Posted 3 Jan 2009 What else would it have meant? I mean't if it had JUST mean't that. Don't try to prick my side again over a "What No on 8 Would Decide" arguement. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted 3 Jan 2009 I'm really curious, what else was on this bill other han homosexual marriage? I'm not a California resident, so I'm not familiar with the specifics,i'd really like to know what else was on that bill, with citations please. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted 3 Jan 2009 I mean't if it had JUST mean't that. Don't try to prick my side again over a "What No on 8 Would Decide" arguement. No. I'm asking the same thing Skippy is. What else was on the bill besides the legality of homosexual marriage? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted 3 Jan 2009 Thing is, Koltem, you're again making misconceptions. Never do they teach you that you have to marry a specific gender. They keep completely out of the subject of marriage in regards to actual school learning. Unless the teacher really is a bigot, then there will be nothing about having to marry your reproductive gender. So I don't see why you think they would teach kids to be homosexual in school. This nation you think the homosexuals will somehow corrupt is supposed to be accepting of these things. The USA is made up of outcasts of several countries along with people who wanted to bask in our relatively free existence. The US isn't supposed to have outcasts. It's supposed to have people. The government isn't supposed to discriminate against anyone; it's unconstitutional. Of course, you might be thinking something like, "It's not the government who decides, it's the church!" That's also a misconception. The Church isn't the word of God. The Church is something created to bring people who worship under a common practice together. Does the Bible say homosexual marriage should be disallowed? I can't recall. The only thing I recall is that homosexuality is a sin. Alright. The only people who decided homosexuality to be disallowed are the people within the Church. I met a man who told me he wouldn't be fine with homosexual marriage unless God came down from the heavens and gave the OK. Well, God didn't exactly put the REJECTED stamp on it, either. Marriage isn't wholly based around your religion, either. All around the world, people have been marrying for the longest time. In eastern Asia, homosexual marriage has been allowed forever. aksjd;fl They married in ancient Egypt. Pagan religions also have marriage practices. Christianity or whatever you follow isn't the standard for marriage. And either way, marriage in the US isn't directly or loosely based on religion. Whether or not the state recognizes any marriage is purely a governmental thing. For instance, in certain places, if you live under the same roof with a person and pay the same bills and act, (Seriously, that's one of the requirements) ACT like a married couple, and get consent from both parties, you are legally married. No religious procedure whatsoever. Your church shouldn't have any grasp on marriage. What makes you think homosexual couples aren't fit to adopt children, anyway? They're just like any other couple. Think of this. What if, there was a homosexual male couple who just adopted a child. The adoption agency knows exactly who the two men are. One of them, however, looks and sounds exactly like a woman. You see this couple, and they treat the child just like any other married couple would. Loving, caring, they go out for ice cream, they watch a movie together, whatever. The one who looks like a woman reminds you of a lot of other loving, caring women. But you find out he's a man. Would you disapprove? Would you try to tear their family apart? I can't see in any way how you think that's right. If God truly loves people, then God should let people love other people. Sahaqiel Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted 3 Jan 2009 puppying hell saha, that was incredible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted 3 Jan 2009 Well, Saha, good job. I didn't bother to read all of it, but I kind of have an idea of what you're saying. And about the adoption thing, I agree, homosexuals should be allowed to adopt, I didn't say they shouldn't be. I was saying that if adoption agencies don't want to let a homosexual couple adopt, they shouldn't have to. That's it. And to Chameleon and Skippy, I might as well not list the details, cause you're not going to believe me and/or try to oppose me in anyway possible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted 3 Jan 2009 Now Now Koltem, don't be hurt, I honestly am not familiar with any other aspect of the bill, if you can give me the details, and give a link to a citation, then I have no issue beleiving you. However, if you cannot, then you are right, I won't, and will continue to oppose your view on the subject. I'm not so stubborn as to challenge something which has evidence, if you can give it to me, I will intepret it, and be better able to understand what currently seems to me your hateful stance. All I ask is for everyone to be informed and understanding. We don't have to agree, but we shouldn't be just sitting here repeating the same arguments because of a lack of information and close-mindedness. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted 4 Jan 2009 Now Now Koltem, don't be hurt, I honestly am not familiar with any other aspect of the bill, if you can give me the details, and give a link to a citation, then I have no issue beleiving you. However, if you cannot, then you are right, I won't, and will continue to oppose your view on the subject. I'm not so stubborn as to challenge something which has evidence, if you can give it to me, I will intepret it, and be better able to understand what currently seems to me your hateful stance. All I ask is for everyone to be informed and understanding. We don't have to agree, but we shouldn't be just sitting here repeating the same arguments because of a lack of information and close-mindedness. C'mon. I'm 13, where am I supposed to get it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted 4 Jan 2009 (edited) Okay, gimme some time, and i'll find it. EDIT: Alright I found it. http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?titl...sition_8_(2008) The actual ammendment to the California constitution would change marriage o being a civil contract arising between two parties, removing that it is explicitly man and woman. There was a big to do about teaching gay marriage in schools. This was disproved, however. Schools in California choose whether or not to have comprehensive sex-ed, those that choose so have to teah RESPECT OF THE UNION OF MARRIAGE, not about who can marry, but simply that marriage is a union of two people who love eachother that is legally commited. The law would not change sex ed in any way. On the same note, schools would also have the options (per their district) to opt out of comprehensive sex-ed, and teach however and whatever they want, essentially they would not have to teach anything about marriage. There's your answer on that. Edited 4 Jan 2009 by Skippy (see edit history) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted 10 Jan 2009 I was saying that if adoption agencies don't want to let a homosexual couple adopt, they shouldn't have to. That's it. But not just because they're homosexual. Sahaqiel Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted 12 Jan 2009 And about the adoption thing, I agree, homosexuals should be allowed to adopt, I didn't say they shouldn't be. I was saying that if adoption agencies don't want to let a homosexual couple adopt, they shouldn't have to. That's it. Adding on to what Saha posted, saying that is like saying that if an adoption agency doesn't want to let latinos adopt a child, they shouldn't have to. You see? That would be discrimination. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted 13 Jan 2009 Something to add: Prop 8 supporters are now trying to dissolve over 10,000 legal homosexual marriages within the state of California. However, this goes against Ex Post Facto. In other words, since they married back when it was legal, they can't receive repercussion from their marriage when it is illegal afterward. That sickens me. :| Sahaqiel Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted 13 Jan 2009 (edited) Something to add: Prop 8 supporters are now trying to dissolve over 10,000 legal homosexual marriages within the state of California. However, this goes against Ex Post Facto. In other words, since they married back when it was legal, they can't receive repercussion from their marriage when it is illegal afterward. That sickens me. :| Sahaqiel Hey, wanna see a really cool post that everybody ignored? I HAVE SOMETHING TO CONTRIBUTE! http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081220/ap_on_...rriage_lawsuits It's entirely understandable that this would happen due to Prop 8 passing. What I don't understand is if their are just not going to recognize the marriages or are actually forcing them apart through divorce or something. Does anyone else have anything on this? Edited 13 Jan 2009 by Chameleon (see edit history) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted 13 Jan 2009 Oh, sorry, rofl. Didn't have enough time to click it. However, still pretty stupid to do that to people. Sahaqiel Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
