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

CrackRabbit

Lifer
Mar 30, 2001
16,641
58
91
Originally posted by: redgtxdi


No wait........I'm a f*Ck*ing, prick bigot (that's the best kind) whose assholiness is only surpassed by my inability to understand #'s.
Yep pretty much.

BTW those are both the same article from a very biased news source.

*shakes head*
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,299
137
106
Originally posted by: redgtxdi
Originally posted by: OrByte


also, it wasn't 61% of california that voted yes on Prop 22 it was 61% of california voters. Thats a big difference. And yes I am willing to bet that 61% of Cali voters have bigoted views when it comes to homosexuality.

Where I come from (planet---f*c*ing, prick bigot.......w/ assholiness), if you don't vote.........you don't have a voice in political matters.

Therefore...............61% of California!!

Of course, I assume America won't be picking a president in November either, eh? ;)
oh ok then I guess that solves that.

why don't you go back to your planet eh? :)
 

Miklebud

Platinum Member
Nov 20, 2002
2,459
1
81
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Gay Marriage is legal in MA and it hasn't even been a blip on the social radar.
QFT.

If I were in CA, I'd be voting NO.
 

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
So I went to vote early, and 8 got a big fat NO.

The only real compromise is to push civil unions for all, and detach marriage from gov. However, this isn't a new or novel idea at all. So many on the left and right have been calling for this; even some politicians talk about it. I wonder why we have not done it? Without actually searching for the bills that reached the floor (I should probably do that first lol...), I realized that so as long as it is an issue, politicians could keep using it to their benefit. Some religous people know that Bush fvcked us hard - but they will still support him, and his protege McCain, because he is opposed to gay marriage.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,632
25,676
136
Originally posted by: magomago
So I went to vote early, and 8 got a big fat NO.

The only real compromise is to push civil unions for all, and detach marriage from gov. However, this isn't a new or novel idea at all. So many on the left and right have been calling for this; even some politicians talk about it. I wonder why we have not done it? Without actually searching for the bills that reached the floor (I should probably do that first lol...), I realized that so as long as it is an issue, politicians could keep using it to their benefit. Some religous people know that Bush fvcked us hard - but they will still support him, and his protege McCain, because he is opposed to gay marriage.
The reason this hasn't happened is because nobody wants their marriage declared a "civil union", not even the nonreligious. See how long the politician lasts that declares everyone's marriage a civil union in the eyes of the government.

It's totally a 'not as good as marriage' term that attempted to straddle the desire of gays to have equal rights with the desires of the religious/anti-gays to still feel like their relationship was superior. Because of this, neither group wants it due to the second class status the term has become associated with.

EDIT: Oh and I'm voting no on prop 8, along with everyone else I know.
 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,923
0
0
Originally posted by: redgtxdi
Originally posted by: bsobel
Seriously, folks. If you don't get the first 8 minutes, then it's just like watching one of the latest debates.
Seriously, if you listened to that and took his numbers at face value, shame on you. He never explained why a 2% marriage rate among gays equated to a 40%+ increase in unwed mothers.
Correct. He only said that they *did*!! (And to be more specific he said, "...in those 9 countries where gay marriage was legalized".)

The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise. If you can.......then you can lead the No on 8 initiative proving how someone such as Frank Pastore is posting false statistics. (Or I believe politically they're called "skewed" statistics)

And like I say with anyone giving statistics. If even half of those #'s are true. Does that still make it OK for me?? (quick answer = no. I alread have 2 kids growing up in this state and have seen some of the evidence for this already)

Just because you want something to be without consequence, doesn't mean that it is.
No, the burden of proof lies with him. I could just as easily claim that legalizing gay marriage will decrease abortion rates by 80%.
 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,923
0
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: magomago
So I went to vote early, and 8 got a big fat NO.

The only real compromise is to push civil unions for all, and detach marriage from gov. However, this isn't a new or novel idea at all. So many on the left and right have been calling for this; even some politicians talk about it. I wonder why we have not done it? Without actually searching for the bills that reached the floor (I should probably do that first lol...), I realized that so as long as it is an issue, politicians could keep using it to their benefit. Some religous people know that Bush fvcked us hard - but they will still support him, and his protege McCain, because he is opposed to gay marriage.
The reason this hasn't happened is because nobody wants their marriage declared a "civil union", not even the nonreligious. See how long the politician lasts that declares everyone's marriage a civil union in the eyes of the government.

It's totally a 'not as good as marriage' term that attempted to straddle the desire of gays to have equal rights with the desires of the religious/anti-gays to still feel like their relationship was superior. Because of this, neither group wants it due to the second class status the term has become associated with.

EDIT: Oh and I'm voting no on prop 8, along with everyone else I know.
The problem with giving everyone a 'civil union' is that a marriage actually carries more rights than civil unions. That's why this is a big deal.

We don't have to legalize gay church weddings. A priest can refuse to marry whoever he wants. This is already true of heterosexuals, and this will carry over for homosexuals as well.

We DO have to legalize gay marriage, however, because it bestows additional rights that are unavailable to civil unions. Many laws were created recognizing married couples.

The point is that it's unnecessary to have two classes of 'marriage.' Ultimately this creates a 'separate but equal' situation. The separation between civil union and marriage is unnecessary, and they can never be equal. Thus, I support gay marriage.

AGAIN, this does not mean forcing priests, rabbis, etc. to conduct gay weddings. That's not what this is about. This is about a fundamental set of rights that all couples deserve to have regardless of sexual orientation. To support this ballot is bigotry, pure and simple.

Voting yes on prop 8 is the same as saying "I'm not a bigot, I just don't think gays should have the same rights as me."
 

Harvey

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

But I'm just a bigot!!

No wait........I'm a f*Ck*ing, prick bigot (that's the best kind) whose assholiness is only surpassed by my inability to understand #'s.
You've got that right. Now that you know, you can't claim ignorance. Why don't you fix it? :confused:

Or are you proud of being a fucking bigoted prick? :thumbsdown: :shocked:
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
29
86
Well, it just got a little more interesting for us geeks:

Apple donates $100,000 to fight same-sex marriage ban

Apple is contributing $100,000 to fight Proposition 8, the California ballot measure that would define marriage as only between a man and a woman. The company's announcement today came as the fight over Prop. 8 grows hotly contested, with recent polls showing the race tightening.

The Cupertino, Calif.-based company said in a statement:
  • Apple was among the first California companies to offer equal rights and benefits to our employees' same-sex partners, and we strongly believe that a person's fundamental rights-- including the right to marry -- should not be affected by their sexual orientation. Apple views this as a civil rights issue, rather than just a political issue, and is therefore speaking out publicly against Proposition 8.
Apple becomes the latest prominent Silicon Valley company to speak out against the measure. Google's founders gave $140,000 to the "No on 8" campaign -- $100,000 from Sergey Brin and $40,000 from Larry Page, the San Jose Mercury News reported today. The Internet company, based in Mountain View, Calif., had earlier taken the unusual step of publicly opposing the measure, which would ban same-sex marriage, saying it would have a "chilling and discriminatory effect" on many of its employees.

Some supporters of Prop. 8 have said they would protest businesses that actively oppose the measure unless they make similar donations to ProtectMarriage.com, which is trying to overturn the California Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriages.

"Our campaign is a campaign of the people," Sonja Eddings Brown, deputy communications director on Yes on 8, said today following Apple's announcement. "We knew we would never be able to compete with the large corporations and Hollywood. We represent the families. We are standing up and pushing back with everything we have."

"I respect everyone's views," she said, "and if it's a corporate view, great."

-- Michelle Quinn
[/quote]

Does this mean the new company slogan will be, I'm a Mac AND I'm PC? :laugh:
 

abaez

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2000
7,158
1
81
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...
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Gay Marriage is legal in MA and it hasn't even been a blip on the social radar.
Blip on the radar red? please...last I checked the people had wanted to put the measure on the ballot only to have the bullshit legislature ignore the matter and squashed it...and wasnt that not once but twice??

And really, using this liberal whacked out state for any kind of a benchmark is pure lunacy....hell they can't do anything right, school systems still suck as do roads and most services yet they tax the shit out of us, combine that with our do nothing governor and ding ding ding...we got a winner :)

So it isn't a blip on the radar because the people figured out real fast that their opinions don't count here...period.

And I never knew Harvey was a geezer :eek:
 

Harvey

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

And I never knew Harvey was a geezer :eek:
I'm not. I'm the youngest 67 year old I know. I'm 6'2 and slim with the same full head of curly hair I had at 15. I never put on a middle age spread, and I'll worry about it when I get to middle age. :laugh:
 

redgtxdi

Diamond Member
Jun 23, 2004
5,463
8
81
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...
;)

Care to guess who was lying??

;)

Oh, and P.S.............everybody duck............Harvey's back. Here come the (elite/super/whazoo-moderator approved) F-bombs again!!!

:cool:
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,299
137
106
Originally posted by: redgtxdi
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...
;)

Care to guess who was lying??

;)

Oh, and P.S.............everybody duck............Harvey's back. Here come the (elite/super/whazoo-moderator approved) F-bombs again!!!

:cool:
That article is full of lies. There is no one teaching Kindergartners about homosexuality
 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
71
Originally posted by: redgtxdi
Originally posted by: bsobel
Seriously, folks. If you don't get the first 8 minutes, then it's just like watching one of the latest debates.
Seriously, if you listened to that and took his numbers at face value, shame on you. He never explained why a 2% marriage rate among gays equated to a 40%+ increase in unwed mothers.
Correct. He only said that they *did*!! (And to be more specific he said, "...in those 9 countries where gay marriage was legalized".)

The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise. If you can.......then you can lead the No on 8 initiative proving how someone such as Frank Pastore is posting false statistics. (Or I believe politically they're called "skewed" statistics)

And like I say with anyone giving statistics. If even half of those #'s are true. Does that still make it OK for me?? (quick answer = no. I alread have 2 kids growing up in this state and have seen some of the evidence for this already)

Just because you want something to be without consequence, doesn't mean that it is.
I live in one of those countries where gay marriage has been legal for years. It's a non issue.


 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
Originally posted by: redgtxdi
Originally posted by: Harvey

Further still........I have one gay friend, one gay co-worker, one gay uncle.........oh and.........one gay brother.
So, what did your soon-to-be ex-gay friend, co-worker and uncle... and... oh, your one gay brother say when you told them you're a homophobic bigot? :Q

Or are you just jealous because you can't marry your brother? :roll:
61% of California is full of bigotry -------->Proposition 22, which was passed in 2000 by an overwhelming margin of 61%, is better known as the California Defense of Marriage Act prohibiting same-sex marriage. Unfortunately, our state judges have overturned the will of the people :confused:

The one gay friend is still single. He actually battles with his homosexuality every day. His lover died back in '98......(someone I also knew).......of AIDS. We're still friends, nevertheless.

The gay coworker has asked me TWICE in the last year whether I could find a nice guy for her. She likens herself to Rosie O'Donnell. Gay, but still likes cute guys.....How DARE she!!)

Uncle lives in AZ now.

Bro lives in New York working for a magazine. We still hug and shake hands at family get togethers.
The will of the people isn't relevant to inalienable rights. If 61% of the electorate voted to ban public conversations by black people, would it be "unfortunate" if state judges overturned that law?

The rest of your post is plain irrelevant. So you know gay people struggling with their sexuality. You know a bisexual (not gay") woman. And? What does any of this have to do with opposing same-sex marriage?
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
Originally posted by: redgtxdi
Originally posted by: bsobel
you think that the "shit" I believe is "utterly ridiculous"???
That's easy. Not all view points are equal The view point which takes rights away from a group by another group not shown to benefit is bigotry. Even when another group benefits that benefit needs to be weighed at the cost of the restriction.

Not allowing you to murder might infringe on your desires, but is better for others as a group.
Disallowing you to marry a minor my also infringe on your desires, but is better for the group as a whole.
Disallowing two adults to marry regardless of gender hasn't been shown to infringe on the rights of the group in any way. Now you can point to the increased out of wedlock births the original video claimed, but I've already completely debunked that.
Well, aside from the question not being directed to you.....

If higher divorce rates where gay marriage is legal leads to an increase in the socioeconomic decline of said society..........

Doesn't that follow your model exactly??
Well, since the divorce rate of straight couples is fairly high, why don't we just ban marriage altogether? That will, according to you, improve socioeconomic conditions dramatically, which is what we all care about, right?
 

redgtxdi

Diamond Member
Jun 23, 2004
5,463
8
81
Originally posted by: shira
The will of the people isn't relevant to inalienable rights. If 61% of the electorate voted to ban public conversations by black people, would it be "unfortunate" if state judges overturned that law?

The rest of your post is plain irrelevant. So you know gay people struggling with their sexuality. You know a bisexual (not gay") woman. And? What does any of this have to do with opposing same-sex marriage?
Ah..........except marriage is not an "inalienable right". Marriage is both a religious and governmental institution. (at least until we change it)

And the "will of the people" does in fact DEFINE this particular right. (Precisely why NAMBLA can't let men marry boys, brothers can't marry brothers, polygamy, etc)

The rest of my post was to answer Harvey's, "I know lots of great gay people" to show him that I also knew lots of great gay people.

Originally posted by: shira
Well, since the divorce rate of straight couples is fairly high, why don't we just ban marriage altogether? That will, according to you, improve socioeconomic conditions dramatically, which is what we all care about, right?
Again..........directly invoking an absolute stance which just invites everybody else that wants to marry other than traditionally into the equation.


It's like drawing a line in the sand that nobody wants to do here. Why do great neighbors put up fences???

Problem is that tolerance has made this country weaker and weaker. We tolerate almost everything these days to the point where things like criminal rights become greater than victim rights, etc.
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,281
0
0
Originally posted by: redgtxdi
...
Problem is that tolerance has made this country weaker and weaker. We tolerate almost everything these days to the point where things like criminal rights become greater than victim rights, etc.
Now we're getting down to it.

Fundie?

The "we've been too tolerant" argument is the reason that I stopped going to a neighborhood church. There was a female preacher here in the deep south that had been there for several years and some in the congregation used a couple of bible passages to intimidate her.

Starting today, I'm going to take the attitude that I've been too tolerant of people like you.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
Originally posted by: redgtxdi
Originally posted by: shira
The will of the people isn't relevant to inalienable rights. If 61% of the electorate voted to ban public conversations by black people, would it be "unfortunate" if state judges overturned that law?

The rest of your post is plain irrelevant. So you know gay people struggling with their sexuality. You know a bisexual (not gay") woman. And? What does any of this have to do with opposing same-sex marriage?
Ah..........except marriage is not an "inalienable right". Marriage is both a religious and governmental institution. (at least until we change it)

And the "will of the people" does in fact DEFINE this particular right. (Precisely why NAMBLA can't let men marry boys, brothers can't marry brothers, polygamy, etc)

The rest of my post was to answer Harvey's, "I know lots of great gay people" to show him that I also knew lots of great gay people.
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?

Originally posted by: shira
Well, since the divorce rate of straight couples is fairly high, why don't we just ban marriage altogether? That will, according to you, improve socioeconomic conditions dramatically, which is what we all care about, right?
Again..........directly invoking an absolute stance which just invites everybody else that wants to marry other than traditionally into the equation.
This is your petard you're being hoisted on. 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.[/quote][/quote]

 

redgtxdi

Diamond Member
Jun 23, 2004
5,463
8
81
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.

:)
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
62,985
16,450
136
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.

:)
So after all this discussion, all you really got is your own idea of what marriage should be and that's about it. I got mine too.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY