Prop8 doesn't discriminate because gays can still marry a member of the opposite sex like everyone else.

  • Squarejaw

    Posts: 1035

    Oct 07, 2010 11:06 PM GMT


    http://wakingupnow.com/blog/discrimination-certainly-not
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 08, 2010 2:03 AM GMT
    LOL! Well put! For Sure!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 08, 2010 2:32 AM GMT
    I love you, Rob!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 08, 2010 2:37 AM GMT
    Logic hurts, doesn't it?
  • conquer

    Posts: 305

    Oct 08, 2010 3:05 AM GMT
    thats quite succinct, stuff needs to get broken down so people can understand whats wrong with their thoughts. "its okay to discriminate against others because i don't agree with it" attitude needs to shelved, its why we live in a free society. people have fought wars and died so we can live freely. luckily i live a country where i can get married if i want to. i appreciate where i come from, but i don't want to forget that i had family members live through a war so i could be here. there are people dying everyday because they can't marry who they want, go to school, walk down the street side by side, or go outside without an escort. there are people out there who care so little. they don't care that what they say or do will affect others gay or straight. people have more in common than we have don't, it just takes a little effort...by all of us

  • Oct 08, 2010 3:06 AM GMT
    EXCELLENT.
  • omatix

    Posts: 89

    Oct 08, 2010 3:12 AM GMT
    This was awesome.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 08, 2010 3:22 AM GMT
    This won't be popular.....gays can marry opposite sex, just as heteros can. Alternatively heteros cannot marry same sex, just like gays are not permitted to.

    the law is equally applied therefore it is not discriminatory. a groups emotional reaction to something does not make it discriminatory.

    the legal definition of marriage is what needs to be changed THEN discrimination can be claimed if ceremonies are not performed for same-sex couples.

    I have never understood the rampant want to be "married" when it's root is in religion, something that most gays vilify.

    Come to Canada if you want to get married.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 08, 2010 3:25 AM GMT
    I want to ban straight people. They'll still have the right to be gay just like everyone else, though.
  • Hunter9

    Posts: 1039

    Oct 08, 2010 6:00 AM GMT
    gov't should not be in the business of marriage... which is traditionally a religious institution between man and woman. once govt no longer sanctifies marriage, any two people can become spouses with all the rights that go along with it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 08, 2010 6:07 AM GMT
    tallcunuckI have never understood the rampant want to be "married" when it's root is in religion, something that most gays vilify.

    e legal definition of marriage is what needs to be changed THEN discrimination can be claimed if ceremonies are not performed for same-sex couples.




    Well that's exactly what LGBT activists are doing...changing the definition so that they can qualify. Most gay people in the US probably could care less about religion: they want the security, stability and rights that come with being married and that marriage being recognized as valid by the government.

    Even if actions are taken within the law, it doesn't necessarily make those actions right. Forcing LGBT families into heterosexual relationships is still wrong. What legal term would you prefer? Persecution? It's targeted, specific, and attempts to remove the happiness and success of LGBT families. (I'm seriously just curious as to what term would better fit)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 08, 2010 8:17 AM GMT
    Hunter9 saidgov't should not be in the business of marriage... which is traditionally a religious institution between man and woman. once govt no longer sanctifies marriage, any two people can become spouses with all the rights that go along with it.


    Wait, what? Once the government gets out of the marriage business every couple could get married (supposing they find an authority figure to marry them) and have "all the rights that go along with it?" Where do you think married couples get those 1100+ rights from? They don't get them from Jesus.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Oct 08, 2010 8:23 AM GMT
    tallcanuck saidThis won't be popular.....gays can marry opposite sex, just as heteros can. Alternatively heteros cannot marry same sex, just like gays are not permitted to.

    the law is equally applied therefore it is not discriminatory. a groups emotional reaction to something does not make it discriminatory.

    the legal definition of marriage is what needs to be changed THEN discrimination can be claimed if ceremonies are not performed for same-sex couples.

    I have never understood the rampant want to be "married" when it's root is in religion, something that most gays vilify.

    Come to Canada if you want to get married.



    Marriage has a history with religion, but marriage has always been a civic action.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Oct 08, 2010 8:24 AM GMT
    Hunter9 saidgov't should not be in the business of marriage... which is traditionally a religious institution between man and woman. once govt no longer sanctifies marriage, any two people can become spouses with all the rights that go along with it.



    By that reasoning, government shouldn't allow divorces either. So how do you divide the assets of a separating couple? And marriages by justices of the peace are never sanctified. Do you know what that word means?
  • Hunter9

    Posts: 1039

    Oct 08, 2010 2:47 PM GMT
    coolarmydude said
    Hunter9 saidgov't should not be in the business of marriage... which is traditionally a religious institution between man and woman. once govt no longer sanctifies marriage, any two people can become spouses with all the rights that go along with it.



    By that reasoning, government shouldn't allow divorces either. So how do you divide the assets of a separating couple? And marriages by justices of the peace are never sanctified. Do you know what that word means?


    no, i do not know what the word means, particularly because i don't know which word "that word" is referring to. in addition, i don't understand anything about your response. i am saying that the word marriage should not be used within government speak. Instead, they would make official "Unions" or whatever you want to call it between any two people.

    And to the person above, maybe you wouldn't call it "Divorce", but some other synonym, but that's really not the relevant piece
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 08, 2010 2:56 PM GMT
    Government should, ideally, have no place in marriage. Our government is, in essence, subsidizing marriage for a certain group of people. It's like telling straights to get married for ANY AND ALL reasons and, as the grand prize, you'll get all sorts of tax write-offs, legal protections, and so on. I am in NO WAY saying that marriage isn't important because such a profound commitment, when made on the basis of true, real, deep, meaningful love is great for both people involved. But when it is reduced to a 'game' that many people use to get green cards, money, medical benefits and rights, property, and so on, it becomes the sham it is today, pure and simple.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 08, 2010 3:25 PM GMT
    Friggin' awesome! Get it around the country, fast!
  • swogdog

    Posts: 143

    Oct 08, 2010 3:26 PM GMT
    Nice job Squarejaw!


    My uncle recently asked me, "Why should you get extra rights? You can already marry a woman. If you get the right to marry a man then gays will have extra rights beyond straight people!"

    I responded "when same sex marriages are made legal, you too will be able to marry a man, so we'll be even."

    The look on his face when I suggested he could legally marry a man was priceless. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 08, 2010 3:57 PM GMT
    swogdog saidNice job Squarejaw!

    My uncle recently asked me, "Why should you get extra rights? You can already marry a woman. If you get the right to marry a man then gays will have extra rights beyond straight people!"

    Reminds me of the US Southern Segregationists of the past (who are still trying to make a comeback, via the Teabaggers & right-wing Conservatives):

    "Why should you Coloreds get extra rights? You can already marry a Black. If you get the right to marry a White then Blacks will have extra rights beyond White people!"
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Oct 08, 2010 4:44 PM GMT
    I like the "You're a Homo" video better -- a takeoff off Lady Gaga's "Alejandro"...


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 08, 2010 7:01 PM GMT
    I.
    Fucking.
    Love.
    You.