Same sex marriage in California

[audtatious]

A definition? I don't see a punishment listed as I do with every single other entry.

Matt hasn't posted for a bit, are you catching while typing this?

You want pictures or simply want to tag team?

Uhm...no. I have NICO projects to crank out.

So long as you aren't a federal judge, I don't really care who you accept. But California has f'd itself with this system where the people hold the last word on constitutional amendments.

Why shouldn't the "people" be able to determine what is moral or immoral? We are not talking civil rights movement here so let's not go off on another tangent.

The second statement is extremely telling. I'm not sure what to think of that.

Telling of what? I've stated before that they have been offered the same "benefits" and they don't want that although they say it's what they want. You tell me.

Bigamy is a CRIME. Decriminalizing something is entirely different from, and inconsequential to, removing a right.

Sodomy laws are not enforced and have already been changed I believe. Hell, male-female oral sex used to be considered sodomy as well. Regardless, if they have the benefits then the definition of sodomy needs to change. If we change those laws for them why should we not change the laws for bigamists? Both are crimes today (or sodomy between adults used to be).

So, it seems you support gay rights and not the rights of a bigamist?

[sensibleS13driver]

A marriage is by definition a civil right. Likening it to other civil rights it not a tangent. SODOMY and BIGAMY which have no bearing on this issue, which YOUR side brought up, are tangents.Sodomy is not the issue here. It is not a prerequisite to gay marriage, and it's not on the ballot, try as you might to paint it as such.

It is a purely emotional deflection.

I haven't gotten a rational challenge to my posts, only, nah that don't count, but they do it in the butt, what about bigamy, look at me misread this penal code I found in the internet that the Supreme Court overlooked.

Come out and say that your basis is emotional (the or factor), or prove that my examples are logically invalid.
Modified by sensibleS13driver at 7:52 AM 11/3/2008

[barrigas14]

Why shouldn't the "people" be able to determine what is moral or immoral? We are not talking civil rights movement here so let's not go off on another tangent.

Because your morals are not my morals.

Btw, why these types of propositions are not constitutional...

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

[C-Kwik]

What is the traditionalist view of marriage? Taking away religion from the equation, what is the traditionalist view of marriage? They are the same. Bringing up what the fore fathers did or didn't do in regards to this issue is moot as they did not have to deal with it.

I posted this before, but it applies directly to this. The question is, whoese tradition do we use to define marriage? Keep in mind that in the history of marriage, falling in love before you marry someone was not commonplace. Perhaps we whould let our parents or politics decide who we spend the rest of our life with.

http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12132003.html

The last three words is what can be argued by some. AFAIK they never found a "gay gene". Don't get me wrong, I fully understand and agree that some people are born more masculine or effeminate than others. Others are simply that way due to sexual preference. Hell, I don't know how many people I have worked with that were "everyday Joe's" at the workplace but dressed, walked and talked differently after hours. This could be due to "closeting" at work or it could be due to preference, who knows. Let me ask you this, if someone is bi-sexual do you feel that is choice or nature?

I'd contend that whatever the cause, they have some disposition that causes them to seek a relationship with a person of the same sex. I don't think there is one single cause. As far as they are concerned though, they do not know why they are atracted to people of the same sex. Not are they in any real control over it. Can you force yourself to be sexually attracted to another man? Certainly, there is always the choice one can make to act on a desire. Most certainly, you can have a sexual relationship with another man if you chose to...

Ahhhh....comparison to the Civil Rights movement.....I was wondering when I would see that. Those who have a physical difference and were being suppressed due to color is the same as those with a sexual tendency?

Interracial marriage was against the law in many states at one time...

I was referring to the word itself as this seems to be the main issue as civil union has been offered but declined.

A word in that of itself is just a word. The definition of the word is what is important. The inference that their union is inferior to yours is where the problem lies.

So what? You cannot compare racial segregation with supposed gay segregation. Two completely different issues. One was skin color and the other is preference of who to have sex with.

They are different issues. But fundamentally they are no different.

Gay people can marry all they want. They just can't marry another dude or chic. Just like I could not marry some dude if I wanted to. They have the same rights that I do. You are for allowing it and calling it the same and I'm for allowing it and calling it something different. That's like calling a crew cab truck a sedan simply because it is a vehicle and has 4 doors.

The difference is calling a car a crew cab truck calls to mind a truck with 4 doors. In context, a gay person who says they are married will likely bring about thoughts of said person being married to another man. Words are merely a form of communication. The word marriage can effectively communicate a union between 2 men or 2 women just fine. Prop 8 seeks to deny the use of a word to a particular group of people who can undeniably use said word to effectively communicate their union. Hell, read the proposed law change. Its one or two sentendces long. It says nothing of the notion that there is a moral issue, but rather it just aims to reserve the word for hetero couples. My thought is its the only argument the anti-gay marriage activists have left. Its sad to see them resort to such a tactic.

OK, let's say we adjust and change marriage to mean "any consenting adult" to make gays feel their choices are acceptable (even though the people who do not accept it never will), does it end there? What about bigamy? Every time I bring that up I'm accused of "slippery slope" and that it won't happen because it is not acceptable, but the fact remains that we just changed the definition of marriage to accept gay rights thus wouldn't the same issue then be holding back those who wish to marry multiple partners? Both are choices that consenting adults make, why not?

I could give a crap if people want to marry multiple partners. Legal challenges aside, I see no reason to stop it.

I am a big watcher for slippery slopes and bigamy is the next step. Where do draw the line, how many times will it be erased and redrawn before the line becomes a joke and chaos is the order of the day?

One might argue that they could just as easily start discriminating more and more against gays with this law as well. What's next? We ban gay relationships? Hey, lets put them in jail. Lets keep them from voting. How about we just put them all in a gas chamber? Frankly, every law has some sort of slippery slope that can be applied. The problem is if the slipper slope becomes the argument for or against a law, then the personb who brings it up likely has little ground left to stand on...

I ask those that would support Prop 8 a question. What change would occur in your life should gay marriage become fully legalized? What would it do to your marriage? Fundamentally, our nation is built on a principle that we all have a choice to do what we want that pleases us so long as it hurts noone else. So how does gay marriage hurt you???

[Sentientbydesign]

This may spark a completely different debate, but I think that is baseless and would not become true. Whether you're gay or straight is genetic and biological. Your brain is wired to be attracted to whatever it finds attractive. One cannot make themselves attracted to something their brain doesn't allow them to be. One straight man may be attracted to certain features of a woman (long blond hair) while another straight man may be attracted to different features (short brown hair). But all of that starts with your brain wired to make your d!ck to go up looking at women. For a gay man, the same is true but it all starts with their brain wired to make their d!ck go up looking at men.

I can provide specific cases in which your genetic/biological comment is completely FALSE.

Also, the prevalance of male/female gender balance in MOST gay/lesbian relationships only supports fact that men and women were made (however you want to explain it) for each other.

I am against gay marriage for the same reason that many of you are against piercings (not just the normal ones- Think tongue, frenum, gauged ears, back corset...etc), implants (not the boobs. Think horns), animal sex, and street racing are wrong.

I don't think it's right (I'm very liberal in my Christianity). I think it muddies an already problematic institution.

Have you ever cooked a poor dish, then tried to add more herbs, spices, salt, sugar, juice...etc to try to improve it only to find that you wasted even more ingredients on crap?

[Urabus GodofTraction]

The PR firm that turned "homosexual" into "gay" is ****in' genius! Ditto on the term "homophobic" for anti-homosexuality.

Continue the thread.

[ishkabibble]

I can provide specific cases in which your genetic/biological comment is completely FALSE.

specific cases

specific cases

specific cases

[C-Kwik]

I can provide specific cases in which your genetic/biological comment is completely FALSE.

If you're going to make an assertion that he is wrong, then please do.

Also, the prevalance of male/female gender balance in MOST gay/lesbian relationships only supports fact that men and women were made (however you want to explain it) for each other.

Are you referring to gender roles? And please provide support for your statements.

I am against gay marriage for the same reason that many of you are against piercings (not just the normal ones- Think tongue, frenum, gauged ears, back corset...etc), implants (not the boobs. Think horns), animal sex, and street racing are wrong.

While many piercings disgust me, its each person's right to do what they want in this regard. Why is it ok to pierce one part of your body and not others? Or get implants in one part and not another? Not sure where you're going with the animal sex thing, but it seems to be coming from left field here. Street racing can have catastrophic results for those involved. Sure, any racing can, but street races don't include much, if any, precautions to mitigate risk. Perhaps you can expand on how each of these relate (in your mind) to gay marriage...

I don't think it's right (I'm very liberal in my Christianity). I think it muddies an already problematic institution.

How so? You need to elaborate on your point here.

Have you ever cooked a poor dish, then tried to add more herbs, spices, salt, sugar, juice...etc to try to improve it only to find that you wasted even more ingredients on crap?

The context of your analogy isn't clear to me here. What is the poor dish and what are the herbs, spices, etc?

[Sentientbydesign]

I mention specific cases as to avoid any thoughts that I made a generalized claim, not for you to misconstrue the context of my comment and to make it sound like there are only limited instances when Helio's genetic/biological comment doesn't hold.

[heliochrome85]

I mention specific cases as to avoid any thoughts that I made a generalized claim, not for you to misconstrue the context of my comment and to make it sound like there are only limited instances when Helio's genetic/biological comment doesn't hold.

what exactly was my genetic/biological comment? i read through the thread again, and alas, i made no such comment.

[heliochrome85]

well dissected sir.

[ishkabibble]

I mention specific cases as to avoid any thoughts that I made a generalized claim, not for you to misconstrue the context of my comment and to make it sound like there are only limited instances when Helio's genetic/biological comment doesn't hold.

You're not making a generalized claim, and you're not claiming that there are only limited instances?

So what are you trying to say then? Because you just ruled out both possibilities.

[SteveTheTech]

+1 for proof.Come on Nate where's the proof?

I provided you with respectable resources on this topic and I never heard back regarding this I am curious too see this.

I've skimmed in and out of this thread but this caught my eye. This is the same old argument it's never going to change. It sort of sucks but it is what it is I have come to the realization that people are just different.

To the group at large, does it really matter how your sexual identity is identified? If someone makes you happy, despite their physical bits why should you not be able to share their life with them just like everyone else? There is still a religious argument and it always will be.

[audtatious]

I posted this before, but it applies directly to this. The question is, whoese tradition do we use to define marriage? Keep in mind that in the history of marriage, falling in love before you marry someone was not commonplace. Perhaps we whould let our parents or politics decide who we spend the rest of our life with.

http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12132003.html

Good point. Most of us use "tradition" by usually only looking back a couple of generations.

I'd contend that whatever the cause, they have some disposition that causes them to seek a relationship with a person of the same sex. I don't think there is one single cause. As far as they are concerned though, they do not know why they are atracted to people of the same sex. Not are they in any real control over it. Can you force yourself to be sexually attracted to another man? Certainly, there is always the choice one can make to act on a desire. Most certainly, you can have a sexual relationship with another man if you chose to...

Never argued that. I'm pretty much arguing the point of calling it "marriage" and trolling at the same time

Interracial marriage was against the law in many states at one time...

Another good point I had not considered. In that one aspect I would agree there are similarities.

A word in that of itself is just a word. The definition of the word is what is important. The inference that their union is inferior to yours is where the problem lies.

Based on definition it just means something different. Choice to define something as inferior is up to the individual.

They are different issues. But fundamentally they are no different.

From the point that it's something someone wants that others do not want to give then I would agree. Otherwise one is a look and the other is an action.

The difference is calling a car a crew cab truck calls to mind a truck with 4 doors. In context, a gay person who says they are married will likely bring about thoughts of said person being married to another man. Words are merely a form of communication. The word marriage can effectively communicate a union between 2 men or 2 women just fine. Prop 8 seeks to deny the use of a word to a particular group of people who can undeniably use said word to effectively communicate their union. Hell, read the proposed law change. Its one or two sentendces long. It says nothing of the notion that there is a moral issue, but rather it just aims to reserve the word for hetero couples. My thought is its the only argument the anti-gay marriage activists have left. Its sad to see them resort to such a tactic.

The stubbornness is on both sides. Change "X" to make them happy and they demand "Y", give them "Y" and they demand "Z". I think the word itself is the last line that people don't want to give up. Instead the offer is "Yz" instead which gives them everything they desire except for the use of the "word" and it's not acceptable. At that point it's "FU".

I could give a crap if people want to marry multiple partners. Legal challenges aside, I see no reason to stop it.

See, I made a point that I have stated numerous times that is argued. My troll was to get someone who is for gay marriage to admit that they do not support all aspects of "marry who you want". One wants to marry a partner of the same sex and the other wants to marry more than one partner of the opposite sex. Why are not both acceptable? The argument for gay marriage can also be used for polygamy. Of course, it's different because polygamy/bigamy is illegal, well........so was having homosexual relations until the laws were changed. What's the difference? It can't be religious "morals" because all but the Mormons have been against polygamy as well.

One might argue that they could just as easily start discriminating more and more against gays with this law as well. What's next? We ban gay relationships? Hey, lets put them in jail. Lets keep them from voting. How about we just put them all in a gas chamber? Frankly, every law has some sort of slippery slope that can be applied. The problem is if the slipper slope becomes the argument for or against a law, then the personb who brings it up likely has little ground left to stand on...

I highly doubt gays will be chunked into jail. A legal perspective to their relationship has been offered.

I ask those that would support Prop 8 a question. What change would occur in your life should gay marriage become fully legalized? What would it do to your marriage? Fundamentally, our nation is built on a principle that we all have a choice to do what we want that pleases us so long as it hurts noone else. So how does gay marriage hurt you???

It will make more gays of course and lead us to fall just like the Roman empire

[SteveTheTech]

It will make more gays of course and lead us to fall just like the Roman empire

I F*ing love that.

[ishkabibble]

You anti-polygamists are just commies who want equal distribution of women.

[audtatious]

You anti-polygamists are just commies who want equal distribution of women.

That would be "unequal" distribution

[C-Kwik]

I mention specific cases as to avoid any thoughts that I made a generalized claim, not for you to misconstrue the context of my comment and to make it sound like there are only limited instances when Helio's genetic/biological comment doesn't hold.

As far as I'm concerned, until you can cite the cases, your statements ARE generalized. Any "proof" you provide for an argument needs to be subject to scrutiny. This applies to everyone, myself included.

Never argued that. I'm pretty much arguing the point of calling it "marriage" and trolling at the same time

Based on definition it just means something different. Choice to define something as inferior is up to the individual.

The stubbornness is on both sides. Change "X" to make them happy and they demand "Y", give them "Y" and they demand "Z". I think the word itself is the last line that people don't want to give up. Instead the offer is "Yz" instead which gives them everything they desire except for the use of the "word" and it's not acceptable. At that point it's "FU".

Therein lies the problem. While words are merely a means of communication, many words carry deeper social meanings and carry more impact. Think of the kind of weight a racial slur has vs the more PC term used to describe a person of a particular race. While this is a negative example, there are instances where a word can be very empowering.

See, I made a point that I have stated numerous times that is argued. My troll was to get someone who is for gay marriage to admit that they do not support all aspects of "marry who you want". One wants to marry a partner of the same sex and the other wants to marry more than one partner of the opposite sex. Why are not both acceptable? The argument for gay marriage can also be used for polygamy. Of course, it's different because polygamy/bigamy is illegal, well........so was having homosexual relations until the laws were changed. What's the difference? It can't be religious "morals" because all but the Mormons have been against polygamy as well.

I agree there are many hypocritical views. It does disturb me, but its not the issue on the table so I won't expand on it much other than to say I don't care if polygamy becomes legal. Other than some legal challenges that likely need to be overcome, I don't see any problem with it if all people involved are consenting to it.

I highly doubt gays will be chunked into jail. A legal perspective to their relationship has been offered.

My point was to show how rediculous as an argument it is to call something a "slippery slope". As if its one sided and something that is necessarily bad. I'd prefer to stick to real points.

It will make more gays of course and lead us to fall just like the Roman empire.

[Sentientbydesign]

what exactly was my genetic/biological comment? i read through the thread again, and alas, i made no such comment.

Sorry, smockers made the claim, not you.

You're not making a generalized claim, and you're not claiming that there are only limited instances?

So what are you trying to say then? Because you just ruled out both possibilities.

Actually, this isn't quite accurate. I added the "specific instances" portion to my statement so that those reading it didn't think I was just make some off the wall, generalized claim.

In other words, it's not just a theory that I concocted while sitting on the pooper .

The specific instances also refers to personal awareness of an instance or being within 1-2 degrees of separation.

With regards to your limited instances comment, I don't have exact numbers (I don't think anybody does) to quantify how many homosexuals were truly born with hetrosexual tendency and change for whatever reason (I will attempt to provide examples).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I want to diverge a little before I go into my argument regarding the genetic/biological homosexuality predetermination (sounds like a graduate program thesis )

Last night, on my way home, I saw 3 "rallies", if you will. All of them included or were solely regarding California Proposition 8.

Here are a few things that I saw (mind you, this will be somewhat biased):

I saw at least one instance of complete animosity from a Prop 8 opposer. The guy got out of his car (at a stop light) ran over to one of the "Yes on 8" banners and threw it under the cars. He did this all while staring at the support ralliers who also had handheld "Yes on 8" banners.

One of the support team, ran over to "save" the trashed banner and his reaction was to waive the sign in front of the opposer's car while they passed.

That said something to me about the opposer. And yes, I understand that one instance cannot be used to define the whole opposition group.

I also noticed, on that same corner, that someone used pink tape to cover up the "Yes" and wrote "No". Also very childish and uncalled for.

There are actually quite a few websites reporting vandalism and theft of "Yes on 8" materials.

http://www.redcounty.com/orang...reste/

Now for the other side...

This troubled me . Two of the support groups had extremely unrelated slogans and explanations for their support.

One woman was screaming "If you don't vote yes on 8, the government will start controlling your Church next". I support 8, but how does that have anything to do with government controlling religion?

Another group had banners saying "Prop 8= Freedom of Speech" again WTF? *EDIT*- I just realized what the Free Speech was all about. It's in reference too all of the intolerance that the "Yes on 8" supporters have been experiencing.

http://www.dakotavoice.com/200....html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm too lazy to go into detail about the genetic/biological counter argument.

Here is a link with some compelling and not so compelling arguments.

http://blowthetrumpet.org/What...y.htm

This highlights one of the arguments I was going to use regarding the biological/genetic roots of homosexuality-

Dr. d!ck's study is reviewed on the NARTH web site. His study sheds new light on the relationship between early childhood sexual abuse and a child's later involvement in homosexual behaviors. According to d!ck, an alarming 49% of homosexuals surveyed had been molested compared to less than 2% of heterosexuals.

Go ahead and poke holes. I'll be back to make comments later.

[Sentientbydesign]

One other quick piece of info. California already voted against gay marriages once. Our lovely Supreme Court overruled that and now we're forced to do that same damn thing again.

[SteveTheTech]

Hey I still have yet to see proof, I see allot of right wing ignorant crap, how about some non biased sources?

This is what they look like:

American Psychiatric AssociationWebMD

[C-Kwik]

Another group had banners saying "Prop 8= Freedom of Speech" again WTF? *EDIT*- I just realized what the Free Speech was all about. It's in reference too all of the intolerance that the "Yes on 8" supporters have been experiencing.

Hmm? Not arguing against you necessarily here, but using free speech as an argument for prop 8 is absurd. Might as well support a measure to discriminate against any group under the banner of free speech than...

That said, I think the vandalism of signs as such is wrong. But it is not the issue itself.

I'm too lazy to go into detail about the genetic/biological counter argument.

Here is a link with some compelling and not so compelling arguments.

http://blowthetrumpet.org/What...y.htm

This highlights one of the arguments I was going to use regarding the biological/genetic roots of homosexuality-

Go ahead and poke holes. I'll be back to make comments later.

Well, unless they can provide the actual scientific data, it lacks credibility. Particularly in how the quoted specialists came about their samples. Most notably, what was the reason said homosexuals were in the specialist's office to begin with? And as such, is it a reasonably accurate cross-section of the homosexual population? The quote you provided from the site indicates that 2% of heterosexual males were molested. This is quite a bit off compared to the 14-16% that other research has determined is the rate of molestation among males before they are 18. Even if you account for a potentially higher number of homosexuals having been molested, according to his stats, 2 out of 100 heterosexual males would have been molested and 49 of 100 homosexual males would have been molested. Most sources indicate the homosexual men to be about 10% as a high estimate. So if you proportionately combine the data, you get about 111 men total in the sample with 2 heterosexual males having been molested and about 5 homosexual males having been molested. So that's about 7 out of 111 men. That's 6% of men having been molested. That's a ways off from the 14-16% of men statistic. I'd be comfortable in saying that the cross section of samples used are not reasonable representations. Given the nature of the site, I'd speculate they interpreted numbers for their benefit.

One other quick piece of info. California already voted against gay marriages once. Our lovely Supreme Court overruled that and now we're forced to do that same damn thing again.

The determination was that the law was unconstitutional. Are you saying its okay that we avert the checks and balances that are a fundamental part of our system and step on the rights of others? And last I checked, noone forced you to support this propostion or vote yes on it....

[Sentientbydesign]

If you look at the data from that site, it is pretty old. That could account for some of the discrepancy.

I'm not so much stating that ALL homosexuality is caused by sexual abuse, I'm stating that there are numerous, abnormal, environmental contributors that determine an individual's sexual preference.

This DOES NOT mean that Prop 8 is right, it just means that smockers can't use "they were born that way" as an argument.

I understand that the law was deemed unconstitutional, but if Prop 8 flies, it will be a law again. Then what?

If gay marriage is completely legalized, I'm going to go fight for age descrimination laws too!!! Not the ones that protect seniors, but the ones that protect completely capable young adults from descrimination. If we really want to talk about fairness, let's talk lol.

The "Free Speech" slogans were aimed at Prop 8 opposers who were vandalizing and stealing "Yes on 8" materials. I guess it means that those of us who choose to support the proposition have the right to express our opinion and the opposers who don't like it need to accept it and get on with life.

[audtatious]

Ahhhh......nice TV ad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE

[C-Kwik]

If you look at the data from that site, it is pretty old. That could account for some of the discrepancy.

It would still represent a HUGE change in teh statistic. Unlikely.

I'm not so much stating that ALL homosexuality is caused by sexual abuse, I'm stating that there are numerous, abnormal, environmental contributors that determine an individual's sexual preference.

I've stated that I think that the causes of homosexuality are diverse. But to me that's irrelevant anyways. If some dude decides that he just simply like sex with a man better than with a woman, then I have no problem with that.

This DOES NOT mean that Prop 8 is right, it just means that smockers can't use "they were born that way" as an argument.

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?

I understand that the law was deemed unconstitutional, but if Prop 8 flies, it will be a law again. Then what?

Then it can again be subject to scrutiny under the courst to determine its constitutionality.

If gay marriage is completely legalized, I'm going to go fight for age descrimination laws too!!! Not the ones that protect seniors, but the ones that protect completely capable young adults from descrimination. If we really want to talk about fairness, let's talk lol.

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.

The "Free Speech" slogans were aimed at Prop 8 opposers who were vandalizing and stealing "Yes on 8" materials. I guess it means that those of us who choose to support the proposition have the right to express our opinion and the opposers who don't like it need to accept it and get on with life.

I agree that the vanbals that would attack the signs are wrong. But it still doesn't translate to:

"Prop 8= Freedom of Speech"

I know you quoted this so its not your statement, but your edit that followed suggests that it is a justified reason to relate the two issues...

[ishkabibble]

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).

[audtatious]

And if you don't vote for Obama you are a racist

[sensibleS13driver]

Haha.

Anyway, I saw it with my own eyes: ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY.

Anyone care spin that to say that a right is not being removed, or does not exist?

[ishkabibble]

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

[ADDirishboy]

I am completely for same-sex marriages. In AZ it's known as prop 102.

The problem with prop 102 is that it is already illegal for same-sex couples to marry. The only thing it does is further discriminate upon LGBT by making it unconstitutional. It's a group of 49 extremist christian guys who just want to make sure that they get their way. Since apparently gays having the right to marriage has some sort of affect on their own personal lives.