Anyone else glad that prop 8 passed?

Marriage is counter intuitive to human biology actually.

Biology favours as much diversity in the gene pool as possible, marriage interferes with that.

Don't use biology to try and justify bigotry.

In california the voters overruled the supreme court and ammended the constitution to define marriage between one man and one woman. The homosexual community took to the street in protest. I don't see why homesexuals still claim that it is hateful to define marriage that way. If that is the case i guess biology is hateful for designing us that way. superheromonkey

Marriage is counter intuitive to human biology actually.

Biology favours as much diversity in the gene pool as possible, marriage interferes with that.

Don't use biology to try and justify bigotry.

Danm_999

that is the second worst argument i've ever heard. homosexuals can't even put their genes in the gene pool by natural means. It is irrelevant. Also, you completely overlooked the fact that i was not referring to what biology prefers, but what biology has already dictated, in the genetic makeup of gender.

I'm glad it passed.

I just can't inderstand why would any man fall in love with aother man.

Its disgustying.

As I've said before: No. I would go so far as to compare these state bans to the Jim Crow laws. Legalized bigotry.ThePlothole

As I've said before: No. I would go so far as to compare these state bans to the Jim Crow laws. Legalized bigotry.ThePlothole

It is not technically a ban, it is just giving marriage a specific definition. It troubles me that people would compare the atrocities that the african american community endured in American history to homosexuals not being allowed under the definition of the term "marriage". They still have freedom to do whatever they want.

that is the second worst argument i've ever heard. homosexuals can't even put their genes in the gene pool by natural means. It is irrelevant.superheromonkey

How is it irrelevent?

Your assuming reproduction between a man and a woman is what marriage is all about.

Also, you completely overlooked the fact that i was not referring to what biology prefers, but what biology has already dictated, in the genetic makeup of gender.

superheromonkey

Biology has also dictated examples in the animal kingdom of homosexuality.

[QUOTE="ThePlothole"]As I've said before: No. I would go so far as to compare these state bans to the Jim Crow laws. Legalized bigotry.superheromonkey

It is not technically a ban, it is just giving marriage a specific definition. It troubles me that people would compare the atrocities that the african american community endured in American history to homosexuals not being allowed under the definition of the term "marriage". They still have freedom to do whatever they want.

Very true

I just can't inderstand why would any man fall in love with aother man.

Crazy_Soviet

Father and son?

Brothers?

[QUOTE="ThePlothole"]As I've said before: No. I would go so far as to compare these state bans to the Jim Crow laws. Legalized bigotry.superheromonkey

It is not technically a ban, it is just giving marriage a specific definition. It troubles me that people would compare the atrocities that the african american community endured in American history to homosexuals not being allowed under the definition of the term "marriage". They still have freedom to do whatever they want.

So because a form of discrimination is less acute than a historic one, it doesn't need to be addressed?

I'm glad it passed.

I just can't understand why would any man fall in love with another man.

Its disgusting.

Crazy_Soviet

[QUOTE="superheromonkey"]

that is the second worst argument i've ever heard. homosexuals can't even put their genes in the gene pool by natural means. It is irrelevant.Danm_999

How is it irrelevent?

Your assuming reproduction between a man and a woman is what marriage is all about.

Also, you completely overlooked the fact that i was not referring to what biology prefers, but what biology has already dictated, in the genetic makeup of gender.

superheromonkey

Biology has also dictated examples in the animal kingdom of homosexuality.

Without repodution are spieces will have no future. I don't want the human race to die off just so we can satisfy less then 2% of the population.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="superheromonkey"]

that is the second worst argument i've ever heard. homosexuals can't even put their genes in the gene pool by natural means. It is irrelevant.Crazy_Soviet

How is it irrelevent?

Your assuming reproduction between a man and a woman is what marriage is all about.

Also, you completely overlooked the fact that i was not referring to what biology prefers, but what biology has already dictated, in the genetic makeup of gender.

superheromonkey

Biology has also dictated examples in the animal kingdom of homosexuality.

Without repodution are spieces will have no future. I don't want the human race to die off just so we can satisfy less then 2% of the population.

[QUOTE="Crazy_Soviet"]

I just can't inderstand why would any man fall in love with aother man.

Danm_999

Father and son?

Brothers?

[QUOTE="ThePlothole"]As I've said before: No. I would go so far as to compare these state bans to the Jim Crow laws. Legalized bigotry.superheromonkey

It is not technically a ban, it is just giving marriage a specific definition. It troubles me that people would compare the atrocities that the african american community endured in American history to homosexuals not being allowed under the definition of the term "marriage". They still have freedom to do whatever they want.

So because a form of discrimination is less acute than a historic one, it doesn't need to be addressed?

Are you dense? I'm talking romaticly.

[QUOTE="Crazy_Soviet"][QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="superheromonkey"]

that is the second worst argument i've ever heard. homosexuals can't even put their genes in the gene pool by natural means. It is irrelevant.cowboymonkey21

How is it irrelevent?

Your assuming reproduction between a man and a woman is what marriage is all about.

Also, you completely overlooked the fact that i was not referring to what biology prefers, but what biology has already dictated, in the genetic makeup of gender.

superheromonkey

Biology has also dictated examples in the animal kingdom of homosexuality.

Without repodution are spieces will have no future. I don't want the human race to die off just so we can satisfy less then 2% of the population.

That won't work for man will it now?

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="superheromonkey"]

that is the second worst argument i've ever heard. homosexuals can't even put their genes in the gene pool by natural means. It is irrelevant.Crazy_Soviet

How is it irrelevent?

Your assuming reproduction between a man and a woman is what marriage is all about.

Also, you completely overlooked the fact that i was not referring to what biology prefers, but what biology has already dictated, in the genetic makeup of gender.

superheromonkey

Biology has also dictated examples in the animal kingdom of homosexuality.

Without repodution are spieces will have no future. I don't want the human race to die off just so we can satisfy less then 2% of the population.

Did I miss the clause in Proposition 8 that banned heterosexual sex?

What a stupid argument.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="Crazy_Soviet"]

I just can't inderstand why would any man fall in love with aother man.

Crazy_Soviet

Father and son?

Brothers?

[QUOTE="ThePlothole"]As I've said before: No. I would go so far as to compare these state bans to the Jim Crow laws. Legalized bigotry.superheromonkey

It is not technically a ban, it is just giving marriage a specific definition. It troubles me that people would compare the atrocities that the african american community endured in American history to homosexuals not being allowed under the definition of the term "marriage". They still have freedom to do whatever they want.

So because a form of discrimination is less acute than a historic one, it doesn't need to be addressed?

Are you dense? I'm talking romaticly.

I was aware.

Yes, we don't need homos prancing around in front of our kids.Ultimate-Playa

Again, what does this bill have to do with that?

Do you think homosexuals are more likely to 'prance around kids' if their allowed to get married?

Do you think their less likely to if they can't?

Yes, we don't need homos prancing around in front of our kids.Ultimate-Playa

[QUOTE="superheromonkey"]

that is the second worst argument i've ever heard. homosexuals can't even put their genes in the gene pool by natural means. It is irrelevant.Danm_999

How is it irrelevent?

Your assuming reproduction between a man and a woman is what marriage is all about.

Also, you completely overlooked the fact that i was not referring to what biology prefers, but what biology has already dictated, in the genetic makeup of gender.

superheromonkey

Biology has also dictated examples in the animal kingdom of homosexuality.

What the animal kingdom does is not an indication of what biology has given us. Our anatomy as well as the way we are built does. Testosterone, estrogen, etc...

[QUOTE="ThePlothole"]As I've said before: No. I would go so far as to compare these state bans to the Jim Crow laws. Legalized bigotry.superheromonkey

It is not technically a ban, it is just giving marriage a specific definition. It troubles me that people would compare the atrocities that the african american endured in American history to homosexuals not being allowed under the definition of the term "marriage". They still have freedom to do whatever they want.

Except the freedom to marry, and to have all the legal privileges which come with it.

Plus laws are intended to protect people. This doesn't really protect anyone. If two people of the same sex wish to marry, if doesn't hurt anyone if they do.

[QUOTE="Ultimate-Playa"]Yes, we don't need homos prancing around in front of our kids.Danm_999

Again, what does this bill have to do with that?

Do you think homosexuals are more likely to 'prance around kids' if their allowed to get married?

Do you think their less likely to if they can't?

It would empower them and cause them to tell kids more often than not that they are of same sex and married.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="superheromonkey"]

that is the second worst argument i've ever heard. homosexuals can't even put their genes in the gene pool by natural means. It is irrelevant.superheromonkey

How is it irrelevent?

Your assuming reproduction between a man and a woman is what marriage is all about.

Also, you completely overlooked the fact that i was not referring to what biology prefers, but what biology has already dictated, in the genetic makeup of gender.

superheromonkey

Biology has also dictated examples in the animal kingdom of homosexuality.

What the animal kingdom does is not an indication of what biology has given us.

Yes, it is.

Our anatomy as well as the way we are built does. Testosterone, estrogen, etc...

superheromonkey

Which often tells men and women not to be monogamous. Testosterone increases libido.

I'm for civil unions just not marrage.

I'm afraid certain elaments in LBGT movenent might want the GOVT to force are churches to perform gay marrages. This would be a clear violation of sepedration of church and state.

Not at all. It bans civil unions as well, does it not?fkholmes

my understanding is that it ammends the constitution to defin marriage between one man and one woman. I may be wrong though.

Not at all. It bans civil unions as well, does it not?fkholmes

no prop 8 only banned gay marrage not civil unions

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

[QUOTE="Ultimate-Playa"]Yes, we don't need homos prancing around in front of our kids.Ultimate-Playa

Again, what does this bill have to do with that?

Do you think homosexuals are more likely to 'prance around kids' if their allowed to get married?

Do you think their less likely to if they can't?

It would empower them and cause them to tell kids more often than not that they are of same sex and married.

So what your suggesting here is that you've predicted the actions of an entire group.

That homosexuals don't want to get married because they love each other and wanted to be treated like everybody else, or that they want the legal benefits other couples get, but so they can tell children about it?

And I'm also guessing alongside this telling kids about a same sex couple messes them up in some way?

I'm for civil unions just not marrage.

I'm afraid certain elaments in LBGT movenent might want the GOVT to force are churches to perform gay marrages. This would be a clear violation of sepedration of church and state.

Crazy_Soviet

Slippery slope argument.

Just because people want the government to recognise marriages, doesn't mean they want the Churches to. Some might, but that's not the issue here.

[QUOTE="Ultimate-Playa"][QUOTE="Danm_999"]

[QUOTE="Ultimate-Playa"]Yes, we don't need homos prancing around in front of our kids.Danm_999

Again, what does this bill have to do with that?

Do you think homosexuals are more likely to 'prance around kids' if their allowed to get married?

Do you think their less likely to if they can't?

It would empower them and cause them to tell kids more often than not that they are of same sex and married.

So what your suggesting here is that you've predicted the actions of an entire group.

That homosexuals don't want to get married because they love each other and wanted to be treated like everybody else, or that they want the legal benefits other couples get, but so they can tell children about it?

And I'm also guessing alongside this telling kids about a same sex couple messes them up in some way?

Have you went to Folsom fair before? They prance around A LOT and ever since homosexuality was declassified as a mental illness they have been getting into everybody's faces.

[QUOTE="fkholmes"]Not at all. It bans civil unions as well, does it not?Crazy_Soviet

no prop 8 only banned gay marrage not civil unions

Oh, I think I read that info on Gamespot... I should probably do a bit more reasearch before I post something like that :P

EDIT: Jesus christ I am a moron, I just did it again. Let me reasearch for myself...Seriously, I just don't learn >_>

EDIT V2: Ok, so I must have been confusing it with something in Florida. There is something there which outlaws civil unions? Right?

[QUOTE="superheromonkey"]

[QUOTE="ThePlothole"]As I've said before: No. I would go so far as to compare these state bans to the Jim Crow laws. Legalized bigotry.ThePlothole

It is not technically a ban, it is just giving marriage a specific definition. It troubles me that people would compare the atrocities that the african american endured in American history to homosexuals not being allowed under the definition of the term "marriage". They still have freedom to do whatever they want.

Except the freedom to marry, and to have all the legal privileges which come with it.

Plus laws are intended to protect people. This doesn't really protect anyone. If two people of the same sex wish to marry, if doesn't hurt anyone if they do.

Freedom to marry? There is no "right" to marry. We are not talking about speech here. I would argue that laws do much more than just protect us anymore. That is a moot point to me. Most of the benefits of marriage can be achieved in other ways and the tax break argument is worthless. There isn't a huge advantage to being married. It is just a label that homosexuals want so they can feel legitimate and piss off the church at the the same time.

Yes, we don't need homos prancing around in front of our kids.Ultimate-Playa

Have you went to Folsom fair before? They prance around A LOT and ever since homosexuality was declassified as a mental illness they have been getting into everybody's faces.

Ultimate-Playa

Again, why is gay marriage likely to increase them getting in people's faces if their already doing it? What possible reasons could they have to increase the intensity of their presence if they were allowed to marry?

Why are the children an issue here? Are you worried they'll be turned gay or mentally scarred?

It is not technically a ban, it is just giving marriage a specific definition. It troubles me that people would compare the atrocities that the african american community endured in American history to homosexuals not being allowed under the definition of the term "marriage". They still have freedom to do whatever they want. superheromonkey

The reason that it is comparable is that, in both cases, it is fight for equality. Homosexuals not being able to marry is civil rights issue.

Until Homosexuals have the freedom do what ever other American can, including marriage, than, no, they do not have the freedom do whatever they want.

[QUOTE="Ultimate-Playa"]Yes, we don't need homos prancing around in front of our kids.Bourbons3

Then don't teach homesexulaity in schools as normal and buiatful thing. When its not.

There isn't a huge advantage to being married. It is just a label that homosexuals want so they can feel legitimate and piss off the church at the the same time.

superheromonkey

That's a huge assumption, especially since the Church wouldn't be performing these ceremonies.

And if its no big deal, why not just give it to them?

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="Ultimate-Playa"][QUOTE="Danm_999"]

[QUOTE="Ultimate-Playa"]Yes, we don't need homos prancing around in front of our kids.Ultimate-Playa

Again, what does this bill have to do with that?

Do you think homosexuals are more likely to 'prance around kids' if their allowed to get married?

Do you think their less likely to if they can't?

It would empower them and cause them to tell kids more often than not that they are of same sex and married.

So what your suggesting here is that you've predicted the actions of an entire group.

That homosexuals don't want to get married because they love each other and wanted to be treated like everybody else, or that they want the legal benefits other couples get, but so they can tell children about it?

And I'm also guessing alongside this telling kids about a same sex couple messes them up in some way?

Have you went to Folsom fair before? They prance around A LOT and ever since homosexuality was declassified as a mental illness they have been getting into everybody's faces.

[QUOTE="superheromonkey"]It is not technically a ban, it is just giving marriage a specific definition. It troubles me that people would compare the atrocities that the african american community endured in American history to homosexuals not being allowed under the definition of the term "marriage". They still have freedom to do whatever they want. Link256

The reason that it is comparable is that, in both cases, it is fight for equality. Homosexuals not being able to marry is civil rights issue.

Until Homosexuals have the freedom do what ever other American can, including marriage, than, no, they do not have the freedom do whatever they want.

Don't be gay then you can do whatever you want.

Please stop defending homosexuality, it is making me sick and wants me to throw up.

You've got some pretty severe issues then.Homosexuality is a mental illness, the Medicinal Association was threated by roving bands of homos to declassify it and make it "normal". When in reality, it is not.

Ultimate-Playa

Thank you for admitting bigotry was the motivation behind your beliefs.

[QUOTE="Link256"]

[QUOTE="superheromonkey"]It is not technically a ban, it is just giving marriage a specific definition. It troubles me that people would compare the atrocities that the african american community endured in American history to homosexuals not being allowed under the definition of the term "marriage". They still have freedom to do whatever they want. Crazy_Soviet

The reason that it is comparable is that, in both cases, it is fight for equality. Homosexuals not being able to marry is civil rights issue.

Until Homosexuals have the freedom do what ever other American can, including marriage, than, no, they do not have the freedom do whatever they want.

Don't be gay then you can do whatever you want.

[QUOTE="Bourbons3"][QUOTE="Ultimate-Playa"]Yes, we don't need homos prancing around in front of our kids.Crazy_Soviet

Then don't teach homesexulaity in schools as normal and buiatful thing. When its not.

Please find me a school curriculum with seeks to emphasis homosexuality as beautiful.

Seriously, a lot of you guys are very paranoid.

Homosexuality is a mental illness

Ultimate-Playa

Don't be gay then you can do whatever you want. Crazy_Soviet

Don't be gay then you can do whatever you want.

Crazy_Soviet

Freedom to marry? There is no "right" to marry. We are not talking about speech here. I would argue that laws do much more than just protect us anymore. That is a moot point to me. Most of the benefits of marriage can be achieved in other ways and the tax break argument is worthless. There isn't a huge advantage to being married. It is just a label that homosexuals want so they can feel legitimate and piss off the church at the the same time.

superheromonkey

Key word being "most".

You make it sound like gays are out to get church goers. That's utter nonsense. All they want is the same rights that are afforded a straight person. Those with conservative religious beliefs may not agree, but they don't have to. Just as they don't need to agree with those that don't believe in god, or have sex out of wedlock.