Gay Prop 8 protestors attack Christian Cross.

[jonks]

Why, I once heard of some negra field hand hitting his massa when that massa came and dint give that black boy no breakfast. Can you understand the nerve of dat der negra? Hittin a white man? His good massa who feed and keep him safe from da wild world out dere? Them slaves is just violent beasts who need dem chains on dem, I tell you dat fo sho. Hmph, hittin a white man...and over some breakfast scraps? They all animals I tell you.


Corbett, I really think you need to look at your child, just stare into her eyes, think about how much you love her, and really seriously consider what you would want for her and what laws you'd like in place if it turns out she is gay. If Cheney's heart melts for his kid there's gotta be hope for you too.

 

[venkman]

Originally posted by: sportage
Hear about prop 8.5?
Due to the high divorce rate, straights will not be allowed to marry.
Oh, only gays can cast votes.

PS. Since WHEN is marriage connected to religion???
Marriage has to do with property rights between two.
Otherwise, there would be no such thing as marring
anywhere else than in a church in a religious ceremony.
Marriage = not religion. Just another BS connection fundies
try to shove down our throats.

It's funny you say that. I see it the complete opposite way but still agree with your overall position. I think marriage is entirely about religion and as in such, has no business being legislated by court, state, or country. Let the church decide for themselves if they want to allow gay marriage. If they decide no, the gay parishioners will just leave for a more open church.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
There needs to be a name for these kinds of thread. You know, where one side pretends to be outraged by the other side's conduct.

Isn't there already? They usually have the word "techs" next to them.

 

[SigArms08]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: SigArms08

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: Corbett
This is just sickening. Protesting is one thing, but stealing a lady's Cross and destroying it while spitting on and intimidating her is a whole different issue.

Video 1
Video 2

Link FAIL! Fixing...

Because a few protestors committing an act of vandalism, is equivalent to an entire state voting away a group's rights?

Round number, what percent of gay people commited this act?

What exactly is the percentage threshold for violent/overly aggressive behavior? One could skim through these forums to find similar incidents that forum members try and use to portray Republicans, Democrats, etc, in a bad light. Guess it just depends which side you choose to defend or demonize.

"....entire state voting away a group's rights" - sounds like a case of Democracy to me.

And furthermore "SigArms08," when do we get to vote to take your precious guns away?

I suppose when we crumple up and throw away the constitution. But by that point, a vote won't be necessary.

Did CA marriage laws use to include same sex partners? I'm a bit lost on the rights that were 'lost' or the freedom that was striped away. Granted, I'm not from Cali, so I may truly be missing something here.

 

[her209]

What exactly is the cross supposed to represent?

 

[venkman]

Jesus going Ack!

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ultra laser

Gays aren't tolerant. Like all humans, they just want power for their group.

How tolerant are they supposed to be when they're denied the same legal rights and privileges granted to other American citizens?

How tolerant would you be if it were your rights? :Q

Changing the definition of marriage to incorporate gays is not a right. A right would be something like freedom of speech or the ability for whites, blacks, gays, etc..... to be considered equally and not discriminated against.

Nobody except for certain radical religious folks want to opress the rights of gays; we simply don't want the definition of marriage changed and for the traditional and natural way of life to be disturbed.

No matter what you say, homosexual relationships are not normal and this is why I don't think that a heterosexual and homosexual union should be considered as one and the same. Let gay couples be together in civil unions and keep marriage as it is, has been, and should be.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Corbett
This is just sickening. Protesting is one thing, but stealing a lady's Cross and destroying it while spitting on and intimidating her is a whole different issue.

Video 1
Video 2

Link FAIL! Fixing...FIXED

Sadly, you Christians dumped your hate on gays and made them crazy. What you see in the rage of gays is what you created. It's why you gay hating Christians are nothing but shit. You make the whole world stink.

 

[Ns1]

Nobody except for certain radical religious folks want to opress the rights of gays

[/quote]


If nobody wanted to oppress the rights of gays then why don't they have the right to marry?


(btw, the answer to that is "because we oppressed the rights of gays")

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ultra laser

Gays aren't tolerant. Like all humans, they just want power for their group.

How tolerant are they supposed to be when they're denied the same legal rights and privileges granted to other American citizens?

How tolerant would you be if it were your rights? :Q

Changing the definition of marriage to incorporate gays is not a right. A right would be something like freedom of speech or the ability for whites, blacks, gays, etc..... to be considered equally and not discriminated against.

Nobody except for certain radical religious folks want to opress the rights of gays; we simply don't want the definition of marriage changed and for the traditional and natural way of life to be disturbed.

No matter what you say, homosexual relationships are not normal and this is why I don't think that a heterosexual and homosexual union should be considered as one and the same. Let gay couples be together in civil unions and keep marriage as it is, has been, and should be.

Just out of curiosity, would people be opposed to abolishing any mention of marriage on the state level, and just refer to all unions (straight or gay) as civil unions? Of course the civil unions would have all the legal rights that marriage had, but they would just be called civil unions. Marriage or any spiritual unions can be handled by the churches and wouldn't be explicitly recognized by the state.

Seems like a win-win to me.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
There needs to be a name for these kinds of thread. You know, where one side pretends to be outraged by the other side's conduct.

I'd call it a "corbett."

 

[nismotigerwvu]

Originally posted by: bamacre
"But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline." - MLK Jr. from "I Have a Dream"

+1

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ultra laser

Gays aren't tolerant. Like all humans, they just want power for their group.

How tolerant are they supposed to be when they're denied the same legal rights and privileges granted to other American citizens?

How tolerant would you be if it were your rights? :Q

Changing the definition of marriage to incorporate gays is not a right. A right would be something like freedom of speech or the ability for whites, blacks, gays, etc..... to be considered equally and not discriminated against.

Nobody except for certain radical religious folks want to opress the rights of gays; we simply don't want the definition of marriage changed and for the traditional and natural way of life to be disturbed.

No matter what you say, homosexual relationships are not normal and this is why I don't think that a heterosexual and homosexual union should be considered as one and the same. Let gay couples be together in civil unions and keep marriage as it is, has been, and should be.

Just out of curiosity, would people be opposed to abolishing any mention of marriage on the state level, and just refer to all unions (straight or gay) as civil unions? Of course the civil unions would have all the legal rights that marriage had, but they would just be called civil unions. Marriage or any spiritual unions can be handled by the churches and wouldn't be explicitly recognized by the state.

Seems like a win-win to me.

No. That would go against tradition. The state recognizes marriage.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: SigArms08

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: Corbett
This is just sickening. Protesting is one thing, but stealing a lady's Cross and destroying it while spitting on and intimidating her is a whole different issue.

Video 1
Video 2

Link FAIL! Fixing...

Because a few protestors committing an act of vandalism, is equivalent to an entire state voting away a group's rights?

Round number, what percent of gay people commited this act?

What exactly is the percentage threshold for violent/overly aggressive behavior? One could skim through these forums to find similar incidents that forum members try and use to portray Republicans, Democrats, etc, in a bad light. Guess it just depends which side you choose to defend or demonize.

"....entire state voting away a group's rights" - sounds like a case of Democracy to me.

Even if it is democracy, the point of the thread was not who was being the most democratic, it was who was being intolerant. Millions of people representing a sizable portion of the electorate voting to take away the rights of a minority group is obviously different than a few jerks spitting on a cross. The attempt to equate the two groups in levels of intolerance based upon this is dishonest.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Ns1

Nobody except for certain radical religious folks want to opress the rights of gays

If nobody wanted to oppress the rights of gays then why don't they have the right to marry?


(btw, the answer to that is "because we oppressed the rights of gays")[/quote]




There are always going to be different rights for groups that are different; males and females do not have the same rights in every instance.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman and thus intrinsically excludes gay couples. Homosexual couples may (in certain states) and should be able to enter into civil unions and live together, recognized by the government as a couple. That is the only right that is granted to anyone as a citizen, the right to be free and to be together with whom you choose. Marriage is not a right.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

There are always going to be different rights for groups that are different; males and females do not have the same rights in every instance.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman and thus intrinsically excludes gay couples. Homosexual couples may (in certain states) and should be able to enter into civil unions and live together, recognized by the government as a couple. That is the only right that is granted to anyone as a citizen, the right to be free and to be together with whom you choose. Marriage is not a right.

Marriage is in fact a right to all groups once you grant it to one. I suggest you read the US Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia and get back to us. The 14th amendment clearly states that all people have the right to equal protection under the law.

 

[Ns1]

Marriage was also supposed to be "til death do us part"

What happened to that?

 

[dlx22]

Originally posted by: Ns1
Marriage was also supposed to be "til death do us part"

What happened to that?

probably all the dead husbands and wives might have had something to do with it...lol

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Extelleron

There are always going to be different rights for groups that are different; males and females do not have the same rights in every instance.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman and thus intrinsically excludes gay couples. Homosexual couples may (in certain states) and should be able to enter into civil unions and live together, recognized by the government as a couple. That is the only right that is granted to anyone as a citizen, the right to be free and to be together with whom you choose. Marriage is not a right.

Marriage is in fact a right to all groups once you grant it to one. I suggest you read the US Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia and get back to us. The 14th amendment clearly states that all people have the right to equal protection under the law.

That references racial discrimination against marriage, and has nothing to with what I said.

The banning/discrimination against marriage (as defined as a recognized relationship between a man and a woman) by any racial group, ethnic group, religious group etc..... is absolutely against the constitution and is clearly wrong.

Homosexuals entering into marriage is another story. They want to change the meaning of marriage to be simply a relationship between two people and thus have the legal right to marriage. But if you accept marriage to be a relationship between a man and a woman, there is no legal right for gays to marry. Civil unions are another story.

 

[woodie1]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Infohawk
There needs to be a name for these kinds of thread. You know, where one side pretends to be outraged by the other side's conduct.

Isn't there already? They usually have the word "techs" next to them.

rotflmao

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

That references racial discrimination against marriage, and has nothing to with what I said.

The banning/discrimination against marriage (as defined as a recognized relationship between a man and a woman) by any racial group, ethnic group, religious group etc..... is absolutely against the constitution and is clearly wrong.

Homosexuals entering into marriage is another story. They want to change the meaning of marriage to be simply a relationship between two people and thus have the legal right to marriage. But if you accept marriage to be a relationship between a man and a woman, there is no legal right for gays to marry. Civil unions are another story.

It very much has to do with what you said. If you don't think that when the federal courts eventually overturn all the anti-gay measures that have passed in various states that they will cite Loving v. Virginia, you're terribly mistaken. (and they will eventually do this)

As for your 'separate but equal' bit about civil unions, save it. Separate but equal is never equal.

 

[misle]

Originally posted by: SigArms08

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: Corbett
This is just sickening. Protesting is one thing, but stealing a lady's Cross and destroying it while spitting on and intimidating her is a whole different issue.

Video 1
Video 2

Link FAIL! Fixing...

Because a few protestors committing an act of vandalism, is equivalent to an entire state voting away a group's rights?

Round number, what percent of gay people commited this act?

What exactly is the percentage threshold for violent/overly aggressive behavior? One could skim through these forums to find similar incidents that forum members try and use to portray Republicans, Democrats, etc, in a bad light. Guess it just depends which side you choose to defend or demonize.

"....entire state voting away a group's rights" - sounds like a case of Democracy to me.

Which is why the USA is a Republic, not a democracy. There is a very important difference there.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Extelleron

There are always going to be different rights for groups that are different; males and females do not have the same rights in every instance.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman and thus intrinsically excludes gay couples. Homosexual couples may (in certain states) and should be able to enter into civil unions and live together, recognized by the government as a couple. That is the only right that is granted to anyone as a citizen, the right to be free and to be together with whom you choose. Marriage is not a right.

Marriage is in fact a right to all groups once you grant it to one. I suggest you read the US Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia and get back to us. The 14th amendment clearly states that all people have the right to equal protection under the law.

That references racial discrimination against marriage, and has nothing to with what I said.

The banning/discrimination against marriage (as defined as a recognized relationship between a man and a woman) by any racial group, ethnic group, religious group etc..... is absolutely against the constitution and is clearly wrong.

Homosexuals entering into marriage is another story. They want to change the meaning of marriage to be simply a relationship between two people and thus have the legal right to marriage. But if you accept marriage to be a relationship between a man and a woman, there is no legal right for gays to marry. Civil unions are another story.

Your argument is nothing but 'discrimination based on people born with a certain race is bad, but discriminaiton against people born with a certain orientation is good'.

It shows that you are not too rational You are a creature of your time, your environment, unable to understand the principles. You are a follower, a sheep, of the current mores.

What you would need to do to defend your discrimination is to show why - why, completely missing from your post - two loving adults who were born gay are 'second class citizens'.

Why, more than 'tradition', marriage has to only be one man and one woman (just as those who wanted to limitmarriage by race had to justify that discrimination).

 

[manowar821]

Circa 1800 - "Did you see these *n-words*?! They charged in and burned this mans american flag, spat on it, and intimidated him. How intolerant!"

Are you guys really expecting a repressed minority to stay quiet and take the raping while laying down? Puh-leeze. To be honest, this attack was pretty damn stupid, tactically as it were. Oh, and the woman probably didn't deserve it. They should be going after politicians who supported this proposition, and their property.

 

[Jschmuck2]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Extelleron

There are always going to be different rights for groups that are different; males and females do not have the same rights in every instance.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman and thus intrinsically excludes gay couples. Homosexual couples may (in certain states) and should be able to enter into civil unions and live together, recognized by the government as a couple. That is the only right that is granted to anyone as a citizen, the right to be free and to be together with whom you choose. Marriage is not a right.

Marriage is in fact a right to all groups once you grant it to one. I suggest you read the US Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia and get back to us. The 14th amendment clearly states that all people have the right to equal protection under the law.

That references racial discrimination against marriage, and has nothing to with what I said.

The banning/discrimination against marriage (as defined as a recognized relationship between a man and a woman) by any racial group, ethnic group, religious group etc..... is absolutely against the constitution and is clearly wrong.

Homosexuals entering into marriage is another story. They want to change the meaning of marriage to be simply a relationship between two people and thus have the legal right to marriage. But if you accept marriage to be a relationship between a man and a woman, there is no legal right for gays to marry. Civil unions are another story.

Oh, so you're a quasi-educated bigot. That's cute.