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

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,281
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I can't wait till California bans churches.
I don't think churches should be banned. They should be taxed. We need the revenue to pay for the repug blunders.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
29
86
Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282

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."\
Christians like that are a good reason to root for the Lions. :frown:
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
106,222
21,262
146
Originally posted by: MH2007

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.
So, in the situations that the supporters of prop H8 are using as "evil taught in school," these are instances of teaching tolerance to individual people.

In the same way that kids should be taught to tolerate people of all color and sex, they should understand that discriminating based on sexual preference is no different.

These classes are not in any way addressing Gay Marriage. They teach tolerance to Gay individuals. The GOP HATE machine is stretching the truth far more than those No on H8 adds are. In fact, the claim that Gay marriage will not be taught is absolutely true.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
106,222
21,262
146
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
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.
No. Just that it's completely unrelated. I agree with you that the separate high school tends too close to segregation for my tastes, but it has nothing to do with adults choosing to get married.

I'm fairly confident that same-sex marriage will not soon be an issue in SC, the only state where High school age kids can marry (unless things have changed in recent years....).
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I can't wait till California bans churches.
Why?

I'd say you're sarcastic but against what is posted there is nothing to be sarcastic about... if i haven't mistaken your previous viewpoints regarding homosexual marriage.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
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."
LOSE, i hate anti-freedom people like you.

But i think a democracy should work as a democracy should with the laws and constitutional rights that grants every citisen equal protection under law.

They don't have to like it but they won't get to fucking vote on rights.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
106,222
21,262
146
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I can't wait till California bans churches.
I don't think churches should be banned. They should be taxed. We need the revenue to pay for the repug blunders.
When churches choose to get involved in political discussions, they should be forced to revoke their tax-exempt status.

End of discussion. ;)
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
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.
No. Just that it's completely unrelated. I agree with you that the separate high school tends too close to segregation for my tastes, but it has nothing to do with adults choosing to get married.

I'm fairly confident that same-sex marriage will not soon be an issue in SC, the only state where High school age kids can marry (unless things have changed in recent years....).
Well, you made no point at all then.

I've seen your posts and in some threads discussed chemistry and evolution with you and i know you are not against homosexual marriage.

What you don't get, and please reread this exchange (and the article he posted), is that he posted that in support of your first post.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
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.
I don't know about you, but I have found that if the church is going nuts over something, that's a pretty good sign it's worth doing. Organized religion has attempted to be an impediment to progress since pretty much day one, and while I don't have a problem with religion or spirituality, I think the church is the last place I'd trust to lead society as a whole anywhere good.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I can't wait till California bans churches.
I don't think churches should be banned. They should be taxed. We need the revenue to pay for the repug blunders.
When churches choose to get involved in political discussions, they should be forced to revoke their tax-exempt status.

End of discussion. ;)
Hehe, and they all do, sneaky... i like it. :D
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,281
0
0
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I can't wait till California bans churches.
Why?

I'd say you're sarcastic but against what is posted there is nothing to be sarcastic about... if i haven't mistaken your previous viewpoints regarding homosexual marriage.
I'm guessing different day, different drug.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Reminds me of the flap over the DaVinci Code. the religious groups screamed bloody murder and attacked the book (of fiction) for factual errors.



One of the Yes ads use the kidsgoing to a Lesbian wedding. Ignoring that it was THEIR teacher that was getting married. The kids were allowed to opt out - only one or two did so.

The Yes is playing on homophobic fears.

The No $$ are having to counter act the falsehoods being implied by the Yes group.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
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.
I don't know about you, but I have found that if the church is going nuts over something, that's a pretty good sign it's worth doing. Organized religion has attempted to be an impediment to progress since pretty much day one, and while I don't have a problem with religion or spirituality, I think the church is the last place I'd trust to lead society as a whole anywhere good.
You really have no idea about the history of the Whigs Liberals, do you?

They were the ones that took the power away from the Monarchy and the Church and instituted the liberal freedom of the people, and yeah, you had one Whig party in the US too, but they were not nearly the same.

Son, i said the church goes nuts over it and i love it, not that they get any say and i support the say they might have, i like them going nuts about it.

I support equal rights, i've been fighting for it in uniform and out of it for all my grown up life.

I can't put it much clearer than that.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
106,222
21,262
146
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
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.
No. Just that it's completely unrelated. I agree with you that the separate high school tends too close to segregation for my tastes, but it has nothing to do with adults choosing to get married.

I'm fairly confident that same-sex marriage will not soon be an issue in SC, the only state where High school age kids can marry (unless things have changed in recent years....).
Well, you made no point at all then.

I've seen your posts and in some threads discussed chemistry and evolution with you and i know you are not against homosexual marriage.

What you don't get, and please reread this exchange (and the article he posted), is that he posted that in support of your first post.
well, he wasn't responding to me, I was simply responding to him. But yes, in context he seems to post the article ONLY in reference to the separate but equal argument, so it flies. Damn you!! :p
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
106,222
21,262
146
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Reminds me of the flap over the DaVinci Code. the religious groups screamed bloody murder and attacked the book (of fiction) for factual errors.



One of the Yes ads use the kidsgoing to a Lesbian wedding. Ignoring that it was THEIR teacher that was getting married. The kids were allowed to opt out - only one or two did so.

The Yes is playing on homophobic fears.

The No $$ are having to counter act the falsehoods being implied by the Yes group.
In all fairness, Dan Brown insisted that many of his well-known fictional assertions were indeed fact. ...which is retarded. He empowered the conspiracy theorists that suddenly became interested in touring all of these European cathedrals to challenge their tour guides with all of the "facts" they gleaned from his shitty book. Tour guide denies the existence of a "secret tomb," it's written off as "Catholic conspiracy! of course they'd deny it!"

Plus, the writing is absolutely terrible, so he deserved the shit, imo ;)
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,281
0
0
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Reminds me of the flap over the DaVinci Code. the religious groups screamed bloody murder and attacked the book (of fiction) for factual errors.
...
I saw that movie recently for the first time. I thought it sucked - the worst tom hanks movie ever. These groups sure wasted a lot of time and money debunking it. It contradicted itself through out and then gave a pro-religious statement at the end. They must be pretty unsure of themselves.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
106,222
21,262
146
Originally posted by: redgtxdi
Hey gang!! :D

Your neighborhood F*@king, prick, bigot w/ assholiness here to spread more cheer!!


http://www.ornery.org/essays/2000-10-25-2.html

Thought everybody's get a kick outta' this 'cuz it's not far off the AT trail!! ;)
are you endorsing this drivel as a relevant argument? You really haven't heard of the slippery slope have you?

I hope so, b/c the fallacy bombs you drop with your reasoning throughout this thread are an embarrassing indictment on your intellectual capacity.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
106,222
21,262
146
Arnie rejects prop H8.

crazy huh?

I thought he was supposed to like freedom? oh...wait...
 

redgtxdi

Diamond Member
Jun 23, 2004
5,458
7
81
Maybe you didn't catch the ;)


Fact of the matter is there's been nothing but name-calling, hate, profanity, lack of facts and bias opinion that makes my drather look like a classroom lecture in comparison.


The replies to some of my comments have been a slew of emptiness, misdirection, self-righteous judgment or yet again, more profanity, labeling, name-calling and anger ridden babble for the sake of other's rights.

It's actually become quite comical reading some of the replies here. Maybe the CSC needs to take a look at some of the members here for guidance in rulings in the future!

You definitely have the right ideas!! And if they're wrong, they can just ask you......you'll tell them yourself!!

:laugh:

 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
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.
I don't know about you, but I have found that if the church is going nuts over something, that's a pretty good sign it's worth doing. Organized religion has attempted to be an impediment to progress since pretty much day one, and while I don't have a problem with religion or spirituality, I think the church is the last place I'd trust to lead society as a whole anywhere good.
You really have no idea about the history of the Whigs Liberals, do you?

They were the ones that took the power away from the Monarchy and the Church and instituted the liberal freedom of the people, and yeah, you had one Whig party in the US too, but they were not nearly the same.

Son, i said the church goes nuts over it and i love it, not that they get any say and i support the say they might have, i like them going nuts about it.

I support equal rights, i've been fighting for it in uniform and out of it for all my grown up life.

I can't put it much clearer than that.
Well maybe *I* need to put it clearer than that. I wasn't disagreeing with you, my use of the phrase "I don't know about you" was sarcastic, since we're obviously agreeing on this. I like the fact that you confront disagreements head on, but in your haste to argue with someone, I think that in this case you may have picked someone who already agrees with you.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
106,222
21,262
146
Originally posted by: redgtxdi
Maybe you didn't catch the ;)


Fact of the matter is there's been nothing but name-calling, hate, profanity, lack of facts and bias opinion that makes my drather look like a classroom lecture in comparison.


The replies to some of my comments have been a slew of emptiness, misdirection, self-righteous judgment or yet again, more profanity, labeling, name-calling and anger ridden babble for the sake of other's rights.

It's actually become quite comical reading some of the replies here. Maybe the CSC needs to take a look at some of the members here for guidance in rulings in the future!

You definitely have the right ideas!! And if they're wrong, they can just ask you......you'll tell them yourself!!

:laugh:
You've yet to put up a valid enough argument that would suggest you deserve any better. Even the invective you receive is better reasoned than your paper-thin "nah nah boo boo" baiting that you display.
 

redgtxdi

Diamond Member
Jun 23, 2004
5,458
7
81
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: redgtxdi
Maybe you didn't catch the ;)


Fact of the matter is there's been nothing but name-calling, hate, profanity, lack of facts and bias opinion that makes my drather look like a classroom lecture in comparison.


The replies to some of my comments have been a slew of emptiness, misdirection, self-righteous judgment or yet again, more profanity, labeling, name-calling and anger ridden babble for the sake of other's rights.

It's actually become quite comical reading some of the replies here. Maybe the CSC needs to take a look at some of the members here for guidance in rulings in the future!

You definitely have the right ideas!! And if they're wrong, they can just ask you......you'll tell them yourself!!

:laugh:
You've yet to put up a valid enough argument for me that would suggest you deserve any better. .
Fixed! :p
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
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.
I don't know about you, but I have found that if the church is going nuts over something, that's a pretty good sign it's worth doing. Organized religion has attempted to be an impediment to progress since pretty much day one, and while I don't have a problem with religion or spirituality, I think the church is the last place I'd trust to lead society as a whole anywhere good.
You really have no idea about the history of the Whigs Liberals, do you?

They were the ones that took the power away from the Monarchy and the Church and instituted the liberal freedom of the people, and yeah, you had one Whig party in the US too, but they were not nearly the same.

Son, i said the church goes nuts over it and i love it, not that they get any say and i support the say they might have, i like them going nuts about it.

I support equal rights, i've been fighting for it in uniform and out of it for all my grown up life.

I can't put it much clearer than that.
Well maybe *I* need to put it clearer than that. I wasn't disagreeing with you, my use of the phrase "I don't know about you" was sarcastic, since we're obviously agreeing on this. I like the fact that you confront disagreements head on, but in your haste to argue with someone, I think that in this case you may have picked someone who already agrees with you.
Is your name Jenny?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY