Miss California Just Lost Me

Originally Posted by This_person

No privileges or immunities are being abridged - everyone is treated the same way!!

Everyone's treated the same unless you're homosexual. That's discrimination.

Two things will happen before I turn 40:

1.) A black man will become President.

2.) The Supreme Court will legalize gay marriage or civil unions.

Oh wait, #1's already happened.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Beaver-Cleaver

Everyone's treated the same unless you're homosexual. That's discrimination.

This is just false. Homosexuals can marry. As long as they marry someone they are not already married to, not too closely related, willing to marry them, and they're both of sufficient age. They can marry, just like anyone else.

They simply can't do something that is not marriage and call it marriage - which is the joining of two individuals of the same gender. Neither can a heterosexual. This is not discrimination, because it effects everyone equally. You're inaccurately defining the argument. If you want to argue that homosexuals should be allowed a civil union to obtain the same rights for the institution they want to enter into, that's a valid and worthwhile discussion to have. But, to suggest that the apple is the same as the orange is not a valid nor honest discussion.

Two things will happen before I turn 40:

1.) A black man will become President.

2.) The Supreme Court will legalize gay marriage or civil unions.

Oh wait, #1's already happened.

You know Obama's bi-racial, not black, right?

Originally Posted by This_person

This is just false. Homosexuals can marry. As long as they marry someone they are not already married to, not too closely related, willing to marry them, and they're both of sufficient age. They can marry, just like anyone else.

EVERY state has civil unions?

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Beaver-Cleaver

EVERY state has civil unions?

Not at all. Discussing whether states should or should not have civil unions is a valid, worthwhile debate. Saying that people who don't fit the definition of marriage can be married is not a worthwhile nor intelligent debating point.

See, this is the whole deal with Prop 8. In California, same-gendered individuals desiring to be recognized by the state for their relationship could have entered into a civil union. Every issue with the exception of federal income tax recognition was thus granted to them in a mirror fashion to being "married", but accurately named. This was not sufficient, even though it was the most accurate way of handling the issue. So, the advocates for marriage re-definition filed lawsuits which lead to the CA Supremes saying that the word marriage needed redefining. The people of the state said, in equally overwhelming ratios as those electing Mr. Obama (who holds the same belief), that no, the word marriage did not need to be redefined, and thus established what the definition of that word was legally. To the best of my knowledge, the civil union laws were never removed from the CA books, so same-gendered individuals needing state recognition of their relationship still can have that recognition, in an appropriate form.

[bcp (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Beaver-Cleaver

Everyone's treated the same unless you're homosexual. That's discrimination.

Two things will happen before I turn 40:

1.) A black man will become President.

2.) The Supreme Court will legalize gay marriage or civil unions.

Oh wait, #1's already happened.

homosexuals are not treated differently.
heterosexuals cant marry the same sex, and homosexuals can marry the opposite sex.
thats equal.

next, we would have to actually determine that homosexual marriage was considered a privilage at any time in our countries history.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

So it wasnt an equal institution.

:gotcha:

Correct. Not equal in ANY way - not in description, actuality, benefit to society...... Sorta like it was a whole different thing.

You are correct.

[Bann (Premo)]

Originally Posted by aps45819

for a minute, I was worried you had an actual thought of your own, but when I clicked the link I was relieved to find that you're still a brainless parrot

Originally Posted by Pete

Awwwwwwwwwwk Polly got a cut and paste..Awwwwwwwwk

[Bann (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Beaver-Cleaver

He has a point.

Perez Hilton should have been waterboarded for the remarks he made about her. Whether I agree or not, she stood by her beliefs - and that's the type of role model young women need these days.

But, like the article says, she's gone from being the victim to being the attacker, joining a cause to limit the rights of others. She should have stopped while she was ahead.

Now she's just opening Pandora's Box: the left will dissect every nanosecond of her life and throw her to the pit bulls just like they did to Bristol Palin.

HOW is she taking away or limiting anyone's rights? And for that matter, what "rights" has she taken away or limiting?

If she is taking away something someone HAS, wouldn't that mean they have to HAVE them first? She can't limit something someone doesn't have either.

She expressed an opinion that she didn't think marriage should be between two people of the same sex. She didn't prevent anyone from getting married by stating her opinion. She didn't remove or limit anyone's rights. She doesn't make the laws, nor enforce any laws - - her opinion doesn't affect anyone's rights. You leftist whackjobs are talking 1984 Thought Police now

In most states in this country - 2 people of the same sex are not allowed to be married in the first place, so they have no rights that Carrie is trying to limit. Did she remove remove the rights of gay people who are already married? NO.

Jesus, Mary & Joseph.

[Cowgirl]

Originally Posted by ImnoMensa

Is same sex marriage coming? Probably it is, just as sex with 12 year olds for homosexual pedophiles is coming.

Yes, because marriage between two consenting adults is exactly the same as pedophilia.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Cowgirl

Yes, because marriage between two consenting adults is exactly the same as pedophilia.

I agree with your assessment of pedophilia.

How about adult consensual incest? How about multiple partner relationships? Can you give one argument regarding same-gendered unions that could NOT be used to justify those slippery slopes?