CA's Prop 8, FL's amendment 2 and Arizona's prop 102/ Defining marriage, Surprised this never got mentioned here. Rating Options

[Blaqheartedstar]

Surprised this never got mentioned here. CA's Prop 8, FL's amendment 2 and Arizona's prop 102, and the whole defining gay marriage. With election coming up pretty soon, Prop 8 has been a big issue.

The argument is that Prop 8, amendment 2 and prop 102 will define that marriage between a man and a woman will be the only legal kind of marriage in California for prop 8, Florida for amendment 2, and Arizona with prop 102.

Some people argue that it has nothing to do with gay rights, or about gays in general
yet mention that if it doesn't pass parental rights, and religious freedom gets taken away.

Others mention that it does (take away gay rights), If the law passes Same sex couples will not be able to
1. Marry the person they love.
2. Those who are already married will lose the rights that come with it.


There is also the argument that Marriage is about love regardless of gender (Love is Blind).
yet others strongly believe that marriage is a religious, spiritual union between a man and a women.

To start a discussion here are several questions
1. what do you feel will happen if these laws passes and soon spreads to other states?
2. What do you feel marriage is, and should the idea of same sex marriage be allowed?
3. What do you think will happen to the children whose parents happen to be both male or female, If these laws passes what do you think will happen to the children?

[*paperplane*]

Because by not providing a link, or ever directly referencing it, we had no reason to think it was an issue. But of course, it's not an issue because her little brother or any other child would not have to go to anything the parents disagree with. Also, she made it sound like they'd be taken for educational purposes, which that didn't really sound like it was. However, if those children learned that all people are entitled to a happy marriage, then I wouldn't consider that problematic either.

[Reidar]

Because by not providing a link, or ever directly referencing it, we had no reason to think it was an issue. But of course, it's not an issue because her little brother or any other child would not have to go to anything the parents disagree with. Also, she made it sound like they'd be taken for educational purposes, which that didn't really sound like it was.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It'd be one thing to say, "I've never even heard of this", but actually making an argument based off of the premise that no such instance exists is a presumptive fallacy.

"And why in the hell would anyone go on a field trip to a gay marriage? Why would any wedding be a field trip?" declines to object in its complicity. You're accepting her premise of it somehow being a corruptible moment, but that it would never happen to begin with. Only after an example was shown did you say, "Actually, what's wrong with that in the first place?"

Also, it was described as "a teachable moment." The parameters that it was permitted under were to "teach respect for marriage and committed relationships."

Ya, except that private schools are expensive and you know that. Some parents who would love to take their child out of the slowly deteriorating public school system just cant afford it. Thats not even a logical argument.

Except that's what she said: they would do that, in order to illustrate how it doesn't make sense to chalk up secular issues like this as "brainwashing" when young children are systematically indoctrinated to believe in something they don't even understand under religious exaction. "Would" is conditional.

Just cause you are against Christianity and the theory of Creationism, you dont have to cling on to evolution like its pure fact. Its not.

Yes. Yes, it is.