1/19 The Defense of Marriage Act, or the Knight Initiative, proposes to
amend the California constitution to ban same-sex marriages.vote Yes
- turin /
What a stunning argument for your position! __/
\_ And for all you non bigots out there go to http://www.samesexmarriage.org
and download the petition to legalize same sex marriages in CA,
fill it out, and mail it in. Or you can get it from
/csua/tmp/petition.pdf -aspo
\_ Unlikely that such a petition could pass since it would require a
change in the CA constitution (the Family code) which already
limits marriages to be man + woman. Prop 22 is aimed at
preventing same-sex marriages performed somewhere else to be
recognized here.
\_ your point? It is a petition to get a prop on the ballot.
Nothing more. That is how things work in this state. -aspo
to his or her own opinions and prejudices) obviosly you are
\_ Constitutional changes require a 3/4 majority (or is it
2/3) instead of simple majority.
\_ how is that being a bigot? - turin
(amend: bigot: : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted
to opinions that dont agree with mine) obviosly you are
a bigot. Am I a bigot because I believe gravity keeps me
on earth just as I believe marriage is meant for male/female?
Sounds like you want to change something that wasn't meant
for you that you have no right to.
\_ the really unbelieveable thing is that this isn't
a troll. -tom
\_ The really unbelievable thing is that you are incapable of
seeing another point of view and yet likely call yourself
"tolerant."
\_ 50 years ago people thought marriage was something that
should only happen between a man and a woman of the same
race. Interracial marriages were outlawed in many states.
And yet if I were to claim they sohuld be outlawed now
I would justifiably be called a bigot. The only difference
between being a bigot in your case is that it is more
socially acceptable to be bigotted against homosexuals
right now. Why don't you stop trying to discriminate
against homosexuals and go back to dooshing for the lord.
-aspo
\_ As if it were the same thing.
\_ i am glad to see whites marrying blacks/chinese- turin
\_ analogy. turin. bigot.
\_ All you whiteys are marrying the asian babes, and I
can't get any dates!!! Go to HELL!!! - Hoyt Sze
\_ Damn, the infamous Hoyt Sze! Is that really you man?
I totally agree. Nothing's worse than observing
fine Asian women married to completely dorky pale idiots.
-swings
\_ It's just that we don't have such little bitty
thingies, and we don't drive lowered Mazdas, and
we can drink without turning beet red.
-Studly tanned genius
\_ gaijin fool! lowered HONDAS are the TRUE way
of studliness
p.s. turin, you're a bigot b/c you are not tolerant
of things that deviate from what is considered
"normal" and therefore "right." It has nothing
to do with God. It's just a sexual preference,
just as other animals exhibit.
\_ and eating your mate after you have sex with
them is just a sexual preference.
\_ aspo, you immediately call me a bigot, perhaps you
are discriminating against heterosexuals? Anywayz, marriage
is a sacred/holy act that represents the Union between
a man and a woman that is a type of the Union God wants
with mankind, which is basically a picture of the result
which of union of Christ and the Church as a groom and a
bride. If God thinks homosexuality is an abomination of
obviously marriage is sanctioned by God only for a man and
and a woman. That's what marriage is, and you want to
\_ Marriage is not restricted to christians. If
modify it to suit your own wants. So how can you claim
something that is not meant for you? perhaps you are the
one stealing something that doesn't belong to youf- turin
\_ The government has already claimed marriage and
modified it to suit it's own purposes. If you
really believe that you need to defend the
sanctity and holiness of marriage, you need to
get the government completely uninvolved.
\_ Marriage is not restricted to christians.
\_ No, but funny how just about every other
religion also agrees on the little detail of
marriage = 1 man, 1 woman.
(well, sometimes, higher numbers on one
side or another, but still...)
If
you demand that the nature of marriage conforms
to a christian ideal, you are enforcing the
restrictions of your religion on others who do
not practice it. It's hard for me to imagine
that anyone would condone such a thing, but
humans have an amazing ability to fall short
of even my expectations. -niloc
\_ if you think that the legal definition of marriage
(for everyone, not just people who believe in your
god) must be the same as the one that your god has
defined, then you are a bigot. qed. -lila
\_ He's not claiming anything from your God. Do you have
any idea what same sex marriage debate is about other
than what you've been told by your pastor/cult leader?
Get a clue. -scotsman
\_ but he's claiming something of God for himself-turin
\_ You assume that he's gay and looking to get
married. Again I say "Get a clue." -scotsman
\_ i just posted my reason for voting yes, aspo
assumes I am a bigot, discriminating, but the
real reason that marriage doesn't belong to
gays who want to marry, regardless if aspo is
is one or not - turin
\_ This post has failed the basic grammar
check. You may speak to scotsman when
you have more clue. -scotsmanmotdgrokker
\_ Can you tell the difference between saying "I don't
agree with something that doesn't affect me, so you
can't do it" what you are saying about gay marriage)
and "I'm going to do something that doesn't affect you
but that you don't agree with"? That is not
discriminating against "heterosexuals" (if by
heterosexuals you mean religiously intolerant bigots)
in any way shape or from. Guess what, we don't live
in a theocracy. God's will has nothing to do with our
legal system. Or at least it shouldn't have anything
to do with it. -aspo
\_ ever read the Bill of Rights? Godgiven rights?
\_ The Bill of Rights says nothing about God. The
closest it comes is in the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion " -tom
\_ which means the whole idea of 'legal marriage'
is against the constitution anyway.
\_ uh, no. The legal definition of marriage
(that is, not turin's) involves the
definition of a family and the disbursment
of related benefits. There's nothing
religious about it. -tom
\_ did you ever happen to notice that not everyone
in this country is christian?
\_ what does being Christian have to do with
the Bill of Rights?
\_ What does being christian have to do
with tax laws, insurance policy, or
inheritance right? -scotsman
\_ nothing, what's your point?-turin
\_ sigh. see above re: knowing what
same sex marriage debate is about.
-scotsman
\_ mumble mumble separation of church and state
-geordan
\_ vote whatever you want, we are in a democracy but
I don't call people names - turin
\_ i'd rather people call me names than legally
require that i live under the rules of a god
that i don't believe in and disagree with. -lila
\_ "A prayer in a public school! God has no place within
these walls, just like facts have no place within organized
religion." - The Simpsons
\_ Listen, you have a large number of God-lovin' Americans out
there who will NOT accept "same-sex marriage". They will, however,
after much persuasion accept "same-sex domestic partnership"
as a separate category. The issue then becomes making the rights
of the partnership the same as the rights in marriage (make it
into another checkbox on the 1040). Then after 40 years of
old-fashioned people DYING people will merge the two categories
into one checkbox of "married" or one checkbox of "married or
same-sex domestic partnership".
\_ oh we are going to treat you like second class citezens for a
while but don't worry aobut it. See after you die it might
just happen that that will go away. What bullshit.
\_ Yeah, God-lovin' and old-fashioned Americans sure suck
don't they? Unfortunately, they are why there is no
same-sex marriage, and there are a hell of a lot of them.
\_ axiom 1. -tom
\_ This thread has failed the Turin test.
(Sorry, someone had to say it) -geordan
\_ "One nation, under God, indivisible"
\_ you're an idiot, tpc.
particularly since "under God" was added to the pledge
in the 1950s. -tom
\_ you and your facts. twink. - tpc
\_ "In God We Trust"
\_ That was added to the 2 cent coin in 1864,
and to all forms of cash in 1955. Try again
\_ "All Others Pay Cash"
\_ Interesting. I didnt know they read the motd in Italy, let
alone made a test on it.
\_ The t.u.r.i.n. <=> k.c.h.a.n.g. Theorem. - chucky
\_ I guess it's true than when you become conservative enough,
you start seeming liberal. If the majority of people want
same sex marriage to be recognized by the state, then it
will be. As I've said before on wall, I would exclude
marriage from any legal mention whatsoever as it is religion
based, and doesn't belong on the books. -ax
\_ the majority of people are too stupid to make an
intelligent decision about which brand of socks to buy,
let alone about complex and subtle issues like those
which get voted on in initiatives. -tom
\_ Hence Plato's opinion that democracy is the second worst
form of government (after tyranny). We need a philosopher
king. -- ilyas
\_ What is your postal address, I have a one way plane
ticket to mauritania for you. |
http://csua.com/feed/