Same sex marriage in California

[gammer_ghn]

I dont care what these people do with them selves as long as it has nothing to do with me. Bringing it into school and forcing our young children to learn to accept them without our consent and we are forced to accept them. I dont want my GOV to decide for me and force me or my family to do anything without their wants!

[ADDirishboy]

I dont care what these people do with them selves as long as it has nothing to do with me. Bringing it into school and forcing our young children to learn to accept them without our consent and we are forced to accept them. I dont want my GOV to decide for me and force me or my family to do anything without their wants!

Oh God forbid you have to talk to your children about homosexuality. Your afraid of confrontation on the subject so your solution is to illegalize it so you don't have to talk to your kids about it. Selfish much?

[Sentientbydesign]

Why not? if there are some that are born that way, then its still a legitimate argument. Frankly, even if 100% were not born that way, then what then? We can try to go after those that are causing the problem, but how effective is that? And for those that still end up gay, do we consider them lesser beings for being victimized? Or do we allow them to carry on with their life in a manner that provides them the most amount of happiness?

Because the entire block of text I originally quoted by smockers is false based on information I've provided. I'm too lazy to spend the rest of my work time looking for other "authorities" to validate my claims. That is probably one reason I don't come here often

I thought minors can already be emancipated. I'm sure you'll have a hard time proving that all young adults are generally capable of making sound decisions. Hell, I have a hard time understanding the decisions many grown-ups make.

There are still many situation in which a young person is denied a job or other widely accepted benefit because of age descrimination. I'm going to stop there because this is a completely different topic.

IMO, the only reason someone would be for Proposition 8 is if they were homophobic or wanted to impose their religious beliefs on someone else (As usual, the fundies trying to legislate their interpretation of morality).

There are quite a few laws that we have that don't make the rest of us happy. Hell, there is a whole group who is trying to legalize sex with minors. We deem that socially immoral. What gives you the right to say that your moral values are more qualified than mine? Your only argument would be that my opinion (and subsequent vote) is not as qualified as yours because of my religion or supposed homophobia. Then I would say that you are a hypocrite for saying that I am a lesser citizen because of my opinion and then also chastizing me for supposedly having that same outlook on homosexuals and marriage.

[ishkabibble]

What gives you the right to say that your moral values are more qualified than mine?

Exactly my point. I'm not the one trying to legislate morality based on fear or religious beliefs.

Then I would say that you are a hypocrite for saying that I am a lesser citizen because of my opinion and then also chastizing me for supposedly having that same outlook on homosexuals and marriage.

Where did I say that you were a lesser citizen?

Sex with minors is often damaging to the minor. What damage is done if, just for the sake of example, Matt and Greg decide to get hitched?

[audtatious]

And if you speak out against homosexuality you are a latent h0m0.

Hey!!! You've already said that. Don't disrespect my counter-point by spewing your point again

[Sentientbydesign]

Where did I say that you were a lesser citizen?

There was a hypothetical connecting sentence you missed...I think.

Sex with minors is often damaging to the minor. What damage is done if, just for the sake of example, Matt and Greg decide to get hitched?

I'll be sure to sig that question hehehe.

I think quite a few of us treat homosexuality as non-normal (please don't ask me how or why I or anybody else can determine normal). I don't use the word abnormal because of the negative connotation it bares. My example with the higher rate of homosexuals who have been sexually abused is an example of that mindset.

The question is...how large would the homosexual population be IF the abnormal environmental factors were removed?

If say, there was a 70% reduction (hypothetical), then it would show that homosexuality is a side effect and is indeed a condition. If that yielded to be true, then allowing homosexual couples to marry only makes the situation worse by perpetuating (what many of us believe) to be a condition and not a direct choice.

So to answer your question, I think Greg and Matt getting hitched would further degrade an already demoralized society. Some of the religious and moral framework that is being challenge is what helped this country attain the wealth, status, power...etc.

I don't believe that continuing to use that framework and imposing it on others is right, but I don't think removing it without any thing comparable or better is right either. The latter actually hurts more people in the long run.

I am formally apologizing to anyone who takes offense to my comments and/or arguments.

[SteveTheTech]

I think quite a few of us treat homosexuality as non-normal (please don't ask me how or why I or anybody else can determine normal). I don't use the word abnormal because of the negative connotation it bares. My example with the higher rate of homosexuals who have been sexually abused is an example of that mindset.

The question is...how large would the homosexual population be IF the abnormal environmental factors were removed?

If say, there was a 70% reduction (hypothetical), then it would show that homosexuality is a side effect and is indeed a condition. If that yielded to be true, then allowing homosexual couples to marry only makes the situation worse by perpetuating (what many of us believe) to be a condition and not a direct choice.

So to answer your question, I think Greg and Matt getting hitched would further degrade an already demoralized society. Some of the religious and moral framework that is being challenge is what helped this country attain the wealth, status, power...etc.

I don't believe that continuing to use that framework and imposing it on others is right, but I don't think removing it without any thing comparable or better is right either. The latter actually hurts more people in the long run.

That is surprising as someone who claims to be open minded would publicly announce something like what you just said.

[Sentientbydesign]

Having fun passing judgement, Steve? Openmindedness goes both ways.

[SteveTheTech]

I never said I was open minded.

I like the gays their fine in my book, and they should be happy. It's the right wingers I cannot stand. You guys come out with some great biblical reasonings for your POV but nothing scientific or actual fact.

[audtatious]

I resent that ANYONE would think I would be desperate enough to marry Greg

[audtatious]

So, Florida and Arizona both passed measures to update their state constitution against gay marriage. As things are at the moment, Prop-8 is leading with 54% and looks like it will pass as well.

[C-Kwik]

Because the entire block of text I originally quoted by smockers is false based on information I've provided. I'm too lazy to spend the rest of my work time looking for other "authorities" to validate my claims. That is probably one reason I don't come here often

Are you asserting that the opposite then is true because his statement is not 100% true (which I believe is not 100% true)? The fact of the matter is there is no conclusive evidence that proves it one way or the other. The other fact is that regardless of the cause, this is an issue we have to consider for the forseeable future. That said, should we then stomp on the happiness of others for the sake of what is mostly religious beliefs?

There are still many situation in which a young person is denied a job or other widely accepted benefit because of age descrimination. I'm going to stop there because this is a completely different topic.

The same laws against discrimination in employment apply to age as well. Frankly, I haven't seen age as a significant group of people being discriminated.

There are quite a few laws that we have that don't make the rest of us happy. Hell, there is a whole group who is trying to legalize sex with minors. We deem that socially immoral. What gives you the right to say that your moral values are more qualified than mine? Your only argument would be that my opinion (and subsequent vote) is not as qualified as yours because of my religion or supposed homophobia. Then I would say that you are a hypocrite for saying that I am a lesser citizen because of my opinion and then also chastizing me for supposedly having that same outlook on homosexuals and marriage.

Nope. My argument is that this law will remove a choice and a right from citizens of this country. Its not like people against prop 8 are trying to keep you from excercising your right and choice to practice your religion. There is a fundamental difference as mine has nothing to do with morals.

I think quite a few of us treat homosexuality as non-normal (please don't ask me how or why I or anybody else can determine normal). I don't use the word abnormal because of the negative connotation it bares. My example with the higher rate of homosexuals who have been sexually abused is an example of that mindset.

I pretty much showed you there is something wrong with the stats provided by the site you linked and quoted. Either find a credible source or find fault with the methodology I used to prove my point. What you contend probably does happen to an extent. But you seem to assume its a relatively high percentage without any credible proof. However, I'll say right now that it makes no difference to me anyways. Emotionally scarred or not, if it helps a person to live out the rest of their life in happiness, then I don't see fault with it as it does nothing to hurt anyone.

The question is...how large would the homosexual population be IF the abnormal environmental factors were removed?

Again, doesn't matter, but this is purely speculative. Speculation is not a point of argument unless you are trying to play devil's advocate. Speculation is not credible support for an argument.

If say, there was a 70% reduction (hypothetical), then it would show that homosexuality is a side effect and is indeed a condition. If that yielded to be true, then allowing homosexual couples to marry only makes the situation worse by perpetuating (what many of us believe) to be a condition and not a direct choice.

My prior statement applies here again. But, yes, that would strongly suggest that homosexuality could be a psychological disorder. But then again, you haven't presented anything that would support that notion credibly.

So to answer your question, I think Greg and Matt getting hitched would further degrade an already demoralized society. Some of the religious and moral framework that is being challenge is what helped this country attain the wealth, status, power...etc.

Frankly, I'm not sure how to respond to you here. You've made a statement and offered no support for it. Are you actually trying to have a meaningful discussion?

I don't believe that continuing to use that framework and imposing it on others is right, but I don't think removing it without any thing comparable or better is right either. The latter actually hurts more people in the long run.

What framework would be removed anyhow? Lets see here. We have three major branches in the government. Presidential, congressional and judicial? Nope, I don't see church. Last I checked, the ideal was to separate church and state. Tell you what though. I'll challenge you to find the word God in any part of the Constitution...

So, Florida and Arizona both passed measures to update their state constitution against gay marriage. As things are at the moment, Prop-8 is leading with 54% and looks like it will pass as well.

The yes votes have dropped to 52.3% as of now. But the margin of votes is still increasing. It would be hard for it to swing the other way. Either way, it saddens me to still hear that so many don't seem to comprehend the ideals held up by this nation's and state's constitutions. That their religion would supercede someone else right to the pursuit of happiness. Frankly, I doubt this law, if passed, will go uncontested. And if the trend continues, within the next 10 years, the new generation of voters will easily be able to vote in a bill that would revert this law. I find it odd that the generation that seems most concerned with "protecting" their children, will find that the children realize there is nothing to be protected from...

[ADDirishboy]

So, Florida and Arizona both passed measures to update their state constitution against gay marriage. As things are at the moment, Prop-8 is leading with 54% and looks like it will pass as well.

I honestly can't stand to be living in AZ right now. I wrote a rant on facebook on the gay marriage props.

Read it if you want and tell me your thoughts.http://www.facebook.com/note.p...30248

EDIT: C-Kwik, your last post makes me happy

[Sentientbydesign]

Most of the post you dissected was not so much an argument but a point of view. Most of the non homosexual supporters can't see past 5 minutes from now.

Also, just as I haven't provided any proof that homosexuality is a condition (although I did provide a somewhat credible/logical theory), you haven't proven that it is genetic/biological. As such, that argument is null as far as I see it.

My commentary regarding the framework was a social one, not this ridiculously ineffective form of government we currently have. We're talking about why there are opponents to gay marriage. I'm providing "the other side".

Just as the homosexuals who want to get married say that they want this right because it makes them happy, it would make MILLIONS of us unhappy if our children took on that lifestyle BECAUSE of public exposure.

If homosexuality is ever deemed a condition, we...actually more you... will have perpetuated it by taking a stand on something that you don't completely understand.

BTW. To all of you, including Steve the PITA technician, I am very passionate about this subject among others, but I hope you don't take any of my arguments personally. There are issues to be debated, not people or characters.

[heliochrome85]

So, Florida and Arizona both passed measures to update their state constitution against gay marriage. As things are at the moment, Prop-8 is leading with 54% and looks like it will pass as well.

thats unfortunate beyond belief.

we simulateously broke down barriers in our country, while reenforcing others.

[barrigas14]

Real quick...

Since homosexuality is not a skin color it is taking time to find the research. But the research is there and on going. Here are a few things that have been found...

http://playthink.wordpress.com...brain/

http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_...4.php

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/2136

http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/49488 <--- kinda lame

Anyways, my entire problem with this is that marriage is between two adults. This is a private issue. NOT something you, me, nor anyone else has a say in.

You say that schools are going to have to teach about gay marriage. Where? I never took the class on marriage, is there one? Nope. If a kid asks about homosexual marriage, the teacher should be instructed to say, "ask your parents about that."

Besides, it's not like heterosexual marriage is doing well. 50% divorce rate. Marriage out of wedlock *couch Palin cough*. People getting married for 72hrs *cough Britney Spears cough*. People cheating on their partners. Last I checked, this religious bunch that is so worried about h0m0's and marriage should take a big hard look into their own system.

^^Or are those the morals you are teaching your children?

[ADDirishboy]

To everyone who is against gay marriage, please read this. It was written by my best friend who is gay and this affects very much.

“Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state” Prop 102 (Arizona) Passed (56% to 44%)

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California." –Prop 8 (California) Passed (52% to 48%)

“In as much as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.” –Amendment 2 in CA Passed (62.1% of the needed 60%)

Last night was a difficult night. Many people excited because of Obama, many sad for McCain. But I don’t really want to talk about that.

“In the end antiblack, antifemale, and all forms of discrimination are equivalent to the same thing – antihumanism.” - Shirley Chisholm (The first African American to sit in the U.S. Congress)

It has been less than 12 hours since these decisions have come up, and I have already been told “People need to realize that people voted and majority rules so step down gracefully instead of attacking everyone who voted differently”.

I almost laughed when I saw that. Because majority voted 2 years ago on Prop 107, yet they couldn’t handle the outcome and they brought it back this year (Yes, I know prop 107 contained Civil Unions. Don’t forget Civil Unions were all Gay people could get at the time, so it was an even more direct attack on LGBT individuals; cut us off at the knees if you will. The elderly people, were just a side effect)

I’ve also seen people say that we need to stop caring about politics and be friends again. And I agree with that, but I wish for once some people would look at this from my perspective. This is not a political issue. Last night a good amount of my friends put pen (or rather strange marker) to paper, and very clearly stated that I was incapable of loving. They looked at me, looked at who I am, and decided that I was unworthy of being loved.

Worse yet, many of them have talked about me behind my back. They say that I am making a “lifestyle choice,” that I’m confused; they judge who I am from their perspective. Also, my entire family knows that I am gay, and NO ONE amongst my friends who judge me, or my family, has asked me why? Except for Jarrod Hallman, Christina Renkenmeyer, and Hayley Maddox and I had a short conversation.

You don’t care about who I am, you just judge who I am based on a stereotype, or should I say a “lifestyle”? Two years ago you would support my pretending to check out girls, and the three dates I had with another girl. Yet I was the same person then that I am now. You would support my ruining a girls life by entering a loveless marriage based on a lie, but my marrying someone I love, well that’s an abomination.

Many people are saying that they are glad it’s over, and everyone can be friends again. That people just need to get over him or herself, and that Tyler is too passionate.

Justice will only exist where those not affected by injustice are filled with the same amount of indignation as those offended. – Plato

To my recollection, I have never called someone who supported 102 a hateful person. And I definitely never mentioned it in the note I posted Monday. However, three people have already, automatically, jumped into the “I’m not a hateful person for voting this way.” Then they hide behind their religious preference. It’s interesting to see that I have never had to call someone prejudiced—ok I did once in a private email to Jarrod—they just know that they are when they support these measures.

“Prejudice and contempt, cloaked in the pretense of religious or political conviction, are no different. They have nearly destroyed us in the past. They plague us still. They fuel the fanaticism of terror. They torment the lives of millions in fractured nations around the world. These obsessions cripple both those who are hated and, of course, those who hate, robbing both of what they might become.” – Bill Clinton

So can I look some people in the eye and just be friends again? I don’t know. Should we just move on and “accept” what the majority has said? There was a time in this country when the majority supported slavery, when the majority supported racist ideals, when the majority accepted sexism. And now the majority of Arizonans, Californians, Floridians, and people from Arkansas have spoken and defined their prejudice for today. Because as much as you want to separate your views toward a homosexual “lifestyle” as “Traditional Values,” those attitudes are no different, and especially no better, than sexist, or racist, attitudes.

You also do not get to say things about the homosexuals, and pretend you hold different views toward me. Remember that every single thing that you say now, have said, or ever will say about homosexuals is a direct statement about me, CJ Minott, and a direct judgment about my life, my person, and my ability to love.

To accept injustice or segregation passively is to say to the oppressor that his actions are morally right. ~Martin Luther King, Jr

[C-Kwik]

Most of the post you dissected was not so much an argument but a point of view. Most of the non homosexual supporters can't see past 5 minutes from now.

Point of views are fine. What I'm trying to get at is why you believe what you believe. If there is some logic behind it, then fine...but provide how you came to your conclusions. EXPECT that if the arguments are weak, they WILL get picked apart. This is what happens in a debate.

Also, just as I haven't provided any proof that homosexuality is a condition (although I did provide a somewhat credible/logical theory), you haven't proven that it is genetic/biological. As such, that argument is null as far as I see it.

First off, your "theory" is simply speculation. Solid theorys has some factual and observational basis for it. More importantly, the basis should not contradict other fundamental facts or theories without credible reasoning. Secondly, I never contended homosexuality was genetic/biological. I suspect it is in many cases, but the extent is unknown to me. But as I said before, it makes no difference as the reality is that homosexuality exists.

My commentary regarding the framework was a social one, not this ridiculously ineffective form of government we currently have. We're talking about why there are opponents to gay marriage. I'm providing "the other side".

Ok, thens lets actually tralk about it. Describe how this social framework has effected all the positive things you stated.

Just as the homosexuals who want to get married say that they want this right because it makes them happy, it would make MILLIONS of us unhappy if our children took on that lifestyle BECAUSE of public exposure.

Many parents are unhappy with the person they choose to marry. Doesn't give them any legal right to keep their child from marrying that person. Think about what you are saying though. The FEAR seems to be that people are worried that their children will end up gay. If sexual orientation is "contagious", then wouldn't it still be more likely that your child will end up straight? Seeing as how there are still a lot more heterosexuals than homosexuals. That said, do you really think that if you were locked in a room with 100 gay men that you would somehow become gay? Probably not. How can you expect that your children would to the same?

If homosexuality is ever deemed a condition, we...actually more you... will have perpetuated it by taking a stand on something that you don't completely understand.

Its still a rather big "if" at this point considering none of us can proclaim to fully understand it. But lets say it is. Then what? Do we have a cure? How do we fix it? And until a solution is determined, do we simply strip a freedom from them as a result? Last I checked, people with cancer and AIDS are still allowed to marry who they want...

BTW. To all of you, including Steve the PITA technician, I am very passionate about this subject among others, but I hope you don't take any of my arguments personally. There are issues to be debated, not people or characters.

Being passionate about an issue is fine. But this is a debate. Passion can only motivate your arguments. But you still need to bring in credible supports for your arguments. And no worries about this becoming personal. I am open-minded enough to hear other views. But I will debate against them if I disagree. And you are of course, more than welcome to debate my views...

[Sentientbydesign]

First off, your "theory" is simply speculation. Solid theorys has some factual and observational basis for it. More importantly, the basis should not contradict other fundamental facts or theories without credible reasoning. Secondly, I never contended homosexuality was genetic/biological. I suspect it is in many cases, but the extent is unknown to me. But as I said before, it makes no difference as the reality is that homosexuality exists.

That theory is supported by research. Whether you believe that research, like it's findings, or find other research that contradicts it is immaterial.

The fact of the matter is that it makes logical sense. It has wide acceptance by both researchers AND homosexuals alike. I think lots of people are missing the point. Being h0m0 is beginning to seem like the "cool" thing to do. A group that accepts all because there is power in numbers.

Here is a website that states the various theories and also has some decent evidence to back up my beliefs.

http://www.familyresearchinst.....html

Ok, thens lets actually tralk about it. Describe how this social framework has effected all the positive things you stated.

The atheists and agnostics who are angered that religion is being force fed to them are analogous to Americans going to a foreign country and saying, your food and architechture is amazing, but your customs and lifestyle is stupid and has to go.

I don't follow the "teaching" and try to evangelize everyone I come across. I do have a few friends who I wish I could "help", but I'm not going to force feed you my religion. I find that to be one of the least effective methods of garnering respect and following.

On the flipside, much of the moral framework and social norms that hold/held this society together are the ones that came from where??? Our religion (just about all of them save Islam).

So you now have a large secular group who once benefitted from our morals, but want to shut the rest of our belief system in a closet (hmm sounds familiar) and tell us to keep quiet, the church has no business here.

News flash buddies. You're screwing yourselves.

Many parents are unhappy with the person they choose to marry. Doesn't give them any legal right to keep their child from marrying that person. Think about what you are saying though. The FEAR seems to be that people are worried that their children will end up gay. If sexual orientation is "contagious", then wouldn't it still be more likely that your child will end up straight? Seeing as how there are still a lot more heterosexuals than homosexuals. That said, do you really think that if you were locked in a room with 100 gay men that you would somehow become gay? Probably not. How can you expect that your children would to the same?

FAIL

The proof is in the...prisons

Its still a rather big "if" at this point considering none of us can proclaim to fully understand it. But lets say it is. Then what? Do we have a cure? How do we fix it? And until a solution is determined, do we simply strip a freedom from them as a result? Last I checked, people with cancer and AIDS are still allowed to marry who they want...

Cancer is mostly not contagious. AIDS...I'm still surprised that no forms of quarantine are initiated. I don't support that idea, but I'm surprised with all of the other liberties that we've lost that that isn't one of them.

IF homosexuality is socially contagious (it is, but in an illness point of view), then promoting it in society only perpetuates a social issue.

There are already children's books with homosexual materials in them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_&_King

I would be irrate (if I could spell it lol) if that was read to my child one day.

[heliochrome85]

you are so incredibly wrong. unbelievably wrong. first and foremost, have you ever met a homosexual? you sound as if you are mad at them for not letting you into their special club, and are ranting that its a stupid club to begin with.

you want to cite sources? how bout starting with sources that arent christian ones. my guess is that christian based Family Research Institute isnt exactly the most unbias source. Having worked in scence i know that any paper worth reading is not published in an online journal such as that, with a production value of maybe 5 dollars.

you want to rely on religious reasons for being against gay marriage, i can not argue with that. BUT if you want to base it based on some sort of false science, and theories that are logical to you, then there we may have problems.

being gay is not a disease, it does not spread through the society like wildfire. the issue at hand here is that CA voters decided that being Gay was something that was reprehensable and that is just wrong.

[Sentientbydesign]

I've actually had gay friends. Don't have any family members that are, but I don't think that is grounds for saying that it's "not in the genes".

It looks like homosexual research has become "uncool". Back in the mid 70s the APA and a few other organizations said "It's not a mental illness" and since then not much has changed.

[heliochrome85]

I've actually had gay friends. Don't have any family members that are, but I don't think that is grounds for saying that it's "not in the genes".

It looks like homosexual research has become "uncool". Back in the mid 70s the APA and a few other organizations said "It's not a mental illness" and since then not much has changed.

Eugenics generally has had a bad rap. Maybe it is because it is used to show that some people are defective and therefore deserve second class status. that being said, every friend of mine that has come out of the closet, has not done so because of Elton John, or Will & Grace being on TV. Its because they were tired of being something they are not. From what they have told me, ever fiber in their being knows, and it isnt a state of mind either. NOW, if you are talking about flaming, then yes, id say that is something that could be encouraged by allowing gays and lesbians to get married. That being said, there is a sizable portion of the GLBT community that is as straight acting, as you or me. you wouldnt know, walking by them, talking to them, that they are homosexual.

My experience is that in many cases, the people we are disenfranchising from their right to marry, often have relationships stronger than our heterosexual ones. with such a high divorce rate, in the US, i'd almost say that Heterosexual marriage poses a bigger risk tot he institution of marriage than homosexual marriage does. How ironic.

[mattblancarte]

Sorry to chime in.

Homosexuality seems to be both environmental and genetic.

http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html

From the American Psychological Association"[M]any scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."{6}

From "Gay Brain" Researcher Simon LeVay"At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role."{7}

From Dennis McFadden, University of Texas neuroscientist:"Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality."{8}

From Sociologist Steven Goldberg"I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors."{9}

[SteveTheTech]

I am with you on this I am shocked by the way christians have snubbed one group that just wants equality. It's a shame, that in this day and age that people still think this way.

http://www.familyresearchinst.....html

I didn't even go too this site I knew exactly what type of crap you managed find to prove your point.

[Jesda]

This has nothing to do with equality. Nothing to do with morality. Nothing to do with right and wrong. Its one silly agenda vs another. If people were rational they'd get the government out of the business of marriage.

Eventually, the politically loud Christians and the spandex liberals will be cast aside and forgotten by the public. Gay marriage, gay this, gay that... its all meaningless and noisy and distracts us from more important things: war, spending, taxation, the economy.

[heliochrome85]

spoken like a true Bush man...

im sorry, but i cant understand how you can ignore the significance of this measure and the idea it enforces, that some members of our society are SECOND class to every one else. Something as fundamental as equality, is less important than the war, taxes, spending, and the economy. im sorry, but that is a ridiculous argument.

[Sentientbydesign]

I love Will and Grace btw. When I was in HS, many people thought I was gay because of my attire, eloquence, demeanor...etc. It bothered me a lot at first, but after a while I started playing around with the homophobes because it was funny.

Am I hypocritical? Eh, not really.

http://www.familyresearchinst.....html

I didn't even go too this site I knew exactly what type of crap you managed find to prove your point.

Play nice or go home! Just because you don't agree with it, can't accept it, don't like it...etc isn't a reason for you to call it crap or to reject it.

[Jesda]

spoken like a true Bush man...

im sorry, but i cant understand how you can ignore the significance of this measure and the idea it enforces, that some members of our society are SECOND class to every one else. Something as fundamental as equality, is less important than the war, taxes, spending, and the economy. im sorry, but that is a ridiculous argument.

This isn't an "equality" issue. This is a LIBERTY issue. The government got involved in marriage to control society and promote "good hygiene".

The government needs to get the hell out of the business of marriage. THERE'S your equality -- freedom for all from being told what to do.

I'm not a "Bush man" you tard. I didn't vote for McCain either.

[heliochrome85]

you think i dont know that you arent a bush man? i aint new here. the things you stated as most important are generally republican platform favorites, in addition to the "i dont care because it doesnt affect me" attitude. hence the poke.

[Jesda]

you think i dont know that you arent a bush man? i aint new here. the things you stated as most important are generally republican platform favorites, in addition to the "i dont care because it doesnt affect me" attitude. hence the poke.

Way to completely skim over my marriage argument.

Sorry if I don't fit perfectly into your labels. I know it causes your head to explode that I vote for Libertarians, occasional Republicans, and occasional Democrats. I realize you can't comprehend the the existence of views that transcend a flat political spectrum.

I am a socially liberal, fiscally conservative, pro-defense kind of guy. I like people like Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, Kathleen Sebelius, James Carville, and Ron Paul. I am pro-choice on abortion, pro second amendment, and anti-tax. I despise the far left and the religious right.

I'm sure its easier for you to argue with someone if you can squeeze them into your narrow mental constructs. It allows you to completely ignore the issues and point fingers.