Prop 8 Passed!... Now Get Over It You Losers!

[5-0SAT]

Protesters and liberal activist groups are now all of a sudden crying foul. Taking to the streets and trying to make a name for themselves in the so called main stream media. BO garnered a lot of African American turnout in California and openly opposed Prop 8, and AA's voted 70% in favor of Prop 8. oops? In 2000, same damn result in California. Now it's written in the state constitution. Oh, I'm sure the opponents will garner enough signatures for the next ballot initiative to reverse the decision. In the mean time, realize that making marriage between on man and one woman has been on the ballot in over 30 states and has passed in each and every time. You had your chance and you blew it, so stop bitching you losers!

:grandmais

 

[rroudi]

agreed, it got voted and and it lost. I dont understand what the problem is and why people cant accept. I also think marriage should be between a man and a women. I am not biast against gay people and have no problem with gay people but when I think marriage and how kids should view things growing up, a marriage is between a man and a women.

 

[5-0SAT]

I got over BO winning. You don't see McCain supporters protesting on the streets do you?

 

[RobFunk]

A marriage is a financial contract between two consenting people. Nothing more, nothing less.

It lost, serving as a loss for individual freedoms. What else is new.

 

[5-0SAT]

A marriage is a financial contract between two consenting people. Nothing more, nothing less.

It lost, serving as a loss for individual freedoms. What else is new.

Oh you can't say that with a straight face can you. So over 30 states have absolutely no idea what they are talking about and are just looking to eliminate individual freedoms. Please. The people have spoken not just in California, but around the country. Case Closed!

 

[RobFunk]

Oh you can't say that with a straight face can you. So over 30 states have absolutely no idea what they are talking about and are just looking to eliminate individual freedoms. Please. The people have spoken not just in California, but around the country. Case Closed!

You seem really happy, maybe excited or something about this. I have no idea why.

I could care less who fills out paperwork to be a married couple. It just isnt that big of a deal to me.

Me personally will probably never get married, because I think it is rather dumb to need a piece of paper stating "this is my best friend".

However; I am not too fond of individual freedoms being removed. It goes against my liberal beliefs.

 

[5-0SAT]

You seem really happy, maybe excited or something about this. I have no idea why.

I could care less who fills out paperwork to be a married couple. It just isnt that big of a deal to me.

Me personally will probably never get married, because I think it is rather dumb to need a piece of paper stating "this is my best friend".

However; I am not too fond of individual freedoms being removed. It goes against my liberal beliefs.

Not happy or excited, actually the opposite. I'm frustrated and bewildered why they (opponents and activist groups) can't just get over the fact that their side lost. Why do they have to go rioting on the streets and blaming religion every turn they get. Do a better job organizing your campaign efforts next time.

 

[guitarjosh]

A marriage is a financial contract between two consenting people. Nothing more, nothing less.

It lost, serving as a loss for individual freedoms. What else is new.

Yeah, people dream of the day they can fall in love and enter into a financial contract.

 

[RobFunk]

Yeah, people dream of the day they can fall in love and enter into a financial contract.

I see your point. And for sure, that is a beautiful thing. But the actual paperwork involved making one another "officially married" is nothing more than an agreement and it's got nothing to do with love.

I think the ceremony, exchanging of vows and sentimental jewelry is nice, very romantic and sweet thing to do with one you love.

But the application for obtaining a marriage license really entails nothing intimate other than you are now contractually bound to one another.

 

[geeze]

Why aren't homosexuals satisfied with a gender-blind legal entity like an IRS approved partnership or a sub-S corporation with only two stockholders?

This would give them all the civil and legal financial benefits that marriage affords, without diluting, demeaning and denigrating the sacrament of marriage, which is a validation of the union of one man and one woman in every religion on earth.

 

[roadreeler57]

Gay Marriage is part of the whole big pictureto destroy the country

<TABLE class=tborder cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><THEAD><TR><TD class=tcat colSpan=0> Today's News on the Gay Agenda</TD></TR></THEAD><TBODY id=collapseobj_module_22><TR><TD class=alt2>

Last Update: November 9, 2008 @ 9:22 pm EDT
Modern Day Nazis: Gays Threaten Churches over Prop 8
Couple pursue same-sex marriage rights
AZ Gay-marriage ban OK'd
CA Protect Marriage -Yes on 8 WINS
FL: Approves (Constitutional) ban on gay marriage
Man pleads guilty to oral sex with teens
What's wrong with being gay?
Teacher outrage over money to homosexual agenda
CA Parents not aware of school's 'Coming Out Day'
Gay NYPD Lt. accused of sexual harrassment; he claims 'jock itch'
Jay Leno supports same-sex marriage
How Same-Sex Marriage Affects Us All
Parents outraged over Transgender Teacher
Bill Ayers Endorsed Radical Pro-Homo Education Book
CT: Ruling Overturns Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Decision to teach kids to be 'gay' allowed to stand
Special Rights: Gay Highschool Proposed in Chicago
Church Chat: "Spritual" Journey of Sex Change
Florida Transgender Bathroom on 2009 Ballot
Sign the Petition to Protect & Preserve the Military
Sign the Petition to Oppose CA's Homosexual Marriage </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
http://fightpc.net

 

[kingbill]

Why aren't homosexuals satisfied with a gender-blind legal entity like an IRS approved partnership or a sub-S corporation with only two stockholders?

This would give them all the civil and legal financial benefits that marriage affords, without diluting, demeaning and denigrating the sacrament of marriage, which is a validation of the union of one man and one woman in every religion on earth.

Religions preform a lot of the ceremonies but it's the government that makes it legal.

 

[eek.]

It looks increasingly like people are happy to differentiate between a gender bender civil union and a marriage, perhaps since a marriage, a real one, can result in children.

So gays get legal and financial parity, but in the ultimate game, that of the survival of the species, they're useless second class citizens.

 

[guitarjosh]

It looks increasingly like people are happy to differentiate between a gender bender civil union and a marriage, perhaps since a marriage, a real one, can result in children.

So gays get legal and financial parity, but in the ultimate game, that of the survival of the species, they're useless second class citizens.

Not because of the laws of man, but because of the laws of nature.

 

[eek.]

Not because of the laws of man, but because of the laws of nature.

lol
The laws of nature are the only ones that really matter.
:grandmais

 

[TurfMonster]

5-0 sat, agree the law is the law and it's time to move on. Just like Roe v. Wade is the law, time for conservatives to get over something that has been law for 35 years!! TM

 

[RobFunk]

Religions preform a lot of the ceremonies but it's the government that makes it legal.

Somebody in the thread is not getting that point, but I won't name any names. :howdy:

 

[5-0SAT]

Geez, when will "Stop the H8" post-election hooligans give it a rest. The people have spoken. Get over yourselves.

 

[quantumleap]

It looks increasingly like people are happy to differentiate between a gender bender civil union and a marriage, perhaps since a marriage, a real one, can result in children.

So gays get legal and financial parity, but in the ultimate game, that of the survival of the species, they're useless second class citizens.

I contend that they perform some useful purpose. If they didn't, evolution would have weeded out the gay gene by now.

I don't really care if gays marry or not. What bothers me though is that people say they are being deprived of their individual rights. Well not everyone has the right to just anything. Are child molestors going to say they are being deprived of their right to marry a child?

Just because someone doesn't have the right to do something doesn't mean they are being deprived of their rights. Felons can't own guns yet gun ownership is in the constitution. In other words, rights aren't absolute.

 

[fletchisrhsm]

I contend that they perform some useful purpose. If they didn't, evolution would have weeded out the gay gene by now.

I don't really care if gays marry or not. What bothers me though is that people say they are being deprived of their individual rights. Well not everyone has the right to just anything. Are child molestors going to say they are being deprived of their right to marry a child?

Just because someone doesn't have the right to do something doesn't mean they are being deprived of their rights. Felons can't own guns yet gun ownership is in the constitution. In other words, rights aren't absolute.

While your last sentence are words to live by...in reality what you compared gay marriage to is two criminals, and being gay obviously (religious beliefs aside) isnt criminal.