3 ms·

Instead of bloviating you could always look up what the arguments in favor were: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)#Proponents http://

Instead of bloviating you could always look up what the arguments in favor were: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)#Proponents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)... And for any proposed law change, there's always some annoying folks who agree with the overall spirit of the change, but oppose because they disagree with some specific details. Like, maybe the new law doesn't go far enough, or doesn't have the right wording. Or maybe they just object to the process by which it was created or campaigned for.

Karunamon 13y ago
From your link: heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society", that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay", and that gays "do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else." Apparently the prop 8 argument is basically a massive appeal to tradition fallacy?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
aaronbrethorst 13y ago
OK, will do: Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society" Totally baseless assertion. So was the right to vote only belonging to white male landowners at the end of the 18th century. [T]hat leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay" In my 13 years of public schooling I don't remember any of my teachers ever discussing marriage. [And] that gays "do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else." If you don't like gay marriage, you don't have to get gay married. You're more than welcome to get married to a member of the opposite sex, like I—ostensibly—will do at some point.
bashinator 13y ago
Let's do look at those arguments you referenced. > Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society." This is not an argument, it's a statement of opinion. I'd be interested in seeing what facts back it. > that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay" This is making the presumption that gay marriage is not okay, which again, is an opinion without any backing facts. > and that gays "do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else." This is a non-sequitur - gays are not trying to redefine marriage for everyone else. Nothing pertaining to hetero marriage would be changed in the slightest by allowing gays to participate in the institution.

Karunamon 13y ago

From your link: heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society", that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay", and that gays "do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else." Apparently the prop 8 argument is basically a massive appeal to tradition fallacy?

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

aaronbrethorst 13y ago

OK, will do: Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society" Totally baseless assertion. So was the right to vote only belonging to white male landowners at the end of the 18th century. [T]hat leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay" In my 13 years of public schooling I don't remember any of my teachers ever discussing marriage. [And] that gays "do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else." If you don't like gay marriage, you don't have to get gay married. You're more than welcome to get married to a member of the opposite sex, like I—ostensibly—will do at some point.

bashinator 13y ago

Let's do look at those arguments you referenced. > Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society." This is not an argument, it's a statement of opinion. I'd be interested in seeing what facts back it. > that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay" This is making the presumption that gay marriage is not okay, which again, is an opinion without any backing facts. > and that gays "do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else." This is a non-sequitur - gays are not trying to redefine marriage for everyone else. Nothing pertaining to hetero marriage would be changed in the slightest by allowing gays to participate in the institution.