Teh Politics Forum Rumors and lies and Teh Iraqi Info Minister and much much more...
View Poll Results: prop 8
yes
19
28.79%
no
47
71.21%
Voters: 66. You may not vote on this poll

OK... NO or Yes On Prop 8

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Oct 24, 2008 | 07:28 PM
  #181  
FW Motorsports's Avatar
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Originally Posted by mcowger
Logical argument? It removes rights, where the state constitution is designed to save people rights.
What rights are removed?
Old Oct 24, 2008 | 07:31 PM
  #182  
FW Motorsports's Avatar
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Originally Posted by slow04wrx
blahblahblah
THE MORE QUEERS THE BETTER, YOU KNOW WHY..........

MORE VAGINERS FOR THE TAKING FOR ME


SO PROMOTE VAGINA FOR HETROSEXUAL MALES AND VOTE NO ON 8
Why do I suspect that the last time you actually saw a vagina was when you were born?
Old Oct 24, 2008 | 07:32 PM
  #183  
Nick Koan's Avatar
VIP Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 17,466
From: The BLC
Car Info: Legacy GT
Originally Posted by Paul@dbtuned
What are the logical reason(s) against it?
The State Constitution doesn't need to be cluttered with moral legislation. Especially laws which can be considered hateful and discriminatory by a significantly sized group of Californians.
Old Oct 24, 2008 | 07:32 PM
  #184  
mcowger's Avatar
Registered User
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,737
From: Seattle
Car Info: 2009 A3 2.0T quattro
Originally Posted by Paul@dbtuned
What rights are removed?
The right to marry, which is held under the current constitution.
Old Oct 24, 2008 | 07:38 PM
  #185  
FW Motorsports's Avatar
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Originally Posted by Nick Koan
The State Constitution doesn't need to be cluttered with moral legislation. Especially laws which can be considered hateful and discriminatory by a significantly sized group of Californians.
I agree.

But where is the line drawn?

Why not allow polygamy?
Maybe inter-spiecial marriage?
What about brother-sister or brother- brother marriage?
Old Oct 24, 2008 | 07:38 PM
  #186  
FW Motorsports's Avatar
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Originally Posted by mcowger
The right to marry, which is held under the current constitution.
It is?
Huh... I didn't know that.
Old Oct 24, 2008 | 07:42 PM
  #187  
mcowger's Avatar
Registered User
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,737
From: Seattle
Car Info: 2009 A3 2.0T quattro
Originally Posted by Paul@dbtuned
It is?
Huh... I didn't know that.
Then you missed the point of the proposed legislation. The CA Supreme Court has held that the current constitution DOES guarantee that right, and thats why an amendment has to be passed to UNDO that right.
Old Oct 24, 2008 | 07:43 PM
  #188  
mcowger's Avatar
Registered User
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,737
From: Seattle
Car Info: 2009 A3 2.0T quattro
Originally Posted by Paul@dbtuned
I agree.

But where is the line drawn?

Why not allow polygamy?
Maybe inter-spiecial marriage?
What about brother-sister or brother- brother marriage?
When there is a significant part of the population that believes they need to do that, we have restrict it then if we need to as a society. For now, 2 men or 2 women married do not injure anyone, and we should not restrict the rights they are already entitled to.
Old Oct 24, 2008 | 07:47 PM
  #189  
FW Motorsports's Avatar
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Originally Posted by mcowger
When there is a significant part of the population that believes they need to do that, we have restrict it then if we need to as a society. For now, 2 men or 2 women married do not injure anyone, and we should not restrict the rights they are already entitled to.
In 2000, didn't ~61% of the people of the once great state of California voted to restrict marriage to one man and one woman?
Old Oct 24, 2008 | 07:48 PM
  #190  
kYLEMtnCRUZr's Avatar
Registered User
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,892
From: Hangin in Placerville youtube.com/rallydude1515
Car Info: 1999 RS Coupé- 1995 Mazda Miata -KTM 300
yeah, i want 4 wives and a sheep on the side. why should i have to wait for my prop 8 in 2012?
Old Oct 24, 2008 | 08:09 PM
  #191  
Pactin's Avatar
Registered User
iTrader: (12)
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,099
From: Bay Area
Car Info: RWD Camry
Originally Posted by Paul@dbtuned
I agree.

But where is the line drawn?

Why not allow polygamy?
Maybe inter-spiecial marriage?
What about brother-sister or brother- brother marriage?
lol, we covered this argument in a HS debate. Where do you draw the line?
But honestly if the majority want a law into effect, it'll happen.
Old Oct 24, 2008 | 08:11 PM
  #192  
kYLEMtnCRUZr's Avatar
Registered User
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,892
From: Hangin in Placerville youtube.com/rallydude1515
Car Info: 1999 RS Coupé- 1995 Mazda Miata -KTM 300
sorry lambchop

Name:  blacksheep2.jpg
Views: 16
Size:  23.0 KB
Old Oct 24, 2008 | 08:24 PM
  #193  
Hollandaze's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,245
From: San Leandro, CA
Car Info: 14 Mazda3 sGT, SOLD 12/26: 00 2.5RS Sedan
No, because I don't give a crap what gays do about marriage.
Old Oct 24, 2008 | 08:25 PM
  #194  
mcowger's Avatar
Registered User
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,737
From: Seattle
Car Info: 2009 A3 2.0T quattro
Originally Posted by Paul@dbtuned
In 2000, didn't ~61% of the people of the once great state of California voted to restrict marriage to one man and one woman?
And wasn't that found UNCONSTITUTIONAL in a landmark decision? Hence, the right remains until a constitutional amendment such as Prop 8 is passed to remove that right that already exists.

Cut it anyway you want. As of this moment, it is a right, and Prop 8 takes it away. You asked for a logical argument, and there it is.

Either way, I'm confident the general population of CA are better people than you and we'll end up with a no on 8.
Old Oct 24, 2008 | 08:38 PM
  #195  
Calsoldier's Avatar
Registered User
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 774
From: San Francisco, CA
Car Info: 1988 Carrera & 2013 Carrera S
Originally Posted by Shayhan27
Ok lets talk about a little right and wrong here. Is it wrong to be black? Hell NO. Is it wrong to put parts of your anatomy into stinky places that it does not belong? HELL YES....Homosexuality has been around for a long time, and it has until the last 10-15 years been kept scret and viewed upn by almost all to be WRONG. Because Most people are born knowing that bumping clams while fun to wach is just as wrong as sodomy. Its just anotomically and idealogically wrong. if it was ok to be gay we would all be hermaphrodites. Who knows if your into darwinism maybe if things keep going the way they are we will all evolve into hermaphrodies. OK OK I hope you all understand I am trying to make light of the situation and I did not mean to offend anyone and am just presenting a view on a topic.
Darwinism will have you gone in no time too if you really believe what you write.



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:45 PM.


Top

© 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands



When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.