# FUCK PROPOSITION 8 (yeah, you know it would be me who made this thread...)



## E Lucevan Le Stelle (Nov 5, 2008)

Election Results - November 4, 2008 - California Secretary of State

Just because you've elected a black President doesn't mean you have the right to get your inner bigot on against a more "socially acceptable" target. I know a woman who married her girlfriend in California 2 weeks ago, and talked to her on the phone last night in tears while she waited for a bunch of rednecks, religious nuts and the "moral majority" to wreck the happiest moment of her life just because they want to inflict their petty hatreds on other people...

This one's for everyone who voted "yes" on Proposition 8, from the Mormon family who donated their entire life savings after deciding that being bigots was more important than sending their kids to college, to all those who showed their two-faced attitude by voting for Obama while still taking their prejudices out on another minority group...


----------



## kristallin (Nov 5, 2008)

Fucking shame that passed, I'd have thought Californians were more enlightened than that.


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (Nov 5, 2008)

That's a rotten cancer on an otherwise good night


----------



## Zepp88 (Nov 5, 2008)

It actually passed?


----------



## Clydefrog (Nov 5, 2008)

I was predicting in the weeks following up to the election that this would pass. I lived in California for 20 years, and despite knowing how liberal it is, knew how deep the anti-gay marriage movement ran.

That said, I haven't lived there for going on five years now and had hoped things had changed there, but I was pretty sure they hadn't.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Nov 5, 2008)

I give it 20 years. Unfortunately. But by then, I think most people will have become more enlightened.


----------



## Nick (Nov 5, 2008)

fail


----------



## Naren (Nov 5, 2008)

Gah... It passed?


----------



## auxioluck (Nov 5, 2008)

Whaaat?

I didn't even have a doubt that this would not pass. I'm shocked this passed.


----------



## Scoop_89 (Nov 5, 2008)

If gay couples want to marry they can come to Sweden. As far as I know we support same sex marriage here. At least I do!


----------



## zimbloth (Nov 5, 2008)

Back off original poster. "We" didn't do shit, take it up with California. My state allows gay marriage. 

Frankly, the Obama thing is too important to get caught up in this right now. Baby steps man, baby steps...

Also you can tell your friend to stop crying, her marriage isn't going to be nullified. There's no retroactive banning in this amendment.


----------



## E Lucevan Le Stelle (Nov 5, 2008)

zimbloth said:


> Back off original poster. "We" didn't do shit, take it up with California. My state allows gay marriage.
> 
> Frankly, the Obama thing is too important to get caught up in this right now. Baby steps man, baby steps...
> 
> Also you can tell your friend to stop crying, her marriage isn't going to be nullified. There's no retroactive banning in this amendment.



Calm down, I was addressing it to the fuckups who voted for this crap.

As for whether it's retroactive, that's unknown as present and will be a matter for the courts to decide. Expect a mass of lawsuits.


----------



## FYP666 (Nov 5, 2008)

Scoop_89 said:


> If gay couples want to marry they can come to Sweden. As far as I know we support same sex marriage here. At least I do!



Yeah, everybody i know here in Finland is always saying that Swedish men are gay  Well, you have a point there


----------



## canuck brian (Nov 5, 2008)

Come to Canada. 

I was pretty surprised at this too. It's a faction of people that gathered names and support and managed to get it passed democratically. It's shitty that it did pass, but that's the way it goes.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Nov 5, 2008)

Not another state... 

This is fail incarnate.


----------



## ibznorange (Nov 5, 2008)

It passed here too 

totally unconstitutional. the only tie between marriage and gender is religion. even social precedent is all based on religion and bigotry. Even in court, where precedent reigns, precedent would tell you slaves are ok. 

the only tie being religious, gender should be separate from marriage laws


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Nov 5, 2008)

Can someone please tell me what the fuck they think they're saving marriage from? I'm not getting it. I don't think I can grasp this concept.


----------



## Krankguitarist (Nov 5, 2008)

It was an extremely sour note on what was otherwise happy night. I'm still outraged at the simple fact that it got on the ballot. Not to mention the lies and misdirection from the yes on 8 camp's advertisements.

In 50 years it won't matter. We'll look back on it like we do now on interracial marriage bans and think "what the fuck were we thinking?". It saddens me that we're stuck in this mentality for the time being though.


----------



## garthfluff (Nov 5, 2008)

1 step forward. 2 steps back. I really can't comprehend this.


----------



## TonalArchitect (Nov 5, 2008)

I didn't think this would pass. 

This is a point of shame.


----------



## D-EJ915 (Nov 5, 2008)

similar measures passed in florida and arizona as well


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Nov 6, 2008)

D-EJ915 said:


> similar measures passed in florida and arizona as well



Well yeah, Florida, with it's unbelievably high quota of old geezers, I can see. That actually doesn't surprise me one bit. No sarcasm, dead serious.

Arizona, well?  I've never really heard anything about it until this year, and I still only know that McCain is a senator from it. That's the extent of my knowledge.


----------



## ILdÐÆMcº³ (Nov 6, 2008)

I don't understand hoe you can vote to take someones rights away and discriminate against them. Your rights end where another persons begins. 

My favorite is this one... 

Arkansas Initiative 1:Ban on Gay Couples Adopting Children
 
What is wrong with people?


----------



## psychoticsnoman (Nov 6, 2008)

ILdÐÆMcº³;1266292 said:


> I don't understand hoe you can vote to take someones rights away and discriminate against them. Your rights end where another persons begins.
> 
> My favorite is this one...
> 
> ...



WTF !! scroll down on that page and look at washington.

and we had something like this in CT but i haven't heard much of it, sucks people have to feel the need to run other peoples lives and judge them by their personal preferences.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Nov 7, 2008)

Can someone explain this "sanctity of marriage" bullshit?

You can marry anyone of opposite gender whether you even know them or not, which has been proven by several drunks in las vegas

You can marry your adopted kids 

You can marry mail order brides and immigrants for the sole purpose of keeping them in the country

You can marry kids to escape being busted for sexual misconduct with a minor (Jerry Lee Lewis married his once removed 13 year old cousin)

There was actually a case at one point where someone legally married an animal (Obviously it didn't last long, but somehow the guy did it)

You can marry just because you knocked a chick up and the parents are making you,no love there.

Some gay men in denial marry women, even father children, yet sleep with men, bringing home diseases and ruining the family when it finally gets out.

But yet gay people getting married to one another ruins some aspect of marriage? Right.


----------



## DavyH (Nov 7, 2008)

Are they saving marriage as an institution or just keeping the divorce rate up?

I strongly doubt gay couples jump into marriage as fast as their straight counterparts (from a once-divorced hetero).


----------



## Cancer (Nov 7, 2008)

Y'know, I would have bet serious money that Proposition 8 would not have passed TO CA.. Glad I didn't . The chance will come around again. Patience.


----------



## SymmetricScars (Nov 7, 2008)

I voted no on prop 8 and I feel very strongly about it. I'm not gay myself, but have several friends who are. It's just wrong on so many levels, and people don't seem to understand that


----------



## Jachop (Nov 12, 2008)

Sanctity of marriage my ass. More like sanctity of the opinions of bitter, falsely smiling, bigot neighbours that mowe their lawn way to often while peeking over the fence.  Bullshit.


----------



## errnestoo (Nov 12, 2008)

meh, nothing'll change with regards to gay rights until the gays in red states like arkansas start coming out doing what the gays in San Fran are doing. Its too easy to sweep under the rug of public opinion when it just a "liberal blue state" problem.


----------



## bulletbass man (Nov 12, 2008)

Whats worse is that State Supreme Court already made a ruling basically saying that Cali couldn't really make laws regarding gay marriage (basically said they couldn't make it either legal or illegal.) It's an utter shame that prop 8 was even allowed to be made. And it's unlikely now that calis supreme court can try to rule it unconstitutionial (or that the US Supreme court would try to put thier hands into things, though they are somewhat conservative anyways) And with a passing of prop 8 in one of the most liberal states in the US it's unlikely more conservative states are going to make laws for gay marriage. And even more unfortunately may try to pass laws against it.

Personally I can't stand this type of shit. A friend of mine is openly gay. I have gotten into some nearly violent fights in helping him defend himself (He's of rather small build and is far from athletic or strong). Just like I can't stand all the Obama's a muslim bull shit. This election has shown how behind America really is. And all the bullshit I have to hear of people saying they hope that the president elect is assassinated has made me furious. How many people have tried to say Obama only won due to minority vote. Well speaking the large majority (well over 70&#37; in most states) of the highly educated vote Obama. By thier reason I guess only the stupid voted for McCain. So his middle name is Hussein. McCains middle name is Sydney (which imo is a very femimine name) so I guess by this logic McCain is a transexual (which I have nothing against but say this strictly for this arguement) I can't stand all this bullshit nearly entirely resulting from strictly ideological arguements. Thier is no logic or reason at all that says you are being affected by the color of someone's skin or whom they chose to marry. 

Bah perhaps it's because I'm no longer religous (largely due to the fact I rather believe in my own morals rather than someone elses) that I don't understand why people always must need everyone around them to believe in the same things that they do. And that those who don't (excluding murders, rapists, etc.) must be punished or disregarded for not doing so. What's also terrible is how this is going to effect those already married.


----------



## DanD (Nov 12, 2008)




----------



## sworth9411 (Nov 12, 2008)

Its really unfortunate that there are still so many Bigots, and assholes in this world. The Yes on 8 capaighn was slanderous, misleading (two men holding hands on TV telling you to vots yes on 8 are you f*cking kidding me?) and full of hate. They also had nearly 40 million (no exageration) in funding versus the only 8 or so for the no on 8.

It makes me sick, but it is at least a step in the right direction. It was just suprising to me how many people supported it....makes me sad for their shallow pathetic lives.


----------



## bulletbass man (Nov 12, 2008)

sworth9411 said:


> Its really unfortunate that there are still so many Bigots, and assholes in this world. The Yes on 8 capaighn was slanderous, misleading (two men holding hands on TV telling you to vots yes on 8 are you f*cking kidding me?) and full of hate. They also had nearly 40 million (no exageration) in funding versus the only 8 or so for the no on 8.
> 
> It makes me sick, but it is at least a step in the right direction. It was just suprising to me how many people supported it....makes me sad for their shallow pathetic lives.


 

The Bush campaign did the exact type of bullshit with John Kerry. Simply because he did not oppose gay marriage they threw countless ads of gay couples (primarily men for obvious reasons) on tv and told basically said voting for Kerry meant destroying thier religion. Which is utter bullshit.

by the way FUCK Blackwell


----------



## wannabguitarist (Nov 13, 2008)

DanD said:


>




I was about to post this video. I've tried arguing this point of view with people and they just don't get it...

"It can't be love! My God doesn't allow it!"


----------



## willith (Nov 13, 2008)

E Lucevan Le Stelle said:


> Election Results - November 4, 2008 - California Secretary of State
> 
> Just because you've elected a black President doesn't mean you have the right to get your inner bigot on against a more "socially acceptable" target. I know a woman who married her girlfriend in California 2 weeks ago, and talked to her on the phone last night in tears while she waited for a bunch of rednecks, religious nuts and the "moral majority" to wreck the happiest moment of her life just because they want to inflict their petty hatreds on other people...
> 
> This one's for everyone who voted "yes" on Proposition 8, from the Mormon family who donated their entire life savings after deciding that being bigots was more important than sending their kids to college, to all those who showed their two-faced attitude by voting for Obama while still taking their prejudices out on another minority group...



lol, you know obama publicly stated that (while he is for civil unions) he is AGAINST gay marriage, right? (Same-sex Marriage - Issues - Election Center 2008 - CNN.com)
So if I read you right and apply the same logic- technically those who voted for obama (knowing his stance on gay marriage) weren't being two-faced.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Nov 13, 2008)

Willith - do you have to debate and argue with everyone? *sigh*

It's a good point, but goddamn man, you don't need to turn everything into a verbal joust. He's just making a point, so you don't need to deconstruct his view, when essentially, it misses the point of his post in the first place - that of selective discrimination.


----------



## willith (Nov 13, 2008)

The Dark Wolf said:


> It's a good point




Thanks, I know. I don't debate everyone- it just seems like I do because (I get the impression that) all the dissenting opinions have been silenced- one way or another. I see it all over my campus too- and it's pathetic. People afraid to voice their opinions because of SEVERE backlash.
I deserve my say just as much as anyone else who DISAGREES or has a disagreeing opinion with all 4 pages of this thread. If I catch them on something (especially something they weren't even aware of) then I'd be doing them a disservice by not bringing it to their attention. Anytime you (if) watch FOXNEWS, CNN, MSNBC, etc. during primetime, what do you always see? People arguing. Politics=arguing. I don't know why it comes as such a shock to see people disagreeing and arguing here in the politics section of the board.



You're so quick to jump in to their defense and I don't know why. Is it such a bad idea to let them fend for themselves?




edit: Proof of nobody voicing a dissenting opinion here? I'm obviously not the only one who thinks this way...


----------



## E Lucevan Le Stelle (Nov 13, 2008)

willith said:


> lol, you know obama publicly stated that (while he is for civil unions) he is AGAINST gay marriage, right? (Same-sex Marriage - Issues - Election Center 2008 - CNN.com)
> So if I read you right and apply the same logic- technically those who voted for obama (knowing his stance on gay marriage) weren't being two-faced.



...

Yes, I know that, and I also know that it would be political suicide for any Presidential candidate to support gay marriage or even gay rights in general. I'm not dumb enough to even think that it'll be a politically acceptable position to take across the USA in my lifetime...

I was merely making a point about people talking about demonstrating their accepting attitudes and "an end to discrimination" by electing Obama while still being perfectly happy to be bigots against a more socially acceptable target... as I said in my original post... 

[Edit]

For the guys who neg repped me for my post... GET SOME FUCKING BALLS AND SAY SOMETHING, RATHER THAN TAKING LITTLE ANONYMOUS JABS.


----------



## willith (Nov 13, 2008)

E Lucevan Le Stelle said:


> ...
> 
> Yes, I know that, and I also know that it would be political suicide for any Presidential candidate to support gay marriage or even gay rights in general. I'm not dumb enough to even think that it'll be a politically acceptable position to take across the USA in my lifetime...
> 
> I was merely making a point about people talking about demonstrating their accepting attitudes and "an end to discrimination" by electing Obama while still being perfectly happy to be bigots against a more socially acceptable target... as I said in my original post...



Ok, but how does voting for obama make them bigots? I would say the overwhelming majority of people I know that voted for him are for gay marriage. How do you classify them?

My friend's sister out in LA is a republican- didn't vote for obama, but DOES support gay marriage (yes voted) because of her/our friend. Is she a bigot because she's a Republican?


When I think of a bigot, I think of the dictionary.com definition: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
...And that doesn't remind you of anyone? Gotta say...havn't seen ONE non-derogatory remark about republicans and conservatives prop 8 supporters here. Nothing but "bigots" "assholes" "hate" "slanderers" etc. etc. Nothing strikes you as hypocritical in that?


----------



## E Lucevan Le Stelle (Nov 13, 2008)

willith said:


> Ok, but how does voting for obama make them bigots? I would say the overwhelming majority of people I know that voted for him are for gay marriage. How do you classify them?
> 
> My friend's sister out in LA is a republican- didn't vote for obama, but DOES support gay marriage (yes voted) because of her/our friend. Is she a bigot because she's a Republican?
> 
> ...



I didn't imply that voting for Obama makes them bigots, I'm saying that people who claim America's attitude to groups who fundamentally suffer from a lot of discrimination has somehow changed just cause they elected a black President.

The only bigotry involved in Obama's election was on the part of -certain- elements of the Republican Party, namely the redneck/"I AIN'T VOTING FOR NO NEGRO" crowd. Most Republicans aren't racists, but most racists are Republican.

As for what I'm claiming bigotry about... supporting Proposition 8 and generally being against equal rights for gay people is plain bigotry, pure and simple. What part of "equal protections under the law" don't you get? As for the religious angle... I'm happy to support people's rights to practice their religion; where it steps WAY THE FUCK OVER THE LINE is when they choose to try to dictate the way other people (who may well be of a different religion or even not religious at all) can live their lives. The Mormons can fuck RIGHT off for that.


----------



## Zepp88 (Nov 13, 2008)

Willith you're missing the point...

As a country we've come so far as to elect a black man as President, and discrimination against blacks is widely looked down on. The hippocrisy here is that it's "okay" to look down on and discriminate against gay people. It's wrong, it's hippocritical, and against what this country is all about. America is supposed to be a haven for people desiring freedom from discrimination.



On The Statue of Liberty said:


> Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
> With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
> Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
> A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
> ...



This is why our ancestors came here.


----------



## willith (Nov 13, 2008)

Zepp88 said:


> Willith you're missing the point...
> 
> As a country we've come so far as to elect a black man as President, and discrimination against blacks is widely looked down on. The hippocrisy here is that it's "okay" to look down on and discriminate against gay people. It's wrong, it's hippocritical, and against what this country is all about. America is supposed to be a haven for people desiring freedom from discrimination.
> 
> ...




No, I think you're missing the point. My initial statement was , in a nutshell, "are you sure you really want to label these people as bigots?--Many of them actually support gay marriage."

With the exception of OP's last statement, there is an overwhelming feeling of anti-CHRISTIAN or anti-religion practices here. There seems to be a consensus among 7string.org posters in this thread is that- "religious bigots" are to _blame_ for prop 8.


Let's not forget- marriage came to be through religion. It's not a RIGHT. Let's not go off on tangents about "equal this" and "equal that"- this was a proposition about marriage first and foremost. You were campaigning against peoples religions, not against their "bigotry". You're trying to uproot, in some cases, over 5,000 years of peoples history. 

This isn't the first time gay marriage or gay rights have been an issue in this or the last Millennia- so they're not going to "eventually get it" if that's what you're hoping for. If you're familiar with the Roman Empire (rise, decline and fall of) you'll understand why some people aren't so "hip to get it".


----------



## Zepp88 (Nov 13, 2008)

The government should not be weighing in on a religious issue either.

Also, they deserve marriage rights just as everyone else.


----------



## arktan (Nov 13, 2008)

willith said:


> If you're familiar with the Roman Empire (rise, decline and fall of) you'll understand why some people aren't so "hip to get it".





So you're saying that those guys who studied Roman history, society, law, warfare and so on are for prop8?
Please explain that a bit more because now it sounds like gay people brought down the Roman empire. I just can't buy that, just no


----------



## Thrashmanzac (Nov 13, 2008)

this is what happens when religion dictates the law imo. call me a anti christian if you like, i welcome the term. imo bigotry is born of religion. if there wasn't books that millions of people take as fact (or something close to it) that say this person should be killed/mamed/tortured forever for being differant then many of these problems (gay rights) would not be an issue.
neg rep me if you like, but thats my opinion.


----------



## Scali (Nov 13, 2008)

Very late into the debate, but I think the topicstarter simply meant to say that some people feel like "Okay, I've done the politically correct thing by voting for Obama, now I've earned the right to discriminate in another way".
So they traded racism for anti-homosexuality. They're still filled with hate and intolerance, so well, they're still bigots.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Nov 13, 2008)

Scali said:


> Very late into the debate, but I think the topicstarter simply meant to say that some people feel like "Okay, I've done the politically correct thing by voting for Obama, now I've earned the right to discriminate in another way".
> So they traded racism for anti-homosexuality. They're still filled with hate and intolerance, so well, they're still bigots.



Someone gets it.

Willith - please, spare us the drama. I've said it before, I'll say it again - if you're so unhappy with the posting habits of our membership, then why the hell do you post here? To start fights and argue? To "enlighten" us? That's borderline trolling, if it's the case. You're entitled to your opinion, and as long as you present it respectfully, you're fine (which was an issue with you previously, although you've been pretty good lately). But I don't hang around evangelical republican forums, or even forums that have that kind of political inclination, because all I'd likely be doing, if politics is discussed in any sort of depth, is arguing with people. 

There's a difference between disagreeing with people, and finding yourself having a disparaging opinion of basically everyone in a site's membership. Arguing at that point is basically useless, especially if, as I said, you not only disagree with the vast majority of posters, but you also hold them in low esteem. As seems to be the case with you, regarding us. Yes, we tend to be fairly socially liberal here. Yes, we are pretty damned open-minded. Yes, by-and-large, we support things like gay marriage. Just claiming marriage is not a right does not make it so. By your logic, since the state and the church in the American South were against it, just 1 generation ago - a scant 40 years - my fiance, who is black, and myself, who is white, would not have any right to marry. And there's a very long, well-established "tradition" of ethnic separation amongst peoples.

Doesn't make it right.


----------



## Randy (Nov 13, 2008)

Scali said:


> Very late into the debate, but I think the topicstarter simply meant to say that some people feel like "Okay, I've done the politically correct thing by voting for Obama, now I've earned the right to discriminate in another way".
> So they traded racism for anti-homosexuality. They're still filled with hate and intolerance, so well, they're still bigots.



Well said, and totally true from what I've seen thus far.


----------



## bulletbass man (Nov 13, 2008)

The goverment have any right to say what marriages are legal and what are not. They do have the right over to instill laws regarding civil unions (whether the people do or do not agree with them) but Marriage is union strictly on the social and religous level. It's my view that as long as the couple can find a priest or someone with a marriage liscence to marry them than they have the right to be married. Whether they have a civil union in the goverment's eyes is an entirely different matter. (Many states allow civil unions to both unmarried heterosexual couples as well as homosexual couples)

In fact no one other those whom marry and those who wish to be married do. I cannot go up to Darkwolf and tell him he may not be married due to the color of his fiances skin. (nor would I ever). How can legislation say a man cannot marry a man or a woman cannot marry a woman. Prop 8 must be shut down by the supreme court (it's legislation it self directly conflicts with a previous ruleing at Californias state supreme court).


----------



## willith (Nov 14, 2008)

The Dark Wolf said:


> But I don't hang around evangelical republican forums, or even forums that have that kind of political inclination, because all I'd likely be doing, if politics is discussed in any sort of depth, is arguing with people.



Well, believe it or not, I didn't come here for political insight- I came here the same reason everyone else did. You happen to have a politics forum...so why not? 
The bodybuilding.com forums have a MUSIC forum- I certainly don't frequent that board for any music reasons- but it's there, so again, I occasionally contribute. They've also got a politics section (which is heavily deregulated) which is nothing but insults left and right. Over there, it's just the internet...nobody gets butt-hurt (no pun intended).



*Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.*

I'm not aware of anything in the bible about marriage between people with different levels of melanin, so that is completely irrelevant. (pre-response:yes it is) The Old Testament told the Israelites not to be involved with pagans, heathens, idol worshipers, etc.- ...perhaps this is what you're thinking of?


_A person should be judged by his or her character, not by skin color. All of us should be careful not to show favoritism to some, nor be prejudiced or racial to others (James 2:1-10, see especially verses 1 and 9). A Christian man or woman's standard for selecting a mate should always be to find out if the person they are interested in is a Christian (2 Corinthians 6:14), someone who is born again by faith in Jesus Christ (John 3:3-5). Faith in Christ, not skin color, is the Biblical standard for choosing a spouse. Interracial marriage is not a matter of right or wrong, but of wisdom, discernment, and prayer.

_Just sayin'....


----------



## Scali (Nov 14, 2008)

willith said:


> Let's not forget- marriage came to be through religion. It's not a RIGHT.


 
That's not what this article says:
History of Marriage

Considering the social importance of marriage, I wouldn't be surprised if the concept is older than religion itself.
I would say that in the broad sense it is indeed a right that two people choose to share their lives together romantically.
And I think in modern society it should also be a right that other people (and the state) will acknowledge this bond.

Also, don't make the mistake of thinking there is only one religion. Even in the US there are many different types of religions, and different forms of marriage.
In modern society it is accepted that people choose their own religion, or even abstain from any religion altogether.
So 'no religion' should have the same status as 'religion', it's a form of religion. Therefore people who aren't religious should still have the same rights (at least in society and the state, obviously religions don't have to grant rights to people that don't practice that religion, in a way it's just a membership of a club, which grants you the rights of that club).

Hence, two people should be able to get a valid married status if they so choose. That's just the logical thing in our Western culture of tolerance, individualism, freedom, respect, equality, and all that.
Saying "You can't marry because you're homosexual" is no different than saying "You can't marry because you're black".
Some people just happen to be homosexual, just as some people happen to be black. That doesn't mean they're any less than other people, or that they cannot have the same rights.


----------



## DavyH (Nov 14, 2008)

There's more to this than the religious aspect.

Secular laws have supplanted religious laws worldwide (in the most part); marriage affords more legal protections than religious protections and is still considered a stable basis for child-rearing (another kettle of fish, and one that has no place here), adoption, and division of assets.

This last is important. I'm not sure what the legal status of life partners is in the US or UK, but I would imagine not as strong as that of spouses? That being the case, two committed people, _irrespective of gender or sexual inclination_ should be entitled to exactly the same protections as anyone else when dividing an estate or inheriting.

That's the humane approach. Religion is used as an excuse by the majority of naysayers, but it is most certainly not a valid excuse for treating anyone as of lesser value simply because of their differences.

Proposition 8 is immoral in that it purposely discriminates against a real and valid section of society. It introduces religious mores into what is and should remain a purely secular matter.

Edit: Scali you beat me to the point. More eloquently, too!


----------



## Thrashmanzac (Nov 14, 2008)

willith said:


> Well, believe it or not, I didn't come here for political insight- I came here the same reason everyone else did. You happen to have a politics forum...so why not?
> The bodybuilding.com forums have a MUSIC forum- I certainly don't frequent that board for any music reasons- but it's there, so again, I occasionally contribute. They've also got a politics section (which is heavily deregulated) which is nothing but insults left and right. Over there, it's just the internet...nobody gets butt-hurt (no pun intended).
> 
> 
> ...




so if a gay couple were baptized they could get married?
if they both had a fantastic "faith in christ" then you wouldnt mind?
or would they be considered abominations?
imo if two people of the same sex love each other, then whats the fucking problem?
oh and thanks for the lovely quotes. here is one i really like;
" i like your christ, i do not like your christians. your christians are so unlike your christ" -ghandi.




Scali said:


> That's not what this article says:
> History of Marriage
> 
> Considering the social importance of marriage, I wouldn't be surprised if the concept is older than religion itself.
> ...



+1


----------



## Scali (Nov 14, 2008)

I think the problem is the paradox that is religion. Most religions are based around what their God (or Gods) deem as right or wrong, virtue or sin, and all that.
This worked fine in the past, when groups of people living together would all practice the same religion.
However, when two different religions meet, both sides think that their values are right, because their God told them so. And the values of another God don't mean anything to someone who worships a different God.

Basically, if I'm not religious, what do I care if some old book claims that some God (who I don't believe exists in the first place) says I cannot be homosexual? It doesn't mean anything to me, and you shouldn't expect it to mean anything to me.

And that's why religion and state/law should be strictly separated. A common concept in the Western world. Not so much in the Middle East...


----------



## Thrashmanzac (Nov 14, 2008)

Scali said:


> I think the problem is the paradox that is religion. Most religions are based around what their God (or Gods) deem as right or wrong, virtue or sin, and all that.
> This worked fine in the past, when groups of people living together would all practice the same religion.
> However, when two different religions meet, both sides think that their values are right, because their God told them so. And the values of another God don't mean anything to someone who worships a different God.
> 
> ...



conpletely agree
i think relegion becomes a problem when people start trying to force their beleifs onto others, and i bet alot of those people that supported prop 8 did so on religious grounds


----------



## bulletbass man (Nov 14, 2008)

It's not just religion though. Sure it's the fanatics (religous or secular) that start something like prop 8. But it's the normal people who only are slightly wierded out by homosexuals or simply don't feel affected personally so don't care enough to vote against it is the real problem. The fanatics of both sides cancel out each other. It's the ones that mildly lean one way or don't lean either way which allows something to pass.

As for the clashing of ideas I have a firm believe that people have a primal instict to defend them selves, all animals do. However humans are the only ones with enough intellect to create strong ideaolical beliefs. When they feel not necessarily themselves but thier beliefs are threatened they either ignore it and walk away, fear it and run away, verbally threaten the other party (similar to growling in a sense) or physically defends thier beliefs. Of course many simply do not have deep ideological beliefs (myself for example) but prefer a world that runs on logic and reason. Either way to be strongly against religion is just as bad as being strongly for it. People should just find thier own path and be content with others having a different one. But for some reason humanity can't grasp this concept.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Nov 14, 2008)

willith said:


> Well, believe it or not, I didn't come here for political insight- I came here the same reason everyone else did. You happen to have a politics forum...so why not?
> The bodybuilding.com forums have a MUSIC forum- I certainly don't frequent that board for any music reasons- but it's there, so again, I occasionally contribute. They've also got a politics section (which is heavily deregulated) which is nothing but insults left and right. Over there, it's just the internet...nobody gets butt-hurt (no pun intended).


I guess you won't get "butt-hurt" when you're banned. Again.

Guess what, though, 'brah?' This isn't the bodybuilding.com forum. 


You joke. I joke.  That post was unique for you - it was fairly respectful. I see you're learning. Keep that up, and you might just make it.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Nov 15, 2008)

As far as the religious aspect goes, we all know these people aren't about God and his actual views. They are working towards what they themselves view as right. The bible also says that God's followers are not members of this society since the world is basically given to Satan "The world is laying in the power of the wicked one". Your job as a "christian" is to preach the word of God, act as a proper follower of christ and wait for GOD's justice to be administered by GOD..It doesn't say take matters in your own hands. The whole point of Christianity is to be christ like and wait for God's vengeance to be exacted on the wicked. I don't see anywhere in the bible where it says vote against things you don't like, and in more dramatic cases (not saying all christians do) blow up abortion clinics,pickett gay related functions (weddings, funerals) and the other whacked out things they seem to do.
Have we also forgotten- Let he who is without sin cast the first stone
OR my fav- Do not worry about the splinter in your brother's eye, worry about the rafter in your own

Does anyone notice these supposed christians can quote the bible up and down but it never does them any good because they're the most sinning bigoted people you ever want to meet? This whole gay marriage thing is the same. If you REALLY want to worry about the high standards of "marriage" then why are you only against this aspect? And wouldn't God take care of it himself? He did with Sodom & Gomoorah.

Since we're on the topic. Has anyone really explained WHY homosexuality was wrong? And don't give me "because god said so". And don't give me the "unnatural" bullshit because animals do it all the time with or without the opposite sex present. So why exactly is it so bad?

So once we establish that religion isn't exactly cast iron, and is taken out of the equation, what else are we left with as ammo for the anti-gay nonsense other than "Ewww..fags are nasty"?

The REAL reason these people are against gay marriage? Because they truely amd honestly believe that Gays have an agenda to make themselves seem acceptable so that they can make others gay, especially children and demoralize the world. They used to say that, but it fell out of favor when gays became more accepted in society so they had to use something else to not sound like the Crosstitutes they are. This is why you always hear them whining about they don't want their children reading textbooks saying a man married another man, or they don't want their children seeing women getting married to one another. Always the CHILDREN.

Mind you people thought long ago the rock'n'roll music was the Negro ploy to turn white kids into hooligans, a big reason many were out for Elvis so bad. They saw him and many others as the stealth bomber of the movement, who because of his skin could go where blacks couldn't so he could spread the "filth" to white kids on their turf.

And the EXACT same reasons these people give for being against gay marriage are the reasons they gave some time back for being against interracial marriage.

The basic idea of this? Mind your own business. Gay marriage doesn't actually effect you. Without stereotypes and fear, these people have no logical reason to be against it.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Nov 16, 2008)

Im all for gay marriage, it just means theres less competition


----------



## Thrashmanzac (Nov 16, 2008)

Stealthtastic said:


> Im all for gay marriage, it just means theres less competition



 +1


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Nov 17, 2008)

Thrashmanzac said:


> +1







its true.


----------



## Daemoniac (Nov 18, 2008)




----------



## JerkyChid (Nov 24, 2008)

I still can't get over this! I can see it in the backwater area I live in but CALIFORNIA?!!! WTF?!



Well at least it gives me an excuse to tell my girlfriend "No hunny, we're not ever gettin married til gays can marry too. It's only right"


----------



## FlyingBanana (Nov 25, 2008)

You know....I would love to post my opinions on homosexuality. However, because of the anger directed at all the so-called bigots that voted yes on prop 8, I'll refrain at this time.

My reasoning is simple. Let's look at the two sides in the fight for and against gay rights.

On the one side, we have protesters in favor of prop 8 denouncing gay rights and claiming that the sanctity of marriage should remain between a man and woman. These protesters were relatively calm and mature about things.

On the other side of the fence...we have protesters against prop 8 and in favor of gay marriage. These protesters have been completely and utterly insolent and vulgar in their defense of their gay lifestyle....shoving that crap down everyone else's throat. That is just sick and wrong.

That is what pisses me off about the whole thing. If you are a man and love man hole then keep it to yourself and stop antagonizing everyone who disagrees with you. We all have a right to our opinions. and the majority of the voters decided over the issue. You still can corn hole each other in your studio apt in Silverlake until 6 am....if you want.

All I ask is that you who practice this lifestyle and support it remain civil and mature and private about how you handle it; in the same way that mature people who disagree with that kind of lifestyle shouldn't condemn and attack gays, the gays and their devoted supporters shouldn't continually try and cram their homosexual ideals down the throats of those who oppose it through slandering and personal attacks on moral character when the very nature of being gay is still considered by most to be immoral in/of itself.

Just quit pushing the gay agenda on everyone else, and stop trying to make everyone agree with you. It's almost as if you know that what you are doing is wrong and are trying really way to hard to justify it all. 

Please don't flame me or neg rep me because I have opinions. You have opinions too, but I don't go around leaving anonymous hate rep for you.



Here it comes.


----------



## Scali (Nov 25, 2008)

FlyingBanana said:


> in the same way that mature people who disagree with that kind of lifestyle shouldn't condemn and attack gays, the gays and their devoted supporters shouldn't continually try and cram their homosexual ideals down the throats of those who oppose it through slandering and personal attacks on moral character


 
You have a point there, although I'm not too sure if you follow your own advice. You don't seem to speak about gay people (or even non-gay people supporting gay rights) with much respect.



FlyingBanana said:


> when the very nature of being gay is still considered by most to be immoral in/of itself.


 
Well, that might be true in the US, but not everywhere in the world.
Where does the idea come from that it would be immoral anyway? Religion? Who decides that?



FlyingBanana said:


> Just quit pushing the gay agenda on everyone else, and stop trying to make everyone agree with you.


 
Well, I think that's EXACTLY what you should be doing if you're trying to get enough votes together for something like this, which apparently failed.


----------



## Psyclapse (Nov 25, 2008)

FlyingBanana said:


> You know....I would love to post my opinions on homosexuality. However, because of the anger directed at all the so-called bigots that voted yes on prop 8, I'll refrain at this time.
> 
> My reasoning is simple. Let's look at the two sides in the fight for and against gay rights.
> 
> ...



The problem with that is that homosexuals were trying to stay under the radar and not "cram their homosexual ideals" down the throats of any unsuspecting anti-gay supporters. It was made an issue when they were told they're not allowed to get married because the Bible says so.

As long as homosexuals are allowed to "corn hole each other in [their] studio apt in Silverlake until 6 am" they should just be allowed to look the other way while religious nuts violently beat their kids until 6 AM... Live and let live, not dictate how to live.


----------



## antiochband (Nov 25, 2008)

I lived in Utah for 7 years and it was fucking awful. I was almost driven to suicide in high school because I was one of the few kids who wasn't mormon. Luckily I moved to Cali at the end of sophomore year. I shudder to think what could have happened.

Anyway, my point is that Mormons are huge assholes who shouldn't be taken seriously. You know why their churches are called "wards"? Because they all belong in mental institutions!


----------



## eleven59 (Nov 25, 2008)

By your logic, heterosexual couples should also keep their relationships private and indoors, heterosexual marriage should be outlawed, etc.

You can't tell homosexuals not to force their beliefs on you, since you're just forcing your beliefs on them.


----------



## bulletbass man (Nov 25, 2008)

FlyingBanana said:


> You know....I would love to post my opinions on homosexuality. However, because of the anger directed at all the so-called bigots that voted yes on prop 8, I'll refrain at this time.
> 
> My reasoning is simple. Let's look at the two sides in the fight for and against gay rights.
> 
> ...


 
You do have opinions. There is nothing wrong with that. However your choice in words was vulgar, distasteful, and far from mature. To use a stereotype saying that all gays live in studio apartments and simply cornhole each other all night is just as wrong as to say that all people for prop 8 are biggots which live in trailer homes and attend weekly KKK meetings. They are not asking for everyone to agree with them. They are not asking for everyone to pickup up a gay lifestyle. They simply want the right to marry the one they love. Is it that hard to justify love. Rather obviously you believe these "men who love the manhole" strictly want to have sex. Well there is no law against that. They simply want the right to have a marriage with the person wish they wish to spend the rest of thier life with. If you can't understand that, perhaps you do not have the right for marriage, as you seem to think the entire point of marriage is a nightly fuck, which you can get without being married.

edit: since I forgot to sign my neg rep I'll gladly tell you it was me.


----------



## FlyingBanana (Nov 25, 2008)

Look, I'm the first to admit that my choice of the word "manhole" was probably a little unwarranted, but since the title of the whole thread is "FUCK PROPOSITION 8," I don't really care. It seems ya'll are into vulgarity here anyway. 

The most of you seem to be for equality, and I readily admit that homosexuals ought to be allowed to marry, but quit with the whole "Let's desensitize America to homosexuality," because that is the agenda.

Since I'm pissed off anyways, let me begin by saying that I am not a bigot or a prude and I'm not a fundamental wackjob...well not most of the time.  

I simply do not agree with the philosophy of teaching homosexuality to elementary school kids "because they have a fundamental right to understand all sides and to make an educated choice which direction they want to persue sexually." Gay people have actually said this to the media. I disagree.

Funny thing is that gay people claim they were born that way. It's in their blood. Whatever. Wouldn't the whole "born with it" kind of invalidate the teaching kids and desensitizing everyone thing?

Bottom line is this. If gay people want to cram gay ideologies down my throat through use of the media, then people who are against that kind of thing have a right to defend their beliefs, what with the 5,000 strong gay march where they vandalized cars, storefronts and beat the shit out of a few people.

For gay proponents, I say this. If you don't like that, then move to a country that readily embraces homosexuality, or be civil about it, because you might have a better chance at those health benefits you're after. In the USA we still have freedom of choice (to not embrace gays if that's our choice) and freedom of speech to defend our choice. But that said, we all have a right not to be harrassed also. 

What I for the life of me cannot understand is why the two faced behavior. On the one hand homosexual people are screaming equality this and that, and harrassing straight people to no frickin end. Yet there they are claiming harrassment from straight people. If you dish it out, I say you should be able to take it.

Remember that I am not arguing anti gay here, but merely voicing my opinion that we all ought to be practicing safe.....practicing better people skills and treating each other respectfully. But as I mentioned before, with a lot of the homosexual community, it seems to be a one way street. (lined with manholes) 

Again, please don't neg rep me, but if you do, I guess it's your prerogative. I'm just saying that we ought not to be mistreated by those who are mistreating anyone in their path. That's just wrong and sad.

Anyhow...let's put our differences aside. I still love you guys...gay or not.


----------



## bulletbass man (Nov 25, 2008)

Then I suppose many of the black civil rights protest were uncalled for and and had this conversation taken place 40 years ago you would say that they were wrong as well. Homosexuals were wrong to vandalize. But how many lives of have hetero sexuals destroyed. A good friend of mine had to leave college after his roomate found out he was in correspondance over the internet with another male rather than female so he was verbally and on two occasions physically abused by people in his dormitory. Of those who "got the shit beat out of them" how likely is it that that happened because those people went to the protest to harass those who were marching. It would unlikely that those "victims" were the ones who started the fight in the first place.

As for born with it it's fairly unlikely that someone woke up one day and said "hey, I think i'm going to be gay today. I'm natrually attracted to certain girls over others. I can easily imagine it is the same for them.

As for the one way street you seem to see. How many gay people do you personally know. I know 3. (2 guys, one girl). None of them have ever under any circumstances "made a move" on someone whom wasn't openly gay. In fact with the exception of the one guy none of them have ever had any real relationship to date. Never under any circumstances have they ever instigated any sort of arguement. The vast majority of the time someone will mess with them either verbally or physically and they generally don't even argue back. To say that all gays pick on heterosexuals who are in the path of thier agenda is absolutely ludicris (spelling?). Both sides have made mistakes and acted rashly. But to say the homosexuals are the ones whom are in the wrong more of the time is impossible to say. 

But what side is more in the wrong does not matter. The only thing that really matters is the right of marriage. In no circumstances should anyone be denied the right to marriage. This country was founded on beliefs of equality. It's revolution was fought for the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The goverment was designed to protect the rights of the people not deny them. Above that marriage is something purely on the social level. In the goverment's eyes a civil union and a marriage is no different. Why should they have the right to live together and recieve the same types of benefits from a civil union but be unable to call each other spouses. 

There is no logic behind denying them the rights of marriage. It is purely an ideological decision made by people whom either feel that the "sanctity of marriage" is at stake or simply do not like and or don't understand gays.

I have studied the bible fairly well. I've read it in it's entirty when I was younger. Above all things It's message spoke of acceptance, of treating each other with respect, even those whom we dislike and disagree with. 

I believe that the only true sin in this world is that we refuse to tolerate one another. We refuse to live in harmony. When we disagree, rather than simply walk away we argue, we kill and destroy over things that never even effect our personal lives. We tell what others may not do before thinking of how it even effects ourselves. The human race is full of ignorance and evil. Nothing, not even murder, is more evil than denying someone the right to take vows for thier loved ones. To prevent them from becoming one rather than stay as a couple.

No matter what somone does to me. They could shoot me in the forhead, never would I deny them from what they love.

In the end it isn't people like you who make logical points in your arguements that really annoy me. All your points are valid (especially in your latter post)

Honestly America likely won't ever be truly equal. But it has become a far far way when it comes to racism and sexism )(atleast on the large scale). Hopefully one day people can look past our difference and instead of seeing why we are different we see why we are the same.


----------



## willith (Nov 26, 2008)

bulletbass man said:


> Then I suppose many of the black civil rights protest were uncalled for and and had this conversation taken place 40 years ago you would say that they were wrong as well. Homosexuals were wrong to vandalize. But how many lives of have hetero sexuals destroyed. A good friend of mine had to leave college after his roomate found out he was in correspondance over the internet with another male rather than female so he was verbally and on two occasions physically abused by people in his dormitory. Of those who "got the shit beat out of them" how likely is it that that happened because those people went to the protest to harass those who were marching. It would unlikely that those "victims" were the ones who started the fight in the first place.
> 
> As for born with it it's fairly unlikely that someone woke up one day and said "hey, I think i'm going to be gay today. I'm natrually attracted to certain girls over others. I can easily imagine it is the same for them.
> 
> ...




LOL.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Nov 26, 2008)

FlyingBanana said:


> Look, I'm the first to admit that my choice of the word "manhole" was probably a little unwarranted, but since the title of the whole thread is "FUCK PROPOSITION 8," I don't really care. It seems ya'll are into vulgarity here anyway.
> 
> The most of you seem to be for equality, and I readily admit that homosexuals ought to be allowed to marry, but quit with the whole "Let's desensitize America to homosexuality," because that is the agenda.
> 
> ...




But why even bother concerning yourself with it? It's not like gay people being married is going to drastically increase gay sex. 


It's like saying certain ethnic groups cant get married.

Im pretty sure gay's dont choose to be harassed..


----------



## Thrashmanzac (Nov 26, 2008)

FlyingBanana said:


> Look, I'm the first to admit that my choice of the word "manhole" was probably a little unwarranted, but since the title of the whole thread is "FUCK PROPOSITION 8," I don't really care. It seems ya'll are into vulgarity here anyway.
> 
> The most of you seem to be for equality, and I readily admit that homosexuals ought to be allowed to marry, but quit with the whole "Let's desensitize America to homosexuality," because that is the agenda.
> 
> ...



seriously mate if you dont stop make refferances to gay people shoving things down your throat, i may start questioning your sexuality.
telling people not to neg rep you is pretty pointless, becuase if someone thinks what you have said is offensive or whatever, they will do it anyway. most people sign theirs though. i sign with zac or thrashmanzac 

i think some of the pro gay marrige supporters are starting to protest more heavily because no one is listening. i mean if african amerians all those years ago were just like "you know what, fuck it, being treated like this aint so bad, we'll pipe down" then perhaps they would not have the rights they do now.
when your rights are less than others, in the same fucking world, let alone country or state, you need to pipe up. it raises awareness, and frankly i think we could do more of it.


----------



## willith (Nov 26, 2008)

Stealthtastic said:


> It's like saying certain ethnic groups cant get married.




No it's not. In fact, give me ONE example where a group deemed it illegal for an ETHNICITY to be married. (Jews aren't an ethnicity- so Nazi Germany doesn't count)
Slaves in the 18th and 19th century? Nope: "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Most slave-owners encouraged their slaves to marry" (source: Slave Marriages)

[/FONT]You provided a BAD EXAMPLE- and it needed to be addressed and corrected. If you had bothered to read even just a few of the pages of responses (from others besides the peanut gallery) you probably wouldn't have said this. 
(See: page 5(ish), interracial marriage)


----------



## FlyingBanana (Nov 26, 2008)

bulletbass man said:


> Then I suppose many of the black civil rights protest were uncalled for and and had this conversation taken place 40 years ago you would say that they were wrong as well. Homosexuals were wrong to vandalize. But how many lives of have hetero sexuals destroyed. A good friend of mine had to leave college after his roomate found out he was in correspondance over the internet with another male rather than female so he was verbally and on two occasions physically abused by people in his dormitory. Of those who "got the shit beat out of them" how likely is it that that happened because those people went to the protest to harass those who were marching. It would unlikely that those "victims" were the ones who started the fight in the first place.
> 
> As for born with it it's fairly unlikely that someone woke up one day and said "hey, I think i'm going to be gay today. I'm natrually attracted to certain girls over others. I can easily imagine it is the same for them.
> 
> ...


 

I would have to say that I am ashamed you would even bring race into it and do a comparison between them and how they were treated and the gay lifestyle. I am not condoning the mistreatment of ANYONE. 

Understand that.

But to compare black people and gays is just wrong anyway. The bible doesn't dsay being black is wrong. I have no problem with someone because they are black.

The bible does mention may times that it is wrong for a man to sleep with a man. There, I said it.

I didn't want to turn this into a religious issue, but I had no choice. 

I have a right to be a metal rock star and not worship satan. 

When I say that, I mean to say that I believe in God and accept His teachings.

Sheesh.

Everyone back to their corners..... and stop sitting there and making this face....


----------



## willith (Nov 26, 2008)

FlyingBanana said:


> I didn't want to turn this into a religious issue, but I had no choice.
> 
> I have a right to be a metal rock star and not worship satan.
> 
> ...



Dude, this happened PAGES ago. Why do people feel compelled to post in this thread without reading ANY of it? You (not just you, ALL who don't know how to read) are not contributing anything new- and are thus causing the same arguments to be had OVER AND OVER AND OVER.




FlyingBanana said:


> Look, I'm the first to admit that my choice of the word "manhole" was probably a little unwarranted, but since the title of the whole thread is "FUCK PROPOSITION 8," I don't really care.




See, that was a great opening, I even lol'd and had to go back to read the post you were talking about. But then you caved at the end, and pleaded for "no negz". That's going to fall on deaf ears for two reasons: 1) Your post was too long and the majority (myself included; not for laziness, but for the afforementioned reason where you didn't read previous posts) won't read it and 2) They're gonna do what they're gonna do- and basically anything you said before that pleading seems completely devoid of any passion. Stand your ground. WTF do you care if they neg you? Are there sevenstring.org giveaways based on rep points that I'm just completely unaware of? Do you get coke and hookers with rep points? Who....the hell.....cares.

"You can't buy pussy and weed with Disney Dollars." ----Dave Chappelle.


----------



## Daemoniac (Nov 26, 2008)

willith said:


> No it's not. In fact, give me ONE example where a group deemed it illegal for an ETHNICITY to be married. (Jews aren't an ethnicity- so Nazi Germany doesn't count)
> Slaves in the 18th and 19th century? Nope: "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Most slave-owners encouraged their slaves to marry" (source: Slave Marriages)[/FONT]
> 
> You provided a BAD EXAMPLE- and it needed to be addressed and corrected. If you had bothered to read even just a few of the pages of responses (from others besides the peanut gallery) you probably wouldn't have said this.
> (See: page 5(ish), interracial marriage)


 
*eth&#8901;nic&#8901;i&#8901;ty*&#8194; &#8194;/&#603;&#952;&#712;n&#618;s




&#618;



ti/ Show Spelled Pronunciation 

 [eth-*nis*-i-tee] Show IPA Pronunciation 

 

*noun, plural -ties.* 1.ethnic traits, background, allegiance, or association.

*eth&#8901;nic*&#8194; &#8194;/&#712;&#603;&#952;



n&#618;k/ Show Spelled Pronunciation 

 [*eth*-nik] Show IPA Pronunciation 

 

*adjective *1.pertaining to or characteristic of a people, esp. a group *(ethnic group) *sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like.2.referring to the origin, classification, characteristics, etc., of such groups.3.being a member of an ethnic group, esp. of a group that is a minority within a larger society: _ethnic Chinese in San Francisco. _4.of, pertaining to, or characteristic of members of such a group.5.belonging to or deriving from the cultural, racial, religious, or linguistic traditions of a people or country: _ethnic dances. _6._Obsolete_. pagan; heathen.*noun *7.a member of an ethnic group.


Jews _are _an ethnicity, and as such Nazi Germany does count. A large group of people sharing both origins as a civilisation, their religion, language, physical characteristics and more.





willith said:


> LOL.


 
Why lol?

He made a reasonable statement, and if you disagree with it, fair enough, but dont just 'laugh'.

Marriage has become more than just a religious issue in recent years, and as such, especially as we live in a multi-cultural (and as a result multi religion) society, marriage is no longer simply religious binding to another person.

*mar&#8901;riage*&#8194; &#8194;/&#712;mær



&#618;d&#658;/ Show Spelled Pronunciation 

 [*mar*-ij] Show IPA Pronunciation 

 

*noun *1.the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.


There. The definition of marriage (one of them at least) that defines it not only as a religious tenet, but a _legal_ option to people, giving them certain rights and options. As such, given that marriage is supposed to be about 'love' (or on some more shallow cases money), surely gay people should have that option as well?

The reason it is not an option yet, is because of hard-line religionists, the old christians who cannot accept that their religion is not the dominant one. The same thing would more than likely have happened had Sarah Palin got into any sort of office and abortion would have been abolished... its not murder, but because _they_ believe it is, and they are in power, they are allowed to push beliefs on us. Same thing with gay marriage: Certain people in power do not believe they have the right (because of their religion) and as such they make it impossible for them to marry, even though it is more often than not a legal rather than religious ceremony.

Its a shithouse situation on all sides, but ultimately to have equal rights and opportunity, and to truly live in a multi-cultural society, you have to accept things like this and legalise it, because they are entitled to it as much as (if not more so than) many heterosexual couples.


----------



## willith (Nov 26, 2008)

Thrashmanzac said:


> says:
> 
> 
> willith said:
> ...



Moderator Chris, in the P&CE RULES thread states:

*You do not have to agree with anyone but respect their views and opinions. If you can't present a counterpoint in a civil manner, just don't post. *

I hate sounding like a forum nazi like some kind of powertripping admin and all that bullshit, *but we WILL hand out bans if people start throwing insults around.



*I provided a counterpoint, SOURCES CITED....and I get called gay- in a derogatory manner (in a GAY RIGHTS THREAD, by SOMEONE SUPPORTING GAY MARRIAGE NO LESS)



If not bannable, extremely hypocritical.


Just sayin'...


----------



## Daemoniac (Nov 26, 2008)

FlyingBanana said:


> The bible does mention may times that it is wrong for a man to sleep with a man. There, I said it.
> 
> I didn't want to turn this into a religious issue, but I had no choice.


 
Dude, it _is_ a religious issue. There is no hiding from that fact,the reason its not happening is because law is at its bare basics derived from the bible, and as such because thats what the bible says, its illegal.


----------



## Thrashmanzac (Nov 26, 2008)

willith said:


> Moderator Chris, in the P&CE RULES thread states:
> 
> *You do not have to agree with anyone but respect their views and opinions. If you can't present a counterpoint in a civil manner, just don't post. *
> 
> ...



lighten up mate.
i was trying to be hypocritical
it was a stupid post ill admit, i just wanted to see how you'd react.
im happy to take any punishment from the mod team 



FlyingBanana said:


> I would have to say that I am ashamed you would even bring race into it and do a comparison between them and how they were treated and the gay lifestyle. I am not condoning the mistreatment of ANYONE.
> 
> Understand that.
> 
> ...



hang on...
so if the bible said being black was wrong then you would condem that too?
it seems to me that people have just as little choice about the color of their skin as their sexuality.


----------



## FlyingBanana (Nov 26, 2008)

Thrashmanzac said:


> lighten up mate.
> i was trying to be hypocritical
> it was a stupid post ill admit, i just wanted to see how you'd react.
> im happy to take any punishment from the mod team
> ...


 



That is so ridiculous. The bible speaks only of love and understanding. However, it does say that putting your log in a gopher hole is wrong. I'm not gonna argue with it.

ALSO, if you are born black or yellow or Jewish, you do not have a choice.

BUT, if you're a guy and you like guys, you were not born that way. Homosexuality comes from experimentation and making the decision to be that way. I don't care how many so-called experts on homosexuality tv personalites have on their shows. No one has proven that one can be born gay, yet the gay community insists that they have all been born gay. If that is the case, then why do they also insist that they are not suffering from mental illness. 

Bottom line is this, whenever this whole gay issue comes up, gays are taught the strategic importance of shifting the central issue in a debate over homosexuality away from homosexual behavior and toward a homosexual identity which forces any opponents into a position where they are seen as attacking the civil rights of a "homosexual citizen," rather than a specific anti-social behavior.

Which is exactly what you and bulletbass man did by injecting racism into the debate.


----------



## Thrashmanzac (Nov 26, 2008)

FlyingBanana said:


> That is so ridiculous. The bible speaks only of love and understanding. However, it does say that putting your log in a gopher hole is wrong. I'm not gonna argue with it.
> 
> ALSO, if you are born black or yellow or Jewish, you do not have a choice.
> 
> ...



love and understanding unless you agree. in which case you get tortured for all of eternety. and that Yahweh, what a fun bloke he is, floods, famine, wrath.
ALSO how fucking dare you imply that homosexuality is a mental illness.
gay's are anti-social? how many gay people do you actually now? im not talking about people you have seen on t.v.
as for no one can prove you can be born gay, i should think i highly religious person such as yourself rethink dismissing an idea on the grounds that it cannot be proved.


----------



## FlyingBanana (Nov 26, 2008)

Thrashmanzac said:


> love and understanding unless you agree. in which case you get tortured for all of eternety. and that Yahweh, what a fun bloke he is, floods, famine, wrath.
> ALSO how fucking dare you imply that homosexuality is a mental illness.
> gay's are anti-social? how many gay people do you actually now? im not talking about people you have seen on t.v.
> as for no one can prove you can be born gay, i should think i highly religious person such as yourself rethink dismissing an idea on the grounds that it cannot be proved.


 

There you go again. You are subconsciously trying to steer the issue away from the inherent nature of homosexuality by comparing it to my faith in God. That is the real problem. 

As to knowing gay people. Yes, I do know 3 gay people personally.

One of them I have known for 15 years as a good customer of mine. We have even had this discussion about homosexuality before. He wanted to vent I guess. He admitted he was feeling horrible for many years about his tendency and told me that he had decided to become celibate for a time in order to understand why he did what he did. Ultimately he denounced it and found a good woman and got married. They go to church regularly and have a daughter.

One of the other guys works at a local store and we have no issues with him so far. He's very friendly and a pretty nice guy. He never has any attitude at all. 

The other gay aquaintance got really upset and alienated when the whole prop 8 thing started. He ended up losing all of his straight friends because he thought they were out to get him or something. Not sure on that one, but who knows what is going through a person's mind sometimes.


PS. Now you guys are neg repping me with stuff like this line here...."You don't even know your own bible."

How can you say that? I can quote numerous places that speak against fornicating with your fellow man. I guess the vultures will come out now. Be a real man and leave a name. Then we can discuss this like real men....which you are not apparently.


----------



## Thrashmanzac (Nov 26, 2008)

theres nothing subconscious about it. i understand that your opinion on gay marrige is connected to your faith, i dont see why, or how you can label it a mental illness and suggest the entire gay comunity is anti-social.
with aquaintances like you im not surprised that they felt that way. and as for your first friend, seems sad that such a nice man is seemingly condemed.


----------



## FlyingBanana (Nov 26, 2008)

Thrashmanzac said:


> theres nothing subconscious about it. i understand that your opinion on gay marrige is connected to your faith, i dont see why, or how you can label it a mental illness and suggest the entire gay comunity is anti-social.
> with aquaintances like you im not surprised that they felt that way. and as for your first friend, seems sad that such a nice man is seemingly condemed.


 
It doesn't really matter about his past. He left it behind and is a very very happy family man now. I see it as a non issue.

I am done with this thread. I just needed to say my piece. Thanks for allowing me to get it off my chest.

Peace guys. See you in the normal guitar/amp sections.


----------



## willith (Nov 26, 2008)

Thrashmanzac said:


> l
> ALSO how fucking dare you imply that homosexuality is a mental illness.
> gay's are anti-social? how many gay people do you actually now? im not talking about people you have seen on t.v.
> as for no one can prove you can be born gay, i should think i highly religious person such as yourself rethink dismissing an idea on the grounds that it cannot be proved.




Actually there is strong evidence to support it being a mental illness- in fact, the Pentagon still classifies it as a mental disorder.

When you look at what we know about mental disorders, especially ones like schizophrenia and multiple personalities, you can easily see how homosexuality could be classified as a mental disorder. 

In nature, homosexuality does not exist. (inb4 someone talks about one case of penguins laying on an egg) It's "non-existence" serves a purpose (if that makes sense) - because animals are programmed to procreate. 
If you believe in evolution (as I'm sure many of you left-wingers do) then naturally, an outsider looking in, would assume that you'd agree homosexuality is not natural. Had there been homosexuality 100,000 years ago when people were still "evolving" - then the people with that genetic trait would have been weeded out. 

I don't understand why it's SO hard to believe that a man who has a different chemical imbalance in his brain that makes him attracted to other men could be a mental disorder....but a person who thinks he's two, three, or 7 different people is beyond, any doubt, a schizophrenic.




Yes, I have a gay (or lesbian) friend as well. And she's not as opposed to this line of thought as many of you.


----------



## Thrashmanzac (Nov 26, 2008)

FlyingBanana said:


> It doesn't really matter about his past. He left it behind and is a very very happy family man now. I see it as a non issue.
> 
> I am done with this thread. I just needed to say my piece. Thanks for allowing me to get it off my chest.
> 
> Peace guys. See you in the normal guitar/amp sections.



no worries dude 
sorry if i got a bit heated


----------



## Zepp88 (Nov 26, 2008)

Why is this conversation still going on?


----------



## Thrashmanzac (Nov 26, 2008)

willith said:


> Actually there is strong evidence to support it being a mental illness- in fact, the Pentagon still classifies it as a mental disorder.
> 
> When you look at what we know about mental disorders, especially ones like schizophrenia and multiple personalities, you can easily see how homosexuality could be classified as a mental disorder.
> 
> ...



wether or not you beleive it's natural or not should not effect someones rights. killing isn't natural, so sure if someone kills, or hurts someone else, they forfit certain rights. but i dont see how homosexuality hurts anyone.


----------



## forelander (Nov 26, 2008)

willith said:


> In nature, homosexuality does not exist. (inb4 someone talks about one case of penguins laying on an egg) It's "non-existence" serves a purpose (if that makes sense) - because animals are programmed to procreate.
> If you believe in evolution (as I'm sure many of you left-wingers do) then naturally, an outsider looking in, would assume that you'd agree homosexuality is not natural. Had there been homosexuality 100,000 years ago when people were still "evolving" - then the people with that genetic trait would have been weeded out.



Wrong.



Wikipedia said:


> This list includes animals (birds, mammals, insects, fish, etc.) for which there is documented evidence of homosexual or transgender behavior of one or more of the following kinds: sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, or parenting, as noted in researcher and author Bruce Bagemihl's 1999 book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity.
> 
> Mammals
> 
> ...



And those are just the mammals. Would you like the birds, fish etc too?


----------



## Daemoniac (Nov 26, 2008)

forelander said:


> Wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> And those are just the mammals. Would you like the birds, fish etc too?



 Thank you.

And, like Thrash said, it is completely irrelevant whether or not it is a mental 'disorder' or not, as every other person with any mental disorder has the right to vote, marry, most of them drive, hell even refuse medication. Why? _Because they are people_.

Laws arent based on the concept of Evolution, and only extremist groups like the "Creatives" of _RaHoWa_ make such claims as they believe their heritage makes them superior.

Law comes from Religion. In every society on the planet, and people with differing views are persecuted, all over the planet. Why? The ones in power believe they are right. Which is fine, if this were England in 1000AD... the reason this is an issue is teh inherent hypocrisy in people which is what the OP was talking about.

We live in a "multi-cultural" society, but we still force one persons beliefs on the rest of the population despite this. Its horrible.


----------



## willith (Nov 26, 2008)

forelander said:


> Wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> And those are just the mammals. Would you like the birds, fish etc too?




lol, kudos on posting a *RELIABLE AND TRUSTWORTHY SOURCE FOR INFORMATION.* And rather than actually POST THE INFORMATION- you opted to post a snippet from wikipedia saying "well, it says here there is information..." Nice, very nice. If you're going to be that lazy, why even post at all?
I don't think you paid close enough attention to what you were posting:

"Originally Posted by *Wikipedia* 
This list includes animals (birds, mammals, insects, fish, etc.) for which there is documented evidence of homosexual or transgender behavior of one or more of the following kinds: sex, courtship, *affection, pair bonding, or parenting*, as noted in researcher and author Bruce Bagemihl's 1999 book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity."


So affection, bonding, and parenting between two males is homosexual. Ok. Guess I'm a homo for having friends of the same sex. LOL, I can see how this list was contrived: "I love my dog." "Hmm..that sounds like an inter-species relationship to me."



Demoniac said:


> Thank you.
> 
> And, like Thrash said, it is completely irrelevant whether or not it is a mental 'disorder' or not, as every other person with any mental disorder has the right to vote, marry, most of them drive, hell even refuse medication. Why? _Because they are people_.



Jesus Christ...I cannot understand for the life of me why you continue to partake in these discussions when you have NO IDEA WHAT IS GOING ON.

People with mental disorders CANNOT VOTE OR MARRY. God, just stop talking already. 



> We live in a "multi-cultural" society, but we still force one persons beliefs on the rest of the population despite this. Its horrible.



Oh yeah? Enlighten us, what ONE PERSONS beliefs are being forced on the rest of the population. PLEASE, for the love of God, tell me now. 
And then, plllllllllllllllllllease tell me why the majority of voters who participated in democracy should be overruled by the minority (keeping in mind this is a system you're not a part of or allowed to vote in.) I WANT TO KNOW.


----------



## Thrashmanzac (Nov 26, 2008)

im out


----------



## E Lucevan Le Stelle (Nov 26, 2008)

FlyingBanana said:


> The most of you seem to be for equality, and I readily admit that homosexuals ought to be allowed to marry, but quit with the whole "Let's desensitize America to homosexuality," because that is the agenda.
> 
> I simply do not agree with the philosophy of teaching homosexuality to elementary school kids "because they have a fundamental right to understand all sides and to make an educated choice which direction they want to persue sexually." Gay people have actually said this to the media. I disagree.
> 
> ...


... Why the hell do you think that "agenda" even exists (and that's very debatable? 

Clue: It's not to do with "turning everyone gay" or some vast conspiracy... it's simply that gay people want some measure of acceptance from people. If "teaching OUR KIDS about them gay people" actually is a major issue - and it happens a lot less than some people think - the idea's NOT to turn people gay, it's to try and improve things for people who have to put up with going through the school system while being gay... which isn't a nice experience to tell you the truth. I had a fair bit of trouble - up to and including being stabbed by someone I knew (still got the scars, thankfully it was only a stanley knife... still needed a lot of stitches) and a fucking LOT of bullying and general crap treatment. That's in addition to being disowned by my family, amongst other things... the point is, gay people, particularly when they're young, generally get treated like shit by everyone else and generally some people want to try and take steps to alleviate the problem. There's a reason why (at least attempted) suicide rates among GLBT youth are on the order of 30-40&#37;... (I can vouch for that, I've known 2 people who killed themselves over similar issues, mostly to do with losing their family and friends because of being "outed"...)

As for moving to another country, why should people have to leave their friends and family?



willith said:


> Oh yeah? Enlighten us, what ONE PERSONS beliefs are being forced on the rest of the population. PLEASE, for the love of God, tell me now.
> And then, plllllllllllllllllllease tell me why the majority of voters who participated in democracy should be overruled by the minority (keeping in mind this is a system you're not a part of or allowed to vote in.) I WANT TO KNOW.



If you can't see why "pure" democracy is a completely terrible idea for a form of government, I can't be bothered to argue...

(HINT: ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT WHEN A PURE MAJORITY IS ALLOWED TO MAKE DECISIONS OVER THE RIGHTS OF A MINORITY ENGENDERS ITSELF TO SAID MINORITY BEING VERY POORLY TREATED). 

I can't be arsed with this thread anymore...


----------



## eaeolian (Nov 26, 2008)

Well, that's enough of that. Willith, enjoy your two week nap.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Nov 27, 2008)

FlyingBanana said:


> BUT, if you're a guy and you like guys, you were not born that way.



Sure, gay people wake up and say, "I think I'll be social outcast."

You're flat wrong. I'd love to see you back up your claim with some empirical data. Here's some for you -

Our closest relatives - chimpanzees and bonobos - display strong strong proclivities for homosexual behavior. Guess what? They also have strong proclivities for personal grooming, friendship, maternal care, politics, trade, gift-giving, social drama, hugging, kissing... you name it. Things pretty "human." Human females are attracted to males, who do not resemble females. How can that be? I'm not attracted to the male form in the least. But the sight of smooth skin, breasts, a narrow waist with wider hips... I love it. And so do most men. Why? Chemistry. Biology. I didn't 'learn' to be attracted to that, any more than a male cat 'learns' to be attracted to the scent of a female cat in heat. So tell me just why, beyond hyperbole, there absolutely cannot be a biological base for a male inheriting a gene that gives him, to some degree, an attraction for the male physiology.

Gays are not infected by some 'gay disease.' That assumption is ridiculous. And those who assume that gay genes would be 'weeded out' need to bone up on their Mendelian genetics, and look at the Kinsey scale. First of all, many traits can remain in a population as recessive genes. They can stay present for interminable generations, but remain hidden. Second, most homosexual (and heterosexual for that matter) behavior is not an absolute, as you fellows seem to assume. The degrees of inclination for same-sex attraction vary greatly, with some having near-total SSA (same sex attraction), and others displaying nearly zero. And a whole range in-between. And this phenomenon is incredibly common in nature.


Some reading.
More Evidence that Homosexuality is Genetic


----------

