«Home

Proposition 8: Civil Rights Issue?

I have no problems with those who wish to indulge in a different sexual lifestyle

I have no problems with homosexuals fighting for equal rights accorded to heterosexual couples.

But i have a problem when homosexuals forget the rules of democracy and instead choose to force their sexual orientation on others. To say that i have no right to use the ballot to reject the redefinition of marriage to suit a narrow and selfish agenda is to be ignorant and intolerant.

I have a problem when homosexuals try to tell us that gay rights are similar to civil rights. It is an insult to every black man on earth. To say that fighting for pecuniary benefits as a result of a lifestyle that only 20yrs ago was considered a "disorder" in psychiatric textbooks is akin to fighting for the right to be regarded as a human is incomprehensible.

Homosexuals were never slaves, sexual orientation can be hidden . . . skin color cannot. Until you have been hosed down by police, refused voting rights, the right to ride on the same bus, been forced to work on cotton farms and barred from schools . . . homosexuals have no right to define their "struggle" as a civil rights movement.

Gay relationships depend on the society and heterosexual unions to survive. Why do they feel they MUST co-opt the term "marriage" by force? Is democracy no longer the wish of the majority?

The idea that the courts can be used to deny the will of the people by the stroke of a pen is frightening. It is a slippery slope that can only get worse. If indeed homosexuals argue a right to recognised, will they also agree that cousins can now marry each other and polygamous relationships should now become legal?

Many gay rights activists have a lot of apologies to make to Warren Jeffs.

Avatar
Newbie
57 answers

I hear gays are forcing eHarmony.com to include gay service. Slowly these folks are eroding our own rights to faith.

0
Avatar
Newbie

link=topic=196068.msg3105585#msg3105585 date=1227041091]

it's not an argument of semantics, this is similar to state marijuana laws that can be overrun by federal law. please get that right.      they do lose rights if they are not married and there is no civil union in place. why can't married be redefined?  how does it affect the mormon church?

[quote][/quote]

You are arguing with emotions and not facts trying to reprimand what is no t there. You say[b] they do lose rights if there is no civil union in place. [/b] What does not mean? All couples do not have the same rights if they cannot show a legal contract of partnership, gay or straight. If you have no civil union or marriage, there is no legal union.

You say that is similar to state marijuana laws that be overrun by federal laws. Federal laws cannot automatically overrun State laws. Otherwise, it would be a waste of time pushing for gay marriage. No Federal law recognizes gay marriage nor civil unions. It is a matter for the Federal Courts to decide. When there is a clash, it goes to the courts. This issue will get there eventually. Till, then the state's law is as good as God Almighty.

It is a matter of semantics foremost because they already had the same rights as heterosexuals in California. Look, Obama and Biden are for giving civil unions the same rights as marriage rights on the Federal level.  The Mormon Church as far as I know is not opposed to them getting the same rights as married couples. They are opposed to the change in the definition of marriage.

I personally don't care about that issue one way or the other but the Church and its members think its important. Social changes do affect the way people think. They have a right to defend their beliefs silly as it may be.

But as long the President-elect believes marriage is only between a man and a woman the odds of them changing these attitudes any time soon is improbable. Therefore isn't their energy better served seeking equality for civil unions and marriage on the Federal level instead of fighting the gay marriage fight.

And that's why it's about semantics. It's about the word marriage. It's about having the right to say marriage as everyone else and not to feel like second class citizens. And I can understand that.

The gays already had equal rights. Nobody asked the California govt. to take it away.  They wanted marriage and the Church rallied against it. Lobbying the Federal govt. to give them equal rights is less of a hot button topic. It would be more successful than trying to change the definition of marriage.[quote author=bawomolo

0
Avatar
Newbie

it's not an argument of semantics, this is similar to state marijuana laws that can be overun by federal law. please get that right. they do lose rights if they are not married and there is no civil union in place. why can't married be redefined? how does it affect the mormon church?

0
Avatar
Newbie

What do you mean by it doesn't matter? It matters because it tells you it's an argument of semantics.

They have lost no rights by gay marriage being disbanded because civil unions and marriages are the same in California.

The Mormon Church isn't against that. The Mormon church doesn't care about that. All they care about is the definition of marriage.

Being married or not; they lost no rights. It's why Elton John could not understand what they are fighting for. They are fighting for a redefinition of marriage to include a man and a man or a woman and a woman. That is what the Mormon Church objects to and why it contributed to Prop. 8.

0
Avatar
Newbie

that doesn't matter considering the current gay marriages have been repealed. the supreme court would be forced to step in soon

0
Avatar
Newbie

Actually, that's not true. There are no legal rights taken away from civil unions versus marriages in the State of California. It is the Federal Government that discriminates between marriage and civil unions.

When they say Prop. 8 has taken away their rights, they don't mean California rights but United States rights because at the Federal level, civil unions and marriages are not granted the same rights.

They should be fighting Obama and his govt. to give civil unions and marriages the same legal rights.

But they are not which makes it obvious that's not what's bugging them. It is obvious that what galls them is the word civil union. They want the word marriage. Civil union makes them feel inferior. It's the social recognition they want, thus a redefinition of marriage as not between a man and woman only. That's what it's all about. It's not about rights because in Cali, they've already got it.

Changing the definition of marriage won't work. They should argue for the equal legal rights for civil unions and marriages on the Federal level.

0
Avatar
Newbie

It’s funny for some folks to argue that sexual behavior is not a voluntary action. Sexual behavior is a non reflex action, so as such should not be equated with BEING black. It’s still a CHOICE to have sex or not. Equality of marriage should apply to all types of marriage. I wonder if this issue could have received a different reaction if it were Hispanics fighting for comprehensive immigration policy

0
Avatar
Newbie

no they actually don't. the current benefits for civil unions aren't the same as that of marriage

0
Avatar
Newbie

yup, homos already have state benefits. they need to take their fight to congress and stop burdening cali taxpayers with their bitchinng

0
Avatar
Newbie

they have the benefits already. the battle is about forcing society to redefine the term "marriage" so they can fit in too.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Homos cannot force benefits out of the state.  That's like me forcing the state to grant me handicapped parking when it's obvious I'm not a handicap.

They can't whine their way like stubborn children to getting what they want.

0
Avatar
Newbie

the last i checked, equality is about having the same access to opportunity as others.  of course those freaking homos don't deserve the benefits we get.

when were you discriminated for being straight? please can you give examples or are you talking out of your Bottom.

discrimination is discrimination. where create an heirachy of discrimination just to make yourself feel better. like oh we blacks have suffered the most.

so you had to choose between men and women. does that mean you like women too but you settled for men? so how do hermaphrodites get to choose by the way.

0
Avatar
Newbie

who exactly is stopping them from fighting for equality. did i have any problems with homosexuality?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Gay rights do not equal civil rights. You choose your sexuality. Society permits it, you show it. Society frowns at it, you are in the closet.

This cannot be equated to being black, asian or hispanic and I think blacks who think otherwise need to be asked where they place a black gay person?

I don't see straight people going around fighting for "straight" rights, or "i'm being discriminated at because I'm straight" yet it happens,

0
Avatar
Newbie

that is the sole reason we have this ridiculous fight on our hands. Its not about "equality" at all.

I also have to quote something H2O2 said earlier:

This is just the unfortunate truth.

0
Avatar
Newbie

and that's the issue isnt it? They want to force us to redefine marriage so they can fit in. When are polygamists going to start their own agitation for "equality"?

0
Avatar
Newbie

If this is truly a fight about the state of California giving same sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, domestic partnership would have solved that problem.  One reason gays are so obsessed with the "marriage" word is because of the benefits attached to it at the federal level.

Then it makes sense to ask the question: Shouldn't gays be fighting the federal government instead of the state government?  The answer is yes.  But why won't they fight it?  Because they can't win.  LOL!

The term "right" isn't even the best qualifier to use in this scenario. Marriage is a privilege granted by this great state. Privileges can be taken away or only provided for a certain sect of our populace; it's always been that way. I don't know or see why we have to succumb to these whiners.

0
Avatar
Newbie

For those who know nothing about the DOMA act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

0
Avatar
Newbie

maybe because they are not attracted to members of the opposite sex. now who is FORCING their opinions on who?

why support prop 8 then

but but high rates of divorce is affecting this "sacred" institution. i wonder how sacred it is considering i can get married in a las vegas chapel!!!!!!

0
Avatar
Newbie

What's the point of getting married if you don't want to unite with someone of the opposite sex?

0
Avatar
Newbie

what's the point of being gay if you get married to the opposite sex. what's so hard about giving them marriage rights. why not end divorce if the institution is so sacred

0
Avatar
Newbie

Everyone deserves protection.  Are gays not protected under the law?

Is there a law that says gays can't vote, or gay votes only count as 0.6? The law doesn't prevent a gay man from getting married to a beautiful woman.

0
Avatar
Newbie

i don't think mlk was fighting for native american land rights. so only "races" deserve protection

0
Avatar
Newbie

A lot of people dont' like handicapped parking, but they respect it because the state gives handicaps that benefit of having closer lots. And if a lot of gays don't like marriage, that's fine, but why won't they respect it?

0
Avatar
Newbie

A lot of people don't' like handicapped parking, but they respect it because the state gives handicaps that benefit of having closer lots. And if a lot of gays don't like marriage, that's fine, but why won't they respect it?  They don't have to change it. They should create their own system.

0
Avatar
Newbie

because gay people are fighting for THEIR rights? why must they fight for all consenting adults. that's like saying why aren't black people fighting for native americans. where are you going with this

0
Avatar
Newbie

Normal is sticking a joystick in a womanliness where it belongs. Not in a shitter. [But that's another aspect of it, and I will not let my opinions destabilize the arguments being made here about marriage].

To continue answering your question about why I'm led to think it's an agenda. I asked, why aren't they fighting for "all consenting adults" instead of equality for "gay people"?

0
Avatar
Newbie

how do you know of this agenda and what's abnormal about them

0
Avatar
Newbie

Civil rights is about tolerance for our society's diversity.  It's not about calling apples oranges.

If two people in a union want the same rights that two married people have, let them have it.  But I don't think that's what gay people are after.  They are after normalcy and don't want to be distinguished, and they believe that society will accept them even more if "marriage" is added to their repertoire of words.

It's shameful to equate the gay struggle to the African American struggle. Two men and two men butt-bleeping themselves are not a race of people fighting to be recognized as human beings.

0
Avatar
Newbie

oh i see so civil rights only applies to people of color. interesting.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Now, some people will always try to justify their way of life by classifying themselves as "minorities", as if being a minority automatically rights their preference.

Suppose a  new group of consenting adults want to marry themselves.  Up to 100 of them, all married to one another.  If gay marriage is legalized, what's stopping their union from being recognized as marriage? Should they be allowed to do what they want because they're a minority?  Wouldn't it be discriminatory and a violation of the constitution not to let them?

That brings me to my next point.  If gays are truly fighting for a "just cause", or "equality for all" as they call it.  Why aren't they trying to extend marriage rights to these groups too (polygamous groups, marriage between sibblings, etc) instead of selfishly for "gay marriage" alone?

Those of us who respect the natural establishment and history of marriage do not want these defects categorized as marriage.  Marriage is between a man and a woman.  If they like, let them create a new term and call it "civil unions" - it can be between all consenting adults if they so choose.  At least it will not create too much of a raucous, or draw as much disapproval from the legal community.  Gays want to be seen as the same as straights, but we all know that they are NOT.

Individual practices or personal agenda do not necessarily have to be forced into the teeth of the law, especially when they have no beneficial significance.

0
Avatar
Newbie

marriage was once define as marriage soley between a man and a woman of the same race. people had similar views about interracial marriage decades ago but hey who cares about the gays

0
Avatar
Newbie

People that believe marriage is a union between man and a woman are not bigoted. I think you can even make the argument that gays are the ones trying to force others to accept their union as 'marriage'. If I call a square a circle I would not be a bigot; it is just an incorrect statement.

0
Avatar
Newbie

bigots because what really scares you about prop 8. really other than the "gays are taking over" excuse.

0
Avatar
Newbie

So, why do you think those in support of proposition 8 are bigots? What makes us bigots.

0
Avatar
Newbie

the church is separate from state. that is not an issue at all. the church has special privileges. i really why an homosexual would want to get married in a church though. maybe the united church of christ would allow such marriages.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Should they be allowed to "marry" in the Church if they want to?

0
Avatar
Newbie

of course we shouldn't considering that the church is separate from state according to the American constitution. am talking about the state granting them the right to marry. i don't care whether the church wants homo priests. lol@ you using the word sect.

0
Avatar
Newbie

This issue again!

Even if you disagree with the process, don't argue blindly that it is unconstitutional.  If you had done more research on the matter--as you claim others haven't-- you will not make the statement you did.  California's constitution can be amended by initiative. When a number of signatures from voters in the state have been collected, the initiative can be placed on the ballot for the masses to vote on, as long as it is not in conflict with the federal constitution, or the state's. State Constitution does not restrict rights guaranteed under the U.S. constitution.

0
Avatar
Newbie

do you mean the argument over admitting in gay clergy. i really don't see what does that has to do with gay marriage.  that's like me claiming women are trying to force their views on men just because some people want female priests in the catholic church. that's a separate issue on its own. 

you shouldn't agree with discrimination just because you don't agree with homosexuality

simple question, have you ever felt a sexual or emotional attraction to a woman?

so when did you realize u like guys. where you over 20 when you made the choice?

0
Avatar
Newbie

bawolomo have you heard about the gay drama in the anglican church globally?

0
Avatar
Newbie

funny enough there has been a case of black detective who infiltrated the kkk for two years. your assertion is absurd considering homosexuals prefer to get married in city hall.

what's wrong with separate but equal during the segregation era? basically an half Bottom attempt at correcting what is wrong.  unmarried couples have been stopped from adopting kids in arizona and florida. this was obviously targeting gay couples.  you now see why civil unions aren't the same as marriage?

why not put a ban on divorce if the institution of marriage is sacred?

correction, the official mormon church has abandoned polygamy. it's the renegade groups that still continue the practice.  i have no problem with polygamy by the way. adults have a right to choose their marital patterns. your argument seems to be that the minority should be at the mercy of the majority when it comes to civil liberties.

0
Avatar
Newbie

If I decide today to become a lesbian.  Have I not picked a sexuality?

Does that make me less of a lesbian than someone who came out age 13?

Please don't give me that nonsense about the gay gene or people knowing they were Gay from age 3!

You make a choice!

Not the same as being born black or white

0
Avatar
Newbie

so when did you pick your sexuality. did you have to make a choice between carpet munching and sucking d**k. pardon my vocab

0
Avatar
Newbie

To answer your question, I think the term marriage should coordinate with the fundamental rights of human beings in the state of California. If more research had actually went into this proposition, and more red flags were arisen, this would have never been presented on a statewide ballot, especially when there are those who insist on misleading the public.

0
Avatar
Newbie

No no no Blackspade

Davids point is very valid!

If you allow them to marry soon they will demand they want to marry in the church.  Which is madness.  Its like a black person trying to join the KKK.

Whats wrong with civil union?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Smart people take one step at a time.

I have 2 questions for you:

1. Do you still believe in democracy?

2. Should the term "marriage" be ammended to cover gay couples or expunged completely?

Neither do i see nothing wrong with them wanting to get together . . . i see a lot wrong with forcing the state to regard you as "married". The institution of marriage is sacred.

0
Avatar
Newbie

In case you didn't know, gay marriage was legal here for over a year, but with the passing of prop 8, it has now ended. During this time, I haven't noticed anyone taking 'larger steps' or anything having to do with that. This sudden resistance from gays and lesbians just now started with the passage of prop 8.

Again, I see nothing wrong with them wanting to marry --- it's not my position to judge or decide what others should want to do.

0
Avatar
Newbie

if i could, i would vote to ban same sex "marriage". They can have civil unions but we cant suddenly re-invent an institution that has survived for 6000 yrs to suit the feelings of a minority.

I cant wait for the Mormons to come out asking for their own polygamy rights too.

0
Avatar
Newbie

So David if you had to vote what would you do?

0
Avatar
Newbie
Your answer
Add image

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.