Marriage is NOT a religious issue. Marriage is a LEGAL contract between two persons and their government. When your imaginary friend signs my tax refund check then, and ONLY then, will I worry about his opinion. Keep YOUR god out of MY government....
Yet another article has emerged stating that gays and lesbians are equal at parenting. This article says that lesbians are actually BETTER at parenting:
Google Lesbians Lesbians parents better at raising children
Maurice Chittenden, Sunday Times (London) November 15, 2009
Yes, we all saw it and it is shown as another fraud.
Beside that Lesbians cannot procreate to start with. They still need a man sperm. They are fruitless. That should tell you that children have and need a father unless you want to blind yourself to justify your lifestyle
I guess you don't know that women will NOT need sperm to procreate in the future. In Britain they are very close to perfecting a procedure whereby they use stem cells to fertilize an ovum. This means sperm will be unnecessary. You'd better keep up with technology or die... And, there is NO such thing as a "gay lifestyle," just as there is no such thing as a "male lifestyle.' A sexual orientation is NOT a lifestyle. I'm gay, I"m legally married. Similar to YOUR lifestyle.
@voteyesonquestion1, LOL! You are apparently ignorant of the FACT that researchers in Britain are working on making it possible for two women to procreate using the stem cells of one woman and implanting them in another woman's egg. Soon sperm will be unnecessary for reproduction. Regardless of that fact, marriage is NOT about procreation to begin with, so your point is moot.
also, your article about gay and lesbian parenting is BIASED. i can easily bring up an article just like what you mentioned that discusses how gay parenting is inadequate
@kenballer00, Fine bring up your article, because I simply don't believe you. First off, gay people earn more money per capita than straights, and we have MORE education than straights per capita, too. We do NOT have unwanted or unplanned children, and we do NOT give away children for adoption, like straight parents. And, we do NOT have abortions. If all of those are not a sign that gays are better equipped to parent, I don't know what is.
@kenballer00, and I'll be waiting for your articles which show that gays are in ANY way inferior as parents. And, they'd better not be Focus on the Famliy propaganda either, because we all know they have NO credibility in ANY respected research circiles. The article I provided was from the London Times, a world respected newspaper of real integrity, not a church bulliten.
@kenballer00, and I'll be waiting for your articles which show that gays are in ANY way inferior as parents. And, they'd better not be Focus on the Famliy propaganda either, because we all know they have NO credibility in ANY respected circles of research. The article I provided was from the London Times, a world respected newspaper of real integrity, not a church bulliten.
nobody's forcing gays to deny their attractions. Nobody's criminalizing homosexuals acts or raiding gay marriages in churches. gays can freely express their feelings of love in a church and get all the benefits that come with marriage through civil unions. however, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and enter into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, you are subject to the law and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy
@kenballer00, Marriage is a CIVIL issue, I agree, and therefore it should be open to gays and lesbians. We pay the very same taxes YOU pay, and we deserve the very SAME protection from our government. Otherwise, why should we pay taxes?
i think that you have to be careful about committing the Question Begging fallacy. YES, you have a fundamental right to marry that doesn't mean you have a right to marry your sister or multiple people. the right needs to be established by the supreme court first and right now that is not the case.
@kenballer00, You will LOSE this fight eventually and you know it. So, why are you even fighting it? Just shows your BIGOTRY. I happen to be LEGALLY married to my same sex partner in CA, and we represent the FUTURE of gay marriage. Every year more and more gay couples are getting married in more areas of the WORLD. This is a global issue, and every continent now has gay marriage except for Australia.
@kenballer00, we once thought blacks shouldn't have the right to swim in the same pools, eat at the same lunch counters, serve in the military or ride at the front of the bus. The courts did the right thing and ensured that they had the SAME rights. Separate is NEVER equal, and that's why civil unions will NOT work. They are a temporary compromise, but unless it is equal in EVERY way (including name) we should not accept it.
@kenballer00, why don't we have the right to marry multiple people? That was the "traditional" marriage of the bible, was it not? I'm not against polygamy, but it is interesting that people don't use the "slippery slope" argument about heterosexual marriage could lead to polygamy since polygamy is something that heterosexuals particpate in NOT homosexuals. Why is that?
@kenballer00, and I'd like to know why MY marriage is any of your business or concern in the first place? Why does my family's right to governmental protection interefere in ANY way with your life? Please explain that. You probably are aware that the Prop 8 supporters could NOT answer that question in court recently. They could not come up with ONE reason why gay marriage would harm straight marriage. NOT ONE!
@kenballer00, the right to marry is a FUNDAMENTAL right, according to the Supreme Court's decision in the Loving v. Virginia. These are words they may live to regret when it comes to gay marriage!
@kenballer00, and, the "will of the people" was more opposed to interracial marriage when it was legalized in Loving v. Virginia than gay marriage is today. In fact, interracial marriage did not reach approval level of the majority of Americans until 2000! Many decades after it had already been legalized.... The will of the people obviously means NOTHING when it comes to civil rights issues.
That the desires of the majority of the people are for injustice and inhumanity against the minortiy, is demonstrated by every page of the history of the whole world.
Our founding fathers were ADAMANT that we NOT vote on civil rights issues involving minorities. They stated this clearly, and LOUDLY MANY times over.
@kenballer00, and you should be very worried if you live in California. First of all, there are more married gay couples here than all the other states combined, and we aren't going anywhere. Secondly, gay marriage has just reached 50 percent approval rating for the very FIRST time as of a recent Public Policy Institute Poll. Does that mean it should be on the ballot again? NO WAY IN HELL....
this is why there has never been a civil rights movement that has ever won it on a state by state level as of yet. even if the Majority did take away existing federal constitutional rights by vote from the state constitution after the U.S supreme court handed down one of its decisions, a minority group could easily just go to a federal court and strike it down. thats why we have a federal constitution to protect the minority's rights.
@kenballer00, and that's why civil rights issues should NOT be on the ballot. The late, great Ted Kennedy said this repeatedly when the issue of gay marriage was discussed. AND, Coretta Scott King said this:
Constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage are nothing short of GAY BASHING. Gay people have FAMILIES too, and they deserve the protection of the government.
your right and thats why the founding fathers established a FEDERAL constitution.
in practice, there is no way to amend the FEDERAL constitution by popular vote.
minorities have that protection on the federal level and thats why we have a federal constitution in the first place. we are bound by the FEDERAL Constitution (not the state constitution) which happens to give us the fundamental right to vote. the state constitution is whatever we make it out to be through democracy.
@kenballer00, I'm still waiting for an answer to my burning question:
How does my legal, gay marriage in CA affect YOUR life? Or anyone's life, beyond the lives of myself and my spouse.... It's really very simple, if you don't like gay marriage, then don't marry someone of the same gender. Simple, isn't it?
it would essentially be an endless clash between the same-sex agenda and freedom of religion. The two are not compatible, because the same-sex agenda seeks to force by law acceptance of its view, and that will inevitably collide with Christian values. Christians will either be forced to accept something like this or live in fear of a secular government that will pander to the likes of intolerant gay activists.
@kenballer00, WRONG you are using a FALSE cannard, which is quickly on its way OUT of this argument against gay marriage. My father is an evangelical minister. He will NOT marry any couple if one of them has been previously divorced. He is legally protected from any lawsuits that could arise because a divorced person would like to marry in his church. This is ALREADY a protectiong provided to ALL religious groups.
@kenballer00, Does a Catholic priest HAVE to marry a Jewish couple? Then what makes you think a gay couple could FORCE him to marry them too? ANY religious clergy is already legally protected and can refuse ANY couple for ANY reason. Gay marriage will not change this
@kenballer00, I personally think we should adopt the approach of France and remove ANY and ALL connections between religious and legal marriage. In France EVERY couple marries at city hall, and if you are married in a church without going to city hall, your marriage is NOT legal. A couple may have a religious ceremony at any time, but it isn't LEGAL.... That would end this debate, wouldn't it? Clergy could continue to refuse to marry gay couples.
@kenballer00, in addition to that, what about the churches that DO marry gay couples? What about THEIR religious freedoms? A Baptist church near me was marrying gay couples before Prop 8. Aren't their religious freedoms being trampled now? I guess only YOUR religion counts, is that it?
@kenballer00, I find it deliciously ironic that some CA schools have now mandated MANDATORY gay sensitivity training. It would have never happened without Prop 8. You reap what you sew, don't you? If gay marriage had remained law, it would have never been taught in schools, and now that it is outlawed, they are teaching about gay issues, and students may NOT opt out of it. However, it's ignorant PARENTS that NEED the training, not the kids.
@kenballer00, if you are Catholic, I have a story that will make you shudder. Catholic Charities had been adopting children to gays for decades when gay marriage became the law. Four imperialist, activist Catholic bishops made the decision to cease this practice so as to make a political "statement" against gay marriage, since the state would now force them to continue this practice to gay married couples. Children were used as PAWNS in their political game
@kenballer00, in addition to this, the Catholic church tried the same tactic in Washington, DC to stop gay marriage. It didn't work because basically the city council told them to f---k off...! I'm PROUD of them for doing that. They said that the city didn't need them anyway, and they were free to move elsewhere. I LOVE it...! That's telling them....
@kenballer00, I respect YOUR right to marry whomever you wish, as long as you are not harming a minor, or marrying a close relative (which is harmful physically and mentally). So, why shouldn't you respect MY right to marry the man I've been with for years, and plan to spend the rest of my life with? Of what concern is our marriage to you? And, why should you have a say in it?
@kenballer00, it seems as though you've retreated in defeat. In any case, are you aware that the USA is the ONLY nation on earth that has voted on gay marriage? Every other country has done this the RIGHT way. It was legalized or rejected using the courts or legislatures. It was NOT up for a popularity contest....
if you object as Masschusetts parents have found out or try to protect your child from being taught these views about marriage your going to be treated like a bigot who opposes interracial marriage. if the government treats you like a racist because you believe in traditional marriage people are going to find out that this new law impinges on your freedoms and your capacity to live your life with freedom of conscience and to transmit your values to your own children
@kenballer00, if you are a bible believer, I strongly urge you to watch this youtube video, because you will learn what is TRULY traditional marriage according to the bible:
Betty Bowers Explains Traditional Marriage to Everyone Else
this is not about what two people do in private. i believe people have a right to live however they choose but redefining marriage is about what the government is going to teach in public. its about what the law is going to insist all of us to do which is to view same sex unions as marriage.they are going to use taxpayer money to teach your children and grandchildren that two men in a union is just as much as marriage as a husband and wife whether you like it or not
@kenballer00, Yes, the public schools SHOULD teach that marriage between two men is just fine, especially if it is LEGAL. I agree with that. However, this argument was used in CA as a way to get parents to be PARANOID about it. Ironically, there were never any plans to teach gay marriage, this was made up by the Prop 8 people. But, since Prop 8 has passed, there is now REQUIRED "sensitivity" training towards gays in some schools!
yes on prop 8 supporters were correct when they said it would be taught in schools the law was specifically clear on that. i can enlighten you if need be
@kenballer00, like I said, this was a completely MOOT point, and if straight marriage is in such jeopardy of under such threat, then you need to look at yourselves, and stop blaming gay people, because we have NOTHING to do with your FAILURES. In addition to that, it is quite simply laughable that your fear of gay people is so profound that you couldn't handle the topic of gay marriage with your kids at home. It is beyond LAME as an excuse.
@kenballer00, I grew up gay in a home that was dominated by Christian fundamentalism. My father's a minister, as I told you earlier. I was taught that homosexuality was a sin, and that gay people were SICK. Is that any way to grow up, being that I was gay since birth? Of course not! It is long overdue for gay kids to know that they are loved, and they are FINE, and there is NO need to attempt to 'change" something about them that is UNCHANGEABLE. GROW UP!
besides, parents are just asking not to have gay marriage taught without a parent's consent or notification clause. sense your side is using their taxpaying money to fund your special programs that mainly feature gay themes, families, and minorities, its only fitting that they should have the right to teach their kids their values, but your side along with the school board deliberately make sure there isn't a consent clause to advance their SELF RIGHTEOUS gay agenda
@kenballer00. we want kids to learn the TRUTH about gay people, and not the reliigously based anti-gay propaganda I was raised with. I didn't know there were "other" gay people until I went to college. Low and behold, what did I learn at a high school reunion? Several of my classmates, who I was close to were ALSO gay! I didn't know this because were all deathly afraid to be ourselves. Suicide rates among gay teens are off the charts.
@kenballer00, and if you don't want your kids to learn about gay people, they'll learn it from TV or their friends anyway. You cannot pretend that gays don't exist. It didn't work in 1950 and it definitely will NOT work today. You can shelter your children all you want, but, news flash: kids ALREADY know about gay people from pop culture. Today's kids actually think it's COOL to be gay! Yes, it's true. Times are changing for the better.
@kenballer00, you could learn from my father's journey regarding my sexual orientation. He didn't know what to think when he found out I was gay. Now, he has done an about face and is THRILLED that I'm married to the man of my dreams. He adores my husband, and calls him his 'second son." Of course it helps that he is far more successful (and I might add more good looking) than my sister's husband!
kids do much more than just learn about other families. they encourage and indoctrinate kids into these relationships by showing impressionable five year olds that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage children are forced to accept something that goes against American, family, and religious values
the fact is YES teachers are suppose to teach the truth but not their own opinions or somebody else's way of living or social issues of life especially at FIVE years old.
@kenballer00, another MYTH is that you can "teach" someone to be gay, or "recruit" them. If this really works, then I should be straight, because i was INDOCTRINATED into heterosexuality. Did it change me to straight? No way in hell. Sexual orientation is INNATE and IMMUTABLE (that means it CANNOT be changed). Even the Catholic church agrees with me on that. They recommend gays remain celibate.
It's a well known fact that Martin Luther King supported gay rights, at least privately, if not publicly. One of his top advisors was openly gay. Just because his children are homophobic, does not mean it was true of him and Coretta.
Google: San Francisco Chronicle, King would not have marched against gay marriage
Not all Mormons are like voteyesonquestion1, the host of this site. These Mormon organizations and sites support marriage equality:
ldsapology org
mormonsformarriage com
affirmation org
The night that Prop 8 passed, 600 Mormon church members marched against it in Utah. Despite the orders from high, some LDS cult members are using their "brains" rather than obey imposed church dogma. The leaders had better heed their member's wishes or face losing more cult members.
To read about the dark history of the Mormon church and its lies to cover-up the extent of their funding of Prop 8 and Referendum 1, read this article:
Google: Californians Against Hate: Mormon Cover-up of Prop 8 Funding
We can rise to be like God who is our heavenly parent, male and female. The union of a man and woman centered on God is the blessing He wants us to receive. As parents we can epxerience the heart of God like he does for us
Stop referring to your "heavenly parent." We know now that you are a Mor(m)on. Your group is a religious cult and is not respected by any other Christian group. If you want to have your magic underwear, and wacky celestial marriages, secret handshakes, whatever, but do NOT impose those beliefs on the rest of society.... We want our FREEDOM to worship as we please, and marry WHOM we please. Not who YOU say we should marry...
We are spiritual being first. Our physical body is temporary. After the human fall, our spirit died and we have been trying to climb back up since. We have a fallen nature, but still have our original nature, There is a war in each one of us. We intend to do go but often we do not.
We are very special and have a ncredible potential for goodness. I hope one day you can see this in yourself and win over your fallen nature. Homosexuality is part of that nature
Tony Perkins doesn't know what makes a family. He seems totally clueless that families with same sex parents already exist. Coretta Scott King said: "constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage are nothing but gay bashing. Gay people have families too, and those families deserve protection of the government."
Coreeta King's son does not agree with her. I am sre her husband did not either.
These kids are fatherless or motherless. They need protection and love by men or women that will step in and provide them the parental gender they have been deprived from.
Parents are not the only influences in a child's life. It doesn't matter if a child lacks a father or a mother, they still find someone else to look up to. Even if they stuck with thier biological parents, that doesn't mean that the parents would be the biggest influence on their lives. Hell, George Carlin influence my life more than my dad.
Tony Perkins is full of it. As if his kid's rights to NOT hear about gay marriage trumps the rights of those children with same sex parents. Some nerve. If you don't like same sex marriage, then teach your kids at HOME about this. Gay activists never had an agenda to "teach" marriage in schools, this was purely an invention of those against gay marriage...
Evan Wolfson brings up a good point. Gay marriage is far from dead in ME. The voters did NOT approve a constitutional ban, like in CA. This issue will be back, guaranteed. Regardless, why are we the only nation on EARTH that VOTES on civil rights? This is the REAL problem. It should never be on the ballot to begin with. It should be decided by legislatures and courts not the ignorant majority...
First we need to get rid of some politicians who were so arrogant that they try to redefine the marriage of others. It is none of their business to do so.
It's not their business to try and end discrimination against gays and make marriage a civil right instead of a privilage towards people with a specific sexual preference? Well if that's not their job, what is their job? Stockpiling nukes? If a politician is doing the right thing for once, LET THEM!
Thank goodness for "arrogant" politicians and judges. Otherwise, we'd never have had school integration, and women voting, and blacks given the right to serve in the military, women's right to choose, and interracial marriage, all of which were not popular when the courts/legislatures decided to allow them. You really are totalitarian in your views aren't you? It's eiither YOUR way or the highway. This is NOT democracy. Do I need to remind you we live in a FREE country? Not a theocracy...
we may not live in a theocracy, but we do live in a democracy. the first amendment does not apply to voters. Pastors, clergy, and religious leaders have every right to convey and express their moral vision onto their community and into the voting process. Prop 8 ,or any other amendment, would not did not and does not undermine the constitution because the government didn't put it into law, the people did, and whether they voted for it on religious grounds is no one's business but their own.
@kenballer00, In 1964 Prop 14 passed in CA. It was a constitutional amendment which 67 percent of voters passed into law. It said that landlords could discriminate against blacks simply because of their skin color. Two years later this democratic "will of the people" piece of garbage was OVERTURNED in the US Supreme Court. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will to the right thing and overturn another IGNORANT "will of the people" bad call with Prop 8.
The upload is a typical indoctrinated religious moron with no sense of historical fact or logical intellect.
What do you mean "redefine" marriage you idiot? You do realize that marriage did not originate with religion, nor did it originate as a 50/50, thus it's CHANGED.
Well that would be your heathen pig people definition of religion. Please wait patiently as those of us who walk on two legs (thanks to God almighty) ask our Creator if it is okay to change the definition of marriage.
@cupcakekitenprincess Why are you people such idiots? Your stupid fairy tale did not INVENT marriage, it predates Christianity and every other religious dogma.
Simply asserting your god "made it" doesn't make it so, you people are so fucking unbelievably dumb
Okay, well God said that he is the author of marriage, and you some person on the internet said he is not. Who should I believe? Also god invented everything, this includes marriage obviously, as marriage is a thing.
So, if your "god" is the creator of marriage, how come the Christians stole marriage from the Pagans? It was a Pagan ritual before it was Christian. You need to study some history, before spouting off nonsense...
Atheism is growing (3 times as many people losing their faith than gaining a faith). I can't WAIT until we outnumber the Christians and can outvote you. Watch out... You will soon be losing your civil rights.... CAN'T WAIT!
I consider humans higher than animals. There are many things that animals do that you would not want to do. You should lift your vision to a higher place.
Also, since we're on the topic... God loves ALL his creatures. That's a man made contrivance that animals are lesser to us. We have a nasty habit of being a destructive animal rather than one that is in tune with life.
Those against gay marriage love to say that homosexuality is "against nature," but we they are shown the truth that it is rampant in the animal kingdom (450 species of animals mate with same sex partners for LIFE), they suddenly change their tune. Why is that?
Youtube video: Homosexuality in the animal kingdom (National Geographic)
The religious folks say, well homosexuality goes against god, if so, why is it so prevalent in animals? Opps! Your god messed up...
Humans are not animals. Civilized humans will nver imagine doing what many animals do. If you want to live like an animal and just have your body run your life, I feel sorry for you
that is the most moronic comment you have ever made. we DON'T hate women. we seethem as friends,pals,and always equals. we simply can not love them sexually(unless you're talking about lesbians)
I did not say that you ahte women. You do not know the true and real value of a woman. This will limit your growth to your destiny. It is so very sad.
The true value of women.... To be submissive breeders?I love women, and am in a beautiful relationship with one. I see so much more than the end result of having a child and family together. The relationship between two PEOPLE is more important than what it "contributes" to society, or how it stands up to some tradition that did not start in Christianity, and originally had no man made laws attached. I accept that you don't feel that way, but would beg you to reread the words of Jesus.
Sorry, dude but you're wrong. Scientists are very close to making it possible for two women to conceive a child without sperm. They are using DNA to do this. Soon men will be obsolete in the reproductive sense...
Your choice is very clear. If you don't want to marry a same sex partner nobody's forcing you to... It's very simple. And, if those of us who are blessed to be homosexual want to marry, we can only marry the partners we LOVE in a handful of states. That's called DISCRIMINATION...
Um, I am a man, and I am going to have a wife. I am straight, and support the gay community, because I am not a hate mongering fool. Jesus is ashamed of you.
The claim made in this video's description is contrary to the research, which has repeatedly and clearly shown that the children on couples of the same sex do not show any deficits. This is not about children - it's about intolerance.
The thousand years of research and experience that a child needs a mother and a father are overwelming. Is there any one in the world that is not born form a father and a mother including you ? When gay can procreate themselves gay children, let us know.
It seems like divorce would cause more fatherless/motherless homes than same-sex marriage would. I'm wondering where the campaign for making divorce illegal is.
Every argument I've heard against homosexual marriage either shows itself applied very inconsistently, or boils down to "ick!" (which, I should hope I don't need to explain, is very poor argument)
One group (More than often the religious right) tries to deny those civil rights.
It gets violent.
The group that wants civil rights wins.
The other group finds something else to hate.
This is what happened with slavery, womens rights (Including divorce) and is happening now with homosexuals. One lost battle for civil rights were the Native Americans who were murdered by the "Good Christians."
Could you elaborate on what you mean by "special right?"
From my understanding it would seem that special rights would be a subset of civil rights. And if you're saying that is a right only granted to a subset of the population, that should be self-evidently wrong, as you would also have the right to marry someone whose genitalia matched yours as well if the legislation passed: you just likely wouldn't exercise it. Just as I have the right to hang out in dive bars, even though I probably won't.
what they mean is that Same sex couples do not have a SPECIAL right to redefine what marriage is for everybody else; the " will of the people" have a FUNDAMENTAL right under the tenth amendment to do such a task because we live in a democracy not an aristocracy.
@kenballer00 , marriage has been continuously redefined since it's Pagan roots. Why is including gay people redefining it? Marriage used to mean one man and several woman, or a woman was the "property" of her father until he transfered this "property" to another man. And, we're not looking for SPECIAL rights, we're looking for EQUALITY under the law. That's all. Very simple, really...
2 See No. 1 We simply will NOT rest NOR be quiet until we acheive our goals. You can either be with or against us, but we WILL gain our rights sooner or later, because it's a matter of FAIRNESS and equality. And, hopefully the COURTS will decide this and not the ignorant voting majority, which usually gets it WRONG.
The "will of the people" can't take away many rights (ie freedom of expression/freedom of religion/freedom from compulsory self-incrimination). We do not live in a pure democracy; we live in a democratic republic. "Tyranny of the Majority" was a deep concern many of the founders of the USA had (see the Senate election laws, electoral college, etc). If the people voted to make it illegal to marry outside your religion, that would not mean the law's constitutional (see 14th amdt).
how do you take away a right that doesn't even exist in the first place?
if you Go to Wikipedia and type in Baker v. Nelson, The case will show you that the same court in Loving v Virginia not only distinguished same sex marriage from interracial marriage, but established it as a right that does not exist under the constitution and never did.
so the 14th amendment does not confer a RIGHT to gay marriage anymore than it does for polygamy
@kenballer00 Voting so that only people who have different genitalia can enter into a marriage agreement would be taking away a right. It was Question 1, and Prop 8, and others that adds language to the law making it so that if you have the same genitalia, you can't get married. Saying the right doesn't exist is nonsensical. A close reading of the 9th amendment might help you understand what I mean.
RE Baker v Nelson, the answer is simple: the court decided wrongly, with inconsistent principles.
And looking closer at Baker v Nelson, it doesn't appear that an actual decision was made; rather it was a dismissal that was more significant than normal, without a majority opinion written.
this is not just any dismissal. A "dismissal for want of a substantial federal question" is a decision on the merits that is binding in cases like Mandel and Hicks. they clearly outline that summary decisions are in fact decisions on the merits that are binding on all lower FEDERAL courts. i encourage you to do some research on it because you are definitely wrong here
moreover, gay marriage as a civil right argument was so frivolous that the supreme court rejected without any further review
You misunderstand my comment. There was no opinion written so you would not be able to tell that the court "not only distinguished same sex marriage from interracial marriage, but established it as a right that does not exist under the constitution and never did." All they did was give a binding dismissal. Even if they had heard arguments and written the opinion you seem to think they did, it would still be inconsistent with their judgment in Loving v Virginia.
even if Baker was never decided, the Loving court was talking about procreation when they said that "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very EXISTENCE and SURVIVAL". if you actually go back and read the case, you will notice that they referenced another U.S. supreme court case called Skinner v. Oklahoma along side that famous quote. does this quote sound familiar:
"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
the qoute i just showed you was from the Skinner v. Oklahoma U.S. supreme court case that the Loving court mentioned right after the qoute they said to make it apparent what they meant. its also the qoute that the Minnesota and U.S. supreme court used to justify why gay marriage is not a right based in the Loving case or any case. so its not just one judge but multiple supreme courts that understand the purpose of marriage and have been very consistent indeed
I think this is where an authoritarian like you, and a libertarian like me will differ every time. You think that the court is EXHAUSTIVELY laying down rights. "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race" does not imply that gay people should not get married unless you think the 9th amendment means nothing.
oh come on, nobody's forcing gays to deny their attractions. Nobody's criminalizing homosexuals acts or raiding gay marriages in churches. gays can freely express their feelings of love in a church and get all the benefits that come with marriage through civil unions. however, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and enter into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, you are subject to the law and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy
the difference between civil unions and civil marriage is that civil unions is purely a private thing that the state does not edorse or puts in the public arena. civil marriage is the complete opposite because the state makes no distinction between gay marriage and straight marriage. marriage is marriage. they start to promote a new defintion of what marriage is about in the public square
and i don't really understand your second question
"and i don't really understand your second question."
That's okay; I don't really understand your first answer. How is a civil union purely private and civil marriage "the complete opposite?" Gay and/or straight marriage shouldn't really enter into your answer on the difference. Both are legal contracts that give a set of rights and responsibilities to two people, yes?
yeah but .... with civil unions nothing changes within the mainstream world like the media. but when it comes to civil marriage the government starts to rearrange businesses, schools, and media according to that definition of marriage and not when it comes to civil unions.
the state will start to socially construct and encourage those relationships without any distinction between the two
this is gay rights are not content with civil unions in California because they know this already
Simple. the word and word only should be different in order to keep the goverment and gay activists from using the law to promote their agenda or we can create laws that recognize gay marriages from Canada or another state that still has gay marriage without legally performing them in the U.S. or a particular state that does not have it
"Separate but equal" then. I'll ignore the conspiracy theory tinged aspect of your comment (gay agenda) for now.
Okay now, you obviously realize that it is unfair to not allow homosexual relationships to have the same legal rights/responsibilities as heterosexuals relationships. Excellent. Now, why do you think that the government will start promoting one legal status, but not both (or none, which is what the government should be doing IMO) if the only difference is a name?
in Connecticut and New hampshire where they had civil unions and legalized gay marriage afterwards, the lawmakers both in the House (vote 100-44) and in the Senate (vote 28-7) agreed to repeal all the old marriage laws and fully replace them with genderless quotes and all references to marriage will be fully gender-neutral
That's what you call government promotion?!? You're really afraid of the PAPERWORK that will not have "husband" and "wife" under the entries?? I'm sorry, but that seems a little asinine. And really, if gay marriage is legalized, that is exactly what I would expect the government to do. This isn't like a state mounting an ad campaign in favor of homosexual marriage or anything. It's a field label that could now apply to either gender in those states!
you specifically asked me "why do you think that the government will start promoting one legal status, but not both" flowing from this qoute i proceeded to find an example of a state that had civil unions first and then opted for marriage and then explained the additional changes in promoting one legal status over the other within the mainstream. you did not tell me to strictly give you an example of where a state would promote gay marriage or a redefinition of it
if you want more examples of government promotion, i would be happy to give you them but a lot of it is also plans of what gay activists are going to do when the gay marriage law is passed. i have a video of gay activists discussing how and what they were going to do to promote gay marriages across the country. i could give you all the examples and videos showing how much the goverment promotion will happen you just need to be more specific
Yes, I asked you to give an example of the government promoting one but not both in a case where there was civil unions and civil marriage. You gave me an example of where a state had standardized their paperwork after they had allowed gay marriage. And what would those scary gay rights activists discussing their plan to promote gay marriages have to do with anything we're talking about? Please keep firm in your mind the difference between personal speech and government speech.
I'm not being as clear as I think I'm being. I'll try one more time.
We were talking about the difference between civil unions and civil marriages. You seem to think the government will actively promote civil marriages, but civil unions will languish in anonymity. I was asking what made you think whatever promotion the government does for civil marriages will not be done for civil unions if they are the exact same set of rights and responsibilities. Do you see the difference?
From the links you sent me, it appears that you agree with me that the civil unions will be promoted EXACTLY THE SAME as if it were a civil marriage. Half the stories you sent were in areas where there was no legal gay marriage; just civil unions for those whose genitals matched.
Having a different category for civil unions and civil marriages doesn't stop anything you seem to be concerned about; the only thing it would accomplish would be to allow the potential for the two legal sets of rights to be different. The only way to legally ensure they are not different rights is to name them the same. A=B, B->A.
I for one don't care about whether we throw out the term civil union, or throw out civil marriage, but others feel strongly about keeping the word marriage, and on a federal level it would be difficult to have some states with unions, and some with marriages. Hence my position.
no. they will not be promoted together. the state would treat them the same way but promote one instead of the other. civil unions are not taught in schools. i know this because i live in calfornia. its more a social thing than a legal thing and i think thats where you are getting mixed up. how do you know it would be difficult on a federal level to have some states with unions, and some with marriages. each state can always make a law that recognizes civil unions or marriage from other states
It seems your entire idea of "promotion" is "taught in schools." Do you think we should abolish the idea of even civil unions for homosexuals if they start getting taught in schools?
its not just the schools either but also the media well get into the fray like the Hollywood. did you watch the youtube video i sent you about the gay activists putting symbols of gay marriage everywhere. remember to start to watch it at the 4:20 mark and up to hear exactly what their plans are
I watched it (and all the other valid links you sent me); I just didn't see anything worth getting worked up over. I'd like to set that aside though because I doubt we'll get anywhere on that issue in 500 character chunks of discussion, and we were talking about government promotion anyway.
I would like my question answered though. Do you think we should abolish the idea of civil unions for homosexuals if they start getting taught in schools?
no i personally don't think we should abolish the idea of civil unions for homosexuals if they start getting promoted and taught in schools because there is a important distinction between the two relationships which my side needs to have in order for our children to be taught what is right in our eyes
My point is that the correct place to fight for your point of view here might be the schools since that is what you seem to be so concerned with. What kids (watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo) are taught is completely ancillary to the discussion at hand. What we are talking about here are LEGAL RIGHTS BETWEEN CONSENTING ADULTS. The media will do what it does, and people will fight for acceptance of GLBT people, regardless of laws passed that outlaw a particular set of people from a legal status.
its not just the media and schools. its the legal aspect of it as well that deals with private and public businesses and what gay activists will do with that piece of legislation or law. i gave you the video already so don't try to all of sudden compartmentalize it to just schools and media. its also socially speaking as well. its how people will perceive and treat the other person on a day to day basis and passing this law POTENTIALLY leaves many believers up for discrimination
So I'm saying your beef is with that statute, rather than giving homosexual couples the same rights. You've said you think they should have the same rights, just a different label so you can point it out to your kids and say "Don't be like THAT category."
Yes it deals with private and public businesses because the rights of a civil marriage deal with those as well. Are you saying you do NOT want the set of rights between civil unions and civil marriages the same?
And as far as putting up believers for discrimination: that's BS. The first amendment protects you from any recriminations from the government. That is ironclad, and most liberals I know will line up to defend your right to be as provocative in your comments as you want to be. If you point to the Canadian law, just realize: THEY DON'T HAVE A DIRECT ANALOG TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT. I didn't see anything that could count in your links other than that.
NOOOOOOO, its about pointing out to my kids that they should be in this category because its been proven to be the best without thinking about or referencing the other in any way shape or form SOCIALLY while LEGALLY civil unions gets the same rights and treatment as married couples. it can be done. California is a perfect example of this
Okay, I see. You want to say "be like in category," and not have to be discomforted by having nuance in your answer. Unfortunately you don't have a right to not be made uncomfortable. Free speech would be worthless if you did. And I don't want some nimrod legislating just because they think they feel uncomfortable explaining something to their kid. Oops, too late.
if thats the case, then why is it OK to legislate in order for a same sex couple to feel comfortable about telling their child why they are married instead civil unioned or for them to call their lover a spouse instead of a domestic partner. they have free speech as well right.
It's not okay to legislate based on that reason. They are not legislating for the child, they are legislating (actually unlegislating here) for themselves to have the same rights. I've already made my case that having two legal buckets for the same function is a recipe for ensuring they are unequal. There are a lot of emotional arguments because it is their marriages we're talking about, but when it comes right down to it, that argument is still illogical no matter who makes it.
And it really doesn't have to do with free speech there locally. I just brought up free speech earlier because it would be a fundamental right effectively null and void in a global sense if everyone had the right to not be offended or made uncomfortable.
even if it were true that it would be impossible to have two legal structures and not leave same sex couples up for discrimination, we can still have the other option where a same sex couple can go to Canada to get legally married and then have the U.S recognize that marriage without legally performing it which would prevent government promotion of those marriage. there have been some states that have created a law that did just that which would solve the problem
besides, if the analogy continues to be ingrained into society that a behavior which is considered deviant by almost every religion and promotes motherless and fatherless environments is compared to blacks that came over here in chains and couldn't drink from white man's drinking fountain, then anyone who speaks out against gay marriage will automatically be treated and perceived as bigots and leave everyone who does not support this notion of marriage up for potential discrimination as well
it would essentially be an endless clash between the same-sex agenda and freedom of religion. The two are not compatible, because the same-sex agenda seeks to force by law acceptance of its view, and that will inevitably collide with Christian values. Christians will either be forced to accept something like this or live in fear of a secular government that will pander to the likes of intolerant gay activists
Many people opposed racial integration on religious principles. Do you consider the forced integration to have been a clash between freedom of religion and the miscegenation agenda in which freedom of religion lost?
no i don't because you're comparing fact v. fiction. when people were opposed to interracial marriage , it was based purely on emotions and fear because none of the claims that were against it were supported by facts. gay marriage is the complete opposite. marriage will always be between a man and a woman historically, Biblically, constitutionally, and scienctifically. the authorities will be telling those people who believe in this self-evident truth that its actually self-evident bigotry
Regardless of whether you agree with the sentiment or not, many people were against miscegenation based on their interpretation of their religious beliefs. It sounds like it was okay to trample on their "religious rights" because you don't happen to agree with them. All the government has to do is apply the religious principals that you hold, and everything will be solved, right?
I'm really glad you're not Jewish, because I'd hate to think I couldn't have bacon.
so are you saying its okay for us to continue to trample on the religious rights or beliefs of gay activists and deny gay marriage legally speaking through constitutional amendement
Maybe I should have closed with a [/sarcasm]. I was trying to say that allowing some act that is forbidden by one religion or another is obviously not imposing on their religious freedom.
Same sex marrige is immoral.
Repent.
2000yrCatholic 2 years ago
Marriage is NOT a religious issue. Marriage is a LEGAL contract between two persons and their government. When your imaginary friend signs my tax refund check then, and ONLY then, will I worry about his opinion. Keep YOUR god out of MY government....
lisztnut 2 years ago
@2000yrCatholic, voting on civil rights is immoral. Repent....
lisztnut 1 year ago
Yet another article has emerged stating that gays and lesbians are equal at parenting. This article says that lesbians are actually BETTER at parenting:
Google Lesbians Lesbians parents better at raising children
Maurice Chittenden, Sunday Times (London) November 15, 2009
lisztnut 2 years ago
Yes, we all saw it and it is shown as another fraud.
Beside that Lesbians cannot procreate to start with. They still need a man sperm. They are fruitless. That should tell you that children have and need a father unless you want to blind yourself to justify your lifestyle
voteyesonquestion1 2 years ago
I guess you don't know that women will NOT need sperm to procreate in the future. In Britain they are very close to perfecting a procedure whereby they use stem cells to fertilize an ovum. This means sperm will be unnecessary. You'd better keep up with technology or die... And, there is NO such thing as a "gay lifestyle," just as there is no such thing as a "male lifestyle.' A sexual orientation is NOT a lifestyle. I'm gay, I"m legally married. Similar to YOUR lifestyle.
lisztnut 2 years ago
Sure. A fraud. You sounded a lot like VenomFangX there.
FrostbittenWolf 2 years ago
@voteyesonquestion1, LOL! You are apparently ignorant of the FACT that researchers in Britain are working on making it possible for two women to procreate using the stem cells of one woman and implanting them in another woman's egg. Soon sperm will be unnecessary for reproduction. Regardless of that fact, marriage is NOT about procreation to begin with, so your point is moot.
lisztnut 1 year ago
@lisztnut
also, your article about gay and lesbian parenting is BIASED. i can easily bring up an article just like what you mentioned that discusses how gay parenting is inadequate
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00, Fine bring up your article, because I simply don't believe you. First off, gay people earn more money per capita than straights, and we have MORE education than straights per capita, too. We do NOT have unwanted or unplanned children, and we do NOT give away children for adoption, like straight parents. And, we do NOT have abortions. If all of those are not a sign that gays are better equipped to parent, I don't know what is.
lisztnut 1 year ago
@kenballer00, and I'll be waiting for your articles which show that gays are in ANY way inferior as parents. And, they'd better not be Focus on the Famliy propaganda either, because we all know they have NO credibility in ANY respected research circiles. The article I provided was from the London Times, a world respected newspaper of real integrity, not a church bulliten.
lisztnut 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kenballer00, and I'll be waiting for your articles which show that gays are in ANY way inferior as parents. And, they'd better not be Focus on the Famliy propaganda either, because we all know they have NO credibility in ANY respected circles of research. The article I provided was from the London Times, a world respected newspaper of real integrity, not a church bulliten.
lisztnut 1 year ago
@lisztnut
nobody's forcing gays to deny their attractions. Nobody's criminalizing homosexuals acts or raiding gay marriages in churches. gays can freely express their feelings of love in a church and get all the benefits that come with marriage through civil unions. however, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and enter into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, you are subject to the law and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00, Marriage is a CIVIL issue, I agree, and therefore it should be open to gays and lesbians. We pay the very same taxes YOU pay, and we deserve the very SAME protection from our government. Otherwise, why should we pay taxes?
lisztnut 1 year ago
@lisztnut
i think that you have to be careful about committing the Question Begging fallacy. YES, you have a fundamental right to marry that doesn't mean you have a right to marry your sister or multiple people. the right needs to be established by the supreme court first and right now that is not the case.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00, You will LOSE this fight eventually and you know it. So, why are you even fighting it? Just shows your BIGOTRY. I happen to be LEGALLY married to my same sex partner in CA, and we represent the FUTURE of gay marriage. Every year more and more gay couples are getting married in more areas of the WORLD. This is a global issue, and every continent now has gay marriage except for Australia.
lisztnut 1 year ago
@kenballer00, we once thought blacks shouldn't have the right to swim in the same pools, eat at the same lunch counters, serve in the military or ride at the front of the bus. The courts did the right thing and ensured that they had the SAME rights. Separate is NEVER equal, and that's why civil unions will NOT work. They are a temporary compromise, but unless it is equal in EVERY way (including name) we should not accept it.
lisztnut 1 year ago
@kenballer00, why don't we have the right to marry multiple people? That was the "traditional" marriage of the bible, was it not? I'm not against polygamy, but it is interesting that people don't use the "slippery slope" argument about heterosexual marriage could lead to polygamy since polygamy is something that heterosexuals particpate in NOT homosexuals. Why is that?
lisztnut 1 year ago
@kenballer00, and I'd like to know why MY marriage is any of your business or concern in the first place? Why does my family's right to governmental protection interefere in ANY way with your life? Please explain that. You probably are aware that the Prop 8 supporters could NOT answer that question in court recently. They could not come up with ONE reason why gay marriage would harm straight marriage. NOT ONE!
lisztnut 1 year ago
@lisztnut
your missing my point which is that how do you take away a right that doesn't even exist in the first place?
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00, the right to marry is a FUNDAMENTAL right, according to the Supreme Court's decision in the Loving v. Virginia. These are words they may live to regret when it comes to gay marriage!
lisztnut 1 year ago
@kenballer00, and, the "will of the people" was more opposed to interracial marriage when it was legalized in Loving v. Virginia than gay marriage is today. In fact, interracial marriage did not reach approval level of the majority of Americans until 2000! Many decades after it had already been legalized.... The will of the people obviously means NOTHING when it comes to civil rights issues.
lisztnut 1 year ago
@kenballer00, John Adams said:
That the desires of the majority of the people are for injustice and inhumanity against the minortiy, is demonstrated by every page of the history of the whole world.
Our founding fathers were ADAMANT that we NOT vote on civil rights issues involving minorities. They stated this clearly, and LOUDLY MANY times over.
lisztnut 1 year ago
@kenballer00, and you should be very worried if you live in California. First of all, there are more married gay couples here than all the other states combined, and we aren't going anywhere. Secondly, gay marriage has just reached 50 percent approval rating for the very FIRST time as of a recent Public Policy Institute Poll. Does that mean it should be on the ballot again? NO WAY IN HELL....
lisztnut 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this is why there has never been a civil rights movement that has ever won it on a state by state level as of yet. even if the Majority did take away existing federal constitutional rights by vote from the state constitution after the U.S supreme court handed down one of its decisions, a minority group could easily just go to a federal court and strike it down. thats why we have a federal constitution to protect the minority's rights.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00, and that's why civil rights issues should NOT be on the ballot. The late, great Ted Kennedy said this repeatedly when the issue of gay marriage was discussed. AND, Coretta Scott King said this:
Constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage are nothing short of GAY BASHING. Gay people have FAMILIES too, and they deserve the protection of the government.
lisztnut 1 year ago
your right and thats why the founding fathers established a FEDERAL constitution.
in practice, there is no way to amend the FEDERAL constitution by popular vote.
minorities have that protection on the federal level and thats why we have a federal constitution in the first place. we are bound by the FEDERAL Constitution (not the state constitution) which happens to give us the fundamental right to vote. the state constitution is whatever we make it out to be through democracy.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00, I know I'm right, and that's why I will forever continue to emphasize this:
IT IS IMMORAL TO VOTE ON CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUES
GOT IT?
lisztnut 1 year ago
@kenballer00, I'm still waiting for an answer to my burning question:
How does my legal, gay marriage in CA affect YOUR life? Or anyone's life, beyond the lives of myself and my spouse.... It's really very simple, if you don't like gay marriage, then don't marry someone of the same gender. Simple, isn't it?
lisztnut 1 year ago
it would essentially be an endless clash between the same-sex agenda and freedom of religion. The two are not compatible, because the same-sex agenda seeks to force by law acceptance of its view, and that will inevitably collide with Christian values. Christians will either be forced to accept something like this or live in fear of a secular government that will pander to the likes of intolerant gay activists.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00, WRONG you are using a FALSE cannard, which is quickly on its way OUT of this argument against gay marriage. My father is an evangelical minister. He will NOT marry any couple if one of them has been previously divorced. He is legally protected from any lawsuits that could arise because a divorced person would like to marry in his church. This is ALREADY a protectiong provided to ALL religious groups.
lisztnut 1 year ago
@kenballer00, Does a Catholic priest HAVE to marry a Jewish couple? Then what makes you think a gay couple could FORCE him to marry them too? ANY religious clergy is already legally protected and can refuse ANY couple for ANY reason. Gay marriage will not change this
lisztnut 1 year ago
@kenballer00, I personally think we should adopt the approach of France and remove ANY and ALL connections between religious and legal marriage. In France EVERY couple marries at city hall, and if you are married in a church without going to city hall, your marriage is NOT legal. A couple may have a religious ceremony at any time, but it isn't LEGAL.... That would end this debate, wouldn't it? Clergy could continue to refuse to marry gay couples.
lisztnut 1 year ago
@kenballer00, in addition to that, what about the churches that DO marry gay couples? What about THEIR religious freedoms? A Baptist church near me was marrying gay couples before Prop 8. Aren't their religious freedoms being trampled now? I guess only YOUR religion counts, is that it?
lisztnut 1 year ago
@kenballer00, I find it deliciously ironic that some CA schools have now mandated MANDATORY gay sensitivity training. It would have never happened without Prop 8. You reap what you sew, don't you? If gay marriage had remained law, it would have never been taught in schools, and now that it is outlawed, they are teaching about gay issues, and students may NOT opt out of it. However, it's ignorant PARENTS that NEED the training, not the kids.
lisztnut 1 year ago
@kenballer00, if you are Catholic, I have a story that will make you shudder. Catholic Charities had been adopting children to gays for decades when gay marriage became the law. Four imperialist, activist Catholic bishops made the decision to cease this practice so as to make a political "statement" against gay marriage, since the state would now force them to continue this practice to gay married couples. Children were used as PAWNS in their political game
lisztnut 1 year ago
@kenballer00, in addition to this, the Catholic church tried the same tactic in Washington, DC to stop gay marriage. It didn't work because basically the city council told them to f---k off...! I'm PROUD of them for doing that. They said that the city didn't need them anyway, and they were free to move elsewhere. I LOVE it...! That's telling them....
lisztnut 1 year ago
@kenballer00, I respect YOUR right to marry whomever you wish, as long as you are not harming a minor, or marrying a close relative (which is harmful physically and mentally). So, why shouldn't you respect MY right to marry the man I've been with for years, and plan to spend the rest of my life with? Of what concern is our marriage to you? And, why should you have a say in it?
lisztnut 1 year ago
@kenballer00, it seems as though you've retreated in defeat. In any case, are you aware that the USA is the ONLY nation on earth that has voted on gay marriage? Every other country has done this the RIGHT way. It was legalized or rejected using the courts or legislatures. It was NOT up for a popularity contest....
lisztnut 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
if you object as Masschusetts parents have found out or try to protect your child from being taught these views about marriage your going to be treated like a bigot who opposes interracial marriage. if the government treats you like a racist because you believe in traditional marriage people are going to find out that this new law impinges on your freedoms and your capacity to live your life with freedom of conscience and to transmit your values to your own children
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00, and you ARE a bigot if you want your child to believe that gay marriage is wrong. Sorry, but you ARE.... What else should I call you?
lisztnut 1 year ago
@kenballer00, if you are a bible believer, I strongly urge you to watch this youtube video, because you will learn what is TRULY traditional marriage according to the bible:
Betty Bowers Explains Traditional Marriage to Everyone Else
lisztnut 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this is not about what two people do in private. i believe people have a right to live however they choose but redefining marriage is about what the government is going to teach in public. its about what the law is going to insist all of us to do which is to view same sex unions as marriage.they are going to use taxpayer money to teach your children and grandchildren that two men in a union is just as much as marriage as a husband and wife whether you like it or not
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00, Yes, the public schools SHOULD teach that marriage between two men is just fine, especially if it is LEGAL. I agree with that. However, this argument was used in CA as a way to get parents to be PARANOID about it. Ironically, there were never any plans to teach gay marriage, this was made up by the Prop 8 people. But, since Prop 8 has passed, there is now REQUIRED "sensitivity" training towards gays in some schools!
lisztnut 1 year ago
@lisztnut
yes on prop 8 supporters were correct when they said it would be taught in schools the law was specifically clear on that. i can enlighten you if need be
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00, like I said, this was a completely MOOT point, and if straight marriage is in such jeopardy of under such threat, then you need to look at yourselves, and stop blaming gay people, because we have NOTHING to do with your FAILURES. In addition to that, it is quite simply laughable that your fear of gay people is so profound that you couldn't handle the topic of gay marriage with your kids at home. It is beyond LAME as an excuse.
lisztnut 1 year ago
@kenballer00, I grew up gay in a home that was dominated by Christian fundamentalism. My father's a minister, as I told you earlier. I was taught that homosexuality was a sin, and that gay people were SICK. Is that any way to grow up, being that I was gay since birth? Of course not! It is long overdue for gay kids to know that they are loved, and they are FINE, and there is NO need to attempt to 'change" something about them that is UNCHANGEABLE. GROW UP!
lisztnut 1 year ago
besides, parents are just asking not to have gay marriage taught without a parent's consent or notification clause. sense your side is using their taxpaying money to fund your special programs that mainly feature gay themes, families, and minorities, its only fitting that they should have the right to teach their kids their values, but your side along with the school board deliberately make sure there isn't a consent clause to advance their SELF RIGHTEOUS gay agenda
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00. we want kids to learn the TRUTH about gay people, and not the reliigously based anti-gay propaganda I was raised with. I didn't know there were "other" gay people until I went to college. Low and behold, what did I learn at a high school reunion? Several of my classmates, who I was close to were ALSO gay! I didn't know this because were all deathly afraid to be ourselves. Suicide rates among gay teens are off the charts.
lisztnut 1 year ago
@kenballer00, and if you don't want your kids to learn about gay people, they'll learn it from TV or their friends anyway. You cannot pretend that gays don't exist. It didn't work in 1950 and it definitely will NOT work today. You can shelter your children all you want, but, news flash: kids ALREADY know about gay people from pop culture. Today's kids actually think it's COOL to be gay! Yes, it's true. Times are changing for the better.
lisztnut 1 year ago
@kenballer00, you could learn from my father's journey regarding my sexual orientation. He didn't know what to think when he found out I was gay. Now, he has done an about face and is THRILLED that I'm married to the man of my dreams. He adores my husband, and calls him his 'second son." Of course it helps that he is far more successful (and I might add more good looking) than my sister's husband!
lisztnut 1 year ago
@kenballer00, this is a teachable moment here. YOU need to examine what YOU would do if your child were gay. It is a real possibility.
lisztnut 1 year ago
kids do much more than just learn about other families. they encourage and indoctrinate kids into these relationships by showing impressionable five year olds that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage children are forced to accept something that goes against American, family, and religious values
the fact is YES teachers are suppose to teach the truth but not their own opinions or somebody else's way of living or social issues of life especially at FIVE years old.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00, another MYTH is that you can "teach" someone to be gay, or "recruit" them. If this really works, then I should be straight, because i was INDOCTRINATED into heterosexuality. Did it change me to straight? No way in hell. Sexual orientation is INNATE and IMMUTABLE (that means it CANNOT be changed). Even the Catholic church agrees with me on that. They recommend gays remain celibate.
lisztnut 1 year ago
It's a well known fact that Martin Luther King supported gay rights, at least privately, if not publicly. One of his top advisors was openly gay. Just because his children are homophobic, does not mean it was true of him and Coretta.
Google: San Francisco Chronicle, King would not have marched against gay marriage
lisztnut 2 years ago
Not all Mormons are like voteyesonquestion1, the host of this site. These Mormon organizations and sites support marriage equality:
ldsapology org
mormonsformarriage com
affirmation org
The night that Prop 8 passed, 600 Mormon church members marched against it in Utah. Despite the orders from high, some LDS cult members are using their "brains" rather than obey imposed church dogma. The leaders had better heed their member's wishes or face losing more cult members.
lisztnut 2 years ago
To read about the dark history of the Mormon church and its lies to cover-up the extent of their funding of Prop 8 and Referendum 1, read this article:
Google: Californians Against Hate: Mormon Cover-up of Prop 8 Funding
lisztnut 2 years ago
For a touching personal glimpse at what marriage equality means, see this youtube video:
Reflections on Marriage Equality in Connecticut
lisztnut 2 years ago
We can rise to be like God who is our heavenly parent, male and female. The union of a man and woman centered on God is the blessing He wants us to receive. As parents we can epxerience the heart of God like he does for us
voteyesonquestion1 2 years ago
Stop referring to your "heavenly parent." We know now that you are a Mor(m)on. Your group is a religious cult and is not respected by any other Christian group. If you want to have your magic underwear, and wacky celestial marriages, secret handshakes, whatever, but do NOT impose those beliefs on the rest of society.... We want our FREEDOM to worship as we please, and marry WHOM we please. Not who YOU say we should marry...
lisztnut 2 years ago 3
We are spiritual being first. Our physical body is temporary. After the human fall, our spirit died and we have been trying to climb back up since. We have a fallen nature, but still have our original nature, There is a war in each one of us. We intend to do go but often we do not.
We are very special and have a ncredible potential for goodness. I hope one day you can see this in yourself and win over your fallen nature. Homosexuality is part of that nature
voteyesonquestion1 2 years ago
Tony Perkins doesn't know what makes a family. He seems totally clueless that families with same sex parents already exist. Coretta Scott King said: "constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage are nothing but gay bashing. Gay people have families too, and those families deserve protection of the government."
lisztnut 2 years ago
Coreeta King's son does not agree with her. I am sre her husband did not either.
These kids are fatherless or motherless. They need protection and love by men or women that will step in and provide them the parental gender they have been deprived from.
voteyesonquestion1 2 years ago
Hey... just between you and me...
Parents are not the only influences in a child's life. It doesn't matter if a child lacks a father or a mother, they still find someone else to look up to. Even if they stuck with thier biological parents, that doesn't mean that the parents would be the biggest influence on their lives. Hell, George Carlin influence my life more than my dad.
FrostbittenWolf 2 years ago
Tony Perkins is full of it. As if his kid's rights to NOT hear about gay marriage trumps the rights of those children with same sex parents. Some nerve. If you don't like same sex marriage, then teach your kids at HOME about this. Gay activists never had an agenda to "teach" marriage in schools, this was purely an invention of those against gay marriage...
lisztnut 2 years ago
Evan Wolfson brings up a good point. Gay marriage is far from dead in ME. The voters did NOT approve a constitutional ban, like in CA. This issue will be back, guaranteed. Regardless, why are we the only nation on EARTH that VOTES on civil rights? This is the REAL problem. It should never be on the ballot to begin with. It should be decided by legislatures and courts not the ignorant majority...
lisztnut 2 years ago
First we need to get rid of some politicians who were so arrogant that they try to redefine the marriage of others. It is none of their business to do so.
voteyesonquestion1 2 years ago
It's not their business to try and end discrimination against gays and make marriage a civil right instead of a privilage towards people with a specific sexual preference? Well if that's not their job, what is their job? Stockpiling nukes? If a politician is doing the right thing for once, LET THEM!
FrostbittenWolf 2 years ago
Thank goodness for "arrogant" politicians and judges. Otherwise, we'd never have had school integration, and women voting, and blacks given the right to serve in the military, women's right to choose, and interracial marriage, all of which were not popular when the courts/legislatures decided to allow them. You really are totalitarian in your views aren't you? It's eiither YOUR way or the highway. This is NOT democracy. Do I need to remind you we live in a FREE country? Not a theocracy...
lisztnut 2 years ago 5
we may not live in a theocracy, but we do live in a democracy. the first amendment does not apply to voters. Pastors, clergy, and religious leaders have every right to convey and express their moral vision onto their community and into the voting process. Prop 8 ,or any other amendment, would not did not and does not undermine the constitution because the government didn't put it into law, the people did, and whether they voted for it on religious grounds is no one's business but their own.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00, In 1964 Prop 14 passed in CA. It was a constitutional amendment which 67 percent of voters passed into law. It said that landlords could discriminate against blacks simply because of their skin color. Two years later this democratic "will of the people" piece of garbage was OVERTURNED in the US Supreme Court. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will to the right thing and overturn another IGNORANT "will of the people" bad call with Prop 8.
lisztnut 1 year ago
The upload is a typical indoctrinated religious moron with no sense of historical fact or logical intellect.
What do you mean "redefine" marriage you idiot? You do realize that marriage did not originate with religion, nor did it originate as a 50/50, thus it's CHANGED.
CaMaverick 2 years ago 6
Well that would be your heathen pig people definition of religion. Please wait patiently as those of us who walk on two legs (thanks to God almighty) ask our Creator if it is okay to change the definition of marriage.
cupcakekitenprincess 2 years ago
@cupcakekitenprincess Why are you people such idiots? Your stupid fairy tale did not INVENT marriage, it predates Christianity and every other religious dogma.
Simply asserting your god "made it" doesn't make it so, you people are so fucking unbelievably dumb
CaMaverick 2 years ago 2
Okay, well God said that he is the author of marriage, and you some person on the internet said he is not. Who should I believe? Also god invented everything, this includes marriage obviously, as marriage is a thing.
cupcakekitenprincess 2 years ago
Oh okay, so because a sheep herder said god said so that immediately makes it valid, though historical and anthropological evidence dictate otherwise
CaMaverick 2 years ago 3
So, if your "god" is the creator of marriage, how come the Christians stole marriage from the Pagans? It was a Pagan ritual before it was Christian. You need to study some history, before spouting off nonsense...
lisztnut 2 years ago
Atheism is growing (3 times as many people losing their faith than gaining a faith). I can't WAIT until we outnumber the Christians and can outvote you. Watch out... You will soon be losing your civil rights.... CAN'T WAIT!
lisztnut 2 years ago
I consider humans higher than animals. There are many things that animals do that you would not want to do. You should lift your vision to a higher place.
voteyesonquestion1 2 years ago
Also, since we're on the topic... God loves ALL his creatures. That's a man made contrivance that animals are lesser to us. We have a nasty habit of being a destructive animal rather than one that is in tune with life.
franzjoseph88 2 years ago
Those against gay marriage love to say that homosexuality is "against nature," but we they are shown the truth that it is rampant in the animal kingdom (450 species of animals mate with same sex partners for LIFE), they suddenly change their tune. Why is that?
Youtube video: Homosexuality in the animal kingdom (National Geographic)
The religious folks say, well homosexuality goes against god, if so, why is it so prevalent in animals? Opps! Your god messed up...
lisztnut 2 years ago
Humans are not animals. Civilized humans will nver imagine doing what many animals do. If you want to live like an animal and just have your body run your life, I feel sorry for you
voteyesonquestion1 2 years ago
that is the most moronic comment you have ever made. we DON'T hate women. we seethem as friends,pals,and always equals. we simply can not love them sexually(unless you're talking about lesbians)
MrRockythesquirrel 2 years ago
I did not say that you ahte women. You do not know the true and real value of a woman. This will limit your growth to your destiny. It is so very sad.
voteyesonquestion1 2 years ago
@voteyesonquestion1 i said that you only seem to appreciate women from a purely biological view. even sadder
MrRockythesquirrel 2 years ago
The true value of women.... To be submissive breeders?I love women, and am in a beautiful relationship with one. I see so much more than the end result of having a child and family together. The relationship between two PEOPLE is more important than what it "contributes" to society, or how it stands up to some tradition that did not start in Christianity, and originally had no man made laws attached. I accept that you don't feel that way, but would beg you to reread the words of Jesus.
franzjoseph88 2 years ago
You cant have a child with another woman. There are good reasons for that.
voteyesonquestion1 2 years ago
Sorry, dude but you're wrong. Scientists are very close to making it possible for two women to conceive a child without sperm. They are using DNA to do this. Soon men will be obsolete in the reproductive sense...
lisztnut 2 years ago
Your choice is very clear. If you don't want to marry a same sex partner nobody's forcing you to... It's very simple. And, if those of us who are blessed to be homosexual want to marry, we can only marry the partners we LOVE in a handful of states. That's called DISCRIMINATION...
lisztnut 2 years ago 2
Um, I am a man, and I am going to have a wife. I am straight, and support the gay community, because I am not a hate mongering fool. Jesus is ashamed of you.
franzjoseph88 2 years ago
Not a very nice thing to say.
bb6f44 2 years ago
Evan Wolfson is a smart guy :)
bb6f44 2 years ago
The claim made in this video's description is contrary to the research, which has repeatedly and clearly shown that the children on couples of the same sex do not show any deficits. This is not about children - it's about intolerance.
SpeedyBruin 2 years ago 3
Ya think, Bruin?
FrostbittenWolf 2 years ago
The thousand years of research and experience that a child needs a mother and a father are overwelming. Is there any one in the world that is not born form a father and a mother including you ? When gay can procreate themselves gay children, let us know.
voteyesonquestion1 2 years ago
So basically, you sidestep the fact that there are millions of children in the foster system with no parents at all.
And, you're ignored all the research that disputes your claims that same-sex parents are fine and doing a great job.
Call us when you get out of denial.
MrDalespy 2 years ago 2
Yeah. You say they're overwhelming. Professionals and my personal experience contradict you completely.
FrostbittenWolf 2 years ago
Research huh? Then surely you can cite an example?
SpeedyBruin 2 years ago
It seems like divorce would cause more fatherless/motherless homes than same-sex marriage would. I'm wondering where the campaign for making divorce illegal is.
Every argument I've heard against homosexual marriage either shows itself applied very inconsistently, or boils down to "ick!" (which, I should hope I don't need to explain, is very poor argument)
zulmia 2 years ago 2
Here's how it's worked before:
Someone wants civil rights.
One group (More than often the religious right) tries to deny those civil rights.
It gets violent.
The group that wants civil rights wins.
The other group finds something else to hate.
This is what happened with slavery, womens rights (Including divorce) and is happening now with homosexuals. One lost battle for civil rights were the Native Americans who were murdered by the "Good Christians."
FrostbittenWolf 2 years ago
Homo- sex "marriage" is not and will never be a civil right. It is a special right
voteyesonquestion1 2 years ago
It is a civil right, whether people like you like it or not. It's the same case as interracial marriage. Or did you sleep through history?
FrostbittenWolf 2 years ago
Could you elaborate on what you mean by "special right?"
From my understanding it would seem that special rights would be a subset of civil rights. And if you're saying that is a right only granted to a subset of the population, that should be self-evidently wrong, as you would also have the right to marry someone whose genitalia matched yours as well if the legislation passed: you just likely wouldn't exercise it. Just as I have the right to hang out in dive bars, even though I probably won't.
zulmia 2 years ago
@zulmia
what they mean is that Same sex couples do not have a SPECIAL right to redefine what marriage is for everybody else; the " will of the people" have a FUNDAMENTAL right under the tenth amendment to do such a task because we live in a democracy not an aristocracy.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 , marriage has been continuously redefined since it's Pagan roots. Why is including gay people redefining it? Marriage used to mean one man and several woman, or a woman was the "property" of her father until he transfered this "property" to another man. And, we're not looking for SPECIAL rights, we're looking for EQUALITY under the law. That's all. Very simple, really...
lisztnut 1 year ago
@kenballer00, GAY AGENDA:
1 Equality
2 See No. 1 We simply will NOT rest NOR be quiet until we acheive our goals. You can either be with or against us, but we WILL gain our rights sooner or later, because it's a matter of FAIRNESS and equality. And, hopefully the COURTS will decide this and not the ignorant voting majority, which usually gets it WRONG.
lisztnut 1 year ago
@kenballer00
The "will of the people" can't take away many rights (ie freedom of expression/freedom of religion/freedom from compulsory self-incrimination). We do not live in a pure democracy; we live in a democratic republic. "Tyranny of the Majority" was a deep concern many of the founders of the USA had (see the Senate election laws, electoral college, etc). If the people voted to make it illegal to marry outside your religion, that would not mean the law's constitutional (see 14th amdt).
zulmia 1 year ago
how do you take away a right that doesn't even exist in the first place?
if you Go to Wikipedia and type in Baker v. Nelson, The case will show you that the same court in Loving v Virginia not only distinguished same sex marriage from interracial marriage, but established it as a right that does not exist under the constitution and never did.
so the 14th amendment does not confer a RIGHT to gay marriage anymore than it does for polygamy
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Voting so that only people who have different genitalia can enter into a marriage agreement would be taking away a right. It was Question 1, and Prop 8, and others that adds language to the law making it so that if you have the same genitalia, you can't get married. Saying the right doesn't exist is nonsensical. A close reading of the 9th amendment might help you understand what I mean.
RE Baker v Nelson, the answer is simple: the court decided wrongly, with inconsistent principles.
zulmia 1 year ago
@kenballer00
And looking closer at Baker v Nelson, it doesn't appear that an actual decision was made; rather it was a dismissal that was more significant than normal, without a majority opinion written.
zulmia 1 year ago
this is not just any dismissal. A "dismissal for want of a substantial federal question" is a decision on the merits that is binding in cases like Mandel and Hicks. they clearly outline that summary decisions are in fact decisions on the merits that are binding on all lower FEDERAL courts. i encourage you to do some research on it because you are definitely wrong here
moreover, gay marriage as a civil right argument was so frivolous that the supreme court rejected without any further review
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
You misunderstand my comment. There was no opinion written so you would not be able to tell that the court "not only distinguished same sex marriage from interracial marriage, but established it as a right that does not exist under the constitution and never did." All they did was give a binding dismissal. Even if they had heard arguments and written the opinion you seem to think they did, it would still be inconsistent with their judgment in Loving v Virginia.
zulmia 1 year ago
even if Baker was never decided, the Loving court was talking about procreation when they said that "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very EXISTENCE and SURVIVAL". if you actually go back and read the case, you will notice that they referenced another U.S. supreme court case called Skinner v. Oklahoma along side that famous quote. does this quote sound familiar:
"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
kenballer00 1 year ago
the qoute i just showed you was from the Skinner v. Oklahoma U.S. supreme court case that the Loving court mentioned right after the qoute they said to make it apparent what they meant. its also the qoute that the Minnesota and U.S. supreme court used to justify why gay marriage is not a right based in the Loving case or any case. so its not just one judge but multiple supreme courts that understand the purpose of marriage and have been very consistent indeed
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
I think this is where an authoritarian like you, and a libertarian like me will differ every time. You think that the court is EXHAUSTIVELY laying down rights. "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race" does not imply that gay people should not get married unless you think the 9th amendment means nothing.
zulmia 1 year ago
oh come on, nobody's forcing gays to deny their attractions. Nobody's criminalizing homosexuals acts or raiding gay marriages in churches. gays can freely express their feelings of love in a church and get all the benefits that come with marriage through civil unions. however, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and enter into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, you are subject to the law and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
I'm seeing a disconnect here that I often see in these exchanges. Just so we're on the same page:
1) What do you think the difference between a civil marriage and a civil union is?
2) What do you think the difference between a civil marriage and civil union should be?
zulmia 1 year ago
@zulmia
the difference between civil unions and civil marriage is that civil unions is purely a private thing that the state does not edorse or puts in the public arena. civil marriage is the complete opposite because the state makes no distinction between gay marriage and straight marriage. marriage is marriage. they start to promote a new defintion of what marriage is about in the public square
and i don't really understand your second question
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
"and i don't really understand your second question."
That's okay; I don't really understand your first answer. How is a civil union purely private and civil marriage "the complete opposite?" Gay and/or straight marriage shouldn't really enter into your answer on the difference. Both are legal contracts that give a set of rights and responsibilities to two people, yes?
zulmia 1 year ago
@zulmia
yeah but .... with civil unions nothing changes within the mainstream world like the media. but when it comes to civil marriage the government starts to rearrange businesses, schools, and media according to that definition of marriage and not when it comes to civil unions.
the state will start to socially construct and encourage those relationships without any distinction between the two
this is gay rights are not content with civil unions in California because they know this already
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
What do you think should be the difference legally between a civil union and a civil marriage? You obviously have some difference in mind.
zulmia 1 year ago
@zulmia
Simple. the word and word only should be different in order to keep the goverment and gay activists from using the law to promote their agenda or we can create laws that recognize gay marriages from Canada or another state that still has gay marriage without legally performing them in the U.S. or a particular state that does not have it
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
"Separate but equal" then. I'll ignore the conspiracy theory tinged aspect of your comment (gay agenda) for now.
Okay now, you obviously realize that it is unfair to not allow homosexual relationships to have the same legal rights/responsibilities as heterosexuals relationships. Excellent. Now, why do you think that the government will start promoting one legal status, but not both (or none, which is what the government should be doing IMO) if the only difference is a name?
zulmia 1 year ago
in Connecticut and New hampshire where they had civil unions and legalized gay marriage afterwards, the lawmakers both in the House (vote 100-44) and in the Senate (vote 28-7) agreed to repeal all the old marriage laws and fully replace them with genderless quotes and all references to marriage will be fully gender-neutral
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
That's what you call government promotion?!? You're really afraid of the PAPERWORK that will not have "husband" and "wife" under the entries?? I'm sorry, but that seems a little asinine. And really, if gay marriage is legalized, that is exactly what I would expect the government to do. This isn't like a state mounting an ad campaign in favor of homosexual marriage or anything. It's a field label that could now apply to either gender in those states!
zulmia 1 year ago
you specifically asked me "why do you think that the government will start promoting one legal status, but not both" flowing from this qoute i proceeded to find an example of a state that had civil unions first and then opted for marriage and then explained the additional changes in promoting one legal status over the other within the mainstream. you did not tell me to strictly give you an example of where a state would promote gay marriage or a redefinition of it
kenballer00 1 year ago
@zulmia
if you want more examples of government promotion, i would be happy to give you them but a lot of it is also plans of what gay activists are going to do when the gay marriage law is passed. i have a video of gay activists discussing how and what they were going to do to promote gay marriages across the country. i could give you all the examples and videos showing how much the goverment promotion will happen you just need to be more specific
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Yes, I asked you to give an example of the government promoting one but not both in a case where there was civil unions and civil marriage. You gave me an example of where a state had standardized their paperwork after they had allowed gay marriage. And what would those scary gay rights activists discussing their plan to promote gay marriages have to do with anything we're talking about? Please keep firm in your mind the difference between personal speech and government speech.
zulmia 1 year ago
@kenballer00
I'm not being as clear as I think I'm being. I'll try one more time.
We were talking about the difference between civil unions and civil marriages. You seem to think the government will actively promote civil marriages, but civil unions will languish in anonymity. I was asking what made you think whatever promotion the government does for civil marriages will not be done for civil unions if they are the exact same set of rights and responsibilities. Do you see the difference?
zulmia 1 year ago
@kenballer00
From the links you sent me, it appears that you agree with me that the civil unions will be promoted EXACTLY THE SAME as if it were a civil marriage. Half the stories you sent were in areas where there was no legal gay marriage; just civil unions for those whose genitals matched.
zulmia 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Having a different category for civil unions and civil marriages doesn't stop anything you seem to be concerned about; the only thing it would accomplish would be to allow the potential for the two legal sets of rights to be different. The only way to legally ensure they are not different rights is to name them the same. A=B, B->A.
zulmia 1 year ago
@kenballer00
I for one don't care about whether we throw out the term civil union, or throw out civil marriage, but others feel strongly about keeping the word marriage, and on a federal level it would be difficult to have some states with unions, and some with marriages. Hence my position.
zulmia 1 year ago
no. they will not be promoted together. the state would treat them the same way but promote one instead of the other. civil unions are not taught in schools. i know this because i live in calfornia. its more a social thing than a legal thing and i think thats where you are getting mixed up. how do you know it would be difficult on a federal level to have some states with unions, and some with marriages. each state can always make a law that recognizes civil unions or marriage from other states
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
It seems your entire idea of "promotion" is "taught in schools." Do you think we should abolish the idea of even civil unions for homosexuals if they start getting taught in schools?
zulmia 1 year ago
@zulmia
its not just the schools either but also the media well get into the fray like the Hollywood. did you watch the youtube video i sent you about the gay activists putting symbols of gay marriage everywhere. remember to start to watch it at the 4:20 mark and up to hear exactly what their plans are
kenballer00 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kenballer00
I watched it (and all the other valid links you sent me); I just didn't see anything worth getting worked up over. I'd like to set that aside though because I doubt we'll get anywhere on that issue in 500 character chunks of discussion, and we were talking about government promotion anyway.
I would like my question answered though. Do you think we should abolish the idea of civil unions for homosexuals if they start getting taught in schools?
zulmia 1 year ago
@zulmia
no i personally don't think we should abolish the idea of civil unions for homosexuals if they start getting promoted and taught in schools because there is a important distinction between the two relationships which my side needs to have in order for our children to be taught what is right in our eyes
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
What if they started being taught as equal, or even superior to civil marriages? Would you want to abolish civil unions in that case?
zulmia 1 year ago
@zulmia
i am not sure where you are getting at. whats your point?
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
My point is that the correct place to fight for your point of view here might be the schools since that is what you seem to be so concerned with. What kids (watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo) are taught is completely ancillary to the discussion at hand. What we are talking about here are LEGAL RIGHTS BETWEEN CONSENTING ADULTS. The media will do what it does, and people will fight for acceptance of GLBT people, regardless of laws passed that outlaw a particular set of people from a legal status.
zulmia 1 year ago
its not just the media and schools. its the legal aspect of it as well that deals with private and public businesses and what gay activists will do with that piece of legislation or law. i gave you the video already so don't try to all of sudden compartmentalize it to just schools and media. its also socially speaking as well. its how people will perceive and treat the other person on a day to day basis and passing this law POTENTIALLY leaves many believers up for discrimination
kenballer00 1 year ago
also, you are wrong when you say that the legal aspect of marriage has nothing to do with schools. in california, law clearly states that it does:
"51890. (a) For the purposes of this chapter, "comprehensive health
education programs" are defined as all educational programs offered
in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, in the public school
system, including in-class and out-of-class activities designed to
ensure that:
kenballer00 1 year ago
@zulmia
"(D) Family health and child development, including the LEGAL and
financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood"
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
So I'm saying your beef is with that statute, rather than giving homosexual couples the same rights. You've said you think they should have the same rights, just a different label so you can point it out to your kids and say "Don't be like THAT category."
Yes it deals with private and public businesses because the rights of a civil marriage deal with those as well. Are you saying you do NOT want the set of rights between civil unions and civil marriages the same?
zulmia 1 year ago
@kenballer00
And as far as putting up believers for discrimination: that's BS. The first amendment protects you from any recriminations from the government. That is ironclad, and most liberals I know will line up to defend your right to be as provocative in your comments as you want to be. If you point to the Canadian law, just realize: THEY DON'T HAVE A DIRECT ANALOG TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT. I didn't see anything that could count in your links other than that.
zulmia 1 year ago
@zulmia
NOOOOOOO, its about pointing out to my kids that they should be in this category because its been proven to be the best without thinking about or referencing the other in any way shape or form SOCIALLY while LEGALLY civil unions gets the same rights and treatment as married couples. it can be done. California is a perfect example of this
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Okay, I see. You want to say "be like in category," and not have to be discomforted by having nuance in your answer. Unfortunately you don't have a right to not be made uncomfortable. Free speech would be worthless if you did. And I don't want some nimrod legislating just because they think they feel uncomfortable explaining something to their kid. Oops, too late.
zulmia 1 year ago
@kenballer00
and that should read:
"...you want to say 'be in that category,' and..."
zulmia 1 year ago
@zulmia
if thats the case, then why is it OK to legislate in order for a same sex couple to feel comfortable about telling their child why they are married instead civil unioned or for them to call their lover a spouse instead of a domestic partner. they have free speech as well right.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
It's not okay to legislate based on that reason. They are not legislating for the child, they are legislating (actually unlegislating here) for themselves to have the same rights. I've already made my case that having two legal buckets for the same function is a recipe for ensuring they are unequal. There are a lot of emotional arguments because it is their marriages we're talking about, but when it comes right down to it, that argument is still illogical no matter who makes it.
zulmia 1 year ago
@kenballer00
And it really doesn't have to do with free speech there locally. I just brought up free speech earlier because it would be a fundamental right effectively null and void in a global sense if everyone had the right to not be offended or made uncomfortable.
zulmia 1 year ago
even if it were true that it would be impossible to have two legal structures and not leave same sex couples up for discrimination, we can still have the other option where a same sex couple can go to Canada to get legally married and then have the U.S recognize that marriage without legally performing it which would prevent government promotion of those marriage. there have been some states that have created a law that did just that which would solve the problem
kenballer00 1 year ago
besides, if the analogy continues to be ingrained into society that a behavior which is considered deviant by almost every religion and promotes motherless and fatherless environments is compared to blacks that came over here in chains and couldn't drink from white man's drinking fountain, then anyone who speaks out against gay marriage will automatically be treated and perceived as bigots and leave everyone who does not support this notion of marriage up for potential discrimination as well
kenballer00 1 year ago
Comment removed
zulmia 1 year ago
it would essentially be an endless clash between the same-sex agenda and freedom of religion. The two are not compatible, because the same-sex agenda seeks to force by law acceptance of its view, and that will inevitably collide with Christian values. Christians will either be forced to accept something like this or live in fear of a secular government that will pander to the likes of intolerant gay activists
HENCE MY POSITION
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Many people opposed racial integration on religious principles. Do you consider the forced integration to have been a clash between freedom of religion and the miscegenation agenda in which freedom of religion lost?
zulmia 1 year ago
no i don't because you're comparing fact v. fiction. when people were opposed to interracial marriage , it was based purely on emotions and fear because none of the claims that were against it were supported by facts. gay marriage is the complete opposite. marriage will always be between a man and a woman historically, Biblically, constitutionally, and scienctifically. the authorities will be telling those people who believe in this self-evident truth that its actually self-evident bigotry
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Regardless of whether you agree with the sentiment or not, many people were against miscegenation based on their interpretation of their religious beliefs. It sounds like it was okay to trample on their "religious rights" because you don't happen to agree with them. All the government has to do is apply the religious principals that you hold, and everything will be solved, right?
I'm really glad you're not Jewish, because I'd hate to think I couldn't have bacon.
zulmia 1 year ago
@zulmia
so are you saying its okay for us to continue to trample on the religious rights or beliefs of gay activists and deny gay marriage legally speaking through constitutional amendement
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Maybe I should have closed with a [/sarcasm]. I was trying to say that allowing some act that is forbidden by one religion or another is obviously not imposing on their religious freedom.
zulmia 1 year ago