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*]

So what if it is a historical/religious text. Just because it is not a scientific theory doesnt throw it out the window. Its a theory, none the less.

And, you said that if I wanted my children to learn about creationism, I should send them to Sunday School... Thats why Im disagreeing with you.

No, my question about whether the archaeological findings were historical was serious. I'm not sure what findings you were referring to, but if all they did was confirm that events things recorded in the bible aligned with history, it's irrelevant to whether creationism is true. (It's getting late, so I apologize if my rhetoric is confusing.)

And so what if it's a religious text? That would (generally) disqualify it to be taught in public schools.

This wasn't it. You didn't merely say, "That would never happen." If you had, there would be no inconsistency. You actually asked why anyone would even do that all. Both are a declination to objection, and are different from later saying, "So what if that even happens, when it would be educational?"

That's not really inconsistency. I asked why anyone would do it at all in a rhetorical sense because i didn't, and still don't, think that a wedding is a legitimate field trip. But in the event that it did/could happen, of course there would need to be a case for it to be educational. The hypothetical basis was not in question.