California Proposition 8 Case Re-Opening Online Petition

[Tristam]

This is the best quote so far but everyone ignored it. This was posted on page 1.

So you're saying our gov't actively discriminates against gays and that's ok?

[archibaldcrane]

So give it what, about 8 years?

Something like that.

[Valisk]

If men can marry women, why can't women marry women? Are you willing to deny women the same right that men enjoy?

Sure why not. Men ages 18-25 have to register for selective services. Do women?

[aurik]

Sure why not. Men ages 18-25 have to register for selective services. Do women?

No, they don't. We should keep them from voting too. And driving.

[Valisk]

Exactly.

Your position is terribly sexist Valisk. Why do you think that men and women should be given unequal rights? I don't see why I, as a male, are able to marry a woman, when another person who happens to be a woman doesn't get the same right.

Why are you so sexist?

They both have the same right to marry the opposite sex. They both have the same rights.

[Charismatic]

No, they don't. We should keep them from voting too. And drinking.

I wholeheartedly agree.

[aurik]

They both have the same right to marry the opposite sex. They both have the same rights.

Just like Blacks used to have the right to marry within their race, just like Whites. Just don't try any of that interracial baloney!

[bombard]

Before trying to rip me apart I was offering an alternate solution, not saying one way is right and another isn't.

Try to enlighten people on your beliefs on why gays should be allowed the same legal rights as straights, not getting all angry about it.

If two people love each other and want to be together, ok. Alot of Straight couples choose to never get married and give each other legal rights through other channels, such as Living wills, powers of attorney, etc and never get married. Health benefits and other things are lagging, which is an issue of which cannot be denied, but then again so are mine and I'm in a traditional marriage. Let's leave healthcare in another argument since it's an entire different animal.

Sure it might be more of a hassle for a gay couple to protect each other legally, but there are avenues out there which can be ventured upon. If the couple is truly in love, then why so persistent on the definition of the word? Are you fighting for a few legal issues of which most can be resolved in other ways, or fighting for making everyone else believe in your union? If it's the latter, then you are no better then people pushing their beliefs against gay marriages.

There can also be debate on privilege vs. right as well. Rights such as food, water, and shelter are clearly defined, but where the line is drawn on other things is grey indeed. This is what is great about our country, where citizens get to vote to decide on things such as this. The voter's said they do not want to accept gay marriages. It is unfair indeed, but remember everyone in your state got to vote on this subject. No voters were excluded from this decision.

We aren't quite as ready to accept gay marriages just yet, which makes me sad. What also makes me sad is when someone doesn't get their way that makes everyone else against them stupid, retarded, uneducated, backwoods, or what have you. Learn your way around the system for now, and keep enlightening your cause to others without 'cramming your ideals down others' throats'. Education through enlightenment is much more embraced than education forced upon you, as hard core religious 'bible thumpers' are starting to find out.

[Valisk]

No, they don't. We should keep them from voting too. And driving.

Ohhh, so would you agree that the government can pick and choose which things you can do based on sex (selective service)?

[aurik]

Ohhh, so would you agree that the government can pick and choose which things you can do based on sex (selective service)?

Absolutely: military service, sexual preference for females, land ownership, holding political office, voting. These are all things that clearly only men are responsible enough to do.

[Valisk]

So you're saying our gov't actively discriminates against gays and that's ok?

Yes. Why can't I collect an unemplyment check after I get off work? The goverment is discrimnating against my work status. Why can't I collect a welfair check after I leave the Ferrari dealership? The govt is discriminating against my income level. Affirmative action anyone? Certain things have been reserved for certain people.

[aurik]

Certain things have been reserved for certain people.

All men are created equal, some more equal than others.

[Valisk]

All men are created equal, some more equal than others.

Sarcasm gets you nowhere and that statement is 100% true.

[bombard]

Absolutely: military service, sexual preference for females, land ownership, holding political office, voting. These are all things that clearly only men are responsible enough to do.

More sarcasm is not contributing to the discussion. Being snide only makes people think less of your opinions of a REAL ISSUE.

Anyone can vote for their beliefs, can they not? Does that make them wrong?

[Tristam]

Yes. Why can't I collect an unemplyment check after I get off work? The goverment is discrimnating against my work status. Why can't I collect a welfair check after I leave the Ferrari dealership? The govt is discriminating against my income level. Affirmative action anyone? Certain things have been reserved for certain people.

Just wanted to make sure,

So you're of the opinion that homosexuals should be formally discriminated against based on their sexuality, and we should enact laws to restrict them socially.

Fine, then we fundamentally disagree on this issue and it's not worth trying to convince you otherwise since youre admittedly a bigot and I don't agree with bigotry.

[aurik]

Sarcasm gets you nowhere and that statement is 100% true.

In my religion, sarcasm is the true path to salvation. How dare you insult my religion.



Basically, you're making the exact same arguments that people made for outlawing interracial marriage back in yonder days. "Blacks have the same rights as Whites: they can marry anyone they want (of the opposite gender and same race)"

It didn't fly then, it doesn't fly now.

[bombard]

Yes. Why can't I collect an unemplyment check after I get off work? The goverment is discrimnating against my work status. Why can't I collect a welfair check after I leave the Ferrari dealership? The govt is discriminating against my income level. Affirmative action anyone? Certain things have been reserved for certain people.

Valisk, that is not really a valid comparison. You're bordering the line of another debate of Wealth distribution which is in another thread. I believe it's in the discussion of Obama the first black president thread.

[Yuri-G]

ALL men have the opportunity to marry the consenting adult of their choice. ALL women have the opportunity to marry the consenting adult of their choice. ALL people have the opportunity to marry the consenting adult of their choice. EVERYONE is given this opportunity.

wait, wut?

But seriously, this is by far my least favorite argument of all when it comes to the people supporting a ban on gay marriage. It may not be the most illogical, nor the most offensive, but by god (oops, irony) it is the most annoying fucking thing to read. I hate to use the interracial marriage argument because it's so overused, but really, does the phrase "White people can marry within their race, black people can marry within their race, everyone has the same opportunity," make any fucking sense? No. It does not.

[aurik]

More sarcasm is not contributing to the discussion. Being snide only makes people think less of your opinions of a REAL ISSUE.

Thanks for your input, I'm glad you took the time to contribute.

Anyone can vote for their beliefs, can they not? Does that make them wrong?

Yes, when they make a vote based on bigotry, they are wrong.

[Yuri-G]

Yes, when they make a vote based on bigotry, they are wrong.

I've always struggled with this sort of question; Why is someone else wrong for trying to force their beliefs on others when I'm basically trying to do the same thing to them? The answer I finally came to is that my beliefs do not limit their personal freedoms, whereas their beliefs certainly do limit mine, and that's why one side actually can be wrong and one right when you're talking about beliefs and opinions.

So basically, just restating what you said there.