Prop 8 proponents seek to nullify same-sex marriages

[Heracles 417]

In this context that's exactly what's happening. Hence there is a debate.

But at the same time is it right that the views of the majority are simply disregarded in this country. Where out of a group of 1,000 people if one person complained about something, their opinion would be able to override that of 999 others simply because they do not agree with the rest. This is wrong. Not too many countries out there PD where the minority have the final say while the majority are basically told to suck it up and eat it. And you should know that.

Being that America has states rights, there are other states gay couples can travel to and be recognized. The state of California has rightfully decided by means of ballot that they are not interested in supporting such a measure. Whereas you are basically suggesting that they are wrong and the courts should get to decide.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

In this context that's exactly what's happening. Hence there is a debate.

But at the same time is it right that the views of the majority are simply disregarded in this country. Where out of a group of 1,000 people if one person complained about something, their opinion would be able to override that of 999 others simply because they do not agree with the rest. This is wrong. Not too many countries out there PD where the minority have the final say while the majority are basically told to suck it up and eat it. And you should know that.

Being that America has states rights, there are other states gay couples can travel to and be recognized. The state of California has rightfully decided by means of ballot that they are not interested in supporting such a measure. Whereas you are basically suggesting that they are wrong and the courts should get to decide.

People's rights shouldn't be decided by the popular vote. They should be enshrined in the constitution and protected by the law.

The majority in this case aren't "eating it" because they essentially risk and lose nothing in the outcome.

[Amby 490]

I can go back to wanting to marry a goat if that means you guys stop bickering

[Danno 1,228]

I can go back to wanting to marry a goat if that means you guys stop bickering

Actually, as we have read here..... simply outlawing "sex with an animal"... is in fact, pushing ones religion onto others....

I mean really, where does this notion of not permitting such acts come from if not those religious folk?

We know there have always been people who are oriented toward this type of sexual adventure and I am sure if proper health considerations are taken it might be healthy so.... why would we outlaw it except though tradition and the Religious bigotry of others?

Right PD?

So Amby, I for one will vote to "give you your goat"

... some even say you have a "right".

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I can go back to wanting to marry a goat if that means you guys stop bickering

Actually, as we have read here..... simply outlawing "sex with an animal"... is in fact, pushing ones religion onto others....

I mean really, where does this notion of not permitting such acts come from if not those religious folk?

We know there have always been people who are oriented toward this type of sexual adventure and I am sure if proper health considerations are taken it might be healthy so.... why would we outlaw it except though tradition and the Religious bigotry of others?

Right PD?

You can come up with all the sexual analogies you want - it just isn't the same.

As far as this new (yawn) example goes - animals can't give consent - and such things are generally considered "abusive" under established laws that prevent animal abuse.

[Ban Hammer 14,271]

I can go back to wanting to marry a goat if that means you guys stop bickering

just post pics of the honeymoon.

[Emancipation 2]

I guess my two cents would be if a Church is the only place that you could get married than perhaps they should have the right to state whom should be married.. but any judge, justice of the peace etc. can marry a couple, so it sort of redefines the term and the implications does it not? If Churches are forced to perform gay marriages or are not allowed to refuse to wed a couple they do not feel they can in good conscience marry (straight or not), that I would have a problem with ..

(I'm not going into all my beliefs here, but I would be considered "religiously right", but personally I'm not outraged by gay marriage, not one bit.. just wanted to state that for the record).

[peejay 327]

I can go back to wanting to marry a goat if that means you guys stop bickering

Actually, as we have read here..... simply outlawing "sex with an animal"... is in fact, pushing ones religion onto others....

I mean really, where does this notion of not permitting such acts come from if not those religious folk?

We know there have always been people who are oriented toward this type of sexual adventure and I am sure if proper health considerations are taken it might be healthy so.... why would we outlaw it except though tradition and the Religious bigotry of others?

Right PD?

You can come up with all the sexual analogies you want - it just isn't the same.

As far as this new (yawn) example goes - animals can't give consent - and such things are generally considered "abusive" under established laws that prevent animal abuse.

You can legally kill a goat to eat it, but sodomizing it is "abusive"?

However, it is not illegal for homosexuals to sodomize each other or to cohabitate. But since marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman homosexuals cannot marry a person of the same sex. They can marry though, but it must be someone of the opposite sex. A gay man can marry a lesbian.

But neither can sodomize a goat, but they can kill and eat one if they so desire.

I really don't see any rights violated here. The goat is the only one getting the shitty end of the stick though.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I can go back to wanting to marry a goat if that means you guys stop bickering

Actually, as we have read here..... simply outlawing "sex with an animal"... is in fact, pushing ones religion onto others....

I mean really, where does this notion of not permitting such acts come from if not those religious folk?

We know there have always been people who are oriented toward this type of sexual adventure and I am sure if proper health considerations are taken it might be healthy so.... why would we outlaw it except though tradition and the Religious bigotry of others?

Right PD?

You can come up with all the sexual analogies you want - it just isn't the same.

As far as this new (yawn) example goes - animals can't give consent - and such things are generally considered "abusive" under established laws that prevent animal abuse.

You can legally kill a goat to eat it, but sodomizing it is "abusive"?

However, it is not illegal for homosexuals to sodomize each other or to cohabitate. But since marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman homosexuals cannot marry a person of the same sex. They can marry though, but it must be someone of the opposite sex. A gay man can marry a lesbian.

But neither can sodomize a goat, but they can kill and eat one if they so desire.

I really don't see any rights violated here. The goat is the only one getting the shitty end of the stick though.

Humans have more rights than animals. Its not legal to slaughter humans for food - but going by your reasoning perhaps it should be.

[Ban Hammer 14,271]

You can legally kill a goat to eat it, but sodomizing it is "abusive"?

However, it is not illegal for homosexuals to sodomize each other or to cohabitate. But since marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman homosexuals cannot marry a person of the same sex. They can marry though, but it must be someone of the opposite sex. A gay man can marry a lesbian.

But neither can sodomize a goat, but they can kill and eat one if they so desire.

I really don't see any rights violated here. The goat is the only one getting the shitty end of the stick though.

hey that's just tenderizing the meat, officer!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I guess my two cents would be if a Church is the only place that you could get married than perhaps they should have the right to state whom should be married.. but any judge, justice of the peace etc. can marry a couple, so it sort of redefines the term and the implications does it not? If Churches are forced to perform gay marriages or are not allowed to refuse to wed a couple they do not feel they can in good conscience marry (straight or not), that I would have a problem with ..

(I'm not going into all my beliefs here, but I would be considered "religiously right", but personally I'm not outraged by gay marriage, not one bit.. just wanted to state that for the record).

That's the elephant in the closet. Churches don't want the pressure to marry gay couples (their prerogative), when our civil law recognizes such unions. It would spark an intense debate within religion regarding the definition of marriage. However, I know in the Catholic Church - there has always been a distinction between a civil marriage and what they refer to as the Holy Sacrament of Marriage. Churches seem to have trouble allowing civil law to define marriage as any different from their understanding, even though in reality, a civil marriage was never regarded by law as anything more than a contract between two consenting adults. Which is ironic considering the high divorce rates as well as unmarried couples living together. They need to get over the fact that marriage in civil law and their religion's definition of marriage are not one and the same.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I guess my two cents would be if a Church is the only place that you could get married than perhaps they should have the right to state whom should be married.. but any judge, justice of the peace etc. can marry a couple, so it sort of redefines the term and the implications does it not? If Churches are forced to perform gay marriages or are not allowed to refuse to wed a couple they do not feel they can in good conscience marry (straight or not), that I would have a problem with ..

(I'm not going into all my beliefs here, but I would be considered "religiously right", but personally I'm not outraged by gay marriage, not one bit.. just wanted to state that for the record).

That's the elephant in the closet. Churches don't want the pressure to marry gay couples (their prerogative), when our civil law recognizes such unions. It would spark an intense debate within religion regarding the definition of marriage. However, I know in the Catholic Church - there has always been a distinction between a civil marriage and what they refer to as the Holy Sacrament of Marriage. Churches seem to have trouble allowing civil law to define marriage as any different from their understanding, even though in reality, a civil marriage was never regarded by law as anything more than a contract between two consenting adults. Which is ironic considering the high divorce rates as well as unmarried couples living together. They need to get over the fact that marriage in civil law and their religion's definition of marriage are not one and the same.

Given that you can be married in a registry office or indeed - in Las Vegas by a midget dressed as Elvis - the Church really can't claim to "own" marriage.

[zqt3344 21]

Sure it never advances with people like you cause you think it is ok to infringe upon straight heterosexual's rights at any cost. Well now how do you keep from offending them when you know you are pandering to the far left gay wanna be marriage crew. Not going to work and the straight people are not going to accept it or allow it. And there are more normal straight people than the gays. Majority will rule. Sit back and watch as Prop 8 takes charge and purges that gay marriage ####### from the books once and for all! Scotty beam me up! Warp 4 Mr Sulu and keep your hands off my leg!

This debate never advances. Its the same old closet homophobia, clinging to flawed preconceptions about what is or isn't "natural", using dubious ideology to create spurious definitions about marriage and throwing in over the top and meaningless comParisons to justify it all.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Warp 4 Mr Sulu and keep your hands off my leg!

So wrong but also so funny!!!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sure it never advances with people like you cause you think it is ok to infringe upon straight heterosexual's rights at any cost.

I'm not sure I see how permitting gay marriage somehow infringes on rights of heterosexuals. But who are we kidding here - its not like you could justify that comment.