Vote No on Prop 8: Yes vs. No

I voted no.

Meh, it will be overturned. They can't make the constitution represent inequality like that. This might be just as bad as slavery (in senses of discrimination. U know what I mean -_-') It took em a while to realize that slavery was bad, sadly. And they'll realize that this is discrimination as well. Besides, the people cannot change the constituti... more >

I voted no.

Meh, it will be overturned. They can't make the constitution represent inequality like that. This might be just as bad as slavery (in senses of discrimination. U know what I mean -_-') It took em a while to realize that slavery was bad, sadly. And they'll realize that this is discrimination as well. Besides, the people cannot change the constitution alone. I can't wait until we get a homosexual in the supreme court. That'll fix everything.

Same sex marriage FTW!

-I'm Riboflavin, and I approve of this message.

That is the worst argument I've ever heard.

askewman said:

I understand what you are saying jeikuh! However, What would stop a 29 year old brother from marrying his 26 year old sister. The law right!?! But the hypocritical thing is that opponents of prop 8 continue to say "Fundamental rights for ALL"... when in fact the ALL really means heterosexuals and hom

That is the worst argument I've ever heard.

askewman said:

I understand what you are saying jeikuh! However, What would stop a 29 year old brother from marrying his 26 year old sister. The law right!?! But the hypocritical thing is that opponents of prop 8 continue to say "Fundamental rights for ALL"... when in fact the ALL really means heterosexuals and homosexuals... other sexual minorities don't get that right! That is hypocrisy!

The constitution does not recognize a marriage between people who are related, or who marry an animal, etc...

Marriage under the constitution never meant man/man love or woman/woman love. It was illegal in its day... just like pedophilia is illegal today. The main reason people are saying NO on 8 is because its a cry for homosexuals (an their sympathizers) to be accepted as normal behavior.

The 1970s APA decision after all was never made on scientific research, rather it was made by public pressure.

So the hypocrisy is eveident... No on 8 is fundamental rights for homosexuals only! All other sexual minorities arent given the right to marry. When the government recognizes marriage for a man and his dog, or for a brother and sister... then I'll vote NO on 8.

Vote Yes on 8!

Planton, "you're THE idiot."
You did nothing more than cut and paste your answer to my postings in the threads. Had you read and comprehended them you would have seen each dealt with a different issue in the prop 8 discussion.

SAY IT LOUD & PROUD SISTER. Even if it is a cut and paste.

LOL @ Pierogi!!!

Well, to those who voted NO these skits are funny since it ma... more >

Planton, "you're THE idiot."
You did nothing more than cut and paste your answer to my postings in the threads. Had you read and comprehended them you would have seen each dealt with a different issue in the prop 8 discussion.

SAY IT LOUD & PROUD SISTER. Even if it is a cut and paste.

LOL @ Pierogi!!!

Well, to those who voted NO these skits are funny since it makes fun of those with which they disagree!

Lets make a skit making fun of Obama and see how long before the death threats start from those very same people. :-)

Psyguy, you're an idiot. The United States was founded on the basis that all men are created equal and there are certain rights that are endowed to all men and can (should) not be taken away by the government. The point was to protect the minority. Everyone will have (or has had) a turn as part of the minority.

But I guess if a bunch of people want to take aw... more >

Psyguy, you're an idiot. The United States was founded on the basis that all men are created equal and there are certain rights that are endowed to all men and can (should) not be taken away by the government. The point was to protect the minority. Everyone will have (or has had) a turn as part of the minority.

But I guess if a bunch of people want to take away someone's rights, then it's okay. I'll start: Plankton Prop 1 states anyone with the name "PsyGuy" is not allowed to make slippery slope or strawman arguments. Who's with me?

On the Polygamy/Poly Amory issue ... who does it hurt if a bunch of people wanted to marry each other? That argument is the exact same that homosexuals use against defining a marriage?

What if two women love the same man and WANT to marry? Why should marriage just be defined as TWO people??

This is the path we open up when we define marriage as anything othe... more >

On the Polygamy/Poly Amory issue ... who does it hurt if a bunch of people wanted to marry each other? That argument is the exact same that homosexuals use against defining a marriage?

What if two women love the same man and WANT to marry? Why should marriage just be defined as TWO people??

This is the path we open up when we define marriage as anything other than 1 man - 1 woman.

Another can of worms that is opened is simply this:
A gay couple marry. A child is biologically introduced into the equation - either a sperm donor is used (in the case of two lesbians) or a surrogate mother births the child in the 2 male marriage.

Now ... the gay couple divorce. Who pays the child support? If EQUAL RIGHTS are in place as they should be, then it should be the one leaving the marriage without the child.

But! That is not how it is happening NOW. NOooo! There have been several cases where lesbians have sued the sperm donor (never mine contracts drawn up before hand) and the donor is stuck paying child support because these two decided it was time to quite "playing house."

Scream equal rights all you want, but it isn't equal until the ex-whatever steps up and pays the support they should be paying instead of looking for a scape goat!

EQUAL rights right? Or is it only equal when its convenient?!?!

Polygamists are not a sexual minority, they prefer to have married sex with women all the time so that's not really a sexual preference or predisposition. The reason the government banned it was not because of moral objections but because having multiple wives on the books makes keeping track of tax breaks close to impossible.

Sexuality is a spectrum. Someone... more >

Polygamists are not a sexual minority, they prefer to have married sex with women all the time so that's not really a sexual preference or predisposition. The reason the government banned it was not because of moral objections but because having multiple wives on the books makes keeping track of tax breaks close to impossible.

Sexuality is a spectrum. Someone can be primarily straight and not be averted by gay sex or sex with his female partner with another man present. And likewise goes for the homosexual. Just because someone is bisexual doesn't mean they want to have sex with both a man and a woman at the same time every time and then want to be married to both at the same time. It's hard enough to be married to a woman you love (trust me I live it) let alone two people. which brings me back to the whole taxes thing. Multiple marriages are just impractical.

I'm not trying to offend anybody and their religious beliefs. Honestly if your God or god or guru objects to homosexuality and their unions there of isn't their eternal punishment enough. Isn't God the ultimate arbitrator and ultimately the only one qualified to judge whether a life was led justly.