California Prop 8 Overturned By Openly Gay Judge

[BigBear]

THIS + stop state/fed fundings to shit like abortion, biased education programs, and any other private citizens' circumstances.

Fed needs to stick to foreign affair and nation security.

Hold thread! Question about that.

Why DOES the state/fed fund abortion? They don't fund sperm banks or whatever do they? Isn't this what health coverage is for?

It's the individual's problem that they got pregnant, they should get themselves out of it.... Rape victims, etc excluded.

I just never understood that. Can anyone explain?

[Elhuero]

The problem I have with gays, and more generally liberals is their hypocritical point of view. Their notion of tolerance does not "swing both ways"

If the overturn stands, I predict that within a few years there will be a suit brought in CA against the LDS church.

They will claim that the church is violating the law by not allowing gay marriage in it's buildings, and demand the church's tax free status be revoked.

In this aspect gays are a lot like illegal immigrants.

They claim they just want to live the american dream and be happy like everyone else.

In reality they want everyone to conform to their own minority viewpoint, or else.

[SA Friday]

[quote=nogaroheli;227861]

Sometimes doing the right thing means the majority is wrong.
quote]

I'm having a tough time with this in this instance. The long lived definition of marriage was "wrong"?

Marriage has up until now meant a union between a man and woman. Nothing wrong with that right? Now this appointed judge wants to change the meaning of that word to include homosexual unions. Now, why does that meaning have to change? I really don't care what two dudes do, why they do it, what they call it, but why is it so important to call it marriage? Call it a Civil Union, call it Vuvuzela Spectacular or whatever you want, but I'm not comfortable with the idea of the govenment feeling they need to redefine the meening of the word. It's a slippery slope.

I have to agree. Marriage has been a hetrogeneous union historically. I also agree allowing for a secondary category, civil union, would be appropriate. I don't think this issue requires redefining the word marriage in any way.

I do think taking a stance that the majority should rule, always, is just as slippery a slope. This is what I was addressing in my previous comments, not advocating for redefinition.

[BigBear]

Marriage has up until now meant a union between a man and woman. ...Now, why does that meaning have to change? I really don't care what two dudes do, why they do it, what they call it, but why is it so important to call it marriage? Call it a Civil Union, call it Vuvuzela Spectacular or whatever you want, but I'm not comfortable with the idea of the govenment feeling they need to redefine the meening of the word. It's a slippery slope.

Bottom line from all the arguements I've heard: They feel that anything less than a gay "marriage" is subpar and they are not recognized as equal citizens with straight people... or something like that.

[SA Friday]

Bottom line from all the arguements I've heard: They feel that anything less than a gay "marriage" is subpar and they are not recognized as equal citizens with straight people... or something like that.

I think they just want the same legal abilities moreso than the word itself.

[HBARleatherneck]

ok, i will be the ahole.

first if they had the internet 20 years ago, i cant imagine a bunch of "men"
American, gun, outdoors, men, defending gays. now it is ok. they have pushed their adjenda to every part of American culture. I dont know if any of you are gay, but a lot of you are defending them. This is a new thing. I am not saying its right or wrong. But, this is a new thing. 20 years ago gays were in the shadows.

Now to be the alarmist... Why is poking your buddy in the hole shit comes out ok? But being a polygamist is wrong, illegal, bad? Why? I sure dont get it. Historically polygamy, has been accepted until rather recently in this particular culture.

Now, it used to be gays, then gays, lesbians, then gays, lesbians, transgendered and whatever else. We are required respect this lifestyle choice. or it is shoved down our throats anyway. So where does it stop? this inclusion? beastiality? NAMBLA? Pedophlia? where?

Just askin. Fortunately, For me I dont come into contact with many people. So, I dont have to deal with anybody hardly straight or crooked.

[Irving]

Just like how we are forced to accept the choices of people with down syndrome because of the Special Olympics.

[mx'r]

ok, i will be the ahole.

first if they had the internet 20 years ago, i cant imagine a bunch of "men"
American, gun, outdoors, men, defending gays. now it is ok. they have pushed their adjenda to every part of American culture. I dont know if any of you are gay, but a lot of you are defending them. This is a new thing. I am not saying its right or wrong. But, this is a new thing. 20 years ago gays were in the shadows.

Now to be the alarmist... Why is poking your buddy in the hole shit comes out ok? But being a polygamist is wrong, illegal, bad? Why? I sure dont get it. Historically polygamy, has been accepted until rather recently in this particular culture.

Now, it used to be gays, then gays, lesbians, then gays, lesbians, transgendered and whatever else. We are required respect this lifestyle choice. or it is shoved down our throats anyway. So where does it stop? this inclusion? beastiality? NAMBLA? Pedophlia? where?

Just askin. Fortunately, For me I dont come into contact with many people. So, I dont have to deal with anybody hardly straight or crooked.

You forgot incest.

[nogaroheli]

I see what you did there....

I'm kidding, tasteful edits.

ROFL, well played Bear, funny stuff!

[nogaroheli]

[quote=SA Friday;227874]

I have to agree. Marriage has been a hetrogeneous union historically. I also agree allowing for a secondary category, civil union, would be appropriate. I don't think this issue requires redefining the word marriage in any way.

I do think taking a stance that the majority should rule, always, is just as slippery a slope. This is what I was addressing in my previous comments, not advocating for redefinition.

Cool

Do you think that activist judges going against the will of the majority being acceptable is a slippery slope? Not to derail, just for an example (if possible)- Look at AZ, the majority of the country wants the existing border laws upheld but our activist judges are giving the majority the finger and saying no to that. Just for thought...

I think there are too many laws being made and changed so legislators can justify their existance and appease their special interest contributors.