vote yes on proposition 8

HappyHealthyHolyRoller · Oct 23, 2008

SiderealExalt said:
That sounds an awfully lot like separate but equal, which is just separate and not equal. There is no such thing as our marriage. It's not a possession we own. And it's been my experience that my fellow heterosexuals don't exactly "protect the sanctity of marriage." If we don't bat an eye when people get flippantly married and divorced left and right but so OH NO no marriage for teh geys! That is the worst sort of hypocracy.

My fellow Americas who are gay deserve all the rights of this country, you know that whole....all men are created equal idea....not all straight men are created equal.

It is "separate but equal"! The fallacy of the logic I'm reading here is you guys are demanding not "separate but equal" but rather "identical and equal" even though the gay relationship is not identical to the heterosexual relationship by virtue of one being same-sex and the other being opposite sex.

OphidiaPhile · Oct 23, 2008

SiderealExalt said:
Teachers would also still be wrapping students on the hand who "dare" to write left handed.

That happened to me as a child.

OphidiaPhile · Oct 23, 2008

Beanieboy said:
I went to a gay marriage here in Toronto. It was very beautiful. It was at a Quaker Meeting, it was approached in seriousness and reverence. There was no fashion show of gowns, but rather, the two women, who have been together for 17 years, wore nice clothes that they already had. They didn't ask for presents, but for one's presence.

And it was beautiful. It wasn't about the pageantry, the cheesy playing Dress Up Barbie for a $30,000 price tag, but simple, about their love, their commitment, and their friends and God to share in the experience.

So, I still don't understand why the States are still so far behind the rest of the world in this issue, that is about commitment of two people, and legal rights that accompany it.

Because the US is full of ignorant redneck racist white trash.

OphidiaPhile · Oct 23, 2008

HappyHealthyHolyRoller said:
It is "separate but equal"! The fallacy of the logic I'm reading here is you guys are demanding not "separate but equal" but rather "identical and equal" even though the gay relationship is not identical to the heterosexual relationship by virtue of one being same-sex and the other being opposite sex.

That does not make any sense from any standard you care to use. All men are created equal if that is the case then they should have the right to get married whether you like it or not.

AtheistPerson · Oct 23, 2008

He does not understand that "separate but equal" actually means separate and unequal.

TeddyKGB · Oct 24, 2008

HappyHealthyHolyRoller said:
It is "separate but equal"! The fallacy of the logic I'm reading here is you guys are demanding not "separate but equal" but rather "identical and equal" even though the gay relationship is not identical to the heterosexual relationship by virtue of one being same-sex and the other being opposite sex.

What about just equal? No civil marriages; only civil unions, irrespective of sex.

GQ Chris · Oct 24, 2008

I will vote Yes.

SiderealExalt · Oct 24, 2008

It is "separate but equal"! The fallacy of the logic I'm reading here is you guys are demanding not "separate but equal" but rather "identical and equal" even though the gay relationship is not identical to the heterosexual relationship by virtue of one being same-sex and the other being opposite sex.

The sexuality, much like many other aspects of the lives of the two people getting married, are and should be in this specific case, immaterial to equality under the law. This is a law issue, and for that issue, the sex of the two to be married people is immaterial. As much as people that want to strip people of rights want to make it a moral issue, it's a law issue.

TooCurious · Oct 24, 2008

HappyHealthyHolyRoller said:
It is "separate but equal"! The fallacy of the logic I'm reading here is you guys are demanding not "separate but equal" but rather "identical and equal" even though the gay relationship is not identical to the heterosexual relationship by virtue of one being same-sex and the other being opposite sex.

Here's the problem, though: the United States Supreme Court has already established that "separate but equal" is not equal. That's why we don't have separate drinking fountains for black people anymore. The actually equal thing to do would be to stop preventing gay couples from marrying, as straight couples can marry.

Polycarp_fan · Oct 24, 2008

EnemyPartyII said:
Why you should vote YES to Prop 8
...the state amendment to ban gay marriage if you live in California.

1. Because America is a Christian nation. That's why Hindus and Muslims aren't allowed to marry.

2. Because marriage is an intrinsically religious legal ceremony. That's why atheists can't get married and why you can't have a non-religious ceremony.

3. Because gay marriage will undermine traditional marriages. That's why traditional marriages always work.

4. Because gay marriage is disgusting and we don't want to think about what they're doing in the marriage bed. That's why we never let ugly people or morbidly obese people or old people marry.

5. Because marriage is for procreation. That's why sterile couples and childfree couples aren't allowed to marry.

6. Because if we allow gay marriage, then schools will have to encourage it among our children. That's why everyone is pushing interracial marriage on kindergartners all the time.

7. Because if we allow gay marriage, churches will be forced to marry gay people. Like they're forced to marry anyone else who walks through their doors.

($10 says Jeffinj never comes back to defend his position)

Your point is well written. It shows that pagans, non and anti Christians should be allowed to entertain any non and anti Christian thing they desire, as long as, they don't prevent Christians from protecting their children and their civil rights being influenced and trod on by non and anti Christian beliefs pushed on them in public schools.

We need a law of seperation of sexuality and state.

Polycarp_fan · Oct 24, 2008

Oh, and I will vote yes.

TooCurious · Oct 24, 2008

Polycarp_fan said:
Your point is well written. It shows that pagans, non and anti Christians should be allowed to entertain any non and anti Christian thing they desire, as long as, they don't prevent Christians from protecting their children and their civil rights being influenced and trod on by non and anti Christian beliefs pushed on them in public schools.

Indeed; fortunately, gay marriage doesn't do any of these things.

We need a law of seperation of sexuality and state.

Does that include heterosexuality, too? Should we avoid suggesting to children in public schools that men often marry women? Should the government stop recognizing heterosexual "marriages"?

Beanieboy · Oct 24, 2008

Polycarp_fan said:
Oh, and I will vote yes.

You have that freedom.

However, I am curious: What will suddenly happen to legally married gay couples? Will their marriages be grandfathered in, or will they be null and void, taking away the rights they had as a married couple?

Staccato · Oct 24, 2008

Beanieboy said:
You have that freedom.

However, I am curious: What will suddenly happen to legally married gay couples? Will their marriages be grandfathered in, or will they be null and void, taking away the rights they had as a married couple?

The latter. Their marriages are no longer recognised as legal by the state so they are negated.

As far as I'm aware.

OphidiaPhile · Oct 24, 2008

Staccato said:
The latter. Their marriages are no longer recognised as legal by the state so they are negated.

As far as I'm aware.

Their marriages would be grandfathered in.

But if it passes it will go to the supreme court and most likely be tossed out as it is not constitutional.

Staccato · Oct 24, 2008

OphidiaPhile said:
Their marriages would be grandfathered in.

But if it passes it will go to the supreme court and most likely be tossed out as it is not constitutional.

Oh, I see. I must have been reading faulty information, thanks for the heads-up

Maren · Oct 24, 2008

Staccato said:
Oh, I see. I must have been reading faulty information, thanks for the heads-up

I'm curious what you are basing that on? At least part of the reasoning here is the simple language of Prop. 8. If it passes, you have have the text, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.", inserted into the California Constitution -- which clearly says that there can be no legal recognition of gay marriages in California.

Now, I'm certain that ultimately the fate of those 11,000 couples will be decided in the courts. NPR asked this question to a University of California law professor, his answer is that it is not clear what the fate of those couples will be.

Beanieboy · Oct 24, 2008

Will they have mandated divorces?

Tinker Grey · Oct 24, 2008

I should think that if CA doesn't recognize certain marriages, they are simply not recognized. If the marriage isn't recognized then there cannot be a divorce as there is effectively nothing to cancel or annul. I don't see why anything further would be required.

keith99 · Oct 24, 2008

Basic U.S. constitutional law.

No ex post facto laws.

It will go to the courts.

Second point is California not recognising out of state marriages. The courts will be shifting back and forth on this as will Federal law relative the the full faith and creedance phrase of the constitution.

No real Lawyer will even try to make a call on how this one will work out.

vote yes on proposition 8

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude

ooey gooey is for brownies, not Bible teachers

Well-Known Member

Kitten with a ball of string

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Kitten with a ball of string

Senior Veteran

Tarut keeps on dreaming

Well-Known Member

Tarut keeps on dreaming

Veteran

Senior Veteran

Wanderer

sola dosis facit venenum

Similar threads