Gays can't marry in Cali or whatever.

[genocide roach]

I can't believe these people in California can't accept the decision on this Prop 8. Voting is how we do things in America. They don't have to agree. They don't have to stop proposing changes. But they should accept the democratic process. I am not happy that Obama will be president, but I am not going to block the entrance to some City Hall until the mayor apologizes to me for voting for Obama.

sorry, but the same things happened to black people and women. the public didnt want them to have rights. but sometimes the courts have the obligation to say, sorry, youre wrong. our country is built around the constitution first, democracy second.
~gR~

 

[AchrisK]

Obama being elected isn't denying you equal rights with other Americans.

It's the democratic process.

 

[Omni]

That still doesn't mean it's unreasonable for them to protest it. I guarantee that you'd also be upset if laws were passed that denied you rights to things other people take for granted. The example you used in comparison was a poor one.

 

[AchrisK]

sorry, but the same things happened to black people and women. the public didnt want them to have rights. but sometimes the courts have the obligation to say, sorry, youre wrong. our country is built around the constitution first, democracy second.
~gR~

Whatever. If something changes in a legal way, then it should be accepted. But for the time being, it has been decided.

And Gays are not blacks or women. They have the same rights. Marriage is a man and a woman. Gays can do something else.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Obama being elected isn't denying you equal rights with other Americans.

That's irrelevant to the protest Ack is referring to, which is in fact pretty fucking stupid. A vote is a vote. It's up to the courts to overturn the decision at this point.

 

[Omni]

Straight people have the right to marry partners who match their sexual orientation. Gay people do not. You're wrong if you claim they have equal rights. The original definition of marriage did not imply specific genders.

 

[AchrisK]

That still doesn't mean it's unreasonable for them to protest it. I guarantee that you'd also be upset if laws were passed that denied you rights to things other people take for granted. The example you used in comparison was a poor one.

Of course they can protest. But they should be blocking City Hall entrances. The comparison is only in the process, not the subject matter. We don't all agree, but we decide things in certain ways.

 

[Omni]

That's irrelevant to the protest Ack is referring to, which is in fact pretty fucking stupid. A vote is a vote. It's up to the courts to overturn the decision at this point.

I was more talking about his poor example of comparing Obama being elected to gay marriages being banned than anything else, which is why it's the only thing I talked about in the post you just quoted.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

And Gays are not blacks or women. They have the same rights. Marriage is a man and a woman. Gays can do something else.

Ah excuse me but we've already gone over how a heterosexual definition of marriage constitutes unequal rights. Stop compartmentalising your belief in equal rights to think that it doesn't apply to gays, plzkthx

 

[genocide roach]

Whatever. If something changes in a legal way, then it should be accepted. But for the time being, it has been decided.

And Gays are not blacks or women. They have the same rights. Marriage is a man and a woman. Gays can do something else.

actually, the court already decided it was legal. this prop was a weak attempt to remove the rights homos already have.

gays shouldnt have to do something else.
~gR~

 

[AchrisK]

Straight people have the right to marry partners who match their sexual orientation. Gay people do not. You're wrong if you claim they have equal rights. The original definition of marriage did not imply specific genders.

Can you point me to the original definition of marriage?

 

[genocide roach]

the US is a country based on laws, not religion.

so there are two constitutional rights christians dont get...
~gR~

 

[AchrisK]

actually, the court already decided it was legal. this prop was a weak attempt to remove the rights homos already have.

gays shouldnt have to do something else.
~gR~

Why was it allowed on the ballot?

 

[AchrisK]

the US is a country based on laws, not religion.

so there are two constitutional rights christians dont get...
~gR~

What?

 

[Omni]

Can you point me to the original definition of marriage?

Go back a few thousand years and observe the documented fact that most major societies accepted homosexual couples as normal and respectable, and that only in the last several hundred years has it become something that is segregated and looked down upon, mostly due to Christianity and its influence on the development of the modern world. Marriage has existed much, much longer than Christianity and its closed views on homosexuality.

 

[genocide roach]

Why was it allowed on the ballot?

no idea

What?

you're trying to get us to say the original definition is between a man and woman, something found IN THE BIBLE. not the constitution. our country bases its laws off the constitution, not a fairy tale.

and btw, the constitution also says that religion has no place in law or politics. that's something the church has a hard time with. according to the church, the only laws that should apply are the laws in the bible. luckily/unfortunately that isn't the case in this country. we cannot base laws on religion, our constitution says so, and the only argument for banning gay marriage is a religious one.
~gR~

 

[zabu of nΩd]

and btw, the constitution also says that religion has no place in law or politics. that's something the church has a hard time with. according to the church, the only laws that should apply are the laws in the bible. luckily/unfortunately that isn't the case in this country. we cannot base laws on religion, our constitution says so, and the only argument for banning gay marriage is a religious one.
~gR~

What part of the Constitution are you referring to? If it's the First Amendment, I don't think that actually has any bearing on what states do.

 

[AchrisK]

Go back a few thousand years and observe the documented fact that most major societies accepted homosexual couples as normal and respectable, and that only in the last several hundred years has it become something that is segregated and looked down upon, mostly due to Christianity and its influence on the development of the modern world. Marriage has existed much, much longer than Christianity and its closed views on homosexuality.

Right, because Christianity is only about 2000 years old. But Christianity comes from Judaism, which is much older.

I understand homosexuality has been around for all of recorded history, and has been accepted to varying degrees by different societies. But was marriage ever defined as anything other than a man and a woman?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

It doesn't fucking matter what the original definition of marriage was. The point is that giving only heterosexuals the legal benefits of marriage is unjust.

 

[Omni]

Marriage has also been around for longer than Judaism.

But was marriage ever defined as anything other than a man and a woman?

Yes, during the age of the Roman Empire and most likely earlier, and there are ancient writings that mention it specifically. I'd be willing to wager that it existed in other societies that also accepted homosexuality, since there's no evidence that it didn't and logic dictates that something accepted as normal would not be restricted in the way it is now that it isn't considered normal.