welcomed and excluded. Educators should approach the labeling and classifying of sexual orientation of adolescents with great caution due to its potential for exclusion. James Brundage asserts that people are continuing to live with codes of sexual conduct established in Medieval Europe, and he calls for new reflections on an understanding of people as sexual beings in modern times. Living in a world, however, of what Thomas Popkewitz calls "population reasoning" that seeks to define children as members of groups with certain characteristics requires that people, however hestitantly, must acquiesce."

Uh oh, looks like you quoted an article that doesn't support you.

Still waiting for answers to my questions.

Let's repeat this a couple of times until you get it.

"does being gay, in itself, put someone at greater risk for disease?"

"in itself"

"in itself"

"in itself"

Higher prevalence of anything among any portion of the population is irrelevant unless it can be directly attributed to that characteristic.

Plenty of black people in Africa have AIDS. Obviously, it wasn't being black that gave them AIDS.

So once again, answer the question.

"does being gay, in itself, put someone at greater risk for disease?"

And don't forget the important part this time.

In and of ITSELF.

Technically, your penis was designed to easily allow the delivery of fluids out of your body, which happen to include semen and seminal fluids. The head was designed for sensitivity to touch, the phallus itself was designed to grow and shrink as circumstances permit, It just happens to fit in the mouth and anus quite nicely, as well as the vaginal canal.

As for sexuality, not only is it a fluid scale that grows as a person does, but it cannot be mentally decided upon. One can try and train oneself to be one way or another, but that training is akin to altering one's behavior. Preferences, however, are just that; no different than a preference for certain scents and tastes. All natural and determined from birth.

Gays are no allowed to give blood for good reasons

That's right because we all have to remember letting those immoral gay people have the same rights as straights is a slippery slope to bestiality and pedophilia in the streets.

Come on...

Homosexuals do NOT choose their homosexuality anymore than you choose your heterosexuality. People do not -choose- what makes them hot and bothered.

And regardless of whether or not it a choice does not change the fact that it's discrimination. It's not any different than not allowing fat people, smokers, S&M people or dozens of other groups that are different from the mainstream to marry. Just because you view something as unhealthy doesn't give you the right to discriminate against their choices.

So tell me, people that enjoy defecation as a sexual practice, should they not be allowed to marry? How about foot fetishists or people who engage in bondage?

You're no different than the bigots that argued against interracial marriage on the basis that other races were degenerate.

America is a Republic, one based on liberty and freedom of choice. It is NOT a place where we get to dictate the private, consensual, sexual choices of other people.

Lol, I was just talking about people like you. People who wield their opinions in arguments as if they're scientific fact. As a community scientists haven't actually thought homosexuality is a choice for thirty years...

I would like to see you will yourself to an erection, out of one and back into one in under a minute. Video tape it and send it to me. You'd be the first human in history who will themselves to be sexually excited. Everyone else needs sexual stimuli.

Not that it even MATTERS, because I already provided an argument running with the idea that it was a choice!

And you didn't even address it. What's the matter? You can't argue without making up facts and using fallacies?

And to retort your absurd German argument, if it's even true, I said -consensual-, sexual actions cannot be discriminated against.

And what kind of a citizen are you? You're arguing that people cannot come to a logical conclusion on their own and thus must be controlled? Do you even believe in our Republic?

Oh how convenient it is to cherry pick facts.

Of course, scientific evidence should always be ignored to attack homosexuality on a religious basis. That's what psychology is based on after all, religious scripture.

And of course you'd ignore that lesbian women have a very low rate of sexually transmitted diseases. And ignore that the rates of STD's among straight people is astronomically higher than in gays. Even AIDS is higher among black women than it is gay men.

But you're going to repeat your arguments over again anyway, because all your beliefs rely on irrationality and cherry-picked facts.

You quoted NOTHING. You just SAID IT.

"In 1996, WHO estimated that more than 1 million people were being infected daily. About 60% of these infections occur in young people

I see you've edited your post, probably in an attempt to make it look like I'm not responding to your points. So let me address your edits.

"And to retort your absurd German argument, if it's even true, I said -consensual-, sexual actions cannot be discriminated against."

Exactly. Look at Americas High Schools, where 12-year-olds are having "consensual" sexual acts. Even then, it is Statutory Rape because society has reckoned it is wrong - homosexuality is wrong.

By legal definition, it's not consensual. We don't have statutory rape laws because we believe children are not yet old enough to make that decision on their own, not because we think sex is wrong.

And I love how you added that little snippet at the end, there's nothing wrong with homosexuality. That is your opinion. Funny how you haven't answered my questions about other sexual acts like S&M and defecation yet. Because it's the same issue.

"Where did I say that? Oh, I didn't - you simply interjected that! Nice try."

"First, it was Homosexuals that argued for their acceptance in society. Now, Child Pedophiles are arguing for the same in Germany (with a serious tone), and people are *actually* taking them serious. Oh, and Homo's are taking sides with them!

Once you open the door to Sexual Deviation, it's blown off its hinges for every other sexual act under the banner of "tolerance," "equality," and "diversity."

Congratulations, you just argued that people can't decide what they feel to be right and wrong.

The majority of Californians are in favor of proposition 8.

They do no want their chidren to be taught homosexuality in schools,

They do not want 4 judges in San Francisco to decide for them what they already have voted on in 2000

They know that a father and a mother is better for the welfare of of child.

May 15th was Pearl Harbor, Novemebr 4th is D Day

Just like most Americans thought that blacks shouldn't be integrated into schools or married to non-blacks right?

And where do you get off on saying it'll be taught in schools? That's idiotic, it has nothing to do with that.

And I'm sorry you have no respect for our constitution or or supreme courts, which are completely clear on this issue, which bears NO relevance to YOU.

Also, you might want to look up some actual scientific evidence. Studies held since 1970 have shown that children in gay homes grow up exactly the same.

For that matter, you might also be interested by the fact that more than 60% of Americans live in non-traditional family settings and grow up just fine.

You, on the other hand, who I am going to assume -did- grow up in a two parent home, seem to have no rational abilities whatsoever. Can I attribute that to your traditional upbringing? Seems about just as fair.

Well said, Saladin. The equation is quite simple. There is no justification for the excluding of rights for any group of people who are citizens of US. It simply is unconstitutional.

"Can you prove that youths don't suffer from "physical consequences" when they see two men acting as homosexuals."

Well as a child of a gay parent, yes I can prove that children don't suffer from exposure to homosexuality. I am the proof. What's yours?

"There is a mental stage in Child Development, when children consider *all* Males as their Fathers and *all* Females as their Mothers."

Not sure if this is true or not, but I fail to see your point either way.

Personally, I have seen MUCH more damage done to children in traditional straight marriage families than to those of gay parents.

The same might be said of suffering induced by those who follow religion as oppose to those who don't. More people have suffered in the name of God than from any other source.

wow talk about being taken out of context! I am saying we should be focusing on our soldiers rather than this BS issue, if you don't agree with me that is your right, I am just saying that there are more pressing issues going in America so why focus on throwing hate and ignorance out there? If two people love each other who cares what sex they are?!!!!

In theory, yes the Civil Union is supposed to afford same sex couples all of the right and privileges normally associated with 'traditional' marriages. However, the inequality in this equation is that Civil Unions are not recognized by every state in our union, with some even giving jail time and fines for couples who go out of state for them. It is the very definition of inequality. "Selfish homosexuals" merely want their unions to be recognized on a national level in the same manner marriages are. And this is not happening. This is the crux of the equality debate. Ha, it's kind of funny that you quote Aristotle when the very same verse debunks everything you just said. Things are clearly not equal, although people who believe the ideas you present believe they are, which is simply ignorance when you look at the facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union#United_States

Wow, doesn't this sound like "separate, but equal"? I thought we found that was illegal a good 40 years ago...

Every one has the right to get married. You can too

No one has the right to redefine marriage and force others to accept their life style.

You equality claim is fake and bogus.

Such a lie

hahaha. You just contradicted yourself.

WTF do you know? One of the five pillars of Islam is giving help to the poor. There are Mosques which are rivaling every Cathedral in size and sigth. The Qur'an is beautiful lyric (think about the content whatever you like).
There are literally thousands of Muslim Organisations dedicated to helping those in need and no, they are not all propaganda machines for Hamas.

Oh and ever heard of an NGO called the red crescent?

And I hate to destroy your illusions, but the red cross is not a reference to Jesus, but just the inverted flag of Switzerland (you know, cause it is neutral).

Think before you write!

Haha, pwnt.

I'll add that while Christians are generous and loving people, fundamentalists are not.

Fundies in the U.S. wear the skin of Christianity to pursue their aggressive and hateful agendas against the non-Christian portions of the population.

Real Christians disagree with gays but wish them blessings in their lives.

http://www.jewishcoa.org/

http://www.jewishcharities.org/

You want to call people out on being ignorant, maybe you should read up. Last time I checked your religion was based on the old testament which is the Tora. And at least Jewish people (myself included) don't tell people that they are going to a fiery hell if they don't believe the same exact things that we do...where is the loving and understanding god in that logic?

Convenient that you ignored the part about the Red Cross being a secular organization in collaboration with the Swiss flag.

Convenient that you ignored my post as well.

And how utterly arrogant and self-righteous of you to assume that Christians are the only people that set up charities and do good work around the world.

Apparently, you've never heard of the U.N. or our federal government. Or dozens of other governments for that matter. And I guess socialized medicine doesn't count right? Your fundies aren't even willing to do that to their own people.

Real Christians aren't interested in glorifying or preaching their cause or their religion, they just go to other countries and try to help people. And those millions of Christians that do that are nothing like people like YOU, who support bigotry and hate for your own self-righteous ego.

Wanna know where non-Christian nations were at the time? Lesse, during the Dark Ages, Africa was celebrating a golden age, China was circumnavigating the world, native Australians were minding their business, and the natives of the Americas were advancing either their theological understandings or knowledge of mathematics.

Do you want to know why missions were established? To help justify conquering natives by "bring religion to them," because clearly they were savages before.

Why aren't there missions being established elsewhere by non-Christians? Because others can't really be bothered with trying to convert people from one faith to another. There's this feeling where people who want to convert, will.

Want to know why Europe and America ended up being the heads of the world now? Guns and enslavement, as well as clever usage of people's biases against one another to divide and conquer. Military tactics, not some divine plan. Mercantilism and might were all that led to these things. So don't even think that you can try and cite Christianity as a reason for all of the advancements of the current powers of the world. It's just been used as a convenient image to justify these other desires.

And of yes, thanks to the demonization of all things based around Islam, I highly doubt that any Western Nations would allow any non-western groups to try and help out, because then it would be muscling in on their territory.

I respect people who respect my religious beliefs, but I can't STAND it when someone says to me "OUR lord and savior" because he is NOT OUR lord and savior, he is YOURS.

Sometimes I wonder if you are just a troll.

Other religions don't have missionaries because they are polite enough to leave the rest of the world alone about their religion. And Buddhism is the oddball in the category, it is more considered a way or life rather than an actual religion.

One of the reasons Christianity has such large Cathedrals (which really are giant wastes of money that could have been better spent on food for the starving and drugs for the sick), many missionaries, and in general a larger band of worshipers is because the Europeans were the first to "modernize" and to spread and infect the world, garnishing riches from Africa, Asia, failing in America, and in general forcing the locals to convert AND/OR raise their crops as slaves.

Also, all the nations who's native religions weren't Christianity DO have art. They did not have exactly what we call "Operas, Literature, Paintings and Sculpture, and Orchestras" because their cultures developed differently. There are fabulous Hindu sculptures ( http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/h/hindu.html ), and although very different from our own, the Japanese (their native religion being Shinto) developed their own musical theater, Noh. All of the world had some form of drawn or painted art, and if you have ever seen a History Channel program you must be aware of the ruins and intact remains of great temples in all parts of the world.

To have faith does not mean to wave it around in the air and try to force it upon other people and other cultures. A part of Christianity's beliefs involves enrolling new members to the church, with the idea that everyone should be Christian. Yet Hinduism preaches that all paths lead to the same summit, so having missionaries would be pointless. They also believe in reincarnation, and that every man born deserves his place in life based upon past actions in another life, so they are not inclined to offer help to the disadvantaged, just as you must certainly feel you are not inclined to give civil rights to homosexuals.

They already voted on this in the year 2000.

Why are you blaming them ?

The gays activists will spend $20mm to $40mm

Blame yourself

Your argument is completely irrelevant to the person's point.

Are you actually cognitive? Can you not see how what you just said bears no relevance to the person's point?

So, are you saying that blacks and whites should be still separated? Because a court ruled that the "separated but equal" crap was unconstitutional. And majority hated blacks. What's your take?

Gay is not black. This is a false argument that insults many African Americans that dealt with slavery

Some hetero sexuals become homo and vice versa.

Marriage bring men and women together: the 2 dual univers.

In gay marriages one sex rejects the other.

Hahaha! False argument? Really? Apparently, you don't know your history very well. During the time when the courts struck it down that it was unconstitutional to have the stupid "Separate but equal". When the courts declared their decision, many people were in outrage because they felt that the courts were not defining the laws because many states at the time passed laws saying that the separate but equal clause was acceptable to giving blacks their rights.

Irrelevant argument.

Discrimination is discrimination, it doesn't matter how anyone feels about it.

It IS comparable to blacks from a legal perspective, what relevance does how much suffering they go through cause? If the law discriminates against them, that's the end of the story.

As U.S. citizens, they have a right to marry who they please that can't be denied to them. Just as they have a right to move freely or own property or any other rights automatically allocated to us by our constitution.

And your opinion on marriage(and for that matter your feelings on gays), especially since it's spiritual, is completely irrelevant. We're talking about law here, the definition of a legal marriage can be changed at any time, especially if it's unconstitutional.

Its not the voters its some shitty Christians that want to intervene. You're a bigot.

Not at all, I could care less. I'm just saying this was voted on once, the people of California passed it, then the Supreme Court turned it over. I don't blame them for wanting to vote again, but this time as a constitutional amendment so the court can't touch. It's a interesting move, whatever the circumstance. I don't like judges overturning the will of the people.

Like I always say, I don't care if gays marry, why should straight people be the only ones to suffer. The only ones who really benefit from gay marriage are divorce attorneys.