U.S. Judge Overturns Proposition 8

Joe wrote:

Oh, believe me, I'm not disagreeing with you in anyway. I'm just bothered, because as a California resident and registered voter I was brought into this, and I knew this was going to happen no matter what the decision was. And, the biggest problem I have with us being able to vote on this amendment is whether or not it was really fair. I mean as long as you are a registered voter in California you could have voted on this. That means someone who just doesn't like ga-heys could have voted yes for the amendment, and someone who is anti-religious could have voted no just as a means to stick it to religion. Yeah, maybe they both cancel each other out, like I said I'm just venting!

Well that is the pain and joy of being a republic. Sometimes things happen the way you want and sometimes they do not. As long as everyone who is registered to vote has the opportunity to vote (without the new black panther party waving weapons outside the polling places of course) I think it is fine.

Quote :

(without the new black panther party waving weapons outside the polling places of course)

Wonder why they got away with it?

Troublezone wrote:

Quote :

(without the new black panther party waving weapons outside the polling places of course)

Wonder why they got away with it?

because apparently one of the features of change is voter intimidation.

I am on probably very liberal when it comes to my politics but as far as I am concerned neither party looks out for the interest of the average American voter.

I think that ga-hey marriage is a non issue, for one thing like exact said that marriage is deceided by the States not mandated by federal law, while I do think Propostion 8 was nothing then political posturing, I also think overturning it is nothing more than the same thing.

I wish our political parties would deceide what is right thing to do based on issues, not based on the fact that one has a little r or little d behind their name. I am tired of liberal or conservative tags or any of the other crap politicans now adays use to divide and conquer.

Thrasher73 wrote:

manny wrote:

I have nothing against gays marrying, I do not see any reason why I should suffer alone.

Thats what Im sayin.Let em get married,why should only the straight people be miserable!

Yup, that about sums it up for me too. Misery loves company.

The judge who overturned the will of the voters/citizens of California is homosexual. I doubt he was subjective, impartial, and/or unbiased in his decision. Anybody wonder why or how the case went before him?

The civil rights he claimed to have been violated are already protected by California civil union laws. So regardless of what something is called, "legal/constutional" which is what the Supreme Court interprets something is or isn't has already been established. For the life of me, I can't figure out how or why a lifestyle choice became a civil rights issue. Now under the same premise of rights, my neighbor can marry his dog.

Quote :

Now under the same premise of rights, my neighbor can marry his dog.

Make sure he gets a prenup. Interspecies marriages rarely work out.

Oddly enough, I don't have a problem with that either. When it effects (or is it affects?) me personally, I'll start to care I guess.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Quote :

Now under the same premise of rights, my neighbor can marry his dog.

Make sure he gets a prenup. Interspecies marriages rarely work out.

Oddly enough, I don't have a problem with that either. When it effects (or is it affects?) me personally, I'll start to care I guess.

Same here I just can't get myself worked up over this issue.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Quote :

Now under the same premise of rights, my neighbor can marry his dog.

Make sure he gets a prenup. Interspecies marriages rarely work out.

Oddly enough, I don't have a problem with that either. When it effects (or is it affects?) me personally, I'll start to care I guess.

I don't care either (my quip was merely sarcasm)... except for the way the overturnng went down and the reason for doing it.

It passed once than the courts said it wasn't legal unless the voters amended the state constitution. They did that and here it goes again.... That is my point.

James B. wrote:

The judge who overturned the will of the voters/citizens of California is homosexual. I doubt he was subjective, impartial, and/or unbiased in his decision. Anybody wonder why or how the case went before him?

The civil rights he claimed to have been violated are already protected by California civil union laws. So regardless of what something is called, "legal/constutional" which is what the Supreme Court interprets something is or isn't has already been established. For the life of me, I can't figure out how or why a lifestyle choice became a civil rights issue. Now under the same premise of rights, my neighbor can marry his dog.

"Lifestyle choice"...yeah, because someone would voluntarily induct themselves into one of the most persecuted groups in history. Take it from me, it's not a choice, and if you think it is you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Schbopo wrote:

James B. wrote:

The judge who overturned the will of the voters/citizens of California is homosexual. I doubt he was subjective, impartial, and/or unbiased in his decision. Anybody wonder why or how the case went before him?

The civil rights he claimed to have been violated are already protected by California civil union laws. So regardless of what something is called, "legal/constutional" which is what the Supreme Court interprets something is or isn't has already been established. For the life of me, I can't figure out how or why a lifestyle choice became a civil rights issue. Now under the same premise of rights, my neighbor can marry his dog.

"Lifestyle choice"...yeah, because someone would voluntarily induct themselves into one of the most persecuted groups in history. Take it from me, it's not a choice, and if you think it is you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

You make a good point bro, but is their any science that proves that homosexuality is not a choice?

Quote :

You make a good point bro, but is their any science that proves that homosexuality is not a choice?

Is there any science that proves that Jesus ascended to Heaven?

SpectreFate wrote:

Quote :

You make a good point bro, but is their any science that proves that homosexuality is not a choice?

Is there any science that proves that Jesus ascended to Heaven?

No, but thats what im trying to figure out...are homosexuals supposed to have "faith" that they were born that way?

No, but unless you are you wouldn't know for sure. Just like someone with faith KNOWS that the Jesus fable is true.

If I was eating a sandwich made of sh!t, would you need scientific proof that it tastes like sh!t?

Stender wrote:

Schbopo wrote:

James B. wrote:

The judge who overturned the will of the voters/citizens of California is homosexual. I doubt he was subjective, impartial, and/or unbiased in his decision. Anybody wonder why or how the case went before him?

The civil rights he claimed to have been violated are already protected by California civil union laws. So regardless of what something is called, "legal/constutional" which is what the Supreme Court interprets something is or isn't has already been established. For the life of me, I can't figure out how or why a lifestyle choice became a civil rights issue. Now under the same premise of rights, my neighbor can marry his dog.

"Lifestyle choice"...yeah, because someone would voluntarily induct themselves into one of the most persecuted groups in history. Take it from me, it's not a choice, and if you think it is you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

You make a good point bro, but is their any science that proves that homosexuality is not a choice?

It is a choice. It's called following your heart. That's the choice people make or don't make. And when someone follows their heart, they've made the right choice.

Schbopo wrote:

James B. wrote:

The judge who overturned the will of the voters/citizens of California is homosexual. I doubt he was subjective, impartial, and/or unbiased in his decision. Anybody wonder why or how the case went before him?

The civil rights he claimed to have been violated are already protected by California civil union laws. So regardless of what something is called, "legal/constutional" which is what the Supreme Court interprets something is or isn't has already been established. For the life of me, I can't figure out how or why a lifestyle choice became a civil rights issue. Now under the same premise of rights, my neighbor can marry his dog.

"Lifestyle choice"...yeah, because someone would voluntarily induct themselves into one of the most persecuted groups in history. Take it from me, it's not a choice, and if you think it is you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

You have your belief and I am not gonna debate with a chid. I know alot of people who define what they do in the privacy of their bedroom, a choice. Saying homosexuals are one of the most persecuted group in history is a laugh compared to the plight of many races and the things they have endured thru out the history of mankind.

Everybody has desires and feelings towards many things. They experiment and behavior becomes a prefrence as opposed to a curiosity. You have a choice regarding everything in your life. If you give a behavior that much control over your life, you'll justify it by any means necesary and will never accept another aspect of what something is or can be.

SpectreFate wrote:

No, but unless you are you wouldn't know for sure. Just like someone with faith KNOWS that the Jesus fable is true.

If I was eating a sandwich made of sh!t, would you need scientific proof that it tastes like sh!t?

Yes, because you could have just stuck a kit kat in there to f*ck with me.

You know me so well although we've never met.

James B. wrote:

Schbopo wrote:

James B. wrote:

The judge who overturned the will of the voters/citizens of California is homosexual. I doubt he was subjective, impartial, and/or unbiased in his decision. Anybody wonder why or how the case went before him?

The civil rights he claimed to have been violated are already protected by California civil union laws. So regardless of what something is called, "legal/constutional" which is what the Supreme Court interprets something is or isn't has already been established. For the life of me, I can't figure out how or why a lifestyle choice became a civil rights issue. Now under the same premise of rights, my neighbor can marry his dog.

"Lifestyle choice"...yeah, because someone would voluntarily induct themselves into one of the most persecuted groups in history. Take it from me, it's not a choice, and if you think it is you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

You have your belief and I am not gonna debate with a chid. I know alot of people who define what they do in the privacy of their bedroom, a choice. Saying homosexuals are one of the most persecuted group in history is a laugh compared to the plight of many races and the things they have endured thru out the history of mankind.

Not really. You can hide your sexuality. You can't hide your color. Big difference. Those who could not hide their sexuality, for whatever reason, being caught, being too open and having too much faith in humanity's tolerance for such things, found themselves on the receiving end of the same sort of discrimination, torture, and most often death.

Quote :

Everybody has desires and feelings towards many things. They experiment and behavior becomes a prefrence as opposed to a curiosity. You have a choice regarding everything in your life. If you give a behavior that much control over your life, you'll justify it by any means necesary and will never accept another aspect of what something is or can be.

Nonsense.

I respectfully disagree with James B, I have no doubt in my mind that a person is born ga-hey, no I have no scientific proof etc, but I am convienced that is a fact.

Quote :

You have your belief and I am not gonna debate with a chid.

Did you really dismiss him because of his age? Even I wouldn't have gone down that easy road.

Eyesore said...

Quote :

Not really. You can hide your sexuality. You can't hide your color. Big difference. Those who could not hide their sexuality, for whatever reason, being caught, being too open and having too much faith in humanity's tolerance for such things, found themselves on the receiving end of the same sort of discrimination, torture, and most often death.

I can see your point but the level of persecution isn't even close to being the same.

eyesore said

Quote :

Nonsense.

just your opinion... I have a choice regarding everything I do in my life. If you believe otherwise than you are limiting yourself in the dynamic of living your life and giving control of your life to a behavior or an action as opposed to yourself.

SpectreFate wrote:

Quote :

You have your belief and I am not gonna debate with a chid.

Did you really dismiss him because of his age? Even I wouldn't have gone down that easy road.

He already told me I didn't know what I was talking about. So I just obliged him the likewise courtesey.

Plus my own children don't speak to me like that way. Why should I indulge the children of others ?

James B. wrote:

Eyesore said...

Quote :

Not really. You can hide your sexuality. You can't hide your color. Big difference. Those who could not hide their sexuality, for whatever reason, being caught, being too open and having too much faith in humanity's tolerance for such things, found themselves on the receiving end of the same sort of discrimination, torture, and most often death.

I can see your point but the level of persecution isn't even close to being the same.

eyesore said

Quote :

Nonsense.

just your opinion... I have a choice regarding everything I do in my life. If you believe otherwise than you are limiting yourself in the dynamic of living your life and giving control of your life to a behavior or an action as opposed to yourself.

We have choices, of course, but that's too easy an excuse. ga-hey men and women act straight all the time to please those who refuse to accept them otherwise. Can you, right now, stop being attracted to women? Can you? Doubtful.

I don't have choices. I have uppercuts.