California's Prop 8 Overturned

[phee]

What exactly do straight people have the Right to do that Gays do not when it comes to Civil Union vs Marrige? A Civil Union, as recognized by California and 9 other states, comes with all the same Rights and Privlidges as marrige.

As for the ceremony... there is no law that keeps anyone from being married in the way of thier choosing. There are also no laws that force anyone to have any specific ceremony to be recognized. I know people that have gotten the full blown Church wedding and others that did an old fashion hand fasting (jumping over the broom included)... all thier marriges are equal in the eyes of the Law.

If that were true.... then how is it possible that the law struck down a marriage?.. they are not equal if it did that.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

If that were true.... then how is it possible that the law struck down a marriage?.. they are not equal if it did that.

Because someone needed to spit in someone's eye. They could have easily gotten a Civil Union and been done but that didn't make a specticale or spit in anyone's eye. So, they had to get married on the steps of the Court House in front of every major media camera they could with the mayor as of offciator all the while knowing Prop 8 was going to pass and they could act all butt hurt.

Actually, thats how I really feel about this. It's all about the spectical and making as many straight people uncomfortable about it as possible. If this was really about Love and commitment to your partner... all the spectical and what word is used to describe the relationship would not matter. They would accept the Civil union for the legal side of things and then go off and have a marrige ceremony, a hand fasting, or bonding among family and friends.

True Change only comes with time. All that forcing thnings to change has ever done is break things. Hearts, minds and bodys...

[angry_darkness]

Sweet, maybe in a few years i can get Married to my car.

[phee]

Sweet, maybe in a few years i can get Married to my car.

Yes because cars deserve equal rights.

And we all know a man marrying a man and woman marrying a woman is almost the same as a person marrying a car.

[machine]

Yes because cars deserve equal rights.

And we all know a man marrying a man and woman marrying a woman is almost the same as a person marrying a car.

Maybe not the same thing, but is does make just about the same amount of sense.

Pedophiles should not be harassed either, they were 'born' that way... leave them alone, they are no different than you or I.

[phee]

Maybe not the same thing, but is does make just about the same amount of sense.

Pedophiles should not be harassed either, they were 'born' that way... leave them alone, they are no different than you or I.

In the case of pedophiles, there is a victim though, not a person marrying another... that is a big difference, born that way or not.

I am sorry, no matter what distinction that it is given, a person marrying another person makes a lot more sense then a person marrying a car.... The fact that the comparison is even made I find disturbing.

[Slogo]

In the case of pedophiles, there is a victim though, not a person marrying another... that is a big difference, born that way or not.

I am sorry, no matter what distinction that it is given, a person marrying another person makes a lot more sense then a person marrying a car.... The fact that the comparison is even made I find disturbing.

Agreed. Just because we make a law for humans does not mean we will extend it to inanimate objects. Can we all agree on that? The voting rights act does not apply to Ford F150's. Honda's also don't have to go through immigration.

[freydis]

Wow...

Kinda reminds me of bigotries past that were once 'socially accepted'.

Makes me wonder...

Would the reactions be the same if the proposal was banning interracial marriage?

How about women's right to vote? Or the right for black people to vote?

Because we all know how absurd it is to allow women to vote, they can't be responsible for that sort of decision. They cant decide their own destinies, can hardly expect them to decide the country's destiny. And interracial marriage? May as well marry a person to a car.

Now tell me I'm wrong. Sounds eerily familiar, doesnt it?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

In the case of pedophiles, there is a victim though, not a person marrying another... that is a big difference, born that way or not.

I am sorry, no matter what distinction that it is given, a person marrying another person makes a lot more sense then a person marrying a car.... The fact that the comparison is even made I find disturbing.

Ok, how about a woman that marries a dolphin?

[freydis]

Ok, how about a woman that marries a dolphin?

Still missing the point.

And the fact that anyone can put gay marriage in the same equation as pedophilia makes a strong statement about that person's thinking. You're (not you, Gaf) making a moral judgment placing the two on equal footing, and again, I think that's incredibly bigoted and sad.

I also think attempting to create footing in an argument using a moral judgment as though you're making an intellectual judgment is sad for the state of rhetoric these days as well.

[Slogo]

Take what I did with cars and apply it to animals.

Salmon haven't been given the vote. When a hawk flies from Mexico into Arizona he doesn't have to prove he's an American citizen. So why would we change it at marriage?

[KatRN05]

Yay! Marriage for all!!!

[freydis]

Take what I did with cars and apply it to animals.

Salmon haven't been given the vote. When a hawk flies from Mexico into Arizona he doesn't have to prove he's an American citizen. So why would we change it at marriage?

So basically you're saying gay people are no better than animals, and its absurd to think that any animals would marry, so why allow gay people?

Because honestly, thats what it looks like that position is expressing.

[machine]

Still missing the point.

And the fact that anyone can put gay marriage in the same equation as pedophilia makes a strong statement about that person's thinking. You're (not you, Gaf) making a moral judgment placing the two on equal footing, and again, I think that's incredibly bigoted and sad.

I also think attempting to create footing in an argument using a moral judgment as though you're making an intellectual judgment is sad for the state of rhetoric these days as well.

How am I making a moral judgment? Clearly, those that are opposed to homosexual marriage are for moral reasons. Those that support it come from the side that says it's "love" and "we were born this way."

Pedophiles are 'born that way' too. It's not their fault they are attracted to children, it's just who they are. Who are you to call a pedophile immoral if you're not going to call a homosexual the same thing? THAT is bigoted. If anything, I am sticking up for homosexuals because it's not their fault they are attracted to members of their own sex, just as pedos can't help who they are attracted to. It's just who they are, and they deserve equal rights too.

It is EXACTLY the same thing.

[phee]

How am I making a moral judgment? Clearly, those that are opposed to homosexual marriage are for moral reasons. Those that support it come from the side that says it's "love" and "we were born this way."

Pedophiles are 'born that way' too. It's not their fault they are attracted to children, it's just who they are. Who are you to call a pedophile immoral if you're not going to call a homosexual the same thing? THAT is bigoted. If anything, I am sticking up for homosexuals because it's not their fault they are attracted to members of their own sex, just as pedos can't help who they are attracted to. It's just who they are, and they deserve equal rights too.

It is EXACTLY the same thing.

Again the difference (preprogrammed or not) is in pedophilia there is a VICTIM. But in a man marrying a man, there is no victim.

[EAF (1)]

In my opinion I am glad to see it overturned. Although I will say that I think Gaf made some very good points about how things could have gone with civil marriages for everyone. However unfortunately even if it did and was for the better there is still a societal "value" to the word marriage. So it may be the EXACT same as civil union but no one will ever see it that way, at least not anytime soon. So in many ways we are still holding to the sentiment of marriage rather than the actual function of it. So even if gays got all the same rights with civil unions it would feel less than equal due to the sentiment...even if everyone only used civil unions it would feel like a dumbing down of marriage to people on both ends and then everyone would be pissed. (Or it could possibly be seen as a win for the people who put prop 8 in effect in the first place.) So although I do agree that in function they are the same I believe in sentiment they are very different. Which is one of the reasons it became a huge debate in the first place.

Okay with what I am about to say...no I don't believe this really...but to make a point.

Ok Machine I will give you the acknowledgment that since they are both born with it that therefor it is the same...on this level...a pedophile even before there is a victim has a psychological process just like anyone...they are attracted to what they like sexually. For some that is other men, and for some, other women but you must also agree then that straight people fall into the same category for liking the opposite sex. After all your reasoning was because, "they were born that way." So people who were born straight are also in the same category as a pedophile who likes children and gays who like the same sex. On that level you could link anyone or anything to the same category as the pedophile...because in nature we all are born with liking what we like including animals and trees.

However, once the pedophile acts out upon a victim they are separated from the general pool of gays and straights and whatever the hell else you want to throw in like animals, plants and trees. The reason they are then separated is like what Phee was saying...there is now a victim. The same would count for a straight man who raped someone or for a gay man who beat someone to death. They would all then fall into the category of criminals. This category is VERY separate from the non-criminals nature/instinct group. In the first group there are no victims being harmed in the second there is a victim thus why it becomes a crime.

So yes in theory your right Machine...pedophiles can be like gays and straights that they can live quiet and happy lives and never harm another person. Or they can be like them in the idea that they hurt someone else and become a criminal. However i'm pretty sure that was not your point in question...and in the sense that you were trying to say that a loving caring relationship between two gay men was in fact the same as the CRIME of a pedophile forcing themself on an unwilling victim.

In which case I take as much offense to that as the comment about being able to marry a car being the same as marrying someone of the same sex. Or maybe I should see it as a compliment that he loves his car THAT much. In which case...I shall make a mental note not to get a ride from him anytime soon. And if you would love to have a love filled relationship and marriage like any couple with your car...there are some countries that will let you marry it. So head to the border with your mechanical friend and I hope you live happily ever after together.

[freydis]

How am I making a moral judgment? Clearly, those that are opposed to homosexual marriage are for moral reasons. Those that support it come from the side that says it's "love" and "we were born this way."

Pedophiles are 'born that way' too. It's not their fault they are attracted to children, it's just who they are. Who are you to call a pedophile immoral if you're not going to call a homosexual the same thing? THAT is bigoted. If anything, I am sticking up for homosexuals because it's not their fault they are attracted to members of their own sex, just as pedos can't help who they are attracted to. It's just who they are, and they deserve equal rights too.

It is EXACTLY the same thing.

Now you're being willfully ignorant.

Paedophilia is not a 'condition' people are born with. It is a psychological disorder, and a crime.

[machine]

Now you're being willfully ignorant.

Paedophilia is not a 'condition' people are born with. It is a psychological disorder, and a crime.

Homosexuality was called a disorder once too... look at how far we have come today. If you can be 'born gay', you can be 'born a pedophile'. They are sexual orientations.

Basically what I am saying is: If you believe someone can be born gay, and not CHOOSE to live that life style, you MUST ALSO believe that someone can be born a pedophile, because they are not choosing it either. They can't help it, as "proven" just the same way homosexuality is "proven".

[EAF (1)]

Homosexuality was called a disorder once too... look at how far we have come today. If you can be 'born gay', you can be 'born a pedophile'. They are sexual orientations.

Basically what I am saying is: If you believe someone can be born gay, and not CHOOSE to live that life style, you MUST ALSO believe that someone can be born a pedophile, because they are not choosing it either. They can't help it, as "proven" just the same way homosexuality is "proven".

Pedophilia is NOT a sexual orientation. I see where you could think it is, but do you believe that beastiality is one too then?

And honestly...you can make a connection between ANY two things in the world...it's very easy to do. However just because something can be connected to something else doesn't make it accurate or even related to the other subject necessarily.

[Epic_Fail_Guy]

I'm just getting the feeling that machine is going by the mentality if he doesn't understand it, it's wrong!

And I really don't think he's going to change his opinion on the matter no matter how many ways people debunk his points.

[Soulrev]

Hey, fuck it. I could really care less if Jack and Jim want to get "married". If two gay guys get married is that really going to make a difference to me? Who gives a fuck. Let them. It's not my business nor anyone else's. I'm a Christian and yes I do think it's wrong but hey, I worry about me and unless your decisions effect me then go for it. Not my place to judge others. I think too many people these days forget that. And a little fuckin tolerance could go a long way.

[torn asunder]

know what i think would solve this? removing the term "marriage" from the governmental portion of this. legally, everyone should have a "civil union". if they then want to have a "marriage" ceremony in accordance with their religious beliefs, they can do that on their own, but that shouldn't be a part of the legal process

seriously, this wouldn't be an issue if the "man/woman" union was called a civil union as well, because then there wouldn't be any differences, and therefore no basis for an argument.

[machine]

Pedophilia is NOT a sexual orientation. I see where you could think it is, but do you believe that beastiality is one too then?

And honestly...you can make a connection between ANY two things in the world...it's very easy to do. However just because something can be connected to something else doesn't make it accurate or even related to the other subject necessarily.

I am sorry, but you are tragically incorrect. Pedophilia, Homosexuality, Heterosexuality are ALL orientations in sexual preference. Yes, I understand it is against the law for an adult to act out sexually with a minor. We all knot it is illegal.

By calling it a disorder, you are committing the same kind of discrimination against pedophiles as was committed against gays way back when. It was called a disorder then, and now it is freely accepted.

I am not connecting anything. I am stating fact. And as hard as it is for some random hetero to understand someone can be "born gay", this must be equally difficult for people to understand that people are born with the wiring to be attracted to children.

What's going on here, and what has gone on here for some time, is that when someone disagrees with an opinion here, they are either labeled as "uneducated" or they are put on filter or banned. It's rather funny that this happens, since being this board has alot of outspoken people in regards to politics/freedom of speech/choice, but the minute a voice of opposition shows up with credible opposite opinions, people get more up-in-arms than christians at a gay parade.

Pot calling kettle black?

fo shoooo

[torn asunder]

What's going on here, and what has gone on here for some time, is that when someone disagrees with an opinion here, they are either labeled as "uneducated" or they are put on filter or banned. It's rather funny that this happens, since being this board has alot of outspoken people in regards to politics/freedom of speech/choice, but the minute a voice of opposition shows up with credible opposite opinions, people get more up-in-arms than christians at a gay parade.

Pot calling kettle black?

fo shoooo

this is flat-out bullshit. nobody has ever been banned or put on mod preview for dissenting opinions. it's the method of stating that opinion that gets people in trouble. anyone is free to express any opinion they want here; in fact, that's encouraged. the second it goes from stating an opinion to being disrespectful of others, or insulting them, that's when previews can happen.

[machine]

this is flat-out bullshit. nobody has ever been banned or put on mod preview for dissenting opinions. it's the method of stating that opinion that gets people in trouble. anyone is free to express any opinion they want here; in fact, that's encouraged. the second it goes from stating an opinion to being disrespectful of others, or insulting them, that's when previews can happen.

Yours truly was put on preview, and i know I didn't insult anyone. It was my pro-American statements that just pissed of the wrong person I suppose.