Mixed Feelings About Gay Marriage in California? »
Posted By RickyDawkins 4 months, 4 weeks ago in Arts & EntertainmentUnfortunately, not everybody is as thrilled as we are about the recent Supreme Court decision.
Read Full Story at youtube.com »
Submitted By:
RickyDawkins
Pascal's Wager (God is a safe bet)
"If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing--but if you ...
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 92
-
-
0%
lvrofwolves4 months, 4 weeks ago
Gay marriage should be just as good as heterosexual marriage.
I know some homosexuals who are 'married' not legally of course, which is a shame considering they do just about everything everyone else does. Go buy rings, have a ceremony, receptions with family and friends, buy or rent a home,pay taxes, vote, work, care and love one another, often times bringing in their children, celebrating holidays with family and friends, buying pets etc, etc, etc.......the only thing I can see that is different is they are the same gender.
Reply-
0%
LittleBuckieVP434 months, 3 weeks ago
It aint rite havin dem dam fool men weddin men. Now, my mama done teeched me rite from rong and whut dey needs is a good beetin wid a switch from a ****** willo tree.
See, the way I look at it dey can get a lickin from dey mama or dey gets dem a good lickin in the other place from God. It's up to dem for the choosin. Butt I tellin ya all it's jus plum rong!
Reply
-
-
0%
tanglang4 months, 3 weeks ago
You may think it is right, but it is not A right. A big argument that I hear quite often from gays on tv as to why they should be allowed to marry is tax and insurance benefits. Here is my opinion on that. Insurance, fine. Everyone should be allowed to insure their families, partners, kids hell, even friends. If one of my friends is out of work and I want to add them to my private insurance, so be it. I pay for it.
My other opinion is that the federal government should not give marriage tax breaks to couples who are not capable of reproducing and therefore not contributing to society in the same way as hetero families do. Shd they be allowed to adopt? Maybe. I feel children are better off with two parents of opposite sex so I am undecided there. Should they be given tax breaks for adopting and raising a kid? Sure, why not? The feds should give breaks to anyone raising a child so that person has more money to invest in said child. Just my thoughts.
Reply-
0%
lvrofwolves4 months, 3 weeks ago
Tanglang- so you think that anybody that can produce children is contributing to society?
I'm one of those who respect people who choose not to bring more people into the world, or adopt, or just have 1-2 children.
Also the reason I got married and the reason everyone I know got married was because they loved each other, they were couples. Then comes the decision to have children or not, if you choose not to, it doesn't make your marriage or love any less valid then anyone else. Anyone can be a good contribution to society, surely not everyone is, regardless if they can reproduce or not.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
cowboygrandpa4 months, 4 weeks ago
Well. I'm not a gay basher. For all are loved by God.
I don't think homosexuality is right, as well as I don't believe that adultery or fornication is right. As I have been guilty of fornication and adultery in the past I cast no stones. I repented and have been forgiven, how can I do less than what was done for me.
Still I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.
Reply-
-
0%
lvrofwolves4 months, 4 weeks ago
For those who think homosexuality is wrong, I guess you should be thankful you were born heterosexual, and if you are one who thinks you made a choice to be a heterosexual, I don't know what to say!
Reply
-
-
0%
smithichie4 months, 4 weeks ago
"Still I believe marriage is between a man and a woman".
Some still believe marriage is for only those of the same so called 'race', making it legal didn't force people to change their belief system if they didn't want to, nobody was forced into marrying anyone they didn't want to and nobody's marriage lessened in value.
Reply
-
-
0%
Harbeas4 months, 4 weeks ago
Whether you believe in gay marriage or not(I don't). the real issue is the courts nullifying a vote by the people. This whole issue of gay marriage should be determined by each individual state and not the courts or the federal government.
Reply-
-
0%
david_nwpa4 months, 4 weeks ago
Because California has a constitution, its Supreme Court did its job. Namely, the Court was asked to decide if a law is constitutional. It decided against the law because it failed to pass constitutional muster. It denies people due process of law and it is discriminatory in violation of California's Constitution. If this had been a gun control law which had been overturned, wouldn't the right be cheering in the streets and not accusing the justices of "judicial activism"?
Reply
-
0%
memestryker4 months, 4 weeks ago
Harbeas,
Why should a government involve itself in sexual orientation? It's nobody's business but the couple's. This doesn't hurt anyone for two people to love each other.
Gays have had to live on the fringes for a long time. I think it's about time we invited them into the community circle.
Reply -
-
0%
jebusofborg4 months, 3 weeks ago
California is awsome ,something like 8 out of 10 people who live in america, live in california. They were also one of the first few states to mandate bans on thimerasol the mercury preservative in infant vaccines, also to allow husbands maternity leave for family bonding, the letter grades posted outside of eateries disclosing the inspection score, anouncing on all buildings and products about concerns or properties containing carcinogens. And the stand against us naval sonar excercises off the coast of california linked to the disruption of the senses and death of sonar guided mammals that wash up on shore inevitabley after each mission. I believe california to be the best representation of what america started out to be and is still best represented by.
Reply
-
-
0%
hamy4 months, 3 weeks ago
If the people of California held a vote that outlawed women with long hair, what do you think the women with long hair would do? They would go to the courts to try and tell the people that the law they voted for is illegal due to discrimination.
Same thing.
The majority cannot grant or deprive rights to a minority. Otherwise, why would any of us be here? If any of us can suddenly bring forth a list of names on a petition that can take away the rights of the rest of us, then what is the point?
Reply
-
-
0%
SunnyDays4 months, 4 weeks ago
Well, it's just right that we have this law.. there are gay couples who have much better relationship with straight ones. lol
Reply -
0%
Harbeas4 months, 4 weeks ago
Yes, we might still have had slavery in a few states for a few more years. But hundreds of thousands of men would not have died in the process. Was the civil way really worth that many lives. That's bs that slavery would still be around today. With differnt judges the vote might have gone the other way. I disagree with the discrimination aspect. How can you be discriminated against when a gay can marry any woman he wants. That's how marriage is defined. A union between a man and a woman. Gays do not meet that definition. Yes, I know the gay community would like to change that definition, but the last time I looked it had not been changed.
Reply-
0%
lvrofwolves4 months, 4 weeks ago
Yes, we might still have had slavery in a few states for a few more years. But hundreds of thousands of men would not have died in the process. Was the civil way really worth that many lives.
Harbeas- am I getting what I think I'm getting from this comment you made???
Reply -
0%
hamy4 months, 3 weeks ago
Marriage means union. In your world it means between a man and a woman.
Reply
-
-
0%
canadianrancher574 months, 4 weeks ago
I didn't check out the story but I would like to comment.
There will always be mixed feelings about gay marragiage until a point in time where all people who have religious beliefs accept the gay community and its members, I still keep hearing people say that they are willing to forgive people for being homosexual but it is not a matter of forgiving them it is a matter of accepting them. The revolution has started in some churches but how many of us out here were told as children that being gay was wrong and refuse to accept. Most of the road blocks against gay marraige are a result of there not being a separation of church and state.
Reply-
0%
lvrofwolves4 months, 4 weeks ago
canadianrancher, there probably always will be some who don't approve, just as there are still some who don't approve of blacks and whites marrying each other.
willing to forgive someone for being gay, now that's a hoot! what do they need forgiveness for?
Even if one doesn't accept them, that's their choice, but nobody should be allowed to discriminate or violate any of their rights.
Reply-
0%
canadianrancher574 months, 3 weeks ago
Ivrofwolves-I agree that we should not discriminate or violate any persons rights but these issues all seem to have to be settled by courts and politicians who then pass laws and these people then put their own biases in. It is nearly impossible for these people to leave their religious beliefs out of their decisions.
AS for the forgiveness part I have friends who are of different religions and attend differnt churches and it seems they still consider being gay as a sin and even a written law will not chance that fact and at this time they are only willing to forgive them not accept them.
As for me I don't need a written law to make a decision on the issue, I have my beliefs and I accept people as they are but this fight is a fight which involves all of society so change will be slow.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Mdiar4 months, 4 weeks ago
That was a hilarious video Ricky! Hilarious! Great thing to see... I just hope this opens up the "flood gates" so to speak for gay marriage rights everywhere.
Reply -
0%
nikkibabe4 months, 4 weeks ago
Gays and Lesbian weddings are far more peaceful and does not cost the US Government anything when compared to invading and occupying a muslim country and spend $1 trillion. It is better than torturing prisoners, it is better than outing the identity of a covert CIA operative. It will not increase the price of gas, food etc., It will not lead us to home foreclosures, not lead others in to bankruptcies.
In other words, it is harmless and no one has to suffer if two people decide to get together peacefully.
Reply -
-
-
0%
Global_Warmer4 months, 3 weeks ago
It certainly was in the case. When did Stevie Wonder get appointed to the California Supreme Court.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Hobe4 months, 3 weeks ago
Mixed Feelings About Gay Marriage in California?
'In fact, if society stood by your "traditions" black people would be worth 3/5 of a human, and women would not be voting. Furthermore, the races would not intermingle.'
Is it fair to say, comments like this, that try to use two completely differently situations are very Insulting to the principles? What a disgrace?
If a HoMosexual man and a HoMosexual Woman want to marry for whatever their reason, that is their choice. Just like a woman's right to choose to abort her baby. One may ask, why would any potential Mother want to Kill her baby? It may be inhumane but it's the Law.
One may ponder on why HoMosexuals and Abortionist choose specific behavior, but, it should be their choice...
Mental Health Counseling should be available and in some cases may be recommended.
HoMosexuals should and must have the same rights as all Americans....
Reply-
0%
smithichie4 months, 3 weeks ago
"Mental Health Counseling should be available and in some cases may be recommended".
Perhaps you should take your own advice.
Reply
-
-
0%
Hobe4 months, 3 weeks ago
Mixed Feelings About Gay Marriage in California?
'In fact, if society stood by your "traditions" black people would be worth 3/5 of a human, and women would not be voting. Furthermore, the races would not intermingle.'
Is it fair to say, comments like this, that try to use two completely differently situations are very Insulting to the principles? What a disgrace?
If a HoMosexual man and a HoMosexual Woman want to marry for whatever their reason, that is their choice. Just like a woman's right to choose to abort her baby. One may ask, why would any potential Mother want to Kill her baby? It may be inhumane but it's the Law.
One may ponder on why HoMosexuals and Abortionist choose specific behavior, but, it should be their choice...
Mental Health Counseling should be available and in some cases may be recommended.
HoMosexuals should and must have the same rights as all Americans..
Reply -
0%
JoseMadre4 months, 3 weeks ago
The problem is that 60% of the people voted differently and the elitist state Supreme Court decided that their personal preferences were better, so they changed the law by fiat. The real decision will take place in November when the people get to decide on an amendment to the California Constitution. THEN the people will have decided, either way.
Reply-
0%
smithichie4 months, 3 weeks ago
The fact you point out, yourself, it will take an amendment to the Calif. Constitution, shows the Court didn't just show their personal preference, they followed the Constitution as is currently.
Would you be calling them elitists if they struck down a law outlawing guns supported by 60%?
Reply -
0%
JoseMadre4 months, 3 weeks ago
No, they made a decision that has no historical basis. Even one of the justices who said "no" personally supports gay marriage, but had the integrity to follow the law, not her personal position. The amendment would simply clarify what was already understood by by everyone until 4 of the 7 justices decided to put make their personal positions law.
And just to clarify, I have no problem with gay marriage, only with judges who form an oligarchy by overthrowing the will of the people by judicial fiat.
Reply-
0%
JoseMadre4 months, 3 weeks ago
No, they made a decision that has no historical or legal basis. Even one of the justices who said "no" personally supports gay marriage, but had the integrity to follow the law, not her personal position. The amendment would simply clarify what was already understood by by everyone until 4 of the 7 justices decided to put make their personal positions law.
And just to clarify, I have no problem with gay marriage, only with judges who form an oligarchy by overthrowing the will of the people by judicial fiat.
Reply -
0%
JoseMadre4 months, 3 weeks ago
No, they made a decision that has no historical or legal basis. Even one of the justices who said "no" personally supports gay marriage, but had the integrity to follow the law, not her personal position. The amendment would simply clarify what was already understood by by everyone until 4 of t
-
-
