Proposition 8 in California, 2008

1207 posts

Flag Post

I’ve been following the arguments that people have developed regarding Proposition 8 in California. I was curious to see what users in the United States think of it.

For Prop 8
www.protectmarriage.com

Voting YES on Proposition 8 does 3 simple things:

It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and what Californians agree should be supported, not undermined.

It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.

It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage, and prevents other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs.

Against Prop 8
www.noonprop8.com

What is Prop 8?
If passed, Prop 8 would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.

Proposition 8:
ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

=Please post which side you support and your reasons for doing so.=

 
Flag Post

i have a ingrained hate for gay people
i don’t know why

but i still support them
let them marry it’s not causing anyone any harm
they deserve every right straight(nearly said normal)americans do

but for some reason i still don’t like them
o.o

 
Flag Post

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

Main Entry:
mar·riage
the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

gay man A:

LOOK AT ME I WANT TO BE DIFFERENT, ACCEPT ME OR I WILL SUE YOU.

straight man B:

I don’t care what you do, stop pushing your agendas on me

gay man A:

IM GOING TO CHANGE THE DICTIONARY, KTHANKS.

 
Flag Post

oh my god they’re changing the definition of marriage
IT’S THE END OF THE WORLD!

seriously come on

besides change is good

 
Flag Post

They cannot change the definition of a word, it is impossible, if you mean they are creating a new word; they did already. Theyre called life partners.

waah thats not enough i want more, keep paying attention to me IM DIFFERENT

 
Flag Post

They cannot change the definition of a word, it is impossible

Well, good luck passing your English class with your Oxford from the 1900s then. Words are always changing.

 
Flag Post

They cannot change the definition of a word, it is impossible

It did happen for the definition of a planet. Now Pluto isn’t a planet.

I personally think that the conservation of a definition to prevent people from achieving equal status, in this case regarding the relationship between two people, is wrong and goes against the American idea of equal rights and protection under the law. Are you saying that homosexuals should not be allowed the same rights as heterosexuals? Laws such as the DOMA, Defense of Marriage Act, have been deemed unconstitutional because they took away equal rights.

 
Flag Post

HEY, I’M GOING TO BLOW YOUR ARGUMENT OUT OF PROPORTION! STRAWMAN STRAWMAN STRAWMAN!

 
Flag Post

O luls. I see a “Yes on Prop 8” ad at the top.
Anyways, I believe that homosexuals SHOULD have the right to marry. From all the “Yes on Prop 8” ads I’ve seen, most of them are simply trying to scare people..
I don’t see whats wrong with homosexuals marrying…

 
Flag Post

I just wanted to put the pro- side in context.

It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “ colored marriage” is the same as traditional marriage, and prevents other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of negro lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs.

Better stop them negros from destroying our countries values. I mean asians. Hispanics. Gays?

 
Flag Post

It did happen for the definition of a planet. Now Pluto isn’t a planet

No, the definition did not change. Pluto was examined more closely and lost properties people assumed it had, such as the whole, you know, solid part.

Well, good luck passing your English class with your Oxford from the 1900s then. Words are always changing.

The dictionary i used was merriam-webster, not Oxford. Words never change, there are new ones created however.

 
Flag Post

[post deleted]

 
Flag Post

No such thing as Gay Rights, because theres no such thing as Gays.

 
Flag Post

huh

 
Flag Post

In order for a person to be attracted to a male, they must be producing the correct hormones to feel the need to be with that male. if a male is attracted to a male, that is because he is producing too much estrogen for his body and thus, his body is transforming into a female. The same vice versa for females and testosterone. No such thing as gays, just mutations in hormones that start at puberty, not birth.

 
Flag Post

Words never change

Humbug, sir! I will not stand for such apocryphal ejaculations, I requisition only those that are most veritable!

 
Flag Post

Words never change, there are new ones created however.

False. Words change continually, and until the appearance of the dictionary were often used ‘will-nilly’. The first major dictionary, the Oxford, created a standardized set of definitions based upon the most common usage of words. For example ‘happen’ originally meant mayhap or perhaps; Now it means to take place or occur. Actually just look up etymology, save me some time.

 
Flag Post
No, the definition did not change. Pluto was examined more closely and lost properties people assumed it had, such as the whole, you know, solid part.

can you cite this please? very cursory searching seemed to indicate otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_definition_of_planet#The_history_of_the_definition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_planet
“Under this new definition, Pluto does not qualify as a planet.”

 
Flag Post

can you cite this please? very cursory searching seemed to indicate otherwise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_definition_of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_planet
“Under this new definition, Pluto does not qualify as a planet.”

lol wikipedia. You seem to be ignoring the addition of the phrases such as “dwarf planet” and “minor planet” which fit better with Pluto then what you had linked. Explaining a definition in more words then the actual definition does not make it a different definition.

 
Flag Post

Being attracted to someone doesn’t necessarily mean an overarching output of estrogyn. There could be mental, psychological, and other unrelated reasons for the homosexuality. Being naturally attracted is one thing, but we still don’t know how much nurture and nature effect desires and impulses. We only know about popular (heterosexual) brain impulses look in comparison to homosexuals, not visa-visa.

Besides, the government shouldn’t care about this distinction when it comes to marrying any way. Do we prove heterosexual partners are actually in love before they sign a certificate? Nope. We marry anyone who isn’t gay, legally. Whatever your definition of “actual” love is.

 
Flag Post

Being attracted to someone doesn’t necessarily mean an overarching output of estrogyn. There could be mental, psychological, and other unrelated reasons for the homosexuality. Being naturally attracted is one thing, but we still don’t know how much nurture and nature effect desires and impulses. We only know about popular (heterosexual) brain impulses look in comparison to homosexuals, not visa-visa.

Sounds like youre talking about a persons attraction to their family because of the memories and relations they share, not physical at all and has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Unless youre talking about incest….

 
Flag Post
lol wikipedia. You seem to be ignoring the addition of the phrases such as “dwarf planet” and “minor planet” which fit better with Pluto then what you had linked. Explaining a definition in more words then the actual definition does not make it a different definition.

lol wikipedia has citations down at the bottom to the original sources. furthermore, i described this search as cursory, and i now invite you to search for news articles or in other sources if you’re interested in further investigating your position.

i am ignoring the addition of new definitions because that is entirely irrelevant to whether or not pluto satisfies this particular definition, or whether or not this definition was altered.

i asked if you could back up your claim that the definition did not change, and that it was a reexamination of the properties of pluto that led to it’s reclassification as not being a planet, rather than the redefinition of the word planet by a committee, as appears to be the case.

 
Flag Post

You might actually be a crazy person. Arguing with you is like trying to tell monkeys that shit flinging is rude.

 
Flag Post

Basketball shorts creep me out.

We should make them illegal.

 
Flag Post

i asked you to back up your claim that the definition did not change, and that it was a reexamination of the properties of pluto that led to it’s reclassification as not being a planet, rather than the redefinition of the word planet by a committee, as appears to be the case.

Both the creation of those two new words and the reexamination of Pluto changed its position in where it fits, not the change in definition of an already created word.

You might actually be a crazy person. Arguing with you is like trying to tell monkeys that shit flinging is rude.

Rude is an opinion, and if monkeys fling shit at you, their opinion of you is not very high to begin with.