Moderateman Moderateman

The Terminator will veto gay marriage bill.

▼

The Terminator will veto gay marriage bill.

Finally Arnold flexes his muscles.

from JoeUser Forums
Reported today, the governer of California, is listening to the WILL OF THE PEOPLE and will veto the bill allowing gay marriage .

California will not become the first state to be forced to recognize gay marriage from other states or countries either.

Good for you arnold, the will of the people must rule.

At no time should 4% of the people MAKE the other 96% accept anything.

Over six million voted to ban gay marriage five years ago, proposition 22 was overturned by one liberal activist judge, legislating from the bench.

One judge slapped 6 million voters right in the face by calling prop. 22 Unconstitutional.
10,880 views 44 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
"That is so ridiculous. Do you ever listen to yourself."


It's only ridiculous if you believe that two people of the same sex can be "married". That's not some universal objective truth no matter how much you paint it to be so.

If I went to get a drivers license and insisted on riding a bicycle for the test, they would refuse. Discrimination? Nope. If a polygamist tried to get the other 5 wives listed as his dependants on his taxes, would that be dicrimination?

This isn't one person being allowed to use a water fountain while others aren't. This is someone applying for a license when their circumstances don't meet the criterea. You want to change the criterea, fine, do so. Don't for a moment try to justify it by saying the government can't do it, though.

What dabe and others don't understand is this blanket imposition of subjective values cuts both ways. If the Supreme Court ended up totally conservative and started imposing THEIR values, dabe would be up in arms. The only way to deal with this democratically is to change people's minds.

"Human right goes by age ,sex, and sexual preference (as wel as others)."


Two major problems with that. First, sexual preference isn't a gimme. If it were the NAMBLA folks could scream that their human rights were being infringed upon. After all, they have their predispositions, too, at least they call them that.

Second, marriage licenses aren't a basic human right. If you want to pin down laws that prevent homosexuals from living together, from forming lifetime bonds, etc., then you show them to me. I'll oppose them.

When you try and say the government can't regulate marriage when everyoen accepts that they can, though, then I am going to differ. If the government isn't allowed to decide who can and can't be married, then the government sanctioning of marriages is meaningless. There's no other reason for them to issue licenses other than lending the union validity.

I don't think government needs to be involved at all. I hate the idea of "marriage" being a government power. Expanding that overuse of power to even more unions isn't going to make it better, and it is going to lend validity to a lot of people that very, very few would like to see validated.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
What dabe and others don't understand is this blanket imposition of subjective values cuts both ways. If the Supreme Court ended up totally conservative and started imposing THEIR values, dabe would be up in arms. The only way to deal with this democratically is to change people's minds.


exactly baker.. that's why states vote on gay marriage. yea or nay.
Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top

I AM O'NALD!!! I WILL TERMINATE THIS BILL!


I actually think the bill is correct. Goverment should not say who you can be married to. Goverment and marriage should only go as far as reconizing that you want to be with this person ie this person being any sex.


You don't get it at all do you? It's NOT the government saying it! It's the PEOPLE of the state saying it!
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
know there are people here I respect allot in their writings, but the argument that this is not a constitutional issue is not true. Human right goes by age ,sex, and sexual preference (as well as others). Your basically saying that the state has a right to ignore a union between same sex couples.


Hey JK..."before" you run off at the mouth about constitutionality of banning a marriage between gay people. "SHOW" me where in the constitution that it says ANYTHING about marriage? State given rights are NOT guaranteed by the constitution. Only federal ones are.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's only ridiculous if you believe that two people of the same sex can be "married".


The difference is no one is imposing anything on you, if you don't believe that gays should marry. If you don't believe it, then don't marry a man. Simple

If I went to get a drivers license and insisted on riding a bicycle for the test, they would refuse. Discrimination? Nope.


Specious, ridiculous comparison

If a polygamist tried to get the other 5 wives listed as his dependants on his taxes, would that be dicrimination?


Not familiar with that law. But, if all wives are consentual, I see no problem with it. However, and I may be wrong, sometimes polygamist arrangements are made without consent. That would be tantamount to kidnapping. But, I've seen 20/20 or some other news magazine show where the wives discussed their happy relationship. I'm not sure what is so terrible about that. I really don't know, but it's irrelevant in any discussion of gay marriage. Each issue is different.

Two major problems with that. First, sexual preference isn't a gimme. If it were the NAMBLA folks could scream that their human rights were being infringed upon. After all, they have their predispositions, too, at least they call them that.


And, this is ridiculous because pedophilia is illegal. It is not about two consenting adults.
I don't think government needs to be involved at all. I hate the idea of "marriage" being a government power


I agree. Marriage is a religious union. Getting a license to marry is a state function. If the problem with gays getting a license to marry, sans the religious input, then the state should have no say in gender differences, as that is just a vestige of religious doctrine. I reject that religious doctrine completely. It does not belong in state law.

You don't get it at all do you? It's NOT the government saying it! It's the PEOPLE of the state saying it!


No, you don't get it. No one is infringing on your right of heterosexuality. NO ONE. And, just because the majority of people voted against it does not make it right. It's a bunch of lowlife homophobes who find some bizarre sanctimonious crappola in objecting to it, something I guess you understand very well.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top

No, you don't get it. No one is infringing on your right of heterosexuality. NO ONE. And, just because the majority of people voted against it does not make it right. It's a bunch of lowlife homophobes who find some bizarre sanctimonious crappola in objecting to it, something I guess you understand very well.


No, obviously "you" don't get it. Whether or not "you" think it's right or wrong makes not one damn bit of difference. As it stands right now it's the LAW! And I think you ought to look around before you start calling a "bunch" of people homophobes. That initiative was on the voters plate in "11" states. And it was passed in all 11 of them. Now take you idiocy somewhere else.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm just happy and gay about the whole thing! ;~D
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
LOL
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
As I said, just because most people approved that measure, does not make it right. And, if you do not approve it, then yeah, you are, at least to some extent, a homophobe.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
" As I said, just because most people approved that measure, does not make it right."


So what we are left with is Democracy is good, only if the majority agrees with Dabe's values.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
No, all I'm saying is that you insist on limiting the rights of a segment of society based soley on your homophobia, because there is really no other reason to object to two people who love eachother getting married, certainly by the state, in that it would be zero skin off your back. Nada. Nothing. You act like gays getting married will have a direct impact on your life. It won't. You don't even have to associate with gays if you don't want to. No impact whatsoever. But, you sanctimoneous homophobic sensibility is offended by the thought. Get over yourself.

As for churches, I stand back a bit, as I do not belong to any. However, I know that some gays are deeply religious, and find a serious desire to be married in a church. Again, I don't understand the problem with it, except that some people cherry pick out of the bible what they feel should be believed as literal, and dismiss what they don't want to believe. The gay issue is one example, and it's discrimination, no matter how you look at it.

Just because most people are homophobes does not make homophobia right.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
As for churches, I stand back a bit, as I do not belong to any. However, I know that some gays are deeply religious, and find a serious desire to be married in a church. Again, I don't understand the problem with it, except that some people cherry pick out of the bible what they feel should be believed as literal, and dismiss what they don't want to believe. The gay issue is one example, and it's discrimination, no matter how you look at it.


I wouldn't advise going there. Because you'd be wrong. The bible very plainly states that it is "against" homosexuality. Go read about Sodom and Gomorrha to see what I mean. In the bible God didn't destroy that city just for fun. I wouldn't consider that as "cherry picking".
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dabe, you've argued that it should be allowed just to be fair, and that's where I agree with you. In the interest of equality and fairness, gays should be allowed to marry. But humans are not fair or equal, we fear and dislike that which we either don't understand or do not participate in ourselves. We also fear change to the status-quo. However, there is nothing in the federal constitution regarding marraige, nothing at all. Nothing that even remotely touches on it, or the issue of sexual bias. That which is not specified in the constitution falls to individual states to decide on as they see fit.

Is it unfair that gays can not marry in 11 states? Yes, it is unfair, but democracy is not about being fair, it's about representing the will of the people, and like I said, people aren't fair.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
#29 by drmiler
Thursday, September 08, 2005


You don't get it at all do you? It's NOT the government saying it! It's the PEOPLE of the state saying it!


exactly to be exact 61% of the people said no to gay marriage.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
39 by Zoomba
Friday, September 09, 2005


Dabe, you've argued that it should be allowed just to be fair, and that's where I agree with you. In the interest of equality and fairness, gays should be allowed to marry. But humans are not fair or equal, we fear and dislike that which we either don't understand or do not participate in ourselves. We also fear change to the status-quo. However, there is nothing in the federal constitution regarding marraige, nothing at all. Nothing that even remotely touches on it, or the issue of sexual bias. That which is not specified in the constitution falls to individual states to decide on as they see fit.

Is it unfair that gays can not marry in 11 states? Yes, it is unfair, but democracy is not about being fair, it's about representing the will of the people, and like I said, people aren't fair.


bingo!!!!! insightfull!!!
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
As I said, just because most people approved that measure, does not make it right. And, if you do not approve it, then yeah, you are, at least to some extent, a homophobe.


Dabe, homophobe is a completely innane buzzword created by bigots who have nothing more to back their position than feiging outrage. Calling people "homophobes" because of a political opinion is as hateful as calling someone racist for being against reparations. Apparently to you, gay people who are against legalizing gay marriage must be "homophobes" too!!

I've always wondered what it would be like to hate people because of preconceived notions... you should write an article on the subject, you seem to be an expert.

Should we start calling people who are against preserving marriage as it is now, "heterophobes"? Doesn't make any more sense.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
PS. I've always wondered what it's like to hate groups of people because of preconceived notions... You should do an article on it Dabe, you seem to be an expert.
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Dabe, homophobe is a completely innane buzzword created by bigots who have nothing more to back their position than feiging outrage. Calling people "homophobes" because of a political opinion is as hateful as calling someone racist for being against reparations. Apparently to you, gay people who are against legalizing gay marriage must be "homophobes" too!!"


Yep...
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: ParaTed2kPosted: Friday, September 09, 2005As I said, just because most people approved that measure, does not make it right. And, if you do not approve it, then yeah, you are, at least to some extent, a homophobe.Dabe, homophobe is a completely innane buzzword created by bigots who have nothing more to back their position than feiging outrage. Calling people "homophobes" because of a political opinion is as hateful as calling someone racist for being against reparations. Apparently to you, gay people who are against legalizing gay marriage must be "homophobes" too!!I've always wondered what it would be like to hate people because of preconceived notions... you should write an article on the subject, you seem to be an expert.Should we start calling people who are against preserving marriage as it is now, "heterophobes"? Doesn't make any more sense.


geeze another bingo!!! and my last insightfull for the day.