Verdict on Proposition 8

[Kulindahr]

The American people for most of US History sent a certain "clear message" to black people too, and Jews, and women, and Chinese people.

What's your point again?

Yes -- I wonder if he realizes that it was the "people of California" who by popular will denied anyone but whites to vote, own property, etc., for a long time.

It is a plural nation.

There's a gal my mom corresponds with online who is always maintaining that as the Founding Fathers were Christian, this is a Christian nation. But if one looks at the Founding Fathers, at most this is a monotheist Deistic nation.

The primary reason gays are interested in marrying in the first place is because we all hold strong family values, and for a damn good reason there can be no law in the United States respecting what "God" is or says.

Most definitely.

It frustrates gay people because we don't have the rights that the majority has.

Actually we have the rights; we were endowed with them by our Creator. We just either aren't allowed to exercise some, or are penalized for doing so.

Well it's just that "America" seems to think that the definition of marriage is one man one woman.

It's not what I'm saying, it's what "America" is saying.

America doesn't support it. Do you really want to get married in a country where the majority of the people will not accept you beginning married? Where they think you're a freak or something?

By that argument, there shouldn't have been an American Revolution -- the people of Britain didn't support it, and there is evidence that not even a majority of Americans supported it.

I'll be bold and say that the reason most Americans don't support gay marriage is that they're ignorant or mentally challenged: they either don't know or don't grasp that when a church uses the term marriage, and the government uses it, they're using two different words. This is a case where philosophers and theologians distinguish between the broad and narrow meanings of a word, meanings which in some cases can even seem contradictory. "Marriage" as used by theists denotes a joining of male and female, regardless of love or even free choice; the term as used by government means a committed relationship with certain legal privileges and benefits as well as responsibilities. These are not mutually exclusive, but they aren't at all the same thing, any more than "cute" used of a guy on a dance floor is the same thing as "cute" to a mathematician, or to ordinary people when being sarcastic.

People think I'm a freak because I'm a naturist. Others think I'm a freak because I enjoy sending small projectiles on high-velocity ballistic flights to strike other objects. Still others think I'm a freak because I spend numerous hours working for free on a conservation project. Even others think I'm a freak because when I go to the river, I don't spend my time getting wasted and jumping in and out of the water, but build wing dams and channel barriers to make fun paths for people on inner tubes or rafts. An awful lot of people think I'm a freak because I'm a convinced Christian. So why should I care if someone thinks I'm a freak if I find a guy I'd like to spend my life with and we want to get marriage?

Being a freak is an honorable tradition in the U.S. It's a declaration that all men really are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, so we aren't prisoners of convention or public opinion or any other form of oppression.

So if I do decide to marry a guy, I'll go proudly with him to my swimming hole, naked and Ruger .357 on my hip, wearing my NRA cap and carrying my Bible, and while I'm there I'll pick up other people's trash and make the river more enjoyable for others -- and if anyone criticizes, I'll say I'm engaging in my constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of expression, which any decent American should admire and cheer for.

 

[KTheLibra]

but not the requirement.

If you are here to save all us queers from hell, then save it.

I am not interested in the discussion.

Finally, someone said it.

Personally, I could care less what the "majority" of Americans think. They're just as wrong now as the "majority" was back when they opposed interracial marriage. And I don't give a flying fuck whether they approve of me having equal rights or not, so long as I have them. I would be delighted to walk hand-in-hand with my husband past a sea of disapproving faces, waving merrily the whole time.

 

[Kulindahr]

Look to me, it doesn't matter one way or the other.

But personally, I would like to know that my country was on my side and not strongly disapprove of me or my marriage.

But right now, America clearly does not like it.

Well, America doesn't particularly approve of naturists, either.

Let them grow up.

 

[Kulindahr]

Finally, someone said it.

Personally, I could care less what the "majority" of Americans think. They're just as wrong now as the "majority" was back when they opposed interracial marriage. And I don't give a flying fuck whether they approve of me having equal rights or not, so long as I have them. I would be delighted to walk hand-in-hand with my husband past a sea of disapproving faces, waving merrily the whole time.

I was brought up to work from the presumption that if the majority believes it, it's suspect.

This is redundant venting, but I can't stand this shit anymore. I can't. Are we really this immature as a nation? I've argued with people that make all sorts of stupid points like comparing gay marriage to murder and child molestation and saying they can't marry because they can't have babies. It's insane.

And I love that people fool themselves into thinking they aren't hate mongers. "Not me! I support gay rights, just not marriage!" I hate it.

I hate that our country can't just grow up. It's not that big of a fucking deal. Why are we arguing over two consenting adults getting married? Shouldn't we be debating bigger issues? ARRGGGGGGHHHHHH

As to the children/babies part, I point out that in the Western Hemisphere there are tens of thousands of children in need of adoptive parents. Since heterosexual couples aren't taking them all, and some parents are better than no parents, gay married couples would be perfect for taking up the slack.

As for the child molestation bit, I respond that comparing homosexuality to child molestation is akin to comparing premarital sex to prostitution. Sometimes I point out that "biblical marriage" and prostitution have a lot in common: both come down to paying for sex (I haven't been punched for that yet....).

 

[bankside]

Calling a nation "christian" is like calling an envelope "marxist."

 

[MercuryJones]

This whole christian nation arguement infers that gays are immoral people. We are not.

It also implies that all Christians believe the same thing. But Christians are always fighting each other, so they obviously don't agree on everything. And same sex marriage is one of the things Christians disagree about.

 

[rareboy]

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

And Jefferson wasn't a doctinaire christian. And the other founding fathers did not prosyletize either. So by your rules, the majority outweighs the minority. And Jay was probably exactly why Jefferson entrenched the idea of separation of Church and State in the constitution....to prevent fundamentalists from turning the US into a theocratic and narrow society.

And Jefferson trumps Jay. Any day.

You should read 'Journey into America' to get a better understanding of how your founding fathers thought. It is an interesting read and god knows, you might learn something.

[ame="http://www.amazon.ca/Journey-into-America-Challenge-Islam/dp/0815703872"]Journey into America: The Challenge of Islam: Amazon.ca: Akbar Ahmed: Books[/ame]



Your country may have 75% of a population who self-identify as christian, but it does not make the US a christian nation.

 

[MercuryJones]

It takes people a long time to realize an injustice is going on, to gain that certain perspective.

I wonder what, in their lifetimes, the fucktards will say about their past opposition to equal rights?

Some, who never supported us a day in their lives, are already saying "Oh sure, I think civil unions are fine, but marriage is too much". What will they say in 10 years? How will they revise their own history? Will they say "I thought marriage rights were needed"?

 

[MercuryJones]

The difference today, JockBoy, is the internet including YouTube, which makes it so easy to prove they are lying.

On the other hand, they lie anyway - just as McCain says he never said he was a "maverick", despite the footage of him saying just that.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Okay, I have some questions if anyone cares to answer them.

The US Supreme Court should rule in a 9-0 opinion in favor of Judge Walker's ruling right? I mean, if it "really" is what the constitution and the law says, then why would they not give a 9-0 opinion?

Can I now marry my brother??? The judge said that we have a "constitutional right" to marry who we want. So....can I marry my brother?

(Actually I don't have a brother, but if I did and if he was hot like I'm sure he would be, then could I?)

I'm just asking you guys questions here that's all. This is a fair open discussion board as far as I know. I'm not trying to make everyone mad.

Then come prepared and be able to ask some questions that are relevant to the discussion.

You can find most of the answers to your question about this issue written here:

Prop 8 Ruling FINAL

It's clear that none of the blow hard talking heads, and the Proponents of Prop 8 and those who support keeping us second class citizens even bothered.

 

[laikaNYC]

He didn't write the constitution and Thomas Jefferson argued long-after that the we were not a Christian nation and there was a wall between church and state. So for your one example, I can provide you many that argue we are not a "Christian nation."

Also, just because a majority of the population believes in one book written by people thousands of years ago, doesn't mean the whole nation is Christian. That's the beauty of the first amendment, we have the freedom to worship anything that we want.

Just because we're a Christian nation doesn't mean who have to govern as one. I could provide you many more that argued we were indeed a nation founded by deeply religious men.

 

[laikaNYC]

Can I now marry my brother??? The judge said that we have a "constitutional right" to marry who we want. So....can I marry my brother?.

Good point. You could also say that now I should have the right to marry numerous people. Or now I have the right to marry a horse.

 

[MercuryJones]

Can I now marry my brother??? The judge said that we have a "constitutional right" to marry who we want. So....can I marry my brother?

I'll answer you as soon as you point out where exactly Judge Walker says "we have a 'constitutional right' to marry who we want".

 

[BostonPirate]

Okay.... so Centexfarmer and Razorsedge88 have dodged my questions.

Anyone else???

no you cannot marry your brother... but maybe if you ask Shia Le Boeuf the next time you are flying with him, he could give you a bettter answer.

They answered alright...

so I will answer directly....

the question is childish, and the motive smacks of an antigay agenda, that which put together with all the whopper threads youve made up all over JUB means, quite frankly, that they don't really seem to take you seriously.

 

[laikaNYC]

no you cannot marry your brother... but maybe if you ask Shia Le Boeuf the next time you are flying with him, he could give you a bettter answer.

They answered alright...

so I will answer directly....

the question is childish, and the motive smacks of an antigay agenda, that which put together with all the whopper threads youve made up all over JUB means, quite frankly, that they don't really seem to take you seriously.

Why shouldn't he hypothetically be able to marry his brother? Who are you to say no?

 

[MercuryJones]

Is it any shock at all to see laika and coolkid - if in fact they are even two different people - arguing against equal rights for gay people with such falsehoods?

 

[BostonPirate]

I cannot believe that there are people here on this site, a gay porn site arguing that gay marriage should not exist.

I think this is pathetic

that these trolls are allowed to pretend to be here for any other reason but disruption is ludicrous at this point.

 

[laikaNYC]

Is it any shock at all to see laika and coolkid - if in fact they are even two different people - arguing against equal rights for gay people with such falsehoods?

Tell me why it's a falsehood. Go ahead.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Okay.... so Centexfarmer and Razorsedge88 have dodged my questions.

Anyone else???

How many different ways do you want to have your questions answered?

Kulindahr give you a really good answer to many of your questions in this very thread.

You can scroll back to post #160 of this very thread, or click on this link here: Kulindahr's post #160 to read (presumedly) once again what was stated.

If you're going to dog this discussion at least bring something more to the table than stupid and ill-advised questions.

 

[laikaNYC]

I cannot believe that there are people here on this site, a gay porn site arguing that gay marriage should not exist.

I think this is pathetic

that these trolls are allowed to pretend to be here for any other reason but disruption is ludicrous at this point.

Don't put words in my mouth. Did I say it should not exist? I sure as hell did not. What I said is that if we are allowed then what's stopping everyone else from making the same case that we've made to justify something like polygamy and beastiality.