So Gay Marriage Is Illegal In California Again

  • Welcome to "The New" Wrestling Smarks Forum!

    I see that you are not currently registered on our forum. It only takes a second, and you can even login with your Facebook! If you would like to register now, pease click here: Register

    Once registered please introduce yourself in our introduction thread which can be found here: Introduction Board


Quintastic One

Active Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Messages
1,485
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
36
Location
In my beard
I don't know all the details on it, but basically there was this Proposition 8 that was passed in a recent California election that was designed to make gay marriage illegal in California, just after it became legal a few years ago. And it passed with 52% voter approval.


Now what I don't get it, why can't the people of California make up their fucking minds? One election they decide that it's time to stop this obvious form of discrimination and make it legal for gay couples to wed. Now, they're back to believing that marriage is between a man and a woman and that gays shouldn't be able to marry.

I don't know how someone can look at the issue and declare that any oppression of any individuals rights under any grounds, is acceptable. You don't even need to call it marriage if it's that big of a deal, just let them have civil unions so that they can have the same benefits that married couples do.

What pisses me off the most as a christian myself is that there is nothing in the original biblical texts. NOTHING...that declares anything wrong about being homosexual. What you read in the current mistranslated documents are quotes taken out of context by men who had an agenda hundreds of years ago and they twisted the original Greek & Arabic texts to replace mentioning of "sexual deviants" or "perverts of the flesh" and decided to make an anti-gay agenda out of it.

Forget about the fact that the Bible itself in it's current form is misinterpreted, forget about the fact that there should be a separation of church & state for a reason in the first place. This is discrimination at it's most basic level. And yet people want to shield their eyes and plug their ears to the logic of it all...for what reason?

That's what currently is being debated in the California courts system right now. Gay rights activists are saying that civil unions can only be considered unconstitutional if opponents can prove that allowing gay rights to marry adversely affects heterosexual couples and impedes on their ability to marry and have children. Opponents of gay marriage are now trying to say that the institution of marriage was built solely for the sake of child birth, and thus homosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to marry due to not being able to have children. And of course the old argument of "Babies are happier when raised by heterosexual couples".

Now I realize that it's moronic that yet again this issue is being brought before the courts and being settled through money & lawsuits rather than letting the voters have their way. But since they keep on changing their minds every 2 years anyway it's of my opinion that Californians obviously don't know what the fuck they want anyway.
 

Kizza

Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Messages
866
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Age
31
Just let them do what they want to do.
 

Italian Outsider

Active Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
1,649
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
37
Location
Italy
Good job. With all the problems you have, abolishing gay marriages was definitely a priority.
:lmao
 

Mike Chaos

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
698
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Age
36
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Good job. With all the problems you have, abolishing gay marriages was definitely a priority.
:lmao

Very true.

But then again Obama felt the need to let the oil spill into the gulf for about 40 days before really doing much about it. Golf is definitely more of a priority.
 

Axis

Active Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
1,149
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
35
As far as I know, gay marriage was only legal in San Francisco. Prop 8 was used to pass the state law, thereby trumping the city law. This is an interesting case for. On the one hand, banning gay marriage is stupid. On the other hand, gay marriage does not strike me as a "natural" right, given it's economic and social implications. Something like free speech, free expression, etc. would be. Therefore, I see no reason why the judicial system should trump the voter's choice. It was put up to a vote, and with a lot of hype going into it, the proposition passed. I'm not convinced that a bench of scholars should quash the popular opinion in this specific case, but I'm open to arguments that it should.
 
Joined
Dec 23, 2008
Messages
1,407
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
42
God California sucks ass.

When the end of the world happens, I'm going to raise an army, march to california, and burn it the fuck down.

Just let the faigs do what they want. Just don't force churches to have to marry them if they don't want to.
 

Kizza

Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Messages
866
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Age
31
As far as I know, gay marriage was only legal in San Francisco. Prop 8 was used to pass the state law, thereby trumping the city law. This is an interesting case for. On the one hand, banning gay marriage is stupid. On the other hand, gay marriage does not strike me as a "natural" right, given it's economic and social implications. Something like free speech, free expression, etc. would be. Therefore, I see no reason why the judicial system should trump the voter's choice. It was put up to a vote, and with a lot of hype going into it, the proposition passed. I'm not convinced that a bench of scholars should quash the popular opinion in this specific case, but I'm open to arguments that it should.

But the thing is, if two people want to get married, who are we to say they're not allowed? If we still need to live in a theocratic based society with the church telling us everything, then something is wrong. Aren't we meant to be democratic countries?
 

Quintastic One

Active Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Messages
1,485
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
36
Location
In my beard
I agree with Axis that this shouldn't be an issue that is overwritten in the courts. Because that's how all issues are handled nowadays, and it's expensive to the State and annoying as fuck. Every time something significant gets approved at the State or Federal level there's always some smurfs with big wallets crying about how it's not constitutional and taking it to the Supreme Court to be overturned. Well if the proposed proposition was unconstitutional in the first place why did you allow it to be on the ballot to be passed for voter approval in the first place you stupid mother fuckers?!

Sorry, but I'm still kind of pissed over the whole thing. I may not be gay, but most of my good friends are LGBT and I feel for them.
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
2,923
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
41
Location
Badstreet, USA
I don't give two flying fucks what others think and who believe democracies entitle people to do what they want, fuck that shit. Religion aside, gay marriage is just wrong. It's a slap in the face of human dignity and the nature of procreation, not to mention it's one of the biggest fucking holes rotting away in the American society. It goes all the way to fucking up an entire generation of children with gender confusion and desensitizes them to the perils of homosexuality. Fags, queers, useless husks of humans, whatever you want to call them, are the biggest attention seekers in the country. You want doo doo on your cock, fine, keep it to yourself and your community. There is no need to tear down the walls of the sanctity of marriage, as us heteros have already done a fine job at that, and human dignity just because fags feel the need to be "equal". Well guess what, when one of the fags or queers grows a set of fallopian tubes or ovaries and is able to birth a child in a natural way, then maybe there will be legitimate arguments to them being equals in marriage. Unnatural acts are unnatural acts and the celebration of said acts are HUGE contributions to the deterioration of this country. Fuck that, fuck the sympathizers who try and defend these immoral acts with bullshit "well, they have constitutional rights and can do what they want to do" blanket defenses. Fuck that. They should feel fortunate that they've been given the freedom to buttfuck without lawful prosecution, because, again, religion aside, this insults my intelligence and grasp of human nature and dignity.
 

Quintastic One

Active Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Messages
1,485
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
36
Location
In my beard
Without blowing up against you for your opinions, I respectfully disagree with you. If you say we've already done a fine job of tearing down the sanctity of marriage on our own, then there is no sanctity for you to be defending in the first place. That would be like saying "Well, we've already blown up this building as much as it could be blown up. But it's still far too holy ground for those infidels over there to be stepping on". It doesn't make any sense, and also has connotations of not just opposition of equality, but actually considering another form of life some how inferior to even our most degrading forms of life. In that context, that's far more insulting that you could ever be at the idea of someone having sex with someone of the same gender.

Love is love, and everyone should have a right to celebrate that love without a fear of persecution or in your case, extremist hate.
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
2,923
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
41
Location
Badstreet, USA
Knoxy, you're the man. It sounds like extremist hate, but it's more of extreme disgust and the celebration of such unnatural acts go beyond my palates of decency. I'm of the school of thought that marriage is sanctified by the fact that it's purpose is to shelter the creation of a family, naturally. Gays can be gay and share their love with eachother, but why must they "marry"? True, I made a moot point, but at one point in these broken marriages, children are brought into the world. In a gay marriage, which undoubtedly will have the horrible success rate of regular marriages, perhaps worse, and nothing in the progress of creation of a natural family will be fostered. So the basic sanctity of marriage is defeated as soon as the deed is done. What's the point? It's unnecessary, somewhat narcissistic in the view that they feel the need to besmirch the majority of decent (what you view as decent is up to you, and as someone who claims to be christian, I'd imagine you have know where I'm coming from, not calling out your beliefs or creed mind you) society and the rest of the race that have been taught for millenia that marriage is the union between man and woman in hopes that their love bears children. Adoption and gender confusion doesn't constitute a proper marriage in my views and I will never be comfortable with the idea or the fact that society could tolerate such indecency and I strongly believe that such unnecessary atrocities are major contributions to what I feel is a deteriorating society. But that's my personal views and perhaps I was too strong with them in that first post. Thank you for being quite civil, that is indeed refreshing and perhaps something I should have demonstrated in my initial post.
 

Hometown Kid

Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
955
Reaction score
1
Points
18
Age
32
Location
Columbia, Tennessee
I will say this. In addition to the things Enzo said, which I agree with, i've always found the "love is love" argument to be utterly ridiculous. In that case, we should consider beastiality, necrophilia, and incest okay as well. Just on the bottom line of it. Not to mention, this "equality" bill business seems to be a soulless money/benefits grab than anything. As well as to say someone is born gay, or bisexual, or anything as an excuse, is too laughable to even comment on. (Just in case that gets brought up.) But anyway, the legality, again, as Enzo said, is pretty much pointless in the gays pursuit of "equality", since it doesn't change much besides them wanting some extra benefits. And since they cannot hold a true family is extremely selfish on their end. And as Enzo said, just be happy their group is the apple of this media, and entire country's eye.

One thing I agree with KB on is on their part, I don't understand why the officials changed their mind. That's just stupid whether I agree with it or not.
 

Quintastic One

Active Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Messages
1,485
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
36
Location
In my beard
Well like I mentioned, we don't need to call it marriage. If the whole religious connotations of it all really resist the idea of calling it marriage, you could always just call it a civil union and be done with it.

My problem or position doesn't really have anything to do with child adoption, in my opinion those kids are already screwed from the get go with having all sorts of daddy/mommy issues and that's a whole other debate.

I agree that we should not be forced to allow gays & homosexuals to make US celebrate their love, such as forcing churches to conduct the marriages or throwing around lawsuits when someone disagrees with them just because they can't stand the idea of someone having a differing opinion. My problem was and is just the sheer prevention of any social status or financial support just because they are of a certain religion, sex, race or age.

That's why I respectfully disagreed with your opinion. I wanted to give you a chance to express your opinion, even if it could be offensive, as Serious Discussion encourages all kinds of differing opinions. I take pride in my ability to maintain that balance. *thumbs up*