Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
True, but this discussion is about donating to a bill that would actively remove rights from gays, not his entire political POV. VS. donating to a candidate that may agree with you on 90% of the points and not an the other 10%.
PS I didn't boycott Mozilla.
Prop 8 did not "remove rights" from homosexuals. It preserved the definition of marriage (as it should be preserved).
Homosexuals do not have "marital rights," nor should they. The whole idea is so disgusting! It cheapens the definition of marriage. Next thing you know, people will be demanding to marry their dog!
Prop 8 did not "remove rights" from homosexuals. It preserved the definition of marriage (as it should be preserved).
Homosexuals do not have "marital rights," nor should they. The whole idea is so disgusting! It cheapens the definition of marriage. Next thing you know, people will be demanding to marry their dog!
You might want to check you facts. Same sex marriage was legal in California prior to prop 8 being passed. Over 18,000 couples were legally married in CA before prop 8 was enacted.
And if anything cheapens marriage it is heterosexuals and their 55 hour drunken Vegas marriages, or those wonderful 22 week marriages, or the 4,5,6 marriages, or the FACT that 50% of all marriages end in divorce.
If YOUR marriage is effected in any way because another couple can get married, then YOU have a problem in YOUR marriage.
You might want to check you facts. Same sex marriage was legal in California prior to prop 8 being passed. Over 18,000 couples were legally married in CA before prop 8 was enacted.
That's how ol' JJ thinks. If, for example, the mayor of San Francisco just lets gays marry and a bunch get married before an injunction can be made, then he says "well, it was legal for 5 hours, so anything after that equals 'their rights were removed.'"
In March of 2000 prop 22 was passed making same sex marriage illegal in CA.
From Feb 2002 - March 2002 marriages were allowed in SF (a little bit longer that 5 hours)
In May 2008 prop 22 is found to be in violation of the states constitution. (SSM is again legal state wide)
From June 2008 - Nov 2008 SSM is legal (prop 22 was overturned)
Nov 2008 Prop 8 passes removing the right of same sex couples to get married. A History of Same-Sex Marriage in California!
So if you have proof that SSM was only legal for 5 hours, please feel free to back up your claim. I have backed up what I have stated.
In March of 2000 prop 22 was passed making same sex marriage illegal in CA.
From Feb 2002 - March 2002 marriages were allowed in SF (a little bit longer that 5 hours)
In May 2008 prop 22 is found to be in violation of the states constitution. (SSM is again legal state wide)
From June 2008 - Nov 2008 SSM is legal (prop 22 was overturned)
Nov 2008 Prop 8 passes removing the right of same sex couples to get married. A History of Same-Sex Marriage in California!
So if you have proof that SSM was only legal for 5 hours, please feel free to back up your claim. I have backed up what I have stated.
Yeah, you proved that gays broke the law and California told them they did numerous times. Thanks.
Prop 8 did not "remove rights" from homosexuals. It preserved the definition of marriage (as it should be preserved).
Homosexuals do not have "marital rights," nor should they. The whole idea is so disgusting! It cheapens the definition of marriage. Next thing you know, people will be demanding to marry their dog!
Aside from your post being absolutely ridiculous and committing the slippery slope fallacy, you don't own the word marriage. You have ZERO say in the matter and are on the losing side of history.
Aside from your post being absolutely ridiculous and committing the slippery slope fallacy, you don't own the word marriage. You have ZERO say in the matter and are on the losing side of history.
Actually, he's right because people already have married animals. One woman married a dolphin and another married a dog. That's directly a result of your side, making you on the wrong side of history.
It's always amusing to me how the whole "being against gay marriage is like being against interracial marriage" argument is thought to be awesome. Gee, nobody can figure out what the difference is between the two.
Legally and historically, there is no difference. Every argument used against same-sex marriage was used against interracial marriage. And just like you guys lost the interracial marriage battle, you will lose the same-sex marriage battle.
It's always amusing to me how the whole "being against gay marriage is like being against interracial marriage" argument is thought to be awesome. Gee, nobody can figure out what the difference is between the two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
The arguments against interracial marriage are hauntingly familiar 50 years later:
1) They claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.
2) They began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.
3) They insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will.
4) They declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."
5) They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally."
And some people claim that the fight for same-sex marriage is not comparable to the fight for interracial marriage.
Even weirder, is that some of the same 'arguments' were even used to protest against women getting the vote back in the early 20th century. "It's unnatural!" "It's against God's plan!" "What next? If women are allowed to vote, will my dog be allowed to vote?" "What about the chillllllllldren?"
"almighty god created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
wwjd?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
