It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Prop. 8

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 03:39 PM
I give my support for a prop that Gays put forward that the people would get to vote on for giving gay couples the rights of married couples.

However, they need to stop holding the word Marriage hostage.

People are attached to that word.

So do not used it, but work for the same rights.

I 100% believe that IF the Gay Rights groups USED THE FREEDOMS granted to them to used the ballot, and put props thru, that they would get their rights.

Instead, a few people in robes overturn the LEGITMATE CONSTITUTIONAL vote of the people.

6 Months ago, the California supreme court showed an OVERT and OPEN move of imposing the will of the few, over the people.

It was in plain view, only most people cannot see something until its pointed out to them, and thats if they are even capible of admiting fault when thier wroung.

The vote yes on prop 8 was a good thing, and shows that California(and thus America) still has a way to go before we are truely... well... gay..???...

Personaly, i give it a couple months, then the California Supruime court will work their magic again...

The Facist workings of the California political party were defeated this year, but they will be back....

***PS... If your fine with facistic manuvers in goverment because it benifits you or makes you feel good, then thats up to you....

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 05:46 PM
This type of thing just shouldn't be put up to public ballot. It isn't up to the public to determine the legality of any one individual's personal freedoms and liberties, especially involving one particular subset of its population that the general public itself can not possibly empathize with.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 09:07 PM
reply to post by dave420

How people have sex is none of my business. I truly, don't want to know where they take it and from who. But really I don't think that a behavior or urge defines a person whether or not they were born that way or not. And they definitely shouldn't advertise their sex tastes in public, or force others to acknowledge their sex tastes.

posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 01:19 AM
I think same-sex couples should have the right to marry. That way they also have the right to be miserable in their marriage, divorce, pay alimony, and pay child support (if they adopted), just like us Hetero's.

They want marriage, that's fine...they can have all the crap that comes with it too.

Calif surprisingly passed Prop 8, yet shot down Prop 4...Notifying parents before terminating a minor's pregnancy.

posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 02:42 AM
reply to post by bg_socalif

Prop 4 is horrible.

If you are a loving parent thinking about your child, then this Prop makes a lot of sense.

Think outside of that tho. Pregnant minors don't always have that.

Think about the minor that has an incredibly abusive family. Think about the minor that was raped by a family member. Hell, even by her own father or guardian. This is not at all rare. Do we really want the doctor to have to call them in these cases? The minor will either be forced to confront the abusive family member (possibly the one that impregnated her), OR she will have to avoid the doctor altogether and take matters into her own hands...literally...

posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 03:21 PM
I think this issue is simple- I can understand both sides

Gays should get the same rights as Heterosexual partners would get- however- The word "marriage" is where the problem occurs-- If Gays settled for the term "Civil Union" then I believe Prop 8 woudn't have passed...... but they want the word" marriage" to define their union, but over Many years- this word has always been associated with heterosexual partners-and is a religious thing- why would Gays want to use a word that has a meaning in the bible (which they would say religion shouldn't be apart of this) If so- find a new word to define the Union and keep Marriage out

posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 04:59 AM
reply to post by Dbriefed

So straight people shouldn't hold hands in public either, right?

Gay folks don't want to be gay folks. They just want to be folks. They don't want to constantly have to fight for things straight people expect to get without a fight. They want to be the same as everyone else.

posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 05:01 AM
reply to post by TKainZero

Some gay people are rather attached to the word 'marriage', too - or do they not count?

Gay people want to be normal people. Should the black people in the 50s and 60s have settled for being called "'n-word's", as hey - it's just means "black person", right? And as long as it means the same thing, then there's nothing wrong with it, right? Of course not. Black people want to be people, just as gay people want to be people. As long as we have different words to describe the same thing but in different minorities, we haven't bridged any divides - we have merely defined our borders and dug in for a long fight.

The fact I have to write this is simply disgusting. We are all people - we should all have the same rights.

posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 12:18 PM
There are world wide protests planned for this weekend:

I still fairly new here - hope its OK to post this link. Or maybe this should have its own thread.

posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 06:53 PM
Religion is the problem. Since most say a guy can't be with a guy, it's pretty obvious where it stands on their engament party. But the silliness of religion, not being limited to funny hats, bad singing and epileptic fits, extends to actually claiming marriage between man in woman is best. Well, not really. Straights have been screwing up marriage for years, the divorce rate is amazing enough without mentioning that there's a hefty percentage of those who stay together who aren't happy. So how much worse can gays do? They want to get MARRIED. Civil union, pardon me, is quite unromantic. Can't see anyone being satisfied by that, they already have to squeak in their loved one into a conversation by calling him or her 'partner' or else make whatever straight is in earshot uncomfortable. Making gay marriage illegal is dumber than making pot illegal, and that's pretty stupid. Who's the victim? Your kids? They gonna suffer if Bob and Ted buy rings, do the ceremony and go on a cruise? How can you say you're ok with gays as long as they don't marry? Yeah, I'm ok with blacks and hispanics as long as they can't buy houses in my street or just join things that I take for granted. If there is an entity that is responsible for all of existence, set things in motion to it's will and watches over us from it's perfect state of being, I seriously doubt Bob's love of Ted will make both suffer for eternity when they die.

posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 11:02 PM

Originally posted by Layla

You would proclaim your own child a sexual deviant if they were gay? Are you just totally throwing all scientific study out the window?

I see this all the time from gay supporters when they argue. Seriously Layla, can YOU explain to me where or how you arrived at that conclusion of what jemmison posted? Then when you do that, it would be even more interesting to see how that has anything to do with throwing out ALL scientific studies. Or is this just an over dramatic embellishment on your part?

Obviously sex with animals is COMPLETELY different then homosexual sex, and the fact that you equate the two is quite disturbing.

Oh there it is the indignant shame on you for disturbing me post while missing the whole point deliberately. I really hate having to explain what I know yu are already aware of but in the context of drawing a line, the distinction for what is disturbing to you and how gays being married in same sex marriages disturbs us is only the difference jemm illustrates using another step over the line of what is already disturbing those against same sex marriages and now that we know it is disturbing to you,, we can safely assume NOW YOU KNOW HOW WE FEEL

The problem here is, people using their personal religion to control everyone else.

Whoop there it is the evil Christians again. Not going to get anywhere with this argument Ill tell you that right now.

It has nothing to do with "political correctness", if you knew me IRL, you'd know that I'm one of the least "politically correct" people around these parts. It's about not condemning people over their religion, race or sexuality.

I can understand race and gender and the like because that is what you ARE, where sexuality is pretty broad and has nothing to do with what yu are but what you DO and no one is saying they can't do what it is they do. They are just saying don't bring it into the union of marriage between a man and a woman because it isn't defined any other way. if they want to invent their own version of it they have civil unions

It's pretty damn egotistical to be so sure that YOU are right, YOUR religion is right, EVERYONE ELSE is wrong if they don't agree with you.

Yeah thats it make your case by insulting us for not having a right to be intolerant of something people have voted against with the presumptuous religious excuses. While you may be right you may be wrong but this won't bode well for getting anyone like that to change their vote. I can promise you that so keep it up.

I happen to be a woman who believes in God, and has read the Bible multiple times. But I will not force my personal beliefs on CONSENTING ADULTS and I will do everything in my power to insure that neither my rights, the rights of my children, or YOUR rights for that matter are impinged upon.

Oh yeah?? sounds to me that is exactly what you are trying to do else why are you here

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in