spinnerettemusic.com

[quote="phukethard":gplo7r0v]
yeah, but by that people are JUDGING what is BEST for themselves and others. because you don't VOTE for something you don't LIKE. not every person is capable of looking past what is best for only themselves.

the PROBLEM IS that via the POPULARITY VOTE which is THE PUBLIC we aren't getting a valued answer! it is a "what is more popular" vote which doesn't mean it is right.

If this was a matter left to the courts i'd have more faith in them than some trailerpark trash with 5 kids out of wedlock saying "dem fags don't need no marriage"
[/quote:gplo7r0v]


sure but if gay people got what they wanted, straight people would be the fussing about getting what THEY want. However selfish and unfair it may be on whomever's part, one side will be happy, one side won't be.

Can't make everyone happy.



[quote="forgotten":gplo7r0v]
Andy loves playing the devil's advocate.
[/quote:gplo7r0v]


:>

I think they should start applying full blown separation of church and state. Keep marriage religious as its meant to be by the Bible, and whomever doesn't want to have a religious union (gay or straight) can have a civil union with all of the benefits given with current marriages.

[quote="forgotten":k72dqr1k]
I think they should start applying full blown separation of church and state. Keep marriage religious as its meant to be by the Bible, and whomever doesn't want to have a religious union (gay or straight) can have a civil union with all of the benefits given with current marriages.
[/quote:k72dqr1k]



they already do...

My mom and dad got married by the judge, at a court house... They are catholics and since they didn't get married through the church, the church doesn't recognize them as a married couple.

Same thing happened to another couple I know. The church refused to recognize them as a married couple (the husband was baptist,) so he had to go through confirmation, then they had to get married all over again before the church would recognize them as "married."

However, both of these instances involve a male + female marriage, though the issue was with the church.

Right, what I'm saying is equal civil union for gays and straights. The gays do not have the same rights. Eg. if one of them dies, the house goes to family members instead of their partner.

[quote="forgotten":3siqdaah]
Right, what I'm saying is equal civil union for gays and straights. The gays do not have the same rights. Eg. if one of them dies, the house goes to family members instead of their partner.
[/quote:3siqdaah]


that makes sense.

im not debating what makes people happy and what doesn't. it's about what is just and fair. so nyeh.

i feel the same way. the problem with civil unions is that the same perks/rights aren't there as with marriages.

ehhhhh i've expressed my point enough. i feel like that kid who has eaten too much chocolate laying on the floor with it smeared on their cheeks... mmm chocolate.

[quote="phukethard":gv7bg6wv]
im not debating what makes people happy and what doesn't. it's about what is just and fair. so nyeh.
[/quote:gv7bg6wv]


i'm not either, i'm trying to point out that what is "just and fair" is a matter of opinion.

[quote="forgotten":3uwwbzu0]
Right, what I'm saying is equal civil union for gays and straights. The gays do not have the same rights. Eg. if one of them dies, the house goes to family members instead of their partner.
[/quote:3uwwbzu0]


Is that true? I thought a civil partnership gave you the same rights?
You can even have a "co-habitating couples" agreement whereby you don't have to get married but you get similar rights as a married couple

Yes, it's true. Same thing with kids. If one of the partners has a child and he/she passes away, the kid goes to a relative and not his/her partner.

[quote="forgotten":17brcz3a]
Yes, it's true. Same thing with kids. If one of the partners has a child and he/she passes away, the kid goes to a relative and not his/her partner.
[/quote:17brcz3a]


Bloody hell that's shit!

I know, isn't it? It's bullshit and it pisses me off.

[quote="forgotten":1iocyqxd]
I know, isn't it? It's bullshit and it pisses me off.
[/quote:1iocyqxd]


for some reason i lold when i read that, i cant imagine you saying it i guess.

Really? How come? I imagine it is comical coming from me with my childish, girly voice.

[quote="forgotten":1bxkfit5]
Really? How come? I imagine it is comical coming from me with my childish, girly voice.
[/quote:1bxkfit5]


i think thats what i meant. i saw it and lol'd and i was like "oh you"

[quote="forgotten":ef4d0qf0]
Really? How come? I imagine it is comical coming from me with my childish, girly voice.
[/quote:ef4d0qf0]

i fink mine is higher... :/

I just don't really see the point of anyone telling another person they're not allowed to marry somebody when it doesn't affect you at all. I can't even imagine caring enough about who a stranger marries to be against it. I like girls. Nobody died over it. I'm still gonna like girls even if it's not recognized constitutionally, you know? I guess all I'm saying is gays are gays and gays are here, and they're not going to vanish just because it doesn't sit well with some. And if they're here, and they're not going away, it's kind of disgusting to deny them what's essentially a basic right. And on a lighter note, having married couples incapable of impregnating their partner is really not a bad thing at all, with the population being as it is. Say it together with me now. A-d-o-p-t-i-o-n.

Again, I cant be arsed to read all this so please forgive any repetition.

Firstly, Gay marriage in the US is currently 'illegal' due to the constitution, which on marriage can be amended state by state. Under the US constitution, it states that marriage is between a man and woman, in Article 1 I think. It was in California and some other states that this was brought up to be against an individual's constitutional fundamental human right to marry also seen under Article 1. Then following this in 2008, Prop 8 was drawn up to specify that in California the statement and definition of marriage was to maintain between a man and woman.

The US constitution is so subjective it can be interpreted and argued either way, for and against issues for and ever unless it changes with the times of society, however you could then argue that there are no stable guidelines and that rules could be bent or broken for anything.

I personally feel that anyone should have the right and ability to marry who they want. I believe marriage should not be about the sexual orientation of the individuals but for the person you love. Marriage is a unity between two people that want to spend the rest of their lives together-no I am not going to get in to a divorce rate argument, but the principles, I believe, are based on the love that two people share. I think that gay marriage should be recognized not just as a civil partnership as I think it is in the UK but as a marriage. I also find it hard to think that homosexuality was until so recently, in itself, illegal.

I also find it intrusive for people to say who a person can marry. I find this structure and constricting hold on society and its natural flow is a bad idea. I don't believe in the 'big brother' nations or over controlling power based governments, however on the flip side I believe they are better there than not. I have been in many arguments with 'chaos' punks and all that. pfft, no time for it. I think people, as long as they are not harming others-which in the same-sex marriage case, are not, should be allowed to do what they want. end of.

Touching upon homosexuality and genetics-nature vs nurture and all that. I think everyone has the 'ability' (for use of a better word) to be gay but its a decision to act upon it. I am not saying that it is a choice, I am saying that the choice is to accept or not.

So fuck prop 8.

on a lighter note. Jimmy Carr says 'I say no to gay marriage. It'll end up leading to gay divorce, and that'll be bitchy.'

Hmm the seperation of church and state, there are so many interpretations to it. Some say it is the seperation of an official US religion. Not the lack of religion. Unfortunately, the original fathers were vague and left us to interpret this rather cryptic passage.

Cant we legalize it and move along?

In Finland they're debating whether in the case of registered couples the other mother/father ought to have the right to adopt the couple's children or not.. Like what the fuck, they have a child but only one of them has a legal status as a parent? So in case of divorce, the law does not give you the right to even see your children if your former partner doesn't want you to (alternatively you can refuse to give them financial support). And the child can't inherit the other parent either.

And it shouldn't even be a religious issue as both of Finland's major religions have expressed their support for the proposed law. Apparently the opposers believe it would infringe the biological mother's/father's rights. Hah.

[quote="tracy.":2ymvpe24]
In Finland they're debating whether in the case of registered couples the other mother/father ought to have the right to adopt the couple's children or not.. Like what the fuck, they have a child but only one of them has a legal status as a parent? So in case of divorce, the law does not give you the right to even see your children if your former partner doesn't want you to (alternatively you can refuse to give them financial support). And the child can't inherit the other parent either.

And it shouldn't even be a religious issue as both of Finland's major religions have expressed their support for the proposed law. Apparently the opposers believe it would infringe the biological mother's/father's rights. Hah.
[/quote:2ymvpe24]

thats quite interesting. i've been doing alot of research on Europe's take on same-sex marriage and I was quite impressed with it's movement towards accepting same-sex marriage/unions/partnerships, but i did notice that until recently same-sex couples were denied certain rights (taxes, alimony, co-property, child custody)

I've spent a number of months reviewing global and national news, and journals, and research for same-sex marriage and quite frankly, logically there are nearly no strong points against same-sex marriage. Religion is just to subjective, everyone reads into the bible differently (You know the whole [i:2ymvpe24]eye for an eye[/i:2ymvpe24] and [i:2ymvpe24]thou shall not kill[/i:2ymvpe24] contradiction...).

I was watching the news today, and it featured the new uproar of religious traditionalist all pissy about same-sex marriage movements progress...and it's so disgusting witnessing the hate on their faces. how can people claiming to be fighting for moral justice be so uncivilized....

thats america for you

I think it's unfair that religious people make decisions for everyone, even for those who are part of some other church or of no church at all.

I have a gay friend who recently recieved it up hershey highway for the first time a few days ago.
Though I don't like to hear about it, I certainly think he has the right to love whoever he so chooses.

Personally, I think people who are "anti-gay" are just ridiculous. It's here, it's happening, get over it. This is 2009, for crying out loud. Have we gotten no where?

[quote="cassie867":rctidb7p]
recieved it up hershey highway
[/quote:rctidb7p]


:/

prop8 bump

Yeah, ridiculous. I told Brody on twatter (because shes overseas and lives in CA) about how sad CA is, and the prop 8 repeal... she said, and I quote "fuck california legislation. everyone should go gay."

its sad how liberal CA PRETENDS TO BE.

Already forgot what Proposition 8 is. lulz.

[url=http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones:12itthqq]Prop 8 The Musical[/url:12itthqq]

[quote="blacklovespent":snf7yrgv]
[url=http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones:snf7yrgv]Prop 8 The Musical[/url:snf7yrgv]
[/quote:snf7yrgv]


many lulz were had, I love jack black, what is that place? I see more jack black vids there?

[quote="meatfilledpastry":jl0k116m]
many lulz were had, I love jack black, what is that place? I see more jack black vids there?
[/quote:jl0k116m]



funnyordie.com

probably the best/funniest video site on the internet. you watch videos and then vote whether it was funny or not.

go watch "the landlord."

I moved from Canada to this? FML.. seriously,..

[quote="blacklovespent":ucwk9333]
funnyordie.com

probably the best/funniest video site on the internet. you watch videos and then vote whether it was funny or not.

go watch "the landlord."


[/quote:ucwk9333]


is that the one with will ferrel and the baby landlord?

[quote="blacklovespent":3gjar5gn]
go watch "the landlord."
[/quote:3gjar5gn]

hehehe.
i want my money!!!!!!!!!

[quote="meatfilledpastry":tdypgxa8]
is that the one with will ferrel and the baby landlord?
[/quote:tdypgxa8]



"i will put you on the streets!"

The outtakes are so cute.

in good cop baby cop it says "this is pearl's last video" and it played sort of sad music and showed her picture, I thought she had died or something!

"i'm gonna bite your nose off"

that little girl is adorable!

Im glad the state uphelp the decision b/c it was voted on for the people. However I hate the original passing of the proposition...its sad. But the majority of CA people have spoken and we must respect that. As sad as it is.