|
Whole country goes forwards and California goes backwards... (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| gehzumteufel |
| While you are making valid points, this also isn't the early 1900s anymore either. |
|
|
| tubularbills |
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
While you are making valid points, this also isn't the early 1900s anymore either. |
i made a point? :wtf: i was just asking questions.... |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by tubularbills
i made a point? :wtf: i was just asking questions.... |
You did. By asking the questions. |
|
|
| diesel_tron3000 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jake Benson
Omg ur soooooo right. those whiney fags. Their equal rights can't ever be dealt with or argued for until we solve the economy, immigration issue, two world wars, hunger in Africa, get universal healthcare, redistribute the wealth to everyone worldwide, and find a cure to AIDS and cancer first. :rolleyes: Gay people will just have to wait forever I mean for now until every other issue is solved. |
hah! well yeah CLEARLY africa should be on the top of that list but it's not so i don't sleep well at night
seriously if the gay community wanted to make progress on the this front, the referendum should have originally been about allowing gay peeps who get 'married' or 'enter a civil union', whatever the terminology is, to be entitled to the same benefits (and they are...tax and spousal employment health care benefits?) that married men and women are entitled to.
in the end this referendum failed not because people are homophobic, and many are which sucks, but because of the semantics of the referendum. is it really that big of a deal if the civil or religious union of two men or two women is called a 'marriage' if they end up getting the same benefits as a unionized or married man and woman?
am i being too objective here?:conf: :conf: :conf: :conf: |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by diesel_tron3000
hah! well yeah CLEARLY africa should be on the top of that list but it's not so i don't sleep well at night
seriously if the gay community wanted to make progress on the this front, the referendum should have originally been about allowing gay peeps who get 'married' or 'enter a civil union', whatever the terminology is, to be entitled to the same benefits (and they are...tax and spousal employment health care benefits?) that married men and women are entitled to.
in the end this referendum failed not because people are homophobic, and many are which sucks, but because of the semantics of the referendum. is it really that big of a deal if the civil or religious union of two men or two women is called a 'marriage' if they end up getting the same benefits as a unionized or married man and woman?
am i being too objective here?:conf: :conf: :conf: :conf: |
Does "Separate but equal" come to mind? |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
| quote: | Originally posted by diesel_tron3000
seriously if the gay community wanted to make progress on the this front, the referendum should have originally been about allowing gay peeps who get 'married' or 'enter a civil union', whatever the terminology is, to be entitled to the same benefits (and they are...tax and spousal employment health care benefits?) that married men and women are entitled to.
in the end this referendum failed not because people are homophobic, and many are which sucks, but because of the semantics of the referendum. is it really that big of a deal if the civil or religious union of two men or two women is called a 'marriage' if they end up getting the same benefits as a unionized or married man and woman?
|
No gay people just wanted equal rights and have been fighting years and millions of dollars for it in the state of California.
In the end gay marriage failed because of the bigoted religious people who regularly attended church voted it down, not because of semantics. I think it's a big deal if gay people can't get married and have it called marriage. If you want to separate gays from the rest, why not separate other marriages into niggah marriage, beaner marriage, ling-ling marriage, and crippled marriage too? We should all differentiate between different kinds of marriages so we can classify people better. |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jake Benson
No gay people just wanted equal rights and have been fighting years and millions of dollars for it in the state of California.
In the end gay marriage failed because of the bigoted religious people who regularly attended church voted it down, not because of semantics. I think it's a big deal if gay people can't get married and have it called marriage. If you want to separate gays from the rest, why not separate other marriages into niggah marriage, beaner marriage, ling-ling marriage, and crippled marriage too? We should all differentiate between different kinds of marriages so we can classify people better. |
A friend of mine put it best to these people who are against calling it marriage.
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
Does "Separate but equal" come to mind? |
|
|
|
| Jake Benson |
| ^ I know, i just wanted to rub it in further and be an obnoxious flaming homosexual |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jake Benson
^ I know, i just wanted to rub it in further and be an obnoxious flaming homosexual |
ALRIGHT FAG STOP BEING ALL IN YOUR FACE ABOUT IT!!!!!! :p
(this is a joke and you should know what it references!) |
|
|
| tubularbills |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jake Benson
No gay people just wanted equal rights and have been fighting years and millions of dollars for it in the state of California.
In the end gay marriage failed because of the bigoted religious people who regularly attended church voted it down, not because of semantics. I think it's a big deal if gay people can't get married and have it called marriage. If you want to separate gays from the rest, why not separate other marriages into niggah marriage, beaner marriage, ling-ling marriage, and crippled marriage too? We should all differentiate between different kinds of marriages so we can classify people better. |
:toocool: |
|
|
| josh rising |
mr. bills, you have an awesome point. i can't really remember any other minority groups in the U.S. with so little rights to begin with then get further rights taken AWAY from them as soon as they achieve a tiny bit more. this would have been huge, california is obviously the most populous & important state and it could have set an awesome precedent for the rest of the U.S., but now we're just left with massachusetts & connecticut. it's pathetic.
the gay community is the final frontier in the U.S. as far as equal/civil rights go.
:( |
|
|
| TranceArmstrong |
| quote: | Originally posted by bas
ps
Obama also opposed Prop 8. |
LOL
I think that gay people should be allowed to do whatever they want just like straight people, I still have yet to see any evidence of any real harm that gay marriage does (outside of pro-prop 8 ads anyways).
It's kind of funny though that even with the celebrity support and what not that this passed. I'm shocked. |
|
|
|
|
