Poll

Should homosexual couples have the right to marriage in the United States?

Yes
44 (77.2%)
No
13 (22.8%)

Total Members Voted: 55

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 15   Go Down

Proposition 8

  • 427 Replies
  • 62008 Views
?

Cinlef

  • The Elder Ones
  • 969
  • The Earth is a Sphere
Re: Proposition 8
« Reply #120 on: November 13, 2008, 08:18:11 PM »
Sigh
That will teach me to stop relying on copy/paste

A chastened
Cinlef
Logged
Truth is great and will prevail-Thomas Jefferson

Quote from: Colonel Gaydafi on February 07, 2009, 03:54:06 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Cinlef is the bestest!

Melior est sapientia quam vires-Wisdom
*

Sexual Harassment Panda

  • 7082
  • Now more sophisticated
Re: Proposition 8
« Reply #121 on: November 13, 2008, 08:19:33 PM »
Why do you do that signature thing anyway?
Logged
|^^^^^^^^^^^\||_____          
|     STFU          |||""'|"""\___            O
| ______________|||___|__|__|)          -|- 
  (@)@)""""""**|(@)(@)**|(@)          / \

New Flat Earth FAQ: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30512.0
*

Emir Parkreiner

  • 409
  • Killer with a conscience.
Re: Proposition 8
« Reply #122 on: November 13, 2008, 08:26:59 PM »
Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 13, 2008, 07:25:50 AM
Quote from: Emir Parkreiner on November 13, 2008, 12:59:42 AM
And what's so important about calling it a marriage when they can have an identical legal relationship with a different name?
Calling it anything else would support the discrimination.

1. 'Separate but equal', isn't equal. Marriage is a union of people, and terms like 'gay marriage' are separating them from the majority, without legitimate reason.
So gay marriages aren't gay?

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 13, 2008, 07:25:50 AM
2. This separation leads to discrimination via the Saphir Whorf Hypothesis. It has enormous empirical evidence backing it, and it states that language shapes perception. Sounds hokey, but I'll explain it:

Synonymous terms are introduced into a language in order to differentiate between things that shouldn't be separated. (I think Jewish people don't have separate words for Jam and Jelly, but it can't reflect societal prejudice because the subject isn't a person or group)

In the instance that the word is introduced to separate a group of people, it is usually done for discriminatory purposes or taboo views. Creating such a word gives the word a demeaning slant. The word 'nigger' was introduced to describe a group of people who already had social labels, but it became horribly condescending. Homosexuals were labeled as 'gay' or 'fags' to separate them further and dehumanize/alienate them. Applying more labels to the minority is not only unnecessary but damaging.
How does this relate to my question? S-W could (completely hypothetical) affect gays regardless or not they were granted marriage.
Logged
*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • swiggity swooty
Re: Proposition 8
« Reply #123 on: November 13, 2008, 08:42:15 PM »
Quote from: Emir Parkreiner on November 13, 2008, 08:26:59 PM
Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 13, 2008, 07:25:50 AM
Quote from: Emir Parkreiner on November 13, 2008, 12:59:42 AM
And what's so important about calling it a marriage when they can have an identical legal relationship with a different name?
Calling it anything else would support the discrimination.

1. 'Separate but equal', isn't equal. Marriage is a union of people, and terms like 'gay marriage' are separating them from the majority, without legitimate reason.
So gay marriages aren't gay?

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 13, 2008, 07:25:50 AM
2. This separation leads to discrimination via the Saphir Whorf Hypothesis. It has enormous empirical evidence backing it, and it states that language shapes perception. Sounds hokey, but I'll explain it:

Synonymous terms are introduced into a language in order to differentiate between things that shouldn't be separated. (I think Jewish people don't have separate words for Jam and Jelly, but it can't reflect societal prejudice because the subject isn't a person or group)

In the instance that the word is introduced to separate a group of people, it is usually done for discriminatory purposes or taboo views. Creating such a word gives the word a demeaning slant. The word 'nigger' was introduced to describe a group of people who already had social labels, but it became horribly condescending. Homosexuals were labeled as 'gay' or 'fags' to separate them further and dehumanize/alienate them. Applying more labels to the minority is not only unnecessary but damaging.
How does this relate to my question? S-W could (completely hypothetical) affect gays regardless or not they were granted marriage.

Why do you care? You must be gay. If not, just say yes to gay rights and leave it at that.
Logged
*

Emir Parkreiner

  • 409
  • Killer with a conscience.
Re: Proposition 8
« Reply #124 on: November 14, 2008, 01:06:53 AM »
Quote
Why do you care?
Why care about the name of identical legal arrangements? It's not that I think gays shouldn't have equal rights, it's just under a civil union they could without creating any controversy.

Quote
You must be gay. If not, just say yes to gay rights and leave it at that.
False dilemma much.
Logged
*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65295
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Proposition 8
« Reply #125 on: November 14, 2008, 02:02:07 AM »
Quote from: Cinlef on November 13, 2008, 07:35:47 PM
Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 13, 2008, 07:31:29 PM
How are you a moderator with only 502 posts? Do you know Daniel?
I was on the Forums when they first started, for a while I was one of the most frequent posters,and was made a mod. But then for a number of reasons I didn't have the time to post on the Forums so I've been more or less totally inactive for the last year and a half.....
But now circumstances have changed and I should have enough free time that I can occasionally frequent the Forums again

An explaining
Cinlef

And welcome back!  ;D
Logged
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?
*

Wendy

  • 18492
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: Proposition 8
« Reply #126 on: November 14, 2008, 02:55:40 AM »
Quote from: Sexual Harassment Panda on November 13, 2008, 08:19:33 PM
Why do you do that signature thing anyway?

Actually, I kinda like it.


-Wendy
Pain is an illusion, and I am an illusionist.
Logged
Quote from: Wendy on December 31, 1969, 04:00:00 PM
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.
*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65295
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Proposition 8
« Reply #127 on: November 14, 2008, 04:39:15 AM »
Quote from: Wendy on November 14, 2008, 02:55:40 AM
Quote from: Sexual Harassment Panda on November 13, 2008, 08:19:33 PM
Why do you do that signature thing anyway?

Actually, I kinda like it.


-Wendy
Pain is an illusion, and I am an illusionist.

Please stop
Logged
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?
*

Wendy

  • 18492
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: Proposition 8
« Reply #128 on: November 14, 2008, 04:40:04 AM »
Stop what?


-Wendy
Pain is an illusion, and I am an illusionist.
Logged
Quote from: Wendy on December 31, 1969, 04:00:00 PM
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.
*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: Proposition 8
« Reply #129 on: November 14, 2008, 08:46:52 AM »
Quote from: Wendy on November 14, 2008, 02:55:40 AM
Quote from: Sexual Harassment Panda on November 13, 2008, 08:19:33 PM
Why do you do that signature thing anyway?

Actually, I kinda like it.


-Wendy
Pain is an illusion, and I am an illusionist.

Please stop.
Logged
Read the FAQS.
*

Wendy

  • 18492
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: Proposition 8
« Reply #130 on: November 14, 2008, 08:53:49 AM »
What is it that I should stop?


-Wendy
Pain is an illusion, and I am an illusionist.
Logged
Quote from: Wendy on December 31, 1969, 04:00:00 PM
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.
*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: Proposition 8
« Reply #131 on: November 14, 2008, 08:55:50 AM »
Quote from: Wendy on November 14, 2008, 08:53:49 AM
What is it that I should stop?


-Wendy
Pain is an illusion, and I am an illusionist.

Posting that terrible signature...
Logged
Read the FAQS.
*

Wendy

  • 18492
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: Proposition 8
« Reply #132 on: November 14, 2008, 08:58:27 AM »
But i likes it. :'(


-Wendy
Pain is an illusion, and I am an illusionist.
Logged
Quote from: Wendy on December 31, 1969, 04:00:00 PM
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.
*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: Proposition 8
« Reply #133 on: November 14, 2008, 09:01:15 AM »
Quote from: Wendy on November 14, 2008, 08:58:27 AM
But i likes it. :'(


-Wendy
Pain is an illusion, and I am an illusionist.

Ok, you can keep it.
Logged
Read the FAQS.
*

Sexual Harassment Panda

  • 7082
  • Now more sophisticated
Re: Proposition 8
« Reply #134 on: November 14, 2008, 11:15:38 AM »
Quote from: Wendy on November 14, 2008, 08:58:27 AM
But i likes it. :'(


-Wendy
Pain is an illusion, and I am an illusionist.
you're such a poser.

-panda
Logged
|^^^^^^^^^^^\||_____          
|     STFU          |||""'|"""\___            O
| ______________|||___|__|__|)          -|- 
  (@)@)""""""**|(@)(@)**|(@)          / \

New Flat Earth FAQ: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30512.0
?

Moonlit

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6061
  • The Rebound
Re: Proposition 8
« Reply #135 on: November 14, 2008, 11:19:07 AM »
Quote from: Sexual Harassment Panda on November 14, 2008, 11:15:38 AM
Quote from: Wendy on November 14, 2008, 08:58:27 AM
But i likes it. :'(


-Wendy
Pain is an illusion, and I am an illusionist.
you're such a poser.

-panda

Stop.
Logged
Quote from: Saddam Hussein on October 02, 2010, 01:44:40 PM
You think that a photograph is indisputable evidence?  Would you like me to show you a photograph of Barack Obama having sex with a gorilla?
*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Proposition 8
« Reply #136 on: November 14, 2008, 11:19:12 AM »
Despite them losing their right to marry, they can still have a domestic partnership in the state.  I believe that gives them all the rights of marriage except it not called that.

I think they all should be called domestic partnerships, gay and strait.  Leave marriage to churches, define it as a religious term which has no place in the state anyhow. Religions are allowed to make a distinction.
Logged
*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Proposition 8
« Reply #137 on: November 14, 2008, 11:23:20 AM »
Quote from: ragnarr on November 14, 2008, 11:19:12 AM
Despite them losing their right to marry, they can still have a domestic partnership in the state.  I believe that gives them all the rights of marriage except it not called that.

I think they all should be called domestic partnerships, gay and strait.  Leave marriage to churches, define it as a religious term which has no place in the state anyhow. Religions are allowed to make a distinction.

Yes, that way when they make a new law, they can make it pertain only to marriage and discriminate against the gays.
Logged
*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Proposition 8
« Reply #138 on: November 14, 2008, 11:40:28 AM »
If marriage is defined as part of a religion, then enacting a law that expands or restricts it would be a first amendment violation.  What I am suggesting is if they define all relationships as a domestic partnership, gay or strait, and let the label of married be up to the churches their would be no discrimination.

I do believe that Gays should have the same rights, and they should not be "separate but equal" like what was done to the blacks.

So if Joe and Jane are together, and they get married in a church, and receive their license from the state.  Then according to the state they are not married but in a domestic partnership.  Which has all the benefits of marriage today in law.  Then simply allow the gays to do the same thing with the state.

Only in the eyes of the church they are part of would Joe and Jane be married.

The difference is the church has the right to choose who is a member and who isn't, and they get to choose who they marry as it is defined as a religious ritual or symbol. 

Therefore in the eyes of the law, there would be no distinction, it's all domestic partnerships. However in the eyes of the church there would be a distinction.  And your status as husband and wife would only be official in your church.  (though people could still call you that).
Logged
*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Proposition 8
« Reply #139 on: November 14, 2008, 11:44:15 AM »
Quote from: ragnarr on November 14, 2008, 11:40:28 AM
If marriage is defined as part of a religion, then enacting a law that expands or restricts it would be a first amendment violation.  What I am suggesting is if they define all relationships as a domestic partnership, gay or strait, and let the label of married be up to the churches their would be no discrimination.



I'm going to stop you here. Marriage is not a religious institution, it is a tightly regulated union. If you label all marriages civil unions, then you would have to give the churches the right to define marriage. The problem is, which church? Then a gay church would pop up an declare gays married.
Logged
*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Proposition 8
« Reply #140 on: November 14, 2008, 12:00:50 PM »
There'd probably be some problems if all married couples had to suddenly label themselves as "civil unions".
Logged
*

Shaydawg

  • 245
Re: Proposition 8
« Reply #141 on: November 14, 2008, 12:33:35 PM »
Quote from: ragnarr on November 14, 2008, 11:40:28 AM
If marriage is defined as part of a religion, then enacting a law that expands or restricts it would be a first amendment violation.  What I am suggesting is if they define all relationships as a domestic partnership, gay or strait, and let the label of married be up to the churches their would be no discrimination.

I do believe that Gays should have the same rights, and they should not be "separate but equal" like what was done to the blacks.

So if Joe and Jane are together, and they get married in a church, and receive their license from the state.  Then according to the state they are not married but in a domestic partnership.  Which has all the benefits of marriage today in law.  Then simply allow the gays to do the same thing with the state.

Only in the eyes of the church they are part of would Joe and Jane be married.

The difference is the church has the right to choose who is a member and who isn't, and they get to choose who they marry as it is defined as a religious ritual or symbol. 

Therefore in the eyes of the law, there would be no distinction, it's all domestic partnerships. However in the eyes of the church there would be a distinction.  And your status as husband and wife would only be official in your church.  (though people could still call you that).

I voted "No" simply because the question was fairly vague. This post right here is what I believe. I have no problem with state domestic partnership licenses. It is the marriage aspect that turns me off.  I in no way think that gay couples should be denied rights that straight couples are granted by being married.

And I oppose homosexuality. This goes beyond personal beliefs however. Just because I dont believe people are born gay does not mean that their choice of lifestyle, which is hurting no one, should be restricted from the freedoms of other Americans.
Logged
*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Proposition 8
« Reply #142 on: November 14, 2008, 12:35:20 PM »
Quote from: Shaydawg on November 14, 2008, 12:33:35 PM
Quote from: ragnarr on November 14, 2008, 11:40:28 AM
If marriage is defined as part of a religion, then enacting a law that expands or restricts it would be a first amendment violation.  What I am suggesting is if they define all relationships as a domestic partnership, gay or strait, and let the label of married be up to the churches their would be no discrimination.

I do believe that Gays should have the same rights, and they should not be "separate but equal" like what was done to the blacks.

So if Joe and Jane are together, and they get married in a church, and receive their license from the state.  Then according to the state they are not married but in a domestic partnership.  Which has all the benefits of marriage today in law.  Then simply allow the gays to do the same thing with the state.

Only in the eyes of the church they are part of would Joe and Jane be married.

The difference is the church has the right to choose who is a member and who isn't, and they get to choose who they marry as it is defined as a religious ritual or symbol. 

Therefore in the eyes of the law, there would be no distinction, it's all domestic partnerships. However in the eyes of the church there would be a distinction.  And your status as husband and wife would only be official in your church.  (though people could still call you that).

I voted "No" simply because the question was fairly vague. This post right here is what I believe. I have no problem with state domestic partnership licenses. It is the marriage aspect that turns me off.  I in no way think that gay couples should be denied rights that straight couples are granted by being married.

And I oppose homosexuality. This goes beyond personal beliefs however. Just because I dont believe people are born gay does not mean that their choice of lifestyle, which is hurting no one, should be restricted from the freedoms of other Americans.

So what is your stance of Malaysian tax reform?
Logged
*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Proposition 8
« Reply #143 on: November 14, 2008, 12:37:12 PM »
Simplified Map:

At this time, only nine states grant same-sex marriage or civil unions.


Click to enlarge
Logged
*

Shaydawg

  • 245
Re: Proposition 8
« Reply #144 on: November 14, 2008, 12:37:51 PM »
I dont have a stance yet.

I have no idea what it is.
Logged
*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10957
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: Proposition 8
« Reply #145 on: November 14, 2008, 12:39:02 PM »
Quote from: Trekky0623 on November 14, 2008, 12:37:12 PM
Simplified Map:

At this time, only nine states grant same-sex marriage or civil unions.


Click to enlarge

Who cares then? All the good ones allow it. *puts on flameproof suit*
Logged
Quote from: Baseball4Life on April 16, 2010, 09:54:41 AM
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>
*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Proposition 8
« Reply #146 on: November 14, 2008, 01:06:33 PM »
Quote from: Raist on November 14, 2008, 11:44:15 AM
Quote from: ragnarr on November 14, 2008, 11:40:28 AM
If marriage is defined as part of a religion, then enacting a law that expands or restricts it would be a first amendment violation.  What I am suggesting is if they define all relationships as a domestic partnership, gay or strait, and let the label of married be up to the churches their would be no discrimination.



I'm going to stop you here. Marriage is not a religious institution, it is a tightly regulated union. If you label all marriages civil unions, then you would have to give the churches the right to define marriage. The problem is, which church? Then a gay church would pop up an declare gays married.

Churches are allowed to have their own rituals, they can call it marriage or whatever.  Depending on which church you belong too they may have different rules to abide by.  This can be kept entirely separate from the laws of a civil union that is defined by a state.

Its like this, Gays and Straits will be able to have a civil union with the exact same protections and benefits under the law.  However depending on the church, gays may not be recognized as married from the churches point of view, because they have a specific definition for that.

Who cares what the church thinks?  Most do not approve of Homosexuality anyway and would not accept Gays into their church in the first place.

So let them have their marriages, as long as the civil unions or domestic partnerships are equal under the state law.  If there is a gay church, then sure they could recognize gays as being married.
Logged
*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Proposition 8
« Reply #147 on: November 14, 2008, 01:07:50 PM »
Quote from: Shaydawg on November 14, 2008, 12:37:51 PM
I dont have a stance yet.

I have no idea what it is.

That hardly prevented you from forming one on gay marriage.
Logged
*

Emir Parkreiner

  • 409
  • Killer with a conscience.
Re: Proposition 8
« Reply #148 on: November 14, 2008, 01:21:46 PM »
Quote from: Shaydawg on November 14, 2008, 12:37:51 PM
I dont have a stance yet.
Try a wide one.
Logged
*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Proposition 8
« Reply #149 on: November 14, 2008, 01:22:56 PM »
Quote from: ragnarr on November 14, 2008, 01:06:33 PM
Quote from: Raist on November 14, 2008, 11:44:15 AM
Quote from: ragnarr on November 14, 2008, 11:40:28 AM
If marriage is defined as part of a religion, then enacting a law that expands or restricts it would be a first amendment violation.  What I am suggesting is if they define all relationships as a domestic partnership, gay or strait, and let the label of married be up to the churches their would be no discrimination.



I'm going to stop you here. Marriage is not a religious institution, it is a tightly regulated union. If you label all marriages civil unions, then you would have to give the churches the right to define marriage. The problem is, which church? Then a gay church would pop up an declare gays married.

Churches are allowed to have their own rituals, they can call it marriage or whatever.  Depending on which church you belong too they may have different rules to abide by.  This can be kept entirely separate from the laws of a civil union that is defined by a state.

Its like this, Gays and Straits will be able to have a civil union with the exact same protections and benefits under the law.  However depending on the church, gays may not be recognized as married from the churches point of view, because they have a specific definition for that.

Who cares what the church thinks?  Most do not approve of Homosexuality anyway and would not accept Gays into their church in the first place.

So let them have their marriages, as long as the civil unions or domestic partnerships are equal under the state law.  If there is a gay church, then sure they could recognize gays as being married.

They'd have to go to one of the nine states on the map.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 15   Go Up
« previous next »