I AM SO ANGRY
Moderators:Best First, spiderfrommars, IronHide
- sprunkner
- Over Pompous Autobot Commander
- Posts:2229
- Joined:Fri Mar 12, 2004 12:00 am
- Location:Bellingham, WA
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH GAY PEOPLE GETTING MARRIED????!!!!!!!
- Best First
- King of the, er, Kingdom.
- Posts:9750
- Joined:Tue Oct 17, 2000 11:00 pm
- Location:Manchester, UK
- Contact:
Re: I AM SO ANGRY
er because the, er sanctity of, er, marriage if like, a gay guy marries, like a gay guy then it makes marriage less special for like, you know, other people who are not gay and, er, want to be married.sprunkner wrote:WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH GAY PEOPLE GETTING MARRIED????!!!!!!!
Serioulsy, that is their arguement isn't it? Its nonsensical yet like creationism still has enough dipsh*ts lined up behind it that some people seem to give it credence.
When the truth is they are just bigots.
-
- Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:3132
- Joined:Sun Apr 27, 2003 11:00 pm
- ::Hobby Drifter
- Location:Tokyo, Japan
- Contact:
- Shanti418
- Over Pompous Autobot Commander
- Posts:2633
- Joined:Wed Sep 08, 2004 7:52 pm
- Location:Austin, Texas
Yeah, Arkansas I could understand, but California?
A lot of people claim its because of the heavy black and hispanic Obama turnout. They tend to be more socially conservative than your average Californian.
Anyway yeah, hopefully it'll be overturned.
I just think the term "gay marriage" is loaded. I DON'T think church organizations should be required by law to perform marriages for people they don't want to. If it was up to me, you'd have the government give everyone equal civil union rights, and then if you want to get "married" in a church, hey, that's between you and the church.
A lot of people claim its because of the heavy black and hispanic Obama turnout. They tend to be more socially conservative than your average Californian.
Anyway yeah, hopefully it'll be overturned.
I just think the term "gay marriage" is loaded. I DON'T think church organizations should be required by law to perform marriages for people they don't want to. If it was up to me, you'd have the government give everyone equal civil union rights, and then if you want to get "married" in a church, hey, that's between you and the church.
Best First wrote:I thought we could just meander between making well thought out points, being needlessly immature, provocative and generalist, then veer into caring about constructive debate and make a few valid points, act civil for a bit, then lower the tone again, then act offended when we get called on it, then dictate what it is and isn't worth debating, reinterpret a few of my own posts through a less offensive lens, then jaunt down whatever other path our seemingly volatile mood took us in.
I have no idea what is wrong with people, or how this even got put to a vote.
Putting something like this to a vote is NOT DEMOCRATIC.
This is an inaliable right. It is not something that can be voted away. There is a difference between a democracy and mob rule. In a democracy you are supposed to have a constitution that upholds people's rights NO MATTER WHAT. You cannot vote them away. That is mob rule....
Anyways, I am happy to be living in Canada.
Putting something like this to a vote is NOT DEMOCRATIC.
This is an inaliable right. It is not something that can be voted away. There is a difference between a democracy and mob rule. In a democracy you are supposed to have a constitution that upholds people's rights NO MATTER WHAT. You cannot vote them away. That is mob rule....
Anyways, I am happy to be living in Canada.
-
- Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:5673
- Joined:Sun Aug 25, 2002 11:00 pm
- Location:Oxford, UK
- Contact:
- sprunkner
- Over Pompous Autobot Commander
- Posts:2229
- Joined:Fri Mar 12, 2004 12:00 am
- Location:Bellingham, WA
Ubterestubg... sorry, that's interesting article here about the myth of the gay-black divide. According to this, black people might be opposed religiously to gay marriage, but usually vote in favor of it based on their civil rights history.
http://socialistworker.org/2008/11/11/m ... gay-divide
http://socialistworker.org/2008/11/11/m ... gay-divide
- Shanti418
- Over Pompous Autobot Commander
- Posts:2633
- Joined:Wed Sep 08, 2004 7:52 pm
- Location:Austin, Texas
Buth then the only theory we're left with as to why it happened is "The Mormons Did It," right?
While I have also seen articles taking the Socialist Worker's point of view, I'm not sure what I personally believe yet. I think the idea that African Americans operate as a monolithic voting bloc and are idealistic enough for them to vote for equal rights in all cases seems a bit too simple.
One thing I DO know however, is that generationally, Prop 8 failed by a wide margin with those under 40. So this may have been a defeat in battle, but the victor in the war is inevitable.
I also know that San Francisco, aka Homosexual City USA, had a 50% turnout rate as far as voting. Shame on you, SF!
While I have also seen articles taking the Socialist Worker's point of view, I'm not sure what I personally believe yet. I think the idea that African Americans operate as a monolithic voting bloc and are idealistic enough for them to vote for equal rights in all cases seems a bit too simple.
One thing I DO know however, is that generationally, Prop 8 failed by a wide margin with those under 40. So this may have been a defeat in battle, but the victor in the war is inevitable.
I also know that San Francisco, aka Homosexual City USA, had a 50% turnout rate as far as voting. Shame on you, SF!
Best First wrote:I thought we could just meander between making well thought out points, being needlessly immature, provocative and generalist, then veer into caring about constructive debate and make a few valid points, act civil for a bit, then lower the tone again, then act offended when we get called on it, then dictate what it is and isn't worth debating, reinterpret a few of my own posts through a less offensive lens, then jaunt down whatever other path our seemingly volatile mood took us in.