manowar821
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2007
- 6,063
- 0
- 0
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.
But equal protection is guaranteed by the Constitution, you ignorant twat. If Jane can marry John, so can Steve.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".
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!!!
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.
Originally posted by: OrByte
voted no today
<< christian too :shocked:
Originally posted by: OrByte
voted no today
<< christian too :shocked:
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:
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:
Originally posted by: redgtxdi
<----Voted yes today in the booth next to OB and quickly vacated the premises to avoid being struck by lightning!
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?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 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.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?)
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.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.
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: 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...
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.
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.
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.