What was the harm in passing California's Proposition 8?
Proposition 8 is a California State ballot proposition that overturns a recent California Supreme Court decision that had recognized same-sex marriage in California as a fundamental right.
|
The harm is that same sex couples lost rights and protection that was granted to them. The harm is that these people have been identified as inferior just because of their sexual orientation. The harm is that religion was allowed to dictate policy and steal rights. The harm is that at least this part of America renounced freedom and equality, the prided foundations of America. Side: Loss of equality
1
point
Same sex couples should just bypass the religious right and be done with it. Marriage should not be a legal institution, It should be a religious institution. That would allow for further separation of church and state. Also, since anyone can start a religion, same sex couples could start their own religion and perform marriage ceremonies. Civil Unions would then become the legal institution (which could be granted to same sex couples) and then they would have everything they're asking for. Side: Loss of equality
2
points
1
point
This proposition harms same sex couples that got married after the California Supreme Court decision (that had recognized same-sex marriage in California as a fundamental right) because now they can no longer get a divorce. It also harms divorce lawyers who created the illusion of marriage in order to support the reality of divorce ;) Side: what a mess
1
point
Well, I don't think there was that much harm. You know, other then the fact that it said homosexuals couldn't have the same rights as straight people. But hey, that's reasonable right? I mean first they want to marry each other, then what? They want to be protected from discrimination in the workplace? They want to teach our kids? I mean where does it end? How dare these people demand equal rights? That's so unAmerican that need to go eat an apple pie just to get the thought out of my head! Side: what a mess
2
points
Soc, although we disagree here and there, this is one I'll fight and disagree with on every principle I hold dear. "Well, I don't think there was that much harm. You know, other then the fact that it said homosexuals couldn't have the same rights as straight people. But hey, that's reasonable right? I mean first they want to marry each other, then what? They want to be protected from discrimination in the workplace? They want to teach our kids? I mean where does it end? How dare these people demand equal rights? That's so unAmerican that need to go eat an apple pie just to get the thought out of my head!" What is so reasonable about homosexuals having less rights than anyone else? What is so unreasonable about the fact that gay people would like to marry and enjoy the same protections and rights under the same laws which protect you? What is so unreasonable about not wishing to be discriminated against in the workplace? What is so unreasonable about a gay person being a teacher? Where does it end? It ends when the laws change to protect, give respect to and otherwise accept that we are a fairly large group of individuals who have been discriminated against for many years. It ends when the law says, ENOUGH! ALL people are equal under the law. It ends when the last person on this side of the fence can use the law to protect and shield themselves from unwarranted attacks, unfair employment practices, and when people like you STOP denying them their absolute to be who they are and not have to apologize for it. What you've stated in your post IS the most UN-American things I've ever seen. You must hate us terribly to say these things and mean them. Side: No protections No human rights
1
point
I'm sorry I thought the sarcasm was obvious enough. I completely agree with you. I guess it does say something about society when statements like that can be taken seriously. (but really, the apple pie thing didn't tip you off? haven't you seen my other arguments on the subject?) Side: Sarcasm
1
point
Here's a drive by rebuttal. Side: Sarcasm
0
points
3
points
Separate but equal will always be unequal. By saying that people can't get married you are saying that homosexual love is somehow less then heterosexual love. This is by definition discriminatory. The same arguments were used to maintain segregation during the first half of the 20th century. Side: Sarcasm
|
