Suck my balls proposition 8

[YomMamasHouse]

Congrats Americans - perhaps the average human IQ really is rising by 3 points a decade.

[squeek.]

Huzzah.

http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org...ourt-decision/

[GenghisTron]

'bout time. I was worrying about the universe imploding from the hypocrisy of conservatives who preach getting the Governments out of their personal lives, but not out of the personal lives of people they don't relate to. Then I heard the news, and I can rest easy that the universe imploding won't happen anytime soon.

[hlstriker]

America's poor future

[Bridget]

Now homosexuals can be dependent on the government just as much as heterosexuals!

[SizeableSSonic]

Originally Posted by Bridget

Now homosexuals can be dependent on the government just as much as heterosexuals!

And they can be as miserable as married heterosexual couples as well!

It's great to actually hear some good news for once lately.

[GenghisTron]

Originally Posted by hlstriker

America's poor future

[Bridget]

I serious'd too nigga

[Etzell]

Good work, gay folk. As long as I can continue to not care about who you're diddling, more power to you.

[GenghisTron]

[Iggy]

Can anyone give a valid reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to be married? Personally, I think there is no difference between a "marriage" and a "civil union"..... as both should equate to the same exact rights. Basicly, it's a distinction without a difference. However, I don't care if they call it "civil union", "marriage", or "legal copulation".

Some would argue that a "marriage" is a legal commitment, others would argue it's a religeous one. Our society dictates that there is a separation between church(religeon) and state(legally speaking). If a couple who is athiest "marries" by legal means, why not a homosexual couple? The strengh of their love can't be considered any less than another couples, lest we drop over the precipice of mind control.

[Anthraxium[WU]]

Originally Posted by Iggy

Can anyone give a valid reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to be married? Personally, I think there is no difference between a "marriage" and a "civil union"..... as both should equate to the same exact rights. Basicly, it's a distinction without a difference. However, I don't care if they call it "civil union", "marriage", or "legal copulation".

Having 2 different names prevents it from ever being truly equal.. Despite you thinking they should have the same rights, assigning different names solidifies their inequality (well not really inequality, but "un-equal-ness").

[squeek.]

Moved to D&A. It was going to have to happen sometime.

[BinaryLife]

Originally Posted by Anthraxium[WU]

Having 2 different names prevents it from ever being truly equal.. Despite you thinking they should have the same rights, assigning different names solidifies their inequality (well not really inequality, but "un-equal-ness").

I agree.

Also, if you are by distinction a human being then our constitution was founded on the principle that you are equal to all other human beings. In my opinion any method of separating, or classifying in a way that results in un-equal treatment is un-just.

[Crazycarl]

I don't know why government even needs to decide who is married and who isn't, and get caught up in such religious and social issues. Marriage is just an agreement between two people. We should be able to make and break agreements at will without submitting fees and paperwork.

This whole thing, in my mind, is about gays wanting their relationships to be seen as legitimate. If you can say you are married, it gives you some measure of respectibility--as if having that piece of paper is proof of your moral goodness. It's sad that this is even an issue. I don't care who you want to have sex with.

[YomMamasHouse]

People always cite the traditional definition of marriage or other nonsense to try and argue against homosexual marriage, but that is a cover for their less socially acceptable beliefs. Who really gives two shits about tradition - tradition is just people doing things because people before them did it. Its like they think there is some intrinsic value to tradition, which is something I will never comprehend. We have seen massive paradigm shifts in all aspects of society over the course of our history, why is the textbook definition of marriage immutable?

[Iggy]

Originally Posted by Anthraxium[WU]

Having 2 different names prevents it from ever being truly equal.. Despite you thinking they should have the same rights, assigning different names solidifies their inequality (well not really inequality, but "un-equal-ness").

Yes, but isn't an athiest couple getting a "civil union" the same thing as a "marriage"? Gay or not. Marriage is traditionally a religeous ceremony, although the government has appointed itself as a legal means of marriage(service performed by a judge, rather than a priest). I don't have a problem with gays getting married(in whatever form). Basicly, calling it something else is a distinction without a difference.

[Bridget]

CrazyCarl pretty much sums it up. I am all in favor of homosexual marriage from a social standpoint, but from a political standpoint, I don't think the government should be in the business of marriage anyway. By offering rights that should be otherwise inherent or immediate, the government finds another way to control your life. You have to realize that whether the government allows homosexuals to marry or not, it is ultimately their decision, their rules, their allowance and control to and over you respectively. The government shouldn't be making your decisions for you, and that fact should not be forgotten even if the government chooses for you a decision you would have chosen yourself anyway.

Marriage may have once been a religious celebration, but it is now a secular celebration. Like CrazyCarl said, it's just about the underlining fact that you want to be considered equal and legitimate. Civil unions may make you feel legitimate, but it definitely doesn't make you feel equal. So, that's why there's this seemingly trivial fuss over semantics. Ideally, I think we should all be equal in our sense of not relying on the government to dictate our personal lives, but I guess in the meantime, people will be satisfied with being equally nurtured by the state.

Also, please stop looking to the constitution as the end all be all solution to this problem. We're talking about a document that may have been great for its time, but has become obviously lackluster in more modern times. I mean, shit, this was a document written by people who said all men were created equal while living in a society that approved of slavery and enforced stereotypical gender roles where men were forced to do x and women were forced to do y. The constitution could use some work before we all erect a religious following to it now-a-days.

/pipe

[Iggy]

Ok, so if all of the religeons of the world say "we won't marry homosexuals", then homosexuals can't get married, and the government shouldn't have a say in enforcing equal rights?

The overall job of the government is to protect it's populous. I agree that big government is bad for everyone, but that's another arguement.

The main problem with the government enforcing equal rights, is that it usually fucks shit up when it does so(look at affirmative action). By decreeing that it's illegal to deny specific people the right to marry, is simply doing it's job. As long as there are places where anyone can get married, then let it go at that, and if you find somewhere that won't do it, go to where they will.

[Bridget]

The rights should be evident without having to register them through a church or the state. Lol