California

[John from Riverside]

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.

 

So now you are going to attack religion as well?

 

I am not going to debate that.....but there are MANY who would disagree with you.

[John Adams]

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.

 

You complained about the wording before but did you read Prop 8? Here's the wording.

 

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.

Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly from sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments.

In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.

 

The school crap you and LA are talking about was a lot of smoke puffed up by the people oppposed and you guys bought right into it.

 

Even if it was true, you decided that you'd deny the right to marriage to people because you don't want your kid to hear about gay marriage...when there's nothing stopping your kids from hearing about it regardless of Prop 8?

 

Good clear reasoning.

[Johnny Coli]

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.

 

Not sure what's more funny, your ridiculous "natural law" statement or the fact that you think homosexuality brought down 16 great civilizations. I'd love to see that list, especially the three "great civilizations" that weren't destroyed by homosexuals.

[Andrew in CA]

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.

Did President Hamilton govern one of those civilizations?

[bartshan-83]

Did President Hamilton govern one of those civilizations?

[John from Riverside]

You complained about the wording before but did you read Prop 8? Here's the wording.

 

 

 

The school crap you and LA are talking about was a lot of smoke puffed up by the people oppposed and you guys bought right into it.

 

Even if it was true, you decided that you'd deny the right to marriage to people because you don't want your kid to hear about gay marriage...when there's nothing stopping your kids from hearing about it regardless of Prop 8?

 

Good clear reasoning.

 

And what YOU dont understand and what is not written there is that there is a biult in loophole that would have allowed had a chance to be taught in schools.

 

We are not taking that chance....you dont understand fine we get it.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

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.

 

So it sounds to me that your objection to the propostion of teaching about gay marriage in school is that an elementary level child is incapable of understanding the connotations of the word "gay". That's fair.

 

So I think the answer to that would be to have schools not traverse into the sexual side of things, and stick to defining marriage as a union of two people in love. A 5 year old child might not understand a man being sexually attracted to another man, because that child probably hasn't been taught about sex yet, but I'm sure he could understand gay marriage in the sense that men fall in love with men and women fall in love with women. Your 5 year old understands that there is a bond between you and your wife, so don't you suppose he could understand gay marriage too?

 

Now, I don't have a child, so I'm most likely missing something here, but it seems that you could teach kids about gay marriage and avoid the sexual aspect of it. In doing so, I think the youngest generation might grow up more tolerant.

[John Adams]

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.

 

I have a 7 year old who I suppose was once 5. When she was 3-5, there were twin boys in her pre-school who had 2 dads. So we explained it all to her then. Somehow, nothing horrific happened. When she was 5 and 6, she had 2 different openly lesbian teachers. Again, somehow she lived.

 

She has another friend with 2 moms.

 

Let's see. She's boy crazy (in a 7year old way). She likes princesses. Soccer. Not sure she's done a gay connect-the-dots but if she did, I'm pretty sure she could handle it.

 

So what could she pick up in 10 minutes? Same sex people can marry. Big whup.

 

Your kid can already pick that up already--and more--in school.

[IDBillzFan]

The school crap you and LA are talking about was a lot of smoke puffed up by the people oppposed and you guys bought right into it.

 

It's not smoke. It's fact. It's law. Yes, it's a loophole, but again, you can simply NEVER underestimate what California will do with a loophole. I'll say it again: remove the loophole, and I'll vote against the ban.

[John Adams]

And what YOU dont understand and what is not written there is that there is a biult in loophole that would have allowed had a chance to be taught in schools.

 

We are not taking that chance....you dont understand fine we get it.

 

You think there's something in California laws that currently prohibits the teaching about gay marriage in schools now?

 

There's so much more to worry about in schools.

[John Adams]

So now you are going to attack religion as well?

 

I am not going to debate that.....but there are MANY who would disagree with you.

 

Fewer than you think around here interpret the Bible that literally.

[John Adams]

It's not smoke. It's fact. It's law. Yes, it's a loophole, but again, you can simply NEVER underestimate what California will do with a loophole. I'll say it again: remove the loophole, and I'll vote against the ban.

 

Unreal that you would care this much about the chance of teaching such a non-topic while trusting your school systems to do who knows what day after day.

[John Adams]

Reason number 785 to enroll your kids in private school.

 

I would live in a box before trusting my daughter to be educated by the whims of government.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

Fewer than you think around here interpret the Bible that literally.

 

Anybody who interprets the Bible literally isn't allowed to watch the Bills because the Bible says that the sabbath is to be reserved exclusively for activities related to the praise of their god.

 

Also, there's a bunch of stuff in Leviticus about slaughtering livestock as sacrifice to god on a weekly basis, and other crazy sh*t.

[IDBillzFan]

I have a 7 year old who I suppose was once 5. When she was 3-5, there were twin boys in her pre-school who had 2 dads. So we explained it all to her then. Somehow, nothing horrific happened. When she was 5 and 6, she had 2 different openly lesbian teachers. Again, somehow she lived.

But YOU explained it to them when it was time. And I reserve the right to do the same damn thing. I don't want the government telling me when that discussion should take place.

 

You somehow think this is about me worrying about screwing up my son by teaching him about homosexuality. That's just ridiculous. It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with me doing it on my own terms. If he comes home tomorrow from school and wants to know why his friend has two daddies, then I'LL be the one to explain it to him. Not the government.

 

That's my issue here.

[IDBillzFan]

I would live in a box before trusting my daughter to be educated by the whims of government.

You have that option. Many people don't.

[GG]

Anybody who interprets the Bible literally isn't allowed to watch the Bills because the Bible says that the sabbath is to be reserved exclusively for activities related to the praise of their god.

 

Also, there's a bunch of stuff in Leviticus about slaughtering livestock as sacrifice to god on a weekly basis, and other crazy sh*t.

 

Sabbath is on a Saturday....

[elegantelliotoffen]

You somehow think this is about me worrying about screwing up my son by teaching him about homosexuality. That's just ridiculous. It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with me doing it on my own terms. If he comes home tomorrow from school and wants to know why his friend has two daddies, then I'LL be the one to explain it to him. Not the government.

 

So gays shouldn't be able to marry because you're a lousy father who doesn't know how to talk to his kids?

[ieatcrayonz]

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?

I am confused as to why none of the geniuses on here will answer this so maybe I should clarify. By asexual I am not talking about Sage or Ed 12 minutes after his honeymoon, I am asking about two acquaitances or friends. They could be the same or different sex.

 

What if these two just haven't met the right person yet and feel as if they never will? These two people do not love each other but they see eye to eye on many issues. They see gay and straight couples all around them getting married and receiving tax benefits, rights with regard to medical records and many other government based perks. Why can't they get married?

 

I can see limiting it to two people but other than that why does sex and/or love or anything else come into play at all? Why should they have to say they are gay or straight or love each other to get married if they aren't or they don't? How can marriage be defined by sex at all? How can one person prove to a church or a state that they love another person? Should the government monitor couples to make sure they don't fight or they have a little fling every Friday night? How is saying only gay or straight couples can marry "well reasoned"?

[John from Riverside]

You have that option. Many people don't.

 

I know....jesus how high and effin mighty can you get?