8

So, what's your view on California's Prop 8?

Proposition 8 is a proposed amendment that eliminates the right of homosexual couples to marry in California. http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm

To me this is little more than outright discrimination. I see this as comparable to the old racial discrimination laws (ex: Jim Crow laws). These people have a right to marry and be with the person they love and enjoy its benefits, but this prop will prevent that from happening. It's flat-out discrimination that denies these people rights. What saddens me the most is that people use religion as a reason to vote for Prop 8 similar to how people used "scientific evidence" to justify discrimination against blacks. Hell, if you don't like homosexuality, don't have anything to do with it, but let don't take away their rights. I wouldn't be surprised if people looked back at us 20-30 years later and say we're a bunch of homophobic bigots.

Anyways, what are you voting/would vote for on Prop 8?

 

No on prop 8. I don't spend my time worried about what the gay couple down the street is doing with their lives in our free country.

 

No for me becaue they haven't done anything wrong. The main people who would vote yes on this are religious people, which is pretty stupid since God says "love your neighbors". Also, so what if there is a gay couple in your street? What difference does it make if they were straight? They would probably be the same besides being of teh same sex.

 

First that I've actually heard of such a Proposition, seeing as I live in the cold, godless North, but my opinion would stand either way.

No. This is wrong. Just as it's wrong to be prejudiced towards a woman, for being a woman, a child, being a child, or anyone, for being of a certain race. It saddens, angers, and sickens me, that such prejudice still exists in the world. This is on the same level as Racism, and I thought we had actually taken steps towards eliminating such discrimination. It hurts knowing that we really haven't advanced all that far, as a whole, and still need to deal with such foolish and hateful ideals. I only hope we can take the steps needed to eliminate this kind of hate at a far faster pace in the near future. It's been far too long already.

 

Nicely told Banned =)

 

Very nicely put there, guys. Wlck and Banned especially.

Obviously a no, and I fail to see how anyone could say otherwise, though it's a 'would vote' from me as I obviously can't. The worst thing about this is that it's actually trying to get rid of their rights, not just prevent them getting the rights. That's just sickening.

 

No on Prop 8. Banned, you took the words right out of my mouth.

 

We here in FL have a similar issue on the ballot, Amendment 2, which would define marriage as between a man and a woman in the State Constitution. The result of this amendment passing would be that the state would constitutionally be unable to recognize same sex marriages, which is a step further in the wrong direction, since the state already doesn't allow same sex marriage.

I voted no on Florida's Amendment 2, just as I would have voted no on California's Prop. 8.
I agree with Banned's post also.

 

let them marry, adopt kids, etc., who cares, its only good.

 

no on proposal 8 . the world doesn't need more gay couples =p

 

You sure you got it right?

 

I don't think the government should have anything do do with marriage other than keeping records of it.

If you want to marry somone the same gender as you, thats your business. If you want to marry 4 people then go for it. if you want to marry your neighbors goat, thats wierd, but so long as it isn't hurting anyone I don't see a reason to stop you.

 

Yeah, GupLup[E] contradicted himself in one sentence there.

@ BoP. I think marriage should at least be confined to being between humans. After all, who can say that the goat, or whatever, has given consent?

As for polygamy versus monogamy, that's a bit of a more complex issue. Firstly, it's a lot more of a cultural issue, secondly, if men are able to have many wives then women should be able to have many husbands, and thirdly, whoever you've married first should also have to give consent to the second marriage, in my opinion. But yeah. It's a bit more complicated than that.

 

Losing 55-45 last I checked... not good.

Makes me ashamed of living in California.

 

If only this thread represented CA.

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/59.htm

a list of all our propositions, updated every few min. 53-46 now.

 

Well at least it's tipping. Does it simply need fifty-one percent to pass or is there more to it than that?

 

make incest an exeption to that rule and i would say AMEN BRUTHA!

 

Democracy 1
Peoples rights 0...

Guess it shows that this issue is one thing which won't "change" for another decade or 2 =(

"edit" 51-48 now...maybe it'll get there...

 

I just don't get why other people should get a say in this. Seriously. What right do those other people have to restrict gay rights? If those other people want to get married do they have to get the majority's permission first? It literally makes no sense in the slightest and it's a hypocritical double standard.

 

This is where religion comes in place in CA.
It is a popular idea that, being gay is brain development that people are born with. As stated in a 1991 Science magazine issue, there is a portion in the brain that gay males have that differ from heterosexual males. This section of the brain is called the anterior hypothalamus also known as INAH-3. Larger INAH-3 sizes were in heterosexual men, while gay man and a slightly smaller INAH-3 size. Women tend to have a smaller INAH-3 as well. (They believe this section of the brain MIGHT lead to sexual orientation, more research is needed to determine.)

So, I see this as a brain development one was born with and there shouldn't be any reason to prevent them from marrying, considering they probably don't have a choice on orientation. It's just that religion is sensitive to this and tend to prefer the traditional way of marriage.