• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

California Proposition 8

parky76 said:
Now now, lets be honest here. No one is telling gay men and women they shouldnt be treated as complete citizens. They simply cannot marry someone of the same sex. They can still marry someone of the opposite sex.

The comparison between banning gay marriage..and slavery/segregation/Apartheid is proposterous and insulting.
Click to expand...

(emphasis added)

I bet this would've been a popular argument before anti-miscegenation laws were overturned. As the Court said in Loving, marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man.
 
parky76 said:
Now now, lets be honest here. No one is telling gay men and women they shouldnt be treated as complete citizens. The law simply states that a man can only marry an unrelated woman..and a woman can only marry an unrelated man. That means that cousins cant marry, fathers and sons cant marry, fathers and daughters cant marry, mothers and sons cant marry, mothers and daughters cant marry. This doesnt just "discriminate" against same-sex couples, it "discriminates" against all couples that society deems to be inappropriate for marriage.
Click to expand...

It should not be up to "society" to decide which couples are "inappropriate for marriage", as long as all parties are concenting adults.


It may not be "fair". It may not feel "right". But society has the right to make such rules.
Click to expand...
Society should only be able to make such rules to protect those who do not concent (or are unable to give concent, such as minors)

Do you really want to see mothers marrying their sons?
Click to expand...

Nice slippery slope you've built there.

The comparison between banning gay marriage..and slavery/segregation/Apartheid is proposterous and insulting.
Click to expand...

Comparisons between banning gay marriage and anti-miscegenation laws are wholly appropriate.
 
parky76 said:
Now now, lets be honest here.

...snip...
Click to expand...

So to you this would OK?:

No one is telling a black woman and a white man they shouldnt be treated as complete citizens. The law simply states that a white man can only marry an unrelated white woman..and a black woman can only marry an unrelated black man. That means that cousins cant marry, fathers and sons cant marry, fathers and daughters cant marry, mothers and sons cant marry, mothers and daughters cant marry. This doesnt just "discriminate" against differnet-race couples, it "discriminates" against all couples that society deems to be inappropriate for marriage.

It may not be "fair". It may not feel "right". But society has the right to make such rules. Do you really want to see mothers marrying their sons?​
 
Pookster said:
(emphasis added)

I bet this would've been a popular argument before anti-miscegenation laws were overturned. As the Court said in Loving, marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man.
Click to expand...


You might want to go back and look at his post again. He has edited it to remove the part you quoted and add in some more wrong stuff.
 
parky76 said:
Now now, lets be honest here. No one is telling gay men and women they shouldnt be treated as complete citizens. The law simply states that a man can only marry an unrelated woman..and a woman can only marry an unrelated man. That means that cousins cant marry,
Click to expand...

Cousins can marry in some states, so if someone wants to marry their cousin it is doable, if possibly inconvienient.

And why was there found to be a right to marry who you wanted to when Loving vs. Virginia was tried?

It ment that you couldn't define marriage as being between an unrelated man and woman of the same race after all. And that is not discrimination just defnining what marriage is.

California struck down its anti miscegination laws in 1948 the first state in the 20th century to do so. So clearly there is some right to marry who you want to in california regardless of how the laws define marriage.
 
Obama being elected and this news (and the other similar propositions across the country) got me to thinking, and I think it is just a matter of a little bit more time. When I think of the changes in my own lifetime (in the UK and over 40 years) in regards to equality for homosexuals it is quite astonishing, it has gone from being completely illegal to civil partnerships.

I'm sure the USA will get there!
 
parky76 said:
Now now, lets be honest here. No one is telling gay men and women they shouldn't be treated as complete citizens. The law simply states that a man can only marry an unrelated woman..and a woman can only marry an unrelated man. That means that cousins cant marry, fathers and sons cant marry, fathers and daughters cant marry, mothers and sons cant marry, mothers and daughters cant marry. This doesn't just "discriminate" against same-sex couples, it "discriminates" against all couples that society deems to be inappropriate for marriage.

It may not be "fair". It may not feel "right". But society has the right to make such rules. Do you really want to see mothers marrying their sons?
Click to expand...

You are 100% wrong... I don't like saying that to people but in this case it is true.

The reason we don't allow mothers to marry sons is because the children they could produce would have serious heath issues.

All marriages between close relatives are outlawed because the marriage can have a physical consequence to others, namely their offspring.

The argument that gays shouldn't get married because of the physical harm they could cause for others is absurd. They can't harm offspring because they can't have any and their likelihood of violence to other members of society is just as high or low as anyone else.

The ONLY reason why gay's can't get married is because of bigotry and fear based on bronze age thinking. Don't try confusing issues by introducing untruths.

The comparison between banning gay marriage..and slavery/segregation/Apartheid is proposterous and insulting.
Click to expand...

Really? Why is that? Gays have never been killed for who they are? Gays have never been discriminated against in the workforce? Gays don't have hate groups hunting them down and creating hateful websites? Gay's don't have people marching against them in the streets? Gays don't have any problems with laws erected against them?

Anything you can say about any other minority can be said of gays. It's just that you are overlooking the fact that they are a minority with the same problems and same hurdles to overcome. Gay marriage is to gays what school segregation was to blacks.
 
Last edited:
Walter Bellhaven said:
Marriage is about the true love of Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
Click to expand...


Marriage has nothing to do with love, true or otherwise. It has to do with legal rights, property rights, inheritance, custody of children, and a host of other contractual issues.

Besides, the true love between Adelia and Eve always gets left out with this harping on Adam and Steve. Sheesh, it's like lesbians are invisible when it comes down to the fundamentals of bigotry.
 
Hokulele said:
Besides, the true love between Adelia and Eve always gets left out with this harping on Adam and Steve. Sheesh, it's like lesbians are invisible when it comes down to the fundamentals of bigotry.
Click to expand...
That's because nobody dislikes lesbians.

They're hot.
 
I'm not usually a particularly emotional person, but I've wanted to cry all day about this. My depression over this elector loss trumps the fact that very nearly every other race I tracked closely went as I wished. This is a horrible, very personal feeling slap from what is supposed to be a liberal state, and one of only 3 I have ever lived in.

Walter Bellhaven: I'm not certain you mean what you're posting in this thread. Maybe you're just trying to get a rise out of us. If you are, it's not welcome here. Welcome to ignore.

Bob Blaylock: **** you and the bible you rode in on. Welcome to ignore.

parky76: How dare you say that this doesn't say we're not being treated as anything less than full citizens? WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO GET MARRIED TO THE PEOPLE WE LOVE AND ARE IN RELATIONSHIPS WITH! I cannot imagine the cognitive process that allows you to thing that constitutes full citizenship.
 
Here in Arizona, we had a similar "Marriage Protection" (Prop 102) amendment on the ballot. It passed - in spite of the fact that a similar amendment was voted down in 2006. I was happily surprised when it was defeated the first time. But it seems to have taught the anti gay people a lesson. This time, there was a huge amount of money spent here promoting Prop 102, and, unfortunately, not much in the way of an anti-102 campaign.
 
I have been thinking about this all day, after seeing the national results from a number of states regarding this issue. I too am straight, white and while I've had some gay friends no one in particular that has ever been close.

One of my best friends, in fact my first friend in the US was black and it was he that I thought of when I cast my vote (He died 6 years ago in a car crash)

But I found it sad that while the African American community rejoices today for finally shedding this yoke, on the same day they are so totally blind to the same exact hatred they applied to others and supported for the FIRST time in the history of our Republic to strip a groups civil rights.
 
Shall we even go into the real meaning of marriage, when it was coined hundreds of years ago?

Back in the early days "Marriage" was only used as means to procreate, and to bear children. And at that time, women were treated more like property than a human being with their own choices to make. Most women couldn't even choose the person they wanted to "marry" and it was determined for them by their parents, to whom they could pay to marry their daughter (dowry).

So this whole "protect traditional marriage" is nothing but a crock of ****. Because "traditional" marriage wasn't ever threatened. If we wanted "traditional" marriage, then women would be losing their rights; their parents would choose their spouse, and marry them off to whomever they paid them for their daughter.

In the five months since California allowed same sex marriages, how has the union of two women, or two men hurt the marriage of heterosexual married couples? Did these couples endure undo hardship because of these marriages? Did they suffer financial losses? Physical pain?
 
Last edited:
In My Spare Time said:
This is a horrible, very personal feeling slap from what is supposed to be a liberal state, and one of only 3 I have ever lived in.
Click to expand...

California's reputation as a liberal state derives mainly from San Francisco and Hollywood. Much of the rest of the state is moderate to conservative. Ronald Reagan came from California, after all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom