What are your thoughts on Prop 8

by 112 replies
129
I live here in California and obviously Prop 8 is the talk of the time.

I don't understand the big deal. I think it should be 100% legal for gay people to get legally married.

What are your thoughts?
#off topic forum
  • Banned
    [DELETED]
  • My problem is that the divorce courts are already overwhelmed and this will just make it worse.
    • [1] reply
    • ... unfortunately, even in 2008 we still have a lot of closed minded people.

      They want get married? Why not? This will bring more money to the government, and if they get divorced - it'll bring even more money!

      I couldn't care less how others lead their life because it is not of my business, gay or straight...
  • Ah, once again I am on the outside looking in.
    I do believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman and should remain that way.
    So, I am assuming prop 8 is a bill to let people of the same sex get married, I am 100% against it.
    • [1] reply
    • Prop 8 is a California constitutional amendment making the legal definition of marriage as between a man and woman.

      Dorothy
      • [1] reply
  • Why are you ppl acting like marriage = happiness when it's common knowledge marriage=misery? I think marriage should be outlawed period. :p
    • [2] replies
    • I've just read about this on Wikipedia: California Proposition 8 (2008) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

      ...and I just don't understand what happened to the cherished American ideals of 'liberty' and 'freedom'...
      • [2] replies
    • It's inspiring to see a couple HAPPILY married for like 40+ years! If it's set up right ( no sex or live together ), a year long courtship period, those marriages LAST. It doesn't have to lead to misery. It's just the "dating game" that makes a shaky foundation. The old-fashioned way works.

      Dorothy
      • [1] reply
  • I was a bit surprised that it passed!
    • [1] reply
    • Personally, I don't care...but, same sex marriage does make introductions awkward and I really don't think the parts fit together as designed.

      jimmymc
  • prop 8 passing would be good business for divorce lawyers. Cha-ching. Bad news for clogged up family courts. I never even heard of prop 8 before election day.

    The reason why it's so hard to pass is tradition. Since the beginning of man marriage has always been b/w a man and a woman without any question. Now in the 21st century laws are wanted to change centuries old traditions. It's hard to break traditions that go so far back. The thousands of years old traditions are breaking, but slowly.
  • Personally it's all a bit bullshit to me - but then Schwarzenegger is great in Commando, so...

    Toughy.

    Colm
  • God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve

    If it wasn't for man and women life would ceist to exist...

    Dennis

    But this is just my personal opinion...
    • [3] replies
    • Not sure I want to get into the debate and why's about it, but I'll give my opinion. (You asked...)

      I voted AGAINST gay marriage. I'm 100% against it and am so glad the amendments banning gay marriage passed here in FL, AZ and CA. I was surprised it passed in CA, but glad it did.

      Hollywood, gay activists and Matt Damon don't speak for all of us.

      Michelle
      • [ 2 ] Thanks
    • I think there needs to be some type of civil union - whatever people want to call it - that gives gay partners the legal rights other couples have.

      If two women or two men love each other - it has no affect on my life. It does nothing to harm me - and most evidence points to sexual orientation as genetic in origin.

      I think tolerance is in short supply in our society - and we need more of it. If it's against God's will, he can make that judgment when the time comes.

      kay
      • [ 2 ] Thanks
    • But homosexuality still exists. And, it's been accepted in many ways.

      If a man is only attracted to other men, what is he supposed to do?

      Most gay people are not gay because they think it's cool.

      I think that religion should be left out of the picture with this because some people don't even believe in god. And, they don't have to.
      • [2] replies
  • I was against it...The I was reminded of the facts, that 52% of straight marriages, including my own, end in divorce. If less than half of the people in this country have marriages that last a life time, I'm not sure we're in a postition to tell gays they can't get married.

    It seems to me divorce is the biggest challenge to marriage, not sexual orientation. This fact changed my mind. If we straight people want to tell others they can't get married, we need to do a lot better job in marriage ourselves.

    Also, anyone find it ironic that the bill was sponsored/financed by the Mormons? When did they become the spokespeople for America on the subject of marriage? Two grown men can't get married, but a grown man can marry 5 teenage girls?
    • [ 2 ] Thanks
  • We've basically forgotten what marriage actually IS. I used to hold to the 'just a piece of paper' but after studying geneology I realised I was wrong.

    From an esoteric or even 'religious' perspective, marriage is a union of two opposites, and from that union the potential for new life is created. The ceremony itself is 'sacred' in that it is an enactment of the Divine Marriage of opposite forces which created the Universe. Hinduism expresses it best in the mating of Shiva and Shakti. Two of the same 'force' cannot produce new life, just as the Universe works on opposites. From a practical point of view 2 of the same cannot produce another worker for the system, so the union has less value to the State. It's not a moral thing, though of course exoteric religion interprets it that way. (If you use a wireless mouse, change the polarity of the batteries so they are the same: doesn't work does it? Those batteries aren't "bad", they just can't work as intended unless the polarities are correctly aligned. Stupid analogy I know, but I haven't eaten yet and I'm tired. :p )

    Marriage has never been viewed as 'private' thing between 2 people either, until fairly recently. That's why the Banns are published before you can get married, and the community is supposed to read them first. In a nutshell it's a committment to the community that you'll fulfil your obligations and raise a child to be a good citizen of that community under 'God'. (Doesn't matter that a lot of people broke the commitment, that was the intent.)That mawkish 'romantic' love everybody insists on today was not a requirement. This has been the best model we had for millenia and the State even gave tax breaks to encourage people to get married because they recognised it's importance to the stability of society.

    All religions would find gay marriage a violation of their religious creed. Mohammed specifically condemns homosexuality period, so there ain't no way in hell they'll accept it. Nor would Catholic Christians. We recently had a big brouhaha about gay priests in the Church Of England (is it called Episcopal in the US?) and the African branches are threatening to break away. They have to do this because their flock, and even many priests, were so disgusted they were converting to Islam at an alarming rate.

    We were no different from other countries in that we arranged marriages. Only the rich and aristocrats do it now, but the working classes used to as well. It was the bourgoise middle classes in the modern era who decided marriage was about personal desires and that choosing a mate based on luuurve (usually sexual attraction) was the ideal to strive for. Romantic novels have also given young girls unrealistic expectations - everybody is waiting for their "soul mate" and ignoring people they could perhaps build a happy fulfilling life with. :rolleyes:

    We now have the phenomena in Britain where Asian girls who have been raised in full Western freedom are asking their parents to arrange marriages for them. They still get to choose, but they trust their parents to find them compatible mates. It is enough to find the person reasonably physically attractive, to admire and respect them, but more important have common goals for the future and children. Love grows over the years naturally. (The hellish arranged marriages are often the forced ones).

    We are self-indulgent children who mistake sexual attraction for Love. Yes, that's nice and can often develop into an abiding love. However, it's only become essential in the West comparatively recently, and goes along with the other "me, me, me" indulgences. We break commitments to our spouses because we "couldn't help ourselves". Bullshit. No matter how strong an attraction to someone, if you are commited to someone else a 'grownup' will deny indulging that desire. But we've lost the desire to put others before ourselves. So we'll risk destroying that family unit - and usually do - and we'll damage the kids, and even damage our 'community' ultimately. Look around you, the breakdown of marriages affects society as a whole.

    Still, civilisations rise and fall. No exceptions. Previous centuries we were far more promiscuous than now, and ended up falling back into the repressions of the Victorian era. Civilizations decay from within.

    So those who think the rest of the world will eventuially catch up with the 'enlightened' West are living in cuckoo land. Ain't gonna happen. I personally believe this denigration of marriage is part of a wider agenda. Geneologists of the future are going to have an impossible task. All the lineage links will be 'broken' and a society that has no links back to it's past doesn't know who it is. Fractured families and fractured societies can be more easily molded by the State apparatus. They can then become The Family we give our first loyalty to.

    China and India are going to be the dominant cultures of the future (assuming we are still here ) All have strong family units, particularly India. We have become so dumbed down and infantalized in so many ways it's heartbreaking.

    No reasonable person could have any objection to some state legalised union for gays, but as Kim says, don't call it 'marriage' and don't act as if it is. They had to lie to get it passed over here. They said it was just a legality to help people living together which would include elderly siblings etc. Very soon became clear what a crock that was. Siblings have no more protection than they did before if sharing a home, whereas gay couples are holding 'weddings'.

    That was rather longwinded but I'll support any kind of legalised State union so long as it isn't passed off as a 'marriage' which is both a logical absurdity and damaging to the wider societal structure. IMO of course.
    • [ 2 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
    • @Phnx - That was a great post Phnx and I enjoyed reading it -- but you didn't make your case very well.

      You certainly did a good job of outlining why religions would never support gay marriages and how marriage evolved in the western world. Then you expressed dismay because marriage is important but there are too many break-ups and this has an impact on families and communities. Then you made some predictions for the future. That was a great read.

      But you never linked gay marriage/unions to your previous argument and so at the end, your piece reached a conclusion that had no connection to the body of your argument...
      "I'll support any kind of legalised State union so long as it isn't passed off as a 'marriage' which is both a logical absurdity and damaging to the wider societal structure."

      1) You never mentioned civil unions (are they good or bad?) nor how they differed from marriage.
      2) I thought you argued that marriage strengthened wider societal structure?
      3) How is gay marriage a logical absurdity when the only evidence you presented against gay marriage was provided by religious tradition (and not the result of logical deduction)?

      Please don't think that I'm being mean or critical here, Phnx. I realise that you're tired and hungry, but all the same, yours is the best post in this thread -- and I'd genuinely like to read more...
      • [1] reply
  • John Hendersons aid:"1) You never mentioned civil unions (are they good or bad?) nor how they differed from marriage."
    Actually he did.At least he mentioned them, I see no reason why he would need to explain how they differ from marriage.

    Phnx said:"No reasonable person could have any objection to some state legalised union for gays, but as Kim says, don't call it 'marriage' and don't act as if it is."
    • [1] reply
    • PHNX is a she. Seems you two have that in common.
      • [1] reply
  • darn, I'm too slow.
  • LOL Tim, I guess you mean us being assumed the opposite sex than what we are?
    • [1] reply
    • Yeh, I assumed the same with both of you also.

  • LOL Kim, yeah I'd assumed you were a woman originally. Names are a bugger aren't they?
  • well,I rarely had people confused about my sex when I went by Majik, but I bought into that whole "you have no crediibility of you don't use your real name" bit,so here I am as Kim.
    Why am I thinking of The Emporors new Clothes?
  • Oh I remember that username! That was a cool one.

    My real name is also gender confusing - Lee - so I still get assumed to be a bloke either way.
  • I think this is the crux with me - civil union vs. marriage

    What gays want is legal rights and benefits afforded to 'straight' citizens.

    I am all for that 200% and not to give them that is surely discrimination because they pay the same taxes, have 'birth rights', etc.

    However, they are not satisfied with 'civil union' and they want 'marriage'.

    If they want what they should have by rights, then they should be okay with a 'civil union'.

    But, Noooooo! they have to mess with people and have it called a 'marriage'.

    Here they rumple straight AND religious feathers. So if that is what they want is a fight they will always have one.

    While gays have rights, straights also have a right to object and disagree and even be repulsed by whatever they want to without being judged.

    That doesn't give anyone the right to harm or injure anyone on either side.

    Civil unions would be performed by the court and marriage would be performed by the court and/or church.

    I don't think the twain shall meet anytime soon except where you have apostate churches that believe false doctrine (unBibical or extra-Bibical).

    There has to be limits or we will have pedophiles marrying children, and even people marrying animals. People that would walk the streets naked.

    This is not to say gay people would do either of these things- this statement is about limits.

    It would be nice if we lived in a world where everybody had a brain and a conscience, but that is not the case, so we need laws and limitations.

    My favorite motto that is applicable to so many things and certainly to this issue, is 'Freedom is not license'.

    What this means is because one has freedom that does not give them the right to infringe on or deny someone else's civil rights.
    • [ 3 ] Thanks
  • An interesting perspective.
    About 15 years ago, The company the woman that was my girlfriend but is now my wife worked for, refused to let her put me and my children on her insurance because we weren't married.
    Yet they allowed same sex couples to put their significant other on their policy due to the fact that they couldn't get married.
    Go figure.
    • [1] reply
    • Oh yes, in many respects gay couples now have rights above straight unmarried couples which is absurd. Particularly if they have children, that family even though not married (and that would be the preference for most societies) are still a very valuable commodity to The State. A gay couple is not and can't be. Yet they choose to give more rights to the gay couple. Makes no sense does it?

      When they touted gay marriage here, few were going for it outside of Leftie political circles, so they had to soften it. It was to allow legal protections for people who were in a similar situation you faced, elderly siblings, and anyone else who was living together and needed to be able to do things like put their 'other' on their policies. Instead, we still haven't got that as far as I'm aware, but we have these faux same sex 'weddings'.

      But I'm a conspiracy nutter so I think there is a deliberate agenda to break the family unit and ultimately transfer loyalty to the State. Gay marriage is just another tool to do it.
      • [ 1 ] Thanks
      • [1] reply
  • Phnx you should start a conspiracy website with articles, videos, and a forum. I still would like it if a firing squad got a hold of all those illuminatis and elitist bankers.

    And you should change your name to Kerry Katona so no one would mistake you for a male.
    • [1] reply
    • Annoyedgirl, you aren't starting to believe that stuff also are you? :-0
      • [1] reply
  • Let's say you allow gay couples to marry because it makes them happy, etc.... Where does this stop? What if someone wants to marry his sister or mother? What if someone wants to be married to five different people at the same time?

    If the criteria for marriage is that being with that person(s) makes you happy, then anyone should be able to marry anyone they please.

    It kind of makes "marriage" meaningless, doesn't it?
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
    • [3] replies
    • How does the quote go? "A rose, by any other name, smells just as sweet..." I probably butchered that quote, but oh well....

      In Star Trek (yes, that is where all true wisdom lies...:rolleyes, the officers are addressed as "sir" - no matter whether they are male or female (unless they specifically choose otherwise, like Janeway, but that is another story....). But calling a female "Sir" does not make her a man - it simply gives the appearance of equal treatment.

      When women started calling themselves "Ms." instead of "Mrs." or "Miss," there was no change in treatment (as far as I could see, anyway) from society. It was just a label.

      From what I have seen, "civil unions" provide the same benefits as "marriage." I don't understand what the big deal is. I truly don't.

      If a civil union is defined as a union between 2 people of the same sex, and marriage is defined as a union between a man and moman, why is it such a big deal to change what a union is called? They are not the same thing. Why try to make it that way? :confused::confused::confused::confused:
      • [ 1 ] Thanks
    • Barry, you should be happy it's still human or an animal. You're behind the times dude? My favorites are the woman who married the Berlin wall, the guy who married a pineapple and the guy who married himself. Don't you all feel silly now? :-0

      Woman 'married' to Berlin Wall for 29 years - Telegraph

      Woman marries dolphin - World - theage.com.au

      'I married the Eiffel Tower' - Living, The New Review - The Independent

      India: Woman marries snake, another marries dog

      Sudan man marries a goat - Gadling | travel blog | news, stories, deals, and tips. Go there.

      German pop star marries a pineapple | Metro.co.uk

      Ananova - Man marries himself

      • [1] reply
    • My wife poses the same argument that you do on this. So I get where you are coming from.

      But doesn't divorce make marriage just as meaningless?

      And regardless of whether or not it is allowed by the state to let two men, two women, mother and sister, father and son get married. If they decide that they want to live that lifestyle, what can we really do to stop it anyway?

      The only thing that voting against gay marriage does is prove that other people (mainly non-gay) disagree with it.
      • [1] reply
  • I want to marry my blanket! I can sleep without my wife but I cannot sleep without my security blanket!

    Derek
  • Tim - a wall? Come on. lol.

    Now I have heard 'talking to my husband is like talking to a brick wall', but who knew???

    Not much better than being alone.

    Peace Out from Sodom and Gamorah.

    Don't Look Back Lest Ye Turn To Salt.

    Man Marries Salt.
    • [1] reply
    • Who knows? Maybe the relationship with the wall is as solid as a rock. Again, a plus is no unwanted pregnancies. Perhaps this could become the new base for the Republicans.
  • I have a charming personality, I'd like to marry myself. Actually I want polygamy with 3 co-wives. I want 2 of them to be neat freaks with ocd always cleaning so I can live in a spic n span home w/o having to clean at all and 1 totally fun like me so it will be like a slumber party every night Pat, you can join too.
  • no thanks i only do one woman men.

    i am a one man woman

    me jane he tarzan

    i will come to silly annoyed girl's party though if tarzan lets me out. save me a seat.
  • Because without said law the entire world's population will all, simultaneously, turn gay and end procreation as we know it?

    Well bugger me!

    Colm
    • [2] replies
    • LOL Colm, be careful what you wish for
    • I doubt everyone would turn gay, just like if it was legal to kill people, I don't think every one would kill other people, but enough would that you would not want to live in that kind of world.

      I was raised in Durham, but I never heard any one use the word bugger, so can you tell me what that means?

      Clint
  • "People that would walk the streets naked."

    Why not? I was naked when I got here.

    Then my mother dressed me funny.
  • with sperm banks there really is no more need for men :p

    you never have to worry about not repopulating.
  • Banned
    [DELETED]
  • You ppl talk like gay ppl don't have kids. Gay ppl have kids all the time. Rosie Odonell and her partner have 4 I think, Jodie Foster has 2, Clay Aiken just had a baby. That gay governor of NJ had 2 kids I think. And you know with sperm banks straight ppl aren't even needed

    I really don't care if prop 8 passed or not but I'm sick of hearing about it on the news for years. For years theres been back and forth with legalizing gay marriage. It's legal, it's not legal, it's legal its not legal. This court said yes, then this court said no, then this court said yes. Its been on the news for years and I'm sick of hearing about it, it's beyond tiring to hear about, I just wish there would be a final decision and get it done with for good.
  • Banned
    [DELETED]
  • I am not involved with any organized religion and I will always fight against it.
    As I said, they can have civil unions, but not marriage.
    What benefits can they hvae by being married that they can't have in a civil union?
    "I sincerely hope that Gay rights groups band together and finance this fight all the way to the U.S Supeme Court. Let them make the decision that can't be overturned and it should be over and done with."

    Yeah, let's continue to waste our taxpayers money on this.
  • Banned
    [DELETED]
    • [2] replies
    • I agree that there are good reasons not to allow marriage in these cases, just like there are good reasons not to allow gays to marry. Men marrying men is certainly no better than a man marrying his sister.

      Marriage is defined as a man and a woman marrying. What right do gays (?) or anyone else have to change that definition? And if we allow them to change it, why shouldn't everyone be allowed to marry whoever he/she wants to?

      These libertarian views sound great, until you actually apply them universally.
    • Actually that's perfectly legal over here, and I think most of Europe.
  • Banned
    [DELETED]
    • [1] reply
    • And homosexuals spread AIDS. Which one is worse?

      Because it is not marriage. Marriage has always been defined as one man and one woman. Now, can you answer my question?

      But why shouldn't they have that right? If we are going to redefine marriage for gays, why shouldn't we redefine it for every abhorrent behavior?
  • Banned
    [DELETED]
    • [1] reply
    • You yourself say marriage should not be allowed between those who are related to each other, or who want to marry more than one person at a time. I'll just throw your question back at you -- why do you have the right to impress your views upon the personal lives of others?

      And the truth is that when AIDS first came on the scene here in the USA, it was largely a homosexual disease. I had a homosexual co-worker who was going to a funeral of a friend every other week. Please don't tell me that it was equally spread among heteros. Regardless, it is an extremely sad condition for anyone to be in. The only reason I used that example is because of your example of the two-headed kid
  • "Are you kidding me? Haven't you read any of what I have posted here? Civil unions don't give them the benefit of LAW!"


    Civil union IS law. It makes it legal.
  • Banned
    [DELETED]
  • espacecadet,
    Is there some reason you always try to bring my religion into these discussions? I've never even asked you what yours is, if you have one. It comes across as you trying to take some kind of cheap shot -- TBN, etc...c'mon.
  • well, it is what it is. I think they need to be satisfied with what they get because religious or not, in my opinion , they will always be fighting an uphill battle for the next generation or so, unless America really gets its values back, then it will never happen.
    From your own post:
    "given that the very definition of marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman? "
  • Banned
    [DELETED]
    • [1] reply
    • Not necessarily. There are plenty of liberal preachers who are pro-gay.

      But I don't watch TBN at all. Most of the programming makes me sick to my stomach. You are assuming a whole lot of stuff about me that just isn't correct.
  • " Who someone loves is their choice, not mine."
    Correct.
    And no where have I seen most of us here who are against gay marriages say that gays do not have the right to love whoever they want.
    I believe you yourself already said it was about legal rights ( I'm not going back through the posts to see if I understood it correctly).
  • Banned
    [DELETED]
    • [1] reply
    • Neither. We both put limits on who we believe should be married. You honestly can't see that?
  • Banned
    [DELETED]
    • [1] reply
    • Exactly. And there are logical reasons why gays shouldn't marry too. They've been stated numerous times from many in this thread.

      But the fact remains, you are limiting others personal freedoms just as much as anyone else does. You just happen to offer personal freedom for the group you choose, while denying it for others. I guess you're not as open-minded as you pretend to be.
  • Banned
    [DELETED]
    • [2] replies
    • *Those who would like to be married to more than one person at a time.
      *Those who would like to be married to a relative.

      (I'm not sure about others, because those are the only options mentioned so far other than gays.)

      According to you, if a person is an adult they should be able to marry the person whom they love. Yet you deny that right to some adults. That is absolutely no different than my desire to limit gays from getting married. Again, I just draw the line before you do. In principle, we are both doing the exact same thing. I find it incredulous that you can't just admit that.

      In fact, my guess is that most gays would also draw the line on who should or should not be married.
    • Depends on how you want to define children and adults. Within a certain context teenagers are considered adults, while in others they are considered children. Also, at least in this country afaik 18 is a legal adult, but the word still has "teen" in it and so does 19.

      A child is a prepubescent, about 13 and under in general.

      I don't know how you define child, but in a lot of people's minds (not mine) a 16 year old for example is a child. Taking that view, it is legal for an adult to marry a "child" in most states, since the general idea that only 18 and up is legal is false in most states, probably spread by word of mouth, movies, etc. It's 18 in about a dozen states but the rest are about 16 on average with or without certain conditions depending on the state. I've looked into this about a year or so ago, and unless things have changed dramatically across the board, it is still true.
  • Banned
    [DELETED]
    • [1] reply
    • I like a man who can admit when he's outgunned. Thanks for conceding.
  • Banned
    [DELETED]
  • Yada yada yada................................
  • Banned
    [DELETED]
    • [1] reply
    • You're right. I have nothing more to say. It is really hard to discuss with someone who won't even admit what he has stated in his own posts.

      Final word from me -- we both want to limit what adults can be married and which ones cannot. I'm just willing to admit it.

      Unfortunately, you will probably win out over the long haul as our society gets more and more liberal. Just remember, it is the homosexual community that has brought down more than one culture. We might be next.
  • Banned
    [DELETED]
  • Banned
    [DELETED]
  • Banned
    [DELETED]
  • It will be overturned.
  • Banned
    [DELETED]
  • Banned
    [DELETED]
  • I am against gays getting married..but that is just my opinion!
  • Espace man I didn't know till now you were such a gay marriage activist.
  • This video says what I think about the subject.

    YouTube - Two Roosters Walking Arm In Arm
  • Banned
    [DELETED]
    • [1] reply
    • I could but I'm pretty sure I'd be breaking some obscenity law
      I'm with ya on the equal rights more or less.
      I just don't care if two gays want to get married or not.
      If they do fine, if not that's fine too.
  • Who said everyone has a right to freedom and equal rights? The constitution of the US? Well that's not the way it works. Not in the real world, only in the la la land of the idealist.

    Millionaires or celebs who have good insurance and the ability to self pay regardless who have a skinned knee or headache are coddled over while poor people with no insurance who are dying are treated like sh*t and literally die when they could easily be saved, while everyone around ignores them and steps over them. There was videos in the news recently showing poor ppl literally collapsing and dying on the floor of a hospital waiting room. Is that equal rights? Since when are gay people better than poor people? If gay people have equal rights, why can't poor people?

    People are treated bad in places because of the color of their skin, the country they are from, their name, their religion, their race. People with mental illness are not given equal rights. People who have a name like Osama or Hussein are discriminated against simply because of their name which they had no control over. Is is their fault their parents named them Osama or Hussein? Are gay people better than them?

    There are apartments that won't rent to black ppl. If a black person inquires about an apartment, none are available. If a white person inquires, sure, move in. Are gay people better than blacks? The law says discrimination is illegal, but you might as well make a law against being stupid. That's not going to happen, stupid people prevail.

    I'm all for equal rights for EVERY BODY but that's not going to happen even in America. If I'm going to be an activist, I'm an activist for starving children living in poverty in 3rd world countries which is why I sponsor children in Uganda. At least gays in America while in most states can not legally marry have a right to food and food stamps and shelter and all the sex they want, while billions in the world don't even have enough food to have more than a cup of rice a day. And don't even get me started on other countries such as China where you go to jail for trying to inquire about Tianamen square massacre.

    You can cry, yell, scream, and pout all you want but there will always be people who discriminate, law or not and discrimination will never end. You can't control other peoples feelings and opinions and trying to do so will just put you in the grave early while nobody else will even notice or care you're gone.
    • [1] reply
    • While I agree with 99% of what you say, it doesn't have to be a choice of one or the other. People can fight for equal rights for gays and also work to help the poor and disadvantaged of the world.

      Yeh, there will always be those who discriminate, however it is possible to make sure the government doesn't discriminate. By fighting for equal rights in the 60s laws were changed.

      The US and the constitution are works in progress. It should always be the goal of America to improve itself.

  • Banned
    [DELETED]
  • Congrats Allen (espacecadet) for being the happiest gay couple!

    Happiest Gay Couple
  • My opinion on the whole gay marriage issue is simple. If marriage is seen from a purely religious standpoint then - no, the rights of the Church shouldn't be taken away to appease anyone else. However since marriage is also a State issue then you can't discriminate against a couple that wish to be married.

    What really needs to happen is a total seperation of Church and State.
Join the discussion

Next Topics on Trending Feed