California Marriage Amendment to be decided

[Karlis]

And when we voted on Prop 8 when it was first proposed, the majority of California forced homosexuals to give up their dream of having a happy marriage in California.

So really, Since Prop 8 denies the rights of marriage to homosexual couples, literally denying them their "pursuit of happiness" its unconstitutional.

My logic is undeniable!

Just for the sake of the argument Shannons_Reality, how does lack of marriage deny a gay couple their "pursuit of happiness"?

Gays are legally permitted to co-habit, and society in general now tends to accept such domestic relationships as par for the course. Laws concerning rights to inheritance upon the death of one partner are already enshrined in law here in Australia for such couples; the same as for defacto heterosexual couples. *Let's assume* (for the sake of this argument anyway) that such laws will be enacted in all countries, so please leave that aspect out of your answer.

[The Silver Thong]

In an attempt to clarify the picture -- if that's possible -- I'll paraphrase part of your question Eqgumby:

"What rights are lacking in a domestic partnership of a gay couple?"

The right to have a government recognize there union, how hard is that. If gay couples want the hassle of marriage and divorce who are we to say no to it? Those points you also brought up why gay marriage is wrong, was pretty weak.

Edited January 15, 2010 by The Silver Thong

[The Silver Thong]

maybe I am wrong.

Thats a start.

How embarassing oy. Just admit you don't understand his question hence you can't answer it already.

Edited January 15, 2010 by The Silver Thong

[Karlis]

The right to have a government recognize there union, how hard is that. If gay couples want the hassle of marriage and divorce who are we to say no to it? Those points you also brought up why gay marriage is wrong, was pretty weak.

Silver Thong, what's the big deal whether Governments "recognise" gay unions, or not? Heterosexual defacto couples have no problems about not having a Government Document approvig their union either.

BTW, your throw-away-remark, "how hard is that" strongly implies you are being condescending towards me. I have no objection against you doing that, but I would have thought you are a little above such mannerisms.

Your off-the-cuff statement that, "Those points you also brought up why gay marriage is wrong, was pretty weak" also is somewhat condescending, considering that you have not given any explanation as to *which* points you mean; nor told me as to *why* "those points" -- whichever these points may be -- are 'weak' in some form or another.

Sorry to bring up these negative aspects about your post, but they are there, like it or not.

Karlis

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

Thats a start.

How embarassing oy. Just admit you don't understand his question hence you can't answer it already.

Ha! Very funny! You got me there.

You really are consistent with your style of personal attack posting against other UM members. Please just cross me off your agenda though.

[The Silver Thong]

Silver Thong, what's the big deal whether Governments "recognise" gay unions, or not? Heterosexual defacto couples have no problems about not having a Government Document approvig their union either.

BTW, your throw-away-remark, "how hard is that" strongly implies you are being condescending towards me. I have no objection against you doing that, but I would have thought you are a little above such mannerisms.

Your off-the-cuff statement that, "Those points you also brought up why gay marriage is wrong, was pretty weak" also is somewhat condescending, considering that you have not given any explanation as to *which* points you mean; nor told me as to *why* "those points" -- whichever these points may be -- are 'weak' in some form or another.

Sorry to bring up these negative aspects about your post, but they are there, like it or not.

Karlis

Whats the big deal if govenment recognizes gay marriage is the same as saying why does the government bother recognizing any marriage. It's about the equal rights for all not a select group that want to own its definition of marriage. So I see recognizing gay marriage as being just as legit as marriage. I have lived common law with women befor and we didn't get married because we didn't want that recognition and it was our choice.

Maybe I was a bit condescending but no more so than the anti gay marriage folk that post imo some weak points as to why it shouldn't be legal. The tone coming from the anti gay marriage crowd is far more abusive and hurtfull than my distaste for the bigotry shown to human beings that happen to be gay. Karlis if I had the patience tonight to go through each one of your copy and pasted points I would be here all night plugging away on my comp, I'm a crappy typeset lol.

I apologize for being harsh towards you and yes my sarcasm can have bite however in my sarcasm comes with my honest opinion on the matter with a bit of salt that may sting. As far as negativity goes. I have seen far more negative posts blaming gays for STD's, immoral sexual conduct, the falling apart of western society, the end of the family unit as we know it ext ext all because an 11-13% minority seem to somehow garnish these views with ignorance and intolerance from the majority.

Sorry karlis if I offended you and no it was not a personal post just in regards to you.

Edited January 15, 2010 by The Silver Thong

[The Silver Thong]

Ha! Very funny! You got me there.

You really are consistent with your style of personal attack posting against other UM members. Please just cross me off your agenda though.

Can you answer Startravelers question, yes or no but with out the deflections?

[eqgumby]

The right to have a government recognize there union, how hard is that. If gay couples want the hassle of marriage and divorce who are we to say no to it? Those points you also brought up why gay marriage is wrong, was pretty weak.

Yeah, I see that, BUT, these unions are recognized on a civil level, in that one can sue for support and child support, that type of thing. Other than insurance and a minor tax break, not much else. So, I say make it civil for all.

[Pseudo Intellectual]

I think the main issue with the gay marriage opponents is the "marriage" part. I think if the gays were to have something similar to marriage, but not called marriage, every body would be fine with it.

[Karlis]

Whats the big deal if govenment recognizes gay marriage is the same as saying why does the government bother recognizing any marriage. It's about the equal rights for all not a select group that want to own its definition of marriage. So I see recognizing gay marriage as being just as legit as marriage. ...

I still have the feeling that this point is *not* the issue that gay right fighters are campaigning for. It is a reason they give, for sure ... but it's not the major reason; but again, that's just my gut feeling

Sorry karlis if I offended you and no it was not a personal post just in regards to you.

As I wrote, you did not cause offense; I simply wanted to point out how your post "sounded" to me.

Hoo roo for now,

Karlis

[The Silver Thong]

Yeah, I see that, BUT, these unions are recognized on a civil level, in that one can sue for support and child support, that type of thing. Other than insurance and a minor tax break, not much else. So, I say make it civil for all.

Ok I get that to, however on a civil scale marriage and divorce is usually in favor of the women. When it comes to children we can see this very clear as the man is often left as the bad guy for lack of a better more PC answer. However there are gay couples that have children and a recognized union would be a precedent fit for the courts to act on, a more level playing field when it comes to gay couples and custody battles. There would not be a lob sided stance as there would not be an assumption that only a women can care for a child properly or that a gay women could not care for a child properly. In actuality a gay divorce that involved children would be less bias with a gay couple be it man or women as that bias would be removed.

Insurance ya double coverage is a biggy, tax credit damn ya they are great as choosing to have a child gives you those no matter what and for why, having a baby that any monkey of a person has the right to do is legal. I don't think the government should give any tax credit to a person that chooses to have a baby with out thinking of the cost. The only reason the Gov does that is because they are raising another tax payer not because they care. If one wants a baby they should be more than willing to pay for it and not ask others to do so for them.

Gay couples adopt children, people with children come out of the closet and still have to raise them but why punish because of the status quo. Pretty much I agree with you, sorry for my long winded response LOL

[The Silver Thong]

I think the main issue with the gay marriage opponents is the "marriage" part. I think if the gays were to have something similar to marriage, but not called marriage, every body would be fine with it.

So basicly call it what it is now. Common law with no change. I don't think they will accept that as being a tolerant and un bias postion hence this thread.

[preacherman76]

blahhh,blahhh,blahhh.....if your a fiction character just because your name is in capital letters on your birth certificate..........that's a blatant hypocritical right for you to be a person with right's and any ability to vote for the government that you can if you chose to vote for.......lol...far out....talk about a dog chasing it's own tail

LOL you think you have a right to vote? The person on your birth certificate has no rights, only privilages, and voting(at least for the president) isnt one of them.

[preacherman76]

simple the white males up to that point were deciding what the laws were going to be. this time it was a reduction in rights rather the removal of rights. and it was a good thing.

there are no constitutional amendments for anyone to get married or to form a domestic partnership. you give gay people that right as a constitutional amendment then they could start saying no one else has a right to be married. because then they will be the only one's with said right spelled out.

Yea, it was so good they just kept right on going.

[Cadetak]

I think the main issue with the gay marriage opponents is the "marriage" part. I think if the gays were to have something similar to marriage, but not called marriage, every body would be fine with it.

Doubt it...kind of sounds like black people can drink the water but from a different fountain.

[Pseudo Intellectual]

Not the same thing. Gay marriage is between two people. It's not a public thing. It doesn't affect anybody else.

[Cadetak]

Not the same thing. Gay marriage is between two people. It's not a public thing. It doesn't affect anybody else.

It's Segregation with words.

Straights get to be married and have weddings and be husbands and wives.

Gays get to be 'civil unioned' and have "civil unioned ceremonies/party" and get to be 'partners'.

Different terms that describe exactly the same thing.

[preacherman76]

Its funny how people can see things so different. With what I know now, I want a divorce, just to get the state OUT of my marrage.

[Pseudo Intellectual]

It's Segregation with words.

Straights get to be married and have weddings and be husbands and wives.

Gays get to be 'civil unioned' and have "civil unioned ceremonies/party" and get to be 'partners'.

Different terms that describe exactly the same thing.

WHY, in the world, would they care what the union is called? Did Martin Luther King call for every one to stop using the words "black" and "white" and instead use "person"? No, he recognized that we blacks and whites were [somewhat] different, but equal.

This is exactly what makes many of us oppose the gay marriage movement. It's not about "equal rights." No wonder ######9 of them are far leftists. Leftism can never succeed in a society that values traditionalism. Destroy religion, destroy marriage, destroy family, and so on. That's the only way liberalism can ever succeed.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Pseudo Intellectual

[Cadetak]

I still have the feeling that this point is *not* the issue that gay right fighters are campaigning for. It is a reason they give, for sure ... but it's not the major reason; but again, that's just my gut feeling

So you expect that there is some unknown alternative agenda that is secretly happening but can't show it or even know what it could be? But because of some 'gut' feeling you believe its true and happening?

With all do respect Karlis, and note I said with all do respect...that is not only completely illogical but also an irresponsible way to go about making social decisions.

[Cadetak]

WHY, in the world, would they care what the union is called? Did Martin Luther King call for every one to stop using the words "black" and "white" and instead use "person"?

Something about not judging by the color of the skin but by content of character comes to mind...

Obviously people do care...churches through millions behind the idea of holding dominion over the word, protesters go to the street unwilling to allow homosexuals to utilize the word, and apparently the word is so important that in some cases people think it leads to the destruction of society and super nefarious gay agenda.

This is exactly what makes many of us oppose the gay marriage movement. It's not about "equal rights." No wonder they're all far leftists.

Um what?

How is what any of what I said not about equality?

Destroy religion, destroy marriage, destroy family, and so on. That's the only way liberalism can ever succeed.

OMGZ the gays are destroying everythings!1!

Edited January 15, 2010 by Cadetak

[preacherman76]

OMGZ the gays are destroying everythings!1!

Its true that gay folks, or more the gay agenda, would like to force acceptance in every corner they can find. Thats where alot of this concern comes from. All it would take is one left wing judge, and a entire state might find that they are no longer allowed to worship as they see fit. A bible believeing church would have no choice but to close, if either they could no longer be tax exempt, or were forced to perform gay marrages.

[Karlis]

Its funny how people can see things so different. With what I know now, I want a divorce, just to get the state OUT of my marrage.

LOL

It'sonly "the State" that can grant one a divorce, agreed?

[Karlis]

So you expect that there is some unknown alternative agenda that is secretly happening but can't show it or even know what it could be? But because of some 'gut' feeling you believe its true and happening?

With all do respect Karlis, and note I said with all do respect...that is not only completely illogical but also an irresponsible way to go about making social decisions.

I'm just about off to bed Cadatek -- and because your post deserves a somewhat detailed reply, I'll leave this till another day. If I don't reply soon please remind me in a day or two.

Cheers,

Karlis

[preacherman76]

LOL

It'sonly "the State" that can grant one a divorce, agreed?

Absolutly. But only cause you agree to contract with them to begin with.