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

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,299
137
106
The pro 8 people want the measure to be about anything else but marriage

so we get homophobia in schools, in churches, in communities, in everything. Thier ads are disgusting.

If the measure cannot be judged on its own merits then maybe it was a bad idea to begin with?

Prop 8 only deals with marriage and homosexuals. It has nothing to do with schools, education, churches, the courts, your neighborhood....etc etc

 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,281
0
0
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:
And, yet, you report that you've voted to take away rights, to make restrictions on a group. How could you expect better treatment except from a skinhead site?
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
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?
This was... BTW, not my answer to you Rainsford and now i sent the answer to you to some poor girl who has no fucking clue what i was talking about...

I reread your post, no probleme, sorry for the misunderstanding.

Now if you excuse me i have to try to find who i sent the original reply to. :S
 

abaez

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2000
7,158
1
81
All of this will be over soon. The Yes on 8 crowd will have no leg to stand on - the people will have spoken to provide rights to all and pretty much every argument they have will be moot. It wasn't judicial activism, or some "rogue" politician or anything else, the majority of people will have chosen not to eliminate anyone's right to marry and that is that.
 

MH2007

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

It is also interesting that you highlight the "Eliminates Right" description 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 have to disagree with that assessment. This was the Attorney General, not a judge. In my opinion he acted well beyond the proper bounds of his authority as an enforcer of the law. Also, he allowed the petition to be certified with its initial language into this Prop and did not act to alter its wording until a suit to remove it from the ballot failed. It's plainly obvious his motivation was to do all he could to defeat the Prop, no matter how improper, not to represent it accurately.

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.
As of now I remain undecided, but the more I learn about this the more I am troubled. There are people that feel that things will change for themselves and their families negatively if they do not pass Prop 8, and they have a right to be heard. Even though I disagree with their sentiment it is not right that their voice has been suppressed as it has through the lies and inappropriate actions of State officials.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: MH2007
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: MH2007

It is also interesting that you highlight the "Eliminates Right" description 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 have to disagree with that assessment. This was the Attorney General, not a judge. In my opinion he acted well beyond the proper bounds of his authority as an enforcer of the law. Also, he allowed the petition to be certified with its initial language into this Prop and did not act to alter its wording until a suit to remove it from the ballot failed. It's plainly obvious his motivation was to do all he could to defeat the Prop, no matter how improper, not to represent it accurately.

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.
As of now I remain undecided, but the more I learn about this the more I am troubled. There are people that feel that things will change for themselves and their families negatively if they do not pass Prop 8, and they have a right to be heard. Even though I disagree with their sentiment it is not right that their voice has been suppressed as it has through the lies and inappropriate actions of State officials.
So you don't think that equal treatment is a right?
 

MH2007

Senior member
Jun 26, 2007
830
0
0
Originally posted by: zinfamous
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.
This is simply not true, I already proved that gay marriage will be taught in schools and that the No on 8 campaigns knows it will be. You chose to snip that out and I have no desire to rehash the whole thing, but will put in an abbreviated portion:

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!

As for the rest of your silliness ("prop H8", "GOP HATE machine", etc.) I will ignore it as it is completely irrelevant to the point I was making.
 

MH2007

Senior member
Jun 26, 2007
830
0
0
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: MH2007
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: MH2007
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.
As of now I remain undecided, but the more I learn about this the more I am troubled. There are people that feel that things will change for themselves and their families negatively if they do not pass Prop 8, and they have a right to be heard. Even though I disagree with their sentiment it is not right that their voice has been suppressed as it has through the lies and inappropriate actions of State officials.
So you don't think that equal treatment is a right?
I didn't want to expand this to a (potentially dragged on) discussion about rights but stick to the specific examples of what the campaigns are doing, but I'll indulge a bit.

The constituency of the state of California has the right to voice what they feel should be in the Constitution of the State of California, including a restrictive definition of marriage. Obviously, this a very old right, much older than the right to marry that gays gained when judges recently interpreted the State Constitution to grant them that right.

Is this equal treatment? To you and me this may seem obvious that it is not. But for many people marriage between a man and a woman is intrinsically different than gay marriage so they should NOT be treated equally. Obviously, equal treatment regarding gay marriage is currently an unobtainable ideal. I don't know how to portray this more obviously than to point to the most relevant example that 96% of the States in the US do not allow gay marriage.

But to answer your question succinctly, no. In my opinion at least, equal treatment is not a right. It is an ideal.

EDIT: Sorry for missing your point, I wasn't familiar with that wording. Of course Equal Protection as provided in the Fourteenth is a right. (Equal Treatment in your country's constitution)
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,385
1,516
126
Originally posted by: MH2007
Originally posted by: Ns1
So you don't think that equal treatment is a right?
/discussion
Wrong
I don't see what's wrong here.



If you vote YES that's pretty much what you're saying.

Scrap all the other shit, because that's the one and only thing it boils down to.
 

MH2007

Senior member
Jun 26, 2007
830
0
0
Originally posted by: Ns1
Originally posted by: MH2007
Originally posted by: Ns1
So you don't think that equal treatment is a right?
/discussion
Wrong
I don't see what's wrong here.



If you vote YES that's pretty much what you're saying.

Scrap all the other shit, because that's the one and only thing it boils down to.
No, that is not correct. Read what I wrote in response to JohnOfSheffield, I don't care to write it again and I doubt anyone would really want me to either.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,385
1,516
126
Originally posted by: MH2007
Originally posted by: Ns1
Originally posted by: MH2007
Originally posted by: Ns1
So you don't think that equal treatment is a right?
/discussion
Wrong
I don't see what's wrong here.



If you vote YES that's pretty much what you're saying.

Scrap all the other shit, because that's the one and only thing it boils down to.
No, that is not correct. Read what I wrote in response to JohnOfSheffield, I don't care to write it again and I doubt anyone would really want me to either.
I read what you wrote already, and none of it has to do with equality.
 

MH2007

Senior member
Jun 26, 2007
830
0
0
Originally posted by: Ns1
Originally posted by: MH2007
Originally posted by: Ns1
Originally posted by: MH2007
Originally posted by: Ns1
So you don't think that equal treatment is a right?
/discussion
Wrong
I don't see what's wrong here.



If you vote YES that's pretty much what you're saying.

Scrap all the other shit, because that's the one and only thing it boils down to.
No, that is not correct. Read what I wrote in response to JohnOfSheffield, I don't care to write it again and I doubt anyone would really want me to either.
I read what you wrote already.
:roll: Dude, whatever
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,385
1,516
126
Ok, feel free to correct me

your whole argument is based on flawed commercials on the no on 8 campaign, and you believe that parents should have a right to decide what their kids do and don't learn in school.

you even were nice enough to throw in a few tangents of how gay marriage would "negatively affect their family"

 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,385
1,516
126
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.
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.
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 don't see any one of your posts that doesn't revolve around schools, just about these commercials.

So, tell me then, how is voting Yes on 8 not =

So you don't think that equal treatment is a right?

Ah, I see your retort now

Is this equal treatment? To you and me this may seem obvious that it is not. But for many people marriage between a man and a woman is intrinsically different than gay marriage so they should NOT be treated equally. Obviously, equal treatment regarding gay marriage is currently an unobtainable ideal.
So tell me how now is different than then?

In the United States, anti-miscegenation laws (also known as miscegenation laws) were state laws passed by individual states to prohibit miscegenation, nowadays more commonly referred to as interracial marriage and interracial sex. Typically defining miscegenation as a felony, these laws prohibited the solemnization of weddings between persons of different races and prohibited the officiating of such ceremonies.
I guess since back then, interracial marriage was "intrinsically different" than non-interracial marriage, they should have NOT been treated equally.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: MH2007
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: MH2007
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: MH2007
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.
As of now I remain undecided, but the more I learn about this the more I am troubled. There are people that feel that things will change for themselves and their families negatively if they do not pass Prop 8, and they have a right to be heard. Even though I disagree with their sentiment it is not right that their voice has been suppressed as it has through the lies and inappropriate actions of State officials.
So you don't think that equal treatment is a right?
I didn't want to expand this to a (potentially dragged on) discussion about rights but stick to the specific examples of what the campaigns are doing, but I'll indulge a bit.

The constituency of the state of California has the right to voice what they feel should be in the Constitution of the State of California, including a restrictive definition of marriage. Obviously, this a very old right, much older than the right to marry that gays gained when judges recently interpreted the State Constitution to grant them that right.

Is this equal treatment? To you and me this may seem obvious that it is not. But for many people marriage between a man and a woman is intrinsically different than gay marriage so they should NOT be treated equally. Obviously, equal treatment regarding gay marriage is currently an unobtainable ideal. I don't know how to portray this more obviously than to point to the most relevant example that 96% of the States in the US do not allow gay marriage.

But to answer your question succinctly, no. In my opinion at least, equal treatment is not a right. It is an ideal.
Ok, so if the US decided to discriminate against YOU in such a way, you wouldn't demand equal treatment? (actually you define it as protection in the US but the meaning is the same).

Basically you're saying that segregation can be re-instituted and it would be no probleme because that is what the law says, discrimination is up to the people of the states?

 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
105,934
20,867
136
Originally posted by: MH2007
Originally posted by: zinfamous
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.
This is simply not true, I already proved that gay marriage will be taught in schools and that the No on 8 campaigns knows it will be. You chose to snip that out and I have no desire to rehash the whole thing, but will put in an abbreviated portion:

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!

As for the rest of your silliness ("prop H8", "GOP HATE machine", etc.) I will ignore it as it is completely irrelevant to the point I was making.
I cut out part of the comment just to shorten the string. your comment proves nothing. link? all of the vote "yes" commercials are referring to an incident involving teaching tolerance, and NOT MARRIAGE.

You're failure to understand who is being mislead does not make your opinion valid.

Understand?

You pretend to be undecided, when you're simply trying to give yourself excuses to deny the rights of individuals you may not understand, and probably are uncomfortable with.

It is completely relevant to refer to the GOP Hate machine, b/c that is where the funding for supporting this discriminatory, bigoted proposition comes from.

as for thinking it was "outside the power of the AG to overturn the previous proposition.." who says? Who is supposed to fight for individual rights when they are being denied? claiming that activist judges or or attorney Generals are acting against the will of the people is such a duplicitous argument.

You claim to believe in the rights of everyone, yet you claim that the lawmakers should allow discriminatory laws to pass by without thought. Also, you claim that the voice of those who choose to discriminate should be heard.

No, they shouldn't be heard: those ignorant, hateful pricks. ;)
 

MH2007

Senior member
Jun 26, 2007
830
0
0
Originally posted by: Ns1
Ok, feel free to correct me

your whole argument is based on flawed commercials on the no on 8 campaign, and you believe that parents should have a right to decide what their kids do and don't learn in school.

you even were nice enough to throw in a few tangents of how gay marriage would "negatively affect their family"
In a nutshell, I was saying that the No on 8 campaign stance intrinsically flawed because they claim simultaneously that children will not be taught gay marriage in schools and that they will be taught gay marriage in schools.

But more importantly, they were using the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction as a mouthpiece for their lies because they knew this would be effective.

As for parents having a right to decide what their kids do and don't learn in school, do you dispute this?

And regarding how gay marriage would "negatively affect their family" all I remember saying is that if anyone holds this belief, they have the right to voice this. Additionally, I thought I made clear that I do not actually share this belief.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
105,934
20,867
136
Originally posted by: MH2007
Originally posted by: Ns1
So you don't think that equal treatment is a right?
/discussion
Wrong
Really, you said exactly that just above this response. here you go
Originally posted by: MH2007
In my opinion at least, equal treatment is not a right. It is an ideal.
You meant to type, "yes, that is my opinion," didn't you?
I can see how your fingers might have slipped.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
105,934
20,867
136
Originally posted by: MH2007
Originally posted by: Ns1
Originally posted by: MH2007
Originally posted by: Ns1
Originally posted by: MH2007
Originally posted by: Ns1
So you don't think that equal treatment is a right?
/discussion
Wrong
I don't see what's wrong here.



If you vote YES that's pretty much what you're saying.

Scrap all the other shit, because that's the one and only thing it boils down to.
No, that is not correct. Read what I wrote in response to JohnOfSheffield, I don't care to write it again and I doubt anyone would really want me to either.
I read what you wrote already.
:roll: Dude, whatever
your argument is that you don't think it should be voted down simply because you "believe" that the NO campaign is being duplicitous.

You don't "believe" that the YES campaign is being duplicitous, when in fact they are. You have no proof that dude on dude marriage will be taught in school--you simply CLAIM THAT IT WILL BE. see the difference?

This is how you weakly attempt to disguise your prejudices.

GET IT?
 

MH2007

Senior member
Jun 26, 2007
830
0
0
Originally posted by: Ns1
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.
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.
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 don't see any one of your posts that doesn't revolve around schools, just about these commercials.
I'm sorry, but I don't follow what you're trying to say. Can you rephrase this?

So, tell me then, how is voting Yes on 8 not =

So you don't think that equal treatment is a right?

Ah, I see your retort now

Is this equal treatment? To you and me this may seem obvious that it is not. But for many people marriage between a man and a woman is intrinsically different than gay marriage so they should NOT be treated equally. Obviously, equal treatment regarding gay marriage is currently an unobtainable ideal.
So tell me how now is different than then?

In the United States, anti-miscegenation laws (also known as miscegenation laws) were state laws passed by individual states to prohibit miscegenation, nowadays more commonly referred to as interracial marriage and interracial sex. Typically defining miscegenation as a felony, these laws prohibited the solemnization of weddings between persons of different races and prohibited the officiating of such ceremonies.
I guess since back then, interracial marriage was "intrinsically different" than non-interracial marriage, they should have NOT been treated equally.
I didn't say that I believed anything was "intrinsically different", just that some people hold this belief and have the right to voice their position. In the case of Prop 8, they have the right to amend the CA Constitution to voice their position.

I feel the need to repeat this, since I guess it was missed the first time. Equal Treatment is an ideal, not a right. It is obviously something that we can aspire to but if you even take a cursory look at the real world it is not reality, particularly in the case of gay marriage.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: redgtxdi
Originally posted by: shira

So your position is that if a majority of citizens of a state voted to ban heterosexual marriage, the USSC would uphold that law? Do you really believe that?
So you can have an answer to your question, no. But you do realize why, right?? That very idea of such a law is just a little bit of a stretch considering it sets the precedent. However, if you believe that's a workable scenario, you have that God-given inalienable right. :thumbsup:

Originally posted by: shira
You claimed that a justification for banning same-sex marriage was that the same-sex divorce rate was high, which (you claim) has negative socioeconomic consequences. In other words, you're claiming that the weight of the negative socioeconomic effects of divorce are greater than the positive effects of marriage. If that's true for same-sex couples, how come it isn't also true for straights couples, who also have a high divorce rate?

Stop evading. This is YOUR point.

Here again, I'll try not to make light of your opinion, because at least you came out and made an intelligent argument for your opinion which is about 99% better than most other posts opposing my own in this WHOLE THREAD!!!

Just because we don't do heterosexual marriage well (divorce rates listed in previous page by me) doesn't mean that we should do away with it altogether. (Again, remember it sets the precedent in this state/country)

Your opinion is to push the absolute end. That's fine, I'll say that I exercise the same right. I don't honestly think that people will want to marry their dog, lawnchair, etc. HOWEVER.........I do believe that people will begin to push for more extreme rights than JUST gay marriage. Heck, I'm quite sure polygamists should be in line before gays.....(at least the plumbing works, right?) ;) .........but because polygamy is against the law here in California (good idea to ask yourself why right there) and because homosexuality is what's popular in the 21st century, it's the homosexual parties that are at the front of the line.

Well, what happens when siblings want to marry?? (Wait, redgtxdi, we know their kids come out genetically messed up! Get real, dude!)

Ok, what happens if BROTHERS want to marry??? (uh oh) :Q (Remember, polygamy wasn't always as scarce as it is now so who's to say sibling gays wouldn't become a trend?)

What to do?? If gays can marry, but siblings can't......what do we do now?? (Talk about the ACLU's ultimate nightmare)

So, in summary, I believe marriage is between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN.....(quantity and gender, specified).

My wife's and my ballots are filled with a couple of YES votes for Prop 8. Fortunately, for all of us, we can equally vote on the matter.

:)
I like how you posted this thead, didn't give a flying fuck about the replies and then repeated all the slippery slope arguments once again.

I will give you the credit of being pre-teen and hopefully growing up, it's either that or you're mentally retarded.

Either way, you have my utmost pity for your family and friends.
 

MH2007

Senior member
Jun 26, 2007
830
0
0
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: MH2007
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: MH2007
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: MH2007
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.
As of now I remain undecided, but the more I learn about this the more I am troubled. There are people that feel that things will change for themselves and their families negatively if they do not pass Prop 8, and they have a right to be heard. Even though I disagree with their sentiment it is not right that their voice has been suppressed as it has through the lies and inappropriate actions of State officials.
So you don't think that equal treatment is a right?
I didn't want to expand this to a (potentially dragged on) discussion about rights but stick to the specific examples of what the campaigns are doing, but I'll indulge a bit.

The constituency of the state of California has the right to voice what they feel should be in the Constitution of the State of California, including a restrictive definition of marriage. Obviously, this a very old right, much older than the right to marry that gays gained when judges recently interpreted the State Constitution to grant them that right.

Is this equal treatment? To you and me this may seem obvious that it is not. But for many people marriage between a man and a woman is intrinsically different than gay marriage so they should NOT be treated equally. Obviously, equal treatment regarding gay marriage is currently an unobtainable ideal. I don't know how to portray this more obviously than to point to the most relevant example that 96% of the States in the US do not allow gay marriage.

But to answer your question succinctly, no. In my opinion at least, equal treatment is not a right. It is an ideal.
Ok, so if the US decided to discriminate against YOU in such a way, you wouldn't demand equal treatment? (actually you define it as protection in the US but the meaning is the same).

Basically you're saying that segregation can be re-instituted and it would be no probleme because that is what the law says, discrimination is up to the people of the states?
My understanding is that the Fourteenth Amendment would prevent that from happening in any way that I can readily conceive.

If I do suffer in some way in the future that I perceive to be discrimination, then my recourse would likely be to take it to the courts as the was done to obtain right for gays to marry. At that point it would likely be parties with rights that are in conflict, which is exactly what we have in Prop 8.

Like I said before, I believe that Equal Treatment is not a right, it is an ideal. We can all want it but in reality, even as the law evolved, it will likely never be achieved.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY