FLASH SALE - 25% OFF - USE CODE: FLASH25 (25 HOURS ONLY)
November 3, 2008 @ 10:50 PM
Calborn

Post: 1599

Join Date: Mar 2008

Location: BAY, CALIFAS

It's not harmful per se, I am just against it.
We each have our own opinions.

But what proposition 8 is doing is countering the decisions of those judges. That's the basis.

As I grow older, I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch what they do.

November 3, 2008 @ 10:52 PM
fffffut

Post: 1146

Join Date: Aug 2008

sorry for getting defensive but i just think that thats some more bullshit
cause theyve been saying so much about teaching it in schools and shit
but youre right, everyones entitled to their opinions
November 3, 2008 @ 11:00 PM
Edward Chiu

Post: 1249

Join Date: Dec 2009

I've been on the fence about this shit. Being from SF, I know and work with gay people which makes it even harder.

Why are gay people not content with civil unions? I'm not against gay people and do not descriminate against anyone and voting yes would technically be discrimination, but I do believe tha marriage should be between a man and a woman.

What are the limitations of this prop? If the ban fails, will Gays be able to marry in the Church? Seperation between State and Church is a must in my book. If the ban fails, and the Church refuses to marry gay couple then it will be unlawful

There are so many issues, that make me go back and forth
November 3, 2008 @ 11:01 PM
hools

Post: 4461

Join Date: Jul 2008

Location: California

hm good points
November 3, 2008 @ 11:18 PM
PandaOs

Post: 109

Join Date: Jul 2008

No
i live in california and i don't think it should be on the ballot
November 3, 2008 @ 11:28 PM
Molly Wopp

Post: 1152

Join Date: Dec 2007

Location: A City Near You, CA

no because i don't care theirs more important shit to worry about than that. I'm alright with it as long as they don't start teaching gay marriage or any gay stuff in school. IMOconfused
November 3, 2008 @ 11:34 PM
GranzoRico

Post: 1402

Join Date: Jul 2006

Location: boogie down bx

ban it. I don't care what any of you kids think. If my absentee came in I woulda said yes.
November 3, 2008 @ 11:35 PM
thatoneguy

Post: 22

Join Date: Jun 2007

Location: GG, CA


Why are gay people not content with civil unions? I'm not against gay people and do not descriminate against anyone and voting yes would technically be discrimination, but I do believe tha marriage should be between a man and a woman.



I voted no(absentee ballot) but this is the same view my buddy had. Pretty much He was saying, Why couldn't they(homosexual couples) be content with civil unions. Do they really need the tax benefits/cuts that a real marriage( Man and woman in his eyes) get. For those who don't feel that this should be on the ballot, I disagree, this law was passed without the consent of the voters. That's the main reason prop 8 is on this ballot. For all you voting Californians YES on 5!
November 3, 2008 @ 11:47 PM
thelurkers

Post: 186

Join Date: Aug 2008

Location: pasadena, ca

I voted no(absentee ballot) but this is the same view my buddy had. Pretty much He was saying, Why couldn't they(homosexual couples) be content with civil unions. Do they really need the tax benefits/cuts that a real marriage( Man and woman in his eyes) get. For those who don't feel that this should be on the ballot, I disagree, this law was passed without the consent of the voters. That's the main reason prop 8 is on this ballot. For all you voting Californians YES on 5!


To the complaint that the law was passed without a vote or that the judges overturned the will of the people (an argument made by others): the judges were doing exactly what they were suppossed to do. It is their responsibility to interpret law and ensure that it is not in conflict with the Constitution. The majority of consitutional scholars agree that laws such as proposition 22 (2000s version of prop 8 ) are unconstitutional. Supreme Court Judges are not part of the legislative branch -they don't need the people to vote on their rulings, they uphold the constitution rather than satisfy voters.
November 4, 2008 @ 12:04 AM
thatoneguy

Post: 22

Join Date: Jun 2007

Location: GG, CA

To the complaint that the law was passed without a vote or that the judges overturned the will of the people (an argument made by others): the judges were doing exactly what they were suppossed to do. It is their responsibility to interpret law and ensure that it is not in conflict with the Constitution. The majority of consitutional scholars agree that laws such as proposition 22 (2000s version of prop 8 ) are unconstitutional. Supreme Court Judges are not part of the legislative branch -they don't need the people to vote on their rulings, they uphold the constitution rather than satisfy voters.


I understand but for the sake of argument and educating voters for tomorrow. In most legal circles the word
November 4, 2008 @ 12:13 AM
damnwitless2

suspended

Post: 7236

Join Date: Sep 2008

Location: Bucktown, USA

let them faggots get married, why not? I mean really, this really shouldn't even be an issue, if two consenting adults can sign a marriage license they should be able to get married, period.

All I do is smoke weed, blow lines, and listen to MF DOOM. And rap. http://www.facebook.com/SpacemanNYC

November 4, 2008 @ 12:15 AM
CreAm773

Post: 219

Join Date: Jul 2008

^ cosign ^

Leave them alone. Let them get married and have gay butt sex. It really isn't bothering anyone. Just my opinion.
November 4, 2008 @ 12:17 AM
Mos GeOFF

Post: 714

Join Date: Jan 2008

Location: SD

k srsly so man YES on prop 8 faggets everywhere on every fuckin street corner with their stuppid ass misleading signs

i dont agreee w/ gay marriage

but who am i to say what others should be able to do and feel



fuck them yes bitches and all their propaganda and tryin to act like im retarded and slowin up my fuckin commute in the morning by pressing the cross walks non stop so they can walk their asses back and forth


lol at my rant
[SIZE="5"]NO ON 8[/SIZE]
November 4, 2008 @ 12:20 AM
thatoneguy

Post: 22

Join Date: Jun 2007

Location: GG, CA

I'm all about personal choice. What you do is your own business. The info is more for those who are on the fence about it. It doesn't hurt to see two sides.
November 4, 2008 @ 12:22 AM
666Chang666

Post: 50

Join Date: Oct 2008

no.
on.
ocho
November 4, 2008 @ 12:26 AM
IamSean

Post: 201

Join Date: Jun 2008

I understand but for the sake of argument and educating voters for tomorrow. In most legal circles the word
November 4, 2008 @ 12:36 AM
thatoneguy

Post: 22

Join Date: Jun 2007

Location: GG, CA

They can't be content with it because civil unions do not provide the same benefits as marriage. And why should they be content when they don't have the same rights as heterosexual couples? It's stupid to be content with being discriminated against.


Taken from wiki as always take it with a grain of salt:
In California where domestic partnership has been available to same-sex couples since 2000, a wholesale revision of the law in 2005 has made it, like the New Jersey civil union law, equivalent to marriage in nearly every respect at the state level, though neither is recognized by the federal government. They still don't get like a thousand other federal benefits but, even if the marriage is still legalized it is only recognized through the state. To my understanding even though it will be recognized in the state they still won't get the federal benefits.
November 4, 2008 @ 01:56 AM
unfuccwittable

Post: 406

Join Date: Oct 2008

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj-0xMrsyxE


As was stated before, Supreme Court Judges are selected by the people that WE (in this case, Californians) ELECT. WE ELECTED these Judges, and in turn, they interpreted the laws, doing the job they were selected to do. This should be a no brainer for any person with a modicum of common sense. This is discrimination at its minimum and bigotry at the extreme. I don't think people that vote yes on 8 are bigots, most of them aren't. But there are a select few out there doing this solely out of hatred.

And to those that ask "Why can't they be content with civil unions?" For the very same reason my forefathers marched on Washington. For the very same reason Cesar Chavez is celebrated as a Hero. Because anytime a group of people has their rights infringed just for being who they are or want to be, there is a problem in society. This is why you cannot vote Yes on 8. Because if we allow any person's rights to be infringed upon, we allow for the same to be done to ourselves.

This isn't about benefits, or tax breaks or anything else. The way I see it, it's about being treated as equals. It's about having the same rights as everyone else as guaranteed in this nation's constitution. Should I be treated any differently because I'm black? No. Should a homosexual person be treated any differently because they are homosexual? No. It's as simple as that. EVERYONE afforded equal rights under the law.


As an aside: It's utterly ridiculous to think that someone could be so closed minded that they wouldn't even let a person marry the person they cared for and loved. Ruining the sanctity of marriage? Please. The divorce rate in this country is somewhere around 50%. I'd say the sanctity of marriage is past ruined. And honestly, no one has come up with a real reason for banning gay marriage. Who would this affect? What detriment would this cause society? I ask someone to come up with a competent argument against it. As of right now, there is none. And I doubt there ever will be.

NO ON PROP 8.

PS: Karl Winslow, will you marry me?
November 4, 2008 @ 02:15 AM
Calborn

Post: 1599

Join Date: Mar 2008

Location: BAY, CALIFAS

They can't be content with it because civil unions do not provide the same benefits as marriage. And why should they be content when they don't have the same rights as heterosexual couples? It's stupid to be content with being discriminated against.

Family Code

As I grow older, I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch what they do.

November 4, 2008 @ 02:20 AM
unfuccwittable

Post: 406

Join Date: Oct 2008

Family Code
November 4, 2008 @ 07:22 AM
JayLovesPinays

Post: 3356

Join Date: Aug 2008

who voted yes?


i did.
November 4, 2008 @ 10:03 AM
SSBSTS

Post: 2609

Join Date: Dec 2006

Location: omaha, des moines

If the ban fails, and the Church refuses to marry gay couple then it will be unlawful


that is completely untrue. the church can still refuse whoever it wants.
November 4, 2008 @ 10:28 AM
unfuccwittable

Post: 406

Join Date: Oct 2008

that is completely untrue. the church can still refuse whoever it wants.

precisely. all this does is recognise same sex marriages as equal to heterosexual marriages. no one is being forced to do anything.
November 4, 2008 @ 03:26 PM
Edward Chiu

Post: 1249

Join Date: Dec 2009

that is completely untrue. the church can still refuse whoever it wants.


I believe you took my words out of context. I wasn't stating a fact, I was merely confused on what the deal with that was. Separation from Church and State




www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj-0xMrsyxE


As was stated before, Supreme Court Judges are selected by the people that WE (in this case, Californians) ELECT. WE ELECTED these Judges, and in turn, they interpreted the laws, doing the job they were selected to do. This should be a no brainer for any person with a modicum of common sense. This is discrimination at its minimum and bigotry at the extreme. I don't think people that vote yes on 8 are bigots, most of them aren't. But there are a select few out there doing this solely out of hatred.

And to those that ask "Why can't they be content with civil unions?" For the very same reason my forefathers marched on Washington. For the very same reason Cesar Chavez is celebrated as a Hero. Because anytime a group of people has their rights infringed just for being who they are or want to be, there is a problem in society. This is why you cannot vote Yes on 8. Because if we allow any person's rights to be infringed upon, we allow for the same to be done to ourselves.

This isn't about benefits, or tax breaks or anything else. The way I see it, it's about being treated as equals. It's about having the same rights as everyone else as guaranteed in this nation's constitution. Should I be treated any differently because I'm black? No. Should a homosexual person be treated any differently because they are homosexual? No. It's as simple as that. EVERYONE afforded equal rights under the law.


As an aside: It's utterly ridiculous to think that someone could be so closed minded that they wouldn't even let a person marry the person they cared for and loved. Ruining the sanctity of marriage? Please. The divorce rate in this country is somewhere around 50%. I'd say the sanctity of marriage is past ruined. And honestly, no one has come up with a real reason for banning gay marriage. Who would this affect? What detriment would this cause society? I ask someone to come up with a competent argument against it. As of right now, there is none. And I doubt there ever will be.

NO ON PROP 8.

PS: Karl Winslow, will you marry me?



I agree
November 4, 2008 @ 03:40 PM
koolhaas

Post: 25

Join Date: Mar 2008

gay marriages doesn't mean gay marriages in churches. Each church will still be well within its rights to not conduct such marriages. The government will not force them to marry individuals if it is against their beliefs.

ps. christians didnt invent the word marriage. let go already.
November 4, 2008 @ 04:18 PM
tRick

Post: 1133

Join Date: Apr 2008

Location: O'er Yonder

this is very very retarded. why does this even need to be in question?? if a girl loves another girl or a guy loves another guy, let em get married. even if they cant get married, theyre still gonna run around being gay and crap. so let it just be official. and either way. if prop 8 is voted yes or no, your life wont be affected at all. not at all. so whats the problem, seriously?? ...well unless youre gay.
this is like if they just decided asians couldnt get married. why? idk, theyre asian. so nope, no marriage for you!

so no to prop 8. get over yourselves.
November 4, 2008 @ 05:54 PM
pnsho

Post: 6871

Join Date: Jan 2007

i think people who vote yes on it is fucking hating as fuags

its fucked up because this is what they did to *****s and chicks and wetbacks and jews. And im saying those racist slurs because thats what they are doing...discriminating...i dont get it, if they're not bothering you why do you care.......and then, its ussually the people whos very religious and shit, everything has to do with jesus, like they acually met the guy and know for fact that he is real


cool
November 4, 2008 @ 06:02 PM
imtheman

Post: 1759

Join Date: May 2008

Yes on 8....
I'm just not comfortable with two men or two women together, being "married" or raising a child who will not know what it was like growing up when the word "marriage" meant between a man & woman.
And yes, kids will hear about this in school or somewhere education-related because what happens when a 6 year old goes up to a teacher and asks "Where do babies come from?"... the teacher explains how, but then the kid throws a curveball and says, "I dont have a mommy & daddy. I have a mommy & mommy"..or..etc etc. Then what?! Kids will be soooo confused and then the whole "birds & bees" story is out the window now. Other kids will make fun of those with two dads or moms, as that happens now. There are gay people who STILL go to various churches that practice anti-gay religious beliefs (how does that work?!), and the fact that sooner or later, EVERYBODY will have something to complain about that their civil rights have been refused, or discriminated against, or yada yada.... Theres gonna' have to be a whole new constitution written for all these lawsuits, and denials of rights by the time our kids have kids, its ridiculous how easily people's feelings get hurt and wanna' turn and say that they've been discriminated against!!?!

*** My opinion and no way did I target anybody, but I just dont wanna' see my kids be born and raised with my morals & beliefs, only to see that the rest of their nation shows otherwise, because yes, this prop.8 would spread nation wide eventually and who knows where else.
November 4, 2008 @ 06:13 PM
Beez

Post: 3724

Join Date: Sep 2006

Location: Bay Area, CA

Yes on 8....
I'm just not comfortable with two men or two women together, being "married" or raising a child who will not know what it was like growing up when the word "marriage" meant between a man & woman.
And yes, kids will hear about this in school or somewhere education-related because what happens when a 4 year old goes up to a teacher and asks "Where do babies come from?"... the teacher explains how, but then the kid throws a curveball and says, "I dont have a mommy & daddy. I have a mommy & mommy"..or..etc etc. Then what?! Kids will be soooo confused and then the whole "birds & bees" story is out the window now. Other kids will make fun of those with two dads or moms, as that happens now. There are gay people who STILL go to various churches that practice anti-gay religious beliefs (how does that work?!), and the fact that sooner or later, EVERYBODY will have something to complain about that their civil rights have been refused, or discriminated against, or yada yada.... Theres gonna' have to be a whole new constitution written for all these lawsuits, and denials of rights by the time our kids have kids, its ridiculous how easily people's feelings get hurt and wanna' turn and say that they've been discriminated against!!?!

*** My opinion and no way did I target anybody, but I just dont wanna' see my kids be born and raised with my morals & beliefs, only to see that the rest of their nation shows otherwise, because yes, this prop.8 would spread nation wide eventually and who knows where else.


Thank you.

Marriage is defined between a man and a woman.

Like I said I got no hate against gays and you know what, yall can do whatever you want but if gays are wanting to get married in church, by priests/pastors, anything relevant I'd be piiised b/c your'e effing with traditions.

twitter @brandohnn findme. injc*

November 4, 2008 @ 06:18 PM
krn_zmb

Post: 4066

Join Date: Apr 2007

Location: Bay Area

One moral that you and your kids as well as every human being in the whole world, gay, straight, purple and green, is that they should have the decision to choose for themselves and not have anyone choose for them.
and no where on the ballot, the piece of paper that i voted on this very day, says anything of any sort of schools educating kids about marriage.
It shouldn't affect you in any way if a man and man and a woman and woman get married. It's legal now and has it affected u in anyway? No. So live your life the way u want to live yours, and let other people live there lives the way they want to live theres.
morals and beliefs that come from many people seemed to be religion and bible based, and if you thats the case for you, you shouldn't take the bible so seriously.
Leviticus 19: 19, states that "neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee." Which basically says that man should not wear womens clothing and a woman should not wear mens clothing. If thats the case, many you christians or whoever worships these rules are all going to hell. Women wear men based clothes all the time. If we were supposed to follow every single rule in this book, then i guess were doing a shitty job.
God created all men and women, gay and straight. If being gay is wrong then God isn't perfect.

If you are a fan of the constitution, "All men are created equal." A gay man is a man, why shouldnt he have the same equal rights to marry as a straight man does?


No ones perfect, so before you try to prevent someone elses "flaws", start with yourself. Have respect for everyone, straight or gay.

Please login first to reply.
Back To Top