Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

dcolton · Aug 12, 2004, 01:14 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128818,00.html

Jaey · Aug 12, 2004, 01:17 PM

The justices also decided with a 5-2 vote to nullify the 3,995 [same sex] marriages[...]

Sounds like the wrong direction to me.

Edit: Though I didn't read the whole article.
Edit2: Though it doesn't seem to really change farther down...

mitchell_pgh · Aug 12, 2004, 01:18 PM

Nice to hear your opinion...

Want to elaborate?

djohnson · Aug 12, 2004, 01:19 PM

This happened in California???

Jaey · Aug 12, 2004, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Nice to hear your opinion...

Want to elaborate?

Sure. Quite simple: Gay marriage should be allowed because there's nothing wrong with it.

MindFad · Aug 12, 2004, 01:24 PM

Let's hear it for masked hate, ignorance, and FUD.

Another sad day for this country.

Shouldn't this be in the bickering lounge, since it is only going to turn into that?

dcolton · Aug 12, 2004, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by djohnson:
This happened in California???

Suprised the hell out of me too!

gorickey · Aug 12, 2004, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by djohnson:
This happened in California???

I blame Arnold.

Jaey · Aug 12, 2004, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by MindFad:
Shouldn't this be in the bickering lounge, since it is only going to turn into that?

Isn't this the bickering lounge? Or do you mean that Political one...?

Originally posted by gorickey:
I blame Arnold.

You mean Ahnuld. Speaking of whom, I'm wearing a Govenator™ tee-shirt right now

starman · Aug 12, 2004, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by Jaey:
Sure. Quite simple: Gay marriage should be allowed because there's nothing wrong with it.

There are a lot of heteros that will disagree with you. Lots.

Mike

mitchell_pgh · Aug 12, 2004, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by Jaey:
Sure. Quite simple: Gay marriage should be allowed because there's nothing wrong with it.

Sorry Jaey... you and I posted at the same time. I was going after the original poster.

MindFad · Aug 12, 2004, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by Jaey:
Isn't this the bickering lounge? Or do you mean that Political one...?

You mean Ahnuld. Speaking of whom, I'm wearing a Govenator™ tee-shirt right now

Political lounge: bickering lounge++.

boardsurfer · Aug 12, 2004, 01:27 PM

THis was the right thing to do. Strictly speaking of the law of course, they did the right thing. What the SF Mayor did was against the law and the Court has now ruled that way. No need for a flame war - yeah right.

Jaey · Aug 12, 2004, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Sorry Jaey... you and I posted at the same time. I was going after the original poster.

Ah, well. I elaborated anyway.

Originally posted by boardsurfer:
THis was the right thing to do. Strictly speaking of the law of course, they did the right thing. What the SF Mayor did was against the law and the Court has now ruled that way. No need for a flame war - yeah right.

True, they were required by law to do what they did. However, the way they voted was not.... cool.

dcolton · Aug 12, 2004, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Nice to hear your opinion...

Want to elaborate?

Nice move in the right direction. What elaboration do you need? That homosexuals and pro-gay zealots got smacked down for trying to hijack the political process...for trying to force their lifestyle on Californians and the rest of America.

MindFad · Aug 12, 2004, 01:34 PM

I knew you were a hateful homophobe, but damn. Way to go.

Disgruntled Head of C-3PO · Aug 12, 2004, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by starman:
There are a lot of heteros that will disagree with you. Lots.

Mike

Lots of others humans that would disagree.

Thank god I live in Canada.

drive-thru · Aug 12, 2004, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by dcolton:
...for trying to force their lifestyle on Californians and the rest of America.

dcolton · Aug 12, 2004, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by MindFad:
I knew you were a hateful homophobe, but damn. Way to go.

I am neither hateful nor a homophobe. Does everyone of your posts have to consist of personal attacks and name calling?

But since you are allowed to do this by mr biased himself (demonhood), do you define homophobe as anyone who disagrees with you?

waxcrash · Aug 12, 2004, 01:38 PM

In Before The Move To The Political Lounge�

Anyway�

Technically, I agree with boardsurfer that the decision to annul the marriages are the right thing to do because the judge broke the law. Judges do not have the power to change the law for their own moral ideology. However, if there is one thing we can learn from this it is that we can all benefit from a good dose of tolerance of others beliefs, religions, sexual orientations, etc. The world would be a better place if everyone was more tolerant and accepting of peoples differences.

MindFad · Aug 12, 2004, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by dcolton:
I am neither hateful nor a homophobe. Does everyone of your posts have to consist of personal attacks and name calling?

But since you are allowed to do this by mr biased himself (demonhood), do you define homophobe as anyone who disagrees with you?

Oh, cry us a river.

From your posts, I glean that you are a homophobe because you seem to be fearful, intolerant, angry at this supposed "gay agenda." You think people are forcing you and others to be gay, and you can't seem to just move past the fact that two people of the same sex are happy and married. Looks like the classic "gayness is icky" syndrome from here. And since you take such joy in the fact people's rights are being taken away, I am sensing hateful overtones. You sound like a hateful homophobe to me. I wasn't attacking you, and that's not "name-calling."

MacNStein · Aug 12, 2004, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by djohnson:
This happened in California???

Well, it centered around the way due process was screwed up (gays can thank Gavin Newsom for that), not the legal implications of gay marriage itself. At the "end of the day", I think gay marriage will be legalized in Cali. Though, not many other states will follow suit. That will leave gay married couples with a choice of where they want to live, because not all states will recognize their nuptials.

mo · Aug 12, 2004, 01:46 PM

What does it mean to "have a lifestyle forced" on you? Do people come over and re-decorate your house and then make you go dancing, or something?

dcolton · Aug 12, 2004, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by MindFad:
Oh, cry us a river.

From your posts, I glean that you are a homophobe because you seem to be fearful, intolerant, angry at this supposed "gay agenda." You think people are forcing you and others to be gay, and you can't seem to just move past the fact that two people of the same sex are happy and married. Looks like the classic "gayness is icky" syndrome from here. And since you take such joy in the fact people's rights are being taken away, I am sensing hateful overtones. You sound like a hateful homophobe to me. I wasn't attacking you, and that's not "name-calling."

Do ou consider hate to be a negative factor? What about homophoboa?

And apparantly, you don't know what I think. YOu are just making an ass out of yourself by trying to tell me what I think, because you are wrong,

Captain Obvious · Aug 12, 2004, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by MindFad:
Let's hear it for masked hate, ignorance, and FUD.

Another sad day for this country.

Shouldn't this be in the bickering lounge, since it is only going to turn into that?

When you make uneducated, ignorant, and incendiary statements like that then yeah it will devolve. It was a matter of the rule of law not politics.
The right thing happened.

MacNStein · Aug 12, 2004, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by MindFad:
Let's hear it for masked hate, ignorance, and FUD.

Another sad day for this country.

Why? Because you don't understand that this is an issue regarding due-process? It had almost nothing to do with gay marriage itself.

starman · Aug 12, 2004, 01:49 PM

You see, if California turned over the ruling that people could walk across the middle of the street, nobody would care. I worded what I wrote SPECIFICALLY to see who'd take the bait (and surprise, surprise, look who did).

What I meant was that in VERY SIMPLE TERMS, the majority of people are hetero and against it. Period. It's not an homophobic statement, it's a fact. Get some more people sympathetic to the cause in there and THEN things will change.

Rather than whine about it, why not run for office in California?

I'm not saying I'm for or against it, I'm saying that it wasn't handled properly and the people that tried to weasel their way into the system basically got bitchslapped.

Mike

MindFad · 02:07 PM

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
When you make uneducated, ignorant, and incendiary statements like that then yeah it will devolve. It was a matter of the rule of law not politics.
The right thing happened.

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Why? Because you don't understand that this is an issue regarding due-process? It had almost nothing to do with gay marriage itself.

I understand what happened. The right lawful thing happened. It's sad that votes were even made to get to that point.

That's the point I was trying to make.

Jerk your intellects off at someone else.

starman · Aug 12, 2004, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Why? Because you don't understand that this is an issue regarding due-process? It had almost nothing to do with gay marriage itself.

DING DING DING! Someone get it.

Mike

starman · Aug 12, 2004, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by mo:
What does it mean to "have a lifestyle forced" on you? Do people come over and re-decorate your house and then make you go dancing, or something?

No different than PC users calling Mac users names. Seriously. I know gay people that are adamant about their lifestyle being the only right one. No respect for a CHOICE. That's sad.

Of course, if things worked out that way, children would be an endangered species

Mike

mitchell_pgh · Aug 12, 2004, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by starman:
What I meant was that in VERY SIMPLE TERMS, the majority of people are hetero and against it. Period.

At one point in time, most people in America where white and thought it was OK to have slaves.

Times change...

MindFad · Aug 12, 2004, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by dcolton:
Do ou consider hate to be a negative factor? What about homophoboa?

Hate = is negative, so yeah, I guess so. And yeah, I consider homophobia a negative aspect of human personality�or lack thereof.

And apparantly, you don't know what I think. YOu are just making an ass out of yourself by trying to tell me what I think, because you are wrong,

I think your posts speak loudly. And I don't feel like an ass making an observation of your posts.

starman · Aug 12, 2004, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
At one point in time, most people in America where white and thought it was OK to have slaves.

Times change...

Exactly. Things will change, but not today.

Mike

gorickey · Aug 12, 2004, 01:55 PM

It's getting deep in here and I forgot my boots...

dcolton · Aug 12, 2004, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by mo:
What does it mean to "have a lifestyle forced" on you? Do people come over and re-decorate your house and then make you go dancing, or something?

You know what, you are right. I shouldn't have added the forcing of lifestyle comment. Nonetheless...it is my opinion that if the gay agenda succeeds, it IS forcing their values on America. If homosexuals are allowed to marry, that is FORCED on those of us who disagree with a gay lifestyle. And lets be down right honest...if you oppose gay marriage then more than likely, you oppose the gay lifestyle. And right now...quite a few Americans oppose gay marriage.

Am I saying that gays don't have the right to lobby for their choices...absolutely not. But their right to lobby does not negate anyone elses right to an opinion or to lobby either, does it?

mo · Aug 12, 2004, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by starman:
I know gay people that are adamant about their lifestyle being the only right one. No respect for a CHOICE. That's sad.

Well, OK, let's suppose that's so. But what's the consequence of that? They can't do anything to "force" their lifestyle on you, any more than the Jehovah's Witnesses or anybody else can, right?

AKcrab · Aug 12, 2004, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Why? Because you don't understand that this is an issue regarding due-process? It had almost nothing to do with gay marriage itself.

That's fine, but I venture to guess that that has nothing to do with the reason dcolton posted this.

If he had titled the thread "Another win for due process" or "Court system proves it's not screwed up", I would give him the benefit of the doubt.

However, based on his past posting, the meaning of the thread is very clear. He's glad gay marriage is illegal again.

OldManMac · Aug 12, 2004, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by mo:
What does it mean to "have a lifestyle forced" on you? Do people come over and re-decorate your house and then make you go dancing, or something?

Post of the day!

dcolton · Aug 12, 2004, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by mo:
Well, OK, let's suppose that's so. But what's the consequence of that? They can't do anything to "force" their lifestyle on you, any more than the Jehovah's Witnesses or anybody else can, right?

Think of it like this MO. People believe Christians are forcing their lifestyle on them because of the ten commandments in a courtroom. Because of 'under God' in the pledge or on currency. Where is the differencve

starman · Aug 12, 2004, 02:00 PM

It's funny you should say that because just after I posted that I thought that the only group worse than gays in terms of trying to convert people are the Jehova's Witnesses

. I had to turn a flock of them down 2 weekends ago.

Mike

dcolton · Aug 12, 2004, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by AKcrab:
That's fine, but I venture to guess that that has nothing to do with the reason dcolton posted this.

If he had titled the thread "Another win for due process" or "Court system proves it's not screwed up", I would give him the benefit of the doubt.

However, based on his past posting, the meaning of the thread is very clear. He's glad gay marriage is illegal again.

fair assumption, but I believe I did clarify when asked

djohnson · Aug 12, 2004, 02:01 PM

How long until this thread is locked because is bashes gay marriage? Any takers?

Jaey · Aug 12, 2004, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by dcolton:
Am I saying that gays don't have the right to lobby for their choices...absolutely not. But their right to lobby does not negate anyone elses right to an opinion or to lobby either, does it?

Sure, everyone has a right to their own opinion. But we can't have same-sex marriages be both legal and illegal. This is the kind of thing that is determined by a vote. I might add that anyone who votes against same-sex marriages is wrong. Yes, in this case, their opinions are wrong.

gorickey · Aug 12, 2004, 02:02 PM

This thread is not getting any attention.

(from the mods)

starman · Aug 12, 2004, 02:03 PM

I don't think anyone's ACTUALLY bashing it. I think people are trying to make it LOOK LIKE they are.

The bottom line is that the state of California did the right thing in terms of how the law is written.

Mike

djohnson · Aug 12, 2004, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by Jaey:
Sure, everyone has a right to their own opinion. But we can't have same-sex marriages be both legal and illegal. This is the kind of thing that is determined by a vote. I might add that anyone who votes against same-sex marriages is wrong. Yes, in this case, their opinions are wrong.

I believe someone brought this up before. I will venture to guess that bringing up such a vote to the American people will get it knocked down so fast it would make peoples heads spin. This is why you will not see pro-gay marriage people wanting to vote on it.

Jaey · Aug 12, 2004, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by starman:
I don't think anyone's ACTUALLY bashing it. I think people are trying to make it LOOK LIKE they are.

The bottom line is that the state of California did the right thing in terms of how the law is written.

Mike

BAH! You're missing the point. We are no longer discussing the original topic

djohnson · Aug 12, 2004, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by gorickey:
This thread is not getting any attention.

(from the mods)

You are surprised as well? Maybe they are all out to lunch?

OldManMac · Aug 12, 2004, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by starman:
It's funny you should say that because just after I posted that I thought that the only group worse than gays in terms of trying to convert people are the Jehova's Witnesses . I had to turn a flock of them down 2 weekends ago.

Mike

I've been on this rock for 57 years, I know lots of gay people (my daughter being one of them), and I've never, ever experienced a gay person trying to convert me. So you've maybe had a couple of experiences, and now the whole gay community is trying to convert you. Another one filled with fear?

MindFad · Aug 12, 2004, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by AKcrab:
That's fine, but I venture to guess that that has nothing to do with the reason dcolton posted this.

If he had titled the thread "Another win for due process" or "Court system proves it's not screwed up", I would give him the benefit of the doubt.

However, based on his past posting, the meaning of the thread is very clear. He's glad gay marriage is illegal again.