@dukeljk People should go to jail if they are gross...? That is seriously your argument? Ok, how about everyone to ever pick their nose should be jailed. Better yet, everyone who has ever pooped should be jailed. Pooping is just nasty.
keep in mind that those who aren't in favor of equal rights are mostly theists. I've never once heard of an atheist who was against equal rights, but i've met tons of theists in my life who are against equal rights
The thing that is overlooked here is that the law IS EQUAL. It is the same for all of us. Men have the right to marry women and women have the right to marry men. That is equal. So you supporters of this gay marriage thing need to get that much straight. What you are asking for is a special privalage not equal rights. It's like a school lunch. Every child gets the same meal and the same portions. Not all of them like it and some are not filled by it but it is equal.
I am a Catholic and I support peoples right to have different beliefs than mine. I believe in separation of Church and state. I've had many open and respectful discussions about my beliefs with Atheist and Agnostic people without either of us trying to impose of convert. I wish all people were open to such positive experiences so they can see there's nothing to fear.
I support freedom for all. And to deny one group from freedom is a stain on the American Constitution. I agree with the judge on that basis, however, what i don't agree with is the judge's statement (Quote)"Arguing against gay marriage is inarticulate" (End Quote).
Let me be as articulate as i can be. I believe in god, and god made a Man & Woman, when they come together in marriage it's called holy matrimony, and then they create offspring, a family.
Radical leftists have brainwashed these kids that this is about "rights" and "discrimination", but it really isn't. Sadly as some lack the discernment to see the truth about the natural, normal family, radicals are slowly destroying the fabric of society. The hypocrisy is profound as radicals fight to preserve our environment, but destroy humanity as they fight for the "right" to kill unborn children, and now to destroy the most important social structure we have: The natural Family.Shame on YOU
@Exciteme777 How on earth is this effecting the normal family? If they're gay/lesbian denying them the ability to get married isn't going to suddenly make them straight.
If they adopt, so what? Would you prefer the orphans they adopted go no home? Because you can't honestly believe that all Orphans are being adopted by hetero sexual couples, a huge chunk goes without any family.
It IS about rights, there are tax breaks, hospital visitation, etc all not available to part of our community.
@DarkBunnyLord, You don't know what a normal family is? You don't know what normal sex is either. Do you honestly believe your anus is a sex organ designed for penetration? Why is it that trillions of homosexual couples can't reproduce? There is a normal family structure evidenced by nature's design for sex, procreation & raising kids, &"gay marriage" destroys this structure. How dare you force society to accept this abnormal, unhealthy "family" as normal and bring kids into this environment!
@Exciteme777 God you're stupid. No one claimed the anus was made for sex (apparently you think lesbians just have anal sex as well). Procreation IS NOT a requirement for marriage and hetero sexuals often practice anal sex as well (shocker I know).
How dare you be stupid enough to think a child is better off with no parents than homosexual parents.
@DarkBunnyLord, Considering these basic biology problems, no one with half a brain would suggest homosexuality is a normal, healthy form of sexuality on which society can legally base a marriage and force it down the throats of society. How dare you suggest you put children in such an unhealthy environment where homosexuals model abnormal sexuality and can’t provide the benefit of a father and mother. Even in foster homes they have a real father and mother!
DarkBunnyLord, Basing a “marriage” on an abnormal union where not even one couple can have true sex, or procreate is insanity, not a right. "Anal sex" is the sine qua non for homosexual men as they can't truly have sex according to organic sexual function. Lesbians can't even achieve penetration and people suggest they can actually have “sex.” Approx 25% of heteros have ever tried “anal sex,” maybe ½ or less do it regularly. BUT only a man and a woman are made for real sex; homos weren’t!
People are so stupid. They believe this is a "rights" issue. Not everything is a right. You can't marry your sister for the natural consequences that will result with birth defects with procreation. Natural marriage requires male and female as it is the cornerstone of humanity with male and female contributing positive and unique benefits to child development. Not one homosexual couple can procreate, provide the benefit of a father and mother while demonstrating an abnormal family structure.
@Exciteme777 Right because we're totally suffering from a shrinking population? Again you're points are irrelevent. Denying the homosexual community the right to get married IS NOT going to make them heterosexual so procreation has NOTHING to do with it.
In fact, using your logic many hetero sexual couples shouldn't be married. What about those that don't want kids and use birth control? What about those that are sterile? Come back with a logical argument, then we'll talk.
@DarkBunnyLord, You’re confusing a Design vs. a Defect. NOT ONE homosexual couple can have natural sex or procreate per organic Design. That’s VERY different than a small %age of heterosexual couples that have a Defect in their reproductive system. Organic Design makes it clear the purpose for human sexual function. While heterosexuals can be treated for reproductive problems, homosexuals can’t. Why? Because they weren’t designed to be sexual partners and can’t reproduce.
@Exciteme777 No, no I'm not. A homosexual couple can't reproduce without artifical insemination (lesbians) or a surrogate parent (gays). There is no difference here from a sterile couple or couple that doesn't wish to have children. Again, procreation is NOT a requirement for marriage so you have no ground to deny homosexuals the same marriage rights.
@DarkBunnyLord, “A homosexual couple can't reproduce without artifical insemination (lesbians) or a surrogate parent (gays). There is no difference here from a sterile couple or couple that doesn't wish to have children.” Homosexuals weren’t designed to procreate TOGETHER per natural law. That’s a design problem. A small percentage of heteros with a reproductive defect is not the same as male and female were still designed to reproduce. You’re truly an airhead if you can’t see the difference.
@Exciteme777 God you're stupid, MARRIAGE IS NOT BASED ON SEX. You don't need to be able to reproduce to have sex, it is not, and has not ever been a requirement for marriage so stop trying to base it on it.
Again you continue to state that children don't belong in that environment please provide ANY study that proves it's harmful because guess what genius, there hasn't been one. Living with gays would not make you gay, you don't choose what you're attracted to dipshit.
@DarkBunnyLord, The point that blinded people like you overlook is that you're basing an abnormal "marriage" on a sexual orientation where people can't even have sex per anatomical function, nor procreate, and it’s well document over many decades that a man & woman contribute positively to kids’ development. Marriage was ALWAYS based on male and female as the opposite sexes are the building block of society--not just the physical act, but to the ability to form a family.
@Exciteme777 IT DOES NOT MATTER. you have 0 logical grounds to deny marriage. What does denying it achieve? Nothing.
There is no study showing children are harmed growing up in such a house, even then there are PLENTY of kids that have no parents, no foster homes, nothing. Your argument is they are better there than with homosexual parents is bullcrap especially with 0 scientific social studies to back that claim up.
@DarkBunnyLord, Marriage is founded on male and female. It's nature's rules (or God's in some peoples' eyes). 2 Men or women "marrying" is an oxymoron, totally contrary to the foundation/function of marriage. Preserving normal marriage is really nature preservation. When you destroy the environment, we all suffer. The breakdown of the natural family will yield major consequences. Check out Narth.com, american college of pediatricians for just some examples of studies on "gay parenting", etc.
@Exciteme777 Again, marriages function is not to have sex. You keep trying to stress this even though it is completely irrelevant. If it was relevant, sterile couples, or couples that didn't want children would not be allowed to be married either. Narth is not even remotely convincing, they're a group that believes it a psychological disorder with no evidence to prove such claims.
That'd be like me pointing you to a majorly pro-gay website as a credible source of evidence to the contrary.
@DarkBunnyLord, man you're so confused it scares me. It's not just about having sex, it's that marriage is based on the opposite sexes. The fact that people don't even look to nature, biology and anatomy for clues is frightening. Look at sociology too and you'll see that male and female have unique and positive ways to influence child development...too numerous to list on here. Narth and other websites with PHDs in psychology and medicine, and university professors discuss these studies.
@Exciteme777 No, it's frightening that you seem so convinced that a group that starts out with a biased thought is going to produce anything other than bias results.
@DarkBunnyLord, Same-sex "marriage" is not just private, but legally recognizing it will have terrible consequences: 1) Society will be legally bound to respect it as legitimate, healthy and normal equal to heterosexual marriage, the only form of marriage that's existed. 2) Educational codes will require homosexuality be taught to little kids as normal, healthy alternatives & parents can't object. Kids will believe abnormal sex acts are ok, even thought it's against biology. It's insanity!
@Exciteme777 Dude you are so full of shit. People won't be forced to recognize gay marriage as moral. and it won't be taught in schools. If gays could get married, why would schools suddenly be forced to teach children homosexuality. Even if schools did, why would parents not be able to object? The parents aren't powerless, they can just raise the kid to believe differently. your just full of bias..
@TheRetardedSheep, "If gays could get married, why would schools suddenly be forced to teach children homosexuality." I've actually researched this, and there are laws in states where it's legal that indicate teachers must teach homosexual marriage to children when they discuss the topic of marriage and can't show bias to normal, heterosexual marriage. They've had homosexuals in MA teach kids about their sexuality for years. I'd suggest you look into this instead of insulting me.
@Exciteme777 Well thats really fine by me cuz i researched it also. now were does it say that churches can't just brainwash the children that follow them into disagreeing with gay marraige, were does it say parents can't just raise they're children to think different. This country isn't going to be any less free than it is right now if gay marriage is allowed in CA just like it is in IA, CT, DC, NH, MA, and VT. I'm not debating anything here with your beliefs. i refuse to answer next reply, sry.
@TheRetardedSheep, You didn't research enough. The chruch never had to talk about "gay marriage" before; it's a new topic. Some churches talk about it; others don't. All major religions, except for maybe Buddhism, teach homosexuality is wrong based on what they believe is God's or nature's design for sexuality, family and marriage. Feedom of religion is a right people have in this country. Not everything is a "right" though, like "gay marriage" which most believe is abnormal, reilgious or not.
@Exciteme777 What is wrong with treating same-sex marriage as legitimate? And as for point 2, parents can still tell their child what they beleive. but the child can also hear the opposing views. This gives that child the opportunity to make an informed decision about what they beleive.
@DarkBunnyLord, All these so-called "studies" which are relatively new are produced by homosexuals and GLBT backed organizations to brainwash society. It appears they work on people like you, but not on the majority of society which doesn't believe GLBT propaganda. A doctor friend of mine stated that these studies can be manipulated to get the results they want. Even small panels on the FDA approves drugs backed by biased studies from drug companies, and the drugs kill people all the time.
@DarkBunnyLord, "If it was relevant, sterile couples, or couples that didn't want children would not be allowed to be married either."Just because a small %age of couples is sterile or doesn't want kids doesn't change the fact that ONLY male and female are designed to procreate. Every homosexual couple isn't even designed to procreate. You can’t even treat them. That's a big difference you're missing. By the way, you didn't even bother to look at the studies on narth from PHDs in psychology.
@DarkBunnyLord, You call your "arguments" logical? Please. Any village idiot would know that two men who enjoy your warped sexual acts and use body parts contrary to anatomical function/design have a problem, and now you want to base a marriage on this. If you actually thought about how stupid your comments were instead of being suckered by GLBT propaganda then I'd say you have a glimmer of hope.There is a design in nature for sexuality, procreation & family, and I'm sorry you just don't get it.
Soon it will go to the supreme court. And if there is justice in the world, they will rule correctly, and the GLBT community will have the same rights as everyone else.
@Exciteme777 Apparently not any village idiot because you don't. My warped sexual acts? Nice assumption there, if I support gay/lesbian marriage I must be gay right? Well you're wrong idiot, I'm just not a spiteful little biggot that has no reason to discriminate like yourself. Again you're to stupid to realize that hetero sexual couples practice those same warped sexual acts.
You just don't get it, when did it ever become a requirement to reproduce to get married?
@DarkBunnyLord, All that crazy leftists like you have to hide behind is emotional, irrational labeling: "bigot," "racism," "discrimination," etc. If you actually thought about how nature created us, the only natural healthy family structure is based on male and female. This isn't discrimination, but NATURAL LAW! The FACT is that only a male and female can have normal intercourse, procreate & provide the benefit of a father and mother which is medically proven to provide the healthiest of homes.
@Exciteme777 Nature created homosexuals as well you tard, they weren't manufactured in some factory. You CAN NOT base a decision on how to provide rights based on how someone was born, this is called discrimination. Clearly you don't have the IQ to work that through your little brain.
@DarkBunnyLord, Nobody knows what causes homosexuality. It was considered a disorder til 1973 when homosexuals got into position of power & changed the DSM at the APA.Many psychologists and doctors still believe it's a disorder. All diseases are caused by natural means, but still diseases nontheless. 3-8% of population has experimented sexually with animals and that doesn't make it normal. Homosexuality is a disorder. The one who legitmizes sex acts that are contrary to anatomy has the small IQ.
@Exciteme777 It DOES NOT matter, if it's a disorder it is STILL NOT enough of a reason to keep two adults from marrying each other. You are STILL denying rights.
Sexuality with animlas isn't even close to the same you tard, an animal is not a consenting human being.
@DarkBunnyLord, "Sexuality with animlas isn't even close to the same you tard, an animal is not a consenting human being." The point with this is that people have abnormal, unhealthy sexual desires and that doesn't make them right. Strangely, the %age of people who find animals desireable is not much smaller than people who like the same sex. Many children have experimented with the same sex, but become 100% heterosexual as adults. See the Laumann Studies.
@Exciteme777 Looked at the Laumann Studies. They claim that these children long for normal parents, of course they do it's called peer pressure and being teased in school.
Again you're completely ignoring the fact that it's STILL BETTER than no parents at all.
@DarkBunnyLord, The study factually shows that homosexuality is not a “stable trait.” The authors found to their surprise that homosexuality tended spontaneously to “convert” into heterosexuality as people aged. Researchers all over the world have conducted studies on hundreds of thousands of people which strongly confirmed Laumann. Yet the mental health guilds don’t even mention it because they have homosexual psychologists in positions of power at the APA hiding the truth.
@DarkBunnyLord, The 1994 Laumann study, The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United State. was based on a survey of American from the ages of 18 and 60 and is universally recognized as definitive. Numerous large-scale epidemiologic survey have repeatedly confirmed and strengthened its findings. One of the major points of the Laumann study, which the authors themselves did not expect, is that “homosexuality” as a fixed trait scarcely even seems to exist”
@DarkBunnyLord, Homosexuals try to say they were born that way, but it's not factual or proven. Even if they were it wouldn't matter since all diseases and disorders have natural causes with environmental influences in some cases. They also tried to say homosexuality was genetic, but the head of the Human Genome Project clarified it shows less genetic links than many other behaviors. I've done a LOT more research on this than you, so maybe you should shut up and actually read some studies.
@Exciteme777 Yes it is factual by simple logic. You can't turn to a tree and say "gee I want to be attracted to tree's now, so I'll get a boner". The only other argument you can have is that you're naturally born attracted to ALL people and that you choose which one to follow through with. That's also bs because I know I'm not attracted to the same sex, I feel no arousal upon viewing one, do you?
If the answer is no you just defeated your own dumb ass attempt at an argument.
Seeing such huge support from people of my age is a really great feeling to have. I stumbled upon this video and would just like to thank all of you. It really means a lot to me.
This is probably one of the most cool things i did to bad STUPID thing ended up passing im just sick of all this religious people messing with civil rights our U.S constitution says that marriage should not be denied to any one wheather is by sex, religion, skin color ect.. and why are we violating it but i always say fight is NOT over yet its just the beginning CALIFORNIA WON'T BACK DOWN!!!!!!! thank you all of you for not being so ignorant...
Oh panchomoon...you wise soul you. I'm neither idealistic nor wet behind the ears, but I am smart enough to know the analogy of a gay couple wanting the same rights as a straight couple and incest and pilygamy are ludicrous. You are just like those idiots that compare being gay to child molesters or rapists. Your argument makes no sense. You think if you throw out offensive comparisons the moral majority will rise to defend your evil, warped veiw? Cough...dumbass!
What's so offensive about the comparison of polygamous marriages or marriage between blood relatives? I like the little sassiness you threw in at the end of your comment, it really supports your argument and convinces me that you are "smart enough." Nice touch.
I didn't take offense, just mentioned that it's ridiculous to compare incest and polygamy to gay marriage. And "sassiness" who uses that term? Thanks for the flattering comments, you're a peach.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Ignorant children. This is just the normal anti-establishment behavior from teen agers that has been around forever. Come back when you have children and have to pay taxes. 8 is Gr8
Society discriminates against incestuous marriages and polygamous marriages. I'm sure there are many tax paying, law abiding Americans who would love to see the day those forms of marriage are "accepted." Would that be acceptable in your little, idealistic, wet behind the ears world?
Well, the day we see any of those people (all six of them) out protesting for the right to marry, I'll believe they exist. Until then, I don't see any reason to deprive millions of committed gay couples the right to marry.
i truly wish my city could have organized something like this.
you guys are awsome. thanks for the help. it will get pulled i know. i'm 17 and planning my wedding hahaha. but thanks. seeing that means alot. to know that there were people out there trying.
You know, looking at this video again, I feel quite a bit better about myself. Then when I walk through capo's halls every day, I feel like this event never happened. No one defends, they just join in. I wish people could be more real.
Yeah, things have become more open as time has gone on.
As Sean Penn said ''When it passes and eventually it will, that would not have happened without harvey milk''
I think that even homophobia down here in New Zealand, must make homosexuals nervous. So our countries and places like Britain and Australia where the homophobia exists. Won't feel as safe and free as we all think.
I have staunch support for homosexual rights, and I'm as straight as a meter ruler
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
god this is wat i h8 fuckin homos and dick sucking men who cant get there head out of the own ass fuck u jesus is not gay ur just a fat jew god hates every one of u yes on 8 keep it strait
Why not just keep your gayness on the down low, jeeze. Vote no but seriously if you get married or if you are gay i dont wanna know about it and quit with the pathetic attempt on the female voice.. or you wont have a career anywhere but mcdonalds or hollywood since we embrace homos there.
fuck!!! i personally dont believe in gay marriage.... but leaving my emotions to the side....everyone has the right to be happy!!!! even those crippy people
I have a question for you. A simple yes or no will do. Three yes or no questions. Do you believe two homosexual men should be allowed to get married? Do you believe that two adult homosexual brothers should be allowed to get married. And finally do you believe that a 40 year old man and his 20 year old daughter should be allowed to get married if they do not have children or plan on it. In your opinion?
This logic doesn't work. When we gave women and black people the right to vote, it stopped there. It didn't get extended to three year olds, to illegal aliens, or to goats and chickens.
If you believe gay people should have be second class citizens, just be honest and say so.
This is a ridiculous strawman argument. There are literally hundreds of thousands of committed gay couples in this country who would like to marry. How many brothers would like to marry one another? Or how many fathers marry their daughters? It seems ludicrous to deny so many people a basic civil right simply because of a few nutcases.
Oh buddy51! You call them nutcases, but they REAAALLLY love each other! Shouldn't they still be allowed to marry?? Don't deny them that right. You're "restricting the happiness of others."
Ha ha. Strawman argument, that was not. freespeachrulez is bomb!
Well, it is true that Abraham did marry his half-sister Sarah and from what I can tell that was a perfectly legal marriage. Ah those Bible patriarchs! What with their mulitple wives and all - they sure believed in the "one man/one woman" definition of marriage.
Last I checked, that was in the Old Testament right? New Testament, New rules. If you can find one of those kinds of marriages in the New Testament of the Bible I would happily concede to you! Good luck with that.
That's beside the point. We are always being told that God established marriage as the union of one man and one woman. I can't tell you how many times I've heard that argument from Christians. Yet, that is demonstrably false, as evidenced by all those patriarchs with multiple wives early on. It only goes to show that the definition of marriage HAS INDEED changed over the years.
whatevalife6 - When fathers and daughters and polygamists begin protesting on street corners for the right to marry, I'll consider that a serious issue. Till then I'm not going to worry about it.
Oh dear. With hostile and intolerant people like you around, I think it may be a while before those people are confident enough to "come out."
Bigoty liar pant's on fire! Equal rights! Stop the H8!
Oh please. Save the drama please and take a look at you're own partial and "intolerant" position. The line obviously needs to be drawn somewhere, and I say, let it be drawn at traditional marriage. No buts.
Fine, show me a single instance of a father and daughter who want the right to marry. Who are they? Where are they? Why aren't they out there protesting for their own right to marry? Why should I even believe such people exist except that you say they do? Am I supposed to prevent millions of gay couples from marrying because of some theoretical people that you alone claim are out there? Come up with a better argument. By the way, you're going down. Young people are TOTALLY on our side!
wish your invisible god would take all of you nut-bag Christian, end-timers away like He promised. Biblical literalism is a delusional mental deficiency, and I for one, cant wait to be left behind. We let the fanatics and maniacs run our world, easy to see why everything is a mess and the world constant need for death and War
How old are these youngsters...? They seem not really to be particularly well thought-through when they speak out. It is a fair and just thing to fight for, but have they really understood why, or are they just there, without real justification other than, "Gays have rights, because they do! And I believe so!"... I'm just wondering. No offense I support their views.
16-18 years old. A lot of them actually know a very fair amount of what their speaking about. We held a meeting the following day discussing why they felt the way they did and you would have been surprised to see so many young kids knowing what their talking talking about.
Fair enough. Just wondering.I know in Denmark, sometimes the young people make such demonstrations without really looking into the subject. The video kinda gives me the same impression. Well I for one believe fx that gays shouldn't have the right to adopt (Just to take a subject where I think gays differ from straights) But that is not because they are gays, but because I believe kids deserve both father and mother. There could be such side-effects with gay marriges (Though I don't believe so!)
Its just great to see the this many kids speaking out on this...although we didn't win, but regardless its great! I wish I could have been a part of it!
To disagree is not to hate! The real intolerants are the people like the liberal youngsters that smashed my friend's car's windows out for having a Yes on 8 bumper sticker.
Tell that to the motorist who threw a water bottle into a group of peaceful No on 8 protesters at a rally in Santa Clarita the Sunday before the election (it hit the girl standing next to me). There are crazy people on BOTH SIDES of the issue, individuals who go beyond what they should in making their feelings known. Peaceful protest is the ultimate act of patriotism.
To treat people differently under the law is hate, and it is unconstitutional, so even though it passed, it will be stopped when the court cases reach the supreme court of the USA.
Article 14 of the bill of rights, read it sometime.
I have, and I support equal rights for gays in everything except marriage. Why? Because I still don't want my future children to be read King and King by their teacher in their 2cnd grade class. Parents have their OWN rights to teach their children their own set of moral values. Doctors also have rights to refuse artificial insemination of gays if it conflicts with their own belief and people have sued even when there are other willing doctors.
Wow, it is a damn shame that the yes on 8 campaign lied, but we need to get past the lies.
Our educational system would not change at all with prop 8 being passed or failing. It would stay the exact same as it did before the election.
Your kids wouldn't be reading those books, you can take them out of their class, they do need permission slips. Prop8 doesn't change ANYTHING about education. The board of education has cleared this up.
Prop 8 did not and will not fix ANY problem with doctors.
The teacher read the books to them. Parents were denied the right to remove their children from class when the Massachussettes supreme court ruled in the teacher's favor. Now, would the court really have ruled the same way had gay marriage not been legal? I mean, if its legal, it HAS to be accepted by everyone. No questions asked.
"I mean, if its legal, it HAS to be accepted by everyone. No questions asked."
Not true. You can still not be a supporter of gay marriage as long as you don't discriminate based on it.
"Parents were denied the right to remove their children from class" California dept. of Education showed that this would not happen in California. Our education system is set up differently. And furthermore, Prop 8 SAYS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about parents being able to take their kids out of classes.Its not a fix.
Look. GAYS ALREADY HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS. the No on prop 8 campaign has nothing to do with being against discrimination or fighting for more rights. All it wanted to do, was redefine the word marriage, and the only reason a homosexual union is called something different from marriage is that it IS something different. There is not one right in the marriage code that is not granted homosexual couples. If you think that calling a gay union "marriage" will stop intolerance, you're mistaken.
They did before prop 8, they could marry, etc. Prop 8 would force California to only recognize marriages between a man and a woman. Anything else is not marriage in the legal system. Before prop 8, thousands of couples got married and were treated as married under the law. Now they are not treated as married under the law. That is taking a right away..
" the No on prop 8 campaign has nothing to do with being against discrimination or fighting for more rights."
Haha, they are just trying to insert stuff into the school system to force your children to learn horrible tolerance.
Voting NO on ANY prop keeps the state the way it was before. Yes on 8 would change california, No on 8 would keep california the same. So ask yourself this? Before the election was there a problem with california? Were students forced to read kings and kings? No
In this case, Voting Yes on the prop is what would have kept things the same. Remember that the courts legalized gay marriage already, and that is what changed California.
And no, students hadn't been reading King and King yet, but a doctor did get sued for not performing artificial insemination of a lesbian couple. Oh yeah. And he lost that case in court.
That's like saying the courts didn't legalize abortion. It just overturned a limit on it. hmmm. How are those two things different? overturning limits ARE legalizing things!
If I didn't artificially inseminate a black woman because she was back, I would lose that court case too. Its the discrimination that is the problem. He deserved to be sued, just like someone who didn't sell his house to a family because they were black.
Voting NO would not change ANYTHING. The change (prop 8) wouldn't be enacted.
Voting no would not force sexual orientation education into the schools. It wouldn't do ANYTHING. It would simply stop prop 8, which would change the constitution.
There were still racists after the civil rights movement, there were still anti-Catholics after Catholics got their rights to freedom of religion, this would be no different with homosexuals.
Lets say that everything about the education system and doctors, etc. is correct.
Prop 8 did NOT fix ANY of these things, so you have just taken away rights, while not taking care of ANYTHING you were complaining about. Prop 8 doesn't stop doctors from being sued, it doesn't keep anything out of schools ALL IT DOES is take away the right for same sex couples to marry.
You fell for the lies and voted for a constitutional amendment that goes against the US constitution.
All the reasons you listed were irrelevant and its sad that you fell for complete lies and took away internationally recognized human rights because of it.
Your ignorance is not acceptable. Democracy only works when the population is EDUCATED. It doesn't work when they violate Article 32 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and passes amendments that go against the US constitution, international law, etc.
You should be ashamed of yourself, you should never deny rights.
I'm educated enough to know that it has already happened in Massachussetes following their legalization of gay marriage. I also know that half the Catholic adoption agencies in Massachussettes were shut down because they didn't want to adopt their children out to homosexual couples. There were other willing agencies sure, but then again, no huh? They had to fight for their "rights" and those charities were shut down.
It has always been illegal to discriminate based on race, sexual orientation, etc. The Catholic adoption agencies would be shut down if they refused to let black couples adopt for the same reason.
In Massachusetts they don't need permission slips because that is the way their education system is set up. The California board of education said that this would NOT happen in California. It is completely irrelevant. If our prop 8 passed in Massachusetts it WOULD NOT stop the school problem.
Oh yeah. And if the board of education really thought it would have sooooo little of an impact on the education system, why did the California's Teacher Association donate millions to defeat prop 8 when it apparently wouldn't have affected them at all? That was some money that really could have gone toward our ailing schools to.
When marriage isn't limited to a man and a woman, it is available for everyone. It is against the constitution to treat people differently under the law. That is EXACTLY what prop 8 did.
The money could have gone to the school system if it wasn't so important for people like you to limit marriage. Prop 8 has NO impact AT ALL on the education system. If you think it does, then you are absolutely wrong. Have you even read prop 8?
You probably haven't read article 14 of the bill of rights either.
In that case, let's not treat anyone differently huh? Let's call blacks, whites. After all, they have the same rights right? Oh yeah, and why don't we just call women, men. They can both vote right? Oh, and here's a good one. Let's call a domestic patnership, marriage, because if it ain't called the same thing, then they must be "treated differently." under the law. You still can't name a single right that heterosexual couples have, but gays don't.
You wouldn't call white people black people, you would treat them equally under the law. If there was a law saying only money used by white people is recognized in the state of california, you would be treating people differently under the law.
Ha, thats an easy one. Heterosexual couples have the right to enter into marriage. Homosexual couples do not.
The law should be neutral when it comes to sexual orientation, sex, race, or religion. That doesn't mean we call white people black. imLMAO LOL
Sooo. You're admitting that the name of the union between two persons is the ONLY difference. One is CALLED a domestic partnership and the other is CALLED a marriage. Well lets see. Would a hetero couple fight this hard to have the right to enter into a domestic partnership??? I think not. Why are you guys pushing our limits then by trying to redefine marriage???
Whoa - are you fucking kiding me? The No on 8 side is "trying to redefine marriage"? LOL The no on 8 side isn't trying to do anything other than make sure prop 8 doesn't pass, because it would limit marriage and treat gay couples differently under the law (by not allowing them to become married).
Marriage is for EVERYONE, we aren't trying to limit any freedoms.
No on 8 sides with the constitution of the US in saying that it is not ok to limit marriage to one group of people. Nuff said.
You've obviously confused definition with constitutionality. But then again, that's what everyone who has back No on 8 has done. Show me a line in the constitution that says everyone is allowed to marry. Not your interpretation of the 14 amendment, but the actual words. If you can't, then there's nothing unconstitutional about prop 8 as it doesn't take ANY rights away. Marriage isn't a right, it is a definition for heterosexual unions just as domestic partnership is for gay unions. that's all.
There isn't a part that says everyone can marry, thats why interracial couples were denied marriage until 1967, looks like your supporting the right side.
The 14th amendment says that you have to treat everyone equally under the law. That means that you can't take marriage away from gay couples. When the no on 8 side takes it to the federal supreme court, it will remove marriage restrictions in all 50 states. Prop 8 will fuel the end of marriage segregation, looks like your on the right side.
1. That is not true. Prop 8 specifically limits marriage to a man and a women, gay couples don't share the right to enter into marriage because the lawful definition of marriage does not include them. Marriage and domestic partnerships are not equal, because they are separate. Separate but equal is NEVER equal.
2. There was a time where blacks and whites could not marry each other. Creating a situation where 1 group can get married and the other group can not get married is segregation.
3. I didn't call you stupid, I called your view stupid. There is a difference. If I would have called you stupid, that would have been an ad homonym attack which is looked down upon when debating. Calling a view stupid, however rude, isn't a personal attack. I think you are smart enough to eventually not take this stupid stance.
The thing is, I don't find my view stupid. I don't find your view stupid either because I'm open-minded enough not to regard a view as stupid just because it directly contradicts mine. But I do disagree, and I do have my own definition of marriage that I stand by. Other people will have other definitions, and that's fine, but I will stand by mine and vote by mine.
Prop 8 isn't a matter of how you define marriage. You could define marriage as between a man and a woman, and still vote no on 8.
Prop 8 is about whether you are going to force your view on others, its about whether you are going to change the LAW to only include your view of marriage.
A gay couple probably wouldn't define marriage as between a man and a women only, so why would you force your view into the law?
Before prop 8, the law was completely neutral on the issue of gay marriage, you changed the law so that California only recognizes marriages between a man and a woman.
Laws are usually put in place to protect people. What is so bad about gay marriage that we must have a law to protect us from it?
Most people who object to gay marriage do it on religious grounds. There is a separation between church and state. America is a secular country.
In that case, why not allow brother-sister marriages. Or father-daughter, or mother-son? Or what about a guy who wants to marry all 4 girlfriends? Let's give everything and everyone the right to love, and marry, and be together!
That logic hasn't held true. Look at women's right to vote. It didn't keep extending itself to illogical groups of people. Three year olds can't vote. Illegal aliens can't vote. Chickens can't vote.
Don't strip away civil rights from one group because of another. That's unethical.
You're actually making the Yes on 8 argument stronger. You agreed that certain groups should be excluded from voting and that with franchise, the line needs to be drawn somehwere. Same with marriage. Where we disagree is where to draw that line. You apparently believe it should be drawn to exclude incest, beastiality, and polygamy. I think it should be drawn to exclude all of those, and homosexual relationships.
I'm not making your case stronger. I'm agreeing with you. Our only difference is what you stated that I believe marriage should include same sex couples and you do not. The problem is that in CA same sex couples DID have this right and now you've taken it away from them. That's completely unprecedented. CA has never taken away preexisting civil rights away from minorities before. The only ethical thing to do is to overturn it. Likely, the courts will have no choice but to do that legally.
See, you obviously have the opinion that marriage was a pre-existing right. And that's ok. But what prop 8 supporters like myself think is that the status quo was never preserved because the courts first legalized gay marriage, and so we responded. Those in favor of gay marriage, threw the first punch so to speak. Moreover, we view marriage, not as a right, but a distinct and definitive institution.
So if you don't view it as a civil right, then it would be okay for the government to take it away from heterosexuals as well, you know since it's not a right.
This has been flagged as spam show
god homos are fucking gross, they should go to jail for sodomy.
dukeljk 1 year ago
@dukeljk
And you should go to jail for your attempts to keep them down.
eviltreemonster 1 year ago
@dukeljk People should go to jail if they are gross...? That is seriously your argument? Ok, how about everyone to ever pick their nose should be jailed. Better yet, everyone who has ever pooped should be jailed. Pooping is just nasty.
willthack13 1 year ago
You guys rock! Keep it up! :-)
DevilDogGR 1 year ago
VOTE NO!
GD3dguy 1 year ago
It's so awesome that there's so many you people out there supporting the cause.
ShawnWreck 1 year ago
keep in mind that those who aren't in favor of equal rights are mostly theists. I've never once heard of an atheist who was against equal rights, but i've met tons of theists in my life who are against equal rights
brysonisSXE 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The thing that is overlooked here is that the law IS EQUAL. It is the same for all of us. Men have the right to marry women and women have the right to marry men. That is equal. So you supporters of this gay marriage thing need to get that much straight. What you are asking for is a special privalage not equal rights. It's like a school lunch. Every child gets the same meal and the same portions. Not all of them like it and some are not filled by it but it is equal.
unapologeticsouth 1 year ago
I am a Catholic and I support peoples right to have different beliefs than mine. I believe in separation of Church and state. I've had many open and respectful discussions about my beliefs with Atheist and Agnostic people without either of us trying to impose of convert. I wish all people were open to such positive experiences so they can see there's nothing to fear.
TheTCCase 1 year ago
our future looks brighter
LittoMoonLight 1 year ago
im fucking tired of Faggot
huge10inchdick 1 year ago
I support freedom for all. And to deny one group from freedom is a stain on the American Constitution. I agree with the judge on that basis, however, what i don't agree with is the judge's statement (Quote)"Arguing against gay marriage is inarticulate" (End Quote).
Let me be as articulate as i can be. I believe in god, and god made a Man & Woman, when they come together in marriage it's called holy matrimony, and then they create offspring, a family.
That is the real purpose of marriage.
MrJay429 1 year ago
8 overturned today!!!!!!!!!!!!
WendyViolet1 1 year ago
Democracy in action!!! Isn't America great!!! Another victory for depravity!!!
freek4rok 1 year ago
AMAZING!
Well done!!!
alexhall90 1 year ago
Radical leftists have brainwashed these kids that this is about "rights" and "discrimination", but it really isn't. Sadly as some lack the discernment to see the truth about the natural, normal family, radicals are slowly destroying the fabric of society. The hypocrisy is profound as radicals fight to preserve our environment, but destroy humanity as they fight for the "right" to kill unborn children, and now to destroy the most important social structure we have: The natural Family.Shame on YOU
Exciteme777 1 year ago
@Exciteme777 How on earth is this effecting the normal family? If they're gay/lesbian denying them the ability to get married isn't going to suddenly make them straight.
If they adopt, so what? Would you prefer the orphans they adopted go no home? Because you can't honestly believe that all Orphans are being adopted by hetero sexual couples, a huge chunk goes without any family.
It IS about rights, there are tax breaks, hospital visitation, etc all not available to part of our community.
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord, You don't know what a normal family is? You don't know what normal sex is either. Do you honestly believe your anus is a sex organ designed for penetration? Why is it that trillions of homosexual couples can't reproduce? There is a normal family structure evidenced by nature's design for sex, procreation & raising kids, &"gay marriage" destroys this structure. How dare you force society to accept this abnormal, unhealthy "family" as normal and bring kids into this environment!
Exciteme777 1 year ago
@Exciteme777 Your comments are typical of ignorant bigots who see Prop 8 as a way to way to express hatred for gays. Your side is losing.
pwnUgood 1 year ago
@Exciteme777 God you're stupid. No one claimed the anus was made for sex (apparently you think lesbians just have anal sex as well). Procreation IS NOT a requirement for marriage and hetero sexuals often practice anal sex as well (shocker I know).
How dare you be stupid enough to think a child is better off with no parents than homosexual parents.
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord, Considering these basic biology problems, no one with half a brain would suggest homosexuality is a normal, healthy form of sexuality on which society can legally base a marriage and force it down the throats of society. How dare you suggest you put children in such an unhealthy environment where homosexuals model abnormal sexuality and can’t provide the benefit of a father and mother. Even in foster homes they have a real father and mother!
Exciteme777 1 year ago
DarkBunnyLord, Basing a “marriage” on an abnormal union where not even one couple can have true sex, or procreate is insanity, not a right. "Anal sex" is the sine qua non for homosexual men as they can't truly have sex according to organic sexual function. Lesbians can't even achieve penetration and people suggest they can actually have “sex.” Approx 25% of heteros have ever tried “anal sex,” maybe ½ or less do it regularly. BUT only a man and a woman are made for real sex; homos weren’t!
Exciteme777 1 year ago
People are so stupid. They believe this is a "rights" issue. Not everything is a right. You can't marry your sister for the natural consequences that will result with birth defects with procreation. Natural marriage requires male and female as it is the cornerstone of humanity with male and female contributing positive and unique benefits to child development. Not one homosexual couple can procreate, provide the benefit of a father and mother while demonstrating an abnormal family structure.
Exciteme777 1 year ago
@Exciteme777 Right because we're totally suffering from a shrinking population? Again you're points are irrelevent. Denying the homosexual community the right to get married IS NOT going to make them heterosexual so procreation has NOTHING to do with it.
In fact, using your logic many hetero sexual couples shouldn't be married. What about those that don't want kids and use birth control? What about those that are sterile? Come back with a logical argument, then we'll talk.
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord, You’re confusing a Design vs. a Defect. NOT ONE homosexual couple can have natural sex or procreate per organic Design. That’s VERY different than a small %age of heterosexual couples that have a Defect in their reproductive system. Organic Design makes it clear the purpose for human sexual function. While heterosexuals can be treated for reproductive problems, homosexuals can’t. Why? Because they weren’t designed to be sexual partners and can’t reproduce.
Exciteme777 1 year ago
@Exciteme777 No, no I'm not. A homosexual couple can't reproduce without artifical insemination (lesbians) or a surrogate parent (gays). There is no difference here from a sterile couple or couple that doesn't wish to have children. Again, procreation is NOT a requirement for marriage so you have no ground to deny homosexuals the same marriage rights.
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord, “A homosexual couple can't reproduce without artifical insemination (lesbians) or a surrogate parent (gays). There is no difference here from a sterile couple or couple that doesn't wish to have children.” Homosexuals weren’t designed to procreate TOGETHER per natural law. That’s a design problem. A small percentage of heteros with a reproductive defect is not the same as male and female were still designed to reproduce. You’re truly an airhead if you can’t see the difference.
Exciteme777 1 year ago
@Exciteme777 God you're stupid, MARRIAGE IS NOT BASED ON SEX. You don't need to be able to reproduce to have sex, it is not, and has not ever been a requirement for marriage so stop trying to base it on it.
Again you continue to state that children don't belong in that environment please provide ANY study that proves it's harmful because guess what genius, there hasn't been one. Living with gays would not make you gay, you don't choose what you're attracted to dipshit.
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord, The point that blinded people like you overlook is that you're basing an abnormal "marriage" on a sexual orientation where people can't even have sex per anatomical function, nor procreate, and it’s well document over many decades that a man & woman contribute positively to kids’ development. Marriage was ALWAYS based on male and female as the opposite sexes are the building block of society--not just the physical act, but to the ability to form a family.
Exciteme777 1 year ago
@Exciteme777 IT DOES NOT MATTER. you have 0 logical grounds to deny marriage. What does denying it achieve? Nothing.
There is no study showing children are harmed growing up in such a house, even then there are PLENTY of kids that have no parents, no foster homes, nothing. Your argument is they are better there than with homosexual parents is bullcrap especially with 0 scientific social studies to back that claim up.
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord, Marriage is founded on male and female. It's nature's rules (or God's in some peoples' eyes). 2 Men or women "marrying" is an oxymoron, totally contrary to the foundation/function of marriage. Preserving normal marriage is really nature preservation. When you destroy the environment, we all suffer. The breakdown of the natural family will yield major consequences. Check out Narth.com, american college of pediatricians for just some examples of studies on "gay parenting", etc.
Exciteme777 1 year ago
@Exciteme777 Again, marriages function is not to have sex. You keep trying to stress this even though it is completely irrelevant. If it was relevant, sterile couples, or couples that didn't want children would not be allowed to be married either. Narth is not even remotely convincing, they're a group that believes it a psychological disorder with no evidence to prove such claims.
That'd be like me pointing you to a majorly pro-gay website as a credible source of evidence to the contrary.
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord, man you're so confused it scares me. It's not just about having sex, it's that marriage is based on the opposite sexes. The fact that people don't even look to nature, biology and anatomy for clues is frightening. Look at sociology too and you'll see that male and female have unique and positive ways to influence child development...too numerous to list on here. Narth and other websites with PHDs in psychology and medicine, and university professors discuss these studies.
Exciteme777 1 year ago
@Exciteme777 No, it's frightening that you seem so convinced that a group that starts out with a biased thought is going to produce anything other than bias results.
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord, Same-sex "marriage" is not just private, but legally recognizing it will have terrible consequences: 1) Society will be legally bound to respect it as legitimate, healthy and normal equal to heterosexual marriage, the only form of marriage that's existed. 2) Educational codes will require homosexuality be taught to little kids as normal, healthy alternatives & parents can't object. Kids will believe abnormal sex acts are ok, even thought it's against biology. It's insanity!
Exciteme777 1 year ago
@Exciteme777 Dude you are so full of shit. People won't be forced to recognize gay marriage as moral. and it won't be taught in schools. If gays could get married, why would schools suddenly be forced to teach children homosexuality. Even if schools did, why would parents not be able to object? The parents aren't powerless, they can just raise the kid to believe differently. your just full of bias..
TheRetardedSheep 1 year ago
@TheRetardedSheep, "If gays could get married, why would schools suddenly be forced to teach children homosexuality." I've actually researched this, and there are laws in states where it's legal that indicate teachers must teach homosexual marriage to children when they discuss the topic of marriage and can't show bias to normal, heterosexual marriage. They've had homosexuals in MA teach kids about their sexuality for years. I'd suggest you look into this instead of insulting me.
Exciteme777 1 year ago
@Exciteme777 Well thats really fine by me cuz i researched it also. now were does it say that churches can't just brainwash the children that follow them into disagreeing with gay marraige, were does it say parents can't just raise they're children to think different. This country isn't going to be any less free than it is right now if gay marriage is allowed in CA just like it is in IA, CT, DC, NH, MA, and VT. I'm not debating anything here with your beliefs. i refuse to answer next reply, sry.
TheRetardedSheep 1 year ago
@TheRetardedSheep, You didn't research enough. The chruch never had to talk about "gay marriage" before; it's a new topic. Some churches talk about it; others don't. All major religions, except for maybe Buddhism, teach homosexuality is wrong based on what they believe is God's or nature's design for sexuality, family and marriage. Feedom of religion is a right people have in this country. Not everything is a "right" though, like "gay marriage" which most believe is abnormal, reilgious or not.
Exciteme777 1 year ago
@Exciteme777 Marriage is a right for straight people, yes? Therefore it is a right being denied to gays. Not a complicated chain of logic.
willthack13 1 year ago
@Exciteme777 What is wrong with treating same-sex marriage as legitimate? And as for point 2, parents can still tell their child what they beleive. but the child can also hear the opposing views. This gives that child the opportunity to make an informed decision about what they beleive.
willthack13 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord, All these so-called "studies" which are relatively new are produced by homosexuals and GLBT backed organizations to brainwash society. It appears they work on people like you, but not on the majority of society which doesn't believe GLBT propaganda. A doctor friend of mine stated that these studies can be manipulated to get the results they want. Even small panels on the FDA approves drugs backed by biased studies from drug companies, and the drugs kill people all the time.
Exciteme777 1 year ago
Comment removed
Exciteme777 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord, "If it was relevant, sterile couples, or couples that didn't want children would not be allowed to be married either."Just because a small %age of couples is sterile or doesn't want kids doesn't change the fact that ONLY male and female are designed to procreate. Every homosexual couple isn't even designed to procreate. You can’t even treat them. That's a big difference you're missing. By the way, you didn't even bother to look at the studies on narth from PHDs in psychology.
Exciteme777 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord, You call your "arguments" logical? Please. Any village idiot would know that two men who enjoy your warped sexual acts and use body parts contrary to anatomical function/design have a problem, and now you want to base a marriage on this. If you actually thought about how stupid your comments were instead of being suckered by GLBT propaganda then I'd say you have a glimmer of hope.There is a design in nature for sexuality, procreation & family, and I'm sorry you just don't get it.
Exciteme777 1 year ago
@Exciteme777
How does it feel to lose, bigot?
Soon it will go to the supreme court. And if there is justice in the world, they will rule correctly, and the GLBT community will have the same rights as everyone else.
darklydreamt 1 year ago
@Exciteme777 Apparently not any village idiot because you don't. My warped sexual acts? Nice assumption there, if I support gay/lesbian marriage I must be gay right? Well you're wrong idiot, I'm just not a spiteful little biggot that has no reason to discriminate like yourself. Again you're to stupid to realize that hetero sexual couples practice those same warped sexual acts.
You just don't get it, when did it ever become a requirement to reproduce to get married?
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord, All that crazy leftists like you have to hide behind is emotional, irrational labeling: "bigot," "racism," "discrimination," etc. If you actually thought about how nature created us, the only natural healthy family structure is based on male and female. This isn't discrimination, but NATURAL LAW! The FACT is that only a male and female can have normal intercourse, procreate & provide the benefit of a father and mother which is medically proven to provide the healthiest of homes.
Exciteme777 1 year ago
@Exciteme777 Nature created homosexuals as well you tard, they weren't manufactured in some factory. You CAN NOT base a decision on how to provide rights based on how someone was born, this is called discrimination. Clearly you don't have the IQ to work that through your little brain.
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord, Nobody knows what causes homosexuality. It was considered a disorder til 1973 when homosexuals got into position of power & changed the DSM at the APA.Many psychologists and doctors still believe it's a disorder. All diseases are caused by natural means, but still diseases nontheless. 3-8% of population has experimented sexually with animals and that doesn't make it normal. Homosexuality is a disorder. The one who legitmizes sex acts that are contrary to anatomy has the small IQ.
Exciteme777 1 year ago
@Exciteme777 It DOES NOT matter, if it's a disorder it is STILL NOT enough of a reason to keep two adults from marrying each other. You are STILL denying rights.
Sexuality with animlas isn't even close to the same you tard, an animal is not a consenting human being.
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord, "Sexuality with animlas isn't even close to the same you tard, an animal is not a consenting human being." The point with this is that people have abnormal, unhealthy sexual desires and that doesn't make them right. Strangely, the %age of people who find animals desireable is not much smaller than people who like the same sex. Many children have experimented with the same sex, but become 100% heterosexual as adults. See the Laumann Studies.
Exciteme777 1 year ago
@Exciteme777 Looked at the Laumann Studies. They claim that these children long for normal parents, of course they do it's called peer pressure and being teased in school.
Again you're completely ignoring the fact that it's STILL BETTER than no parents at all.
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord, The study factually shows that homosexuality is not a “stable trait.” The authors found to their surprise that homosexuality tended spontaneously to “convert” into heterosexuality as people aged. Researchers all over the world have conducted studies on hundreds of thousands of people which strongly confirmed Laumann. Yet the mental health guilds don’t even mention it because they have homosexual psychologists in positions of power at the APA hiding the truth.
Exciteme777 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord, The 1994 Laumann study, The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United State. was based on a survey of American from the ages of 18 and 60 and is universally recognized as definitive. Numerous large-scale epidemiologic survey have repeatedly confirmed and strengthened its findings. One of the major points of the Laumann study, which the authors themselves did not expect, is that “homosexuality” as a fixed trait scarcely even seems to exist”
Exciteme777 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord, Homosexuals try to say they were born that way, but it's not factual or proven. Even if they were it wouldn't matter since all diseases and disorders have natural causes with environmental influences in some cases. They also tried to say homosexuality was genetic, but the head of the Human Genome Project clarified it shows less genetic links than many other behaviors. I've done a LOT more research on this than you, so maybe you should shut up and actually read some studies.
Exciteme777 1 year ago
@Exciteme777 Yes it is factual by simple logic. You can't turn to a tree and say "gee I want to be attracted to tree's now, so I'll get a boner". The only other argument you can have is that you're naturally born attracted to ALL people and that you choose which one to follow through with. That's also bs because I know I'm not attracted to the same sex, I feel no arousal upon viewing one, do you?
If the answer is no you just defeated your own dumb ass attempt at an argument.
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
This rally was freaking AMAZING to be at!
jewboy11505 1 year ago
brings back memories. just wish it could have lost. Hopefully, it will be repealed soon. There should be no such discrimination.
91nickt 1 year ago
I wish clowns could get married :(
thezoids123 1 year ago
Goes to show that this issue is in the hands of the youth who are far more open-minded and aware than the older generation in this aspect. ;)
Injustice is always solved in time, just give it some time. ;)
CloseTheseEyes 1 year ago
Seeing such huge support from people of my age is a really great feeling to have. I stumbled upon this video and would just like to thank all of you. It really means a lot to me.
differonnt 2 years ago
This is probably one of the most cool things i did to bad STUPID thing ended up passing im just sick of all this religious people messing with civil rights our U.S constitution says that marriage should not be denied to any one wheather is by sex, religion, skin color ect.. and why are we violating it but i always say fight is NOT over yet its just the beginning CALIFORNIA WON'T BACK DOWN!!!!!!! thank you all of you for not being so ignorant...
pegan01 2 years ago
Oh panchomoon...you wise soul you. I'm neither idealistic nor wet behind the ears, but I am smart enough to know the analogy of a gay couple wanting the same rights as a straight couple and incest and pilygamy are ludicrous. You are just like those idiots that compare being gay to child molesters or rapists. Your argument makes no sense. You think if you throw out offensive comparisons the moral majority will rise to defend your evil, warped veiw? Cough...dumbass!
lovestellbells 2 years ago 2
@lovestellbells
What's so offensive about the comparison of polygamous marriages or marriage between blood relatives? I like the little sassiness you threw in at the end of your comment, it really supports your argument and convinces me that you are "smart enough." Nice touch.
panchomoon1 1 year ago
I didn't take offense, just mentioned that it's ridiculous to compare incest and polygamy to gay marriage. And "sassiness" who uses that term? Thanks for the flattering comments, you're a peach.
lovestellbells 1 year ago
@lovestellbells
There is nothing rediculous about the comparison. All three are equally perverted.
panchomoon1 1 year ago
OK, I get it. You're not just a mean bigot... you're crazy. Good luck with that.
lovestellbells 1 year ago
And I'm glad you mentioned children and taxes, because as a gay parent, my partner and I have to pay MORE taxes than we would if we were straight.
Don't lecture these kids about grown-up things when you don't have the facts straight yourself.
bndkllr2 2 years ago
panchomoon1,
I'm glad you finally admitted that anti-gay bigots are the "establishment"
During this campaign, you folks complained that gay marriage would take away your religious freedom and christians would be "discriminated against"
How can the establishment also be the victim?
You can't have it both ways!
bndkllr2 2 years ago
I cant wait till more of us no on 8 younger people can vote and those yes on h8 over 65yearolds die out.
seth1230 2 years ago 2
you go guys!!!
:)
WeAreMany1707 2 years ago
probably one of the proudest moments of my senior year.
:)
even though the stupid thing did end up getting passed.
-_-
camillemichelle 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
After reading pro-gay posts, I've come to the realization that most gays are self-hating.
FUKhollywood 2 years ago
dont be so straight!
vote no on 8! :)
i wish my school did this!
its full of free loving hippies
harajukukevin6657 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ignorant children. This is just the normal anti-establishment behavior from teen agers that has been around forever. Come back when you have children and have to pay taxes. 8 is Gr8
panchomoon1 2 years ago
discrimination is not right or great
idaman12345 2 years ago
Society discriminates against incestuous marriages and polygamous marriages. I'm sure there are many tax paying, law abiding Americans who would love to see the day those forms of marriage are "accepted." Would that be acceptable in your little, idealistic, wet behind the ears world?
panchomoon1 2 years ago
Well, the day we see any of those people (all six of them) out protesting for the right to marry, I'll believe they exist. Until then, I don't see any reason to deprive millions of committed gay couples the right to marry.
buddy51 1 year ago
@buddy51
Well, 60years ago there weren't any people out in the streets promoting gay marriage. Where does it end?
panchomoon1 1 year ago
i truly wish my city could have organized something like this.
you guys are awsome. thanks for the help. it will get pulled i know. i'm 17 and planning my wedding hahaha. but thanks. seeing that means alot. to know that there were people out there trying.
lalalala101 2 years ago
STOP THE HATE NO ON 8 NO ON 8 NO ON 8
juggalo37 2 years ago
You know, looking at this video again, I feel quite a bit better about myself. Then when I walk through capo's halls every day, I feel like this event never happened. No one defends, they just join in. I wish people could be more real.
mesomad 2 years ago
What do you mean no one defends?
NinjaturtleDK 2 years ago
your dad eats cock and swallows little children every night cuh!
marialovesreynaldo 2 years ago
Jesus is eats cock, you ignorant, bigoted fuck.
Kentman513 2 years ago
The old generation that is descriminatory against "homosexuals" and "bisexuals" is going to die off, soon enough.
The younger generation is going to overpower the old facists.
mesomad 2 years ago 15
Absolutely!
buddy51 2 years ago
well said
psystreak 2 years ago
hells yeah!
harajukukevin6657 2 years ago
@mesomad
Yeah, things have become more open as time has gone on.
As Sean Penn said ''When it passes and eventually it will, that would not have happened without harvey milk''
I think that even homophobia down here in New Zealand, must make homosexuals nervous. So our countries and places like Britain and Australia where the homophobia exists. Won't feel as safe and free as we all think.
I have staunch support for homosexual rights, and I'm as straight as a meter ruler
ilovepanslabyrinth 1 year ago
@mesomad DAMN RIGHT! :)
lainnorcal 1 year ago
@mesomad
I hope they take their religion with them. That was THE ONLY ARGUMENT AGAINST THIS, THAT IS WHY IT LOST!!!
ASCENSION462 1 year ago
@mesomad
Thank fuck for that :)
eviltreemonster 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
god this is wat i h8 fuckin homos and dick sucking men who cant get there head out of the own ass fuck u jesus is not gay ur just a fat jew god hates every one of u yes on 8 keep it strait
beanzdips 2 years ago
Why not just keep your gayness on the down low, jeeze. Vote no but seriously if you get married or if you are gay i dont wanna know about it and quit with the pathetic attempt on the female voice.. or you wont have a career anywhere but mcdonalds or hollywood since we embrace homos there.
elvis00 2 years ago
Im glad I don't go to Capo
ballerstatus444 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
love u capo , but sorry Im with yes on 8 . no on 8 is not right :D
dodo9653 3 years ago
you sound rational, So I hope you can speak for your group when I ask why you voted against same-sex marriage?
dolphin64575 2 years ago
fuck!!! i personally dont believe in gay marriage.... but leaving my emotions to the side....everyone has the right to be happy!!!! even those crippy people
azteckike 3 years ago 8
@azteckike homophobes are the crippy people NOT gay people...
danijel223 1 year ago
i loove this
no on 8!
tinkerbella9076 3 years ago
i remember this day good times
that rally was bigggg
The best was the vote phil for president though haha that was awesome
snowblow9 3 years ago
Protect marriage ban divorce...i voted NO on prop 8 im straight and believe in the freedom for anyone to choose who they love
PHiNiX08 3 years ago
Wow.....
BritCommando12 3 years ago
I have a question for you. A simple yes or no will do. Three yes or no questions. Do you believe two homosexual men should be allowed to get married? Do you believe that two adult homosexual brothers should be allowed to get married. And finally do you believe that a 40 year old man and his 20 year old daughter should be allowed to get married if they do not have children or plan on it. In your opinion?
freespeachrulez 3 years ago
This logic doesn't work. When we gave women and black people the right to vote, it stopped there. It didn't get extended to three year olds, to illegal aliens, or to goats and chickens.
If you believe gay people should have be second class citizens, just be honest and say so.
drewj1969 3 years ago 2
This is a ridiculous strawman argument. There are literally hundreds of thousands of committed gay couples in this country who would like to marry. How many brothers would like to marry one another? Or how many fathers marry their daughters? It seems ludicrous to deny so many people a basic civil right simply because of a few nutcases.
buddy51 3 years ago
Oh buddy51! You call them nutcases, but they REAAALLLY love each other! Shouldn't they still be allowed to marry?? Don't deny them that right. You're "restricting the happiness of others."
Ha ha. Strawman argument, that was not. freespeachrulez is bomb!
whatevalife6 3 years ago
Well, it is true that Abraham did marry his half-sister Sarah and from what I can tell that was a perfectly legal marriage. Ah those Bible patriarchs! What with their mulitple wives and all - they sure believed in the "one man/one woman" definition of marriage.
buddy51 3 years ago
Last I checked, that was in the Old Testament right? New Testament, New rules. If you can find one of those kinds of marriages in the New Testament of the Bible I would happily concede to you! Good luck with that.
whatevalife6 3 years ago
That's beside the point. We are always being told that God established marriage as the union of one man and one woman. I can't tell you how many times I've heard that argument from Christians. Yet, that is demonstrably false, as evidenced by all those patriarchs with multiple wives early on. It only goes to show that the definition of marriage HAS INDEED changed over the years.
buddy51 3 years ago
whatevalife6 - When fathers and daughters and polygamists begin protesting on street corners for the right to marry, I'll consider that a serious issue. Till then I'm not going to worry about it.
buddy51 3 years ago
Oh dear. With hostile and intolerant people like you around, I think it may be a while before those people are confident enough to "come out."
Bigoty liar pant's on fire! Equal rights! Stop the H8!
Oh please. Save the drama please and take a look at you're own partial and "intolerant" position. The line obviously needs to be drawn somewhere, and I say, let it be drawn at traditional marriage. No buts.
whatevalife6 3 years ago
Fine, show me a single instance of a father and daughter who want the right to marry. Who are they? Where are they? Why aren't they out there protesting for their own right to marry? Why should I even believe such people exist except that you say they do? Am I supposed to prevent millions of gay couples from marrying because of some theoretical people that you alone claim are out there? Come up with a better argument. By the way, you're going down. Young people are TOTALLY on our side!
buddy51 3 years ago 2
Why would you force your view into the law?
whatevalife6 3 years ago
cool video! so fun... no on prop 8!!!
lovesten 3 years ago
Whenever I get depressed, I come back to this video. You guys are so awesome. Love always.
buddy51 3 years ago
wish your invisible god would take all of you nut-bag Christian, end-timers away like He promised. Biblical literalism is a delusional mental deficiency, and I for one, cant wait to be left behind. We let the fanatics and maniacs run our world, easy to see why everything is a mess and the world constant need for death and War
LostFREEDOM 3 years ago 5
How old are these youngsters...? They seem not really to be particularly well thought-through when they speak out. It is a fair and just thing to fight for, but have they really understood why, or are they just there, without real justification other than, "Gays have rights, because they do! And I believe so!"... I'm just wondering. No offense I support their views.
Faergen 3 years ago
16-18 years old. A lot of them actually know a very fair amount of what their speaking about. We held a meeting the following day discussing why they felt the way they did and you would have been surprised to see so many young kids knowing what their talking talking about.
NinjaturtleDK 3 years ago
These are wonderfully articulate young people. "Gays have rights because they do." Hell, what more is there to say??????
buddy51 3 years ago 2
Fair enough. Just wondering.I know in Denmark, sometimes the young people make such demonstrations without really looking into the subject. The video kinda gives me the same impression. Well I for one believe fx that gays shouldn't have the right to adopt (Just to take a subject where I think gays differ from straights) But that is not because they are gays, but because I believe kids deserve both father and mother. There could be such side-effects with gay marriges (Though I don't believe so!)
Faergen 3 years ago
Its just great to see the this many kids speaking out on this...although we didn't win, but regardless its great! I wish I could have been a part of it!
zozotennisfreak 3 years ago 3
To disagree is not to hate! The real intolerants are the people like the liberal youngsters that smashed my friend's car's windows out for having a Yes on 8 bumper sticker.
whatevalife6 3 years ago
Tell that to the motorist who threw a water bottle into a group of peaceful No on 8 protesters at a rally in Santa Clarita the Sunday before the election (it hit the girl standing next to me). There are crazy people on BOTH SIDES of the issue, individuals who go beyond what they should in making their feelings known. Peaceful protest is the ultimate act of patriotism.
buddy51 3 years ago
true peaceful protest should remain peaceful!
you dont defeat hate with hate
mp5sd5 3 years ago
To treat people differently under the law is hate, and it is unconstitutional, so even though it passed, it will be stopped when the court cases reach the supreme court of the USA.
Article 14 of the bill of rights, read it sometime.
appleguy77 3 years ago
I have, and I support equal rights for gays in everything except marriage. Why? Because I still don't want my future children to be read King and King by their teacher in their 2cnd grade class. Parents have their OWN rights to teach their children their own set of moral values. Doctors also have rights to refuse artificial insemination of gays if it conflicts with their own belief and people have sued even when there are other willing doctors.
whatevalife6 3 years ago
Wow, it is a damn shame that the yes on 8 campaign lied, but we need to get past the lies.
Our educational system would not change at all with prop 8 being passed or failing. It would stay the exact same as it did before the election.
Your kids wouldn't be reading those books, you can take them out of their class, they do need permission slips. Prop8 doesn't change ANYTHING about education. The board of education has cleared this up.
Prop 8 did not and will not fix ANY problem with doctors.
appleguy77 3 years ago
The teacher read the books to them. Parents were denied the right to remove their children from class when the Massachussettes supreme court ruled in the teacher's favor. Now, would the court really have ruled the same way had gay marriage not been legal? I mean, if its legal, it HAS to be accepted by everyone. No questions asked.
whatevalife6 3 years ago
"I mean, if its legal, it HAS to be accepted by everyone. No questions asked."
Not true. You can still not be a supporter of gay marriage as long as you don't discriminate based on it.
"Parents were denied the right to remove their children from class" California dept. of Education showed that this would not happen in California. Our education system is set up differently. And furthermore, Prop 8 SAYS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about parents being able to take their kids out of classes.Its not a fix.
appleguy77 3 years ago
Look. GAYS ALREADY HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS. the No on prop 8 campaign has nothing to do with being against discrimination or fighting for more rights. All it wanted to do, was redefine the word marriage, and the only reason a homosexual union is called something different from marriage is that it IS something different. There is not one right in the marriage code that is not granted homosexual couples. If you think that calling a gay union "marriage" will stop intolerance, you're mistaken.
whatevalife6 3 years ago
They did before prop 8, they could marry, etc. Prop 8 would force California to only recognize marriages between a man and a woman. Anything else is not marriage in the legal system. Before prop 8, thousands of couples got married and were treated as married under the law. Now they are not treated as married under the law. That is taking a right away..
appleguy77 3 years ago
" the No on prop 8 campaign has nothing to do with being against discrimination or fighting for more rights."
Haha, they are just trying to insert stuff into the school system to force your children to learn horrible tolerance.
Voting NO on ANY prop keeps the state the way it was before. Yes on 8 would change california, No on 8 would keep california the same. So ask yourself this? Before the election was there a problem with california? Were students forced to read kings and kings? No
appleguy77 3 years ago
In this case, Voting Yes on the prop is what would have kept things the same. Remember that the courts legalized gay marriage already, and that is what changed California.
And no, students hadn't been reading King and King yet, but a doctor did get sued for not performing artificial insemination of a lesbian couple. Oh yeah. And he lost that case in court.
whatevalife6 3 years ago
Voting yes on ANY prop including prop 8 will change things, while voting NO will not pass the prop and not change it.
Courts didn't legalize gay marriage, they overturned the limit of marriage to a man and a woman. Removing the limit makes it open to everyone.
appleguy77 3 years ago
That's like saying the courts didn't legalize abortion. It just overturned a limit on it. hmmm. How are those two things different? overturning limits ARE legalizing things!
whatevalife6 3 years ago
Thats just semantics, overturning a limit doesn't add any laws to legalize it, it is naturally and when unregulated legal.
appleguy77 3 years ago
Oh yeah, and sexual orientation education veiled under the banner of tolerance is hardly tolerable.
whatevalife6 3 years ago
If I didn't artificially inseminate a black woman because she was back, I would lose that court case too. Its the discrimination that is the problem. He deserved to be sued, just like someone who didn't sell his house to a family because they were black.
Voting NO would not change ANYTHING. The change (prop 8) wouldn't be enacted.
Voting no would not force sexual orientation education into the schools. It wouldn't do ANYTHING. It would simply stop prop 8, which would change the constitution.
appleguy77 3 years ago
There were still racists after the civil rights movement, there were still anti-Catholics after Catholics got their rights to freedom of religion, this would be no different with homosexuals.
kiwisunshine5233 3 years ago
Lets say that everything about the education system and doctors, etc. is correct.
Prop 8 did NOT fix ANY of these things, so you have just taken away rights, while not taking care of ANYTHING you were complaining about. Prop 8 doesn't stop doctors from being sued, it doesn't keep anything out of schools ALL IT DOES is take away the right for same sex couples to marry.
You fell for the lies and voted for a constitutional amendment that goes against the US constitution.
appleguy77 3 years ago
All the reasons you listed were irrelevant and its sad that you fell for complete lies and took away internationally recognized human rights because of it.
Your ignorance is not acceptable. Democracy only works when the population is EDUCATED. It doesn't work when they violate Article 32 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and passes amendments that go against the US constitution, international law, etc.
You should be ashamed of yourself, you should never deny rights.
appleguy77 3 years ago 2
I'm educated enough to know that it has already happened in Massachussetes following their legalization of gay marriage. I also know that half the Catholic adoption agencies in Massachussettes were shut down because they didn't want to adopt their children out to homosexual couples. There were other willing agencies sure, but then again, no huh? They had to fight for their "rights" and those charities were shut down.
whatevalife6 3 years ago
It has always been illegal to discriminate based on race, sexual orientation, etc. The Catholic adoption agencies would be shut down if they refused to let black couples adopt for the same reason.
In Massachusetts they don't need permission slips because that is the way their education system is set up. The California board of education said that this would NOT happen in California. It is completely irrelevant. If our prop 8 passed in Massachusetts it WOULD NOT stop the school problem.
appleguy77 3 years ago
Oh yeah. And if the board of education really thought it would have sooooo little of an impact on the education system, why did the California's Teacher Association donate millions to defeat prop 8 when it apparently wouldn't have affected them at all? That was some money that really could have gone toward our ailing schools to.
whatevalife6 3 years ago
When marriage isn't limited to a man and a woman, it is available for everyone. It is against the constitution to treat people differently under the law. That is EXACTLY what prop 8 did.
The money could have gone to the school system if it wasn't so important for people like you to limit marriage. Prop 8 has NO impact AT ALL on the education system. If you think it does, then you are absolutely wrong. Have you even read prop 8?
You probably haven't read article 14 of the bill of rights either.
appleguy77 3 years ago
In that case, let's not treat anyone differently huh? Let's call blacks, whites. After all, they have the same rights right? Oh yeah, and why don't we just call women, men. They can both vote right? Oh, and here's a good one. Let's call a domestic patnership, marriage, because if it ain't called the same thing, then they must be "treated differently." under the law. You still can't name a single right that heterosexual couples have, but gays don't.
whatevalife6 3 years ago
You wouldn't call white people black people, you would treat them equally under the law. If there was a law saying only money used by white people is recognized in the state of california, you would be treating people differently under the law.
Ha, thats an easy one. Heterosexual couples have the right to enter into marriage. Homosexual couples do not.
The law should be neutral when it comes to sexual orientation, sex, race, or religion. That doesn't mean we call white people black. imLMAO LOL
appleguy77 3 years ago
Sooo. You're admitting that the name of the union between two persons is the ONLY difference. One is CALLED a domestic partnership and the other is CALLED a marriage. Well lets see. Would a hetero couple fight this hard to have the right to enter into a domestic partnership??? I think not. Why are you guys pushing our limits then by trying to redefine marriage???
whatevalife6 3 years ago
Whoa - are you fucking kiding me? The No on 8 side is "trying to redefine marriage"? LOL The no on 8 side isn't trying to do anything other than make sure prop 8 doesn't pass, because it would limit marriage and treat gay couples differently under the law (by not allowing them to become married).
Marriage is for EVERYONE, we aren't trying to limit any freedoms.
No on 8 sides with the constitution of the US in saying that it is not ok to limit marriage to one group of people. Nuff said.
appleguy77 3 years ago
You've obviously confused definition with constitutionality. But then again, that's what everyone who has back No on 8 has done. Show me a line in the constitution that says everyone is allowed to marry. Not your interpretation of the 14 amendment, but the actual words. If you can't, then there's nothing unconstitutional about prop 8 as it doesn't take ANY rights away. Marriage isn't a right, it is a definition for heterosexual unions just as domestic partnership is for gay unions. that's all.
whatevalife6 3 years ago
There isn't a part that says everyone can marry, thats why interracial couples were denied marriage until 1967, looks like your supporting the right side.
The 14th amendment says that you have to treat everyone equally under the law. That means that you can't take marriage away from gay couples. When the no on 8 side takes it to the federal supreme court, it will remove marriage restrictions in all 50 states. Prop 8 will fuel the end of marriage segregation, looks like your on the right side.
appleguy77 3 years ago
1) Everyone is treated equally. Gays and straights have the same rights.
2) Marriage segregation? You can't segregate marriage, and you can't segregate domestic partnership either. They're TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
3) I respect your view enough not to call you dumb. I'm sorry you can't give me the same courtesy.
whatevalife6 3 years ago
1. That is not true. Prop 8 specifically limits marriage to a man and a women, gay couples don't share the right to enter into marriage because the lawful definition of marriage does not include them. Marriage and domestic partnerships are not equal, because they are separate. Separate but equal is NEVER equal.
2. There was a time where blacks and whites could not marry each other. Creating a situation where 1 group can get married and the other group can not get married is segregation.
appleguy77 3 years ago
3. I didn't call you stupid, I called your view stupid. There is a difference. If I would have called you stupid, that would have been an ad homonym attack which is looked down upon when debating. Calling a view stupid, however rude, isn't a personal attack. I think you are smart enough to eventually not take this stupid stance.
appleguy77 3 years ago
The thing is, I don't find my view stupid. I don't find your view stupid either because I'm open-minded enough not to regard a view as stupid just because it directly contradicts mine. But I do disagree, and I do have my own definition of marriage that I stand by. Other people will have other definitions, and that's fine, but I will stand by mine and vote by mine.
whatevalife6 3 years ago
Prop 8 isn't a matter of how you define marriage. You could define marriage as between a man and a woman, and still vote no on 8.
Prop 8 is about whether you are going to force your view on others, its about whether you are going to change the LAW to only include your view of marriage.
A gay couple probably wouldn't define marriage as between a man and a women only, so why would you force your view into the law?
appleguy77 3 years ago
Before prop 8, the law was completely neutral on the issue of gay marriage, you changed the law so that California only recognizes marriages between a man and a woman.
Laws are usually put in place to protect people. What is so bad about gay marriage that we must have a law to protect us from it?
Most people who object to gay marriage do it on religious grounds. There is a separation between church and state. America is a secular country.
appleguy77 3 years ago
In that case, why not allow brother-sister marriages. Or father-daughter, or mother-son? Or what about a guy who wants to marry all 4 girlfriends? Let's give everything and everyone the right to love, and marry, and be together!
THANKS, BUT NO THANKS.
whatevalife6 3 years ago
That logic hasn't held true. Look at women's right to vote. It didn't keep extending itself to illogical groups of people. Three year olds can't vote. Illegal aliens can't vote. Chickens can't vote.
Don't strip away civil rights from one group because of another. That's unethical.
drewj1969 3 years ago
You're actually making the Yes on 8 argument stronger. You agreed that certain groups should be excluded from voting and that with franchise, the line needs to be drawn somehwere. Same with marriage. Where we disagree is where to draw that line. You apparently believe it should be drawn to exclude incest, beastiality, and polygamy. I think it should be drawn to exclude all of those, and homosexual relationships.
whatevalife6 3 years ago
I'm not making your case stronger. I'm agreeing with you. Our only difference is what you stated that I believe marriage should include same sex couples and you do not. The problem is that in CA same sex couples DID have this right and now you've taken it away from them. That's completely unprecedented. CA has never taken away preexisting civil rights away from minorities before. The only ethical thing to do is to overturn it. Likely, the courts will have no choice but to do that legally.
drewj1969 3 years ago
See, you obviously have the opinion that marriage was a pre-existing right. And that's ok. But what prop 8 supporters like myself think is that the status quo was never preserved because the courts first legalized gay marriage, and so we responded. Those in favor of gay marriage, threw the first punch so to speak. Moreover, we view marriage, not as a right, but a distinct and definitive institution.
whatevalife6 3 years ago
So if you don't view it as a civil right, then it would be okay for the government to take it away from heterosexuals as well, you know since it's not a right.
drewj1969 3 years ago
Its not a right. Its a definition.
Marriage: A union between two people of opposite sexes.
Domestic Partnership: A union between two people of the same sex.
Nothing different. Just the definition. Just the fact that they're called different things because they are different.
whatevalife6 3 years ago
ONly marriage, nothing else is equal. I will never settle for anything but equal. Never, NEVER!
jerrydoubleu 3 years ago
Uhh. Everything is equal. It's just not CALLED marriage when it's same sex.
whatevalife6 3 years ago
That's not equal fuckwad.
jerrydoubleu 3 years ago