What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- manzplan, on 11/16/2008, -54/+99I am in Canada, and I was greatly disappointed in the people of California - I thought they were a lot more intelligent than to fall for the fear/hate mongering caused by the Church.
- Volkriot, on 11/16/2008, -21/+39I hate when people say ***** like this. Generalizations
I live in California, in the Bay Area in fact (lots of locals disappointed in the passage of this injustice).
Not all Californians think alike so please don't assume to know our intelligence, especially considering that more then 48 percent of us voted NO on this measure.
Secondly fear and hate mongering was not what the Pro 8 people did, that is what you perceive. What they actually did is they lied, used distracting topics and played to people's prejudices of what it means to be homosexual. They did not put ads on television encouraging hatred or threatening peoples sense of safety. They simply played to prejudices that people (many of whom have never met a gay person) have about gays.
So the idea that you think people bought fear and hate mongering is foolish. People manifest such feelings from their prejudices. And overwhelmingly it was the older vote that pushed this measure over the top. The younger vote BTW was still extremely low. So the one population that could have defeated this measure with their progressive liberal values, could not be bothered.
Same tactics work just as well in your country's politics.
On the upside the Governor of California has already explained that they Prop will not hold up
My point is STFU, you don't know California, that's why you moved your ass to Canada- manzplan, on 11/16/2008, -9/+21nope.. I moved to Canada because the girl I met refused to move to the USA....
I am glad many people voted as you did, but the majority voted the other way..most often because they were rallied TO vote in this case mostly by the Church.
Sorry if my comment went too far - Volkriot, on 11/16/2008, -7/+10No prob.
Sounds like you married a smart woman - FranzySF, on 11/16/2008, -11/+17Please stop protesting here in San Francisco. Everybody here voted no on 8.
and your ***** up my traffic situation. - sleazycheese, on 11/16/2008, -7/+1@Volkriot
If she's smart because she refused to move the United States, what does that make you for not leaving? - secrity, on 11/17/2008, -0/+3There were a great many people who saw those ads and used them as an excuse as a way to justify their hatred toward gays.
- manzplan, on 11/16/2008, -9/+21nope.. I moved to Canada because the girl I met refused to move to the USA....
- simpleid, on 11/16/2008, -15/+1am i the only one who finds it incredibly ironic how guys *****-face on homosexuals over butt sex then turn around and start begging their girlfriends to ass sex for pleasure?
so let me get this straight, guys bitch about girls having double standards and then pull off the largest double standard in history.
so i wonder how many homosexuals there *really are in this world, most of you are in denial hiding behind the female anatomy, you're still ass sexing no matter how you present it.- gofalcons, on 11/16/2008, -0/+7What the ***** are you talking about? I'm all about letting whoever wants to get married get married, whether it's gay people, people marrying multiple partners, but what are you talking about? You're not gonna change anyone's mind talking like that.
- mrfunktastic, on 11/16/2008, -0/+10Um, homosexuality != just trying to get into a butt, dude.
- antzology, on 11/16/2008, -1/+4It's the difference of a man and a woman :| Anal isn't gay at all, unless it's with a man. That's not a double standard at all.
- RAEP, on 11/16/2008, -3/+4Yeah but anal IS kinda gross no matter who is involved.
That's where poop comes out. - esperoboy, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2And Why do you care so much about what other people are doing in their private space? Should I bitch about your strange sexual habit like you can only ejaculate when you moan like a girl, or having someone tease your ass?
- simpleid, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1esperoboy, actually, it's my point to suggest that laws which govern the rights of people fundamentally should be far more generic as to exclude the gender of individuals bound by contracts.
people's inner protest to the gender of legally bound individuals is the only core problem here. i was crudely conveying the 'christian' insecurity on the subject, people are homophobic. that is directly the cause of the consequences which people are now trying to oppose.
we shouldn't let christian faith bias our systems design, it's fundamentally corrupting. that is not to say we should abandon faith, we should however separate church and state - we obviously don't since the laws surrounding marriage are heavily influenced by the christian view of marriage. some people like to argue 'marriage' is defined in christian terms inherently, when in fact it's explicitly defined in various faiths of every culture - hence design the system to be generic.
- JellyBubbles, on 11/16/2008, -6/+0Have you ever been to California?
- osko2052, on 11/16/2008, -6/+2You can have all the people of California who voted Proposition 8 down. All the homosexuals can come there and get married in Canada.
- secrity, on 11/16/2008, -1/+3That should not be necessary, ALSO it won't be recognized in CA.
- muffcakes, on 11/17/2008, -2/+1Once they've been in Canada they probably won't want to go back.... for a few years at least - until Steven Harper ruins Canada and Obama fixes the USA.
- luseton, on 11/17/2008, -1/+1Stephan Dion would have sucked more of your money using his stupid carbon tax and Jack Layton would have spent the next 4 years, learning what to do with the country. So Harper is the best you've got, so stop complaining and start running next time if you think you are better qualified.
- shaka776, on 11/16/2008, -8/+5This is where I get dugg down rather rapidly.
I don't fear homosexuals. I don't hate homosexuals. In my very small extended family, I have 3 that I love dearly and would do anything for.
That said, I believe it is wrong. The tables are kind of flipped. Even though I believe differently than most people regarding homosexuality, they still love and support me, and I do the same for them, but I do not support gay marriage because I believe it is wrong.
Now if the tables were turned, and there was ONLY gay marriage, what would I do?
Well then, I would love my spouse and not care what the government or what some zany religion said, and would be married to the person in my heart and I in hers, and if there was some odd government thing called a civil union that allowed me all the civic and normal rights, I would be fine with that.
But, its easy for me to guess what I would think, as I have never been in that situation.- djrbx, on 11/16/2008, -1/+9This is where your analogy is wrong. The passing on Prop 8 denies the right for gay people to marry. If Prop 8 failed and gay people were allowed to marry, it would not affect you. Yes you have the right to believe in what you believe in, but do you honestly believe if gays were allowed to marry it would affect your life any differently? I think you would live your life just like you did prior to all of this.
Since the passing of Prop 8, it forces your beliefs onto others which is WRONG. I believe that people should marry whoever they feel that they would see themselves the rest of their life with. regardless of sexual orientation. - Herolint, on 11/17/2008, -1/+3@djrbx
What are you talking about? We force our majority beliefs on each other as a society all the time. It isn't right or wrong. It simply is. - muffcakes, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2@Herolint In the grand scheme of things I don't believe there is a 'right' or 'wrong' - things just are what they are. But in the context of the morality that man invents in the interest of a well functioning and happy/just society, imposing your beliefs on others when what they want to do causes you no harm is wrong.
- Rndm_Tngnt, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1@Herolint
How do you figure? - Kral, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2No one's forcing you to get a gay marriage, but you're trying to force them not to. It doesn't affect you at all, yet you do this anyway. You fail at humanity.
- Herolint, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1@Rndm_Tngnt
Laws that:
Prohibit riding skateboards on public sidewalks
Prohibit children from riding snowmobiles and ATVs
Limit free speech to specific areas (Free Speech Zones)
Prohibit people from growing gardens in their front yards
Prohibit camping on public lands
Prohibit drinking on the beach
There are myriad laws that are based on some person's belief and have a negative effect on somebody. Do you really have to ask "how I figure?" when the evidences are all around you?
- djrbx, on 11/16/2008, -1/+9This is where your analogy is wrong. The passing on Prop 8 denies the right for gay people to marry. If Prop 8 failed and gay people were allowed to marry, it would not affect you. Yes you have the right to believe in what you believe in, but do you honestly believe if gays were allowed to marry it would affect your life any differently? I think you would live your life just like you did prior to all of this.
- Juaquin, on 11/17/2008, -0/+6The "California" you're thinking of is really just San Francisco and LA (and their suburbs). Everything else is actually rather socially conservative. Just look at the map of votes by county. Sad but true.
- omarciddo, on 11/17/2008, -4/+7I abstained on 8 because it, I felt, had no true effect on my daily life and that any vote I placed on it would've been essentially a coin flip. I am not gay, nor to my knowledge do I have any gay relatives or close friends. I decided to leave the decision to those with strong feelings on either side of the fence and let the democratic process decide, which it did.
I shed no tears on the passing of 8, but I will say that I would not have felt the slightest bit of anger or bitterness had it passed. Call me naive for believing in democracy and letting the people decide, but that's the mentality I go into the polls with.
My solution to this issue? Eliminate the term "marriage" from all the books and have "civil unions" for all couples, gay or straight. If you want a marriage, then go about the ceremony however way you wish, be it at a church or a park or whatever. Marriage doesn't belong in government anyway.- AmandaQ, on 11/17/2008, -0/+3I completely agree about removing "marriage" from the legal jurisdiction and keeping everything under a single category of "civil union". The fact that the government can dictate the terms of a spiritual/religious union under any circumstances is B.S.
- muffcakes, on 11/17/2008, -0/+5Isn't there a poem about this mentality in reference to Germans in WW2... goes something like:
First they came for the unions and I did nothing....
Then they came for the Jews and I did nothing...
Then they came for me and I was all alone.
I think we all have a responsibility to understand what human rights are and to fight for them. - omarciddo, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1@muffcakes
I couldn't agree with you more. But I feel that the right is already there; the problem is that straight couples have been given heightened status over gays. The fight should be to eliminate the term "marriage" from the books PERIOD, and only give out "civil unions" for straight and gay couples alike. So if straight couples want a "traditional marriage", then they should go a church or temple or what have you for the ceremony.
There is no legal process for acquiring a baptism for example, and there should be none for getting married. - bishop, on 11/17/2008, -3/+2@Muffcakes,
What human rights are you talking about? Stop being so melodramatic. This has nothing to do with human rights.
First of all marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Nobody is saying a gay man or gay woman cannot marry. They just have to marry somebody from the opposite sex.
Before you start talking about being with somebody who love etc. There is nothing in the definition that talks about love. There are many society where marriages talk place without love being involved.
You're trying to change the definition of a marriage. That definition has been present across history, culture, religion. It's the definition in almost every single country except for a handful.
Why not called it civil union and be done with it? It would be so much easier. - Rndm_Tngnt, on 11/17/2008, -0/+3@bishop
You're talking utter *****. Marriage throughout history (up until the last 150-200 years or so) was more of a property arrangement where women were more or less sold as chattel.
Going back even further it was a way to steadily increase the the population of a fiefdom. The 'traditional' marriage doesn't mean anything.
Modern marriage is two people who form a contract with each other that legally signifies the emotional bond they share (and provides benefits that otherwise would not be had). When you deny someone the right of entering into the contract for an arbitrary reason you are curtailing their rights and essentially creating a second class of citizen.
The government does not have the power to treat citizens differently from each other. Acting otherwise is a violation of the highest law of the land.
- bobh1234, on 11/17/2008, -6/+2Maybe most of us don't like traditions bastardized by liberals like you? Give me one reason why marriage should be changed from what it has been for over a thousand years?
- ThugThrasher, on 11/17/2008, -0/+8Because it hasn't been the same for over a thousand years. Sure, it's been the same for Christians...but there are a lot of other religions that have somewhat different definitions of marriage, even today. Most gay people I know would not feel as upset if it was just Christian churches not allowing them to marry, but it's the state. It's the fact that if the state is going to be involved in marriages (which are just a private contract between two people, really), then they need to be inclusive to include all definitions of marriage. No one will force any particular organization (religious or not) to perform marriages for two people of the same sex. Any churches who do not believe it is right would be COMPLETELY allowed to deny an individual marriage for any reason, much like they are TODAY (go try and get married in a Catholic church without counseling and with neither of you a Catholic...they refuse, as is their right).
- muffcakes, on 11/17/2008, -1/+4Some Christian churches perform gay marriages - banning gay marriage violates they freedom to practice their religion. Perhaps next they will tell you what church to go to... where do you draw the line?
- Rndm_Tngnt, on 11/17/2008, -1/+1@muffcakes can the slippery slope stuff, would ya?
- TwineHornet, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1I was surprised by my home-state as well. I moved to the bay area 5 years ago because I hated the hicks in Sacramento. Can't seem to escape them during elections though.
- Volkriot, on 11/16/2008, -21/+39I hate when people say ***** like this. Generalizations
- bixby1, on 11/16/2008, -32/+155I'm a Californian and this protest will only grow in resolve until gays have equal rights. My roommate is gay, in love, and I've never seen him so helpless as he was when we saw the results on 8 come in.
- frishack, on 11/16/2008, -41/+15
- Jack8274, on 11/16/2008, -8/+14Hey buddy, go ***** yourself
- georgemason01, on 11/16/2008, -1/+2He's not your buddy, pal.
- ryogahibiki, on 11/16/2008, -0/+2He's not your pal, friend.
- btschul, on 11/16/2008, -81/+24"until gays have equal rights." They do have equal rights, dumbass. They just don't have the right to force millions of people to accept their lifestyle choice by redefining the institution of marriage.
- aud24, on 11/16/2008, -62/+17And now they are having a hissy (not to be confused with sissy- wouldn't want to get banned now would I) fit because they can't bully the entire population into submission.
- lydecker, on 11/16/2008, -13/+42Yeah. Only 52% can bully homosexuals into submission, saying they're the only ones who get special rights.
Damn them for being upset at inequality. Damn the blacks, damn the women, damn the gays.
/sarcasm
Gays don't have equal rights. Or, only in the sense that everyone had equal rights before inter-racial marriages were legal. - eir574, on 11/16/2008, -13/+56"They just don't have the right to force millions of people to accept their lifestyle choice by redefining the institution of marriage."
I wasn't aware that the having the government grant marriage licenses to homosexuals means that you would be forced to approve of those marriages. Do you approve of every single heterosexual marriage that takes place? Were you forced to accept Britney Spears' lifestyle choice when she got married on a whim and then had it annulled a couple days later? Are those Christians who don't believe that one should be allowed to remarry after getting divorced forced to change their minds given that the government doesn't enforce their point of view? - Seidoger, on 11/16/2008, -9/+3Still it's enough to be depressed..
- Pake, on 11/16/2008, -10/+34Equal rights? You should do some research into adoption and medical care, etc. before you call what gay couples have anything close to "equal."
- HuntGather, on 11/16/2008, -8/+20Really? Letting them continue to marry was going to hurt you in some way? This is such *****. It's not like you're being forced to perform the marriage ceremony, or go to gay weddings, or even look at their wedding pictures. If knowing you live in a world where two adults in a commited relationship can be married by a church THAT IS WILLING TO PERFORM THE MARRIAGE causes you more psychological damage than it does to them having their LEGAL RIGHT to marry voted away by a slight majority that thinks their way of life is icky, then you need psychological help.
- 2Xzist, on 11/16/2008, -15/+6@pake Are you saying that cofusexuals are required to show their 'gay id' when an ambulance comes to assist? In what scenario would anybody be treated any differently (in the USA) than another when emergency services arrive? Specifically what 'medical care' are you referring to? Next, you should do some research into the differences between 'rights' and 'privileges' when it comes to adopting a person.
- Pake, on 11/16/2008, -5/+15Hospitals often time only allow family to visit patients and as such, a person's partner is not legally considered family and is denied the ability to visit. Also, as long as the person is not considered family, the couple can be denied a family insurance plan by health insurance companies. As for adoption, sure, it's a privilege, but answer this: Why is it easier for a married couple to adopt over a gay couple? Simple answer: The word "married" is key.
- lydecker, on 11/16/2008, -3/+18When an ambulance comes to assist their non-married partner of many years, and only family members can ride, that means only married couples, and no substitution. That's how my friend Charlene was treated differently. By the ambulance, she had to follow. By her hospital room before she died, she had to wait outside while administrators contacted her wife's family to say she could go in to see her.
Just one instance I know of that a friend went through.
Next, you should do research on to why heterosexuals deserve different "rights" or "privileges" when it comes to adopting a person. Or rather, why they do not. - 2Xzist, on 11/16/2008, -15/+4Sad story... It should provide a good lesson to correct confusion about where genitalia belong.
- lydecker, on 11/17/2008, -4/+7Yes. With someone you love.
- eir574, on 11/17/2008, -3/+9"a person's partner is not legally considered family and is denied the ability to visit."
It's worse than that. A homosexual couple who have been together for decades and were ostracized by their immediate families often cannot make medical decisions for one another. Instead, the hospital must contact someone else, and that someone else may not know the patient's wishes nearly as well as his or her partner of many years does. Precious time can also be lost.
Lydecker, I'm sorry about your friend. That must have been horrific. 2Xzist must also be a terrible person to make light of that tragedy. It's hard to believe that a person can't even have compassion for others in those circumstances, but there you have it. - 2Xzist, on 11/17/2008, -11/+2I'm certain you meant "someone *(human) you're IN LOVE WITH who is mentally sound and of age*"... anyway, I disagree ('and of the opposite sex' should be in there).
moral - of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong.
So, generally, the argument is whether sexually intimate relations with the same sex should be considered right or wrong. You say it's right, I say wrong.
By you saying 'right' you imply that intercourse's true purpose is not necessarily solely for procreation. By me saying 'wrong' I imply that intercourse's true purpose *is* solely for procreation. As fun as it is and as good as it feels I believe anything beyond intercourse being intended for procreation is a perverse confusion.
I'm not saying I try to make babies every time I have sex but I've never said I am absolutely morally correct either. As badly as I would like to see certain criminals put to death, at my core I know capital punishment to be morally wrong (fyi, I also believe abortions to be morally wrong).
I at least address what is correct whereas you appear to blatantly and completely ignore definitions of morality for your own benefits. I'm not assuming you're a confusexual but it doesn't matter whether you are or aren't because you'd use your argument for perversion of intercourse regardless of your orientation.
Whether we should or shouldn't allow government to enforce morality is the attempt at an end to such debates. I believe this to be inappropriate IMHO because majority rule is too often a rule of blatant ignorance. Just look at the two presidential candidates that received majority votes... INSANE.
@eir574 stfu srsly. Your ignorant prejudgment is as bad if not worse than the one you perceive of me. My statement ('it should provide a good lesson') was as serious and sincere as possible. Either your assumption is too high or your comprehension is too low... you should have them both checked out by a qualified professional to be certain---just so you know *NOW* I'm make light of something... your ignorance. Don't take too much offense though, no single person knows everything so we're each ignorant of something. Just make sure you display ignorance instead of stupidity and you should be fine. - lydecker, on 11/17/2008, -4/+6I saw the premiere of her film, For My Wife, which was a lot more touching than I expected. You can youtube it as well, I know they have to make changes and add some stuff because of recent changes in state laws.
- lydecker, on 11/17/2008, -4/+11This argument isn't about whether gay is moral or not.
There are plenty of marriages that have equal rights but are not moral in the eyes of many. Britney Spears marriage, to me, was immoral. But she had equal rights, and that is just.
Actually, I say the government should not decide morals. I say it's a decision that an individual must make. Many people thought it immoral to marry someone else of a different skin color or a different faith, but I do not make those decisions for those couples. I make decisions for my own life, and let everyone else have equality so they can make those decisions as well.
I do not say it's right or wrong, because morals aren't facts, they aren't something ANYONE, even government, can prove. They just are something they believe. I don't use my morals or beliefs to take away someone's rights or freedoms, I use logic to grant them equally.
Marriage rights shouldn't have anything to do with intercourse. If anyone wants to advocate that marriages should only apply to couples attempting intercourse and attempting to have kids, good luck.
"I believe this to be inappropriate IMHO because majority rule is too often a rule of blatant ignorance."
Yes, which is why civil rights shouldn't be put to a popular vote of majority rule, and the courts will eventually deem this inequal and invalid. - eir574, on 11/17/2008, -3/+13"As fun as it is and as good as it feels I believe anything beyond intercourse being intended for procreation is a perverse confusion."
I assume you're absolutely disgusted that infertile, heterosexual couples have sex, then. There are certainly married, heterosexual couples in which one partner has never been physically able to have children, and then there are also plenty of married, heterosexual couples who are past the age at which having a child is a biological possibility.
I've heard some people say that at least with heterosexual couples, the possibility of procreation exists, no matter how remote. My mother had to have a hysterectomy due to uterine cancer, which forced her into early menopause. There's no way she's going to have a child at this point. As if the menopause isn't enough of an obstacle, she doesn't have a womb anymore.
As much as I don't like to think about this, I know that she and my father are still sexually active. It's terrible that you think they should abstain from sex for the rest of their lives just because my mother was unfortunate enough to have cancer.
"My statement ('it should provide a good lesson') was as serious and sincere as possible."
I'm sorry, then, that I assumed that you were making light of the situation. You were quite seriously using someone else's pain in order to prove your moral superiority. That's so much better, isn't it?
But, you know, otherwise you seem like a really nice person. "STFU" is definitely something decent people say to one another when they disagree. - ThugThrasher, on 11/17/2008, -3/+112xzist:
You need to learn about adoption rules as well, apparently. I would not object AS MUCH to gays not being allowed to adopt in many areas of our country if it weren't for one thing: foster children. Gays ARE allowed to foster children in almost every area in which they are NOT allowed to adopt them. This means that gays are allowed to take care of the children for the state and form bonds with them, for years and years. However, if a heterosexual couple decides they want to adopt the child, the gay couple (or SINGLE) is helpless to stop the taking of their child (who they may have raised for 10-15 years...from birth). It also means that when the child turns 18 and leaves, there are NO legal ties between the gay "parents" (who, at that point could have raised the child for 17.9 years and have emotional ties to the child as much as any adopted parent) and the child, so if there is an issue involving medical visitations or any of the other legal rights (which the state CALLS rights, hence my use of the word) granted to family members.
This is hypocrisy, in my opinion, and a ridiculous one at that. If you're good enough to raise a child AS LONG AS NO HETEROSEXUAL WANTS HIM/HER, then you are good enough to raise a child. Period. - lydecker, on 11/17/2008, -3/+10My favorite part of the rally by far were the families of gay foster parents who came, with kids carrying signs including "I Love My Foster Moms" and "Let My Moms Marry."
Foster parents and gay parents prove that your genders don't restrict you from being able to provide structure, love and support to children, and to society. - 2Xzist, on 11/17/2008, -8/+3You speak of individual choices but neglect to address how the individual affects the populace... For people to support gay marriages is comparable to if we were to vote to abolish all speed limits and let the people decide which speeds are appropriate. The morally corrupt and immature would obviously reign in the realm of road fatalities.
Or consider this (speed limits signs back up): you commonly drive 5-10mph over the speed limit and, to many, this is considered safe and acceptable. But then someone without standards of discipline, safety, consideration, or morality witnesses your behavior and then not only mimics but exaggerates it. These are the same ppl that get upset at law enforcement when they get pulled over and say things like "the guy next to me was going faster! why didn't you pull him over?"
No, I'm not saying that ppl become confused about their sexuality when they see other ppl that are confused about theirs. What I'm saying is that when it comes to standards of morality/discipline/consideration/etc. there is a snowball effect of behaviors.
If a person with weak moral standards witnesses another person committing an act of appropriate morality then that person is much more likely to become motivated or enlightened into producing strengthened moral behavior by witnessing said act. If that same person were to witness another person committing act of questionable morality their chances of producing enhanced appropriate moral behaviour has significantly reduced.
To me, confusexuals are simply overwhelmingly selfish people who want to (immorally) do what they want and completely ignore the societal repercussions.
@eir574 jesus christ on a stick. just stop. You're like the kid at the adult party who truly believes you have something worth contributing to the adult conversation. Just listen and watch for a few more years. eyes and ears open--mouth shut. Please. The reason I say this is NOT because I am disagreeing with you (although I do).
@thugthrasher Well, that is something I was not aware of (fostering privileges) but unfortunately it does not convince me in the slightest to believe that adoption/marriage is something that should be available for anyone (of legal age, sound mind, etc.). You might do better if you were to attempt to convince me that you (or even someone you know) that is not a hypocrite. Aside from that, I've already addressed your argument... you're backtracking using different examples. Essentially, don't be morally confused and you won't have to deal with these hardships. - eir574, on 11/17/2008, -3/+9"If a person with weak moral standards witnesses another person committing an act of appropriate morality then that person is much more likely to become motivated or enlightened into producing strengthened moral behavior by witnessing said act."
Even if that's true, I don't need the government to make sure that no one models poor behavior for me, and I don't need it to enact laws to make sure that I lose my freedom to make bad choices (unless a bad choice would *directly* put another person in danger). Do you?
"The reason I say this is NOT because I am disagreeing with you (although I do)."
So, then you're saying that my mother, the cancer survivor, is condemned to live a celibate life?
Your ideas are obviously very different than mine. Believe it or not, I'd like to understand them since it's hard to make sense of how someone could say things that seem so cruel. But, you're certainly not alone in you opinions, and by trying to understand where you're coming from, I can understand where a portion of this country's citizens are coming from. That's not an insignificant thing, even if you never change my mind.
However, like many on digg, you prefer to insult and demean rather than to discuss. You put yourself out here as an ambassador for your point of view (most likely religious in nature, right?) by telling us with certainty that you're correct and we're wrong. And then you do everything you can to make sure that I understand that you're truly not a person who strives to leave other people better for having interacted with you. Somehow this keeps happening when people tell me that their morals are better than mine -- they demonstrate a type of arrogance and indecency that tells me that I never want to be like them. There are some truly terrible ambassadors for Christianity on this site who exhibit disgusting behavior towards non-Christians while praising one another for their efforts. I never had a problem with Christianity before I saw what it does to people after joining digg.
You can blame all of this on me, and I'm sure you already have. Take no responsibility for how you present yourself to the world. Is that really what you intend? If you have kids, would you proudly show them this conversation as a model for how to deal with people with whom you disagree, or would you tell them that you don't regret telling people to shut the f*** up and that they're so very far beneath you? - eir574, on 11/17/2008, -3/+7By the way, the question about my mother's situation was a sincere one. I've asked several people who say any sex that can't lead to procreation is a sin what they think about that particular case, and no one has had an answer. I was hoping you'd be different, but you made light of a tragic situation and went the route of personal insults. Good job! I'm so much more convinced that you're right than I was before.
- 2Xzist, on 11/18/2008, -5/+2I believe I cannot be any clearer... The views you think you have do not influence my choice to demand that you quit attempting to describe your views. It is your general level of ignorance which provokes my statements toward you. Do more observing and less interaction... this requires a significant amount of patience but try anyway. There *are* reasons why I address others' displayed beliefs and not yours and they (the reasons) are most probably not what you think they are.
- eir574, on 11/18/2008, -3/+6I know, I disagreed with you. I told you that you'd said some insensitive things, and that you'd used someone else's pain in an attempt to prove your moral superiority. I'm sure that means I'm ignorant. At least I'm not as callous towards other people's difficult situations in life as you are. I'll be sure to let my mother know that she was supposed to become celibate at age 35. Thanks so much for your valuable insight.
Meanwhile, I wouldn't go around accusing someone of ignorance with respect to life experience who's a mere two years younger than you. You can't know what I've seen and experienced. I certainly know enough to know that your high minded preaching about other people's low moral character is not, in fact, the mark of a decent person.
But, if you're proud of your behavior on this thread, then congrats. If you'd tell your children that the correct way to deal with people whom you believe to be ignorant is to curse at them and insult them, then great. That's your prerogative. If you're behaving as your moral code tells you to behave -- as you'd wish others to treat you -- then that's your choice. - StaticThunder, on 11/18/2008, -3/+6"You speak of individual choices but neglect to address how the individual affects the populace... For people to support gay marriages is comparable to if we were to vote to abolish all speed limits and let the people decide which speeds are appropriate."
What a load of *****. How do you live with yourself when your brain comes up with ***** like this. - eir574, on 11/18/2008, -3/+6I like the explicit assumption that we are not capable of making our own choices in life, and that we need a nanny-like government to make sure the weak minded population is not exposed to poor choices it can't help but emulate. It always amuses me when conservatives ridicule liberals for supposedly wanting the government to take care of us from cradle to grave, and then turn around and say that they need the government's help in sticking to their own moral codes. When 2Xzist falters, does he come up with all kinds of excuses for why others made him do something wrong, or does he take responsibility?
- Infinitex2, on 11/16/2008, -5/+30That's what protest is for. That is what I hope this country will become: a nation where the government is afraid of their people, not vice versa. And my heart goes out to your roommate T_T
- rectagon, on 11/16/2008, -32/+7In order to pass there must have been millions of atheists/agnostics/non-church people who voted for it. Why? Becuase the definition of the word is a Man and a Woman. Civil Unions does the trick nicely. Oh, and since when does one's marital status give them less/more human right? NEVER!
- bbjohnnyt, on 11/16/2008, -26/+8Gays truthfully couldn't care less about the institution of marriage. The ONLY reason they are fighting for the right to marry is to give their sinful and deviant lifestyle a semblance of legitimacy in our society.
- Travelsonic, on 11/16/2008, -5/+13"ecuase the definition of the word is a Man and a Woman. "
By whose definition? Most dictionaries are very general and almost never make it THAT specific. - ThugThrasher, on 11/17/2008, -4/+9The trouble with this philosophy is that civil unions do NOT do the trick nicely.
This statement is only a legitimate argument for a state's ban on gay marriage if two things have happened:
1) A state has granted civil unions ALL the legal rights granted to married couples by that state
2) The federal government grants civil unions ALL the legal rights (there are over 1,000) granted to married couples by the federal government
Even if #1 happens, until #2 happens civil unions will NOT be equal to marriages and thus "do the trick nicely"...they will be a bastard child of marriage that does not provide the legal benefits of a marriage. - scottknick, on 11/18/2008, -1/+4You really ought to get out and meet some gay people. But it's OK -- Jesus forgives your utter ignorance.
- StaticThunder, on 11/18/2008, -1/+3No he doesn't. He keeps a special place warm in hell for bigots.
- bbjohnnyt, on 11/18/2008, -3/+1staticthunder - That's your own prideful opinion, which doesn't mean jack to God. God is very clear concerning sin. He will judge all unrepented sin, including homosexuality and pride. This includes your sin of arrogance. And that will be a terrifying situation to be in. Christians have been commanded to warn everyone so you have been warned. But God says He will freely forgive everyone who asks.
- StaticThunder, on 11/20/2008, -1/+3No, you just gave YOUR prideful opinion based on zero knowledge of God or his desires (of which he has none, he would be above all desire if he existed and was truly God). God could wish away all sin if he wanted, even the very idea of sin, but he doesn't because he prefers to hear the screams of the damned. That is the cosmos HE created, purposely, if he's real. He could have made it so there were no gays, wonder why he didn't. He KNEW the serpent was in the garden, he KNEW Eve would take the apple, he set it up that way.
I'm an atheist. My "prideful" opinion is that life sucks enough already without religious people telling me who I can take to bed on the authority of their magical sky-wizard, or trying to scare me into worshiping their false God with the stick of hell and the carrot of forgiveness.
If I am damned, its not going to be because I failed to apologize to God, its going to be because God happened to be an ***** who punishes people who use their brain.
- shaka776, on 11/16/2008, -13/+3If he was so helpless, why didn't you help him? JERK!
- pamperedk9club, on 11/16/2008, -4/+4@ rectagon i agree with you. Gay people have EVERY right to get married.
- thscientist1, on 11/16/2008, -3/+7why is it illegal to marry who you love as long as they are of age?
- soupdawg30, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2Butt Seks!
- Rndm_Tngnt, on 11/17/2008, -1/+1It's icky! I don't wanna think about it!
Heavens to mergatroid! - lydecker, on 11/17/2008, -2/+2Because girls have cooties.
- aduzik, on 11/17/2008, -2/+6I hope that in retrospect we'll see the Prop 8 debacle as the event that galvanized normal, fair-minded Americans against anti-gay bigotry.
- frishack, on 11/16/2008, -41/+15
- Skeptica, on 11/16/2008, -47/+13There are more gays in America than there are Mormons. There is an estimate of 5% to 10% of the U.S. population (300 million) that is gay, which would be between 15 million and 30 million. There are less than 5 million Mormons in the U.S. So, why is the smaller group of idol worshipers more powerful than gays? It's because they are organized. They get together every week talking about strategies to beat up gays, while gays get together every week in bars drinking and smoking. The Mormons use tithing to get their funding. Gays? Don't ask. That made all the differences. Mormons are among the richest of the religious lunatics. Gays? Each on his own. Mormons, despite just being 1/3 to 1/6 of the gays in numbers, can finance a group whose sole purpose is to beat up gays. Gays? Protest when they think about it. Any hope of gays organized like Mormons? Only if the word gay is written on their forehead. While blacks have the skin color that they can't wash away, gays can flip a coin and disappear from the radar screen. Give up 10% of their earnings a week to be organized? Is there not enough incentive, yet? Gays are too smart to believe in the heaven trap.
- p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 11/16/2008, -10/+9Their role in this amendment vote notwithstanding, the Prop 8 vote was not a Mormon decision. It was a decision of the majority of the people of California (opinion on the final outcome notwithstanding).
That is nothing more than a red herring - which in the long term will not help anyone. - flip2trip, on 11/16/2008, -10/+12"There is an estimate of 5% to 10% of the U.S. population (300 million) that is gay, which would be between 15 million and 30 million."
Wrong, wrong, WRONG. No data, that has any merit, puts the gay population to more than 2 to 3% of the total population.- Phalanxia, on 11/16/2008, -4/+10Source please? From both of you.
- flip2trip, on 11/17/2008, -1/+1My God man, you're on the internet.
a: USA
Bell/Weinberg 1970 – < 2% total M and F (ratings of siblings)
Cameron/Ross 1975-78 – 3.1% M, 3.9% F
FRI 1983 – 5.4% M, 3.6% F (4,340 respondents)
Trocki 1988-89 – 3% M, 2% F
NCHS 1988-91 – ² 3.5% M (over 50,000 respondents)
Catania/NABS 1992 – 2% M, 2% F (4% in urban areas; 10,600 respondents)
Billy/Battelle 1993 – ³ 1.1% M
b. Denmark
Schmidt 1987 – 0.6% M
c. Canada
MacDonald 1988 – 2% total M and F (> 5,500 college student respondents)
Median of studies listed above: 2% M, 2% F
Upper Quartile: 3.3% M, 3.7% F
- kocurejd, on 11/16/2008, -3/+9flip2trip is exactly right. I know it's not the most concrete source out there, but just look at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexua ...
If that's not enough, a CDC (Center for Disease Control) report from 2002 puts the homosexual population at around 2.3%.
Furthermore, numerous homosexual organizations have publicly admitted that the 10% figure is too high. In a footnote to one of the legal briefs submitted pursuant to Lawrence v. Texas (If you aren't familiar with the case, you should be. Look it up.), over 30 different homosexual and pro-homosexual groups admitted that "[t]he most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS found that 2.8% of the male, and 1.4% of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. See Laumann, et al, The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994). This amounts to nearly 4 million openly gay men and 2 million women who identify as lesbian.”- CopernicusCenji, on 11/17/2008, -2/+1Alright, but the 'homosexual population' may officially or unofficially be 2.3%. How many homosexuals are in the closet? Can't bring themselves to come out due to social stigma, or being afraid of reprisal? How many bisexuals are there out there that, for all intents and purposes on any given day may identify more as a homosexual?
These are questions that cannot be quanitified with a mathematical equasion. And I would say that while 10% may be high, I guarantee that if everyone had to be truthful about it, and bisexuals who were just as likely to marry same sex as opposite sex were counted, the figure would easily be closer to six or seven percent. When you take just California (where the measure was actually passed and affects) ten percent may be an under-estimate. You forget that places like the bible belt have far less per capita open homosexuality.
- CopernicusCenji, on 11/17/2008, -2/+1Alright, but the 'homosexual population' may officially or unofficially be 2.3%. How many homosexuals are in the closet? Can't bring themselves to come out due to social stigma, or being afraid of reprisal? How many bisexuals are there out there that, for all intents and purposes on any given day may identify more as a homosexual?
- slurba, on 11/16/2008, -5/+1Because there are no Mormons which would vote no on 8, and all straights automatically vote yes on 8. All your points are invalid because they just assume.
- doremon313, on 11/16/2008, -3/+4I agree with you even though people are voting you down. I am gay and I been trying to drag people out to help fight prop 8, but they rather go party, shopping or just sit on their lazy ass and do nothing while the rest of us do the work, I am sorry for the people who put so much efforts into fighting 8, but those lazy ass needs to get their ***** together and help fight for their OWN right.
- TwineHornet, on 11/17/2008, -1/+1It was the Mormon Church convincing the many idiots and republicans of CA that we need to protect our children. Pure ignorance and the damn church is what passed Prop 8.
- LoveAndSeagulls, on 11/17/2008, -1/+1being gay isn't a ***** religion
it's just a sexual preference, and they shouldn't even have to go through the trouble to be organized. they should already have these damned rights
what the ***** America!?!??! - futebollounge, on 11/17/2008, -1/+1when your grandchildren discuss their amazing grandfather, the words "backwards as *****" will be often used.
- jvadnais, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1I know Skeptica has been dugg down a lot, but as a gay man, I can say there's a shred of truth to what he's saying.
As a minority, the gays have never been ones to be activists UNTIL WE ARE AFFRONTED. Most of us would prefer to live quiet lives, blending in with the rest of the diverse populace. Unlike the Mormons, we don't have an ideology that binds us and drives us to share it with the masses. It's always been said that organizing gays is like herding cats because, frankly, most of us would rather not rock the boat.
That said, it's been inspiring and validating to see the force that has been unleashed since Prop 8 passed. It's unfortunate it didn't build until after the vote, but seeing the onslaught of rallies, protests, boycotts, and general outcries has been astonishing. I imagine it's what Stonewall was like in the 60s – another time gays organized only after being affronted – and I'm glad that I'm alive to witness this.
Prop 8 will be overturned. Either by the courts soon, or by the voters later. Nothing has stopped progress for very long in the US, and we should all take note as we see one of the final battles of civil liberties be won. - TheUngod, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1This would be because religion is already protected. Religion by nature is also organized, due to the fact to practice you must belong to a church or temple of some form. To be gay, you just have to...be gay. They are completely different and can not be compared in the same manner. You may as well compare all people who like cherry pie to people who use Windows ...apples and oranges.
- p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 11/16/2008, -10/+9Their role in this amendment vote notwithstanding, the Prop 8 vote was not a Mormon decision. It was a decision of the majority of the people of California (opinion on the final outcome notwithstanding).
- AFelsinger, on 11/16/2008, -30/+42I was at the San Francisco rally. It was a great experience with a wide variety of speakers. It really seems as if the mormon church shot themselves in the foot... the movement for gay rights really is stronger than ever now.
- georgemason01, on 11/16/2008, -16/+9Keep focusing all your blame on the Mormons and see how far it gets you.
- zacharytelschow, on 11/17/2008, -9/+6"the movement for gay rights really is stronger than ever now."
You mean the movement that has lost in every single state in which it was put to a vote, in many states by 2:1 margins? Oh boy. - luseton, on 11/17/2008, -1/+2Not all Mormons that I know in CA voted for Prop 8. Yes, most of the extreme conservatives but there were a significant number of Mormons who did not vote at all because they did not feel they are in any place to determine who should marry who.
Then again Mormon's only accounted for a small percentage. - DasHef, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1I, for one, applaud the mormon church for getting involved in this issue. It's backfired and done more than they could've imagined to bring this injustice towards a 'type' human to the forefront and has really polarized a vast extent of americans to, once again, fight for and defend civil liberties.
- WordsnCollision, on 11/16/2008, -44/+26Not to be a party pooper, but doesn't democracy mean you sometimes have to accept the opinion of the majority? Perhaps instead of whining, sulking and stamping their feet, the losing side should get on with their lives. If older people really were the force behind the pro-Prop 8 vote, then time is on the side of the naysayers.
- lydecker, on 11/16/2008, -12/+46Yes, but not when it comes to civil rights. We have a government set up to protect the rights of all. So no matter if we would have voted for slavery to pass, or inter-racial marriage to be banned, the losing side has a partner in government who makes sure everyone has equal rights. When it comes around to this, as in sooner or later, is the only thing left to question.
- p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 11/16/2008, -15/+8That would seem to be the crux of the issue: whether the effects of sexual preference choices are in fact "civil rights." Public assertions, marches and protests do not make the assertion a constitutional fact.
The amendment outcomes on 11/4 do not appear to support that assertion. - lydecker, on 11/16/2008, -2/+8The sexual preference choice being getting married, of course, because that is the only choice. And If it's not a civil right to get married, then the civil right should be removed.
The courts will decide again decide on the constitutionality of discriminatory measures, and find a way that isn't discriminatory. - MelvinSchlubman, on 11/16/2008, -3/+3> Public assertions, marches and protests do not make the assertion a constitutional fact.
The Supreme Court has found the Constitution to protect the freedom of association in two cases:
1. Intimate Associations. A fundamental element of personal liberty is the right to choose to enter into and maintain certain intimate human relationships. These intimate human relationships are known as "intimate associations." The paradigmatic "intimate association" is the family.
2. Expressive Associations. ...
- p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 11/16/2008, -15/+8That would seem to be the crux of the issue: whether the effects of sexual preference choices are in fact "civil rights." Public assertions, marches and protests do not make the assertion a constitutional fact.
- eir574, on 11/16/2008, -11/+37"Not to be a party pooper, but doesn't democracy mean you sometimes have to accept the opinion of the majority?"
If the majority of people decided that Christians couldn't get married, would you shrug your shoulders and move on with your life? Or, if you're not a Christian, just substitute another example.
"If older people really were the force behind the pro-Prop 8 vote, then time is on the side of the naysayers."
I suspect this is the case, but I also understand that people who are being denied equal access to the rights associated with marriage might not be too happy waiting. If my husband and I had been denied a marriage license primarily because of someone else's religion, we probably wouldn't have been too happy. - mavere, on 11/16/2008, -6/+24A democracy gives people the right to have a say in their government, not other people's lives.
We all grew up knowing marriage was the ultimate act of love, a commitment to spend the rest of your life with someone. The piece of paper you get is merely a symbolic representation of that and only that, not of any God or ideology, just love. What the California Supreme Court ruled was you cannot deny that symbol to anyone.
Then came the people saying "we were here first, so ***** you."- jlabs, on 11/16/2008, -7/+5"A democracy gives people the right to have a say in their government, not other people's lives."
Not true at all. The US voted Obama in. He has many ideas that clearly have a say in people's lives. Some people are forced to pay taxes, others are forced to give up their second amendment rights. The list goes on.
I am forced to live with "president elect" Obama due to democracy...and the gays are forced to live without marriage in california. Don't like it? go somewhere else..or get people to vote on it. I think people might take them more seriously if the gay pride parade didn't involve tight leather pants and ass-less chaps.
"We all grew up knowing marriage was the ultimate act of love, a commitment to spend the rest of your life with someone. The piece of paper you get is merely a symbolic representation of that and only that, not of any God or ideology, just love. What the California Supreme Court ruled was you cannot deny that symbol to anyone."
Does that mean I can marry my sister? Or that a guy can marry his dog..or how about someone marrying themself? after all, "you can't deny that symbol to anyone".
Marriage has always had to do with religion. It's so funny to hear the people on the left, now wanting something religious, when so many of them are anti-religious. I am all for giving gays equal rights, but I don't think it should be called marriage. Marriage is and always has been between a man and a woman.
- jlabs, on 11/16/2008, -7/+5"A democracy gives people the right to have a say in their government, not other people's lives."
- twystoffate, on 11/16/2008, -8/+14The majority can be down right idiotic. They put Bush in office TWICE.
- seltaeb4, on 11/16/2008, -3/+2It was the right-wing Supreme Court's fault the first time.
Second time? Don't know what to say about that, but think the Idiot Factor had a lot to do with it. - p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 11/16/2008, -0/+3I agree with on the Bush observation.
However: that same 'idiotic' majority voted for Obama.... and then voted against all these amendments in the same electoral cycle. - osko2052, on 11/16/2008, -1/+5The same majority put Obama in the Oval Office. What does that say about your theory and the majority?
- edyang, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2Haha...I was going to echo the same comments of p9s and osko...pwned!
- seltaeb4, on 11/16/2008, -3/+2It was the right-wing Supreme Court's fault the first time.
- whatthefu, on 11/16/2008, -2/+3No, democracy protects the rights of the minority as well. If it was about "accepting the opinion of the majority" then it wouldn't be democracy.
- NikoKun, on 11/16/2008, -3/+13Mob rule should NEVER be allowed to define the rights of the Minorities.
This is a core ideal of America, and prop 8 and the like go against that foundation.- p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 11/16/2008, -5/+4I think you mean a majority vote.
How does ANY amendment pass without a majority vote - or, for that matter, any electoral process (including the selection of a President)?
You don't like the majority vote, you call it "mob." When they vote the way YOU feel they should, you call it "enlightened."
There is no intellectual honesty in your claim that an electoral process equates to "mob rule."
- p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 11/16/2008, -5/+4I think you mean a majority vote.
- ngmcs8203, on 11/16/2008, -3/+8I could have swore that the 14th amendment said that no state was allowed to deny ANYONE equal rights.
- FountainDew, on 11/16/2008, -3/+4"Not to be a party pooper, but doesn't democracy mean you sometimes have to accept the opinion of the majority?"
Wow gay or not, that was dumb. - yurishoujo, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2We CAN'T just get on with our lives. That's the problem.
I don't think opponents to gay marriage realize all the rights that come from that union. It's not just a matter of getting tax breaks and a title. It's about some very basic principles and acts that are ***** devastating not to have.
Gay couples cannot visit their loved ones in the hospital, they can't raise a family together with the protection of the law, they have no rights to a home they've built with someone else. Could you imagine not being able to even claim your partner's remains if the need arised because as far as the government is concerned, you're a legal stranger?
THAT is why we can't just "get on with our lives." We're trying to get the right to marry so we can get on with it.
- lydecker, on 11/16/2008, -12/+46Yes, but not when it comes to civil rights. We have a government set up to protect the rights of all. So no matter if we would have voted for slavery to pass, or inter-racial marriage to be banned, the losing side has a partner in government who makes sure everyone has equal rights. When it comes around to this, as in sooner or later, is the only thing left to question.
- Volkriot, on 11/16/2008, -18/+53I was in Oakland today (across the bay bridge from San Fran) and there were people with signs and cars going by honking in appreciation. It is great to see so many people mobilized to make real change. It makes me proud to be a first generation American when I see such energy devoted to social movement and a unified voice asserting, without apology, that we are all brothers and sisters, and that to take away the rights of the few is to threaten the rights of us all.
Truly inspiring.- zacharytelschow, on 11/17/2008, -10/+2What "rights" are being taken away from homosexuals? They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex that everyone else has. What right are they lacking?
If they have a right to marry "someone they love," then I assert that I have the right to drive speeds that I love, up to 150 mph if I feel like it. I love driving that fast, how can you deny me that right?- pagno, on 11/17/2008, -1/+10Logic fail. You driving 150mph endangers the lives of other drivers. Gay marriage only affects 2 people, and they agreed to it, so its their issue.
- zacharytelschow, on 11/17/2008, -9/+1Logic fail. Things people do affect those around them as well as the people themselves. That is the reason people so strongly oppose gay marriage.
- eir574, on 11/17/2008, -0/+8And how exactly are you affected in a way that violates your legal rights? I'm still allowed to do things even if they make you sad or go against your religion, so long as they don't violate your legal rights.
- lydecker, on 11/17/2008, -0/+10The rights that are being taken away are the right to marry someone of the same gender. We will get that right, just as we got the right to marry someone of a different race.
- zacharytelschow, on 11/17/2008, -10/+2What "rights" are being taken away from homosexuals? They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex that everyone else has. What right are they lacking?
- JimmySpaza, on 11/16/2008, -57/+23Look, getting married legally is not a right. It is allowed by the government and thus is something subject to change by the will of the people.
A civil right is legally something enshrined in each State's constitution and the U.S. Constitution. And there is NOTHING in those consitutions about all people having the right to marry anyone in any way.
Also, marriage is and always been defined as the union between a man and a woman, nothing else.
If homosexuals want to "marry", then they'll have to invent a new word. THAT is what Proposition 8 really was all about.- lydecker, on 11/16/2008, -6/+21Then, in order to prevent that, heterosexuals who are opposed to marriage equality should take up the charge of changing State and U.S. Constitutions, to refer to all unions as something other than marriage. Because superior rights granted to married couples, which aren't rights granted equally, will not last.
- JimmySpaza, on 11/16/2008, -1/+5Personally, I'd like to see all governments get out of the marriage business altogether. Maybe on that we can agree.
- lydecker, on 11/16/2008, -2/+6Yes, I do. But I don't see people supporting that anytime soon, I see people supporting equality sooner.
- eir574, on 11/16/2008, -2/+30"And there is NOTHING in those consitutions about all people having the right to marry anyone in any way."
No, but once a law is passed, all people must have equal protection under the law. You can't pass a law that says everyone other than people with pierced ears can get married, or that everyone other than Christians can get married, or that everyone other than people who own their own homes can get married, or that everyone other than construction workers can get married.
To take another example, receiving unemployment benefits is not a civil right. But, once the government passes a law that provides it, it can't say, "By the way, only heterosexuals can get unemployment benefits."
"Also, marriage is and always been defined as the union between a man and a woman, nothing else."
I don't think you're correct that no culture in the history of the world has ever recognized same sex marriages, but let's say for the sake of argument that you're right. So what? Is the fact that we've been doing something a certain way for a long time sufficient justification for continuing to do it the same way?
"If homosexuals want to "marry", then they'll have to invent a new word. THAT is what Proposition 8 really was all about."
So, then, would you support having the government get out of the business of marriage entirely? Would you accept having the government preside over civil unions for both homosexual and heterosexual couples?- JimmySpaza, on 11/16/2008, -5/+2"So, then, would you support having the government get out of the business of marriage entirely?"
Yes.
"Would you accept having the government preside over civil unions for both homosexual and heterosexual couples?"
No. Freedom of association per the U.S. Constitution should cover marriages, unions, etc. and be free from government influence. - eir574, on 11/16/2008, -1/+6"No. Freedom of association per the U.S. Constitution should cover marriages, unions, etc. and be free from government influence."
I don't know what you mean here. Are you saying that there should be absolutely no legal rights associated with what we now call the legal institution of marriage, or are you saying that the government should set no conditions on who can have those benefits (and just take people's word that they have, say, three spouses)? Or something else entirely? - Matt23, on 11/16/2008, -1/+5eir574: Thank you for breaking this down for JimmySpaza. The anti gay marriage digg users tend to lack skills of logic and reasoning when they spew the same fallacies over and over again.
- JimmySpaza, on 11/16/2008, -5/+2"So, then, would you support having the government get out of the business of marriage entirely?"
- singularityv, on 11/16/2008, -14/+12No, marriage has always been defined as the ownership of a woman by a man. That is the traditional definition of marriage, which has existed for millennia.
The traditional definition of marriage was abolished almost a century ago, so the traditional definition of marriage no longer applies. If you claim to support the traditional definition of marriage but you do not want women to be chattel, you are a ***** hypocrite.
It looks like you just want "separate but equal". Now go ***** off and go back to lynching some ***** for your buddy David Duke.- lydecker, on 11/16/2008, -7/+4Offensive language is not tolerated.
- osko2052, on 11/16/2008, -5/+2I don't tolerate offensive language either but it seems to be the norm here on digg. If you label it offensive you are attacked without mercy. That seems to be my experience.
- Pake, on 11/16/2008, -3/+15Marriage is defined by man and as such, meanings to words words are subject to change over time. *****, 40 years ago, marriage was defined as a union between men and women of the same race just to point of the obvious flaw in your statement.
- kocurejd, on 11/16/2008, -10/+3Butt buddies?
- whatthefu, on 11/16/2008, -3/+12If it were about a word then this would have been resolved long ago. If "married" gay couples could have the exact same rights as married couples, that would be fantastic. But arguing major issues based on semantics is beyond retarded, so don't try to save face by acting like that's what it's about.
- QuakerOatMan, on 11/17/2008, -8/+3There is a word for their "marriage", actually several. Its called civil union or domestic partnership, which grants them all the rights that marriage brings and has been around in cali for a while like since 2000. So what's the fuss about? All there rights are there and none have been taken away, they just don't use the damn word.
- lydecker, on 11/17/2008, -1/+9The fuss is that it doesn't grant them equal rights. None of the 1138 federal rights associated with marriage. Not equal requirements of restrictions under the law. If you seriously think they have all the same rights, you should do some research. Their rights to marriage based on anyone of their choosing were there and have now been taken away.
And until we stop saying and calling different marriages "separate but equal," they will be inherently unequal.
- lydecker, on 11/17/2008, -1/+9The fuss is that it doesn't grant them equal rights. None of the 1138 federal rights associated with marriage. Not equal requirements of restrictions under the law. If you seriously think they have all the same rights, you should do some research. Their rights to marriage based on anyone of their choosing were there and have now been taken away.
- lydecker, on 11/16/2008, -6/+21Then, in order to prevent that, heterosexuals who are opposed to marriage equality should take up the charge of changing State and U.S. Constitutions, to refer to all unions as something other than marriage. Because superior rights granted to married couples, which aren't rights granted equally, will not last.
- Wilarseny, on 11/16/2008, -10/+65As much as I support gay marriage rights, Prop 8's passage is much less significant than Arkansas Act 1. My mom manages the foster care program for my home state, and from her perspective the situation is dire not only in our state or even in Arkansas but around the country. Things like Act 1 only serve to exacerbate this tragic problem. And yet you don't see that being protested; adoption rights aren't quite the poster issue that marriage is, for whatever reason. It really drives me up a wall sometimes...
- Seidoger, on 11/16/2008, -2/+10When i was looking at CNN's election website with all the result, i saw that thing in Arkansas, I didn't even know about it before.. And wow, you're right, this is even worse on many point than not being able to marry (Although not taking anything off the fact that Prop8 is terrible)
- jmuh, on 11/16/2008, -1/+15Well, to be fair, the crux of Arkansas Act 1 is marriage, in that they are limiting adoption to "married" couples only. If gay couples had the option to marry in the first place, Arkansas Act 1 would have a lesser impact on them.
As for unmarried, straight couples, I have to admit, I haven't really looked into the impact on them. Are there a lot of unmarried, straight couples being affected? I feel like it is difficult for unmarried couples in general to gain adoptions, isn't it? Please excuse this silly example, but isn't this why Angelina Jolie adopted the last two children under her name only because she is not married to Brad Pitt?- Wilarseny, on 11/16/2008, -0/+9The statistic I heard was 400 children being retroactively affected by the passage of Act 1, though I'm wary of using any stat I have no source for. I don't know Arkansas law and different states take different approaches to finding foster parents, but single couples and even individuals do end up adopting or at least providing temporary living situations for some kids. Either way, it's ridiculous. Both single couples and homosexual couples end up making great parents if they can provide a loving home, and when you have a situation where so many kids bounce between group homes/tempstays and so many can "graduate" the foster care program without being adopted, I don't think we should cut any possible adoptive families out assuming they will not be abusive/harmful to the child.
- alexacastro, on 11/16/2008, -1/+17I was wondering that too, especially since they're TAKING AWAY children from loving parents who have already adopted them and made a home with them.
Do they think they'll "turn" the kids gay?! How ridiculous. In case they haven't noticed, gay people are born of straight couples!
We need all the loving couples we can get willing to adopt. I'm sick of all this ballyhoo against gay or unmarried couples. If they're stable, loving, and nurturing, WTF is the problem!? - secrity, on 11/17/2008, -3/+2Part of the reason is that gays expect people in Arkansas to do hateful things.
- secrity, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2Why didn't the adoption people of Arkansas fight against it then? Let's face it, this sort of thing is why many gays leave Arkansas.
- surfergal, on 11/17/2008, -0/+4I am from Arkansas, and actually there was a protest against Act 1 on Saturday:
http://www.katv.com/news/stories/1108/570340.html
Because the language was vague and so many people were confused by it, there are groups trying to fight it right now. I really hope they are able to overturn this discriminatory legislation. - Wagnerian, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1I think the issues are highly linked. I've been thinking about Arkansas alot. I have gay foster parents. Those guys saved my life, it shakes me to the core of my being to think what if our family hadn''t even been allowed to be. Incidentally, they have been un state sanctioned married for 20 years.
- yurishoujo, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2It was definitely mentioned at our protests here in Minnesota. I imagine they were at most protests, the media probably just isn't focusing on it in particular. I assure you the gay community finds this just as atrocious, since it's going after our families.
- 808ethan, on 11/17/2008, -1/+3no one has any hope for Arkansas so no one talks about it.
- reasonyousmile, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1Your problem doesn't invalidate this one. Start your own story on the net somewhere and get it Dugg, thanks.
- Sparky9292, on 11/16/2008, -31/+10Short survey for people against homosexuality: Simply tell me at what point is sexually immoral and wrong and more importantly why?
1. MF Missionary position - Vaginal Intercourse
2. MF Doggy style
3. MF Finger anal play (no penetration)
4. MF anal penetration
5. MF anal but female uses or wears strap-on to penetrate male.
6. FF lesbian ( both are hot females )
7. FF (one is hot and one is butch)
8. FF (both are butch)
9. MM mutual masturbation
10. MM finger anal play
11. MM anal intercourse- sockpuppets, on 11/16/2008, -3/+22Are you coming onto me in a way I don't understand?
- unreg, on 11/16/2008, -2/+10What's your point?
- Seidoger, on 11/16/2008, -2/+2Being an ass.
(no pun actually intended)
- Seidoger, on 11/16/2008, -2/+2Being an ass.
- notfromoklahoma, on 11/16/2008, -4/+16, 2, 7, 1, 4, 3, 8, 5, 9, 10, 11, in no particular order.
- Sparky9292, on 11/16/2008, -0/+2so no sex is the answer?
- kocurejd, on 11/16/2008, -2/+4It has nothing to do with sex positions you moron.
- Rockkybox, on 11/16/2008, -0/+2Do you kiss your mother with that mouth
- riceklown, on 11/16/2008, -0/+3None of those are immoral. For what reason could an affection between two people be immoral. I mean seriously, any one of those would only be immoral depending on WHO they are with, are they cheating on someone? No? OK, none of them are immoral. Period
- nlucasltd, on 11/16/2008, -22/+61Let's end Proposition Hate.
- Me001, on 11/16/2008, -9/+0
- AMD64MM, on 11/16/2008, -0/+1You, sir, are an asshat!
- shaka776, on 11/16/2008, -0/+1Isaiah Washington?
- mattyboy555, on 11/16/2008, -0/+1Who the ***** are you to tell a gay couple that they don't have the right to marry. What if someone denied you something you wanted just because what some ancient teachings said. It's small minded yokels like you who ruin this country.
I dont think anyone has the right to deny others happiness.
- shaka776, on 11/16/2008, -21/+3It's not about hate. I don't hate anybody. I believe that marriage for homosexuals is wrong.
- zacharytelschow, on 11/17/2008, -7/+2Which automatically makes you full of hatred or a bigot or some other nonsense. Automatic labels for someone who disagrees with a point of view and we're full of hate? Got it.
- spookyttws, on 11/17/2008, -0/+8No jackass, removing someone's rights because they're different from you is hate, as you voted to do.
- carpeclunes, on 11/17/2008, -1/+7Let's end Proposition Shaka776-is-a-*****-Moron.
- haywiremonkey, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1lol clever
- Me001, on 11/16/2008, -9/+0
- MadOgre, on 11/16/2008, -8/+20How many times to the people have to vote this down before the vocal minorities give it up and look for an alternative way for a resolution? Instead of pitching fits and trying to get legal elections held... go after the problem from another direction. Use your heads instead of acting emo about it. Flank them.
/Against discrimination.- georgemason01, on 11/16/2008, -9/+6It's easier to mindlessly complain and walk around in the street than actually think and take constructive action.
- PrintScrn12, on 11/16/2008, -4/+6Ahem... Challenge proposition (legally) in court.
Already on it. - nardo510, on 11/16/2008, -5/+2The reason Prop 8 passed was because a huge number of latino's voted in this election and their Catholic and they despise the idea of gays being to marry. Thats the real reason.
- linagee, on 11/17/2008, -2/+2WRONG. The reason reason was because they were brainwashed in church to vote this way from the pulpit. Don't piss on the religion, piss on the actions the leaders of that religion took.
- Rndm_Tngnt, on 11/17/2008, -2/+1Piss on both while you're pissing.
- zacharytelschow, on 11/17/2008, -3/+3Homosexuals can already realize virtually all of the benefits of marriage through civil unions without the label. This fit you're describing is about the label.
- Rndm_Tngnt, on 11/17/2008, -2/+1But only by spending a hunk of change and getting a lawyer instead of popping down 50 bucks (or whatever the trivial fee is) for a marriage license.
- zacharytelschow, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2So the legal battle is for difference in cost between a marriage license and a legally binding contract that has nearly the same result? That's honestly what you believe is the case?
- ufia, on 11/16/2008, -26/+8Homosexuals should do as marijuana smokers did, and claim they want to legalize same-sex marriage for medical purpose.
Studies proved that buttsex cures cancer.- TPorter72, on 11/16/2008, -3/+3Homosexual acts are no longer listed as sodomy, so your argument fails. How about they claim it's there religious right.
- PrintScrn12, on 11/16/2008, -0/+3Many religious organisations already accept and bless same sex marriages.
- linagee, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1@PrintScrn12: Congrats, you're married in our church! No, you can't claim you're married on taxes or for any legal issues. Wow that sucks.
- BikerDude69, on 11/16/2008, -8/+2
- TPorter72, on 11/16/2008, -1/+3Your name only draws up one image. Lots of men in leather having gay sex. Due to this I have come to the conclusion that you are indeed gay and that's why you know about it's contributing factor to cancers.
- Rockkybox, on 11/16/2008, -0/+2Are you sure it was his name that conjured that image? This may be an important time to find out more about your sexuality
- TPorter72, on 11/16/2008, -0/+1No I'm fairly confident in my sexuality. I just don't have a problem with homosexuals so I don't suppress things like that. To me bikers are all gay men or women who think there men, that's why I have that image. Plain and simple.
- TPorter72, on 11/16/2008, -3/+3Homosexual acts are no longer listed as sodomy, so your argument fails. How about they claim it's there religious right.
- rhustang, on 11/16/2008, -6/+32The rally in Seattle was pretty incredible. The estimate was 5000 people, but I'd say it was closer to 10000. Was a very peaceful rally, marching from Capitol Hill (the "gay district") to downtown. There were a few people with signs downtown saying everyone was going to hell, but it didn't turn into anything.
Really, I don't care about marriage, whether it's straight, gay, bovine, whatever. This is a civil rights issue. If a straight person is allowed to eat carrots, but a gay person isn't, I have a problem with that, even though carrots kinda suck.- lydecker, on 11/16/2008, -0/+2I thought the Seattle Times said 3000, but I don't know where they got that estimate, and I'm very bad at estimating numbers.
But my sign made it as the second photo of the Seattle Times gallery for the rally against 8- rhustang, on 11/16/2008, -0/+2http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/page/Attendance+ ...
- kesam, on 11/16/2008, -1/+2It didn't turn into anything, as in nobody actually went to hell?
- lydecker, on 11/16/2008, -0/+3I think he means they didn't turn into a successful anti-protest, it was just individuals.
The speakers did mention that there were anti-protesters at the entrance to Volunteer Park, where the marriage equality rally started, and that's why we left from the back entrance to the park, to avoid confrontation. I didn't see anything on the number of people there. - rhustang, on 11/16/2008, -0/+3hah...yes, and those same religious fanatics are down there all the time and are quite restrained for the amount of heat they take, being in such a liberal city.
i was really, really hoping that they were just coincidentally down there and didn't know about the rally, because i can just imagine their faces when they saw 5000+ gay protesters marching towards them.
- lydecker, on 11/16/2008, -0/+3I think he means they didn't turn into a successful anti-protest, it was just individuals.
- terrix, on 11/16/2008, -9/+2A gay person can marry a person of the opposite sex just as easily as a straight person can.
A straight person can not marry someone of the same sex.
They both have the same rights and sexual preference is irrelevant. So its not a civil rights issue. The issue is the definition of the term marriage.- lydecker, on 11/17/2008, -0/+5So you disagree with Loving V. Virginia? You think that black people should have kept rights to marry someone of the same race just as easily as white people can marry someone of the same race?
You think that black people shouldn't have been able to marry someone of the opposite race?
They both had the same rights and sexual preference is irrelevant. So that was not a civil rights issue, according to you, but about the definition of the term marriage.
Sadly, the courts disagree with you there. - zacharytelschow, on 11/17/2008, -8/+1Civil Rights cry - "Separate but equal isn't equal."
Gay Marriage cry - "Equal rights, but they just aren't fair!" - eir574, on 11/17/2008, -0/+6@zach
People made exactly that argument with respect to the illegality of interracial marriage.The law at the time applied equally to all, so people made fun of black people using exactly the same argument you're using against homosexuals. Just because the law is applied equally to all doesn't mean it's just.
If I could gather just over 50% of the population and pass a constitutional amendment banning any of these things, would you accept it and not "cry" that the law wasn't fair?
- No marriage for people with pierced ears.
- No marriage for people who have divorced in the past.
- No marriage for people who have eaten sushi within the past five years.
Each of those laws could be applied equally to everyone. Do you honestly believe those laws would be fair and just? - zacharytelschow, on 11/17/2008, -6/+1Yes, the law is just.
- eir574, on 11/17/2008, -0/+4"Yes, the law is just."
Really? You'd be okay with an arbitrary law that took away your right to marry the person you loved? Say, perhaps you can only marry someone who was born in the same month as you, and you love someone who was born in a different month? You truly believe that if the majority of people decided to enact that law, you'd shrug your shoulders and move on with your life, accepting complacently that the law was just because it applies equally to everyone?
- lydecker, on 11/17/2008, -0/+5So you disagree with Loving V. Virginia? You think that black people should have kept rights to marry someone of the same race just as easily as white people can marry someone of the same race?
- tdogg241, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1I think the final estimate was about 6,000. I'm proud to have been one of them.
- lydecker, on 11/16/2008, -0/+2I thought the Seattle Times said 3000, but I don't know where they got that estimate, and I'm very bad at estimating numbers.
- THESUPERDEVIL, on 11/16/2008, -13/+3here a link for the homophobic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSnNHUaNR_8 - vtydev, on 11/16/2008, -10/+2http://www.knoldictionary.org/w/gay-marriage/
- edwarddouglas, on 11/16/2008, -22/+13I don't really care how anyone chooses to live their life but why do gay people want to get married so badly? Is it one of those things that you want to do because you cant or do these people really want to get married. Working in the financial industry and seeing the ruin it can do to people its the last thing I would want. Its more important to be with someone you care about. Marriage is just a legally binding piece of paper.
- lydecker, on 11/16/2008, -3/+15Do straights really want to marry? Do you think that that argument will prevent people from wanting the same marriage they've wanted all their life? That the girls have grown up dreaming about?
I think they do. It's one of those things where society has impressed upon us that finding love, a stable relationship, and getting married is just what you do when you get older. I know I've got relatives bugging me all the time about "when am I going to get married" because it's so much more to people than a legally binding piece of paper. - trisweb, on 11/16/2008, -4/+13It's not about what you want, or even about actually getting married. It's about the law saying one group of people can't have the same right to something as another group. That's all.
- TPorter72, on 11/16/2008, -2/+7Why do "straight" people have to get married? I really don't get marriage, mostly because of the religious tradition it has become. Common-law partnership makes sense, no contract, no ceremony, just legal rights after being together for a while.
- redenvelope49, on 11/16/2008, -3/+14It gives the husband/wife the right to inherit property and money with out paying taxes. It gives rights in regards to child custody. It gives hospital visitation rights. The way things stand now a gay couple could be together for 50 years and one of the spouses would be denied hospital visitation rights or say because he is “not” family. A marriage gives the right to be just like everyone else and validated in the eyes of the country in which GLBTQ individuals, pay taxes, fight in wars and serve in politics.
And to clarify to everyone – Nobody is asking churches to change their stance on marriage. They have every right to do what they want to do in their churches BUT they have no say when it comes to legal marriages. All gays want to do is go to Civil Court and get married – GOD is not involved.
The Church has to stay out of the State. The Church has to stay out of our Bedrooms. I don’t think you need your pastor laying in bed with you… unless you are in to that…. - cassiestar, on 11/16/2008, -2/+3It has to do with spousal benefits from your employer. RIght nlow, employers can choose to give spousal priviledges when its a gay couple. Having marriage would force the employer to offer the same benefits to all life partners.
- secrity, on 11/17/2008, -2/+3That is one thing, but there are a great many more benefits, including being able to see your partner while they are dying in a hospital bed.
- lydecker, on 11/16/2008, -3/+15Do straights really want to marry? Do you think that that argument will prevent people from wanting the same marriage they've wanted all their life? That the girls have grown up dreaming about?
- Wryly, on 11/16/2008, -6/+9Did ya check out all the parades yesterday? Man, it was the balls.
- singularityv, on 11/16/2008, -23/+4Honestly, the best thing to do would be for the government to find out exactly who voted for prop 8 (I'm sure the CIA can easily find out), have all of them purged from the US, and then hold a re-vote.
Yes, I'm dead serious. Scumbags like those who voted for prop 8 have committed a crime just as great as rape and murder. They are criminals, and they need to be purged.- guest27, on 11/16/2008, -2/+9yeah, since rape and murder are the same as the democratic right to let your voice be heard...... :P
- singularityv, on 11/16/2008, -12/+4Voting to infringe on someone else's rights is no different than personally infringing on everyone else's rights. Every single "person" who voted for prop 8 is a rapist.
Democracy is evil and must be abolished. - guest27, on 11/16/2008, -2/+1right... saying I'm going to do something is the same as actually doing it... "i'm going to steal" vs "i just stole your car"... I can see why those are the same... :P
- mattyboy555, on 11/16/2008, -2/+3Actually it is, thats why in court you can go to prison for Murder and "Attempted Murder" , the second stated that you had plans to murder said person, but didnt go through.
- singularityv, on 11/16/2008, -12/+4Voting to infringe on someone else's rights is no different than personally infringing on everyone else's rights. Every single "person" who voted for prop 8 is a rapist.
- 8347, on 11/17/2008, -1/+1singularityv - I hope you are joking. If not, that was the most ignorant comment I have read in a long time. If it was a joke then you definitely have an off the wall sense of humor.
- guest27, on 11/16/2008, -2/+9yeah, since rape and murder are the same as the democratic right to let your voice be heard...... :P
- TheCash, on 11/16/2008, -24/+19And while these folks were marching, hundreds were losing their homes to wild fires. Where is all the concern for those poor bastards that lost everything?
Oh, right... their suffering isn't a political hot ticket item. Silly me. Sorry, continue your marching and chanting. I've got Red Cross boxes to pack anyway.- moolaismyfriend, on 11/16/2008, -1/+8I am too amazed at how little coverage the wild fires in LA are receiving. They are devastating.
- DownIsTheNewUp, on 11/16/2008, -2/+5Well every tv station in LA has been showing nothing but the fires for days, and not a second of coverage for these protests.
- limerope, on 11/16/2008, -5/+11Enh, that happens every year. Don't build your houses in places that tend to burn, and you won't have these sorts of issues.
- PrintScrn12, on 11/16/2008, -1/+4Just because their is greater suffering in one place does not mean focus elsewhere (in terms of media or political action) is wrong. There is always greater suffering elsewhere. Taking your thinking why focus on the wildfires when there are people Somalia suffering from severe famine and violence.
- bdbr, on 11/17/2008, -0/+7So you're suggesting they protest against fire?
- SatansSpatula, on 11/17/2008, -0/+3GOD
HATES
FIRE
- SatansSpatula, on 11/17/2008, -0/+3GOD
- npowel, on 11/17/2008, -0/+3Wait wait... stop the world! Everyone grab your buckets and head to LA.
- linagee, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2Buckets of rice? Did they repeal prop 8 yet?
- moolaismyfriend, on 11/16/2008, -1/+8I am too amazed at how little coverage the wild fires in LA are receiving. They are devastating.
- mcwattersm, on 11/16/2008, -9/+17No point of calling America a free country if you aren't actually free.
- neelb420,