same sex marriage hearing

misshestermoffitt

misshestermoffitt

New Member
Moving out of CA won't do anything because gay marriage is illegal everywhere, except maybe MA.

You can't use the "exercise your right to freedom" speech on everything, there are things, such as this, that people aren't free to do.

Like I said, it seems that some people are more equal than others.

Marriage is defined by religion in a country where church and state are supposed to be separate.
 
Zig Zag Zane

Zig Zag Zane

Well-Known Member
it is unbelievably dispicable and prejudice that we even let there be an election over a civil right....and the fact that the majority voted yes on 8....pretty disturbing. this isnt an issue...lets the gays be miserable in their marriages just like straight ppl.
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
TheBrutalTruth said:
The government shouldn't be evolved in the equation in the first damn place. (And if it wasn't involved in the equation in the first damn place, this wouldn't be an issue, because then there would be no special rights for married couple as opposed to unmarried couples.)
Click to expand...
But they are, and there is.

Throughout history, marriage has been 'defined' many different ways. Religion does not have a monopoly on marriage. If the state is going to offer incentives and benefits for marriage, then they should not be allowed to restrict it to only those couples that make others feel comfortable. Putting up with things we don't like in order for others to be equal in terms of the law, is something citizens have to do in a free society. As it stands now, the California voters (with no small effort by the Mormons), have created a situation of the Tyranny of the Majority.
 
TheBrutalTruth

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
mindphuk said:
But they are, and there is.

Throughout history, marriage has been 'defined' many different ways. Religion does not have a monopoly on marriage. If the state is going to offer incentives and benefits for marriage, then they should not be allowed to restrict it to only those couples that make others feel comfortable. Putting up with things we don't like in order for others to be equal in terms of the law, is something citizens have to do in a free society. As it stands now, the California voters (with no small effort by the Mormons), have created a situation of the Tyranny of the Majority.
Click to expand...
Well good for them, the Anti-Smokers with the help of the leftists have done the same thing in regards to Tobacco Users, why should any special privileges be given to one minority group even as another is continuously having their freedoms impressed upon more and more.
 
Zig Zag Zane

Zig Zag Zane

Well-Known Member
mindphuk said:
But they are, and there is.

Throughout history, marriage has been 'defined' many different ways. Religion does not have a monopoly on marriage. If the state is going to offer incentives and benefits for marriage, then they should not be allowed to restrict it to only those couples that make others feel comfortable. Putting up with things we don't like in order for others to be equal in terms of the law, is something citizens have to do in a free society. As it stands now, the California voters (with no small effort by the Mormons), have created a situation of the Tyranny of the Majority.
Click to expand...
yeah, people SERIOUSLY need to just start worrying about themselves...and stop trying to control people...like i said..its disturbing, we made this great leap of progress by electing our first black president, but then create a law that is basically the same as not letting interracial couples get married, which we didnt only not so long ago...my girlfriend is black...and i cant imagine the anger i would feel if my right to marry her was taken away...its the same with homosexuals.....
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
TheBrutalTruth said:
Well good for them, the Anti-Smokers with the help of the leftists have done the same thing in regards to Tobacco Users, why should any special privileges be given to one minority group even as another is continuously having their freedoms impressed upon more and more.
Click to expand...
so to summarize your post:

Two wrongs DO make it right.
:spew:
 
misshestermoffitt

misshestermoffitt

New Member
I don't think tobacco use and gay marriage can be compared. Just give up the argument TBT, you're just digging a bigger and bigger hole for yourself.
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
misshestermoffitt said:
I don't think tobacco use and gay marriage can be compared. Just give up the argument TBT, you're just digging a bigger and bigger hole for yourself.
Click to expand...
well, to be fair, much of the anti-smoking legislation certainly can be considered Tyranny of the Majority. I think it was that comment of mine he was responding to. However, he is still in essence saying, so one group of people want to restrict my rights, then I'm going to restrict theirs. Part of the problem with that argument, besides it's obvious retaliatory nature, is that the two groups he is discussing are not mutually exclusive.
 
halzey68

halzey68

Well-Known Member
Movies , videogames, music ALL have ratings to protect children from inappropriate material. But teaching kids this crap is OK ? NO WAY ! This is not a FREE society, it is a democracy and IT HAS SPOKEN ! So why do they think they have the right to poison young peoples minds with this ?
If you have to wear a helmet or a seatbelt because the government said so, do you really think your are still free ?

And comparing this to the antismoking legislation is perfect for me. My family's reastuarant had to close up after 50 years because the smoking ban killed our bussiness. If i have to abide by the majority, so do the gays. Sorry, NOT.
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
halzey68 said:
Movies , videogames, music ALL have ratings to protect children from inappropriate material. But teaching kids this crap is OK ? NO WAY ! This is not a FREE society, it is a democracy and IT HAS SPOKEN ! So why do they think they have the right to poison young peoples minds with this ?
If you have to wear a helmet or a seatbelt because the government said so, do you really think your are still free ?

And comparing this to the antismoking legislation is perfect for me. My family's reastuarant had to close up after 50 years because the smoking ban killed our bussiness. If i have to abide by the majority, so do the gays. Sorry, NOT.
Click to expand...
Wow, what an ignorant post.
We are not a democracy! We are a representative republic. It is so sad that people don't even know this.
We are a country of laws, not majority rule. If the law says you can't discriminate, then the voters cannot pass a law that violates that (well, they can, but it should be overturned in court)

Since TBT will not answer, maybe you will. So you are claiming that two wrongs make it right?

I'm sorry about your restaurant but there are plenty of non-smokers and smokers that would like to eat good food. Are you claiming that you can't run a successful restaurant without allowing smoking? Restaurants typically fail because of bad food, bad management or a combination, not because they suddenly won't allow smoking. I will assume it wasn't a bad location since it was in business for so long. But don't blame the anti-smoking nutjobs for the failure of your family's restaurant. If you couldn't adapt, then there were probably other reasons it didn't work out.
 
hom36rown

hom36rown

Well-Known Member
yes, we are a nation of laws, and unfortunately prop 8 went through all the legal means of becoming an ammendment. The whole revision/ammendment argument is pretty weak, if I were a justice I would have to vote to not overturn it, as much as I hate prop 8. I have faith we will ammend it soon enough.
 
TheBrutalTruth

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
misshestermoffitt said:
I don't think tobacco use and gay marriage can be compared. Just give up the argument TBT, you're just digging a bigger and bigger hole for yourself.
Click to expand...
At least I'm not exposing my stupidity Miss.

By your logic of sense it doesn't effect me I shouldn't have an opinion on it, then I should also not have an opinion on the NAZIs (because they no longer effect me), the War in Iraq (because it doesn't effect me directly), Iran (because it hasn't effected me directly yet), Afghanistan (for the same reason), and so on and so forth.

Though if that is the measure by which you are qualifying opinions perhaps you'll follow the example you're trying to set and STFU, since as this is in California and you're not in California it doesn't effect you either.

Either that or keep on running your mouth exposing your tyrannical hypocrisy.


And Mindphuk, no, it's more a matter of thinking that if minorities are going to get oppressed then they should all be oppressed equally.
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
hom36rown said:
yes, we are a nation of laws, and unfortunately prop 8 went through all the legal means of becoming an ammendment. The whole revision/ammendment argument is pretty weak, if I were a justice I would have to vote to not overturn it, as much as I hate prop 8. I have faith we will ammend it soon enough.
Click to expand...
I really don't think I need to explain this to you but even if a state amends their own constitution, that amendment can still be found unconstitutional under federal law or even state law itself. In California, an amendment by voter initiative only requires a simple majority, pretty low standards IMO.

No doubt this will end up in the SCOTUS and will potentially be a similar landmark case as was Brown v. Board of Education. This will affect the whole country. I bet the Mormons and the rest of the 'yes on 8' crowd weren't expecting that.
 
hom36rown

hom36rown

Well-Known Member
Well as I understand it the california s.c. isnt even considering whether or not it is constitutional under federal law, so I figured that was up to to the scotus. They are only deciding if it went through the legal means of becoming an ammendment(plaintiffs claiming it was actually a revision), so that is what my comment was on. If I was a justice for the scotus I would vote to overturn it.
 
Kant

Kant

Well-Known Member
I gotta be honest, prop 8 kinda disgusts me. I personally believe that while there are legal ramifications to being married, religion should have no say. Even if you could find some loophole to make religious arguments, It would be a violation of the first amendment. There is some form of definition for marriage in every culture and religion and the definition of 1 man and 1 woman doesn't follow all of them.
 
misshestermoffitt

misshestermoffitt

New Member
Who are you to dicate who can and can't spend their life together?

What if you found your perfect match but some uptight law says, nope you can't marry?

Aren't you the one that thinks we need LESS government interference, yet you stand behind something as dumb as this?

Hmmmm, CA is broke, they can't afford shit, so lets take something like gay marriage to distract the people from what is REALLY going on.

Bbbbaaaaaaaaa you fucking sheeple..........





TheBrutalTruth said:
At least I'm not exposing my stupidity Miss.

By your logic of sense it doesn't effect me I shouldn't have an opinion on it, then I should also not have an opinion on the NAZIs (because they no longer effect me), the War in Iraq (because it doesn't effect me directly), Iran (because it hasn't effected me directly yet), Afghanistan (for the same reason), and so on and so forth.

Though if that is the measure by which you are qualifying opinions perhaps you'll follow the example you're trying to set and STFU, since as this is in California and you're not in California it doesn't effect you either.

Either that or keep on running your mouth exposing your tyrannical hypocrisy.


And Mindphuk, no, it's more a matter of thinking that if minorities are going to get oppressed then they should all be oppressed equally.
Click to expand...
 
F

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
misshestermoffitt said:
Who are you to dicate who can and can't spend their life together?

What if you found your perfect match but some uptight law says, nope you can't marry?

Aren't you the one that thinks we need LESS government interference, yet you stand behind something as dumb as this?

Hmmmm, CA is broke, they can't afford shit, so lets take something like gay marriage to distract the people from what is REALLY going on.

Bbbbaaaaaaaaa you fucking sheeple..........
Click to expand...
yeah, that's it. they are using prop 8 as a distraction. :roll:
did you just call me a sheep? :finger:
 
TheBrutalTruth

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
misshestermoffitt said:
Who are you to dicate who can and can't spend their life together?

What if you found your perfect match but some uptight law says, nope you can't marry?

Aren't you the one that thinks we need LESS government interference, yet you stand behind something as dumb as this?

Hmmmm, CA is broke, they can't afford shit, so lets take something like gay marriage to distract the people from what is REALLY going on.

Bbbbaaaaaaaaa you fucking sheeple..........
Click to expand...

Maybe stupid people,

What's really going on is California is getting screwed.

Why aren't the gay marriage advocates focusing on that, seems that being able to eat, and having a pot to piss in might just be a little more important...

Of course, the same can be said of the opponents.


Though I still maintain that California as a Society defined Marriage, about the only compromise I'm willing to give is that their should be an alternative that confers all the same benefits that is recognized at the Federal and State Level by all states.

Maybe called Domestic Partnerships, like they are in Cali (though they are still missing that, all the same benefits, part)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top