Prop 8 Showdown

[EriktheRed]

I could careless what happens in Cailfornia this is a state issue. But what bugs the shit out of me is when the activist from Cailifornia will push this issue on my state.

Kinda like when activists when Utah were pushing thier values on California, eh?

When civil unions was on the ballot in Washington State, we had a group from Colorado paying for ads...

Against them, I'm guessing, right?

 

[Luissa]

Kinda like when activists when Utah were pushing thier values on California, eh?

When civil unions was on the ballot in Washington State, we had a group from Colorado paying for ads...

Against them, I'm guessing, right?

Yep, and they were quite disturbing ads.. One talked about how if we allow civil unions for homosexuals, somehow the teachers are going to start teaching our grade school children about homosexuality. I swear I am not making it up.

 

[goldcatt]

You are not dealing with an ordinary idiot here, I'm Organized, Amalgamated Association of Morons, Local 6 7/8.

I graduated Magna Cum Lousy, 3rd in a class of 2.

Top that!!

I can't.

I was also in a fraternity at College, Eta bita Pi.

Here's a brain twister.

Take four 9's; 9-9-9-9, and put them in a mathematical equation to equal 100. There are 2 answers.

You want me to do math?

 

[Sheldon]

9/9 + 99 =100

Wow, that was good and fast, but there is still another solution.

(9 x 9) + 9 + 9

(81) + 18

99

99 =? 100 That's all I got. My math teacher hated me for a reason.

 

[ConHog]

9/9 + 99 =100

Wow, that was good and fast, but there is still another solution.

(9 x 9) + 9 + 9

(81) + 18

99

99 =? 100 That's all I got. My math teacher hated me for a reason.

I'm befuddled as to the second solution.

 

[lawbuff]

99/.99=100

 

[lawbuff]

You want me to do math?

If a person stole 23 cans of pop, could the police make a case out of it??

 

[ConHog]

99/.99=100

I came up with the first solutions fast though

 

[lawbuff]

99/.99=100

I came up with the first solutions fast though

Yes, you did, like Zeus' lightning bolt.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hopefully Prop 8 will be struck down. Then the US can join other civilized nations in allowing marriage between same sex couples.

You have some sort of problem with democracy?

Proposition 8 was voted on by the citizens of California, and you think one man can tell them all that they don't have a right to a vote because you disagree with the result. Would you be as comfortable with it if a vote had been held and SSM approved and someone took it to court to overturn it?

We aren't a pure democracy.

The general public is not meant to vote on the rights of others.

That is a very good point.

I am not going to argue it, but I am not 100% sure you are entirely correct either. Defining marriage as one man one woman may not actually infringe on another person's rights, especially if they have the ability to avail themselves of the same rights.

 

[goldcatt]

You want me to do math?

If a person stole 23 cans of pop, could the police make a case out of it??

Of course. They probably already confiscated the other one.

 

[ConHog]

You have some sort of problem with democracy?

Proposition 8 was voted on by the citizens of California, and you think one man can tell them all that they don't have a right to a vote because you disagree with the result. Would you be as comfortable with it if a vote had been held and SSM approved and someone took it to court to overturn it?

We aren't a pure democracy.

The general public is not meant to vote on the rights of others.

That is a very good point.

I am not going to argue it, but I am not 100% sure you are entirely correct either. Defining marriage as one man one woman may not actually infringe on another person's rights, especially if they have the ability to avail themselves of the same rights.

Why not argue about it? Ravi is, as usual, wrong.

Referendum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is the EXACT procedure called for in the CON to determine constitutional amendments.

Absolutely hilarious that Ravi would attempt to explain our governmental procedures when she herself doesn't understand them.

 

[Ravi]

You have some sort of problem with democracy?

Proposition 8 was voted on by the citizens of California, and you think one man can tell them all that they don't have a right to a vote because you disagree with the result. Would you be as comfortable with it if a vote had been held and SSM approved and someone took it to court to overturn it?

We aren't a pure democracy.

The general public is not meant to vote on the rights of others.

That is a very good point.

I am not going to argue it, but I am not 100% sure you are entirely correct either. Defining marriage as one man one woman may not actually infringe on another person's rights, especially if they have the ability to avail themselves of the same rights.

Sadly I am lacking in intelligence to convince you...but there are some here that are not, maybe they'll chime in.

I'll just say that IMO it is the same as denying two ethnic groups the ability to marry and your argument would be that they aren't denied anything, they are free to marry someone of the same ethnic group just like everyone else is...

 

[Ravi]

We aren't a pure democracy.

The general public is not meant to vote on the rights of others.

That is a very good point.

I am not going to argue it, but I am not 100% sure you are entirely correct either. Defining marriage as one man one woman may not actually infringe on another person's rights, especially if they have the ability to avail themselves of the same rights.

Why not argue about it? Ravi is, as usual, wrong.

Referendum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is the EXACT procedure called for in the CON to determine constitutional amendments.

Absolutely hilarious that Ravi would attempt to explain our governmental procedures when she herself doesn't understand them.

A referendum to decide someone's civil rights is NOT the same thing as a referendum to decide if a road should be paved.

 

[rightwinger]

Hopefully Prop 8 will be struck down. Then the US can join other civilized nations in allowing marriage between same sex couples.

You have some sort of problem with democracy?

Proposition 8 was voted on by the citizens of California, and you think one man can tell them all that they don't have a right to a vote because you disagree with the result. Would you be as comfortable with it if a vote had been held and SSM approved and someone took it to court to overturn it?

We aren't a pure democracy.

The general public is not meant to vote on the rights of others.

As the saying goes....

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We aren't a pure democracy.

The general public is not meant to vote on the rights of others.

That is a very good point.

I am not going to argue it, but I am not 100% sure you are entirely correct either. Defining marriage as one man one woman may not actually infringe on another person's rights, especially if they have the ability to avail themselves of the same rights.

Sadly I am lacking in intelligence to convince you...but there are some here that are not, maybe they'll chime in.

I'll just say that IMO it is the same as denying two ethnic groups the ability to marry and your argument would be that they aren't denied anything, they are free to marry someone of the same ethnic group just like everyone else is...

Don't give up so easily. I actually support SSM, I just don't think the court has the right to overturn a valid election just because I don't like the results. My biggest problem with your argument is that I want to accept it so much that I am having a hard time finding the legal faults in it. On the other hand, if we start letting courts throw out the results of valid elections, where will it stop? That thought scares me more than screwing homosexuals out of the right to marry.

 

[Ravi]

You have some sort of problem with democracy?

Proposition 8 was voted on by the citizens of California, and you think one man can tell them all that they don't have a right to a vote because you disagree with the result. Would you be as comfortable with it if a vote had been held and SSM approved and someone took it to court to overturn it?

We aren't a pure democracy.

The general public is not meant to vote on the rights of others.

As the saying goes....

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper

Never heard that one but I like it.

 

[Ravi]

That is a very good point.

I am not going to argue it, but I am not 100% sure you are entirely correct either. Defining marriage as one man one woman may not actually infringe on another person's rights, especially if they have the ability to avail themselves of the same rights.

Sadly I am lacking in intelligence to convince you...but there are some here that are not, maybe they'll chime in.

I'll just say that IMO it is the same as denying two ethnic groups the ability to marry and your argument would be that they aren't denied anything, they are free to marry someone of the same ethnic group just like everyone else is...

Don't give up so easily. I actually support SSM, I just don't think the court has the right to overturn a valid election just because I don't like the results. My biggest problem with your argument is that I want to accept it so much that I am having a hard time finding the legal faults in it. On the other hand, if we start letting courts throw out the results of valid elections, where will it stop? That thought scares me more than screwing homosexuals out of the right to marry.

You cannot vote on someone else's rights, imo. Therefore the vote was not valid.

It would be no different than saying a city can vote to ban guns in their borders.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why not argue about it? Ravi is, as usual, wrong.

Referendum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is the EXACT procedure called for in the CON to determine constitutional amendments.

Absolutely hilarious that Ravi would attempt to explain our governmental procedures when she herself doesn't understand them.

Actually, we cannot have a referendum and amend the US Constitution. If we could there would be a lot more than 27 amendments.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sadly I am lacking in intelligence to convince you...but there are some here that are not, maybe they'll chime in.

I'll just say that IMO it is the same as denying two ethnic groups the ability to marry and your argument would be that they aren't denied anything, they are free to marry someone of the same ethnic group just like everyone else is...

Don't give up so easily. I actually support SSM, I just don't think the court has the right to overturn a valid election just because I don't like the results. My biggest problem with your argument is that I want to accept it so much that I am having a hard time finding the legal faults in it. On the other hand, if we start letting courts throw out the results of valid elections, where will it stop? That thought scares me more than screwing homosexuals out of the right to marry.

You cannot vote on someone else's rights, imo. Therefore the vote was not valid.

It would be no different than saying a city can vote to ban guns in their borders.

Like I said, I really want to agree with you. I just need to think about it before I come down full force and argue for over turning an election.