It wasn't the point in California, and it isn't the point in California.

In California, with our without prop 8, gay couples can adopt, live together, love each other, and have all the rights and responsibilities that married people have if they so choose.

The question raised to California voters was basically "Do you want the state to recognize, and thereby have your children be taught in our public schools, that marriage is to be defined as only between a man and a woman?"

It has nothing to do with the rights given to same sex couples (they already have all the rights and privileges and responsibilities that marriages have), nor does it have anything to do with defining love or commitment, or daily family structure.

You would think that California did not have domestic partnerships giving equal treatment under the law, based on the protests and video clips such as these.

Simple thing, the law only allows whatever rights have been given. Any changes to marriage do not affect domestic partnerships, the only way that they could be close to equal is if the law simply stated "A domestic partnership is a marriage that is not between a man and a woman".

Also the whole "do you want your children" bull is a pathetic excuse. If you don't agree with your children being taught that there are all sorts of people in the world and that diversity is a good thing then send them to a school that does.

Really, people that use excuses to the effect that teaching people that homosexuality is not abhorent need to get their head out of their behinds and then crawl out from under their comfy rock.

Let's run with this. Let's ignore that there are real people to whom this matters. Let's ignore that the clip even acknowledged that the rights are protected. Let's pretend that the only people in the whole world affected by this change are the children of religious parents being raised in a multicultural, pluralistic world, and let's also assume that the curriculum is going to be modified in such a way that Ms. Frizzle is going to take the Magic School Bus on a ride to a gay wedding ceremony, rather than continuing to discuss marriage in terms that...well, frankly, still apply to gay or straight marriages, 'cause this ain't health class.

These children are going to grow up to be teenagers, regardless of what you want. In so doing, they're going to undergo puberty. They're going to undergo puberty in the context of American media, their friends, and their friends' families. They're going to be exposed to homosexuality, just like the kids who didn't have the threat of gay marriage being uttered by their teachers did. And you know what? They're still going to make these decisions for themselves, influenced by their parents, their friends, and their friends' families. Most of them are going to decide, "Hey, Allison's hawt," assuming that they're guys, or, "Isn't Ben just dreamy?" if they're girls. Some will not. What difference does it make in having them hear and see this stuff for the first time in the controlled classroom setting or the uncontrolled, sexually-charged cultural setting? People might be more inclined to talk about homosexuality like it's not a dirty taboo? Oh, how horrible. People might be less inclined towards prejudice against gays? Nope, can't have that.

We both know that's not what this is about. It's "My religion says this is bad, and I want the secular law to reflect my religion's guidelines for moral living." You should come right out and say that so we can at least have an honest discussion about this. Not that it matters. You're a bigot either way.

I have an important point to make.






Courtesy of Yrael's lack of pants.

Wow I read through all of this completely agreeing with everything surprised... then I realised it was Xavius not daganev... my surprise went away... I should read poster names more often

Why does everyone raid my photobucket? Fine, I'll dump my pictures folder into it. Check back in twenty minutes.

You confused my writing style with Dag's for more than two sentences!? I'm offended. Take it back. Take it baaaaack!

sowwie, I'll make you an awesome paint piccy to make up for it

There's some things you keep away from your children. Fire, knives, horny uncles. A basic understanding of common, yes common, relationships is not one of them.

Yes and there are bloody good reasons as to why you'd want all children to start learning it's ok.

example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.O._Green_School_shooting
http://www.generationq.net/news/usa/ellen-...res-29028.shtml

Tell me again why you don't support people learning it's ok to be gay, Daganev?

Wasn't Moiraine agreeing with you?

I was agreeing with Moiraine

i'll redirect though

Hey, pot. Kettle said you're black. I think you should jump him.

Well, if kettle is calling me black, I'd have to agree that, comparatively, I am a bit on the black side. It's awesome to have that sort of grasp on reality, no?

Okay. I just have to ask this, Daganev.

What do you think actually happens if a child is dumped off at a church by some well-intentioned but unfortunate woman? (Referring to your previous post.)

Do you think that the child is simply taken inside and raised?
Or perhaps handed off to a childless parishioner?

There once was a law in America that declared that slaves were worth a partial vote, the main effect of which was twofold. One, slave owners, the majority of voters, liked the idea that the more slaves they owned the more of a vote they had, so the law was not defeated. Two, it pushed the country just that much closer to thinking of slaves as human beings.

Perception, conscious or otherwise, is a powerful tool. California's proposition has everything to do with the rights of American citizens who are gay. Not directly, not by a long shot, but the effects of such things are pretty clear with a little bit of hindsight.

Nothing is ever written in stone, of course. If it were, we wouldn't be debating. However, the implication is there. Americans have all the rights they might want to pursue their own beliefs and pursue happiness. Except for gays.

???

Do you think we need to have classes and laws that tells people that being into S&M is ok? Perhaps we should classes explaining the virtues of the foot fetish, and panty lovers to children as well?

People will grow up and learn about these things, and they will make their own choices. But you really don't need to be confusing children at an early age.

Say you have Sam and Billy, who are two best friends in Kindergarten. They learn that marriage is best way to really show who your best friend is. They grow up together, always telling everyone they are going to get married and how great that is, and everyone is really supportive. Then they hit puberity, and they realise that they really like girls, but they grew up feeling committed to eachother, and they arn't sure what to do. They still like eachother as bestest friends in the whole world, but they also feel this urge to be with other people.

why would you want to set them up for that? A majority of the population is going to be confused by this sort of setup, because as young kids, they are going to think its gross and silly to like people of the opposite sex.

I imagine they get sent to the church orphanage/foster home.

So it's okay for gay people to have a chance at being socially kicked in the head by being taught rigid social rules that they won't fit into, only to discover this on their own at a relatively late age and thus be under the impression that they are wrong, sick, dirty or otherwise untouchable outcasts for being honest with themselves? Just not straight people, huh?

Sorry, that's ridiculous. No one here is urging that schools start telling little boys and little girls to marry each other. The scenario you describe would, in a world where gay or straight isn't something that gets everyone's panties in a twist, go something more like..

Boys/Girls/Boy&Girl say, "We're gonna get married when we grow up!"
Adult, "Haha. Okay. Hey, who wants lunch?"

..and then everyone continues their day, without any efforts(deliberate or otherwise) to set their children up for a fall either way.
Sounds to me like a decent way to go.

Edit: By the way, from the purely practical viewpoint, this proposition in California is a perfect example of the stupid BS that teachers get to deal with all the loving time. At least I can go to work and not worry about acknowledging a gay couple in any way, for fear of losing my career.

Because every church ever has one of those.