Prop 8

[Syberia]

Anyway, my point here is that the popular vote is not always "right." In fact, the electoral system was intentionally set up (in part) to restrict the power of the majority, since the founding fathers did not trust the majority to always be right.

That's absolute bullshit. If you think about it, from that standpoint, we're no different as a country than communist nations like North Korea or the former USSR.

For the record, I honestly cannot say I support the idea of a representative government. It's pretty much a complete crapshoot, as you get to choose among a limited number of people to put into office (most of the times none of them represent your views, at least not completely), and once they get there you honestly don't have any real idea of what they're going to do beyond the superficial bullshit they spout off to get themselves elected. And removing them if they don't perform is a lot harder than it should be.

Plenty of countries have direct-democracy systems where the people actually get to make their voice heard, and the system seems to work fine.

 

[gorm]

Since homosexual sex is purly for pleasure and has no way of reproducing, it is not relevant to be discussed while teaching about the reproductive cycle.

i dont see why you aren't trying to stop couples who aren't going to have children from getting married. sex is more than reproduction, the fact that it feels good has had a massive effect on our evolution, and it has become an important part of love. i'm not sure what the point of not teaching anything (ex contraception for homosexuals/heterosexuals) in school is since it's naive to think you can prevent it from happening ~__~

to say that sex is purely for pleasure is misleading since it makes it seem like each partner is in it for their own argument when its nothing like that.

i think children should be able to decide whether or not homosexuals should be married in the eyes of the church, so telling them that that's ok is not ok as you say, but are you aying children shouldn't be able to believe that hmosexuals can fall in love?

frankly any time we tell children that an issue is "ok" or not because we assume they can't choose on their own yet, it's not right. i think it's never wrong to teach both sides of an issue, i take offense when someone tells me what's right though.

 

[Lexite]

i dont see why you aren't trying to stop couples who aren't going to have children from getting married. sex is more than reproduction, the fact that it feels good has had a massive effect on our evolution, and it has become an important part of love. i'm not sure what the point of not teaching anything (ex contraception for homosexuals/heterosexuals) in school is since it's naive to think you can prevent it from happening ~__~

to say that sex is purely for pleasure is misleading since it makes it seem like each partner is in it for their own argument when its nothing like that.

I really have no clue what you just said. All I am saying is there is no need to be teaching Homosexual sex in school because it has nothing to do with the reproductive cycle and schools should only be teaching about the reproductive cycle and dont need to teach anything else about sex in class. You completely missed my point. School has no business teaching children that it is ok to have sex at a young age. Now adays it is not safe to go out and have sex with whomever you want. Schools should only teach how it works and nothing more.

 

[gorm]

I guess i just took offense to you saying homosexual sex is purely for pleasure. it makes it sound like an animal act instead of an act of love. I'm not sure what it would mean to "teach homosexual sex" to children (and what age they'd be at)

 

[lilyhollow]

schools should only be teaching about the reproductive cycle and dont need to teach anything else about sex in class.

I assume your reasoning for this would be "just because?"

 

[Lexite]

I guess i just took offense to you saying homosexual sex is purely for pleasure. it makes it sound like an animal act instead of an act of love. I'm not sure what it would mean to "teach homosexual sex" to children (and what age they'd be at)

There are a very few animals that have sex for plesure. For animals it is putly reproductive.

I assume your reasoning for this would be "just because?"

No my reasoning is because kids under the age of 18 really shouldnt be having sex. It isnt safe, there are to many diseases out there that spread in high schools and the world today is making sex too loose and not have any meaning. To me, sex has a lot of meaning and should only be with the person you are going to marry. Schools should not be teaching that it is ok to go out and have sex with whomever you want. If they were to teach only teach about the reproductive scycle like they should and just tell the kids that it is safer just to wait then that would fix a few cases.

 

[gorm]

how do you want kids to learn that some sex is meaningless without having meaningless sex? if there are risks, be they emotional or health related, we educate them.

schools should not be teaching that it's ok to fuck whoever but should they be ignoring the issue because that is pretty much exactly what happens anyways.

 

[Jenigmat]

I didn't take the time to read through most of this thread, so I probably am restating something someone said, but imo if you want to say that marriage is a sacred sacrament between a man and a woman, then fine, let gay people not get married. But then you have to stop giving tax breaks for marriages, because it's a purely religious thing. The fact is, you can't pull any religious argument about marriage as long as the government 'cares' whether or not you're married. I mean, hypothetically speaking if I were to come from a culture/religion where polygamous marriage was fine, I don't think the government would have any right to deny me that part of my religion. As far as I'm concerned, I think that the government should stay the hell away from religion. If you want to give tax breaks to couples, create civil unions. Hypothetically speaking, a civil union would be a quick, painless process that wouldn't take that much time. Then you can go off and get married in a church or whatever you want.

 

[Firestorm]

So first of all, homosexuality is NOT an educational matter and does not belong in school. Doesnt need to be taught. Since homosexual sex is purly for pleasure and has no way of reproducing, it is not relevant to be discussed while teaching about the reproductive cycle. A health class A class can teach about the human boidy and teach about how sex works without talking about homosexuals. I do not want my children to go to school and be taught that homosexuality is OK, that is my religious decision if it is right or not.

Did you not have a course like Career and Personal Planning where you learn about life in general? Children SHOULD be taught that it's okay to be homosexual. If that's who they are, that's who they are. I don't think they should be taught this when they're in the second grade as that's still the "eeewww girls are icky" stage and every kid is going to think they're gay, but about the 5th grade people need to accept that there are homosexual people in this world. They should be taught that it's not something they have to hide. They need to be taught that they're not abnormal. What next? We can't learn about other religions in school either? Can't learn about other races? History started when the white man came and and nothing else exists.

Muslims are allowed to gather on a college campus and tell everyone that we need more terrorists and that the US should die

what the fuck.
Clarify. I am not familiar with this instance.

And GAYS CAN CALL THEMSELVES MARRIED. You do not have to have a marriage license to call yourself married, you do not have to have a marriage license to have a ring, you do not have to have a marriage license to have a privet wedding or have someone pronounce you married. You can have a fried go online and be certified to marry a couple. The only issue here is that the Government does not recognize that couple as married. They dont have to stay in a long term relationship for the rest of their lives.

WHY does the government not recognize them as married? The government should not be under the command of a religion. Not allowing them to say they're legally married is a violation of your constitution.

Depressing that the people's vote of 66% was over turned by judges and it had to be put to the ballot to get back what was voted on. Depressing when the people's vote doesnt mean anything anymore and the Government can just do what it wants when the Government is "For the People and By the People."

When your people want to deny humans their rights, then they should be overturned.The citizens of the United States of America should not be the ones to decide the fates of minority groups. It hasn't worked out very well so far.

Also, the judges are not "the government".

 

[Syberia]

what the fuck.
Clarify. I am not familiar with this instance.

A Muslim at my college (UC Irvine) was promoting terrorism. Basically saying terrorists were "good people" who needed to be supported, not put in jail or killed. The FBI began investigating him. My school defended him.

This is a member of the same Muslim student group who openly holds fundraisers to get money to help get known terrorists out of jail.

 

[Lexite]

Also, the judges are not "the government".

Ummm, go back and study Government in school, yes the Courts are part of the government, the judicial system. The State courts are part of government.


And why have a majority vote if it doesnt mean anything, then you become communist. Eliminating marriage as a legal institution is an acceptable solution to the problem. I would be perfectly fine with that. If the government were to only recognize civil unions and marriage was strictly a religious process that would be perfectly fine.

 

[DM]

I do not like it when teachers flat out say creation is wrong. The teachers can simply NOT say creation is wrong and the child at home can listen to the partent/church about creation to themselves. Not all christians feel that ALL evolution is wrong. I beleive in micro evolution but I do not beleive in macro evolution. AS it is, evolution is a subject that should be taught in school but a teacher should NEVER say creation is wrong since teh two can fit together. I went through school just fine and my teacher did not say that creation is wrong and evolution is correct. As long as that is done then I am fine with evolution being taught in school.

When scientific proof leans solely in the direction of the theory (remember the actual meaning of the word here) of evolution, yes, the teacher is obligated to say creationism is incorrect.

So first of all, homosexuality is NOT an educational matter and does not belong in school. Doesnt need to be taught. Since homosexual sex is purly for pleasure and has no way of reproducing, it is not relevant to be discussed while teaching about the reproductive cycle. A health class A class can teach about the human boidy and teach about how sex works without talking about homosexuals. I do not want my children to go to school and be taught that homosexuality is OK, that is my religious decision if it is right or not.

I think the fact that homosexuality exists naturally is reason enough that kids should be educated on the subject. By saying the children will be "taught that homosexuality is OK," you're not only misrepresenting the facts (they're just going to teach it, not pass judgment on it) but you're also being incredibly prejudiced and intolerant. Those are two things I'd be more worried about your children learning.

And EXCUSE ME but we have something called the first amendment that protects the Church from the government. So Muslims are allowed to preach intolerance but other religions are not? Muslims are allowed to gather on a college campus and tell everyone that we need more terrorists and that the US should die but a Church or a Jewish temple cannot express what they believe God has said for well over 30,000 years? No a Church should not be taxed. The money coming in goes to charities and to help people in need. Do you want to tax charity? A Church (following what it is told to do, i do agree that there are bad ones out there but this statement ignores them) is not a business and there fore has no reason to be taxed.

Good lord woman, there is so much blatant bigotry and ignorance in this paragraph that I really think I don't need to refute anything in it.

I hope you are joking about the woman thing.

Yes, he was being sarcastic.

Your questions are completely irrelevant. Most couples find out they are infertile after marriage, not before and yes they still should be allowed to marry, not everyone decided to have kids and I have no clue why this is relevant at all. And GAYS CAN CALL THEMSELVES MARRIED. You do not have to have a marriage license to call yourself married, you do not have to have a marriage license to have a ring, you do not have to have a marriage license to have a privet wedding or have someone pronounce you married. You can have a fried go online and be certified to marry a couple. The only issue here is that the Government does not recognize that couple as married. They dont have to stay in a long term relationship for the rest of their lives.

You completely missed the point and didn't address at all the economic benefits of a state-approved union. And to rebut what you did mention... seperate but equal = unconstitutional. Remember that pesky old document?

Depressing that the people's vote of 66% was over turned by judges and it had to be put to the ballot to get back what was voted on. Depressing when the people's vote doesnt mean anything anymore and the Government can just do what it wants when the Government is "For the People and By the People."

California is a liberal state, you shouldn't have been surprised by the court's ruling. Also, the fact that the voting majority has lessened from 66% to 52% should let you know which way the mindset in that state is headed: away from prejudice and towards tolerance.

No my reasoning is because kids under the age of 18 really shouldnt be having sex. It isnt safe, there are to many diseases out there that spread in high schools and the world today is making sex too loose and not have any meaning. To me, sex has a lot of meaning and should only be with the person you are going to marry. Schools should not be teaching that it is ok to go out and have sex with whomever you want. If they were to teach only teach about the reproductive scycle like they should and just tell the kids that it is safer just to wait then that would fix a few cases.

What school teaches that? Please, answer that question. My health classes taught us reproductive organs and then showed us pictures of STDs. Is that what you consider "teaching that it is ok to go out and have sex with whomever you want?" You have this skewed idea of the public school system and you're pushing it as the backboard of your opinion, but it's way too flawed to go unnoticed.

Also, it doesn't matter which kids you think should be having sex or not: they're going to do it. The only way to curb those diseases and babies and everything else you're so afraid of is to EDUCATE.

A Muslim at my college (UC Irvine) was promoting terrorism. Basically saying terrorists were "good people" who needed to be supported, not put in jail or killed. The FBI began investigating him. My school defended him.

This is a member of the same Muslim student group who openly holds fundraisers to get money to help get known terrorists out of jail.

That's called freedom of speech. You might not like what he has to say, but it's his right as an American to say it.

 

[shipship]

I am very disappointed in California.

Score one for the bigots. :(

 

[shipship]

I do not like it when teachers flat out say creation is wrong. The teachers can simply NOT say creation is wrong and the child at home can listen to the partent/church about creation to themselves.

Given that creationism is a "non-science," a teacher is justified to say in a science class that creationism (literal Biblical) is wrong.

Not all christians feel that ALL evolution is wrong. I beleive in micro evolution but I do not beleive in macro evolution.

That's like saying you believe in 100m sprints but don't believe in marathons.

Since homosexual sex is purly for pleasure and has no way of reproducing, it is not relevant to be discussed while teaching about the reproductive cycle.

You mean to say that heterosexual sex isn't purely for pleasure 99.9% of the time?

 

[Darkflagrance]

You mean to say that heterosexual sex isn't purely for pleasure 99.9% of the time?

Well, technically if the purpose of reproductive cycle education is simply to educate the kid on how the male/female genitalia work and how babies are made, homosexual sex is not relevant, and neither are discussions of anal, oral, or the virtues of sex positions.

Of course, "education on reproduction" tends to be a euphemism for general sex education anyway...

 

[Luduan]

You have been thoroughly grilled for this, but I will add my own contribution.

I do not like it when teachers flat out say creation is wrong. The teachers can simply NOT say creation is wrong and the child at home can listen to the partent/church about creation to themselves. Not all christians feel that ALL evolution is wrong. I beleive in micro evolution but I do not beleive in macro evolution. AS it is, evolution is a subject that should be taught in school but a teacher should NEVER say creation is wrong since teh two can fit together. I went through school just fine and my teacher did not say that creation is wrong and evolution is correct. As long as that is done then I am fine with evolution being taught in school.

Creationism and evolution cannot "fit together". One claims that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that life incrementally changed through long spaces of time; the other postulates that the earth is 6000-10000 years old and that a sky-daddy magicked everything into existence. One is based on years of observation and scientific date; the other is based on a 3000 year old religious text. One is correct; the other is not. It is that simple.

And EXCUSE ME but we have something called the first amendment that protects the Church from the government.

And protects the government from the church.

So Muslims are allowed to preach intolerance but other religions are not? Muslims are allowed to gather on a college campus and tell everyone that we need more terrorists and that the US should die but a Church or a Jewish temple cannot express what they believe God has said for well over 30,000 years?

Please provide an example of Muslims "gather[ing] on a college campus and tell[ing] everyone that we need more terrorists and that the US should die".

No a Church should not be taxed.

Yes, it should.

The money coming in goes to charities and to help people in need.

Some does, but more goes into the pockets of the church staff and into useless faith-spreading endeavors (buying Bibles, "bus ministries", etc).

Do you want to tax charity?

A church is not a charity.

A Church (following what it is told to do, i do agree that there are bad ones out there but this statement ignores them) is not a business and there fore has no reason to be taxed.

This is terrible logic.

And why have a majority vote if it doesnt mean anything, then you become communist.

...What?

 

[Surgo]

Creationism is not science, and has no business being taught in a science classroom. This is a point that a lot of people seem to forget :/

Also what's up with prop 8 after all? Will there be a recount or what? Because there's shittons of absentee ballots and provisional ballots that weren't counted at all, and that vote was close.

 

[Ancien Régime]

Creationism and evolution cannot "fit together".

Wrong.

There are two schools of Creationism - you are referring to YEC (Young Earth Creationism) where it is believed that everything was magicked into existence. The other school is essentially arguing that scientific laws/theories/observations are valid, including evolution, but it was God that set the process in motion.

As for the proposition, "it's just semantics".

There are two perfect compromises:

Take the government out of marriage - no recognition/benefits for anyone.
Stop having the government perform marriages - civil unions for everyone, and the term "marriage" is reserved to whatever church performs the ceremony.

And protects the government from the church.

Arguable but I honestly find the proposition that the Church > the State in terms of power absolutely preposterous. The Church needs the State to have any power at all - not vice versa.

 

[shipship]

Wrong.

There are two schools of Creationism - you are referring to YEC (Young Earth Creationism) where it is believed that everything was magicked into existence. The other school is essentially arguing that scientific laws/theories/observations are valid, including evolution, but it was God that set the process in motion.

Which still doesn't belong in a science classroom, as decided by the Dover case a couple of years ago.

Intelligent Design is just YE Creationism under a mask (anything to sneak God back into the schools).

 

[Glen]

I do not like it when teachers flat out say creation is wrong. The teachers can simply NOT say creation is wrong and the child at home can listen to the partent/church about creation to themselves. Not all christians feel that ALL evolution is wrong. I beleive in micro evolution but I do not beleive in macro evolution. AS it is, evolution is a subject that should be taught in school but a teacher should NEVER say creation is wrong since teh two can fit together. I went through school just fine and my teacher did not say that creation is wrong and evolution is correct. As long as that is done then I am fine with evolution being taught in school.

so tell me, should teachers be allowed to say that zeus doesnt exist? should teachers be allowed to say reincarnation doesn't exist? im going to guess that you feel both those concepts are ludicrous, and as such, would be fine if teachers denounced them whenever possible. but since your faith involving a man from the sky is just so gosh-darned bullet-proof compared to all those other religions, teachers shouldn't be able to comment on that.

'but evolution is a theory!!!!!' yes you're right! i guess teachers shouldn't be able to teach gravity. they can tell kids that God keeps everyone nice and snug on the ground.

thats big of you though, your willingness to let teachers teach, you know, science, backed up by research and fact only if they don't hurt your feelings by making you question yourself.

the fact that you're actually not a kid frightens me, i'm not going to lie.

 

[TAY]

Creationism in any capacity should not be allowed in science classrooms because it cannot be scientifically tested. The process is as important as any specific fact or set of facts that are taught, and allowing Creationism into the science classroom walks all over the scientific method.

----------------

Am I weird for not caring if my (future) kids learn about homosexuality in school? I know I'm a pretty liberal guy, but that "kids might learn about it in school!" argument struck a chord with some of my friends who still voted no on prop 8. Is there some reason that kids should not be taught about homosexuality? Especially with homosexuality being so incredibly prevalent in our culture...it's hard do turn on the television or see a movie without seeing some homosexual reference. So wouldn't it be more appropriate for children to learn about it in school?

 

[Outlaw]

I wish I was taught alchemy in school. Also magic would be a bitchin awesome class.

California is a liberal state, you shouldn't have been surprised by the court's ruling. Also, the fact that the voting majority has lessened from 66% to 52% should let you know which way the mindset in that state is headed: away from prejudice and towards tolerance.

Maybe some of those people just gave up because obviously their vote doesn't matter if the court can just overturn it at a moments notice?

 

[jrrrrrrr]

I do not like it when teachers flat out say creation is wrong.

Why not? The burden of proof is on those who believe in creationism, and right now, there isn't much. Creationism is not a science by definition, and even though there is a place in school for studying myths and folklore, science class is not it. Science class is for science. Evolution is a science, creationism isn't. Keeping creationism out isn't about beliefs, it's about keeping schools' credibility.

I believe in Phrenology and Astrology! I don't like it when people say that they are pseudosciences so I demand that they be taught in schools!!

So first of all, homosexuality is NOT an educational matter and does not belong in school. Doesnt need to be taught. Since homosexual sex is purly for pleasure and has no way of reproducing, it is not relevant to be discussed while teaching about the reproductive cycle. A health class A class can teach about the human boidy and teach about how sex works without talking about homosexuals.

Let's just ignore the problem! That will surely make it better!

I do not want my children to go to school and be taught that homosexuality is OK, that is my religious decision if it is right or not.

There are so many things wrong with this statement that I really dont know where to begin. Whether you are going to use religion to mask the bigotry that you have likely had subconsciously ingrained in your head or not, you should really learn to think before you speak. Reading this part of your post really pissed me off because I know that deep down, you actually believe what you wrote. As a homo, that really scares me.

What if your child is gay?

Would you want your kid growing up in an environment where you, the child's mother, is telling them that they are not ok? Do you really think that is responsible or beneficial, even if forcing your kid into hiding gets you into heaven?

Nobody is trying to convert kids to homosexuality, the gay rights movement is trying to reach out to those who are gay and get cut off from their families, friends because of it. When homosexuality is discussed in schools, it isnt giving a message of "hey you should try this", we're saying "we're here if you need us".

And EXCUSE ME but we have something called the first amendment that protects the Church from the government. So Muslims are allowed to preach intolerance but other religions are not? Muslims are allowed to gather on a college campus and tell everyone that we need more terrorists and that the US should die but a Church or a Jewish temple cannot express what they believe God has said for well over 30,000 years? No a Church should not be taxed. The money coming in goes to charities and to help people in need. Do you want to tax charity?

Well, first of all, you kinda have it backwards although it really doesn't matter. The first amendment isn't to protect churches from government, lol, its to protect people from churches.

You are very naive if you think that all of the money goes to charities and to help people. I'm not sure what it's like everywhere, but in my community the churches are extremely rich while their patrons are poor as fuck. If a church wants to be a charity, it should advertise itself as a charity and not as a church.

A Church (following what it is told to do, i do agree that there are bad ones out there but this statement ignores them) is not a business and there fore has no reason to be taxed.

My house is not a business and therefore has no reason to be taxed. My paycheck is not a business and therefore has no reason to be taxed. This bag of Cheetos I just bought is not a business and has no reason to be taxed. Can you please at least TRY to think before you post?

And GAYS CAN CALL THEMSELVES MARRIED. You do not have to have a marriage license to call yourself married, you do not have to have a marriage license to have a ring, you do not have to have a marriage license to have a privet wedding or have someone pronounce you married. You can have a fried go online and be certified to marry a couple. The only issue here is that the Government does not recognize that couple as married. They dont have to stay in a long term relationship for the rest of their lives.

I can call myself black too, that doesn't make it true. Your solution to the gay menace seems to be "Just ignore it! Just say that youre married and it will magically come true!" Needless to say, your solution wont work.

"The only issue is that Government doesnt recognize that couple"...that's exactly right! THAT IS THE PROBLEM. It is sexual discrimination for a man to be able to marry a woman but not another man. I'm not sure that you understand the fact that there are lots of benefits that married couples get that are not granted to unmarried couples. Most notably in my eyes, I met a 78 year old gay man who was cut out of his partner of more than 40 years' will by his partner's family, and there was nothing he could do about it because he was not legally married. That is pretty blatantly discrimination, and the issue was caused by this outrageous ban on marriage.

Depressing that the people's vote of 66% was over turned by judges and it had to be put to the ballot to get back what was voted on. Depressing when the people's vote doesnt mean anything anymore and the Government can just do what it wants when the Government is "For the People and By the People."

If it takes judicial activism to guarantee that everybody gets the same civil rights, then I am for judicial activism. If this vote is what pisses you off about governmental proceedings, then I suggest you take a look at some of the things the government has done that are actually bad.

And why have a majority vote if it doesnt mean anything, then you become communist.

Do you even know what communism is?

Also, what if in the next election there was a Proposition 9 that asked "Should we kill all homosexuals?" and it won? Would you be for that too? The majority isn't always right, you know.

I think I speak for every intelligent person when I say that the passing of Prop 8 is a huge step backwards for society and it will forever be an embarassment to the state of California.

 

[gorm]

A Muslim at my college (UC Irvine) was promoting terrorism. Basically saying terrorists were "good people" who needed to be supported, not put in jail or killed.

heh i missed this. if you think the only solution is to jail/kill these people i suggest you check out the principles of a certain jesus christ =\

people who think the only solution is to explode themselves are messed up and need help, but that's another argument ^_^~

 

[Ancien Régime]

Which still doesn't belong in a science classroom, as decided by the Dover case a couple of years ago.

Intelligent Design is just YE Creationism under a mask (anything to sneak God back into the schools).

:)

actually i thought i've been pretty clear that I DON'T support teaching religion as science (though I don't oppose it being discussed as some sort of "philosophy, religion and science" type thing - it would be a stimulating discussion to have in the right context)

ID is more like OEC tbh (or should be, just like the pro-life debate should be more about whether the embryo is a human being rather than "unmarried people are gasp having sex!!!!11!!!")