Yay for California!

If people have their panties in a twist about calling it "marriage" then legally they should all be "domestic partnerships" ...straight or gay, and they should be identical under the law. It shouldn't be marriage for straights and domestic partnerships for gays because separate but equal is never equal. Your church can call them whatever they want and nothing would have to change on their end.

...everyone happy?...I'll go out on a limb and guess not
 
Last edited:
Ha,

I can't believe this thread is still going. Don't you liberal democrats have anything else to talk about? :rolleyes:
 
Kraken said:
Ha,

I can't believe this thread is still going. Don't you liberal democrats have anything else to talk about? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Fighting for equality and freedom from discrimination is not the sole purvey of democrats....conservatives care about equality and freedom from discrimination too.....or so I have heard.;)

Then again, President Bush did call for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage.....an amendment not to guarantee or enhance rights mind you, but to actually ' restrict ' rights.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Wrangell said:
Fighting for equality and freedom from discrimination is not the sole purvey of democrats....conservatives care about equality and freedom from discrimination too.....or so I have heard.;)

Then again, President Bush did call for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage.....an amendment not to guarantee or enhance rights mind you, but to actually ' restrict ' rights.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I don't consider a ban on deviant behaviour a violation or a restriction on anyones rights.
 
Kraken said:
I don't consider a ban on deviant behaviour a violation or a restriction on anyones rights.
Click to expand...

Getting ' married ' is not a deviant behavior..........in fact, Republicans do it all the time.;)

Allowing some Americans citizens to marry yet banning certain other Americans citizens from getting married - for no rational reason - violates the principle of equality and endorses discrimination...a violation of one's civil rights.

There is no rational reason IMO to oppose a definition of ' marriage ' - for civil purposes - as being the ' lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others '.
 
Last edited:
Getting married is not deviant I don't think I posted that anywhere.

I guess it boils down to the question of
"do you want your kids exposed to that crap?"

Sexual orientation is a choice, therefore you cannot discriminate against someone who makes a bad choice. Its really that simple.
 
Wrangell said:
Because, as you said, " they deserve the same rights as any married couple " - it is a matter of equality and civil rights.

According to California, a ban on same-sex ' marriage ' violates those rights.
Click to expand...

They have the same rights when they're "domestic partners"... Regardless of verbiage, I'm honestly happy that they have the same rights, I just think the gov't's involvement in the issue is a slap in the face to personal beliefs.

Wrangell said:
Members of minorities in the U.S. have the same civil rights as members of a majority in the U.S.
Click to expand...

This is not true. i.e. BET, Gay Pride Parades, NAACP, Ethnic Scholarships?? Imagine the uproar if there was WET, WASP Pride Parades, NAAWP, and Caucasion-Only Scholarships.... It's, as Evo said, reverse discrimination. Just like allowing boys into the girls bathroom, it's completely absurd... completely liberal.
 
Kraken said:
Getting married is not deviant I don't think I posted that anywhere.

I guess it boils down to the question of

"do you want your kids exposed to that crap?"
Click to expand...

Exposed to what " crap " ?

Not sure what you're referring to as " crap " ?

Kraken said:
Sexual orientation is a choice, therefore you cannot discriminate against someone who makes a bad choice. Its really that simple.
Click to expand...

" Sexual orientation is a choice "...got it.

So being heterosexual is " a choice " ....a ' good choice ' in your books ?

Being a ^^^^sexual is also " a choice " ....but this is a ' bad choice ' according to you ?

Why is in one " good " and one " bad " ?

One's religion is also a choice - can you make a " good " or " bad " choice there as well ? Or, are all religious choices " good " ?
 
SkianS40 said:
+rep

Don't I have the right to keep my kid from reading "Danny with Double Dads" in elementary school?
Click to expand...

I think so but you might be sued for that. LOL

yes Wrangell you pretty much summed it up.

Freedom of religon was why this country was founded so interpret that as you would like.

Its a bad choice because its unnatural. A ^^^^ is not made to go in an ass.
 
SkianS40 said:
They have the same rights when they're "domestic partners"... Regardless of verbiage, I'm honestly happy that they have the same rights, I just think the gov't's involvement in the issue is a slap in the face to personal beliefs.
Click to expand...

Then, for civil purposes, there is no ' rational basis ' to distinguish between a ' marriage ' between two persons to the exclusion of all others and a ' domestic partnership ' between two persons to the exclusion of all others.

You just made my point for me ...thanks :)

SkianS40 said:
This is not true. i.e. BET, Gay Pride Parades, NAACP, Ethnic Scholarships?? Imagine the uproar if there was WET, WASP Pride Parades, NAAWP, and Caucasion-Only Scholarships.... It's, as Evo said, reverse discrimination. Just like allowing boys into the girls bathroom, it's completely absurd... completely liberal.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, what does the example of ' Gay Pride Parades ' and ' Caucasion-Only Scholarships ' have to do with the topic of the legality of same sex marriages?
 
Last edited:
Kraken said:
I think so but you might be sued for that. LOL

yes Wrangell you pretty much summed it up.

Freedom of religon was why this country was founded so interpret that as you would like.

Its a bad choice because its unnatural. A ^^^^ is not made to go in an ass.
Click to expand...

So, engaging in anal sex by a heterosexual couple is a " bad choice " as well ?

I assume oral sex - whether it be between a heterosexual couple or a ^^^^sexual couple - is not a bad choice ?
 
Why do people always get into stupid debates, when they never get anywhere.

Let me give you a debate & mix the topic up a bit...

Did any of you know that i got a horse shoe pregnant, and do you think its right or wrong? .....Discuss please.
 
Wrangell said:
Then, for civil purposes, there is no ' rational basis ' to distinguish between a ' marriage ' between two persons to the exclusion of all others and a ' domestic partnership ' between two persons to the exclusion of all others.

You just made my point for me ...thanks :)
Click to expand...

Actually, you made MY point. the ONLY reason they distinguished between marriage and domestic partnerships was to give religion the middle finger.

Wrangell said:
I'm sorry, what does the example of ' Gay Pride Parades ' and ' Caucasion-Only Scholarships ' have to do with the topic of the legality of same sex marriages?
Click to expand...

Reading comprehension. Those would be examples that "Members of minorities in the U.S. have MORE civil rights than members of a majority in the U.S."
 
Kraken said:
Its a bad choice because its unnatural. A ^^^^ is not made to go in an ass.
Click to expand...

What if the other option is 'out of service'?

Needs must dear fellow
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top