Prop H-8

I think its incredibly biased and arrogant of those supporting prop 8 to first say the movement towards homosexuality acceptance in the main stream social order is a bad idea or that its detrimental to children or anything like that. For those of you supporting such accusations, your just hiding your petty prejudices behind hollow excuses. It goes back to the point that this law still encroaches on CIVIL RIGHTS. It doesn't matter what your opinion on the subject is personally. Your preference is not in the slightest whats being asked, its the fact that the right to pursue each individuals personal happiness is being trampled on by laws produced by narrow minded conservative morons to restrict what will be accepted to what they are willing to accept. It's intolerable. It's infuriating.We today frown upon racism, of all kinds. Its crude, inappropriate and by standards of law not tolerated, but prejudice is fine? wheres the logic in a system that will prosecute racist actions against individuals (hate crimes) but will-fully denies others of an opposite sexual preference than the norm their rights to be happy and on equal standing with their hetero counterparts? Its another example of how much bull american society pumps into its mainstream beliefs.Keep thinking your moralistic, keep thinking your right....you always are right? couldn't possibly be wrong? not ever? I guess thats why we dont have slaves anymore huh? and why we lifted the prohibition right? I guess we werent rethinking our steps when we let go of the segregation laws we were just changing our minds about what to say is right instead of being wrong and correcting ourselves, is that it?

[edit on 6-11-2008 by Averysmallfoxx]

Your preference is not in the slightest whats being asked, its the fact that the right to pursue each individuals personal happiness is being trampled on by laws produced by narrow minded conservative morons to restrict what will be accepted to what they are willing to accept.

Hmmm. So 52.5%, as it stands now, of the voters in one of the most liberal states of the United States are "narrow-minded conservative morons"? I personally feel that this issue crossed ideological lines and was supported by both sides, as the numbers seem to reflect. Name calling doesn't change the fact of the numbers.

I am still at a loss to understand why anyone feels they have a right to tell any other citizen how to conduct their sexual life.

America is the home of freedom and liberty, we cannot single out a certain group and tell them they are not eligible for our freedoms unless they conduct themselves as we think they should.

I am not gay, but I am also not foolish enough to think that my opinion will change someones sexual orientation.

If two commited adults work hard through their lives and gain wealth,
is it right that they should have no right to that if one dies?

We are the land of freedom of choice, we cannot then say....
all but you!

Separation of church and state.

Being married affords couples legal rights - so preventing couples who want to be married from enjoying those same legal rights, is discrimination. Marriage, in that context, is not a religious or moral issue - it is a legal issue.

Preventing marriage for tax paying American citizens IS discrimination.

I think one good idea that while intially sounds drastic makes more sense in the severing of church of state.....First we change the policy granting "married" tax status to religiously married couples and instead extend it to civil unions who indeed have children they claim as dependents. The trick to this is that now all couples seeking to get married would indeed now seek a license for a civil union instead of a religious or ceremonial marriage which in most cases falls under the realm of one religions protocols or another and entirely NOT under any Federal or Stat laws. This allows all whom raise families to be granted tax status that allows breaks for such things and those who dont cannot receive it. Also retroactively those marriages in effect before the change of protocol would be granted a "civil union" license which would negate the notion that any marriages straight or what have you suffer from the change. The only major change would probably be that married couples who do not have a child/s would not receive the tax break for having one which isnt entirely a wrong move now is it? Basically the only thing that would change is the name of the license you have to pursue to become a "married" couple in the eyes of the state/federal government. THEN if you do wish to pursue a religiously appeasing marriage you could seek one out for your own preference and it would not interfere in any way with the governments view of things. THIS to me seems like the way it should have been done from the start if there is to be a division between church and state.

[edit on 10-11-2008 by Averysmallfoxx]