NationStates Jolt Archive

I know we had a thread on a similar subject not too long ago, but the arguments made here in California in favor of the anti-same-sex-marriage amendment are the worst kind of homophobic scare-mongering.

Here is part of the official argument in favor of Proposition (http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/argu-rebut/argu-rebutt8.htm)8:

YES on Proposition 8 does three simple things:

It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and human history has understood marriage to be.

It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.

It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage.

Proposition 8 protects marriage as an essential institution of society. While death, divorce, or other circumstances may prevent the ideal, the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father.

The narrow decision of the California Supreme Court isn’t just about “live and let live.” State law may require teachers to instruct children as young as kindergarteners about marriage. (Education Code § 51890.) If the gay marriage ruling is not overturned, TEACHERS COULD BE REQUIRED to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.

We should not accept a court decision that may result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay. That is an issue for parents to discuss with their children according to their own values and beliefs. It shouldn’t be forced on us against our will.


Now all the arguments in favor of Prop. 8 are bullshit, but the "we have to save the children" argument really pisses me off.

Here is part of the reason -- it just isn't true that anything about gay marriage will be taught to children:

The only problem is that everything about this argument isn't just specious, it's just wrong.

According to curriculum experts with the state Department of Education, Section 51890 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/edc/51890-51891.html) of the Education Code -- the section cited by the Proposition [8] camp because it calls for teaching children about the legal and financial responsibilities of marriage -- is not a requirement for schools. It's an expected part of instruction for school districts that want a state-funded health curriculum.

Things fall apart more when you get to the kindergarten thing. There is nothing in the Education Code about the age at which children should learn about marriage. The grades at which students should be taught certain subjects is contained on the content standards, and the standards for health education (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr08/documents/mar08item11.doc) don't mention marriage until high school, at which point students are supposed to learn about the differences between just-plain dating, committed relationships and marriage. The curriculum standards, by the way, aren't mandated either. They are, as the Pirates of the Caribbean put it, more sort of guidelines.

I imagine that as part of this, high schoolers might indeed learn that same-sex marriage is legal in the state of California. And, call me crazy, but I think they can handle it.
link (http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2008/08/what-same-sex-m.html)

But, more than that, it is pretty frickin' evil to me to be so homophobic that the thought that your children might not be taught to hate qays scares you.

sick and disgusting. But I highly doubt it will get passed, it's California. And you know what really pisses me off? That shit like this gets made into constitutional amendments. Consitiutions exist to protect and garunte rights, not to take then away. You want to oppress someone? First, move to Saudia Arabia, then THEN send a law to a local rep. Don't make it an amendment.

Cat-Tribes, this has been explained to you, patiently, and repeatedly.

The interests of society must be served. And the institutionalized exclusion, disdain, disapproval, and disenfranchisement of non-majorative parts of the population clearly serves the interest of society.

The purpose of the law is to make sure that bad people are treated badly. Queers are bad.

What you're advocating is some kind of pursuit of peacable, fair co-existence with equal access and standing for all, wherein differing people and beliefs can be recognized, balancing personal freedom with reasonable consequences for behaviour that harms others.

Every time a man puts his ding dong into another man, my marriage gets worse. Two fat guys in Hawaii get married, my spouse and I gain weight. A guy gives oral sex to another guy, my wife doesn't give oral sex to me (read the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Conservation of Hummers).

Two lesbians live a life of commitment and abiding care and love, my wife and I grow emotionally distant and maybe I get a rusty trombone in Tijuana.

Do you honestly not see why gay marriage hurts good people?

I got an email from a person about the class who went to the gay wedding, on and on she went about the parents having no control over this indoctrination.....I emailed her back and said "don't parents have to sign permission slips for field trips?" she emailed me back and said that wasn't the point.

What is the point then? Parents obviously had control over whether or not their children went, they have control over which school they send their kids to, where do the parents suddenly lose in this "battle"?

welllll

out of all the reasons to ban gay marriage, its the only one that might have resonance with rational people.....

well ok maybe not rational but the whole "makes a mockery of marriage" thing has been done by straight people already so it doesnt carry much weight.

so "wont someone think of the children" is the only possible reason.

even if its a stupid one.

after all its not talking about "my" children, if *I* wanted to make sure that "my" children arent taught that gay people are just as good as straight people i can keep them home and teach them myself. its talking about YOUR kids because you arent as good a parent as i am and youll let your kids go to public school where they will be taught that its OK for 2 men who love each other to spend their lives together.

then they whole fabric of society is ruined (because it turns out that the one thing that unites us all is a hatred of gay people.... or something)

is prop 8 going to pass?

I almost woke my roommates because I saw it in the middle of the night (in San Francisco, no less!) and just about yelled "Are you fucking kidding me?!?" with the ad where they have the little girl comes home and goes "Guess what I learned at school? A prince can marry a prince and a I can marry a princess!" and then dude comes out with, "Think it can't happen? IT ALREADY HAS!"

Of course they're not running the ads with Newsome trying to scare us with is 'whether you like it or not' speech (I was 50 feet from him when he said that), because we actually cheered when he said that...

I got an email from a person about the class who went to the gay wedding, on and on she went about the parents having no control over this indoctrination.....I emailed her back and said "don't parents have to sign permission slips for field trips?" she emailed me back and said that wasn't the point.

What is the point then? Parents obviously had control over whether or not their children went, they have control over which school they send their kids to, where do the parents suddenly lose in this "battle"?

You can't seriously expect parent's to read permission slips, or know where there child is taking a field trip to! That's insane! Real parents are too busy listening to Republican pundits about how to protect their children from gays and muslims to do things like keep track of where their kids are going on field trips.

YES on Proposition 8 does three simple things:

1) Rapes the idea of human rights.
2) Uses lube that's made from lemon juice and filled with sand and glass shards
3) Does #1 and #2 combined while reading verses aloud from the Bible, all the while misunderstanding them.

Did I miss anything?

It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and human history has understood marriage to be.

Human history understands marriage to be a tool of commerce and politics, all around the idea of trading the lives of two people in exchange for something else. It's one of the sociological precursors to slavery and, in some cultures, is still not actually that different from it.

It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.

Got evidence?

It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage.

You're right. It's not. It's marriages based on the concept that two people love each other. Definitely not traditional marriage.

Proposition 8 protects marriage as an essential institution of society. While death, divorce, or other circumstances may prevent the ideal, the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father.

I've seen just as many kids turn out to be criminals who come from a two-parent house as come from a one-parent house.

We should not accept a court decision that may result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay. That is an issue for parents to discuss with their children according to their own values and beliefs. It shouldn’t be forced on us against our will.

Why not? Afraid they'll learn to think and might realize that half the bullshit you're teaching them isn't even what Jesus intended, let alone scientific fact?

Honestly, if Jesus returned today, I think the first thing he'd do is pull a new Holocaust, only with it being Christians instead of Jews this time. Given what some of his own followers have done with his words, I honestly can't find it in my heart to say that would necessarily be a bad thing. I swear, if we ever find his grave, we could probably use the sheer force of frustration emanating from it to power a warp drive.

Republicans were always going to scare-monger over this. Think about it. If children are not brought up to be intolerant hate-filled bigots, where will the Republican voters of the future come from?

I got an email from a person about the class who went to the gay wedding, on and on she went about the parents having no control over this indoctrination.....I emailed her back and said "don't parents have to sign permission slips for field trips?" she emailed me back and said that wasn't the point.

What is the point then? Parents obviously had control over whether or not their children went, they have control over which school they send their kids to, where do the parents suddenly lose in this "battle"?

This is a war to make sure kids know that gay people are somehow categorically bad, and since there is no actual way to derive this from reasonable principles, it must come from parental and cultural indoctrination.

Thus, the battle is lost any time we give up an opportunity to let kids know that gays are Satan's marketing department.

Stop interfering with my right to insulate my children from any socially progressive dynamic that will expose them to even the existence of same sex couples. I've paid a great deal of my hard earned money, stamped "IN GOD WE TRUST", to have two Mexican guys follow my son around and distract him with acrobatics any time gay people are around.

Respect my rights as a parent.

I don't know much about prop. 8, but the woman they had pushing it at Wal-Mart today was the worst anything-mongerer I've ever seen. She was, well, gigantic, for a start - irrelevant I'm sure, but *damn* - even by Wal-Mart standards. I'm no salesman, but leaning against a pillar with your (enormous) ass facing incoming shoppers while screeching at your cell phone can't possibly be the proper way to mong.

I've paid a great deal of my hard earned money, stamped "IN GOD WE TRUST", to have two Mexican guys follow my son around and distract him with acrobatics any time gay people are around.

You paid Marco and Phillip? Didn't you know they were gay? Yeah, they've pretty much taught your son about everything from gay marriage to transsexuals. I overheard them saying that, next week, they were going to introduce him to anime and philosophy.

This is a war to make sure kids know that gay people are somehow categorically bad, and since there is no actual way to derive this from reasonable principles, it must come from parental and cultural indoctrination.

Thus, the battle is lost any time we give up an opportunity to let kids know that gays are Satan's marketing department.

Stop interfering with my right to insulate my children from any socially progressive dynamic that will expose them to even the existence of same sex couples. I've paid a great deal of my hard earned money, stamped "IN GOD WE TRUST", to have two Mexican guys follow my son around and distract him with acrobatics any time gay people are around.

Respect my rights as a parent.
:p:p


:p

I don't know much about prop. 8, but the woman they had pushing it at Wal-Mart today was the worst anything-mongerer I've ever seen. She was, well, gigantic, for a start - irrelevant I'm sure, but *damn* - even by Wal-Mart standards. I'm no salesman, but leaning against a pillar with your (enormous) ass facing incoming shoppers while screeching at your cell phone can't possibly be the proper way to mong.

I've never considered before how you might use that word outside of the gerund.

"What do you do for a living?"

"Oh, I mong."

"Ah. Fish?"

"Pardon?"

"Are you a fishmonger?"

"Do I look like a fishmonger?"

"Don't know, never actually seen one. So?"

"No."

...

"Kite?"

"What? There's no such thing as a kite monger!"

"Is too!"

...

"Hate."

"Oh. I used to mong. Didn't pay very well though."

....

"Kite?"

"How'd you guess!?"

What is the point then? Parents obviously had control over whether or not their children went, they have control over which school they send their kids to, where do the parents suddenly lose in this "battle"?
It was a homophobic ploy, what the permission slip was for was a trip to a petting zoo.

You paid Marco and Phillip? Didn't you know they were gay? Yeah, they've pretty much taught your son about everything from gay marriage to transsexuals. I overheard them saying that, next week, they were going to introduce him to anime and philosophy.

As in all manners of policy, including bigoted policy, the value gained must be weighed against the fiscal impact.

Marco and Phillip are gay, yes, and Mexican. Openly. But I took bids from white, heterosexual acrobats, and Marco and Phillip were simply the best value, given the totality of circumstances.

Plus Marco cooks and Phillip is redoing our kitchen.

Also, there is no basis in the premise that anime or philosophy turns you gay. Pink haired men with big eyes and small mouths, and elderly Greeks with togas, and monsters with prehensile genitalia, and cranky Germans...all of these things can be enjoyed heterosexually.

Like butt sex, the gays don't own it all.




To you homos out there, admit it. You turned gay because some guy at school told you being gay was "the same". Not because you're attracted to people of the same gender as you. Stop ruining society. Right now.

It was a homophobic ploy, what the permission slip was for was a trip to a petting zoo.

Do you mean a petting zoo, of The Petting Zoo, a leather bondage themed gay nightclub?

The 'yes on 8' ad that really pisses me off is where they say it 'reverses the decision of supreme court judges who ignored 4 million California voters...'


They forget to mention the fact that California has over 36 million people...

I know we had a thread on a similar subject not too long ago, but the arguments made here in California in favor of the anti-same-sex-marriage amendment are the worst kind of homophobic scare-mongering.

Here is part of the official argument in favor of Proposition (http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/argu-rebut/argu-rebutt8.htm)8:

YES on Proposition 8 does three simple things:

It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and human history has understood marriage to be.

It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.

It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage.

Proposition 8 protects marriage as an essential institution of society. While death, divorce, or other circumstances may prevent the ideal, the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father.

The narrow decision of the California Supreme Court isn’t just about “live and let live.” State law may require teachers to instruct children as young as kindergarteners about marriage. (Education Code § 51890.) If the gay marriage ruling is not overturned, TEACHERS COULD BE REQUIRED to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.

We should not accept a court decision that may result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay. That is an issue for parents to discuss with their children according to their own values and beliefs. It shouldn’t be forced on us against our will.


Now all the arguments in favor of Prop. 8 are bullshit, but the "we have to save the children" argument really pisses me off.

Here is part of the reason -- it just isn't true that anything about gay marriage will be taught to children:

The only problem is that everything about this argument isn't just specious, it's just wrong.

According to curriculum experts with the state Department of Education, Section 51890 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/edc/51890-51891.html) of the Education Code -- the section cited by the Proposition [8] camp because it calls for teaching children about the legal and financial responsibilities of marriage -- is not a requirement for schools. It's an expected part of instruction for school districts that want a state-funded health curriculum.

Things fall apart more when you get to the kindergarten thing. There is nothing in the Education Code about the age at which children should learn about marriage. The grades at which students should be taught certain subjects is contained on the content standards, and the standards for health education (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr08/documents/mar08item11.doc) don't mention marriage until high school, at which point students are supposed to learn about the differences between just-plain dating, committed relationships and marriage. The curriculum standards, by the way, aren't mandated either. They are, as the Pirates of the Caribbean put it, more sort of guidelines.

I imagine that as part of this, high schoolers might indeed learn that same-sex marriage is legal in the state of California. And, call me crazy, but I think they can handle it.
link (http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2008/08/what-same-sex-m.html)

But, more than that, it is pretty frickin' evil to me to be so homophobic that the thought that your children might not be taught to hate qays scares you.

They're being biased. They should be presenting information to these children as to why bigotry is bad, the children should be taught to ovoid and deter bigotry towards all, not just homosexuality alone. The level of fascination the California government has with homosexuality is disturbing. If they're laws weren't so biased I wouldn't suspect brainwashing. Secondly remember those wildfires that killed countless lives? While people were being fried like bacon alive instead of devoting time, energy and resources toward saving lives the intrepid government decided to pursue their seemingly homosexual cause. While people were burning they still pursued equal rights for homosexuality. Now I'm not saying that gay people don't deserve rights, I'm saying that as noble as rescuing the minority maybe isn't saving the lives of citizens, gay or otherwise more important? Does not any man, woman or child have the right to not burn? My stance is its the government's job to ensure the welfare of ALL the citizens regardless and though equality helps, averting disasters should ALWAYs come first when they spring up. Any government that fails to at least attempt to avert a disaster in order to pursue a political agenda is shameful and disgusting.

They're being biased. They should be presenting information to these children as to why bigotry is bad, the children should be taught to ovoid and deter bigotry towards all, not just homosexuality alone. The level of fascination the California government has with homosexuality is disturbing.

You don't have a clue about this topic at all, do you?

Yeah, the dishonest bigoted assholes behind this are living up to their usual standard of egregious willful distortion. Their position is wholly and almost self-evidently beyond reason, so they try to evoke every irrational impulse in its defense, however tenuous the connection between the buttons they push and the actual issue at hand.

The really sad thing is that it may pay off. There's a good chance they'll win this thing. I was sure they wouldn't, back in June, but, well....

They're being biased. They should be presenting information to these children as to why bigotry is bad, the children should be taught to ovoid and deter bigotry towards all, not just homosexuality alone. The level of fascination the California government has with homosexuality is disturbing. If they're laws weren't so biased I wouldn't suspect brainwashing. Secondly remember those wildfires that killed countless lives? While people were being fried like bacon alive instead of devoting time, energy and resources toward saving lives the intrepid government decided to pursue their seemingly homosexual cause. While people were burning they still pursued equal rights for homosexuality. Now I'm not saying that gay people don't deserve rights, I'm saying that as noble as rescuing the minority maybe isn't saving the lives of citizens, gay or otherwise more important? Does not any man, woman or child have the right to not burn? My stance is its the government's job to ensure the welfare of ALL the citizens regardless and though equality helps, averting disasters should ALWAYs come first when they spring up. Any government that fails to at least attempt to avert a disaster in order to pursue a political agenda is shameful and disgusting.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here...are you saying that every Californian needed to drop everything and fight the fires? They had declared a state of emergency, alotted resources to fighting the fires...were they then supposed to gather around a comically large screen waiting for a sullied, tired fireman to step in front of the camera and say, "We got it, we finally got it!" then we cheer and pop champagne and forget our differences? I'm not really sure what you're getting at...

It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.Supreme Court judges base their decisions off of their respective Constitutions. The Federal Supreme Court bases its decision off of the Constitution.
I'm missing the part where will of the people comes into this.
No, I'm not arguing against same-sex marriage. I just want to know where "will of the people" comes into play.

Wow.

Why oh why is same-sex marriage still a big deal? To paraphrase Lewis Black, it's in the back of the book of serious issues, right below "Are we eating too much garlic as a people?".

And Hammurab, you are some kind of comedian.

I just want to know where "will of the people" comes into play.

In adopting those respective constitutions. As the opponents of "judicial activism" too often forget.

Why oh why is same-sex marriage still a big deal?

Establishing equality under the law is important to some of us, and maintaining the legal privileges of straight people is important to others.

Dear Gays,

Stop destroying America! Seriously! This economic collapse? Your fault. War on terrorism? That too. Illegal immigration? I bet most of those Mexicans are gay people looking for a good time! If those judges hadn't obeyed their constitutional duties and had ruled according to the Will of the People, we wouldn't even have to admonish you for your sexual deviancy. But because those liberal activists went and did what they were supposed to, now we're left to pick up the homosexual pieces.

Love, (no homo)
The American Family (the correct American family, not your weird kind)

(P.S. I think this article has had quite enough sarcasm.)
(P.P.S. Just kidding.)

I'm not sure what you're getting at here...are you saying that every Californian needed to drop everything and fight the fires? They had declared a state of emergency, alotted resources to fighting the fires...were they then supposed to gather around a comically large screen waiting for a sullied, tired fireman to step in front of the camera and say, "We got it, we finally got it!" then we cheer and pop champagne and forget our differences? I'm not really sure what you're getting at...

As far as I can tell, the government is supposed to completely shut down for the duration of any year in which someone might have been on fire. Any actions taken by anyone involved in the government will otherwise be taken as proof of their pro-burning-people agenda. Perfectly logical, really. ;)

remember those wildfires that killed countless lives?

No, when were those?

The only fire that I remember that killed more than three people was the Esperanza fire, and that killed 4 IIRC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezperanza_Fire)

I thought you were in NY or somewhere near there. Or are you just in CA on a trip?

The ads are pretty deplorable, but not nearly as depressing as the number of "Yes on 8" signs and posters I see around. The CTA (CA teacher's assoc.) sent out a voter guide that, blessedly, called for teachers to vote "no" on 8, but apparently many of my colleagues disagree. I actually heard a fellow teacher argue that very premise about teaching the "gay lifestyle" in kindergarten. As if our normal course of studies covered heterosexual sex and lifestyles. :rolleyes:

I'm not sure what you're getting at here...are you saying that every Californian needed to drop everything and fight the fires? They had declared a state of emergency, alotted resources to fighting the fires...were they then supposed to gather around a comically large screen waiting for a sullied, tired fireman to step in front of the camera and say, "We got it, we finally got it!" then we cheer and pop champagne and forget our differences? I'm not really sure what you're getting at...

So equality is more important than public safety? Is that what your telling me? :confused:

As far as I can tell, the government is supposed to completely shut down for the duration of any year in which someone might have been on fire. Any actions taken by anyone involved in the government will otherwise be taken as proof of their pro-burning-people agenda. Perfectly logical, really. ;)

So you believe that equality is more important than public safety too then? That's nice :rolleyes:

I almost woke my roommates because I saw it in the middle of the night (in San Francisco, no less!) and just about yelled "Are you fucking kidding me?!?" with the ad where they have the little girl comes home and goes "Guess what I learned at school? A prince can marry a prince and a I can marry a princess!" and then dude comes out with, "Think it can't happen? IT ALREADY HAS!"

Of course they're not running the ads with Newsome trying to scare us with is 'whether you like it or not' speech (I was 50 feet from him when he said that), because we actually cheered when he said that...

I discussed with my class that boys can wear earrings as well as girls. No one had a problem with it. If any kid came up to me and said what the girl in the ad says, I might just die of the cuteness. But that's me, corrupting the kids and all.

So equality is more important than public safety? Is that what your telling me? :confused:

The fires in California can only be realistically prevented by one step: Having humans move out of California and then letting the state burn. It's like tornados in Tornado Alley.

Equality, on the other hand, is solveable.

As far as I can tell, the government is supposed to completely shut down for the duration of any year in which someone might have been on fire. Any actions taken by anyone involved in the government will otherwise be taken as proof of their pro-burning-people agenda. Perfectly logical, really. ;)

I'll never understand the anti-burning-people lobby.

*sigh*

So equality is more important than public safety? Is that what your telling me? :confused:

No, he's telling you that the two have nothing to do with each other. Because they have nothing to do with each other.

They're being biased. They should be presenting information to these children as to why bigotry is bad, the children should be taught to ovoid and deter bigotry towards all, not just homosexuality alone. The level of fascination the California government has with homosexuality is disturbing. If they're laws weren't so biased I wouldn't suspect brainwashing. Secondly remember those wildfires that killed countless lives? While people were being fried like bacon alive instead of devoting time, energy and resources toward saving lives the intrepid government decided to pursue their seemingly homosexual cause. While people were burning they still pursued equal rights for homosexuality. Now I'm not saying that gay people don't deserve rights, I'm saying that as noble as rescuing the minority maybe isn't saving the lives of citizens, gay or otherwise more important? Does not any man, woman or child have the right to not burn? My stance is its the government's job to ensure the welfare of ALL the citizens regardless and though equality helps, averting disasters should ALWAYs come first when they spring up. Any government that fails to at least attempt to avert a disaster in order to pursue a political agenda is shameful and disgusting.

...how do you not fall down more?

No, he's telling you that the two have nothing to do with each other. Because they have nothing to do with each other.Say what?

No, he's telling you that the two have nothing to do with each other. Because they have nothing to do with each other.

Hmmmm, giving equal rights to people whilst said people are being fried. Hmmmm. I don't get how those DON'T have anything to do with each other.

So you believe that equality is more important than public safety too then? That's nice :rolleyes:

Exactly. Because obviously, its an either/or thing.

For example, while the American government foolishly occupied itself with the 15th Amendment, nobody was paying attention to the REAL threat of the south, and as a result, the Bonnet Carre Crevasse resulted, drowning and killing countless thousands.

Seriously, do the rights of some eclipse the rights of others to not be submerged in a watery grave?

Issues of civil rights should be SUSPENDED until such time as all natural disasters have been made impossible.

Vote for Wendell Duke, an Arkansas Psychic channeling the spirits of Strom Thurmond and George Wallace. He might be 29 and from Canada, but Thurmond and Wallace were over 35 and native born Americans, so its still legal.

Hmmmm, giving equal rights to people whilst said people are being fried. Hmmmm. I don't get how those DON'T have anything to do with each other.

......................................

Wait....











Poe?

......................................












Poe?

http://www.famecast.com/uploads/fan_avatars/186000/186238_320_277.jpg

Exactly. Because obviously, its an either/or thing.

For example, while the American government foolishly occupied itself with the 15th Amendment, nobody was paying attention to the REAL threat of the south, and as a result, the Bonnet Carre Crevasse resulted, drowning and killing countless thousands.

Seriously, do the rights of some eclipse the rights of others to not be submerged in a watery grave?

Issues of civil rights should be SUSPENDED until such time as all natural disasters have been made impossible.

Vote for Wendell Duke, an Arkansas Psychic channeling the spirits of Strom Thurmond and George Wallace. He might be 29 and from Canada, but Thurmond and Wallace were over 35 and native born Americans, so its still legal.

I vehemently oppose this measure. We should not be voting for people when 12 people have been fatally attacked by sharks in this country in the last decade. How can you possibly think holding an election is more important than making sure people don't get eaten by sharks? Don't people have the right not to be eaten by a shark? Therefore, I propose a complete shutdown of all government and industry until we have invented a foolproof shark repellent.

pleh! Lol wutermelon!
If you're going to use an image macro, it is probably better to link to it than try to describe it.
Picture of a man or animal falling off something, with the words "EPIC FAIL" printed below it.

If you're going to use an image macro, it is probably better to link to it than try to describe it.
Picture of a man or animal falling off something, with the words "EPIC FAIL" printed below it.

ASCII image of a helicopter, labeled "ROFLCOPTER."

If you're going to use an image macro, it is probably better to link to it than try to describe it.
Picture of a man or animal falling off something, with the words "EPIC FAIL" printed below it.

fixed

I vehemently oppose this measure. We should not be voting for people when 12 people have been fatally attacked by sharks in this country in the last decade. How can you possibly think holding an election is more important than making sure people don't get eaten by sharks? Don't people have the right not to be eaten by a shark? Therefore, I propose a complete shutdown of all government and industry until we have invented a foolproof shark repellent.

You have defeated me, utterly. I am bested, vanquished, whupped.

I am like a small dog, blown about an empty tennis court by the irresistable gale of your logic. I yelp, whine, and often pee.

Very well. Let us forego all pursuit of equality in society until natural disasters are prevented perfectly, and not before then.

http://www.famecast.com/uploads/fan_avatars/186000/186238_320_277.jpg

Poe...it means your observations are so poorly thought out, I must suspect that you are being deliberately obtuse, your ill informed mentality a deliberate fabrication. When done well, it can be satirical.

Part of me hopes you're a Poe, because if you really think in the way you've posted, you essentially reduce the quality of life of everyone who encounters you. I'm serious.

I vehemently oppose this measure. We should not be voting for people when 12 people have been fatally attacked by sharks in this country in the last decade. How can you possibly think holding an election is more important than making sure people don't get eaten by sharks? Don't people have the right not to be eaten by a shark? Therefore, I propose a complete shutdown of all government and industry until we have invented a foolproof shark repellent.

Because truly good leaders who care about public welfare can get elected silly.

Because truly good leaders who care about public welfare can get elected silly.

And naturally, public welfare is best served by ignoring civil rights, and focusing efforts solely on preventing or responding to natural disasters, even though the incremental costs of such measures can provide increasingly diminishing returns.

As for the vast majority of time when there is no state of emergency, we, according to you, can't make progress in civil rights, as it would be a misprioritization.

If you are a member of the Order, you know the rules. I call you out. If you are a satiricist, give the sign. If not, if you truly think your position here, including your responses to various critiques, is meaningful, then admit so truly. I call Poe.

So equality is more important than public safety? Is that what your telling me? :confused:

Why don't you tell us exactly what you wanted done and who you wanted to do it, because you are a very confusing cat.

Hmmmm, giving equal rights to people whilst said people are being fried. Hmmmm. I don't get how those DON'T have anything to do with each other.
"Vote Yes On Proposition 8: Your Right To Set People On Fire Must Not Be Infringed!"

I thought you were in NY or somewhere near there. Or are you just in CA on a trip?

I live in sunny San Diego. Also known as that Paradise south of foggy Northern California. :eek::p

And naturally, public welfare is best served by ignoring civil rights, and focusing efforts solely on preventing or responding to natural disasters, even though the incremental costs of such measures can provide increasingly diminishing returns.

As for the vast majority of time when there is no state of emergency, we, according to you, can't make progress in civil rights, as it would be a misprioritization.

If you are a member of the Order, you know the rules. I call you out. If you are a satiricist, give the sign. If not, if you truly think your position here, including your responses to various critiques, is meaningful, then admit so truly. I call Poe.

Are you feeling ok? I never said that. All I'm saying is that there is a time for everything. Civil rights may have importance but they can wait if an actual disaster occurs. If disasters were ignored for the sake of liberty, liberty wouldn't exist purely because we'd be well a bit too dead to enjoy it. First things first.

Are you feeling ok? I never said that. All I'm saying is that there is a time for everything. Civil rights may have importance but they can wait if an actual disaster occurs. If disasters were ignored for the sake of liberty, liberty wouldn't exist purely because we'd be well a bit too dead to enjoy it. First things first.

Yeah. Those "activist" Republican judges on the California Supreme Court shouldn't be enforcing the California Constitution when they could be fighting fires with squirt guns.

Are you feeling ok? I never said that. All I'm saying is that there is a time for everything. Civil rights may have importance but they can wait if an actual disaster occurs. If disasters were ignored for the sake of liberty, liberty wouldn't exist purely because we'd be well a bit too dead to enjoy it. First things first. There are thirty-six million people in California. Thirty-six million people cannot adequately fight a forest fire. Does not compute. :eek2:

There are thirty-six million people in California. Thirty-six million people cannot adequately fight a forest fire. Does not compute. :eek2:

There are far worse disasters that effect people on a broader scale.

I almost woke my roommates because I saw it in the middle of the night (in San Francisco, no less!) and just about yelled "Are you fucking kidding me?!?" with the ad where they have the little girl comes home and goes "Guess what I learned at school? A prince can marry a prince and a I can marry a princess!" and then dude comes out with, "Think it can't happen? IT ALREADY HAS!"

It was precisely that ad that triggered this tirade.

That fucker from Pepperdine (a "Christian emphasis" school) should buy a clue.

And don't get me started on that case from Massachusetts he cites. The courts in those cases were 100% right.

There are far worse disasters that effect people on a broader scale.There are 330 million Americans. 330 million Americans cannot deal with all the natural disasters in the United States. The average Joe is not trained to deal with natural disasters. I believe that those with the training necessary to deal with them are the ones that should deal with them. The untrained civilians can help after the disaster is dealt with. Sending un-trained civilians to combat natural disasters does not seem like a good idea to me.

There are 330 million Americans. 330 million Americans cannot deal with all the natural disasters in the United States. The average Joe is not trained to deal with natural disasters. I believe that those with the training necessary to deal with them are the ones that should deal with them. The untrained civilians can help after the disaster is dealt with. Sending un-trained civilians to combat natural disasters does not seem like a good idea to me.

Sure they can!

Fire? Just smother it with dead bodies.

Faultline? Fill it in with dead bodies.

Flood? Block it with dead bodies.

Torndo? Fill it with enough bodies, you might just stop the wind.

Hurricane? Dead bodies and catapults (which, of course, will be made from dead bodies).

See? They can solve anything!

Sure they can!

Fire? Just smother it with dead bodies.

Faultline? Fill it in with dead bodies.

Flood? Block it with dead bodies.

Torndo? Fill it with enough bodies, you might just stop the wind.

Hurricane? Dead bodies and catapults (which, of course, will be made from dead bodies).

See? They can solve anything!What.

(Yes, I know you aren't serious. That just deserved a "what".)

There are far worse disasters that effect people on a broader scale.
Yes, disasters like gays getting equal rights. That's why it's so vital to make sure they never do, even if we have to make up some ludcrous bullshit reason to call for shutting down the government to stop even the chance that prop 8 might get voted down.

After all, if you can't be sure how people will vote, then you must make certain they don't get the chance. Keep those fires sparking.

What.

(Yes, I know you aren't serious. That just deserved a "what".)

Well, can you think of any other way for hundreds of millions of untrained people to help?

Well, can you think of any other way for hundreds of millions of untrained people to help?Money to train the ones who want to do crazy sh*t like that?
Not Like I can say anything since I want to be a Green Beret. :eek2:

There are 330 million Americans. 330 million Americans cannot deal with all the natural disasters in the United States. The average Joe is not trained to deal with natural disasters. I believe that those with the training necessary to deal with them are the ones that should deal with them. The untrained civilians can help after the disaster is dealt with. Sending un-trained civilians to combat natural disasters does not seem like a good idea to me.

I never suggested that course of action. I'm merely saying that crisis aversion is a higher priority than a political agenda. Putting the agenda first is essentially allowing innocents to die for the sake of said agenda. Pushing the agenda can come later, the welfare of the people must come first. Did John Locke not assert that the existence of a government is purely for the benefit and welfare of the people? Isn't that also a fundamental democratic belief? Heck it's even in the preamble.

Well, can you think of any other way for hundreds of millions of untrained people to help?
I don't think the catapult made of dead bodies will work. They're too bendy and they tend to fall apart after a while.

Unless you freeze them first. I once saw a documentary in which some folks living up in the arctic circle made sled runners out of frozen fish. You could build catapults out of frozen dead bodies, but you'd need to keep them from thawing while you lobbed dead bodies into the hurricane.

See, lack of this kind of thinking is what led to the downfall of FEMA.

Money to train the ones who want to do crazy sh*t like that?
Not Like I can say anything since I want to be a Green Beret. :eek2:

Wait... Put out money to train them, let them do their jobs uninterrupted while you work on something else, and expect to not have everyone jump and run to deal with it? Why, that's just crazy talk.

Money to train the ones who want to do crazy sh*t like that?
Not Like I can say anything since I want to be a Green Beret. :eek2:
Money? What's that? *thinks about current events*

I never suggested that course of action. I'm merely saying that crisis aversion is a higher priority than a political agenda. Putting the agenda first is essentially allowing innocents to die for the sake of said agenda. Pushing the agenda can come later, the welfare of the people must come first. Did John Locke not assert that the existence of a government is purely for the benefit and welfare of the people? Isn't that also a fundamental democratic belief? Heck it's even in the preamble.
Benefit and welfare like, oh, say, equal protection under the law, perhaps?

Wait... Put out money to train them, let them do their jobs uninterrupted while you work on something else, and expect to not have everyone jump and run to deal with it? Why, that's just crazy talk. One can but hope. :(

I never suggested that course of action. I'm merely saying that crisis aversion is a higher priority than a political agenda. Putting the agenda first is essentially allowing innocents to die for the sake of said agenda. Pushing the agenda can come later, the welfare of the people must come first. Did John Locke not assert that the existence of a government is purely for the benefit and welfare of the people? Isn't that also a fundamental democratic belief? Heck it's even in the preamble. Suspending the process of government and industry indefinitely to prevent death is not viable solution.

One can but hope. :(

Suspending the process of government and industry indefinitely to prevent death is not viable solution.

Applying said processes to avert the disaster is.

Applying said processes to avert the disaster is.
Apparently, you do not approve of multitasking.

Money? What's that? *thinks about current events*The thing that not many people have these days, apparently. :eek:

Applying said processes to avert the disaster is.The key word in my post being "indefinitely". To prevent all natural disasters would result in the permanent suspension of industry and government, because there will always be "another" natural disaster.

Applying said processes to avert the disaster is.

Amazingly, some people are capable of performing more than one task at any given time.

Amazingly, some people are capable of performing more than one task at any given time.
But if one of their tasks involves granting equal rights to gays, then they should only do one thing at a time -- the one thing being something that doesn't grant equal rights to gays.

Apparently.

Amazingly, some people are capable of performing more than one task at any given time.I can eat, read a book, watch TV, and work on my plan for world peace all at the same time. Does that count? :D

I never suggested that course of action. I'm merely saying that crisis aversion is a higher priority than a political agenda. Putting the agenda first is essentially allowing innocents to die for the sake of said agenda. Pushing the agenda can come later, the welfare of the people must come first. Did John Locke not assert that the existence of a government is purely for the benefit and welfare of the people? Isn't that also a fundamental democratic belief? Heck it's even in the preamble.

I'm having an increasingly hard time telling whether this is a spoof or not.

I guess that makes it either very scary or a great spoof.

As to Locke, it has been a while since I read his Second Treatise of Government (http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke2/2nd-contents.html), but I recall (emphasis added):

Sect. 123. IF man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and controul of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property.

Sect. 124 The great and chief end, therefore, of men's uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property.

So the presevation of liberty and equity are among the chief ends of government.

But if one of their tasks involves granting equal rights to gays, then they should only do one thing at a time -- the one thing being something that doesn't grant equal rights to gays.

Apparently.The simplest solution would be doing both, yes? California, and the U.S. in general, has the human-power* to do it.

*is saying "man-power" sexist? :confused:

I can eat, read a book, watch TV, and work on my plan for world peace all at the same time. Does that count? :D

No, because by not properly devoting all your attention to watching TV, you're contributing to declining Nielsen ratings for the shows you're not watching. Now all the actors on that failed sitcom you didn't watch are out of jobs. You are directly responsible for dozens of people being out of work. How do you live with yourself?

Sure they can!

Fire? Just smother it with dead bodies.

Faultline? Fill it in with dead bodies.

Flood? Block it with dead bodies.

Torndo? Fill it with enough bodies, you might just stop the wind.

Hurricane? Dead bodies and catapults (which, of course, will be made from dead bodies).

See? They can solve anything!

Finally, my grandparents can be useful again!

*Goes to dig up grandparents*

No, because by not properly devoting all your attention to watching TV, you're contributing to declining Nielsen ratings for the shows you're not watching. Now all the actors on that failed sitcom you didn't watch are out of jobs. You are directly responsible for dozens of people being out of work. How do you live with yourself?I just do. It's rather easy. How can one be dead with oneself? :confused:

The simplest solution would be doing both, yes? California, and the U.S. in general, has the human-power* to do it.
Duh. That's the way things are done now and look where it's gotten us. Gays almost have some rights!! :eek2: Do try to keep up with SL's argument.

*is saying "man-power" sexist? :confused:
Yes, damn you. (No, it isn't. ;))

Duh. That's the way things are done now and look where it's gotten us. Gays almost have some rights!! :eek2: Do try to keep up with SL's argument. I am trying. I'm just doing five other things at the same time!
Oh. WAIT. Can't do that without ending somebody's career! Must go watch TV endlessly for days on end to make up for my failure.


Yes, damn you. (No, it isn't. ;))No! *dramatic* (Okay. :))

Duh. That's the way things are done now and look where it's gotten us. Gays almost have some rights!! :eek2: Do try to keep up with SL's argument.


You are using a wicker male argument.

See, SL isn't advocating that gays should have no rights, he's simply saying that any act of government to recognize them as deserving equal treatment under the law is equivalent to deliberately letting people burn to death.

You see, using the existence of an imminent emergency as a reason to forego addressing civil rights issue is sound policy.

Name one, just one point in history where SL's priorities didn't work out great for everybody.

One.

Name one, just one point in history where SL's priorities didn't work out great for everybody.

One.

After 9/11 when every muslium and arab was a terrorist and thus were racially profiled at airports?

You are using a wicker male argument.

See, SL isn't advocating that gays should have no rights, he's simply saying that any act of government to recognize them as deserving equal treatment under the law is equivalent to deliberately letting people burn to death.

You see, using the existence of an imminent emergency as a reason to forego addressing civil rights issue is sound policy.

Name one, just one point in history where SL's priorities didn't work out great for everybody.

One.
Hm.... Thinking about it.... Still thinking....

After 9/11 when every muslium and arab was a terrorist and thus were racially profiled at airports?

See, now, that worked out great. That whole situation has improved. Lots.

Fear of large scale disasters is the perfect crucible in which to forge a society. After all, as South Lizasauria explains, burning to death is bad. Having a plain hit you is bad.

So, to stop bad, we must reduce rights.

Step three, profit.

See, now, that worked out great. That whole situation has improved. Lots.

Fear of large scale disasters is the perfect crucible in which to forge a society. After all, as South Lizasauria explains, burning to death is bad. Having a plain hit you is bad.

So, to stop bad, we must reduce rights.

Step three, profit.

Yea, but didn't everyone get screwed over when they took away some of our rights?

Hm.... Thinking about it.... Still thinking....

See, that's exactly your problem. Right there.

"Thinking" doesn't stop forest fires. Unless you're the little girl from Firestarter, or to use an example the young people can relate to, that chick from Hellboy. Anyway, some kind of pyrokinetic who can also suppress fires.

We should stop thinking, about equal access for homos, and start DOING.

Now, wad your copy of the consititution up, (twist, it, Muravyets, TWIST it, to simulate kindling, like Roman says), and use it to start a controlled backburn to stop a forest fire that might currently be starting.

You're probably a dyke anyway.

Yea, but didn't everyone get screwed over when they took away some of our rights?

Yes, yes, yes, but as South Lizasauria has illustrated, denying equal rights to some is not as bad as people burning to death, because apparently we'd all burn to death, then nobody would have any rights.

Go back and read his posts again, until you understand better.

Yes, yes, yes, but as South Lizasauria has illustrated, denying equal rights to some is not as bad as people burning to death, because apparently we'd all burn to death, then nobody would have any rights.

Go back and read his posts again, until you understand better.

Man if I wanted to damage my brain cells on a large scale, I'd just down my entire bottle of scotch in one night....

Which actually doesn't sound like a bad idea....

Yea, but didn't everyone get screwed over when they took away some of our rights?
Not according to SL's argument. See, according to him, it's bad for us if the government protects civil rights during times when something might catch fire somewhere. That's why it's bad for the California government to be thinking about gay rights while there are wild fires. Because...apparently...every minute spent thinking about rights is a minute that a human life is allowed to be snuffed out in a fiery maelstrom. So... protecting rights = murder. Because according to SL, safety is better than equality. So...not keeping people unequal = setting people on fire. So... it's better for us when our rights are taken away, because it means the government is keeping us safe.

Something like that.

Not according to SL's argument. See, according to him, it's bad for us if the government protects civil rights during times when something might catch fire somewhere. That's why it's bad for the California government to be thinking about gay rights while there are wild fires. Because...apparently...every minute spent thinking about rights is a minute that a human life is allowed to be snuffed out in a fiery maelstrom. So... protecting rights = murder. Because according to SL, safety is better than equality. So...not keeping people unequal = setting people on fire. So... it's better for us when our rights are taken away, because it means the government is keeping us safe.

Something like that.

Might as well down that bottle of scotch, I already feel my brain cells dying.

Yes, yes, yes, but as South Lizasauria has illustrated, denying equal rights to some is not as bad as people burning to death, because apparently we'd all burn to death, then nobody would have any rights.

Go back and read his posts again, until you understand better.But everybody dies eventually. So, why not do what we can now to make sure others have equal rights after our glorious deaths in battle!?
WAIT!
http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t166/Geml453/NotSparta.jpg

Not according to SL's argument. See, according to him, it's bad for us if the government protects civil rights during times when something might catch fire somewhere. That's why it's bad for the California government to be thinking about gay rights while there are wild fires. Because...apparently...every minute spent thinking about rights is a minute that a human life is allowed to be snuffed out in a fiery maelstrom. So... protecting rights = murder. Because according to SL, safety is better than equality. So...not keeping people unequal = setting people on fire. So... it's better for us when our rights are taken away, because it means the government is keeping us safe.

Something like that.Speaking of SL, he seems to have ditched us. Does he not like us? :(

See, now, that worked out great. That whole situation has improved. Lots.

Fear of large scale disasters is the perfect crucible in which to forge a society. After all, as South Lizasauria explains, burning to death is bad. Having a plain hit you is bad.

So, to stop bad, we must reduce rights.

Step three, profit.

You twisting words counts as lying and liars go to hell. ;)

Disaster aversion is not only to protect the people but their rights as well. And I never said anything about removing rights or suppressing them. All I said is that saving lives is more important than a political agenda. To say otherwise makes you a monster. And nowhere in this thread did I say that rights and liberty should be suppressed and.or removed. Either hambur has a problem and he is seeing things or he is outright trying to poison the NSG community against me.

But everybody dies eventually. So, why not do what we can now to make sure others have equal rights after our glorious deaths in battle!?
WAIT!
http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t166/Geml453/NotSparta.jpg

Since I have recently reconnected with my idealogical roots as a gun nut, I find this argument compelling with my new old world view...meaning my previous, but then subsequently abandoned, and now re-embraced world-view....wait....

You twisting words counts as lying and liars go to hell. ;)

Disaster aversion is not only to protect the people but their rights as well. And I never said anything about removing rights or suppressing them. All I said is that saving lives is more important than a political agenda. To say otherwise makes you a monster. And nowhere in this thread did I say that rights and liberty should be suppressed and.or removed. Either hambur has a problem and he is seeing things or he is outright trying to poison the NSG community against me.Oh. Wait. There he is! Yay. :)

Since I have recently reconnected with my idealogical roots as a gun nut, I find this argument compelling with my new old world view...meaning my previous, but then subsequently abandoned, and now re-embraced world-view....wait....You need to get yourself straightened out, mister! :(

Oh. Wait. There he is! Yay. :)
Guess he just went for a piss and a smoke -- you know, more ingredients for his argument.

You twisting words counts as lying and liars go to hell. ;)

Disaster aversion is not only to protect the people but their rights as well. And I never said anything about removing rights or suppressing them. All I said is that saving lives is more important than a political agenda. To say otherwise makes you a monster. And nowhere in this thread did I say that rights and liberty should be suppressed and.or removed. Either hambur has a problem and he is seeing things or he is outright trying to poison the NSG community against me.

Advocating that a government should forego debates on civil rights issues (what you dismiss as a "political agenda") because there are sometimes natural disasters serves to suppress rights.

Firefighters can fight fires, with reinforcement during severe scenarios, while legislators and the general public can address the continuing business of government.






Still think you're faking, you can't possibly be such a horridly poor thinker...I hope...

Guess he just went for a piss and a smoke -- you know, more ingredients for his argument....I guess. Thought he came back 'cause he liked us. :(

You twisting words counts as lying and liars go to hell. ;)

Disaster aversion is not only to protect the people but their rights as well. And I never said anything about removing rights or suppressing them. All I said is that saving lives is more important than a political agenda. To say otherwise makes you a monster. And nowhere in this thread did I say that rights and liberty should be suppressed and.or removed. Either hambur has a problem and he is seeing things or he is outright trying to poison the NSG community against me.
He doesn't need to, SL. The argument you posted here does that for him.

Not according to SL's argument. See, according to him, it's bad for us if the government protects civil rights during times when something might catch fire somewhere. That's why it's bad for the California government to be thinking about gay rights while there are wild fires. Because...apparently...every minute spent thinking about rights is a minute that a human life is allowed to be snuffed out in a fiery maelstrom. So... protecting rights = murder. Because according to SL, safety is better than equality. So...not keeping people unequal = setting people on fire. So... it's better for us when our rights are taken away, because it means the government is keeping us safe.

Something like that.

So gays being able to marry is more important than saving lives? I'm under the impression that basic needs must be met in order to properly deal with other needs. I am also of the ilk that rightfully believes that life is more important than politics. Heck without it there'd be no politics. Equality can be addressed once everyone is out of the frying pan so to speak. And also know that many homosexuals and straights alike were fried alive during those fires.

So gays being able to marry is more important than saving lives? I'm under the impression that basic needs must be met in order to properly deal with other needs. I am also of the ilk that rightfully believes that life is more important than politics. Heck without it there'd be no politics. Equality can be addressed once everyone is out of the frying pan so to speak. And also know that many homosexuals and straights alike were fried alive during those fires.Source, please?

So gays being able to marry is more important than saving lives? I'm under the impression that basic needs must be met in order to properly deal with other needs. I am also of the ilk that rightfully believes that life is more important than politics. Heck without it there'd be no politics. Equality can be addressed once everyone is out of the frying pan so to speak. And also know that many homosexuals and straights alike were fried alive during those fires.Get a grip man.. few individuals actually died in the wildfires, hell more people died in traffic accidents in California in the same period.

And it is quite possible to have both equality and public safety at the same time. We're not talking mutually exclusive concepts here...

So gays being able to marry is more important than saving lives? I'm under the impression that basic needs must be met in order to properly deal with other needs. I am also of the ilk that rightfully believes that life is more important than politics. Heck without it there'd be no politics. Equality can be addressed once everyone is out of the frying pan so to speak. And also know that many homosexuals and straights alike were fried alive during those fires.
You really are being ridiculous, SL.

1) The firefighters deal with the fires.

2) The government deals with running the whole state, including BOTH the burning parts and the non-burning parts.

3) The CA fires do not require the whole government to stop what it is doing to sit and watch the firefighters work.

4) You're not fooling anyone. This is nothing but an attempt to push gay rights off the agenda because there is a risk the anti-gay-rights faction might lose. Pathetic, SL.

So gays being able to marry is more important than saving lives? I'm under the impression that basic needs must be met in order to properly deal with other needs. I am also of the ilk that rightfully believes that life is more important than politics. Heck without it there'd be no politics. Equality can be addressed once everyone is out of the frying pan so to speak. And also know that many homosexuals and straights alike were fried alive during those fires.

I once did an argument on whether or not free will existed using nothing more than a dictionary definition, personal knowledge of physics, and my ability to argue any obscure point to death as long as I don't tire arguing of it. It was a labyrinth of logic so bizarre and convoluted that it requires hours to fully track down some small parts of it. So I believe I have enough personal expertise to say this.

You are using logic so twisted that it's causing you to come to conclusions that I don't think even Jesus Christ could support.

Nothing in your argument accepts that governments can do two things at once. You honestly think they can't fight a forest fire and legislate on marriage at the same time?

So gays being able to marry is more important than saving lives? I'm under the impression that basic needs must be met in order to properly deal with other needs. I am also of the ilk that rightfully believes that life is more important than politics. Heck without it there'd be no politics. Equality can be addressed once everyone is out of the frying pan so to speak. And also know that many homosexuals and straights alike were fried alive during those fires.

All these strawmen you're building will help contribute to the wildfires nicely. No one's arguing that gays being able to marry is more important than human lives. What everyone, sans you, is arguing is that the government is capable of addressing more than one concern at the same time. Declaring that civil rights be put on hold every time there's a natural disaster is absurd.

What would the government do if there was an earthquake right now? Whose lives should the government save: earthquake victims or wildfire victims?

You really are being ridiculous, SL.

1) The firefighters deal with the fires.

2) The government deals with running the whole state, including BOTH the burning parts and the non-burning parts.

3) The CA fires do not require the whole government to stop what it is doing to sit and watch the firefighters work.

4) You're not fooling anyone. This is nothing but an attempt to push gay rights off the agenda because there is a risk the anti-gay-rights faction might lose. Pathetic, SL.

Actually, I think SL has seized on something brilliant, he just isn't considering the status quo properly. Same-sex marriage is now legal in California. If disasters like fires prevent California from holding the election on, implementing, etc., Prop. 8, same-sex marriage will remain legal. So SL is actually a brilliant strategist for the gay rights movement.

**goes to start some fires, beginning with "Yes on 8" signs**

Actually, I think SL has seized on something brilliant, he just isn't considering the status quo properly. Same-sex marriage is now legal in California. If disasters like fires prevent California from holding the election on, implementing, etc., Prop. 8, same-sex marriage will remain legal. So SL is actually a brilliant strategist for the gay rights movement.

**goes to start some fires, beginning with "Yes on 8" signs**
Shit, you're right.

Go, pyros, go!

Still think you're faking, you can't possibly be such a horridly poor thinker...I hope...

Keep in mind that you're talking to South "men are like toasters" Lizasauria. :tongue:

All these strawmen you're building will help contribute to the wildfires nicely. No one's arguing that gays being able to marry is more important than human lives. What everyone, sans you, is arguing is that the government is capable of addressing more than one concern at the same time. Declaring that civil rights be put on hold every time there's a natural disaster is absurd.

What would the government do if there was an earthquake right now? Whose lives should the government save: earthquake victims or wildfire victims?
In such an event, the government should cancel the general election, obviously. Because it has more important things to do than obey the law.

Keep in mind that you're talking to South "men are like toasters" Lizasauria. :tongue:

"Men are like toasters. Something goes in them, and boom, it's burned up!"

...

No, wait, that doesn't work...

See, now, that worked out great. That whole situation has improved. Lots.

Fear of large scale disasters is the perfect crucible in which to forge a society. After all, as South Lizasauria explains, burning to death is bad. Having a plain hit you is bad.

Is it better or worse than being hit by a plane?

Is it better or worse than being hit by a plane?

Worse. A plane you might conceivably get out of the way of. But a plain? Sorry, you're just SOL.

I live in sunny San Diego. Also known as that Paradise south of foggy Northern California. :eek::p

There's fog in, like, TWO cities. We don't ALL live in SF, you know! :mad:

See, lack of this kind of thinking is what led to the downfall of FEMA.

I've always said we need to find more ways to make dead bodies part of the solution, instead of the problem.

All I said is that saving lives is more important than a political agenda. To say otherwise makes you a monster.

You're arguing on a political debate forum when you could be putting out fires. Who's the monster?

So gays being able to marry is more important than saving lives? I'm under the impression that basic needs must be met in order to properly deal with other needs. I am also of the ilk that rightfully believes that life is more important than politics. Heck without it there'd be no politics. Equality can be addressed once everyone is out of the frying pan so to speak. And also know that many homosexuals and straights alike were fried alive during those fires.

Why stop at gay marriage? Suspend all marriages until natural disasters are dealt with. Bridesmaids and groomsmen, get on your HAZMAT suits and get out there!

Just out of curiosity, which fire are we talking about?

Keep in mind that you're talking to South "men are like toasters" Lizasauria. :tongue:

Wait, I thought women were toasters. With bacon in them.

Get a grip man.. few individuals actually died in the wildfires, hell more people died in traffic accidents in California in the same period.

I heard on the radio the other day that we haven't had a fatality-free day on the freeway system since some time around 1982. I would've guessed as much, but knowing it still bothered me a little.

Wait, I thought women were toasters. With bacon in them.

You know, I've said for years that the only way the vagina could be more awesome was if it had a tongue...I may have been wrong...

Here in Israel there is no such kind of marriage, not only because it's forbidden for the Jews. I know two women, they are both lesbian. They had no marriage, but they live together, and one of them was pregnant (thanks to the Sperm Bank), and now they have a girl.
I think it's wrong to have same-sex-marriage, because the definition of marriage is when both a man and a woman are invlved. Why, if gays or lesbians like so, just not to live together? Why do they want to have a marriage? And if they want to have it because of their religion, it's a paradox - none of the religions likes that, neither do I, and neither do many-many citizens from all the parts of the world.:confused:

Wait, I thought women were toasters. With bacon in them.

No, no. Men are toasters, and women are bacon. Which almost makes sense, considering we're throwing them all into a wildfire. Mmm, delicious girl-bacon... :tongue:

Why, if gays or lesbians like so, just not to live together? Why do they want to have a marriage?

Why do straight people want to have a marriage?

And if they want to have it because of their religion, it's a paradox - none of the religions likes that,

....an awful lot of people are going to be surprised to hear that. Sorry, Unitarians, Anglicans, Renewal Jews, assorted pagans and Wiccans, Buddhists, and so on, apparently you don't exist!

neither do I, and neither do many-many citizens from all the parts of the world.:confused:

That's nice. I don't particularly like oysters, and I have no doubt many people around the world also dislike oysters. Clearly, we should ban oysters.

Here in Israel there is no such kind of marriage, not only because it's forbidden for the Jews. I know two women, they are both lesbian. They had no marriage, but they live together, and one of them was pregnant (thanks to the Sperm Bank), and now they have a girl.
I think it's wrong to have same-sex-marriage, because the definition of marriage is when both a man and a woman are invlved. Why, if gays or lesbians like so, just not to live together? Why do they want to have a marriage?

There's a number of legal rights attached to marriage that gay couples are being denied. Those rights should be extended to them. Also, note that marriage has usually been a tool of politics, so changing the definition is perfectly acceptable.

And if they want to have it because of their religion, it's a paradox - none of the religions likes that, neither do I, and neither do many-many citizens from all the parts of the world.:confused:

Several religions do agree to same-sex marriage. Some forms of Christianity, all of Wicca, necromancy honestly doesn't care, several forms of Satanism...

Is it better or worse than being hit by a plane?

Its worse...a plane just rams you, maybe explodes, propellor issues, whatever...but you might be able to dodge it if you hear it coming.

But a plain, you pretty much have to outrun it...

Here in Israel there is no such kind of marriage, not only because it's forbidden for the Jews. I know two women, they are both lesbian. They had no marriage, but they live together, and one of them was pregnant (thanks to the Sperm Bank), and now they have a girl.
I think it's wrong to have same-sex-marriage, because the definition of marriage is when both a man and a woman are invlved. Why, if gays or lesbians like so, just not to live together? Why do they want to have a marriage? And if they want to have it because of their religion, it's a paradox - none of the religions likes that, neither do I, and neither do many-many citizens from all the parts of the world.:confused:

So...if a class of people...is widely disapproved of, by many people in society...and many people in the world don't like them...and they are disliked by the mainstream religions...they deserve to not have the same rights.

And...you believe this...as...an Israeli.









Oh dear God.

Why do straight people want to have a marriage?


Actually, yeah, hang on wait a minute...why the fuck do any of us want to have a marriage?

Why the fuck did I get married?











I....why....


Aw, shit.

I know we had a thread on a similar subject not too long ago, but the arguments made here in California in favor of the anti-same-sex-marriage amendment are the worst kind of homophobic scare-mongering.

Here is part of the official argument in favor of Proposition (http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/argu-rebut/argu-rebutt8.htm)8:

YES on Proposition 8 does three simple things:

It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and human history has understood marriage to be.

It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.

It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage.

Proposition 8 protects marriage as an essential institution of society. While death, divorce, or other circumstances may prevent the ideal, the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father.

The narrow decision of the California Supreme Court isn’t just about “live and let live.” State law may require teachers to instruct children as young as kindergarteners about marriage. (Education Code § 51890.) If the gay marriage ruling is not overturned, TEACHERS COULD BE REQUIRED to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.

We should not accept a court decision that may result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay. That is an issue for parents to discuss with their children according to their own values and beliefs. It shouldn’t be forced on us against our will.


Now all the arguments in favor of Prop. 8 are bullshit, but the "we have to save the children" argument really pisses me off.

Here is part of the reason -- it just isn't true that anything about gay marriage will be taught to children:

The only problem is that everything about this argument isn't just specious, it's just wrong.

According to curriculum experts with the state Department of Education, Section 51890 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/edc/51890-51891.html) of the Education Code -- the section cited by the Proposition [8] camp because it calls for teaching children about the legal and financial responsibilities of marriage -- is not a requirement for schools. It's an expected part of instruction for school districts that want a state-funded health curriculum.

Things fall apart more when you get to the kindergarten thing. There is nothing in the Education Code about the age at which children should learn about marriage. The grades at which students should be taught certain subjects is contained on the content standards, and the standards for health education (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr08/documents/mar08item11.doc) don't mention marriage until high school, at which point students are supposed to learn about the differences between just-plain dating, committed relationships and marriage. The curriculum standards, by the way, aren't mandated either. They are, as the Pirates of the Caribbean put it, more sort of guidelines.

I imagine that as part of this, high schoolers might indeed learn that same-sex marriage is legal in the state of California. And, call me crazy, but I think they can handle it.
link (http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2008/08/what-same-sex-m.html)

But, more than that, it is pretty frickin' evil to me to be so homophobic that the thought that your children might not be taught to hate qays scares you.

I wonder, do people ever object to us teaching in schools that interracial marriage is normal and that black people are equal? Because thats "indoctrination" too by this standard.

So...if a class of people...is widely disapproved of, by many people in society...and many people in the world don't like them...and they are disliked by the mainstream religions...they deserve to not have the same rights.

And...you believe this...as...an Israeli.









Oh dear God.

This.

This thread will make you gay.

Worse. A plane you might conceivably get out of the way of. But a plain? Sorry, you're just SOL.

That depends on what sort of plain, doesn't it? The Great Plains, yeah you're SOL. A plain bagel on the other hand . . .

Here in Israel there is no such kind of marriage, not only because it's forbidden for the Jews. I know two women, they are both lesbian. They had no marriage, but they live together, and one of them was pregnant (thanks to the Sperm Bank), and now they have a girl.
I think it's wrong to have same-sex-marriage, because the definition of marriage is when both a man and a woman are invlved. Why, if gays or lesbians like so, just not to live together? Why do they want to have a marriage? And if they want to have it because of their religion, it's a paradox - none of the religions likes that, neither do I, and neither do many-many citizens from all the parts of the world.:confused:

Really? None of them? How many of my gods are you familiar with exactly?

So...if a class of people...is widely disapproved of, by many people in society...and many people in the world don't like them...and they are disliked by the mainstream religions...they deserve to not have the same rights.

And...you believe this...as...an Israeli.









Oh dear God.

The utter hilarity of that hadn't occurred to me yet. Thanks.

.
I think it's wrong to have same-sex-marriage, because the definition of marriage is when both a man and a woman are invlved.

WHOSE definition ?
See - that is the problem. There is no "standard" definition of marriage. Once it meant the union of a man in his thirties with a girl of at most 14 years old. Sometimes it is a man with 30 wives. Sometimes a woman with several husbands. Sometimes a mixture. Sometimes two men. Sometimes more than two. Sometimes human and not human. History is filled with "different views of what a marriage is - and I haven't even looked at cultures that recognise more than two genders yet. Nor thrown "races" into the mix...

none of the religions likes that

Incorrect.

This is a war to make sure kids know that gay people are somehow categorically bad, and since there is no actual way to derive this from reasonable principles, it must come from parental and cultural indoctrination.

Thus, the battle is lost any time we give up an opportunity to let kids know that gays are Satan's marketing department.

Stop interfering with my right to insulate my children from any socially progressive dynamic that will expose them to even the existence of same sex couples. I've paid a great deal of my hard earned money, stamped "IN GOD WE TRUST", to have two Mexican guys follow my son around and distract him with acrobatics any time gay people are around.

Respect my rights as a parent.

I'm not mexican, I'm Puerto Rican and my brothe and I quit! :mad:

The problem with marriage in Israel is that it's the sole jurisdiction of religion. Government doesn't interfere in any way. There are no civil unions. Also, not all religions are given the right to marry others legally (you get the Orthodox Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and... Not sure how to translate... Druze traditions?). As such you get problems such as Homosexuals being unable to marry in Israel (maybe forever), or for instance if a man goes missing, the wife is still legally married to him until he's found dead, and so she can't remarry even if the person is missing for a decade.

Isn't Israel just the best place? A shining example of democracy.

The government has no problem keeping the marriage status of people who married in other countries as far as I know (people like to go to Cyprus to marry if they can't in Israel), so there's that at least... Still hardly enough.

I think it's wrong to have same-sex-marriage, because the definition of marriage is when both a man and a woman are involved. Fixed.
And since when, exactly, did the English language stop evolving and changing the definition of its words? :rolleyes:
(By the way, you really need to stop doing that, English! You get so confusing at times! ;))

Here in Israel there is no such kind of marriage,

There in Israel, there is no civil marriage period. Not very sensible, I think.

I think it's wrong to have same-sex-marriage, because the definition of marriage is when both a man and a woman are invlved.

But is this element of the definition part of the essence of marriage, or is it just a convention attached to the concept by a history of hegemonic heterosexuality?

Marriage, in the modern era anyway, is about granting official recognition to a long-term, committed, loving relationship. This can apply to same-sex couples as well as opposite-sex ones.

Why, if gays or lesbians like so, just not to live together? Why do they want to have a marriage?

Two reasons.

First, because of the numerous rights and benefits afforded to married couples by the law, some of which (far from all) can be replicated by contract, but only with difficulty and only much less securely.

Second, because of the elevated social status and recognition marriage grants to same-sex couples. This element applies even to those of us who do not want to get married. Marriage as an institution does not move me much, but I desire to live in a society where same-sex relationships are not discriminated against under the law. I want to live in a society where people are equal.

And if they want to have it because of their religion, it's a paradox - none of the religions likes that

"None" is a massive overgeneralization.

So...if a class of people...is widely disapproved of, by many people in society...and many people in the world don't like them...and they are disliked by the mainstream religions...they deserve to not have the same rights.

And...you believe this...as...an Israeli.









Oh dear God.


Kinda like mental whiplash, isn't it?

Kinda like mental whiplash, isn't it?Somebody's getting sued. :)

Here in Israel there is no such kind of marriage,

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/21/africa/ME_GEN_Israel_Same_Sex_Marriages.php

So, have a nice cup of STFU, ok?

Here in Israel there is no such kind of marriage, not only because it's forbidden for the Jews. I know two women, they are both lesbian. They had no marriage, but they live together, and one of them was pregnant (thanks to the Sperm Bank), and now they have a girl.
I think it's wrong to have same-sex-marriage, because the definition of marriage is when both a man and a woman are invlved. Why, if gays or lesbians like so, just not to live together? Why do they want to have a marriage? And if they want to have it because of their religion, it's a paradox - none of the religions likes that, neither do I, and neither do many-many citizens from all the parts of the world.:confused:
A) We are talking about the law in California, USA. What Israel does is not a model for the US Constitution and state law.

B) Marriage is a legal construct that establishes and controls exclusive rights concerning property, inheritance, authority with regards to another person (such as acting as a health care proxy), child custody, and, in the US, it affects a couple's status in regards to insurance and taxes.

C) US law requires equal protection of the law for all. To exclude gay couples who live the exact same way as hetero couples from all the legal protections and privileges of marriage is wrong. It is unethical under our system of law.

D) You are wrong about not all religions "liking" gay marriage. There are religions that have no problem with it. Some of them are Christian sects. Some others are religions that have nothing to do with Judaism/Christianity/Islam. I know you guys like to forget this, but you are not the only game running in the world. Kindly do not presume to speak for all of us again, thanks.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/21/africa/ME_GEN_Israel_Same_Sex_Marriages.php

So, have a nice cup of STFU, ok?

Animosity toward gays and lesbians is one of the few issues that unites Jews, Muslims and Christians in the Holy Land. They have jointly come out against gay parades in the city, and are all likely to oppose the Supreme Court ruling.

Wow! Uniting the Jews, Muslims and Christians! Isn't it nice to know that people who have been hating eachother for centuries for worshipping differently can take the time to unite to hate people who love differently?

So...if a class of people...is widely disapproved of, by many people in society...and many people in the world don't like them...and they are disliked by the mainstream religions...they deserve to not have the same rights.

And...you believe this...as...an Israeli.









Oh dear God.
Yes, because, apparently, nobody understands bigotry better than someone who's had a lot of experience with it.

Wow! Uniting the Jews, Muslims and Christians! Isn't it nice to know that people who have been hating eachother for centuries for worshipping differently can take the time to unite to hate people who love differently?
Warms the cockles of one's heart, don't it, to see them unite for a common cause like that?

United -- except of course for all the Christians, Jews, and Muslims who don't think it's right to persecute gays.

Oh, well, nothing's perfect.

Wow! Uniting the Jews, Muslims and Christians! Isn't it nice to know that people who have been hating eachother for centuries for worshipping differently can take the time to unite to hate people who love differently?

See, the power of faggotry is quasi-limitless . That's why they fear it so.

When I clicked this thread, there was a "yes on 8" banner right under the OP. Ironic.

Anyway, as I've said before... Prop 8 takes peoples' rights away. It's as simple as that. People currently have the right to marry someone of the same sex in California. If prop 8 passes, that right will be taken away.

I find it heartening though, that I've heard of some people who, while they're personally against gay marriage, are also against prop 8 because taking rights away just doesn't sit well with them. I wish they were less homophobic, but it's a little better at least.

Obviously the vast majority of people in my areas are against the measure.

I don't know why people are so threatened by the idea of gay people being able to get married. The amount of outrage and the intensity of that rage really baffles me. I mean, what's the big deal?

I don't know why people are so threatened by the idea of gay people being able to get married. The amount of outrage and the intensity of that rage really baffles me. I mean, what's the big deal?
I can almost understand the pro-life movement. They think that abortion takes away a living person's right to life. I think they are absolutely wrong, having based their reasoning on a false assumption, but I see why they think like they do, if you get my drift.

I can't say the same about the anti same sex marriage crowd. How is anybody harmed or victimised in any way because of it? Does god really kill a kitten every time two guys get hitched? It genuinely boils down to simply 'we don't like these people, so we shouldn't let them do what they want to do'. It's truly vindictive, in my opinion.

So...if a class of people...is widely disapproved of, by many people in society...and many people in the world don't like them...and they are disliked by the mainstream religions...they deserve to not have the same rights.

And...you believe this...as...an Israeli.









Oh dear God.

It's kinda amazing how even the people who should really really REALLY know better can still think prejudice is fine and dandy as long as it's against someone else, huh?

I'm not sure whether I am relieved or frustrated that no one has really tried to make a serious argument defending the "Yes on 8" logic.

Perhaps some discussion of that "it has already happened" case cited by the Yes on 8 ad will help.

The case is Parker v. Hurley (some of you may remember an earlier thread about the Parkers and their inane complaints). The district court opinion (pdf) in that case is Parker v. Hurley (http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/recentops.pl?filename=wolf/pdf/parker+opinion+mlw.pdf), 474 F. Supp. 2d 261 (D. Mass. 2007). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit opinion (pdf) in that case is Parker v. Hurley, 514 F.3d. 87 (1st Cir. 2008). (html version (http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=07-1528.01A)).

These excerpts from the First Circuit opinion summarize the case and the relevant holding:

David and Tonia Parker's sons, Jacob and Joshua Parker,and Joseph and Robin Wirthlin's son, Joseph Robert Wirthlin, Jr., are students at Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington, Massachusetts. Both families assert that they are devout Judeo-Christians and that a core belief of their religion is that homosexual behavior and gay marriage are immoral and violate God's law.

In January 2005, when Jacob Parker ("Jacob") was in kindergarten, he brought home a "Diversity Book Bag." This included a picture book, Who's in a Family?, which depicted different families, including single-parent families, an extended family, interracial families, animal families, a family without children, and -- to the concern of the Parkers -- a family with two dads and a family with two moms. The book concludes by answering the question, "Who's in a family?": "The people who love you the most!" The book says nothing about marriage.

The Parkers were concerned that this book was part of an effort by the public schools "to indoctrinate young children into the concept that homosexuality and homosexual relationships or marriage are moral and acceptable behavior." Such an effort, they feared, would require their sons to affirm a belief inconsistent with their religion. On January 21, 2005, they met with Estabrook's principal, Joni Jay ("Jay"), to request that Jacob not be exposed to any further discussions of homosexuality. Principal Jay disagreed that the school had any obligation under section 32A to notify parents in advance of such class discussions. In March 2005, the Parkers repeated their request that "no teacher or adult expose [Jacob] to any materials or discussions featuring sexual orientation, same-sex unions, or homosexuality without notification to the Parkers and the right to 'opt out,'" this time including in their communication the then-Superintendent of Lexington's schools, William Hurley ("Hurley"),and two other district-wide administrators. This request was met with the same response. A further meeting to discuss these issues was held at Estabrook on April 27, 2005, which resulted in Mr. Parker's arrest when he refused to leave the school until his demands were met.

As the 2005-2006 school year began, Paul Ash ("Ash"), the current Superintendent, released a public statement explaining the school district's position that it would not provide parental notification for "discussions, activities, or materials that simply reference same-gender parents or that otherwise recognize the existence of differences in sexual orientation." When Jacob entered first grade that fall, his classroom's book collection included Who's in a Family? as well as Molly's Family, a picture book about a girl who is at first made to feel embarrassed by a classmate because she has both a mommy and a mama but then learns that families can come in many different varieties. In December 2005, the Parkers repeated their request for advance notice, which Superintendent Ash again denied.

[The Parkers and Wirthlins sued various employees of the Lexington, Massachusetts public schools and members of the Lexington School Committee in both their individual and official capacity. Plaintiffs asserted violations of their own and their children's rights under the Free Exercise Clause and their substantive parental and privacy due process rights under the U.S. Constitution. ]

For relief, the plaintiffs seek a declaration of their constitutional rights; damages; and an injunction requiring the school (1) to provide an opportunity to exempt their children from "classroom presentations or discussions the intent of which is to have children accept the validity of, embrace, affirm, or celebrate views of human sexuality, gender identity, and marriage constructs," (2) to allow the parents to observe any such classroom discussions, and (3) to not present any "materials graphically depicting homosexual physical contact" to students before the seventh grade.

...

First, as to the parents' free exercise rights, the mere fact that a child is exposed on occasion in public school to a concept offensive to a parent's religious belief does not inhibit the parent from instructing the child differently. A parent whose "child is exposed to sensitive topics or information [at school] remains free to discuss these matters and to place them in the family's moral or religious context, or to supplement the information with more appropriate materials." C.N., 430 F.3d at 185; see also Newdow, 542 U.S. at 16 (noting that the school's requirement that Newdow's daughter recite the pledge of allegiance every day did not "impair[] Newdow's right to instruct his daughter in his religious views"). The parents here did in fact have notice, if not prior notice, of the books and of the school's overall intent to promote toleration of same-sex marriage, and they retained their ability to discuss the material and subject matter with their children. Our outcome does not turn, however, on whether the parents had notice.

Turning to the children's free exercise rights, we cannot see how Jacob's free exercise right was burdened at all: two books were made available to him, but he was never required to read them or have them read to him. Further, these books do not endorse gay marriage or homosexuality, or even address these topics explicitly, but merely describe how other children might come from families that look different from one's own. There is no free exercise right to be free from any reference in public elementary schools to the existence of families in which the parents are of different gender combinations.

...

Public schools are not obliged to shield individual students from ideas which potentially are religiously offensive, particularly when the school imposes no requirement that the student agree with or affirm those ideas, or even participate in discussions about them. See Fleischfresser, 15 F.3d at 690; Mozert, 827 F.2d at 1063-65, 1070; see also Bauchman, 132 F.3d at 558 ("[P]ublic schools are not required to delete from the curriculum all materials that may offend any religious sensibility." (quoting Florey v. Sioux Falls Sch. Dist. 49-5, 619 F.2d 1311, 1318 (8th Cir. 1980) (internal quotation marks omitted))). ...

Because plaintiffs do not allege facts that give rise to claims of constitutional magnitude, the district court did not err in granting defendants' motion to dismiss the claims under the U.S. Constitution.

Public schools often walk a tightrope between the many competing constitutional demands made by parents, students, teachers, and the schools' other constituents. [Citations omitted] The balance the school struck here does not offend the Free Exercise or Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

We do not suggest that the school's choice of books for young students has not deeply offended the plaintiffs' sincerely held religious beliefs. If the school system has been insufficiently sensitive to such religious beliefs, the plaintiffs may seek recourse to the normal political processes for change in the town and state. See Smith, 494 U.S. at 890. They are not entitled to a federal judicial remedy under the U.S. Constitution.


Anybody object to the reasoning or holding of the First Circuit?

someone probably pointed this out. its fear mongering

Cat-Tribes, this has been explained to you, patiently, and repeatedly.

The interests of society must be served. And the institutionalized exclusion, disdain, disapproval, and disenfranchisement of non-majorative parts of the population clearly serves the interest of society.

The purpose of the law is to make sure that bad people are treated badly. Queers are bad.

What you're advocating is some kind of pursuit of peacable, fair co-existence with equal access and standing for all, wherein differing people and beliefs can be recognized, balancing personal freedom with reasonable consequences for behaviour that harms others.

Every time a man puts his ding dong into another man, my marriage gets worse. Two fat guys in Hawaii get married, my spouse and I gain weight. A guy gives oral sex to another guy, my wife doesn't give oral sex to me (read the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Conservation of Hummers).

Two lesbians live a life of commitment and abiding care and love, my wife and I grow emotionally distant and maybe I get a rusty trombone in Tijuana.

Do you honestly not see why gay marriage hurts good people?

Heh now this is quality :) sometimes I wonder bout you but then you turn it around and come up with a hell of a post

also i would have to say that marriage is between a man and a woman. How many Jews and Christians in the bible or otherwise are polygamists? That is not the love between a man and a woman that is multiple ppl. If we are to be taught about traditional marriage then we should be taught that polygamy is the first type of mariage and single partners is just strange and wrong. Also it would taught that divorce is not an acceptable practice and that all marriages must be forever. We could add in some other bible passages abut killing gays and killing ppl thast wrk on the sabbath. Instead accept homosexuals and keep your cro-magnum morals to yourself.

someone probably pointed this out. its fear mongering

Not that this matters, but: http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/scare-mongering

I never suggested that course of action. I'm merely saying that crisis aversion is a higher priority than a political agenda. Putting the agenda first is essentially allowing innocents to die for the sake of said agenda. Pushing the agenda can come later, the welfare of the people must come first. Did John Locke not assert that the existence of a government is purely for the benefit and welfare of the people? Isn't that also a fundamental democratic belief? Heck it's even in the preamble.

36 million people can do both at once I think ... there is no reason both the improvements of civil rights as well as fighting the fires can not simultaneously occur

they mean the samething. it just in the news they allways say fearmongerin g so i thought it was the proper 1. my bad

the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father.

I was raised by a mom and a dad i want to rape and kill ppl. It sure as fuck hasnt helped me






(
btw, im joking)

No, when were those?

The only fire that I remember that killed more than three people was the Esperanza fire, and that killed 4 IIRC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezperanza_Fire)

I don't know bout u but 4 is countless. I dont even know what comes after 2

We haven't finished reconstructing New Orleans. Obviously, then, the Presidential election should be cancelled.

We haven't finished reconstructing New Orleans. Obviously, then, the Presidential election should be cancelled.

Clearly.

Join me in advocating "South Lizasauria's Law", that prohibits any crafting, introduction, debate, committee meetings, voting, or signing of any law pertaining to civil rights, while anyone is dying of natural disaster.

Let's get our priorities straight America.






Heh, heh. Straight.

Clearly.

Join me in advocating "South Lizasauria's Law", that prohibits any crafting, introduction, debate, committee meetings, voting, or signing of any law pertaining to civil rights, while anyone is dying of natural disaster.

Let's get our priorities straight America.






Heh, heh. Straight.

Law? Id didn't ratify any law? Are you sure you aren't schizophrenic? :p:confused:

Now stop twisting my words and posts mmmmkay???

They're being biased. They should be presenting information to these children as to why bigotry is bad, the children should be taught to ovoid and deter bigotry towards all, not just homosexuality alone. The level of fascination the California government has with homosexuality is disturbing. If they're laws weren't so biased I wouldn't suspect brainwashing. Secondly remember those wildfires that killed countless lives?

Now for those of you who are obviously confused, you are only attacking my second reason for protest. What about my first one? That has been ignored for the most part.

Honestly, if Jesus returned today, I think the first thing he'd do is pull a new Holocaust, only with it being Christians instead of Jews this time. Given what some of his own followers have done with his words, I honestly can't find it in my heart to say that would necessarily be a bad thing. I swear, if we ever find his grave, we could probably use the sheer force of frustration emanating from it to power a warp drive.

I think he'd prefer to be left out of the whole thing quite frankly. Nothing's more annoying than people yelling that you gave them permission when you did nothing of the kind.

Do you mean a petting zoo, of The Petting Zoo, a leather bondage themed gay nightclub?

Look, I thought he was the zookeeper. It was an honest mistake. And it's not like you can say that your kids didn't learn anything.

Why, if gays or lesbians like so, just not to live together? Why do they want to have a marriage?

This might be why. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States#Rights_and_benefits)

And if they want to have it because of their religion, it's a paradox - none of the religions likes that, neither do I, and neither do many-many citizens from all the parts of the world.:confused:

Not true. For instance, the Unitarian Universalist General Assembly has supported Same-sex marriage since 1996.

someone probably pointed this out. its fear mongering

:p It's in the topic title.

Now for those of you who are obviously confused, you are only attacking my second reason for protest. What about my first one? That has been ignored for the most part. Perhaps because you neglected to articulate any reason for protest? You did indicate that you were very upset, for some reason.

They're being biased. They should be presenting information to these children as to why bigotry is bad, the children should be taught to ovoid and deter bigotry towards all, not just homosexuality alone. The level of fascination the California government has with homosexuality is disturbing. If they're laws weren't so biased I wouldn't suspect brainwashing. Secondly remember those wildfires that killed countless lives?Now for those of you who are obviously confused, you are only attacking my second reason for protest. What about my first one? That has been ignored for the most part.

The idiocy of you alleged "first point" pretty much speaks for itself.

What laws are you talking about? The California Constitution's guarantee of fundamental rights and equal protection under the law? What fascination with homosexuality? What brainwashing?

Now for those of you who are obviously confused, you are only attacking my second reason for protest. What about my first one? That has been ignored for the most part.You had more than one point? Please, enlighten me, then. Give me a good, viable reason that could be implemented without unreasonably sacrificing the process of government and industry.

Now for those of you who are obviously confused, you are only attacking my second reason for protest. What about my first one? That has been ignored for the most part.
I find it funny that you used the word "reason" in connection with anything you've posted in this thread.

I ignored your claptrap about what you say you find disturbing and your vague reference to brainwashing because it is even more free of content than your other nonsense.

You had more than one point? Please, enlighten me, then. Give me a good, viable reason that could be implemented without unreasonably sacrificing the process of government and industry.

I never said anything of sacrificing government and industry. I merely stated that during a disaster said processes should be applied in different ways until the crisis in the area is averted. And when I say crisis, I mean a major crisis.

I never said anything of sacrificing government and industry. I merely stated that during a disaster said processes should be applied in different ways until the crisis in the area is averted. And when I say crisis, I mean a major crisis.

Okey, dokey.

1. During what disaster should government processes be applied differently that is relevant to same-sex marriage or Prop. 8?

2. Would you agree that Prop. 8 should be halted at this time because government should have higher priorities? If not, WTF are you saying?

I never said anything of sacrificing government and industry. I merely stated that during a disaster said processes should be applied in different ways until the crisis in the area is averted. And when I say crisis, I mean a major crisis.I think your idea would cause a major crisis. Should we stop the government, that already has other agencies to deal with natural disasters, from doing its job while the other agencies that are supposed to deal with the natural disasters deal with them?

I find it funny that you used the word "reason" in connection with anything you've posted in this thread.

I ignored your claptrap about what you say you find disturbing and your vague reference to brainwashing because it is even more free of content than your other nonsense.

Reason has multiple applications in the english language or don't you know? Shall I look it up for you?

Hmmm, using the education system to fill the minds of children as young as four with political agendas isn't brainwashing?

I never said anything of sacrificing government and industry. I merely stated that during a disaster said processes should be applied in different ways until the crisis in the area is averted. And when I say crisis, I mean a major crisis.

I'm going to ask again because it may have gotten lost in the noise-exactly what did you want done, and exactly who did you want to do it. Specifically, who was it that was involved and exactly what should they have been doing instead that would have in any way ended the fires any quicker?

I want specifics so we can be clear.

Hmmm, using the education system to fill the minds of children as young as four with political agendas isn't brainwashing?

Apparently you've been drinking the Kool-Aid.

When and how has the California education system been used to fill the minds of children as young as four with political agendas?

Reason has multiple applications in the english language or don't you know? Shall I look it up for you?
Please do, and then try to explain to us which one of those senses of the word we could possibly apply to the bolded section of your post.

Reason has multiple applications in the english language or don't you know? Shall I look it up for you?
Oh, please do. I could use the laugh.

Hmmm, using the education system to fill the minds of children as young as four with political agendas isn't brainwashing?
No, it isn't.

Hmmm, using the education system to fill the minds of children as young as four with political agendas isn't brainwashing?
I think in this case what makes up a 'political agenda' might be in dispute. Certainly from a young age I was indoctrinated with the inherent advantages of a democratic system, surely this is a more obvious political agenda-where as the other seems more like a social issue.

Reason has multiple applications in the english language or don't you know? Shall I look it up for you? Please, and do you mind telling me this "english" that you speak of? I only know English.

Apparently you've been drinking the Kool-Aid.

When and how has the California education system been used to fill the minds of children as young as four with political agendas?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=550888&highlight=california+laws

Making homeschooling illegal infringes on the rights of parents to parent and forces children to go to public school. Now why would the gov want to do that?

And also I'm still searching for the article regarding the law in CA that would have made same sex bathrooms mandatory. Isn't that taking things too far?

And also I'm still searching for the article regarding the law in CA that would have made same sex bathrooms mandatory
I expect you'll be searching a very long time :D

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=550888&highlight=california+laws

Making homeschooling illegal infringes on the rights of parents to parent and forces children to go to public school. Now why would the gov want to do that?

And also I'm still searching for the article regarding the law in CA that would have made same sex bathrooms mandatory. Isn't that taking things too far?

Um. As I pointed out IN THE THREAD YOU CITE IN RESPONSE TO YOU, California has not made homeschooling illegal. See, e.g., link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13495330&postcount=86), link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13495417&postcount=104)

Good luck finding that law about bathrooms, but, in the meantime, have you ever flown on a plane? They have same-sex bathrooms!!! The horror, the horror!!

I think in this case what makes up a 'political agenda' might be in dispute. Certainly from a young age I was indoctrinated with the inherent advantages of a democratic system, surely this is a more obvious political agenda-where as the other seems more like a social issue.

Be that as it may the sides of said issue have no right to push their opinions on others. It is the right of all to form opinions of their own on this or any matter.

Be that as it may the sides of said issue have no right to push their opinions on others. It is the right of all to form opinions of their own on this or any matter.

And this has what to do with allowing same-sex marriages?

Um. As I pointed out IN THE THREAD YOU CITE IN RESPONSE TO YOU, California has not made homeschooling illegal. See, e.g., link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13495330&postcount=86), link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13495417&postcount=104)

Good luck finding that law about bathrooms, but, in the meantime, have you ever flown on a plane? They have same-sex bathrooms!!! The horror, the horror!!

Most of the time said facility is only designed for one person at a time. :wink:

And this has what to do with allowing same-sex marriages?

If you read my first post you would know that I suspect political brainwashing. Children should choose whether or not they support it or oppose it, the usage of propaganda in schools is underhanded and shameful since the children are too young to formulate ad educated opinion and suggestible.

Be that as it may the sides of said issue have no right to push their opinions on others. It is the right of all to form opinions of their own on this or any matter.

First, you are presuming an agenda or opinions is being pushed on children, but have presented nothing to support that assumption.

Second, you appear to be contradicting yourself:

They should be presenting information to these children as to why bigotry is bad, the children should be taught to ovoid and deter bigotry towards all, not just homosexuality alone.

Most of the time said facility is only designed for one person at a time. :wink:

As opposed to the trough style commodes found in this same sex bathrooms you think are mandatory?

I notice when Cat-Tribes posted a refutation to your home school claim, you ignore that he knocked your crap out of the park....


I don't even like Cat-Tribes, because he's a pussy-obsessed communist, but he is shredding you.

If you read my first post you would know that I suspect political brainwashing. Children should choose whether or not they support it or oppose it, the usage of propaganda in schools is underhanded and shameful since the children are too young to formulate ad educated opinion and suggestible.

And I'm still waiting for you to give an example of this "brainwashing" or "usage of propaganda in schools."

Every time I click on this thread to follow Cat-tribe's trouncing of South Lizasauria I get these 'yes on 8' ads popping up in the sponsored links...


AND IT'S PISSING ME OFF.....:mad:

I think he'd prefer to be left out of the whole thing quite frankly. Nothing's more annoying than people yelling that you gave them permission when you did nothing of the kind.

Probably. But I still say he'll pull a Columbine on them once he's caught up.

Then again, maybe that's why the Second Coming hasn't happened yet. Jesus saw what some of his followers were up to, realized the shitstorm that would happen if he came back, and hit the resurrection snooze alarm.

If you read my first post you would know that I suspect political brainwashing. Children should choose whether or not they support it or oppose it, the usage of propaganda in schools is underhanded and shameful since the children are too young to formulate ad educated opinion and suggestible.What.

It's kinda amazing how even the people who should really really REALLY know better can still think prejudice is fine and dandy as long as it's against someone else, huh?

It's the same shit with black leaders and organizations that are "insulted" when their struggle for civil rights is linked to gay rights (and of course not all people/groups feel that way).

If you read my first post you would know that I suspect political brainwashing. Children should choose whether or not they support it or oppose it, the usage of propaganda in schools is underhanded and shameful since the children are too young to formulate ad educated opinion and suggestible.What.

Nice catch, I read right past that.

I find it heartening though, that I've heard of some people who, while they're personally against gay marriage, are also against prop 8 because taking rights away just doesn't sit well with them. I wish they were less homophobic, but it's a little better at least.

Agreed. It's like reversing a call in a game--there has to be indisputable evidence to change it. People who would never vote to allow gay marriage still don't like the idea of taking away rights that already exist, which is why the rephrasing of the proposition was so huge.

Nice catch, I read right past that.It doesn't make any sense, does it? "Let the children form their own opinion; they're too young to properly form an opinion." All in the same post.

And I'm still waiting for you to give an example of this "brainwashing" or "usage of propaganda in schools."


Guided Imagery

A considerable number of different guided-imagery techniques are used by cult leaders and trainers to remove followers from their normal frames of reference.

Emotional Manipulation

According to Cialdini, the majority of the thousands of different tactics that compliance professionals use fall into six categories, and each category is based on a psychological principle that directs human behavior. These six principles are:

1. Consistency. We try to justify our earlier behavior.
2. Reciprocity. If somebody gives us something, we try to repay in kind.
3. Social Proof. We try to find out what other people think is correct.
4. Authority. We have a deep-seated sense of duty to authority figures.
5. Liking. We obey people we like.
6. Scarcity. If we come to want something, we can be made to fear that if we wait it will be gone. The opportunity to get it may pass. We want to take it now - whatever is being offered, from an object to cosmic consciousness.

Those that apply are bolded

It doesn't make any sense, does it? "Let the children form their own opinion; they're too young to properly form an opinion." All in the same post.
It's SL's notion of how to cover all his bases, perhaps.

Those that apply are bolded

Guided Imagery

A considerable number of different guided-imagery techniques are used by cult leaders and trainers to remove followers from their normal frames of reference.What.

I think in this case what makes up a 'political agenda' might be in dispute. Certainly from a young age I was indoctrinated with the inherent advantages of a democratic system, surely this is a more obvious political agenda-where as the other seems more like a social issue.

And that indoctrination is in the education standards for California.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=550888&highlight=california+laws

Making homeschooling illegal infringes on the rights of parents to parent and forces children to go to public school. Now why would the gov want to do that?

And also I'm still searching for the article regarding the law in CA that would have made same sex bathrooms mandatory. Isn't that taking things too far?

Homeschooling isn't illegal.
Same-sex bathrooms aren't mandatory.
Neither one has anything to do with gay marriage.

If you read my first post you would know that I suspect political brainwashing. Children should choose whether or not they support it or oppose it, the usage of propaganda in schools is underhanded and shameful since the children are too young to formulate ad educated opinion and suggestible.

So gay people shouldn't have equal protection and rights under the law because it might confuse children who are exposed to the idea before their parents can effectively brainwash them themselves.

Nice catch, I read right past that.

They should have a right to choose however nobody said that choice would be educated. That can only be expected after they have accumulated enough accurate knowledge. To push an agenda on the suggestible infringes on their right to choose.

Those that apply are bolded

Guided imagery is used in meditation and hypnotism. What does that have to do with school? "Close your eyes, children, and imagine yourself in a forest. See the trees. Hear the birds. See the gays getting married. You're feeling very sleepy."

I'm assuming from your criticism of "social pressure" that you don't believe anyone's personal morals should be based on, or conform to, the laws of the nation in which they live. Which brings up problems a lot bigger than gay marriage--like theft and murder.

They should have a right to choose however nobody said that choice would be educated. That can only be expected after they have accumulated enough accurate knowledge. To push an agenda on the suggestible infringes on their right to choose.
Right, because if someone cannot make an educated choice, then the only correct thing is to keep them ignorant about the issue so that they will be free to make an uneducated choice, since that's the only kind they can make, being ignorant of the issue and all.

They should have a right to choose; however, nobody said that choice would be educated. That can only be expected after they have accumulated enough accurate knowledge. To push an agenda on the suggestible infringes on their right to choose.Fixed. So, you're arguing that a child should make his/ her own choice, and that we should simply let them without giving them any input whatsoever?

They should have a right to choose however nobody said that choice would be educated. That can only be expected after they have accumulated enough accurate knowledge. To push an agenda on the suggestible infringes on their right to choose.

So they shouldn't make educated choices? You're making less sense the longer you talk.

How do you accumulate "accurate knowledge" if you're not allowed to learn about it?

Your entire premise of "pushing an agenda" is a whole lot of fail. Granting gay couples the same rights as everyone else has no effect on schools. When Canada legalized gay marriage, did it suddenly become a topic of conversation in our kindergartens?

Those that apply are bolded

Um, what? :confused:

Nothing you cited had anything to do with California schools. :headbang:

Regardless, if you are going to quote shit like this (http://www.rickross.com/reference/cults_in_our_midst/cults_in_our_midst4.html), source it so we can see how nutty you are being.

What the hell is a same sex bathroom? Are we talking about unisex bathrooms?

Every time I click on this thread to follow Cat-tribe's trouncing of South Lizasauria I get these 'yes on 8' ads popping up in the sponsored links...


AND IT'S PISSING ME OFF.....:mad:I get ones that have sound effects that can't be turned off.

They should have a right to choose however nobody said that choice would be educated. That can only be expected after they have accumulated enough accurate knowledge. To push an agenda on the suggestible infringes on their right to choose.

And, by your own logic, providing children with accurate knowledge so they can make an educated choice is the opposite of brainwashing them.

Regardless, you've lost the plot. As the one of the main points of the OP is that no one is teaching little kids about same-sex marriage in California. The whole thing is make-believe.

What the hell is a same sex bathroom? Are we talking about unisex bathrooms?The under-lined is for men/women only. The bolded is for both men and women.

What the hell is a same sex bathroom? Are we talking about unisex bathrooms?
Another good catch. I missed that one.

Yeah, apparently, SL is opposed to men and women using separate bathrooms.

What.

Cults are not limited to random sects out in the middle of nowhere. The successful ones gain political power which in turn allows them to set policies.

So gay people shouldn't have equal protection and rights under the law because it might confuse children who are exposed to the idea before their parents can effectively brainwash them themselves.

They should however no one NEEDS to make a huge deal about it. Granting equality is one thing but indoctrinating children is another. Besides parents are more trustworthy in teaching children because good parents only have the well being of their prodigy in mind. Schools however have only two missions : the job specs given to them by their superiors and the education of the students. Schools should educate by presenting facts neccessary in order to function in modern life, they should never mold children in some political movement's image. To do so is disgraceful. This doesn't mean I'm saying that all schools are bad nasty or ebil or however one of you word twisters out there might strangely put it.

Another good catch. I missed that one.

Yeah, apparently, SL is opposed to men and women using separate bathrooms.

You never know what could happen in there. It could lead to a same-sex marriage.

Another good catch. I missed that one.

Yeah, apparently, SL is opposed to men and women using separate bathrooms.

You guys do have schizo don't you? When the hell did I say that men and women shouldn't have separate bathrooms. Isn't clear that I think they should have separate bathrooms?

Cults are not limited to random sects out in the middle of nowhere. The successful ones gain political power which in turn allows them to set policies.

Like fundamentalist Christians?

They should however no one NEEDS to make a huge deal about it. Granting equality is one thing but indoctrinating children is another. Besides parents are more trustworthy in teaching children because good parents only have the well being of their prodigy in mind. Schools however have only two missions : the job specs given to them by their superiors and the education of the students. Schools should educate by presenting facts neccessary in order to function in modern life, they should never mold children in some political movement's image. To do so is disgraceful. This doesn't mean I'm saying that all schools are bad nasty or ebil or however one of you word twisters out there might strangely put it.

Good thing that granting equal rights has nothing to do with indoctrinating children, then.

Maybe if parents stopped worrying about their kids being prodigies, they'd pay more attention to their moral upbringing.

Knowing the law is necessary to function in modern life. One fact schools might present is that same-sex marriage is legal.

Cults are not limited to random sects out in the middle of nowhere. The successful ones gain political power which in turn allows them to set policies.Source. Please. And are you talking about a non-religious cult, religious cult, or a radical-religious cult?

Right, because if someone cannot make an educated choice, then the only correct thing is to keep them ignorant about the issue so that they will be free to make an uneducated choice, since that's the only kind they can make, being ignorant of the issue and all.

Yet another word twist.

Indoctrination of a child is one thing, presenting facts so that they can make an educated opinion later on is another.

Source.

Nazism, Scientology, Stalinism, Taoism and Al Queda/Taliban are good examples. You seriously didn't know that those were political cults? :confused:

You guys do have schizo don't you? When the hell did I say that men and women shouldn't have separate bathrooms. Isn't clear that I think they should have separate bathrooms?
Nothing you say is clear, except to the extent that it is clear you're bullshitting.

You complained that CA thought about a law that "would have made same sex bathrooms mandatory."

Same sex bathrooms. As in bathrooms that are used by the same sex. As in bathrooms that men use with other men, and other bathrooms that women use with other women. Separately. You know, like same sex marriage, where men marry men or women marry women, but they don't marry across gender. Get it yet?

Yet another word twist.

Indoctrination of a child is one thing, presenting facts so that they can make an educated opinion later on is another. So, teaching a student about same sex marriage = indoctrination?

Yet another word twist.

Indoctrination of a child is one thing, presenting facts so that they can make an educated opinion later on is another.
SL, it's not a word twist. It's pointing out the absurdity of your words.

Nothing you say is clear, except to the extent that it is clear you're bullshitting.

You complained that CA thought about a law that "would have made same sex bathrooms mandatory."

Same sex bathrooms. As in bathrooms that are used by the same sex. As in bathrooms that men use with other men, and other bathrooms that women use with other women. Separately. You know, like same sex marriage, where men marry men or women marry women, but they don't marry across gender. Get it yet?

Ok, I'll admit I didn't word that correctly. That should have been multisex.

So, teaching a student about same sex marriage = indoctrination?

Finally! It only took you 15 pages to get it. Presenting facts isn't indoctrination unless it's about gays, whose power is so strong that any acknowledgment of their existence will make your child gay.

SL, it's not a word twist. It's pointing out the absurdity of your words.

So your saying that "indoctrinating children is wrong and proper unbiased education is right" is absurd?

Are you confessing fanaticism?

Ok, I'll admit I didn't word that correctly. That should have been multisex.
No, it should have been "unisex." But that's okay, nobody expects you to know the jargon any better than you understand anything else about this topic.

So your saying that "indoctrinating children is wrong and proper unbiased education is right" is absurd?

Are you confessing fanaticism?

Proper unbiased education states the fact that gay marriage is legal in CA. Why is that hard to understand?

Nazism, Scientology, Stalinism, Taoism and Al Queda/Taliban are good examples. You seriously didn't know that those were political cults? :confused:You're misrepresenting the meaning of the word cult.

So your saying that "indoctrinating children is wrong and proper unbiased education is right" is absurd?

Are you confessing fanaticism?
No, I'm calling what you describe as "proper unbiased education" bullshit.

Proper unbiased education states the fact that gay marriage is legal in CA. Why is that hard to understand?
Because it doesn't non-indoctrinate children into making the kinds of uneducated choices he wants them to.

finally! It only took you 15 pages to get it. Presenting facts isn't indoctrination unless it's about gays, whose power is so strong that any acknowledgment of their existence will make your child gay....Ok.

So, teaching a student about same sex marriage = indoctrination?

If its a young toddler yes, they're too young and suggestible. After gaining knowledge and experience from unbiased sources will they be able to make an educated choice later on. An informed individual will be mature enough for a lesson on same-sex marriage.

If its a young toddler yes, they're too young and suggestible. After gaining knowledge and experience from unbiased sources will they be able to make an educated choice later on. An informed individual will be mature enough for a lesson on same-sex marriage.What.

If its a young toddler yes, they're too young and suggestible. After gaining knowledge and experience from unbiased sources will they be able to make an educated choice later on. An informed individual will be mature enough for a lesson on same-sex marriage.
Make a choice about what? About whether it is true that, currently, same sex marriage is legal in California?

Should we also wait to tell them about fire safety until they are old enough to make a choice about whether fire is hot?

If its a young toddler yes, they're too young and suggestible. After gaining knowledge and experience from unbiased sources will they be able to make an educated choice later on. An informed individual will be mature enough for a lesson on same-sex marriage.

Again, you are begging the question of what is being taught in California schools.

Regardless, is teaching children about the existence of opposite-sex couples also indoctrination?

If its a young toddler yes, they're too young and suggestible. After gaining knowledge and experience from unbiased sources will they be able to make an educated choice later on. An informed individual will be mature enough for a lesson on same-sex marriage.WTF? So you name me a better unbiased source than a classroom.

Chances are any other info they're exposed to will be from biased sources!

Again, you are begging the question of what is being taught in California schools.

Regardless, is teaching children about the existence of opposite-sex couples also indoctrination?It is.

Again, you are begging the question of what is being taught in California schools.

Regardless, is teaching children about the existence of opposite-sex couples also indoctrination?

It is.
Yeah, right... lets put blinders on 'em and not tell 'em such things exist and are not something to fear or hate.

Let 'em learn about it on the strees with their friends...


Right about the time they learn what 'gay-bashing' is...

And I'm still waiting for you to give an example of this "brainwashing" or "usage of propaganda in schools."

Well, how could anyone think fags are people if they aren't being forced into thinking this is true by black helicopters?

I get ones that have sound effects that can't be turned off.

Firefox has an ad block feature that means you wouldn't have to worry about it . . . [/threadjack]

Regardless, is teaching children about the existence of opposite-sex couples also indoctrination?It is.

I hope you are being facetious.

Otherwise just about every fairy tale or fable is indoctrinating kids into heterosexuality.

I hope you are being facetious. I was. :) (Was it not obvious enough? :()

I hope you are being facetious.

Otherwise just about every fairy tale or fable is indoctrinating kids into heterosexuality.

He's got a point though. If we're treating the teaching children about the existence of same-sex couples as indoctrination, then the reverse must also be true.

Obviously neither is true of course, but it must be both or neither.

He's got a point though. If we're treating the teaching children about the existence of same-sex couples as indoctrination, then the reverse must also be true.

Obviously neither is true of course, but it must be both or neither.

Agreed. Which was my point from the beginning. I was just making sure GF got that.

(No insult to you, GF, but there are enough crazy allegations in this thread it is sometimes hard to tell what is serious and what is not.)

Agreed. Which was my point from the beginning. I was just making sure GF got that.

(No insult to you, GF, but there are enough crazy allegations in this thread it is sometimes hard to tell what is serious and what is not.)None taken.

Otherwise just about every fairy tale or fable is indoctrinating kids into heterosexuality.

Well, it wouldn't be difficult to argue that fairy tales play an important role in generating our conceptions of romance and relationships, so you could reasonably argue that the dominant heteronormativity of such tales has an indoctrinating role....

All the more reason to have stories about princes marrying princes, of course.

Nothing you say is clear, except to the extent that it is clear you're bullshitting.

You complained that CA thought about a law that "would have made same sex bathrooms mandatory."

Same sex bathrooms. As in bathrooms that are used by the same sex. As in bathrooms that men use with other men, and other bathrooms that women use with other women. Separately. You know, like same sex marriage, where men marry men or women marry women, but they don't marry across gender. Get it yet?

Speaking of bathrooms, the dorms at my college had both sexes use the same bathrooms/showers. Wasn't a problem.

Agreed. It's like reversing a call in a game--there has to be indisputable evidence to change it. People who would never vote to allow gay marriage still don't like the idea of taking away rights that already exist, which is why the rephrasing of the proposition was so huge.

I like the fact that when the "Yes on 8" people sued, the court said "Yeah, it might bias voters, but saying that it will eliminate someone's rights is an accurate portrayal of what it will do. So fuck off."

I sure hope it doesn't pass.

I can almost understand the pro-life movement. They think that abortion takes away a living person's right to life. I think they are absolutely wrong, having based their reasoning on a false assumption, but I see why they think like they do, if you get my drift.

I can't say the same about the anti same sex marriage crowd. How is anybody harmed or victimised in any way because of it? Does god really kill a kitten every time two guys get hitched? It genuinely boils down to simply 'we don't like these people, so we shouldn't let them do what they want to do'. It's truly vindictive, in my opinion.

I'd agree. The Pro-life position makes perfect sense if you go from the premise that life begins at conception. Given that starting point, it's perfectly understandable that they'd think abortion is murder. I of course think their premise faulty, and so I disagree with them.

But the fury people have over the idea of two men or two women marrying is just mind-boggling. There's no reason for it whatsoever. Yeah, I think the idea of two men having sex is icky, too. That's why I don't have sex with other men and don't think about men having sex. Just as my friend who is a gay man doesn't like thinking about a man and a woman having sex. The thought is icky to him. But I think a lot of things are icky. Like mayo on sandwiches. That is icky to me. That's why I don't put mayo on my sandwiches. If other people do, why should I care?

I'd agree. The Pro-life position makes perfect sense if you go from the premise that life begins at conception. Given that starting point, it's perfectly understandable that they'd think abortion is murder. I of course think their premise faulty, and so I disagree with them.

But the fury people have over the idea of two men or two women marrying is just mind-boggling. There's no reason for it whatsoever. Yeah, I think the idea of two men having sex is icky, too. That's why I don't have sex with other men and don't think about men having sex. Just as my friend who is a gay man doesn't like thinking about a man and a woman having sex. The thought is icky to him. But I think a lot of things are icky. Like mayo on sandwiches. That is icky to me. That's why I don't put mayo on my sandwiches. If other people do, why should I care?If I could answer your question, I would be either a very rich man, or a very dead man. :)

I just did a little research on the much touted field trip to a gay wedding. As usual the morality police are blowing something waaaay out of proportion. The 18 students from a charter school were accompanied by their parents on the 90 minute lunch time excursion to see their own teacher get married.

Kind of takes the air out of the whole force feeding a gay agenda on kids arguement.

but i think a lot of things are icky. Like mayo on sandwiches. That is icky to me. That's why i don't put mayo on my sandwiches. If other people do, why should i care?

you don't put mayo on your sandwiches???!!!!

@%$@#%@ heathen! Think of the children!!!

Those Querosexuals will ruin the sanctity of marriage (spits). If we allow those Querosexuals to marry God will strike us all down (thumps bible). I for one will not allow those Querosexuals to devour my children for dinner (rubs gun).
I LOVE TACOS!!!

I just did a little research on the much touted field trip to a gay wedding. As usual the morality police are blowing something waaaay out of proportion. The 18 students from a charter school were accompanied by their parents on the 90 minute lunch time excursion to see their own teacher get married.

Kind of takes the air out of the whole force feeding a gay agenda on kids arguement.

Oh, they'll just say it's the parents doing it. Trust me, I've seen it before.