What! I thought it was funny.

Wrong, but cute.

It's going in my collection.

See, there are now two issues with that. Two spots where "equality" isn't. In case you can't see them. (which is preposterous, as they're blaringly obvious.)

First, the corperation has a way to discriminate against a sexual orientation without appearing to do so. Similarly to literacy tests for voting when the former slaves had no way to have learned to read. Theoretically, it could happen. There COULD be a black man who could pass the thing, and he'd be allowed to vote. But realistically it wasn't going to happen. Similarly, there ARE straight people who aren't married. so it's not really discrimination if the company only offers benefits to married spouses and their family, right?

And the second issue is the DOMA itself, which means even if we DO get a civil union, there's no guarantee it'll even be recognized outside of the state, whereas no straight couple would have that concern.

Furthermore, as long as it was performed and set up legally, the federal government is forced to recognize same sex marriages. So long as they reside in a state that allows gay marriage.

Very bad taste.

Well, I don't support it and I figured it was an easily-recognizable photoshop.

Generally speaking, I'm sure that's not the motivation behind most voting Californians, and I'm pretty sure that a lot of gay people are overreacting (esp. if they feel motivated to make something like that). I still have to disagree with Prop 8's outcome.

I guess if nothing's done about it in the near future, it'll just be one of those 'wait until all those old codgers die off' deals.

Did you watch the Colbert Report last night?

Yes, but it's also the consolation I've been given by many people beforehand.

Regarding the DOMA...

If Prop8 passed, because of DOMA the marriage would still be null and void if they moved out of the state.
Meaning, Prop8 does not affect DOMA at all. All 50 states could pass same sex marriage laws, and DOMA would still be in affect on the federal level.

Guess what, if only gay people are allowed to have domestic partnerships (and people over the age of 80 partnered with someone under the age of 40, I think??) and only heterosexuals are allowed to have a marriage, then discriminating based on marriage vs domestic partnership, would in fact be a case of discriminating based on sexual orientation. But I have no idea if corporations are even allowed to do things like that. I know that I've never gotten any benefits from my office for being married, and every form I've ever filled out makes it very clear that my co insurance person, could be anybody I want and I'm willing to pay for.

And that sign is just stupid... it must be on the border of Oregon and California... gah that sign is ugly and very un californian.

real california signs:

One, that's exactly what the great majority of Bible-thumpers(if anyone's forgotten the definition and is feeling like being offended again, feel free to look it up earlier in the thread) are going for, and successfully manage to do. Indoctrinate children so that the ones that grow up and discover they're gay feel bad about it, and that's a gross understatement.

Two, I'm not missing the point. You are. Sorry, but the goal is to let all children be comfortable with either mode, not pick one group and treat the other like crap. Which is what we currently do as a majority, and the type of treatment you seem to be perfectly comfortable with, as long as the target is a group you don't like, not your own.

Cause like, yea man, California is such an oppressive, far right, hardcore conservative state.

Please stop projecting.

If the goal is to let all children be comfortable with either mode, then perhaps you should try a different strategy. Because as it is, you are making children who have heterosexual families, with different opinions than yours feel unwanted, unneeded, and all together hated.

If you want children to be comfortable with either mode, then you continue having programs like Will and Grace, or you acknowledge the legitimacy of unmarried families (like single parents, or divorced parents, or gay parents, or being raised by your grandmother, or being raised by a foster family, or any of the many other numerous ways in which people are raised outside of marriages). You don't make all children/people feel comfortable, by renaming and redifing what a marriage is, or by telling 52% of the population that you are all a bunch of mindless biggots, who have been lied to. (because they weren't lied to, and they aren't biggots)

Like the photoshop picture says, The fact that California has voted (by popular vote) to allow for Domestic partnerships which have ALL the rights of marriage, is testament that gays are not welcome in California.

The fact that you think I don't like gay people is just rude, obnoxious, and entirely uncalled for.

And if you have a problem with Bible Thumpers, then talk to the bible thumpers, but don't call 52% of Californians bible thumpers, because they are far from it. (And please stop saying that chickens which get killed and eaten by humans, have more rights than gay people)

You have stopped making any sense at all, as far as I can tell, because you're making references to things that have no bearing on the discussion. Gays aren't welcome in California? Chickens? Children being made to feel unloved because they're not gay? I hate to write anybody off, but I'm having a very, very hard time following your arguments, Daganev.

1. Look at Furien's picture

2. I'm responding more to the protesters in the street then the people on the thread to be honest. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VziklUbtHAE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiZEeP4LFzg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAF7fThC1Vk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE8lMJL3Z8A

3. please don't twist my words.

What'd you mean by this?

What point is being made with that video?

To show the mean old gay people beat up on the defenseless christian old lady?

Don't forget about the state sponsored single K death squads. (They only get to hate blacks, jews or gay people, instead of all three like Full Strength Klan. In this case, it's black people. Imported from Texas.)

Full Strength Klan sounds like a good beer.

...I'm not? I'm asking for some clarity, because the longer you keep posting here, the less you're showing. Maybe it all makes sense to you, but remember, all we have to work with is what you type, and there's apparently a major disconnect.

Here, I speak Daganese.

He's referring to the bit about people feeling unwanted, unneeded, and outright hated. He's deflecting the charge of bigotry as uncalled for, because the majority has not been mislead, and the majority is not hateful or spiteful. The rest of the comparisons are for illustration, like the picture he posted earlier of the cute PETA girls in a cage.

Which is a load of crap, even at face value, and you have to also keep in mind that he confessed to habitual straw manning when he said he'd rather argue with the people who aren't on the thread than the people who are on the thread.