• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Why California needs Proposition 8..........

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

MH2007

Senior member
Jun 26, 2007
830
0
0
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: MH2007

Whether anyone votes Yes or No on 8 is up to them. But if what children are taught in schools is what is important to them, they deserve to not be fed lies. Certainly not by the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, of all people.
The only ones trying to raise the fear level are the homophobic, bigots. The worst they fear is that their kids will learn the ugly truth their parents' homophobic bigotry.

Their ads are all lies. They claim they want to "restore" traditional marriage. The truth is, NOTHING in the law prohibits them from heterosexual marriage. The first two words in the description on the ballot are, "ELIMINATES RIGHT..." :shocked:

Who the fuck are they to eliminate the rights of some other group of citizens, and why should they give a rat's ass? They're the same fucking assholes who used to bar marriage rights, property rights and the right to vote to anyone other than caucasians. :thumbsdown: :|

Grow up, and get over it. It's time the religious wingnuts got over their hypocrisy and practiced the love and tolerance their religion preaches.

FUCK THE BIGOTS! Vote NO on Proposition 8.
The No on 8 ads that I highlighted are indisputably lies.

While I disagree with a lot of what is in the Yes on 8 ads they are not lies, they are a matter of opinion. It is also interesting that you highlight the "Eliminates Right" descrition on the ballot, as this was forced onto the ballot by the Attorney General against the will of the petitioners. There is no question that this was done to create a more adversarial tone and make it less palatable to voters, as he did this after opponents tried to remove it from the ballot and failed. There was actually a lawsuit filed to get the name changed back to what the petitioners signed it as but were denied.

I'm not sure why you think I need to "grow up." Additionally, there is nothing to "get over." I am still leaning to vote No, but some people that have yet to vote on this Proposition are being lied to brazenly by the No on 8 campaign and may be influenced by those lies. People deserve to make their decision based on facts.
 

MH2007

Senior member
Jun 26, 2007
830
0
0
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: MH2007
Originally posted by: abaez
For the PSU/OHST game tonight here in L.A. I've seen three no on prop 8 commercials and 1 yes on 8.

Interestingly the no on 8 had the superintendent of schools says that gay marriage will absolutely not be taught in anyway whatsoever, while the yes on 8 said it will and brought out some couple from MA saying it was taught to their child. So two completely opposite statements.. someone is lying...
I will preface this by saying that I really don't know yet which way I will vote on this. I had initally intended to vote No on this particular Proposition

The No on 8 ad campaign still runs the soundbite of the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction even though they know it is misleading. What he actually says is that it is not required. While supposedly this is technically true (if in fact it is not a required part of 100% of students' curriculum), this is certainly disengenuous. Nearly all schools include instruction on marriage in their curriculum, usually at a very young age. The No on 8 people obviously know that gay marriage will be taught in schools, as they claim that parents can pull their children out of this instruction. The Yes on 8 people dispute this (that by itself would be a huge debate).

The point is that the No on 8 campaign claims it will not be taught, yet at the same time claim that parents can pull their children out of instruction that isn't happening.

The No on 8 campaign continues to run the ad as well as including the soundbite in other ads because they know it is effective at strongly implying something that will get people to vote no, even though they know is not true.

Whether anyone votes Yes or No on 8 is up to them. But if what children are taught in schools is what is important to them, they deserve to not be fed lies. Certainly not by the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, of all people.
Taking your position at face value...so what? If kids are "taught" about gay marriage (I don't recall learning about marriage in school, but whatever) so what? Do you think this will result in turning kids gay? Or will it simply make them more tolerant of gay people (the horror!)
Maybe you should ask the No on 8 campaign why they care enough to lie about it?

Personally I think gay marriage should be taught in schools, but at an appropriate age. IMO the ultra-liberals pushing for first graders and younger to be taught about gay marriage are wrong, they are too young at that age to comprehend sexuality.

But voters that disagree with me should be able to vote without being lied to, certainly not by the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, of all people. That was my point.
 

MH2007

Senior member
Jun 26, 2007
830
0
0
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: MH2007
Originally posted by: abaez
For the PSU/OHST game tonight here in L.A. I've seen three no on prop 8 commercials and 1 yes on 8.

Interestingly the no on 8 had the superintendent of schools says that gay marriage will absolutely not be taught in anyway whatsoever, while the yes on 8 said it will and brought out some couple from MA saying it was taught to their child. So two completely opposite statements.. someone is lying...
I will preface this by saying that I really don't know yet which way I will vote on this. I had initally intended to vote No on this particular Proposition

The No on 8 ad campaign still runs the soundbite of the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction even though they know it is misleading. What he actually says is that it is not required. While supposedly this is technically true (if in fact it is not a required part of 100% of students' curriculum), this is certainly disengenuous. Nearly all schools include instruction on marriage in their curriculum, usually at a very young age. The No on 8 people obviously know that gay marriage will be taught in schools, as they claim that parents can pull their children out of this instruction. The Yes on 8 people dispute this (that by itself would be a huge debate).

The point is that the No on 8 campaign claims it will not be taught, yet at the same time claim that parents can pull their children out of instruction that isn't happening.

The No on 8 campaign continues to run the ad as well as including the soundbite in other ads because they know it is effective at strongly implying something that will get people to vote no, even though they know is not true.

Whether anyone votes Yes or No on 8 is up to them. But if what children are taught in schools is what is important to them, they deserve to not be fed lies. Certainly not by the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, of all people.
If the school chooses to teach about marriage and they include information about gay marriage...Great. With or without Prop 8 I could care less.

However Prop 8 does not require anything to be taught in schools.
This is true, Prop 8 does not require anything to be taught in schools. The fact remains that if Prop 8 does not pass, gay marriage will have be taught in schools.

The No on 8 campaign is lying about this, and that's what I'm trying to point out.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
I saw a poll a few days ago with support for Prop 8 at 45%, and opposition at 49%. All the polls I've seen show it going down in defeat.
 

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
5,944
797
126
Why don't they keep "Marriage" for hetero couples and "Union" for gay couples? Religious people get to keep their "marriage" which is a legal contract and gays get their legal "union". If gays wish to have a legal contract where they share everything, who gives a fuck? Is the issue of gay marriage that important? Good thing we're not in the middle of a financial disaster or a prolonged military conflict or this might be a sad tale of our priorities.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,220
26
91
Defeating Prop 8 is all just part of the master plan. In 4 years, we will have prop 8.5, which will require mandatory buttsecks for all citizens. Nostradamus has nothing on me.
 

MH2007

Senior member
Jun 26, 2007
830
0
0
Originally posted by: brandonbull
Why don't they keep "Marriage" for hetero couples and "Union" for gay couples? Religious people get to keep their "marriage" which is a legal contract and gays get their legal "union". If gays wish to have a legal contract where they share everything, who gives a fuck? Is the issue of gay marriage that important? Good thing we're not in the middle of a financial disaster or a prolonged military conflict or this might be a sad tale of our priorities.
One thing that people outside of California (and even maybe some people in CA) might not realize is that CA and MA are currently the only states that recognize gay marriage (with CT soon to follow). And even if Prop 8 does pass, gay couples will still have ALL the same rights that straight couples by virtue of domestic partnerships.

In contrast, rights for gay couples can sometimes be extremely limited in other states.

Makes me :roll: at the people who rant that California is the place with all the bigots.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,385
1,517
126
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Ns1
this needs 66% and not majority to pass right?
no, simple majority wins.
Interesting. I would hardly call a 4-5% lead in polls "going down in flames"
 

morkman100

Senior member
Jun 2, 2003
383
0
0
Originally posted by: brandonbull
Why don't they keep "Marriage" for hetero couples and "Union" for gay couples? Religious people get to keep their "marriage" which is a legal contract and gays get their legal "union". If gays wish to have a legal contract where they share everything, who gives a fuck? Is the issue of gay marriage that important? Good thing we're not in the middle of a financial disaster or a prolonged military conflict or this might be a sad tale of our priorities.
Separate but equal shouldn't fly.

Government should call ALL "marriages" civil unions (since they are only legal contracts in the eyes of the law) and then every wonky religion can marry any one they wish.
 

morkman100

Senior member
Jun 2, 2003
383
0
0
Originally posted by: MH2007
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: MH2007
Originally posted by: abaez
For the PSU/OHST game tonight here in L.A. I've seen three no on prop 8 commercials and 1 yes on 8.

Interestingly the no on 8 had the superintendent of schools says that gay marriage will absolutely not be taught in anyway whatsoever, while the yes on 8 said it will and brought out some couple from MA saying it was taught to their child. So two completely opposite statements.. someone is lying...
I will preface this by saying that I really don't know yet which way I will vote on this. I had initally intended to vote No on this particular Proposition

The No on 8 ad campaign still runs the soundbite of the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction even though they know it is misleading. What he actually says is that it is not required. While supposedly this is technically true (if in fact it is not a required part of 100% of students' curriculum), this is certainly disengenuous. Nearly all schools include instruction on marriage in their curriculum, usually at a very young age. The No on 8 people obviously know that gay marriage will be taught in schools, as they claim that parents can pull their children out of this instruction. The Yes on 8 people dispute this (that by itself would be a huge debate).

The point is that the No on 8 campaign claims it will not be taught, yet at the same time claim that parents can pull their children out of instruction that isn't happening.

The No on 8 campaign continues to run the ad as well as including the soundbite in other ads because they know it is effective at strongly implying something that will get people to vote no, even though they know is not true.

Whether anyone votes Yes or No on 8 is up to them. But if what children are taught in schools is what is important to them, they deserve to not be fed lies. Certainly not by the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, of all people.
If the school chooses to teach about marriage and they include information about gay marriage...Great. With or without Prop 8 I could care less.

However Prop 8 does not require anything to be taught in schools.
This is true, Prop 8 does not require anything to be taught in schools. The fact remains that if Prop 8 does not pass, gay marriage will have be taught in schools.

The No on 8 campaign is lying about this, and that's what I'm trying to point out.
And bigots 50 years ago (before Living v. Viginia) could have said that interracial marriage is wrong and if it's allowed, schools would be "forced" to teach about interracial couples.

Why aren't you so concerned over the lies that the YES to Prop 8 commercials spew? How if you vote No, that churches will lose their tax exempt status, or that churches will be forced to marry gay couples, or that kindergarteners will be taught every day that gay marriage is awesome?

When gay marriage is legal, the extent of discussion of gay couples/marriage in grade school will be that a gay marriage just like a "regular" marriage or an interracial marriage or an bi-religious marriage, it's 2 people who love each other.

 

MH2007

Senior member
Jun 26, 2007
830
0
0
Originally posted by: morkman100
Originally posted by: MH2007
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: MH2007
Originally posted by: abaez
For the PSU/OHST game tonight here in L.A. I've seen three no on prop 8 commercials and 1 yes on 8.

Interestingly the no on 8 had the superintendent of schools says that gay marriage will absolutely not be taught in anyway whatsoever, while the yes on 8 said it will and brought out some couple from MA saying it was taught to their child. So two completely opposite statements.. someone is lying...
I will preface this by saying that I really don't know yet which way I will vote on this. I had initally intended to vote No on this particular Proposition

The No on 8 ad campaign still runs the soundbite of the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction even though they know it is misleading. What he actually says is that it is not required. While supposedly this is technically true (if in fact it is not a required part of 100% of students' curriculum), this is certainly disengenuous. Nearly all schools include instruction on marriage in their curriculum, usually at a very young age. The No on 8 people obviously know that gay marriage will be taught in schools, as they claim that parents can pull their children out of this instruction. The Yes on 8 people dispute this (that by itself would be a huge debate).

The point is that the No on 8 campaign claims it will not be taught, yet at the same time claim that parents can pull their children out of instruction that isn't happening.

The No on 8 campaign continues to run the ad as well as including the soundbite in other ads because they know it is effective at strongly implying something that will get people to vote no, even though they know is not true.

Whether anyone votes Yes or No on 8 is up to them. But if what children are taught in schools is what is important to them, they deserve to not be fed lies. Certainly not by the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, of all people.
If the school chooses to teach about marriage and they include information about gay marriage...Great. With or without Prop 8 I could care less.

However Prop 8 does not require anything to be taught in schools.
This is true, Prop 8 does not require anything to be taught in schools. The fact remains that if Prop 8 does not pass, gay marriage will have be taught in schools.

The No on 8 campaign is lying about this, and that's what I'm trying to point out.
And bigots 50 years ago (before Living v. Viginia) could have said that interracial marriage is wrong and if it's allowed, schools would be "forced" to teach about interracial couples.

Why aren't you so concerned over the lies that the YES to Prop 8 commercials spew? How if you vote No, that churches will lose their tax exempt status, or that churches will be forced to marry gay couples, or that kindergarteners will be taught every day that gay marriage is awesome?

When gay marriage is legal, the extent of discussion of gay couples/marriage in grade school will be that a gay marriage just like a "regular" marriage or an interracial marriage or an bi-religious marriage, it's 2 people who love each other.

Like I said before, my particular concern that I am highlighting here is that the No on 8 campaign is clearly lying about this and is continuing to push it. They know their message, delivered by the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, is deceitful. But at the same time it is highly effective.

I am simply not as concerned with something I have never seen or I know is true. The Yes on 8 ad that says churches will lose their tax exempt status? Never seen it. Or that churches will be forced to marry gay couples? Never seen it. I'm sure you know full well that nobody is claiming kindergarteners "are going to be taught every day that gay marriage is awesome" but it is undeniable that gay marriage will be taught in schools.

Maybe the Yes on 8 did say such things at some point and I missed it.

It might have something to do with the fact that the No on 8 campaign is outspending them more than 4 to 1. At that ratio, how could anyone be surprised if lies from one side is more concerning to an impartial observer?

I suppose it's possible that they ran a bad ad saying something you claimed they did and they subsequently pulled it. Suffice it to say I would be interested to see any ad currently running that claims what you say the Yes on 8 campaign claims.

In stark contrast, I get to listen to the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction repeat his lies nearly every time I listen to the radio or watch TV.

The No on 8 campaign claims it will not be taught, yet at the same time claim that parents can pull their children out of this instruction ... which supposedly isn't happening!

Also, I should point out that I don't think I've ever seen their claim (which Yes on 8 disputes) that parents can pull their children out of this instruction on TV ads or heard it on the radio, only on the their web site. It would undermine the effectiveness of the message that is being repeatedly delivered by the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction because it is clearly contradictory.

In contrast, the Yes on 8 ads on TV routinely claim that parents will NOT be able to pull their children out of this instruction, which at first seemed somewhat odd to me because I wasn't aware that No on 8 was claiming parents could.

TLDR?

Cliffs:
In short, my point is this: If someone really cares about whether or not gay marriage will be taught in schools as a factor in how they are voting on Prop 8, they don't deserve to be lied to about it. Least of all by the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,220
26
91
Originally posted by: morkman100
Originally posted by: brandonbull
Why don't they keep "Marriage" for hetero couples and "Union" for gay couples? Religious people get to keep their "marriage" which is a legal contract and gays get their legal "union". If gays wish to have a legal contrhttp://forums.anandtech.com/me...852911&STARTPAGE=13act where they share everything, who gives a fuck? Is the issue of gay marriage that important? Good thing we're not in the middle of a financial disaster or a prolonged military conflict or this might be a sad tale of our priorities.
Separate but equal shouldn't fly.
Do you feel the same when they want to be segregated?
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
I was never taught about marriage in school, period. Why should it be? Am I the only one who thinks that falls under the realm of parental responsibility?

 

Jschmuck2

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2005
5,623
2
81
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: morkman100
Originally posted by: brandonbull
Why don't they keep "Marriage" for hetero couples and "Union" for gay couples? Religious people get to keep their "marriage" which is a legal contract and gays get their legal "union". If gays wish to have a legal contrhttp://forums.anandtech.com/me...852911&STARTPAGE=13act where they share everything, who gives a fuck? Is the issue of gay marriage that important? Good thing we're not in the middle of a financial disaster or a prolonged military conflict or this might be a sad tale of our priorities.
Separate but equal shouldn't fly.
Do you feel the same when they want to be segregated?
Do you have any posts where you aren't a contentious ass?
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,220
26
91
Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: morkman100
Originally posted by: brandonbull
Why don't they keep "Marriage" for hetero couples and "Union" for gay couples? Religious people get to keep their "marriage" which is a legal contract and gays get their legal "union". If gays wish to have a legal contrhttp://forums.anandtech.com/me...852911&STARTPAGE=13act where they share everything, who gives a fuck? Is the issue of gay marriage that important? Good thing we're not in the middle of a financial disaster or a prolonged military conflict or this might be a sad tale of our priorities.
Separate but equal shouldn't fly.
Do you feel the same when they want to be segregated?
Do you have any posts where you aren't a contentious ass?

Ill take it my response went a tad over your head. Go sit at the kids table, the grown-ups are talking politics.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
1. In most EU countries people living together have the exact same rights as wed couples, marriage isn't really benefical for most people.

2. The major reason why Northern Europeans don't marry but have children is because of the decline in people being religious, there is no religious reason nor is there a legal reason.

3. The major increase in unwed mothers happened before homosexual marriage was instituted (for the above mentioned reasons which occured at that time) and in countries such as Sweden it STILL is not institued, they have partnership for homosexuals, NOT marriage.

So basically, every premise stated is false, it's a bullsheit argument with NO truth to it.

The slippery slope argument always follows because when the arguments run out of breath you need to reach for something but the slippery slope fallacy only leads back to the same idiocy.

There are social issues, as demonstrated througout time, why polygamy shouldn't be allowed, there are natural reasons not to allow incestous relationships and the rest has to do with not being able to legally consent.

I think that covers most of this retarded discussion.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
28
86
Originally posted by: MH2007

It is also interesting that you highlight the "Eliminates Right" descrition on the ballot, as this was forced onto the ballot by the Attorney General against the will of the petitioners. There is no question that this was done to create a more adversarial tone and make it less palatable to voters, as he did this after opponents tried to remove it from the ballot and failed. There was actually a lawsuit filed to get the name changed back to what the petitioners signed it as but were denied.
And what does that tell you? That the judge found that the petitioners were wrong. The proposition discriminates against gay couples and ELIMINATES A RIGHT enjoyed by heterosexual couples.

I'm not sure why you think I need to "grow up." Additionally, there is nothing to "get over."
That was directed at anyone who can't figure out that allowing gays to marry doesn't deprive them of anything or any right. Only passing Prop 8 does that.

I am still leaning to vote No, but some people that have yet to vote on this Proposition are being lied to brazenly by the No on 8 campaign and may be influenced by those lies. People deserve to make their decision based on facts.
Good. There's hope for you. I'm straight. Nothing's going to change for me, one way or the other. Please don't vote to eliminate a right of some of my friends and business relationships.

Thanks.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: MH2007

It is also interesting that you highlight the "Eliminates Right" descrition on the ballot, as this was forced onto the ballot by the Attorney General against the will of the petitioners. There is no question that this was done to create a more adversarial tone and make it less palatable to voters, as he did this after opponents tried to remove it from the ballot and failed. There was actually a lawsuit filed to get the name changed back to what the petitioners signed it as but were denied.
And what does that tell you? That the judge found that the petitioners were wrong. The proposition discriminates against gay couples and ELIMINATES A RIGHT enjoyed by heterosexual couples.

I'm not sure why you think I need to "grow up." Additionally, there is nothing to "get over."
That was directed at anyone who can't figure out that allowing gays to marry doesn't deprive them of anything or any right. Only passing Prop 8 does that.

I am still leaning to vote No, but some people that have yet to vote on this Proposition are being lied to brazenly by the No on 8 campaign and may be influenced by those lies. People deserve to make their decision based on facts.
Good. There's hope for you. I'm straight. Nothing's going to change for me, one way or the other. Please don't vote to eliminate a right of some of my friends and business relationships.

Thanks.
Big man is right, equal protection clause is argued in GB too and if something is awarded as a right for some to do, it has to be allowed for all groups.

The Anglican church goes nuts over that and i FUCKING LOVE IT! Long live the Whigs Liberals.
 

Mr. Lennon

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2004
3,492
1
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I can't wait till California bans churches.
Win

Honestly though....90% of the people voting Yes on Prop 8 only do it because their bible and church tells them to. Majority of people I have debated with on the issue fail to provide any good arguments on their stance, so they just fall back on "well my bible says its wrong."



 

ASK THE COMMUNITY