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

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

bsobel

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Dec 9, 2001
13,346
0
0
#3.) I believe (via stats) that gay marriage can lead to socioeconomic decline here in California.
Funny how you couldn't quote any unbiased facts, all of your came from anti-gay groups. Hmm, kinda funny don't ya think?
 

Taejin

Moderator<br>Love & Relationships
Aug 29, 2004
3,271
0
0
HEY GAIZ IF GAY PEOPLE R MARRIED PPL WILL HAVE MORE BABIES!!!1111
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,561
3
0
Living in the first state to legalize civil unions and watching what happened I can tell you this:
Nothing. Absolutely nothing. In fact outside of hearing they legalized civil unions I have not seen, nor experienced anything different.
So relax.
And remember.
EVERY survey of young people shows this is absolutely not an issue for them. Something like 80 percent of people under 25 couldn't give a sh*t about gay marriage. Within 10 years whatever you decide this november will be moot since gay marriage is coming. Its just plain the future.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
64,692
19,098
136
Originally posted by: redgtxdi
Originally posted by: ironwing
OP: Am I safe to assume that Proposition 8 really provides you no benefit?
I answered your question in part throughout this thread, i-dub (remember i-dub?) ;)

But for you, here's the gist........


#1.) I think that in 2006 this state voted against gay marriage....(i.e. pro hetero marriage)

#2.) I think some judges stepped out of bounds turning that around. (remember 61% of Cali.....oooops........VOTING Californians......voted to protect hetero marriage)

#3.) I believe (via stats) that gay marriage can lead to socioeconomic decline here in California.

#4.) I have kids being raised in this state whose future I concern myself with, both morally and socioeconomically as well.

Therefore.......I believe that Prop 8 will justify #1, start to ensure that the will of the people of the state of California will not be overturned like in #2 again, protect my state from the potential socioeconomic decline attached to gay marriage and allow my kids to grow up however they will.........(yes, even if either of them turns out to be gay).

Fair enough?
No.

Point one and two simply point out that the supporters of the 2006 measure took the wrong legal path to see their measure become law.

You have offered no evidence for your assertion of point three. In supporting this proposition you are stating your desire to restrict the rights of other consenting adults to enter into mutually agreeable contracts w/o demonstrating an overriding state interest for this restriction. You have not demonstrated likely material harm to yourself or other external parties arising from these contracts.
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,281
0
0
Originally posted by: redgtxdi
Originally posted by: ironwing
OP: Am I safe to assume that Proposition 8 really provides you no benefit?
I answered your question in part throughout this thread, i-dub (remember i-dub?) ;)

But for you, here's the gist........


#1.) I think that in 2006 this state voted against gay marriage....(i.e. pro hetero marriage)

#2.) I think some judges stepped out of bounds turning that around. (remember 61% of Cali.....oooops........VOTING Californians......voted to protect hetero marriage)

#3.) I believe (via stats) that gay marriage can lead to socioeconomic decline here in California.

#4.) I have kids being raised in this state whose future I concern myself with, both morally and socioeconomically as well.

Therefore.......I believe that Prop 8 will justify #1, start to ensure that the will of the people of the state of California will not be overturned like in #2 again, protect my state from the potential socioeconomic decline attached to gay marriage and allow my kids to grow up however they will.........(yes, even if either of them turns out to be gay).

Fair enough?
I hear that iran doesn't have any homosexuals. It might be a nice place to raise kids.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
76,577
32,260
136
Originally posted by: redgtxdi
Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
I think you should have to go around and tell all of these people that they can't get married - and when they as why, you'll have to stand there, slackjawed and try to explain it them.

What would that sound like?
I'd just tell them that they can certainly get married, just not here in my home state. (Although, as per bsobel's previous cue, it actually *is* legal *and* recognized in California this very minute)

And if I explain to them, (using bsobel's model) that it's "better for the group" if they don't.... based on statistics, then what does that sound like??
You need to take a stats 101 course. In order to show a relationship between two variables you need to not only have statistical correlation but a plausible causal mechanism. You have failed to show a plausible causal mechanism. Just because you cite a statistic doesn't mean that it actually helps your argument any. Even if your ridiculous claims turned out to be 100% correct, it still wouldn't matter as increased economic output would be a mighty hard sell for depriving someone of their Constitutional right to equal protection under the law.

Using your spurious connections we're just as safe saying that the worldwide decrease in pirates has caused global warming.
 

redgtxdi

Diamond Member
Jun 23, 2004
5,463
8
81
Originally posted by: bsobel
#3.) I believe (via stats) that gay marriage can lead to socioeconomic decline here in California.
Funny how you couldn't quote any unbiased facts, all of your came from anti-gay groups. Hmm, kinda funny don't ya think?
Ah, so now my stats aren't good enough?


I'll let you read my last post (you also forgot to address incest) and you all can live in your harmonious denial that none of you are bigots yourselves, simply because we don't have any polygamists, married family members or NAMBLA members as AT members here on this forum.

The Sox/TB game is gettin' good.

I know how I'm voting..........I hope you're sure there are no consequences to the way you're going to vote.

Good night, and good luck!

;)
 

Taejin

Moderator<br>Love & Relationships
Aug 29, 2004
3,271
0
0
Originally posted by: between
the guy in the video seems to be saying:

1) when gay couples are given the right to marry, only a small percentage of them do. The implication being there is no urgency in providing equal rights to gay couples. This isn't even an argument. You don't give or take fundamental rights from people based on whether or not you think they will exercise those rights. The reality is that older gay people have grown up with the expectation they would never be allowed to marry anyway. I think legalisation of gay marriage will probably do more to help young gay people. They won't have to grow up knowing there are certain rights that are not available to them.

2) He seems to be saying that in countries that legalise gay marriage, there are also high levels of "out of wedlock births". I don't think this correlation is surprising. The countries that have legalised gay marriage are renowned for their more liberal social attitudes. In countries where you get liberal social attitudes, you also get more couples living together (and having babies) but not marrying. Basically people in these countries are more likely to see marriage as anachronistic. Decline in popularity of marriage is a trend that was seen in these countries before gay marriage was legalised. The trend isn't caused by gay marriage.
The most ridiculous thing is that they go around spouting a "46%" percent increase in out of wedlock births.

So what? That statistic in it of itself doesn't say anything at ALL. What if the percentage of out-of-wedlock births was .5%? So it's gone up 0.25% to .75%? Oh noes.

Furthermore, they have the underlying assumption that all the out of wedlock births will become a burden on society - which is not necessarily true, especially if the definition of a traditional family is evolving in those other nations.
 

bsobel

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Dec 9, 2001
13,346
0
0
Originally posted by: redgtxdi
Originally posted by: bsobel
#3.) I believe (via stats) that gay marriage can lead to socioeconomic decline here in California.
Funny how you couldn't quote any unbiased facts, all of your came from anti-gay groups. Hmm, kinda funny don't ya think?
Ah, so now my stats aren't good enough?
You posted divorce rates from a swedish anti gay group. I'm not asking you to quote a pro gay group, just some unbiased statistics.

You should add the man marrying his dog argument to the list, its just as stupid and fits with your theme.

 

bsobel

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Dec 9, 2001
13,346
0
0
The most ridiculous thing is that they go around spouting a "46%" percent increase in out of wedlock births.
The same author in a different article blames that on the pill, condoms, abortions, etc. He's reusing this argument to make his point even tho they arent related.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: redgtxdi

Ah, so now my stats aren't good enough?
You forgot the good stats. The birth rate among gay couples is at an all time low. :laugh:

Too bad your parents didn't figure out THEY were gay, at least back at a time when it would have done some good.
 

ebaycj

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2002
5,418
0
0
Originally posted by: redgtxdi
Originally posted by: bsobel
Aww yes, the fake comparison. You forgot the 'someone will marry their dog'. You need to understand the legal meaning of consent and why minors don't have it. The one thing on your list, polygamy, is a fair comparison. There is little real reason it's illegal in all 50 states.
That's why I used multiple examples. Because where there are lawyers, there is a way!!


You laugh now, but first ask yourself how a group like NAMBLA can even EXIST in this country, much less prosper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA

http://johncoleman.typepad.com...4/nambla_and_the_.html


Remember.......to NAMBLA, even YOU are a bigot!!!! (unless you're pro-Nambla, which I doubt)
NAMBLA is fucking disgusting.

However, they have a right to exist, and a right to peaceably assemble, and a right to free speech.

The problem with people like you is that you think that Liberty and Freedom only apply to "good" things. You would be wrong. Liberty and Freedom are sharp blades that cut both ways. You are Free to do what you want, and the consequences of that are that everyone else needs to be Free to do what they want. Otherwise there is really no Liberty or Freedom, it's just an illusion.

Small minded fucks like you really make me worry about the future of America.
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,281
0
0
Calling bb! redgtxdi_imaclosetbuttlover needs support. Pray for him.

I hear iran is very religious too. Another plus.
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: redgtxdi
Ah, so now my stats aren't good enough?
You forgot the good stats. The birth rate among gay couples is at an all time low. :laugh:
Too bad your parents didn't figure out THEY were gay, at least back at a time when it would have done some good.
I don't have the numbers to prove it, but I would guess that, with the advent of surrogate pregnancies and increasing popularity of artificial insemination that the birth rate among gay couples has actually increased.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: redgtxdi

Ah, so now my stats aren't good enough?
You forgot the good stats. The birth rate among gay couples is at an all time low. :laugh:
Too bad your parents didn't figure out THEY were gay, at least back at a time when it would have done some good.
I don't have the numbers to prove it, but I would guess that, with the advent of surrogate pregnancies and increasing popularity of artificial insemination that the birth rate among gay couples has actually increased.
I would guess I forgot to include < sarcasm > </sarcasm> tags, and the actual facts are irrelevant. :cool:
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: redgtxdi
Ah, so now my stats aren't good enough?
You forgot the good stats. The birth rate among gay couples is at an all time low. :laugh:
Too bad your parents didn't figure out THEY were gay, at least back at a time when it would have done some good.
I don't have the numbers to prove it, but I would guess that, with the advent of surrogate pregnancies and increasing popularity of artificial insemination that the birth rate among gay couples has actually increased.
I would guess I forgot to include < sarcasm > </sarcasm> tags, and the actual facts are irrelevant. :cool:
I just checked; my meter is past due calibration. I'll get it fixed forthwith.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,138
4,864
126
Proposition 8 is more than just a ban on gay marriage. It is the first and only effort to Constitutionally restrict the actual rights granted a protected class. It is an attempt to put bigotry into the law. It is a foul and disgusting attempt by true assholes to prevent some people, based on their sexual orientation, the same rights to happiness and emotional commitment enjoyed by others. Nothing can be more mean spirited or evil.

Bigotry against gays is nothing more than a religiously induced psychosis and mental illness, a filthy and disgusting disease. It is a certainty derived from a completely irrational faith that because some old book says homosexuality is evil, that anybody who is intelligent enough to see how stupid that is, will lose his immortal live, since every word of that absurd book has to be absolutely true and literally.

When you allow your filthy mind to destroy the lives and love of others you are nothing but a dirty swine. You create and manufacture the hell your religion was supposed to save you from. Frighten ignorant filthy pigs will be voting yes on 8.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
It's a shame the idiots from 2000 didn't make it an amendment then, so these asshat judges could go STFU.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: winnar111
It's a shame the idiots from 2000 didn't make it an amendment then, so these asshat judges could go STFU.
Another fucking homphobic bigot spews his ignorance and stupidity. :thumbsdown:
 

Chaotic42

Lifer
Jun 15, 2001
33,854
958
126
Let's just get rid of any kind of legal definition of marriage. That way it will stay a religious matter where it belongs.
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
Originally posted by: Chaotic42
Let's just get rid of any kind of legal definition of marriage. That way it will stay a religious matter where it belongs.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

I've long said that marriage was a religious institution. So long as a couple can get a church to pronounce them married, the state should only be involved in issues of contract enforcement.
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,281
0
0
Originally posted by: Chaotic42
Let's just get rid of any kind of legal definition of marriage. That way it will stay a religious matter where it belongs.
But anymore it's just a legal contract which most renege on anyway.

I think just the opposite. The religion should be removed and along with it, the superstition and supernatural.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
346
126
Originally posted by: redgtxdi
I know how I'm voting..........
So do we. To treat others as second-class citizens and harm them for no reason but bigotry. You are an immoral person.

I hope you're sure there are no consequences to the way you're going to vote.
;)
I'm going to vote for equality for others.

Whatever the 'consequences' you allege like 'economic cost' I put equality ahead of that, and I don't see any such harms happening anyway.

You're an arrogant bigot who personifies the phrase 'tyranny of the majority'.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
346
126
Originally posted by: winnar111
It's a shame the idiots from 2000 didn't make it an amendment then, so these asshat judges could go STFU.
Crap, yet again the irony of the week award goes out on the first day, Sunday.

You calling anyone an asshat, much less those courageous and principled justices?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY