Comments:California's same-sex marriage ban ruled unconstitutional; appeal expected
|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|No point in voting||13||20:57, 12 November 2010|
|The US finally begins to crawl out of the third world||32||03:48, 7 September 2010|
|Comments from feedback form - "1. Why do people insist on get..."||1||06:28, 6 August 2010|
This is yet another reason why there is no point in voting in the corrupt Socialist "Republic" of California. They trample on our Second Amendment rights, they enforce the tyrannical eminent domain law, and now a gay dictator judge completely ignores a law enacted by the voters. This is an example of tyranny by the minority and why there is no point in voting in California because the voters never have any say.
People voted for Hitler. Was he right?
Before anyone mentions Godwin's Law, I actually think that is a valid analogy—the persecution of homosexuals that is so rife in the modern world is comparable to the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany. In Uganda, Nigeria, et al, homosexuals can be killed for no reason other than being homosexual, and the "civilised" world does nothing about it; laws such as this one appear to actively condone the actions of such fundamentalist states.
I agree. Even if the analogy fell flat, the point about voting is my favoured argument against uninformed democracy (as opposed to real democracy).
Based on the IP's "gay dictator judge" conspiracy, I can only assume xe is fond of Jeff "Commander" Schoep. Incidentally, he didn't ignore the law. If the judge ignored it, it would still be in place. He paid it a lot of attention; in fact, he even issued a ruling that it's officially a crock of shite.
That gay judge is yet another example of why America is turning into a fascist state where the government oppresses the common man and gays force their perversions on innocent people.
- A political regime, having totalitarian aspirations, ideologically based on a relationship between business and the centralized government, business-and-government control of the market place, repression of criticism or opposition, a leader cult and exalting the state and/or religion above individual rights. Originally only applied (usually capitalized) to Benito Mussolini's Italy.
- By vague analogy, any system of strong autocracy or oligarchy usually to the extent of bending and breaking the law, race-baiting and violence against largely unarmed populations.
Yeah, sounds a lot like a state where gay people can get married . . . you know, one where they have the same rights as everyone else?
Proposition 8 does not persecute gays. Gays still have the same rights as heterosexuals: they can legally marry a member of the opposite sex.
But they can't marry the person they love. Ignorant comments like yours are unhelpful, and do nothing to further the discussion.
You are the one who is ignorant. Marrying a member of the same sex is disgusting and runs against the definition of marriage.
What is so disgusting about being with the person you love in the privacy of your own home? The disgusting thing is that society won't accept homosexuality and allow them to have the same rights as straight people—namely, the right to marry whoever they like. Homosexuality does nothing to harm you: They won't do anything "disgusting" in front of you, just as a straight couple wouldn't. The most you will ever witness is a bit of kissing, and the revocation of the right to marry won't stop that.
Ah, now you show your true colours. Disgusting it may be to you, but that does not and should not make it illegal.
For your arguments of gays forcing their sexual preferences upon others to be true, then the judge would have issued a ruling that same-sex sexual assaults were no longer offences. You don't enjoy fucking another guy? Simple solution: Stop doing it.
Frist of all Facism and Socialism are two diffrent thing despite what LORD BECK says. And if anyone is Facist it's Pat Robertson and his Radical Right
You cannot let the people vote on a law that will constrict liberties and rights for other people. It IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND WRONG. That's why the Judge struck it down, it's his job to interpret the Constitution. In early America Federalists were worried about this happening, the mob mentality (democratically voting on everything) isn't always right, you have to have a system to protect EVERYONE's rights, even the minorities.
Congratulations, America, on finally doing what the rest of the Western World did years ago! The land of the not-so-free and the home of the bravely ignorant may still have a long way to go, but at least California is no longer in the same boat as most of Africa and the Middle East (see map, right). Maybe one day the United States will finally embrace is supposedly secular founding principles, stop listening to the religious fanatics, and let people get on with their own lives without interference from the near-fascist Big Brother state. Maybe one day the United States—a nation that supposedly values liberty—will stop persecuting people for factors beyond their own control. Maybe one day gay people will have the same rights as black people and Jews, and people will stop pretending that persecuting one group of people is different from persecuting another.
I always find your frankly delusional comments quite sad. You can't boldly assert such laughable falsehoods as the U.S. being a Third World country without having some form of brain disease, never-mind that the whole thing is some sort of attempted guilt-by-association against opponents of gay marriage.
The guilt comes not in the association, but in the fact that opponents of gay marriage are attempting to prevent two people who love each other from doing the same things of two other people who love each other for no reason other than the way they were born.
The "Third World" metaphor was just that: A metaphor. The United States clearly has a First World economy, but its civil liberties are on a par with those of some Third World countries, as the map illustrates.
On a related note, please do not accuse me of being "delusional", "sad", or "brain diseased" in future—issues can be debated without resorting to personal attacks.
Your underlying purpose was to impugn the laws and policies of the United States by associating them with Third World countries and "religious fanatics." This is a textbook example of guilt by association. The First World / Third World distinction has always been one of economics and political stability, so there you're just attempting to back-pedal and redefine terms. Considering the wide heterogeneity of countries with Third World economies, it's hard to derive anything helpful from your "metaphor."
Actually, the Third World was initially used to describe any states that were not allied with either the USA ("First World") or the USSR ("Third World") during the Cold War. Therefore, culture is—in this original definition—also important, even if not so much as economy. The United States does bear some similarities to Third World countries, even though it is, itself, the benchmark by which the First World is defined. The metaphor implies that the United States has advanced less than the countries historically considered to be part of the Third World, putting its civil liberties on a par with theirs.
I concede the point about etymology. I shouldn't have said the "distinction has always been" such and such, but still, the primary, current use of the term is purely economic. Whether or not there is some peripheral similarity between a U.S. policy and some policy of some Third World country remains a matter of indifference and your usage was still not clearly metaphorical.
1. Why do people insist on getting married 2. If people are going to get married, it should be available as an option for everyone to ruin there life with... 3. Anyone who compares same-sex marriage to marrying an animal or polygamy is ill-informed
Marriage is a specific form of civil contract and should not have a seperate set of laws. This would avoid the whole debate about what is or is not a marriage as each couple (triplet or whatever) would define the conditions of marriage seperately.