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

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Ns1
fuck prop 8.

This FTMFW

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: redgtxdi


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.

The slippery slope argument begins with the granting of heterosexual marriage. If you grant hetero marriage, then what if the homosexuals want it too? I guess we should ban hetero marriages while we're at it just to make sure we don't invoke the slippery slope argument.

You also need to realize that the courts are generally not formalistic. They do not just apply one set of rules for everything. This elasticity is what allows for the somewhat delineation between very closely related issues. Just because one occurs does not mean the other must also.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

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".

But equal protection is guaranteed by the Constitution, you ignorant twat. If Jane can marry John, so can Steve.

This is just another case where right-wing bigots wish the Constitution would kindly go away and leave them to oppress the rights of other people -- and the insulting irony of it all is that they do it waving flags saluting their own "patriotism."

It's pretty obvious who hates America, and it isn't the freedom-loving liberals.

 

[zinfamous]

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!!!

Why do you keep posting the same article form the same source, referring to the same damn event? Are you honestly trying to fool people into thinking this is some widespread cancer?

 

[jonks]

So organized religion is supposed to be about helping people and charity and caring for the sick and poor etc, etc. So why the fuck is the Mormon church donating $20 million to support a gay marriage amendment? How many sick and poor and elderly could have been helped with that money? How many starving children here and around the world? How many orphans? How much good could have been accomplished with that much money? No, let's run some ads in california so that gay people can't get married. Another big win for the peace and love preachers of organized religion.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: jonks
So organized religion is supposed to be about helping people and charity and caring for the sick and poor etc, etc. So why the fuck is the Mormon church donating $20 million to support a gay marriage amendment? How many sick and poor and elderly could have been helped with that money? How many starving children here and around the world? How many orphans? How much good could have been accomplished with that much money? No, let's run some ads in california so that gay people can't get married. Another big win for the peace and love preachers of organized religion.

If people start to think for themselves, they might question some of the religious teachings.

That weakens the hold that religion has on people that need/desire a crutch.

 

[OrByte]

voted no today

<< christian too :shocked:

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: OrByte
voted no today

<< christian too :shocked:

:thumbsup:

good on ya!

 

[redgtxdi]

<----Voted yes today in the booth next to OB and quickly vacated the premises to avoid being struck by lightning!

Originally posted by: OrByte
voted no today

<< christian too :shocked:

 

[Jschmuck2]

Originally posted by: redgtxdi
<----Voted yes today in the booth next to OB and quickly vacated the premises to avoid being struck by lightning!

Originally posted by: OrByte
voted no today

<< christian too :shocked:

You're going to burn

 

[Mr. Lennon]

If marriage between a man and a woman was so sacred, then our divorce rates wouldn't be so damn high. Ahh the hypocrisy.

Fucking right wing christian nuts holding this country down.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: redgtxdi
<----Voted yes today in the booth next to OB and quickly vacated the premises to avoid being struck by lightning!

Originally posted by: OrByte
voted no today

<< christian too :shocked:

Have you ever given some thought to the idea that you maybe shouldn't be voting to tell adults who love each other what they can and can't do? I get that you're culturally conservative, and that's fine, but why should everyone else have to be? That ballot you cast really isn't about what you think of gay marriage, it's about what you think about your role in telling other people what to do. I'm not religious, in fact I dislike the majority of religions out there, but if there was a proposition about banning religious practice, I'd vote against it. Not because I disagree with the content, but because I disagree with the basic premise that I have the right to tell someone else what spiritual beliefs they may and may not hold.

In other words, my problem with people who vote like you did is that you're unable to separate your personal views with what you want the government to do. THAT is dangerous, regardless of ideology, because this country has a lot of different views, and our core ideal is that we should all be able to live mostly as we wish. Shorter version: Don't like gay marriage, don't have one.

 

[uclaLabrat]

Voted no on it a few weeks ago. And I'm a christian. Also a scientist.

But I think christian scientists are crazy!

Yeah, I'm conflicted.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: redgtxdi
<----Voted yes today in the booth next to OB and quickly vacated the premises to avoid being struck by lightning!

Scummy bigot.

 

[shira]

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)

You're contradicting yourself. You said the reason same-sex marriages should be banned is (to paraphrase) that gays "don't do same-sex marriage well," which leads to "socioeconomic problems," and that DOES justify "doing away with it altogether." Now you're going the other way on heterosexual marriages. Apparently, the claimed socioeconomic effects of divorce aren't (for you) a justification for banning heterosexual marriages. If you can't see how you're playing both sides of this point, why should anyone waste their time debating you?


There's a concept called being principled. When you cite a principle to support an argument, you can't just abandon the principle when it ceases to be convenient. Yet that's exactly what you're doing here. You're clearly being intellectually dishonest.

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?)

You just don't get it. WHY should polygamy be illegal? Is it because it seems icky? Would that be a sufficient reason to ban it? You apparently think so. You conclude that because some forms of marriage seem weird to you, that alone justifies outlawing them.

But the point you miss is that where consenting adults are concerned (and a dog/human or lawnchair/human relationship is NOT consenting adults, so don't lose any sleep over them), if the relationship harms no one, what business does government have outlawing the relationship?

With respect to polygamy: If the only objection people had to polygamy was that some men or women get more than their fair share of the opposite sex, then what's the problem? Why SHOULD it be outlawed if that's all anyone could complain about? A VALID reason for banning consensual behavior between adults is that it causes demonstrable harm that outweighs the benefits. In the case of polygamy, there's abundant factual evidence (not vague theories, like your notion that somehow same-sex marriages will undermine heterosexual marriages) that polygamous societies invariably abuse children - sexual abuse of underage girls and the expulsion of teenage boys.

And you've already answered your own question about opposite-sex siblings marrying: The children resulting from such unions would have a much higher rate of birth defects. That's an unnecessary burden on the children AND on society.

As to same-sex siblings marrying, or opposite-sex siblings that are too old or otherwise unable to produce children, I say, what's the problem? Why NOT let them marry? How would their marriage harm you or anyone else in any way?

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.

Fortunately, your ballots are wasted, because Prop 8 is going down to defeat. Thank goodness bigots like you who want to force your intolerance on innocent victims are a vanishing breed. Good riddance.

 

[Jschmuck2]

Well said Shira :thumbsup:

 

[extra]

As a christian, I think marriage should be....

not something that the government is involved in. If gays want to get married, what business is it of mine?

 

[Ns1]

I'm a prejudicial fuck and I still make fun of gay people and I can't stand their lifestyle.



I'm voting no on 8.

 

[ScottyB]

Prop 8 is supported by ugly Mormon men who couldn't get women without their religious indoctrination mentally imprisoning them. When their religion dissolves, they will be back to fucking goats.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: redgtxdi
<----Voted yes today in the booth next to OB and quickly vacated the premises to avoid being struck by lightning!

+1 for bigots. :disgust:

 

[MH2007]

Originally posted by: abaez
For the PSU/OHST game tonight here in L.A. I've seen three no on prop 8 commercials and 1 yes on 8.

Interestingly the no on 8 had the superintendent of schools says that gay marriage will absolutely not be taught in anyway whatsoever, while the yes on 8 said it will and brought out some couple from MA saying it was taught to their child. So two completely opposite statements.. someone is lying...

I will preface this by saying that I really don't know yet which way I will vote on this. I had initally intended to vote No on this particular Proposition

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

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

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

Whether anyone votes Yes or No on 8 is up to them. But if what children are taught in schools is what is important to them, they deserve to not be fed lies. Certainly not by the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, of all people.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: MH2007

Whether anyone votes Yes or No on 8 is up to them. But if what children are taught in schools is what is important to them, they deserve to not be fed lies. Certainly not by the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, of all people.

The only ones trying to raise the fear level are the homophobic, bigots. The worst they fear is that their kids will learn the ugly truth their parents' homophobic bigotry.

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

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

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

FUCK THE BIGOTS! Vote NO on Proposition 8.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: MH2007

Originally posted by: abaez
For the PSU/OHST game tonight here in L.A. I've seen three no on prop 8 commercials and 1 yes on 8.

Interestingly the no on 8 had the superintendent of schools says that gay marriage will absolutely not be taught in anyway whatsoever, while the yes on 8 said it will and brought out some couple from MA saying it was taught to their child. So two completely opposite statements.. someone is lying...

I will preface this by saying that I really don't know yet which way I will vote on this. I had initally intended to vote No on this particular Proposition

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

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

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

Whether anyone votes Yes or No on 8 is up to them. But if what children are taught in schools is what is important to them, they deserve to not be fed lies. Certainly not by the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, of all people.

Taking your position at face value...so what? If kids are "taught" about gay marriage (I don't recall learning about marriage in school, but whatever) so what? Do you think this will result in turning kids gay? Or will it simply make them more tolerant of gay people (the horror!)

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: MH2007

Originally posted by: abaez
For the PSU/OHST game tonight here in L.A. I've seen three no on prop 8 commercials and 1 yes on 8.

Interestingly the no on 8 had the superintendent of schools says that gay marriage will absolutely not be taught in anyway whatsoever, while the yes on 8 said it will and brought out some couple from MA saying it was taught to their child. So two completely opposite statements.. someone is lying...

I will preface this by saying that I really don't know yet which way I will vote on this. I had initally intended to vote No on this particular Proposition

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

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

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

Whether anyone votes Yes or No on 8 is up to them. But if what children are taught in schools is what is important to them, they deserve to not be fed lies. Certainly not by the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, of all people.

If the school chooses to teach about marriage and they include information about gay marriage...Great. With or without Prop 8 I could care less.

However Prop 8 does not require anything to be taught in schools.

 

[whistleclient]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Voting No.