Schwarzenegger Vows Gay Marriage Bill Veto

[Green Gaia]

We cannot create laws based on morality.

We cannot create laws based on religion.

 

[jonny]

We cannot create laws based on religion.

That too.

 

[The Black Whirlwind]

Oh, stop whining. If the mob doesn't want to give you rights, thats how its going to be. GET OVER IT. This country is ruled by representatives that the majority elects, and if you don't like it, move to a different country.

 

[The Black Whirlwind]

Gay marriage isn't wrong by any means, people should have the right to marry anyone they choose, but that doesn't change the fact that the mob and our elected representatives dont want to give them that right. we are in a sad state of affairs these days...

 

[Flappycat]

Have you ever felt a deep and passionate love for someone, Theodore? Have you ever wanted to swear in the eyes of God that you will love and cherish that person forever? I've felt it, and it hurts me that you don't feel I should have that right. It wounds me. Please, just tell me that you don't mean it when you say that you find the relationship I have with the person I love most in the world "repugnant". I'll leave you alone if you just take that back, and I won't ask for anything else.

 

[Flappycat]

Oh, stop whining. If the mob doesn't want to give you rights, thats how its going to be. GET OVER IT. This country is ruled by representatives that the majority elects, and if you don't like it, move to a different country.

How many people said this to MLK Jr. and others like him?

 

[Ryan2065]

I'd still like to hear the homosexuals opinion on this suggestion. Do you feel this is fair?

I am not a homosexual but i must say that this is not fair. Right now there are two different kinds of marriages that you can get. 1 is through your church, and the other is through the government (but when you get the one through the church you also get it through the government.) What is so wrong about doing this the same way right now. Two homosexuals would be able to be married but their marriage would not be recognized by whatever religions dont recognize that sort of thing. To say that we should make up a whole new system of marriage and what not just to keep the bigots happy is not the way to go. Plus, if you take government out of religion, then gays can get married (in a church) as well as get this "union" thing. So it changes nothing. Just give homosexuals the same rights that heterosexuals get and be done with it.

 

[Green Gaia]

Oh, stop whining. If the mob doesn't want to give you rights, thats how its going to be. GET OVER IT. This country is ruled by representatives that the majority elects, and if you don't like it, move to a different country.

Is that what you would have said to African-Americans in the last century? And to the women who wanted the right to vote? The majority was not behind either of these groups of people and their struggles for equal treatment under the law, neither were thier elected representatives. Should they have just given up and got over it?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

To be fair to Theodore, I don't think the following two statements are equivalent:

1) "Homosexual relationships are morally wrong."

2) "I hate homosexuals."

As an example, consider the following two statements, which I would also argue are not equivalent:

1) "Rejecting the divinity of Christ is morally wrong."

2) "I hate Jews."

 

[jonny]

I am not a homosexual but i must say that this is not fair. Right now there are two different kinds of marriages that you can get. 1 is through your church, and the other is through the government (but when you get the one through the church you also get it through the government.) What is so wrong about doing this the same way right now. Two homosexuals would be able to be married but their marriage would not be recognized by whatever religions dont recognize that sort of thing. To say that we should make up a whole new system of marriage and what not just to keep the bigots happy is not the way to go. Plus, if you take government out of religion, then gays can get married (in a church) as well as get this "union" thing. So it changes nothing. Just give homosexuals the same rights that heterosexuals get and be done with it.

The only difference really is the name, and I think that that would be enough difference to move enough people to the other side so that people could get their rights. It's all psychological...

 

[The Black Whirlwind]

no, because they were fighting for something that mattered. They deserved rights, because the only difference is their skin, or their gender. "Do not judge people by the color of their skin, but by the content of their charachter!" i believe MLK said. I'm astounded that you would equate a trivial struggle for marriage, to the same level that these poor people had to endure. African-Americans had pretty much no rights, they were hated and despised, and women were considered 2nd class citizens. Homosexuals are treated exactly the same except for marriage rights.

 

[Ryan2065]

The only difference really is the name, and I think that that would be enough difference to move enough people to the other side so that people could get their rights. It's all psychological...

Right but it won't fly. For one what would the new agreement be for the two people in this "union" and how would this differ from marriage? If religions got to pick who was able to get married, could two 12 year olds get married? Or would the state still be in it? Where would the people who are currently married fit in, would they be able to stay "married" or would they be switched to this new union thing, and if they were switched, seeing as they made a contract, would they be allowed to get out of this contract? How would businesses have to view these "unions" and how would businesses view "marriage" would they be able to just say "I only give benefits to Catholic marriages, not unions" or would they have to give the spouse rights in all marriages and unions, just unions, or none at all. There are way too many holes in what you want to propose to make it feasable by any means. Its a nice thought, but I think the only way to go about this is to make marriage legal for everyone, as it has always been, and allow churches the right to not marry someone, as it has always been.

 

[Flappycat]

To be fair to Theodore, I don't think the following two statements are equivalent:

1) "Homosexual relationships are morally wrong."

2) "I hate homosexuals."

As an example, consider the following two statements, which I would also argue are not equivalent:

1) "Rejecting the divinity of Christ is morally wrong."

2) "I hate Jews."

How about "I will not support something as morally repugnant as allowing Jews to practice their Christ-hating religion around our children, and I will never support allowing them to build their Synagogues in this country. If they don't like this, they can take themselves and their anti-Christian cult to a country that welcomes their immorality"? What does that sing to you?

 

[jamaesi]

Surely you have something besides your religious opinion to back them up?

Maize, I think this is why homosexual marriage won't work- since Theodore won't back it up.

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.
3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.
10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.

Er. Well. Hm.

Oh, stop whining. If the mob doesn't want to give you rights, thats how its going to be. GET OVER IT. This country is ruled by representatives that the majority elects, and if you don't like it, move to a different country.

Women and blacks didnt deserve rights either because the majourity is ALWAYS right.

no, because they were fighting for something that mattered. They deserved rights, because the only difference is their skin, or their gender. "Do not judge people by the color of their skin, but by the content of their charachter!" i believe MLK said. I'm astounded that you would equate a trivial struggle for marriage, to the same level that these poor people had to endure. African-Americans had pretty much no rights, they were hated and despised, and women were considered 2nd class citizens. Homosexuals are treated exactly the same except for marriage rights.

Sexual orientation doesn't matter?

Discrimination is discrimination.

 

[Jaymes]

no, because they were fighting for something that mattered.

You're kidding, right?

Right?

 

[Ryan2065]

Homosexuals are treated exactly the same except for marriage rights.

Ok, lets just assume that this statement is true (which it isnt, but lets assume that)

So then no homosexual couple can ever have spouse rights. So if the homosexual wants to be a stay at home mom/dad they will have a harder time doing this. Right now companies insurance usually protects a spouse so that one of them can be stay at home and not have to worry about insurance. Why are homosexuals not allowed this right?

Now, lets see what you wrote here...

no, because they were fighting for something that mattered. They deserved rights, because the only difference is their skin, or their gender.

Only difference between them was skin color and gender? Hrm, isn't that what is happening with the homosexual debate? Isn't the only difference here gender?

"Do not judge people by the color of their skin, but by the content of their charachter!" i believe MLK said.

You might agree with MLK's statement there but you do not believe in his message that all people should have the same rights.

I'm astounded that you would equate a trivial struggle for marriage, to the same level that these poor people had to endure. African-Americans had pretty much no rights, they were hated and despised, and women were considered 2nd class citizens. Homosexuals are treated exactly the same except for marriage rights.

Ok, lets assume for one that you mean they are treated exactly the same legally as anyone else, because that is actually the only way that statement makes any sense. To say that someone is the same as another, except for one little thing... Well that means they aren't the same as another person. To give a homosexual all the same rights as a heterosexual but deny them even one right that a heterosexual gets is the same thing as saying "You don't deserve all the rights of heterosexuals." A right is a right. Homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals... Can you give one good reason that homosexuals shouldn't have marriage rights?

 

[jamaesi]

Can you give one good reason that homosexuals shouldn't have marriage rights?

We've been waiting for one... for years. I don't think one will magicly pop up in this thread.

 

[Green Gaia]

no, because they were fighting for something that mattered. They deserved rights, because the only difference is their skin, or their gender. "Do not judge people by the color of their skin, but by the content of their charachter!" i believe MLK said. I'm astounded that you would equate a trivial struggle for marriage, to the same level that these poor people had to endure. African-Americans had pretty much no rights, they were hated and despised, and women were considered 2nd class citizens. Homosexuals are treated exactly the same except for marriage rights.

Keith Boykin said it best: "True, the civil rights movement is not the same as the gay rights movement. Blacks are not the same as gays. And racism is not the same as homophobia. But that's not the point. No two groups suffer discrimination exactly the same way. Anti-Semitism, for example, differs from sexism, both of which differ from racism. But we don't require Jews and women to prove their similarity to the black struggle in order to be protected by the law.

In the end, it matters not which group is most oppressed, which was first oppressed, or whether they are identically oppressed. What matters is that no group of people should be oppressed."

 

[Theodore]

Does anyone here suggest enacting laws that directly lessen the quality of your life?

I have quite a bit of criticism for anyone who chooses to do something that causes me harm, whether it blackens my eye or helps to take away my birthright to freedom and equality in the eyes of the law.

Do you feel that it's moral to do things that cause harm to innocent people? Do you need scientific proof to know that it is immoral for you to do so? …It's an opinion that compels you to cause me harm.

What a drama queen you are Flappy. Sit down and have a beer.

I will not take it, and I will not leave it. I will not be satisfied until you promise to support my right to have equal standing to yourself in the eyes of the law, and I will not take rhetorical hat tricks as a substitute.

Don’t hold your breath.

You guys love to brand anybody who disagrees with your lifestyle as a hateful, homophobic bigot. That way you can demonize anybody who gets in the way of your agenda.

If you were so confident with the way you lived your lives, all that would be unnecessary. But you’re not so you accuse others of being hateful and worse.

I don’t hate any of you, but I’m starting to feel sorry for you. You’re all so scared and angry. Is that what it means to be gay?

 

[Mike182]

How about "I will not support something as morally repugnant as allowing Jews to practice their Christ-hating religion around our children, and I will never support allowing them to build their Synagogues in this country. If they don't like this, they can take themselves and their anti-Christian cult to a country that welcomes their immorality"? What does that sing to you?

then i would say it is you who is living an "anti-christ lifestyle" by going against the very thing jesus tought - love for our fellow brothers and sisters

im assuming this is a hypothetical discussion though

C_P