California

[Alaska Darin]

So much for equal protection and freedom.

[John Adams]

But because the state got involved in marriage, and now wants to define/redefine it, the religious folk are saying, hold on not so fast it's our property. That's why the word is so important.

 

But it's not their property, and the "they" you are talking about are only some Churches that don't recognize homosexual marriages.

 

Wherever marriage got its roots, it's now a civil term as well (you can get married by Elvis for god's sake).

 

Again, weak.

[John Adams]

Yes. I can't help it if you don't agree with me. Frankly, I prefer the schools don't teach about marriage in the first place. But if I put my child in the public school system, I currently do not have that choice.

 

So you have almost no choice as to what your kid hears for 160 days at a public school but on the issue of whether there is some possibility that they will hear about gay marriage for 10 minutes (which could happen whether or not you voted for Prop 8 BTW), you take this stand that has further reaching consequences than your kids...who certainly aren't going to be stunned by the news of same sex marriage?

 

Clear as mud.

[IDBillzFan]

But it's not their property, and the "they" you are talking about are only some Churches that don't recognize homosexual marriages.

 

Wherever marriage got its roots, it's now a civil term as well (you can get married by Elvis for god's sake).

 

Again, weak.

First, I don't think he's arguing the case so much as presenting what he believes to be the argument.

 

Second, if it was truly weak, the prop would not have passed. Guys like me are not the majority. Most of the people who voted for this ban did so from a religious standpoint. The churches were out all=day, every-day waving signs, pushing ads, etc. They were the Obama of this topic...totally out-campaigned the No vote.

[Cugalabanza]

...Except a whole lot of people who care about how adults contract their love with one another.

Yes. I don't think you can get past that point. And I don't think it can be reconciled with the notion of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

 

I take some comfort in the fact that, even though the bigots are winning some battles right now, the dominant trend is towards tolerance. Just a matter of time.

[StupidNation]

I'm happy all those bigots passed those laws. Count me in as a bigot if your definition of bigot is:

 

n. Any person who fights for the natural law

 

I mean why do the liberals who believe there should be rights against the natural law, protect the natural law when it comes to abortion?

 

Murder bigotry in abortion is a bigger issue, and yet I don't see any social liberals advocating for their rights. Rights are no longer moral imperatives to the public, they are the nebulous glob of feel-good bastardization of what people want them to mean.

 

16 out of 19 great civilizations crumbled within 50 years of the public acceptation of homosexuality. That's a fact.

[Alaska Darin]

I'm happy all those bigots passed those laws. Count me in as a bigot if your definition of bigot is:

 

n. Any person who fights for the natural law

 

I mean why do the liberals who believe there should be rights against the natural law, protect the natural law when it comes to abortion?

 

Murder bigotry in abortion is a bigger issue, and yet I don't see any social liberals advocating for their rights. Rights are no longer moral imperatives to the public, they are the nebulous glob of feel-good bastardization of what people want them to mean.

 

16 out of 19 great civilizations crumbled within 50 years of the public acceptation of homosexuality. That's a fact.

[ieatcrayonz]

But it's not their property, and the "they" you are talking about are only some Churches that don't recognize homosexual marriages.

 

Wherever marriage got its roots, it's now a civil term as well (you can get married by Elvis for god's sake).

 

Again, weak.

I am confused as to why sex even comes into play in the argument at all. Why can't two random people get married even though they do not have sex with each other. This way they can get all the benfits of being married and be seen as equal.

 

If marriage doesn't limit itself to heterosexuality and homosexuality should be included, why is asexuality discriminated against?

[John Adams]

I'm happy all those bigots passed those laws. Count me in as a bigot if your definition of bigot is:

 

n. Any person who fights for the natural law

 

What is this crap about the natural law?

[bills_fan]

So you have almost no choice as to what your kid hears for 160 days at a public school but on the issue of whether there is some possibility that they will hear about gay marriage for 10 minutes (which could happen whether or not you voted for Prop 8 BTW), you take this stand that has further reaching consequences than your kids...who certainly aren't going to be stunned by the news of same sex marriage?

 

Clear as mud.

 

 

Reason number 785 to enroll your kids in private school.

[GG]

But it's not their property, and the "they" you are talking about are only some Churches that don't recognize homosexual marriages.

 

Wherever marriage got its roots, it's now a civil term as well (you can get married by Elvis for god's sake).

 

Again, weak.

 

Whether it's religion's property or not, it's used as the basis for the decision to vote against it, because to many people it's a degradation of their culture and religion where they define marriage in more traditional terms. If it only was an issue to "some Churches," the vote would have overwhelmingly passed the other way. The proper way to settle this is for the state to stop using marriage in civil ceremonies, while leaving marriages to clergy.

[John from Riverside]

So you voted not to prohibit gay people frmo marrying (here's the text).

 

 

 

And the reason is because your kids could be taught about homosexual marriage in public schools, where they are already taguht about hetero marriage? By the way, if you fell for the tactic that a "No" vote on Prop 8 meant that schools would teach about homosexual marriage to your kids, shame on you. You fell for a baseless scare tactic set to snare your bigotry hook, line, and sinker.

 

And even if your kids did hear about same sex marriage at school, who cares? You don't think they're hearing about worse things from their teachers?

 

How insane. So because gays now can't marry in California, your kids are safe from ____(?)___. You have an alarmingly narrow-minded set of values if you deprived people of the right to marry just because there was a chance of kids hearing about same sex marriages.

 

Someone said this is a fight over the word marriage because homosexuals can be civilly united and get the same rights. If the rights are the same, why create a different legal word. Answer: there is a legal difference. Once the terms are different, the rights start to differ. If it's "just" a word, it should apply equally to marriages between men-men, women-women, and men-women. Who gives a hit? Except a whole lot of people who care about how adults contract their love with one another.

 

That is your opinion and you have a right to it....but it is ONLY your opinion.

 

Again had they worded it differently there would not have been as much opposition to it (at least not from me). I CHOOSE to talk to my kids about this and would rather not have it taught to my children for me. I dont care if gay people want to have the same rights as anyone else and as long as it doesn't affect me and my famiily more power to them.

 

Its not the voters fault that it was written up the way it was....dont blame us.

[RI Bills Fan]

I'm happy all those bigots passed those laws. Count me in as a bigot if your definition of bigot is:

 

n. Any person who fights for the natural law

 

I mean why do the liberals who believe there should be rights against the natural law, protect the natural law when it comes to abortion?

 

Murder bigotry in abortion is a bigger issue, and yet I don't see any social liberals advocating for their rights. Rights are no longer moral imperatives to the public, they are the nebulous glob of feel-good bastardization of what people want them to mean.

 

16 out of 19 great civilizations crumbled within 50 years of the public acceptation of homosexuality. That's a fact.

 

 

OK, If it's a fact, name those civilizations.

[John Adams]

Second, if it was truly weak, the prop would not have passed. Guys like me are not the majority. Most of the people who voted for this ban did so from a religious standpoint. The churches were out all=day, every-day waving signs, pushing ads, etc. They were the Obama of this topic...totally out-campaigned the No vote.

 

It's weak because it's not based on reason. That some churches opposed it is no shock: their opposition is not based on reason but on a few sentences in a book written by a few guys 2000 years ago.

[John from Riverside]

Yes. I can't help it if you don't agree with me. Frankly, I prefer the schools don't teach about marriage in the first place. But if I put my child in the public school system, I currently do not have that choice.

 

You can raise your child your way, and I'll raise my child my way. You'll ultimately notice I'll never stand in judgement of your parental skills or requirements.

 

Just don't miss what is at the core of my decision: NEVER underestimate the ability of California government to work a loophole.

 

Yep...Yep

[John from Riverside]

So you have almost no choice as to what your kid hears for 160 days at a public school but on the issue of whether there is some possibility that they will hear about gay marriage for 10 minutes (which could happen whether or not you voted for Prop 8 BTW), you take this stand that has further reaching consequences than your kids...who certainly aren't going to be stunned by the news of same sex marriage?

 

Clear as mud.

 

You dont understand it...fine....as parents we affect what we can.

 

If you dont understand I am sorry.

[Cugalabanza]

16 out of 19 great civilizations crumbled within 50 years of the public acceptation of homosexuality. That's a factoid.

fixed

 

 

[IDBillzFan]

So you have almost no choice as to what your kid hears for 160 days at a public school but on the issue of whether there is some possibility that they will hear about gay marriage for 10 minutes (which could happen whether or not you voted for Prop 8 BTW), you take this stand that has further reaching consequences than your kids...who certainly aren't going to be stunned by the news of same sex marriage?

 

Clear as mud.

I'm talking about a five year old. I'm assuming you don't have children because you clearly have no clue what a toddler can pick up in 10 minutes. Or maybe you DO have a five-year-old. Maybe you've already explained to your five-year-old all about homosexuality. Take them to a gay wedding, too? Did they hand out gay coloring books? Gay connect the dots books? Is there maybe a gay version of "Go, Diego, Go" that helps them better understand? A gay Leapster cartridge to teach them properly? Did they digest it all okay? They completely and totally understand what the hell you're trying to explain to them? Then get them in some advance genius kid school because that's pretty goddamn amazing.

 

And while I respect your thought process, please understand one thing: there is NOTHING that has further reaching consequences than my son. Nothing.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

I'm happy all those bigots passed those laws. Count me in as a bigot if your definition of bigot is:

 

n. Any person who fights for the natural law

 

I mean why do the liberals who believe there should be rights against the natural law, protect the natural law when it comes to abortion?

 

Murder bigotry in abortion is a bigger issue, and yet I don't see any social liberals advocating for their rights. Rights are no longer moral imperatives to the public, they are the nebulous glob of feel-good bastardization of what people want them to mean.

 

16 out of 19 great civilizations crumbled within 50 years of the public acceptation of homosexuality. That's a fact.

 

Ok provide evidence for that last statement, and it had better be good.

 

And what exactly is this "natural law" and how does homosexuality impede it?

[ieatcrayonz]

It's weak because it's not based on reason. That some churches opposed it is no shock: their opposition is not based on reason but on a few sentences in a book written by a few guys 2000 years ago.

I am confused as to why sex even comes into play in the argument at all. Why can't two random people get married even though they do not have sex with each other. This way they can get all the benfits of being married and be seen as equal.

 

If marriage doesn't limit itself to heterosexuality and homosexuality should be included, why is asexuality discriminated against?