i told ya so
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
londonfog
Well-Known Member
Didn't they fight against same sex marriage
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
yep. the individual mormons, citizens of california supported a ballot measure that was so popular it passed with a 53% majority in a massively liberal state. ite 2-3% of californians who are mormons voted for prop 8, but so did many others.
prop 8 was not about a "fight against same sex marriage" it was about stopping an illegal move by san francisco's ultra-liberal city government from dragging the entire state into the meat grinder. Gavin Newsome and his cronies started "marrying" same sex couples despite a judicial order preventing such actions.
personally i dont give a rat's ass if gay people want to get married, but really, california cant afford this kind of shit right now. marriage licensing, legislative rules, bureaucratic administration, divorce court costs, and all the regulations in the state would have to be re-examined if same-sex marriages were allowed. untill that shit gets sorted out, we aint ready for a fundamental change to our system like that.
think about this, a marriage (male/female) is one of the few events that can modify an existing contract (insurance, employment, banking, property ownership etc) and marriage's inevitable afterbirth divorce, is one of the most expensive legal proceedings most people experience in their lives. do we really want to just allow one city and it's mayor to throw all that shit into turmoil for the dubious benefits of "marriage equality"?
Edit: notably, i voted against prop 8, cuz i don't mind if gay people want to get married.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
we should ban straight marriage by that ridiculous logic.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
straight marriage is already figured into the system, but i like the way you're thinking buck! Once the government is out of the business of licensing and dissolving marriage contracts we will all be better off.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
Bottom line is no one should have the right to tell who can and cannot be married. If they both say yes and agree then more power to them...dude are you really trying to say prop 8 was more of a financial/contractual issue ??? Was a time when interracial couples could not wed, I guess people used the same argument that you just tried to sputter.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
I believe i successfully sputtered that argument, thank you! really, though, i didnt like prop 8, i voted against it, but it still passed in one of the most liberal states in the union. somebody got their message across. even if prop 8 failed, gavin newsome's marriage shenanigans would still be invalid, as he was violating a court order. all the ancillary issues i mentioned above still didnt make me vote for prop 8, but in the final accounting it doesnt even matter. gay people still cant get married, and they are still pissed about it, people who think gays should not get married got what they want for now, but they dont seem very happy about their "victory" of the status quo. eventually gays will be getting married, and inevitably divorced, but i still dont care whether they get married or not. it's a non-issue to me. the prop 8 battle was hilariously hard fought on all sides. It was a Magnificent Spectacle. Once more around the Circus Maximus! Red team is victorious! They shall have their pick in the fleshpots of Roma this night!
InCognition
Active Member
Yup, it works through their own two eyes, but when they see the paper showing how flawed the delusion is, they simply go blind all the sudden. This instant blindness is soon followed by the denial, that they're not blind. Funny isn't it?
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
when more than 50% of a particular contract type fail to reach their mutually satisfactory conclusion, i would call that system broken. expanding the circumstances where such flawed contracts can be negotiated would only exacerbate the problem leading to additional expense in adjudicating the contract's dissolution. A better option would be to not allow the dissolution of these contracts except under the most pressing of conditions, or better still, end the issuance of the licenses that make these contracts function.
Sunbiz1
Well-Known Member
Spare me the legal contractual jargon, feel like you're quoting a college text book here...I speak in a light-hearted manner.
The reality is, every 4 years we are asked to elect my signature. Nobody has ever asked me its' significance here, which is odd considering it has applied to politics for 3,500 years and are King Solomon's own words.
Best option is to stop allowing other peoples' decisions to affect our lives.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you don't get it. they're rights, you don't get to vote on them. bandying about a majority vote striking down minority rights is pointless and cruel.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
I personally dont recall seeing any right to marriage enshrined in the constitution, nor any power given the state by the california constitution to license marriages.
i also do not feel particularly that this ridonkulous non-issue of marriage, neither gay nor straight has any place in the election booth. Might as well legislate which direction i tuck my dick when i put on my pants in the morning!
I'm not arguing that gays should be prohibited from getting married, any more than i'm proposing that they be forced to marry, I think the entire institution is a violation of the 13th amendment, in that it is involuntary servitude, when a broad can force a dude to pay for kids that arent his, and pay her for the right to be free from her insufferable nagging until she dies, he dies, or she tricks some other clod into marrying her.
though it would be hilarious if mandatory gay marriages were required for ding dongs who make a public policy career out of bashing gays, till he takes a wide stance for an undercover cop. THAT dude oughta be forcibly gay married to whichever man-hungry state or federal prisoner wants to violate his soft jiggly termite-pale butt.
InCognition
Active Member
The irony and hypocrisy of that statement made by yourself is absurd.
You support government mandates, and systems that get/got voted on, which result/ed in the violation of rights. Bandying about your illusion that these government mandates/systems haven't struck down rights, is surely pointless, and most definitely cruel to your own intellect. And I thought you just said that rights don't get to be voted on? You've got to be kidding me with the hypocrisy... seriously.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
cocktechnician has rights and policies confused. they'll teach you about those in 10th grade civics class.
InCognition
Active Member
Ignoramus doesn't understand that policies can and have violated rights. They'll teach you about that... well, I'm not so sure you could be taught.
You're an imbecile. You have no idea about the difference between a right and a privilege so why open your stupid pie hole except to reinforce your ignorance.
No one has a right to marriage. Make something else up moron.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
If straight people can get married then gay people should be able to get married, they're the "rights" he's talking about.
It should be a non-issue tho, the state should just leave marriage totally alone.
If married (straight or gay) people are treated differently to single people, that's discriminating against single people by the same "gay" logic.
The world economy is falling apart and people are worried about whether Bill is into Robert or Roberta, who gives a fuck, let people marry horses for all I care, let concentrate on cutting deficits and getting people back to work.