CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Call me a whiny liberal but...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Call me a whiny liberal but...

post #1 of 33
11/2/04 at 9:59pm
Thread Starter 
...Even if Kerry wins, I'm still going to be insanely bitter over any state that votes for an anti-gay marriage act.
Reply
post #2 of 33
11/2/04 at 10:06pm
I think my state shoots it down. It's shot down every other anti-gay measure that's ever come up by a pretty easy margin. This one seems closer than the others, though. I've heard Ohio already approved it.

The only good that comes of it is maybe the law now gets challenged in court and a definitive decision is made by a Supreme Court.
Reply
post #3 of 33
11/2/04 at 10:19pm
Funny thing is... all those states that are voting down gay marriage don't seem to have issues with marrying cousins.
Reply
post #4 of 33
11/2/04 at 10:49pm
Apparently, it passed in Georgia with a 3-to-1 margin. Now, companies here can deny even partner benefits.
Reply
post #5 of 33
11/2/04 at 11:08pm
Good to know people are still full of insane hatred for each other.

Fuck anyone who voted to outlaw it. I hate you.
Reply
post #6 of 33
11/2/04 at 11:14pm
I second that.
Reply
post #7 of 33
11/2/04 at 11:26pm
in arkansas the last results I saw were close to 4 to 1... hooray for ignorance!
Reply
post #8 of 33
11/2/04 at 11:41pm
No one beats Mississippi. 86% so far. My state wins!
Reply
post #9 of 33
11/3/04 at 12:25am
whiny fucking liberals, you act like this country is supposed to protect the minorities from majority oppression or seperate church from state...
Reply
post #10 of 33
11/3/04 at 12:27am
Again...as it always was here. The five cities vs Tobacco country.

Tobacco country won.
Reply
post #11 of 33
11/3/04 at 12:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Ryan
Good to know people are still full of insane hatred for each other.

Fuck anyone who voted to outlaw it. I hate you.
I'm so strongly against these amendments. Anywho who votes for these fucking things is seriously hurting the country and moving it back in time. They're predicted to pass in 10 out of 11 states supposedly. This country just keeps getting more backwards. I hate everyone who doesnt think gays should be able to be married.
Reply
post #12 of 33
11/3/04 at 12:42am
In just the very few local returns that have come back, the God Hates Fags amendment is really cleaning up here, over a 2:1 ratio. Fucking disgusting.
Reply
post #13 of 33
11/3/04 at 1:19am
Looks like Oregon is gonna shut down the anti-gay measure. Quality.

We're also deadlocked on the loosening of the medicinal marijuana laws, which will allow people to grow a LOT more of their own, and will set up MUCH more dispensaries across the state.

But with over a third of the votes in, the anti gay measure is losing by about 14 percentage points.
Reply
post #14 of 33
11/3/04 at 1:40am
Thread Starter 
I don't know which kills me more: that this much of America is fine with denying homosexuals marriage or that this will give Bush ammo to try to get that constitution amendment again if he gets re-elected.
Reply
post #15 of 33
11/3/04 at 1:49am
This shouldn't be a state issue anyway. And hearing these results from you from every state it's obvious why Kerry didn't make this an upfront issue. Gay "marriage" won't pass any time soon. Repackage it as a Civil Union and sell it as differant from marriage. Don't do the state by state crap. Have a Repub and Dem introduce it in the Senate and make the Civil Union count in every state.
Reply
post #16 of 33
11/3/04 at 1:52am
I'm actually curious how many people wouldn't be okay with civil unions for gay people...
Reply
post #17 of 33
11/3/04 at 1:59am
Reversal:

The ABC news affiliate is reporting Oregon passes the anti-gay marriage measure.

This is fucking shit.
Reply
post #18 of 33
11/3/04 at 8:39am
Out of several thousand voters, about six-hundred voted against the proposed gay marriage ban in my state. At first I thought I read that wrong, but I didn't. Six-hundred.
Reply
post #19 of 33
11/3/04 at 9:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anyawatchin Angel
Gay "marriage" won't pass any time soon. Repackage it as a Civil Union and sell it as differant from marriage.
But why? When a man and a woman get married outside of the church, it's called a marriage. This should be no different. When black people got the vote, they didn't call their version "ballot posting". By having the same institution, but two names, you're automatically implying that one is different and, arguably, less culturally valid.

"Are you married?"
"No, we're civil unioned"

Pointless.

And besides, the problem with this isn't the name. Let's not kid ourselves. The problem is that these people are gay, and a lot of people find that icky. That ain't going to change.

There are times when prejudice needs to be kicked aside, no matter how many people cling to it, in order for society to move forwards. This is one of those issues that our grandchildren will look back on and wonder how we managed to live in such a backward society.
Reply
post #20 of 33
11/3/04 at 9:58am
i'm curious: those who advocated the ban before the elections... did they simply use the old-school approach of referring to the bible, or did they actually attemp to bring up "rational" arguments?
Reply
post #21 of 33
11/3/04 at 10:07am
Dan managed to sum up the gay marriage issue in a mere few sentences. The man sure knows how to use the Queen's English.

I think I'm going to spend the rest of today sitting in shock. The America I used to know is gone.
Reply
post #22 of 33
11/3/04 at 10:18am
has it really ever been different, kyle? i mean... really different?
Reply
post #23 of 33
11/3/04 at 10:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by slowpulse
has it really ever been different, kyle? i mean... really different?
We're actually moving backwards now, instead of just not progressing.
Reply
post #24 of 33
11/3/04 at 11:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by slowpulse
i'm curious: those who advocated the ban before the elections... did they simply use the old-school approach of referring to the bible, or did they actually attemp to bring up "rational" arguments?
There are no "rational" arguments against gay marriage. It can only be opposed by using emotional and subjective rhetoric about "morals" and "sin".
Reply
post #25 of 33
11/3/04 at 11:28am
Exactly. "Gay Marriage is personally reprehensible to me, so it's my moral right as an American to make sure no one should ever be allowed to do it. Just think of the children!"
Reply
post #26 of 33
11/3/04 at 11:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Whitehead
There are no "rational" arguments against gay marriage. It can only be opposed by using emotional and subjective rhetoric about "morals" and "sin".
Ditto, and it's a fucking shame when the other side has to resort to a slippery slope just to "scare" voters into doing so.

Why does this need to happen? It's depressing; way too depressing.
Reply
post #27 of 33
11/3/04 at 11:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Whitehead
But why? When a man and a woman get married outside of the church, it's called a marriage. This should be no different. When black people got the vote, they didn't call their version "ballot posting". By having the same institution, but two names, you're automatically implying that one is different and, arguably, less culturally valid.

"Are you married?"
"No, we're civil unioned"

Pointless.

And besides, the problem with this isn't the name. Let's not kid ourselves. The problem is that these people are gay, and a lot of people find that icky. That ain't going to change.

There are times when prejudice needs to be kicked aside, no matter how many people cling to it, in order for society to move forwards. This is one of those issues that our grandchildren will look back on and wonder how we managed to live in such a backward society.
I agree there is no differance really. Legally they would have the same rights but it seems the vast majority of people in America want to keep the word marriage. Sure it's also that they aren't comfortable with people being gay but to get the right to marry the gay marriage thing needs to be repackaged and advertised better. Say it's differant. It's not just the South that is agains gay marriage, it's nationwide.

If gay marriage can't pass or barely passes in Oregon it's not going to pass anywhere else. That's why I think those who want to pass gay marriage to to start to rethink their efforts. Swallow some pride and get the job done. Do it on a national level and not state by state. Say it's not a marriage but something else. Get what you want even if you have to eat a little shit to do it.
Reply
post #28 of 33
11/3/04 at 11:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Whitehead
There are no "rational" arguments against gay marriage. It can only be opposed by using emotional and subjective rhetoric about "morals" and "sin".
well, i kinda knew that already, but i was hoping to hear examples of pamphlets or tv ads being shown to the voters, trying to explain with "reasonable" arguments why gay marriage is wrong. you know, to see how laughable some people can get when they try to peddle outdated values in a modern world. but the only people who replied to my post are brits, so i guess i'll have to wait a while longer...
Reply
post #29 of 33
11/3/04 at 11:41am
I stood in line with these people for 2-1/2 hours and I should have been kicking their butts. In GA the difference is insane something like 75% for the ban and 25% against. I think that one thing depressed me more than anything else. I really didn't think people were still that uptight about such stuff and yet again they disappoint the crap out of me and say with big neon numbers.... we're BIGOTS. Damn people, let two people love each other, is that so horrid compared to people killing each other.
Reply
post #30 of 33
11/3/04 at 12:16pm
Blacks should have accepted their place in the 60's and looked for something else other than "equal rights". It was obvious the majority of Americans wanted equal rights for themselves, so they should have just sucked up their pride and accepted "black rights" or "not-white rights".
Reply
post #31 of 33
11/3/04 at 11:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by E.C.
I'm actually curious how many people wouldn't be okay with civil unions for gay people...
SEVERAL of the amendments voted in also contained language which would ban civil unions as well (the number I'm thinking of is 4, but might be more).

Maybe next year we can get some state Constitutions amended to make it legal to lynch the dirty faggots too.
Reply
post #32 of 33
11/4/04 at 12:31pm
Goddamn whiny liberals, always taking the defensive against reactionary schmucks who couldn't string together a half-decent fact-based argument if their lives depended on it.

No wonder the US left is shot to shit.
Reply
post #33 of 33
11/4/04 at 2:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chavez
SEVERAL of the amendments voted in also contained language which would ban civil unions as well (the number I'm thinking of is 4, but might be more).

Wow. Well that hurts Anya's argument about people just being opposed to the word "marriage."

I'd still like to see a true poll or survey explicitly on gay "civil unions" (no mention of "marriage" at all), and see what percentage of this country would be fine with it. If it's the same story, the answer would be undeniably clear: America don't want gay people with rights.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Call me a whiny liberal but...