This really made the election a bitter sweet one for me. It's a bit ironic really, we as a country break through one barrier of hatred and discrimination and then simply replace it with another. I know any anger expressed by me would go relatively unnoticed by those it's directed towards so I'll keep my criticisms light this time around...
Anyone who voted yes on prop 8 can shampoo my crotch!
...oh and FUCK you.

pwned!

God, even if you're joking captaindumbcunt, you're really scraping the barrel of your own amusement this time ya dufus.

I'm just very fucking angry, I have nothing sensible to add about prop 8, sorry

I think it's too soon for this. It will simply take time.

Same sex marriage will eventually win in this country. It's a natural progression that cannot be denied. Still, that doesn't make it any more right that it exists for heterosexuals and not homosexuals right now. I think there needs to be a push for the legality of marriage being something the government regulates, recognizes and manages due to the limitations given us by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence.

You could always argue state's rights, but those are also defined.

I think separation of church and state is clearly defined, and marriage is certainly defined as a religious institution, therefore it has no place in our government. That's where gays and lesbians need to go. Show it's unconstitutional.

>> ^CaptainPlanet420:
pwned!

Once, just once, SHUT YOUR FUCKING MOUTH! These aren't your fellow internet trolls, these are real fucking people; who's rights have been stripped away.

Grow the fuck up.

Please, please, don't do this. It adds nothing. Tell us why it's good that same-sex couples shouldn't have access to each others insurance, estates, and other attributes that are only afforded to married couples.

Captain, I'm prepared to hang my reputation in this community to make sure that your views are included in the debate, and that you are treated as fairly as any other member. Please don't let it be in vain.

>> ^CaptainPlanet420:
pwned!

QQ

Get it overturned.

1) Why the hell would a gay couple try to get married the day after a same-sex marriage ban gets passed? I mean, what did they think would happen? The clerk would say, "Ok, but you two are the last ones!"

Wtf.

2) To answer Schmawy's question for CP240 in a way that he'll never manage without use of the words "fags" or "fudge packers" or some other hateful speech:
It's a system that could be easily abused. Ever seen I pronounce you Chuck and Larry?

Hetero marriage benefits can be and are abused, I know. I'm just stripping away the hate from CP240's response, though.

Thanks MG. I come here for meaningful discourse. So "abuse" of marriage by hetros would include what? Marrying for immigration, healthcare, stuff like that? Sounds like you agree that is a problem with the institution, not the genders of the participants?

What about taxes? In California, two incomes folded into a single "household" income would increase tax revenue, wouldn't it? There are a lot of wealthy Homosexuals out there because they tend to be Dinks, right (not an epithet, 'dual income no kids')

I have always thought of this as a "flag burning" issue, more based on the dubiously invoked principals of "values" than it is on anything that actually effects anyone.

When people hate and curse at John McCain or me, it's OK. When I get a kick out of gay people trying to BREAK THE RULES, as in breaking the law, it's eia...but somehow that's hateful, even with no hate speech, though someone added that idea in magically. How do you know I was laughing them for their gayness, and not just their stupidity? Oh, but you all are prescient. Of course. All your past judgments color your emotions and put blinders on you that are carried everywhere. If I claimed religious bigotry and hate everytime you youngling atheists hated on Christianity, I'd never stop typing. There are just more of you to have little temper tantrums with the gays issue.

Overall CP, I agree with your assessment that the rhetoric around these parts is lopsided, that intolerant language from "tolerant" people is somehow tolerated. I have a big problem with that. I don't care who says it, if it's hate and derision it makes kitty mad. But, we hide our true feelings behind acrimony and name-calling. So, let me offer you a true glimpse into my poisoned liberal mind, and hopefully you will chose to answer in kind...

I think you should do what makes you happy if it isn't hurting anyone. If two people of the same sex should want to share their estate, more power to them. Gender isn't important to me in any part of my life except which kind of gender I chose to have sex with. At times I have actually thought that gender should be elective. At the age of sixteen you pick which suits you best. If you and your loved one are not compatible for reproduction, well, that's the luck of the draw. I garuantee you that 90% of the population would be breeding pairs. That's how it works. 10% gay regardless. That's how we end up with congressmen in airport bathrooms. He would have picked the other gender.

We don't need as many breeding pairs anyway. we're not going to run out of people any time soon. And if it is actually "evolution in action", why are more homosexuals born every day, to hetro couples? I'm sure you've been challenged by these questions many times, and I'm not demanding an answer, except "who is it really hurting"?

>> ^schmawy:
Overall CP, I agree with your assessment that the rhetoric around these parts are lopsided, that intolerant language from "tolerant" people is somehow tolerated. I have a big problem with that. I don't care who says it, if it's hate and derision it makes kitty mad. But, we hide our true feelings behind acrimony and name-calling. So, let me offer you a true glimpse into my poisoned liberal mind, and hopefully you will chose to answer in kind...
I think you should do what makes you happy if it isn't hurting anyone. If two people of the same sex should want to share their estate, more power to them. Gender isn't important to me in any part of my life except which kind of gender I chose to have sex with. At times I have actually thought that gender should be elective. At the age of sixteen you pick which suits you best. If you and your loved one are not compatible for reproduction, well, that's the luck of the draw. I garuantee you that 90% of the population would be breeding pairs. That's how it works. 10% gay regardless. That's how we end up with congressmen in airport bathrooms. He would have picked the other gender.
We don't need as many breeding pairs anyway. we're not going to run out of people any time soon. And if it is actually "evolution in action", why are more homosexuals born every day, to hetro couples? I'm sure you've been challenged by these questions many times, and I'm not demanding an answer, except "who is it really hurting"?


The eia referred to this gay couples stupidity only, like I said, not their orientation. Your first line is good, but will be rendered ineffectual since you're sympathizing with the much feared me.

On the other hand, it is eia. If it is normal, then all 100% should be able to be flamers. Yet, before we had the petri dish thing, in 100 years all of mankind would have been extinct. Go ahead, claim its normal behavior...hopeless lies.

I'm perfectly happy to go as far afield of the topic of gay marriage and talk about the key issue which is central to the debate, but I'd still like an answer to the last question "who is it really hurting". I do sympathize with the frightful CP420, but please also accept a more concise version of that statement: "Don't hate a hater".

It's a strange exercise to bring 'evolution in action' into the a flame war about homosexuality, because it's like trying to kill an opponent with their own gun, not really knowing how to use it. Evolution really shouldn't have anything to do with it. If we accept the work of Darwin, we have to accept that in large part the definition of "civilization" is a defiance of nature in every way possible.

I'm sure that it's been said that homosexuality is equivalent to; left-handedness, color blindness, extraordinary artistic talent, mad math skills, double-jointedness, brown eyes, blond hair, in short we are all "aberrations" or variations on God's great theme.

[e:] blahblahblah listen to me I'm bloviating. Sorry.

The challenges to Prop 8 are already going up in the courts.

In a dream scenario, the case regarding gay marriage reaches the Supreme Court after Obama has appointed the replacements for Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, Alito, and Thomas. Then gay marriage would be legalized for the whole country in one fell swoop.

For the sake of argument...

If the entire population were homosexual, and we did not have any method of artifical insemination, the species would still not die out. Men and women would still have sex with each other to continue the human race. They may not do it often, and they certainly wouldn't enjoy it (Uncomfortable sex? Maybe the Catholics are on to something there!), but it would still happen because species as a whole are pretty good at doing whatever it takes to survive. It's possible that heterosexuality would evolve from such a society to make things go more smoothly, but we would not go extinct in a generation if everyone became homosexual overnight.

The "homosexuality is unnatural" argument is not a very good one because homosexuality is prevalent in nature, even among species with two distinct genders that must mate with each other to procreate.

Replying to each paragraph seperately...

>> ^blankfist:
Same sex marriage will eventually win in this country. It's a natural progression that cannot be denied. Still, that doesn't make it any more right that it exists for heterosexuals and not homosexuals right now. I think there needs to be a push for the legality of marriage being something the government regulates, recognizes and manages due to the limitations given us by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence.

I agree, though I would argue that government should just drop marriage altogether and only deal in civil unions. Despite how much I like it, I don't think the "civil union only" argument flies very far.

You could always argue state's rights, but those are also defined.

Are they? The state's rights are defined in that state's constitution, but if I remember correctly, any action not explicitly granted or denied in the U.S. Constitution is left for the state to adjudicate by default. Marriage is a state's rights issue, so I don't think there's a higher authority than the state constitution here.

I think separation of church and state is clearly defined, and marriage is certainly defined as a religious institution, therefore it has no place in our government. That's where gays and lesbians need to go. Show it's unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, Separation of Church and State is not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution (I haven't checked CA's Constitution for it). As such, I'm not convinced a Constitutional challenge along those lines will succeed, though I suppose I could be pleasantly surprised. Claiming "civil union = marriage" and then leveraging Brown v. Board for a 14th Amendment challenge seems like a better avenue to me. Regardless, there's no reason why every avenue can't be attempted at once.

CaptainPlanet420, two questions...

1) If I wanted to hug you would you let me?

and

B) If so, would it be one of those back-slappy man hugs or an honest squeeze?

Huuuuuuuuuuge furry hug for the Shumawy...just bring the Alavert, cause I'm allergic to kitties...:(

DavidRaine, stop poking holes in my logic.

Well that's good. That makes me feel better. I hope you're getting them regular.

>> ^schmawy:
I'm sure that it's been said that homosexuality is equivalent to; left-handedness, color blindness, extraordinary artistic talent, mad math skills, double-jointedness, brown eyes, blond hair, in short we are all "aberrations" or variations on God's great theme.


Actually, it wasn't until 1973 that the American Psychological Association declassified homosexuality as a mental illness. Dr. Laura (from radio) ruined her career when she called homosexuality a "biological error" and "deviance in society." It wasn't too long ago... I remember listening to her show 8 years ago or so. Society as a whole hasn't come far enough to say homosexuality is just another "variation on God's great theme."

I don't think any amount of logic will win over the hearts and minds of the CP420s of the world. It has taken CP420 a long time to reach this level of cognitive dissonance, and letting it go would basically mean erasing the entire foundation of his being and starting over from scratch. I don't see him as the type who could accomplish this. His ignorance will most likely follow him to the grave.

The logical peril of calling it a "disease" or "disorder" is that it immediately paints homosexuality as a thing to be "cured". There's something to that that is so disturbing.

Say there was a "gay pill" and a "hetro pill". Who would take them? Would I take the gay pill? I might. Would homosexuals try on "straight"? Probably, it isn't easy being gay. But there is no such thing and I don't see the point in looking for one any more than there's a need to try to eliminate red hair.

It is natural, and there might be an evolutionary need for it. A lot of mating mammals raise young in a single gender group. So having deep bonds of affection between members of the same sex could be a tremendous advantage to a group. I donno, just an idea, substantiated by nothing.

I could never handle Dr. Slessinger, for her shallow understanding of "society" or more aptly humanity.

I love it when folks try to come up with "scientific" explainations for why they think homosexual behavior is wrong. They are rationalizing their religious baggage. I argue this all time..... Once you dismiss your religious indoctrination, then what is the big deal?

The last morsel they hang on to is parenting. Kids need a mother and a father. Bull. There are so many crappy natural parents. Who could deny two hard working, loving, committed adults to the chance of loving a child... especially one that needs a home? Who are we to take that from them?
I'll put even money on a couple like that to raise my child than two 25 year old heteros that got married for the baby, then divorced in 3 years.. or worse yet, your batshit crazy 'Jesus Camp' types!

On this picture though.. Why did the dummies wait till Wednesday?? Gee wiz, didn't they think at all that Prop 8 might have passed?

Can they go to Conneticut or Massachusetts and get married? Will California recognize marriages made out of the state.. or country?

>> ^swampgirl:
On this picture though.. Why did the dummies wait till Wednesday??

So they have standing? You can't challenge the law unless it impacts you directly, so they needed to try to get married on the 5th.

The interesting thing is that they were probably still issuing licenses to straight couples, which is now illegal thanks to prop8.

Since the prop8 folks argued that this was an amendment, and not a revision(which is harder to get on the ballot), they have not changed the equal protection which the state supreme court already ruled on, so we have a situation where the CA constitution says:

1) The state must treat all citizens equally.
2) The state may not grant marriage licenses equally to it's citizens.

Add these two up and we have:

The state may not grant marriage licenses to it's citizens.

The "protect marriage" people may have just killed the institution of marriage in the state of California.

I hope this is taken all the way, and everybody is converted to civil-unions, that has been the right answer the whole time.

No, I'm just not seeing why anyone would deliberately wait until after the vote to get married if they were already planning to do so.

They were wanting to challenge the Prop 8 law then. If it were me, I would have married already to be safe.

For the record homosexuality was officially removed from the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostics and Statistics manual as being a disease that needed curing in 1973. Up to that point hundreds if not thousands of psychiatrists had sought to figure out exactly what it was that led to homosexuality. I would argue that not one came to a definitive answer simply because there isn't one. Homosexuality is an act of nature no different than the butterfly or the duckbilled platypus. That's not to say that it's grotesque as much as it's to say that it's just as weird and beautiful as anything else that nature has produced.
In regards to James Eslick and Jake Rowe how is this any different from a Rosa Parks or a freedom rider? That's not to say that their acts are comparable as much as it's to say that their sentiments are. When is it ever convenient to stand up against the status quo and power? Sure they could've been married days before the vote but then who would they have left behind?
As for the eia argument I think I have history on my side. Starting with the fertile crescent humans have existed and lived in communities on earth for roughly 8,000 years and since the dawn of civilization homosexuals have been right there with the rest of the population. Now if the homosexual really was the undoing of the human race and the cause of our extinction why has the earth's population only continued to grow since then? We have grown from a few thousand living in the desert to 6.5 billion inhabiting the entire planet. Those gays sure have impeded our progress haven't they?

It seems like, practically speaking, it would be administratively difficult to enforce the previously 'legally-approved' marriages and not recognize the other ones. It's as though this vote were saying that it is worth going the extra mile to disenfranchise a population of people. That is just sickening, and scary as hell.

"If I claimed religious bigotry and hate everytime you youngling atheists hated on Christianity, I'd never stop typing. There are just more of you to have little temper tantrums with the gays issue".

You're forgetting one vital fact, religion or voting McCain is a choice. And gays don't try and tell me how to live my life or tell me right from wrong.

If you're going to be making an argument, could you please think it through and add soemthing that we can genuinely debate on. Because Schmawy backing you up like he is, (and great on him for sticking with his no hate policies) is giving you the chance to at least engage your brain and have people listen with an open mind and you're shitting all over that you selfish tit

CP thanks for kickstarting the discussion. Some interesting points have been made. The couple hugging in the picture were in fact p'wned by the the ban. They decided to try anyway either out of lack of planning or in order to "make a standing" and file a lawsuit, as dghandi points out.

The video doesn't really lead me to believe that this was a willing protest based on their reactions, but on the other hand being told "no" even if you expected it might still be heart-breaking. I wonder if they will file suit and cause lots of litigious machinations where there really needn't be any if voters just lived and let live. What problems were same-sex marriages causing?

*quality

Get to a thousand already, fucker. Some time before I die would be nice.

Awarding blankfist with one star point for this contribution to Sift Talk - declared quality by kronosposeidon.