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

[*cakedout*]

Of course; consequences imposed by the government are what keep people from committing any illegal actions.

No, I choose not to. If someone really wanted to kill someone, you think they would really care about the punishments? How many serial killers do you know, how many murders do you hear about everyday? Laws are just there to make sure you certain what you want to do.


Well I brought up the killing of your parents to see your response, which is no, meaning you wouldn't kill your parents if the government told you to, which is good. But then, your very own government is funding wars, killing people, and most people don't seem to know about it.


Also, your last statement is kind of...well....obvious. Since prob 8 didn't pass, its kinda assumed that majority voted for, so there was no need for you to assert that statement. You might as well as just said "I am typing right now." Since this conversation seems a bit heated...


thats me and my ho sandy

[*paperplane*]

awwww I want a cute little animal!!! <3

/spam, since this topic has taken an uninteresting turn

[*cakedout*]

PAPERPLANE YOU HAVE ONCE AGAIN SPAMMED

but this topic won't get anymore interesting since in the end its going to to be the same arguement

[*paperplane*]

I'm following/participating in similar debates on other forums, and the arguments do actually vary while staying largely relevant to the topic. Not that I have particularly high standards for our debate forum anymore, you're primarily arguing semantics now, and it's dull. As much as I disagree with everything dosomething888 has to say, at least she gives up something to argue.

[salcha4u]

Shrug, tbh I think prop 8 is just semantics, word choice. The entire argument isn't about equal rights. The government should just remove marriage and let everyone have civil unions. Then Christians keep marriage sacred among themselves and the homosexuals get "equality."

[*cakedout*]

when the hell did i say the government has no power? my mere statement was that your idea of how the government is so right seems naive as f*ck. and why do you type to me like im a teacher or some shit. "i am beyond harmonize" wtf is this? reflects society? there are countries burning our flags cause they hate us so much, you think our society wants that?

[*Janette*]

I think it's funny how we're even voting on this. Legally, we [citizens voting] aren't allowed to amend the state constition by our votes at all. It has to pass through the votes of the state legislators without the votes of citizens.

[*cakedout*]

"Of course; consequences imposed by the government are what keep people from committing any illegal actions.

No, I choose not to. If someone really wanted to kill someone, you think they would really care about the punishments? How many serial killers do you know, how many murders do you hear about everyday? Laws are just there to make sure you certain what you want to do"

Though contradictory, you implied, on the second statement, that if people choose to, they will follow through with their actions illegal or not.

I don't know if you have even read my previous posts or not but i do believe that i do not possess the naivete in this particular subject.
Yes, i have expressed in my posts that the government is in fact powerful. Do you have a rebuttal that will gainsay to this?
oh, here i was thinking that your the one who told me i was getting personal. Tell me, who is attacking someone's writing style in this debate? If this is the the case, i have tons of material.

And it is evident to us American people that there are countries out there that hate us, you are typing the obvious. Flag burning? why would that even be a part of your post? It is completely irrelevant. I do have to say that we burn American flags here at home, it is a form of speech, so why would our "society" be bothered about having other countries do it? Clearly, we know that they dont like us.

you seem to misunderstand my definition of government power, Laws =/= all the power government has. i still don't understand why you won't get that point. have you ever heard of jeffrey dahmer? or anyother serial killer? you think they give a shit about laws? however, would i kill someone? NO, it depends on the person

i highly doubt that our society DOES not care that every other country mocks us, you said yourself that our "government is reflected by society" so by your definition, our society does not give a f*ck about other countries

[brooklyneast05]

i can't even understand what you two are fighting about anymore. don't you have the same stance on this anyway?

[*cakedout*]

basically, she claims that my views of government goes on the lines of "government has no power." what im trying to say is that her faith in our government is too strong. I tried to give examples like under the table situations. For instance, she says government is a microcosm of our society. However, we are still torturing people at guantanamo boy, yet i highly doubt that our society would want that.

[Whinoa]

i dont want to read the board. i'll just answer the question/ prompt.

In my firm belief, marriage shouldn't be brought up in the first place. Many people who are against gay marriage justified their actions with religious reasons. I find religious reasons are so hypothetical and hypocritical. Although the bible states homosexual marriage is wrong, it shouldn't be qualify as a reason. Why? The bible states the 7 deadly sins. That’s not surprising. But guess what? Many people already have sins. You have people stealing stuff. You have children lying to each other. You have rude and mean people in your community. All of these violate the way of true Christian’s religion. Yet, people are against gay marriage when no one does anything for other things.

The question is why are you against gay marriage when you should be against yourself for not being a good Christian and breaking the “law” from bible?

I don't understand gay marriage issues spend the most money on this pointless campaign, when there are many things that we, us, as American, should worry about ourselves and economic issues. This isn’t the right time to talk about gay marriage, if you ask me. It should be after the economy is solved. All that money spends on the campaign is utterly useless and pointless at this moment which should had spend on better things.

[xhugerific]

Yup, I agree with Whinoa. ^ I'ma just answer the prompt.

I may be a little too young to be talking about this, BUT I do know a few things & I'd like to speak out for gay marriage. Correct me if I'm wrong;

First of all , most people that I know vote yes on prop 8 only because they're afraid that their children will be exposed to books and lessons about gays & lesbians. Wrong. No child can be forced against their will or their parents to be taught anything like this in school. Besides, not one word in Prop 8 mentions education. ++ I was reading the replies that everyone was posting. Something about fieldtrips to weddings? Ok, now that's just awkward. If you don't want your child to go to a wedding as a fieldtrip, then just don't sign their permission slip! Plus religion shouldn't be taught in public schools. Sooo yeah.

And about the bible stating that marriage is between a man and a woman? ...or something like that? Okay, there's this thing called seperation between church and state. Your religious beliefs shouldn't have anything to do with Prop 8.

And what irritates me the most is that California use to allow gay marriage, & yet they're banning it now. BS.

Grrr, but yeah. Regardless of how you feel about this, we shouldn't ban any rights from any person. Prop 8 mandates that one group of people would be treated differently from others, and that's just unfair. Don't you think?

[simx]

I don't want MY little brother going on a field trip to a gay marraige.

What would be the purpose of going on a field trip to any kind of wedding?....

[hypnotique]

marriage is too legally involved these days to even be considered a religious thing anymore.

[hypnotique]

marriage is too legally involved these days to even be considered a religious thing anymore.

[firechild]

^ its mostly legal now.

My Opinion: Love is love; gay or straight. We shouldn't stop them.

[*BOSS*]

i love dogs too, doesn't mean i can marry one

[simx]

i love dogs too, doesn't mean i can marry one

Why would you want to marry your dog?

[*BOSS*]

i wasn't being literal, the thing is, once you open the door for fair rights to gays, you have to do it with everyone, including polygamy, 3 way marriages, etc. However, limiting to only straight couples is also not fair so this subject is just a big cycle of unequality

[NoSex]

i wasn't being literal, the thing is, once you open the door for fair rights to gays, you have to do it with everyone, including polygamy, 3 way marriages, etc. However, limiting to only straight couples is also not fair so this subject is just a big cycle of unequality

that's a slippery slope fallacy. it's not relevant to the question at hand... not really. but, as goes the dog thing... consent. consent. consent. duh. as goes the issue of polygamy: whatever, i don't care. nonetheless, like i said, each of those concerns are independent of the issue of gay marriage, any rebuttal of same-sex marriage should be phrased in direct association with same-sex couples & marriage (not dogs & mormons).

[*BOSS*]

its not a slippery slope fallacy if the chain of events are likely, most of these points are what republicans against gay marriage are going to say

[NoSex]

its not a slippery slope fallacy if the chain of events are likely

no. it's a slippery slope fallacy because it makes an unfounded leap from point A (the legalization of same-sex marriage) to point Q (the legalization of non-human/human marriage). you assume that the transitory points are all bound to occur, & are naturally occurring, given A. the reality of the matter is that A & Q are completely independent instances that are, in no real way, bound to a causal chain. Even if Q were to occur, the points between A & Q would be individually addressed & scrutinized, on their own merits. anyone who makes this argument isn't arguing against gay marriage, they're stating a disfavorable opinion of point Q. if you want to legitimize the argument, you would have to argue for each point between A & Q.

[*BOSS*]

no. it's a slippery slope fallacy because it makes an unfounded leap from point A (the legalization of same-sex marriage) to point Q (the legalization of non-human/human marriage). you assume that the transitory points are all bound to occur, & are naturally occurring, given A. the reality of the matter is that A & Q are completely independent instances that are, in no real way, bound to a causal chain. Even if Q were to occur, the points between A & Q would be individually addressed & scrutinized, on their own merits. anyone who makes this argument isn't arguing against gay marriage, they're stating a disfavorable opinion of point Q. if you want to legitimize the argument, you would have to argue for each point between A & Q.

I'll play your game. Lets say gay marriage is legalized. Here come the mormons with their bikes, saying how they want their polygamy. They use the same argument as gays. Whats your response?

[NoSex]

What makes you think if gays get their right to marriage, that people like polygamists wouldn't fight for what they want ultimately using the same reason as gays.

that's still not an argument against gay marriage.
not to mention, it doesn't necessitate that polygamist marriage would be allowed.

[*BOSS*]

Why wouldn't it? Ill admit, there is no real argument against gay marriage. But i think it is in the best interest of this debate to incorporate future problems that are likely to happen if gay marriage were to be passed.