Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: iamzack on May 27, 2009, 09:49:21 am
-
Prop 8 Upheld (http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090526/us_time/08599190100600)
Most important quote in the article, IMHO:
"The initiative process in California is flawed," Jacobs tells TIME. "The very idea that a majority can vote to take rights away from a minority is flawed. It really is quite outrageous."
That view got one vote on the court - that of lone dissenter Justice Carlos J. Moreno. "The rule the majority crafts today not only allows same-sex couples to be stripped of the right to marry that this court recognized [in last year's opinion], it places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities," Moreno wrote. "It weakens the status of our state Constitution as a bulwark of fundamental rights for minorities protected from the will of the majority."
-
That's sad, but then, this is the home state of some real fruit-loop politicians.
-
Don't look at me, all I did was vote for Prop. 8. :nervous:
So aside from that little matter, I am of the opinion the Supreme Court made the right decision, regardless of my personal opinion on same-sex marriage. The California Supreme Court decided based on the law that the challengers didn't have a valid argument. The challengers stated that Prop. 8 was a constitutional revision, and needed to be brought to the initiative process by the Legislature to be valid. The Supreme Court disagreed, and said it was a perfectly legal amendment. In case you're wondering what the difference between a revision and an amendment is, a revision is a broad re-write of the state Constitution, whereas an amendment is a limited change. And the court ruled that it was not a broad change, but instead well within the scope of an amendment.
-
Why do you hate gay people and freedom, Sparda?
-
As a non-american, I'm with Scalzi on this (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2009/05/26/reminder-california-is-a-state-in-which-same-sex-marriages-are-legal/).
In the meantime, I will revel in the fact that every time one of the people in those 18,000 real live actual legally recognized in the State of California same-sex married couples does something associated with the state recognizing the legal status of their marriage, they will be taking one of their fingers — the one with the wedding band on it — and poking it directly into the eye of bigotry. You tried to kill my marriage, but it and I am still here, I hear them saying to the Prop 8 supporters. You tried to kill my marriage. You failed.
-
Don't look at me, all I did was vote for Prop. 8. :nervous:
So aside from that little matter, I am of the opinion the Supreme Court made the right decision, regardless of my personal opinion on same-sex marriage. The California Supreme Court decided based on the law that the challengers didn't have a valid argument...
What law?
Here are some laws.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I don't really remember where those laws came from, but they feel familiar somehow. Maybe someone can help me.
-
I watched this as MSNBC was broadcasting it...I sunk a little bit. :(
EDIT: Also to quote something that was as relevant then as it is now:
Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.
Some parameters, as preface. This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8. And I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.
And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics. This is about the human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.
If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want—a chance to be a little less alone in the world.
Only now you are saying to them—no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights—even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?
I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage. If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal in 1967. 1967.
The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.
You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are gay.
And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing, centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children, all because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage.
How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?
What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough.
It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.
And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?
With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness—this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness—share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate.
You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know. It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow person just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.
This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.
But what he said, fits what is really at the heart of this:
"I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam," he told the judge. It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all: So I be written in the Book of Love; I do not care about that Book above. Erase my name, or write it as you will, So I be written in the Book of Love."
-
I'm a Quaker. Quakers don't mind marrying gay people.
MY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ARE BEING VIOLATED.
So suck it, Christians.
-
I'm not sure why religion should play any part in this. Its a secular state law issue, not a religious one. The State recognizes same sex marriage, not the church. The National Guard isn't goose stepping down to the local church and holding M-16s to the preachers' heads forcing them to marry people. If the Church isn't forced into recognizing the marriage then that should be good enough for them.
-
This does set some disturbing precedents. Let's say the KKK want's to put a ban on interracial marriage on the ballot (was illegal at one time). If it passes it would have to be upheld for the same reason. Basically any group with a 51% majority can now step on the rights of any smaller group by just placing something on the ballot.
-
I'm not sure why religion should play any part in this. Its a secular state law issue, not a religious one. The State recognizes same sex marriage, not the church. The National Guard isn't goose stepping down to the local church and holding M-16s to the preachers' heads forcing them to marry people. If the Church isn't forced into recognizing the marriage then that should be good enough for them.
Because the *only* arguments against gay marriage are religious ones. Pointing to ONE religion which accepts gay marriage kills the argument.
American Democracy != two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
-
Just because people might cite their religion as the reason for their opposition to gay marriage doesn't mean we can really attribute the phenomenon to religion. Populations take time to adjust to paradigmatic shifts in their cultures; the web of interdependent factors that lead up to any given controversy could fill volumes. And guess what? Whatever people have gotten used to, that's what their religion is going to be okay with.
I'm soundly convinced that within our lifetimes we're going to see gay marriage legalized in most, if not all, of the country. I have Evangelical Christian friends who are strong supporters of gay marriage. At this point, it's more a question of age than anything else; younger voters are more and more comfortable with homosexuality, and the change in attitude is going to start having real effects. I think the situation in California, in a larger context, is really not that big a deal.
-
That doesn't change the fact that there's no argument against gay marriage besides religion.
-
That doesn't change the fact that there's no argument against gay marriage besides religion.
And biology/evolution...
-
Biology/evolution do not preclude natural homosexuality, seeing as we're not even close to the only mammalian species to have homosexuals among our numbers.
-
That doesn't change the fact that there's no argument against gay marriage besides religion.
Maybe, but if we really want to effect change, I think the knowledge that debates like this are, at their centers, always more generally cultural than religious is advantageous, because it gives us the perspective to focus on normalizing homosexuality, rather than validating people's religious arguments by becoming embroiled in silly hermeneutical debates that just skim the surface of the issue.
-
It's really a nonissue, though. If they can't come up with a reason that isn't religion, they lose automatically.
It actually kinda simplifies things.
"Because God said so" renders your argument automatically invalid.
-
It's really a nonissue, though. If they can't come up with a reason that isn't religion, they lose automatically.
It actually kinda simplifies things.
"Because God said so" renders your argument automatically invalid.
At some point I delivered a speech to my fellow classmates on the subject. I acknowledged that religion plays a strong part in someone's beliefs and values, which is why separation of church and state is difficult at best. However, you cannot prohibit an action based purely on tradition and/or religion. You need a pragmatic reason. If it has a good reason to be done and happens to coincide with religion, fine. Otherwise, GTFO.
Also, the Bible doesn't just prohibit same-sex marriage:
Leviticus 20:13
And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Nice double-standard, people. Unless you're ready to start killing homosexuals, don't for a moment consider religion to be a valid argument. It just embarrasses yourself.
Over the past years I've had about enough of holier-than-thou zealots thinking they can step on the toes of other people. Not all religious people are like this, thankfully, but enough are for it to be a serious problem.
-
Actually the Christians are going to claim that law only applies to the Jews.
-
That doesn't change the fact that there's no argument against gay marriage besides religion.
And biology/evolution...
lol don't even try that. it's been done before and fails.
-
Most Christians don't know much about the bible. Those that do know nothing about the bible in its historical context.
-
I don't really remember where those laws came from, but they feel familiar somehow. Maybe someone can help me.
Don't you get it? We only have to abide by the Constitution when we feel like it!!!
Are committed homophobes intent on proving they're nothing but overgrown, paranoid manchildren? Do these people actually think before they vote or legislate, or do they just go with "what feels right?"
-
"A Storm is Gathering" Commercial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bDjkKnO_cM)
There's another commercial linked on that page, but I only got about 3/4 of the way through.
They both make me physically ill. :\
-
Good decision California. :yes:
-
I'm not quite sure what disturbs me more: the fact that that was upheld, or that everyone is attacking religion over it.
-
I put my vote firmly in the latter of those two choices.
-
It's religion's fault, so it's not undeserved.
-
I'm not quite sure what disturbs me more: the fact that that was upheld, or that everyone is attacking religion over it.
It's not so much that educated and eloquent opponents of prop 8 are attacking religion so much as they're attacking the voters and supporters of prop. 8, whose two main arguments for Prop. 8 are homophobia and the "sanctity of marriage" (Leviticus) - there is no otherwise rational or logical argument, no matter how unsavory or perverse, that is cited by prop. 8 supporters. It's not about economics. It's not about families. It's about homophobia and forced recognition of a single school of religious belief. Iamspecial's remarks in particular re: religion echo a sentiment of people unfamiliar or unable to understand the intricacies of faith, yet keen to observe social injustice when they see it. In short, the actions of prop. 8 supporters tying "sanctity and all that is good and holy" to the campaign haven't really helped out the image "religion" as a whole. At all.
I suspect the main reason why the State Supreme Court upheld it is because they were too afraid of coming off as "activist judiciaries" with the precedent of self created power it'd set in the State Supreme Court if the they started striking down majority plebiscites. Except woops, they also forgot to do their job - protecting the rights of citizens.
-
Few things. One, I voted for Prop. 8. Two, I am an agnostic, so saying I voted for it because of my religious beliefs is DEAD FRAKKING WRONG. Three, I believe marriage (this is the operative term here) should be between a man and a woman. I am all in favor of civic unions with equal rights, just so long as marriage is between a man and a woman.
-
I have no real issue with the subject. I may not like it, but who cares. I'm one person. What I dislike about this is how
everyone is attacking religion over it.
Honestly, people can cite religious sources all they want about just about whatever the hell they want to argue about. That does not make it religion's fault. That's my major issue with this.
I'll gladly stop talking if I get too annoying.
-
The problem is that the word "marriage" has inherent religious connotations. Therefore, religious people go crazy over this because same-sex marriage is a contradiction in terms (if you base the definition of "marriage off of the bible) and they assume that the term "marriage" is meant in a religious sense rather than a legal sense.
-
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
Do away with marriages and call all of them civil unions. You want to get married go to the church. You want the state to recognize it get a civil union or partnership. Solves the whole issue.
-
Few things. One, I voted for Prop. 8. Two, I am an agnostic, so saying I voted for it because of my religious beliefs is DEAD FRAKKING WRONG. Three, I believe marriage (this is the operative term here) should be between a man and a woman. I am all in favor of civic unions with equal rights, just so long as marriage is between a man and a woman.
You're denying me my religious freedoms. Asshole.
-
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
Do away with marriages and call all of them civil unions. You want to get married go to the church. You want the state to recognize it get a civil union or partnership. Solves the whole issue.
Indeed. This would seem especially timely now that more and more couples in the US are choosing to live together and start families without actually getting married.
-
One, I voted for Prop. 8. Three, I believe marriage (this is the operative term here) should be between a man and a woman. I am all in favor of civic unions with equal rights, just so long as marriage is between a man and a woman.
Why? Give one good, logical, rational reason why two bros getting "married" actually negatively impacts you. If you can do that, without your reason being "because it sounds funny for guys to get married together lol" then I'll let you go. Otherwise you're nothing but a bigot and a homophobe of the worst sort.
The problem is that the word "marriage" has inherent religious connotations. Therefore, religious people go crazy over this because same-sex marriage is a contradiction in terms (if you base the definition of "marriage off of the bible) and they assume that the term "marriage" is meant in a religious sense rather than a legal sense.
No it doesn't. That's an insult to the idea of marriage. Marriage was around thousands of ****ing years before Christianity. The Ancient Romans had been marrying each other since 500 BC, and their married lives were just as ****ed up as ours, without including God in their vows. Before them it was the Etruscans. And then the Egyptians. How in God's name does marriage contain anything more than the implication that "these two people are bound to each other willingly?" How? How can religion take something, an idea that's existed for millenia across the world, and all the sudden throw a flag pole in it and claim it as its own?
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
Do away with marriages and call all of them civil unions. You want to get married go to the church. You want the state to recognize it get a civil union or partnership. Solves the whole issue.
No. Because the Catholic / Baptist / Presbyterian / Lutheran / 4-Square / Latter Day Saints / Non-denominational Christian Church and Jewish synagogues do not own the word or idea of marriage, and in a country governed in part by the Bill of Rights as we have them, they never should. That doesn't solve anything except creating neo-segregation over something as fundamentally retarded as a goddamn word. A word that shouldn't be an issue anyway.
-
Y'all don't understand fully the legal benefits of being married. Next of kin status, hospital and prison visitation rights, filing taxes together, adopting kids (in some states, you must be married), etc.
-
Marriage was around thousands of ****ing years before Christianity.
OMG!!! And Christianity is the very definition of religion!! :doubt: religion != Christianity
It carries a religious connotation, not a Christian one.
-
Marriage was around thousands of ****ing years before Christianity.
OMG!!! And Christianity is the very definition of religion!! :doubt: religion != Christianity
It carries a religious connotation, not a Christian one.
Hush kid, go play with your action figures in the corner while the adults talk.
-
Who cares if it carries a religious connotation? People act like churches would be FORCED to marry gays. They wouldn't. A church doesn't have to marry anybody it doesn't want to. Duh.
-
It will fail, it barely passed this time around, 58% compared to the previous time.
"A Storm is Gathering" Commercial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bDjkKnO_cM)
There's another commercial linked on that page, but I only got about 3/4 of the way through.
They both make me physically ill. :\
BTW have you seen Colbert's version? ROFLOL
-
KT, was that really necessary? Especially after you flipped out a few posts ago.
-
I'd like to note that not all Christian denominations have the same problems with gay marriage.
The Catholic point of view, for example, is that there's nothing wrong with being gay. It doesn't stem from some proof-texted old Testament verses, but actually stems from the same reason that the Church doesn't like birth control. Having sex is for furthering an emotional bond and to create children. In order for a marriage to be considered valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church, it must be consecrated (if a heterosexual couple never has sex, their marriage can be considered invalid in the vast majority of cases). Because a gay couple cannot consecrate their marriage, they cannot have a Catholic marriage. As you can see, having sex using birth control violates the same ideas regarding sex (can't procreate). So the Catholic Church doesn't hate gays, and doesn't want them to be miserable. . .Like I said earlier in this post, gays are allowed to be in relationships and there really isn't a reason two Catholic gay men couldn't be married in a civil ceremony. But then again how many heterosexual Catholics have never used birth control? Not wanting them to be married in a Mass and not wanting them to be married at all are two VERY separate things.
I know it's very easy to just say "Christians" and lump together every religion that believes in the divinity of Christ, however it's important to recognize differences. Please stop lumping every Christian church together as having the exact same "archaic" beliefs. I'm a fairly liberal Catholic (well, in social matters such as these anyway) and I HATE being lumped together with ultra-conservative Evangelicals. I'm sure I speak for a lot of Christians when I calmly ask that not all of us be lumped together under a very large, pejorative umbrella.
Now. . .as a Catholic myself I really don't give a wooden nickel if gays or lesbians want to get married. It's not a matter of having an opinion one way or the other, it's just the fact that it's not going to affect me. Who gives a **** if the couple down the street is two dudes? Who gives a **** if they sit next to me in the pew on Sunday morning?
-
Watch the flames, KT. Scotty's a good poster.
-
*Scotty seconds Solatar's opinion
Please stop lumping every Christian church together as having the exact same "archaic" beliefs. *snip* I HATE being lumped together with ultra-conservative Evangelicals. I'm sure I speak for a lot of Christians when I calmly ask that not all of us be lumped together under a very large, pejorative umbrella.
-
Prop 8 passed.
It's all very well trying to claim that it is only the extremists and ultra-conservatives who passed it but that's obviously not the case.
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
Do away with marriages and call all of them civil unions. You want to get married go to the church. You want the state to recognize it get a civil union or partnership. Solves the whole issue.
Indeed. This would seem especially timely now that more and more couples in the US are choosing to live together and start families without actually getting married.
Actually, I've got to disagree with this for the same reason KT mentioned. I don't see why religion should be able to lay claim to the words married, marriage, wedding etc.
That said this brings up my only objection to gay marriage. The fact that I don't much like the dilution of linguistic terms. I quite like it if when a man says he's married you can assume his partner is a woman. It makes conversations less vague. :)
But then I get annoyed that the word grandfather in English refers to two different relationships (mother's father vs father's father) while uncle refers to four, two of whom aren't even blood relations! :p
If gay people had picked different words when this started I doubt prop 8 would have passed as easily.
-
Well, my reservations about institutionalized marriage are based more on its being antiquated rather than its religious connotations. Its function for most of civilization's history has been as a means of securing property (which has typically included the woman to one extent or another.) And if the US had more substantial social welfare programs (i.e., child care), perhaps we could create conditions under which there would be no additional benefit to state-sanctioned matrimony.
It's not really a soap-box issue of mine, though. I just like to put the thought out there.
-
There's also a difference between being "against gay marriage" and "against gay marriage in a Church service".
I think a lot of otherwise well meaning people have yet to realize that fact. If the law allows gays to be married, your church of choice isn't obligated to marry anyone. It's just a civil thing, and until people realize that the state allowing gay marriage is JUST a civil law debate, people will continue to be against it. The trick is separating your OWN religious beliefs from laws. Catholics won't let a Catholic and a non-Catholic marry in a Mass, but you don't see any of us running around saying people of different religions shouldn't be allowed to marry. I see no difference.
EDIT:
That said this brings up my only objection to gay marriage. The fact that I don't much like the dilution of linguistic terms. I quite like it if when a man says he's married you can assume his partner is a woman. It makes conversations less vague.
I actually agree with this, but I guess the problem is when you take away the word "marriage" people get upset and claim you want to disenfranchise gays.
. . . or you could go the route of Southpark and change their status to "buttbuddies". Offensive, but humorous.
-
KT, was that really necessary? Especially after you flipped out a few posts ago.
Yeah, yeah, I think it is. And after I flipped out? You mean laid down my argument.
Watch the flames, KT. Scotty's a good poster.
No, sorry, not going repent for anything on this one. While I might normally troll some otherwise trivial or amusing topic then eventually wander off to more productive pastures, I don't take kindly to people ****ting on my Constitution. Likewise, I'm not going to bite for anyone who wants to troll an issue like this. I'm genuinely interested in what "Sparda" has to say because he's quite literally the first person in my entire social sphere of the internet to not claim to be religious yet still claim to have a valid reason to support prop. 8, as well as vote for it. That to me, is interesting.
For your boyscout Scottyboy to come in and try to pick apart my argument because I used "Christian" in one sentence, is annoying. So I let him know it. Of course I know not every Christian in the entire world hates Gays. I was raised Christian. I'd like to think any decent, moral Christian would not only know better, but rise above their ridiculous stereotype in the public political image in this nation. However, what your good poster fails to realize is that two out of the three of the biggest financial investors for the prop. 8 campaign (which I'll remind you has spent the most funds on any single political campaign in any state in the nation's history, save for presidential elections) are CHRISTIAN FAITH based organizations. And whether Solatar wants to own up to it or not, the Catholic Church (along with the Mormons) were the LARGEST religious supporters of the campaign, with half of the $40 Million raised for the campaign coming from them.
Mind you the largest religious organizational opponents of the proposition were Jews.
So please tell me, if I want to make a vague generalization and use the Christian institution as a whole as an example of the biggest proponent of Prop. 8 in lieu of specifically referring to each individual donor, each individual denomination, each individual church, please, tell me how I'd be out of place to do so. I'm not. And I don't see Sikhs or Buddhists or even Muslims coming out in force to "religiously" claim ownership to the word marriage and claim it as being a hetero-only right. So yes, either figure out your facts, or go sit with your GI Joes in the thread about North Korea ending the world. The fact that MULTIPLE CHRISTIAN institutions remain the LARGEST supporters and donors makes them LARGELY responsible, not "all of religion." The "religious" connotation of marriage is a lie, and one that's only picked up on when ultra conservatives feel threatened. Because if you can't take Leviticus literally, then you're **** ****ed to try to take the rest of the Book literally either. But that'll be our little secret for now, and I digress.
Because I'm pointing fingers at the Christian institution does not mean I'm pointing fingers at you, or Solatar, or my parents, or any every other Christian. The responsibility (or blame) falls solely onto those institutions, their parishioners, and those who voted for the proposition.
If me getting irritated at the governing document of this nation being ignored by bigoted assholes and speaking out about is "flipping out," I'll flip out all damn day. Kazan had his foreskin fetish, I have my Constitutional one.
Prop 8 passed.
That said this brings up my only objection to gay marriage. The fact that I don't much like the dilution of linguistic terms. I quite like it if when a man says he's married you can assume his partner is a woman. It makes conversations less vague. :)
But then I get annoyed that the word grandfather in English refers to two different relationships (mother's father vs father's father) while uncle refers to four, two of whom aren't even blood relations! :p
If gay people had picked different words when this started I doubt prop 8 would have passed as easily.
Yeah... if you think being vague in English is confusing and want more precision, try Arabic. Don't worry, I'll wait. It won't take long for you to come back. Trust me, the vagueness isn't that bad.
-
big long post
And that's what you should have said instead of just telling him to shut up.
If me getting irritated at the governing document of this nation being ignored by bigoted assholes and speaking out about is "flipping out," I'll flip out all damn day. Kazan had his foreskin fetish, I have my Constitutional one.
Get irritated all you like. All the admins and mods are saying is that you have to stick to discussing the subject rather than simply telling your opponent to shut up. If you don't want to get side-tracked point out how the subject is irrelevant and then move on.
Please stop lumping every Christian church together as having the exact same "archaic" beliefs. *snip* I HATE being lumped together with ultra-conservative Evangelicals. I'm sure I speak for a lot of Christians when I calmly ask that not all of us be lumped together under a very large, pejorative umbrella.
Homophobia is the typical position of most Christians in California and probably in the all of America. I find it hilarious when Christians try to complain about being tarred with the same brush because they aren't. Those of you who voted against prop 8 are the extremists. Anyone with sense wouldn't want us to claim that all Muslims are terrorists because of the actions of a minority so why should we claim that American Christians are tolerant towards homosexuality because of the actions of a minority?
When I see more Christians shouting down bigotry than I see promoting it, then you'll be the majority. Then you can make a legitimate complaint about such generalisations. But I suspect that the majority of Christians who didn't vote for prop 8 simply didn't vote at all rather than actually voting against it. And I further suspect that was because they didn't care about religion stomping on the Constitution, as long as it was their religion that was doing it.
Yeah... if you think being vague in English is confusing and want more precision, try Arabic. Don't worry, I'll wait. It won't take long for you to come back. Trust me, the vagueness isn't that bad.
Where do you think I got the idea? :p
I don't know about Arabic but I know that Urdu does have separate words for those terms. Besides many families tend to informally fall into this sort of pattern anyway, referring to nana and granny in order to distinguish them. It just makes sense to formalise the words so that they don't need explaining. :)
-
It's all very well trying to claim that it is only the extremists and ultra-conservatives who passed it but that's obviously not the case.
There are some very ugly truths behind how it passed and how it was opposed. One of those truths is that opposition to Prop 8 was...well that tends to be based on who you ask. Words like "mismanaged", "screwup" and "not fought" are likely to surface. I can't say whether there was some kind of entitlement complex belief going on, those orchestrating the opposition were badly out of touch, or someone was simply criminally neglient.
But Prop 8 passed at least in part because it was not opposed as it should have been. Opposition to Prop 8 only truly crystalized after it had already passed, when the many smaller organizations against it rejected the leadership of the larger ones who had called for calm and headed up the efforts to keep it from passing. The process of mobilizing the voters to strike it down was badly mishandled. It was not fought using anything like the full resources at the disposal of those who had a stake in doing so.
In a sense, this probably doesn't matter; it will be struck down in 2010 or 2012 if the state hasn't distingrated by then.
-
Mismanaged or not 7 million people voted for it. It's pretty hard to claim that California has 7 million extremists.
While an organised campaign might have provided enough of a swing to prevent it from passing I doubt it would have had much of an effect on the majority of those 7 million.
-
Mismanaged or not 7 million people voted for it. It's pretty hard to claim that California has 7 million extremists.
While an organised campaign might have provided enough of a swing to prevent it from passing I doubt it would have had much of an effect on the majority of those 7 million.
7 million remains is a fairly small number in the total population of the state (which according to the figures in 2008 is 36,756,666, up more than three million from 2000). It is, in fact, entirely possible that California has 7 million extremists, or rather 7 million Baptists, hardline Roman Catholics/Lutherans, Mormons (there are a relatively small number of them in the state, but a disturbingly high percentage of the funding that went into the campaign for Prop 8 came from Mormon sources), members of other denominations both Christian and Abrahamic who backed it. Labeling them all extremist is foolish. These are not Young Earthers, nor are they members of the Westboro Baptist Church.
It is also true that the campaign for Prop 8 was a masterpiece of fear-mongering and probably at least one million of the people who voted for it had a seriously distorted view of what the proposition actually entailed.
-
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
Do away with marriages and call all of them civil unions. You want to get married go to the church. You want the state to recognize it get a civil union or partnership. Solves the whole issue.
nonsense: the best way is to get religion out of marriage.
It is the state, not the church, that provides the legal basis on which your marriage is recognised both nationally and internationally. It is the state that provides the legal benefits (and drawbacks) that come with marriage and it is the state which regulates and codifies into law these benefits.
The only thing a church does is provide some bells and whistles for the religiously inclined.
-
Prop 8 passed.
It's all very well trying to claim that it is only the extremists and ultra-conservatives who passed it but that's obviously not the case.
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
Do away with marriages and call all of them civil unions. You want to get married go to the church. You want the state to recognize it get a civil union or partnership. Solves the whole issue.
Indeed. This would seem especially timely now that more and more couples in the US are choosing to live together and start families without actually getting married.
Actually, I've got to disagree with this for the same reason KT mentioned. I don't see why religion should be able to lay claim to the words married, marriage, wedding etc.
That said this brings up my only objection to gay marriage. The fact that I don't much like the dilution of linguistic terms. I quite like it if when a man says he's married you can assume his partner is a woman. It makes conversations less vague. :)
But then I get annoyed that the word grandfather in English refers to two different relationships (mother's father vs father's father) while uncle refers to four, two of whom aren't even blood relations! :p
If gay people had picked different words when this started I doubt prop 8 would have passed as easily.
heh. In that regards the dutch word is better (though the controversy is pretty much the same... or was: both the Netherlands and Belgium, i.e. the dutch speaking countries, allow same-sex marriage. It is now accepted. But then agian, only marriages performed by the state carry legal weight here, church has nada to say)I think. "Trouwen"is just a verbified version of "trouw", which can be translated as loyalty. which is what people who get married supposedly do: promise undieing loyalty to each other.
-
nonsense: the best way is to get religion out of marriage.
It is the state, not the church, that provides the legal basis on which your marriage is recognised both nationally and internationally. It is the state that provides the legal benefits (and drawbacks) that come with marriage and it is the state which regulates and codifies into law these benefits.
The only thing a church does is provide some bells and whistles for the religiously inclined.
Marriage is however a religious institution in pretty much every area of the world, not a secular one, governed by religious mores (as this topic has bluntly proved). Civil unions for all is therefore a vastly more rational and achievable plan.
-
[long post]
Well, that's a perfectly good post - there's no problem with your opinions, after all. We just can't tell people to be quiet and sit in the corner (although I've done the same thing a few times, I'm sure.)
-
7 million remains is a fairly small number in the total population of the state (which according to the figures in 2008 is 36,756,666, up more than three million from 2000). It is, in fact, entirely possible that California has 7 million extremists, or rather 7 million Baptists, hardline Roman Catholics/Lutherans, Mormons (there are a relatively small number of them in the state, but a disturbingly high percentage of the funding that went into the campaign for Prop 8 came from Mormon sources), members of other denominations both Christian and Abrahamic who backed it. Labeling them all extremist is foolish. These are not Young Earthers, nor are they members of the Westboro Baptist Church.
That's my point. Yet this is exactly what Scotty and the other Christians were trying to claim. You can't say Prop 8 passed with only the extremists supporting it.
And it doesn't matter if 7 million is a small number for the state. It's bigger than the number who voted against it. So it's pretty hard to make the claim that more Christians were against Prop 8 than for it. Which again means that it's pretty hard to say that it wasn't the Christians who are responsible for allowing this law to pass.
It is also true that the campaign for Prop 8 was a masterpiece of fear-mongering and probably at least one million of the people who voted for it had a seriously distorted view of what the proposition actually entailed.
Wouldn't doubt it. When all is said and done there isn't a single reason to go against gay marriage except fear. Why else should it matter to someone who wasn't gay?
-
Prop 8 passed.
It's all very well trying to claim that it is only the extremists and ultra-conservatives who passed it but that's obviously not the case.
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
Do away with marriages and call all of them civil unions. You want to get married go to the church. You want the state to recognize it get a civil union or partnership. Solves the whole issue.
Indeed. This would seem especially timely now that more and more couples in the US are choosing to live together and start families without actually getting married.
Actually, I've got to disagree with this for the same reason KT mentioned. I don't see why religion should be able to lay claim to the words married, marriage, wedding etc.
That said this brings up my only objection to gay marriage. The fact that I don't much like the dilution of linguistic terms. I quite like it if when a man says he's married you can assume his partner is a woman. It makes conversations less vague. :)
But then I get annoyed that the word grandfather in English refers to two different relationships (mother's father vs father's father) while uncle refers to four, two of whom aren't even blood relations! :p
If gay people had picked different words when this started I doubt prop 8 would have passed as easily.
heh. In that regards the dutch word is better (though the controversy is pretty much the same... or was: both the Netherlands and Belgium, i.e. the dutch speaking countries, allow same-sex marriage. It is now accepted. But then agian, only marriages performed by the state carry legal weight here, church has nada to say)I think. "Trouwen"is just a verbified version of "trouw", which can be translated as loyalty. which is what people who get married supposedly do: promise undieing loyalty to each other.
What? We (the Dutch) didn't accept anything. We just removed the restriction that marriages should only be between people of different gender to save on printing costs.
:P
-
Homophobia is the typical position of most Christians in California and probably in the all of America. I find it hilarious when Christians try to complain about being tarred with the same brush because they aren't. Those of you who voted against prop 8 are the extremists. Anyone with sense wouldn't want us to claim that all Muslims are terrorists because of the actions of a minority so why should we claim that American Christians are tolerant towards homosexuality because of the actions of a minority?
You know what I truly hate in this entire debate, far more than the ramifications of either side? The way that the term "homophobia" is so blatantly and egregiously misused and overused by such a large number of people. Yes, because I am opposed to the concept of same-sex civil marriages for whatever reason, be it religious/biological/social/what have you, it follows without fail that I loathe and despise the very concept of homosexuality. It's a given that I hate those of homosexual proclivity with every fiber of my being, that I would do anything above and beyond the law to drive them out of my community. I'm out there leading lynch mobs every other weekend, just for kicks. And there's no possible way that I could possibly count as close friends people of that proclivity. No, that's simply impossible, because I'm a "homophobe." Oil and water shall never mix, and all that.
Tell you what. When one whole side of the debate stops being nearly as bigoted as they accuse the other side of being, then maybe we can have a nice, pleasant, reasoned conversation about the topic. Until then, I'll just sit back and twiddle my thumbs. Because there can be no "discussion" under such conditions.
-
Maybe you should look up what the word means (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia) before complaining at people who use it.
Homophobia (from Greek homós: one and the same; phóbos: fear, phobia) is an "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals", or individuals perceived to be homosexual
:rolleyes:
As I said earlier all the "religious/biological/social/what have you," reasons you like to claim exist all boil down to fear in the end. So the term is correct.
If you want to argue I'm wrong feel free to prove it. If you want to find someone you can distract with an argument about semantics, look elsewhere.
-
I would love to argue semantics, since I do find it rather amusing that Webster's has decided that the Greek root "phobia" now extends to "discrimination," but like you said, that's neither here nor there.
As for the rest, I would love even to argue the substantiality of your claim, since at least from my perspective, at least a few of those reasons, primarily the biological, have nothing to do with fear. But you know what? I just don't really ****ing care. There's nothing I could say that would convince anyone in here, least of all you, that my position isn't somehow founded on bigotry. The general consensus in this thread makes that clear as day. I've been in far too many Internet arguments where I wind up arguing a minority position and don't make the least bit of headway, and it isn't worth the frustration and aggravation on my part in the least. I'm not putting myself in that situation again.
Besides, in the end, I'm not a citizen of California, so whatever the hell they do either way is of no real concern to me.
-
As for the rest, I would love even to argue the substantiality of your claim, since at least from my perspective, at least a few of those reasons, primarily the biological, have nothing to do with fear.
Okay, you got me. Those generally have to do with denial of reality.
THERE ARE NO GAY ANIMALS! HE'S JUST GIVING HIM A PIGGYBACK!!!!11111 :p
-
If that's the sort of thing I was implying by "biological," you'd be free to mock me as you wished. :p
-
Then feel free to make your real argument rather than dancing around the subject. I've always found the "I've got a killer argument that proves you wrong but I'm going to spend the next five posts not making it" non-argument amusing but I'd far rather see the real thing.
-
Homophobia is the typical position of most Christians in California and probably in the all of America. I find it hilarious when Christians try to complain about being tarred with the same brush because they aren't. Those of you who voted against prop 8 are the extremists. Anyone with sense wouldn't want us to claim that all Muslims are terrorists because of the actions of a minority so why should we claim that American Christians are tolerant towards homosexuality because of the actions of a minority?
You know what I truly hate in this entire debate, far more than the ramifications of either side? The way that the term "homophobia" is so blatantly and egregiously misused and overused by such a large number of people. Yes, because I am opposed to the concept of same-sex civil marriages for whatever reason, be it religious/biological/social/what have you, it follows without fail that I loathe and despise the very concept of homosexuality. It's a given that I hate those of homosexual proclivity with every fiber of my being, that I would do anything above and beyond the law to drive them out of my community. I'm out there leading lynch mobs every other weekend, just for kicks. And there's no possible way that I could possibly count as close friends people of that proclivity. No, that's simply impossible, because I'm a "homophobe." Oil and water shall never mix, and all that.
Tell you what. When one whole side of the debate stops being nearly as bigoted as they accuse the other side of being, then maybe we can have a nice, pleasant, reasoned conversation about the topic. Until then, I'll just sit back and twiddle my thumbs. Because there can be no "discussion" under such conditions.
All I read was: "Just because I don't think gays should have equal rights doesn't mean I'm a homophobe. It just means I don't think they're equal people. Gawd."
You're a homophobe. Accept it. You can come out. We won't hurt you. I promise. It's really not all that bad. You have a lot of things going for you. Like the Supreme Court for instance. And majority tyranny. And they love you in Utah. You're probably better off embracing your homophobia than not.
-
Eurgh. I can't think of anything I hate more than "I'm not a homophobe! I have gay friends!"
That's like saying "I'm not a racist! I have a black friend! And he thinks I'm the "bomb diggity!""
-
I think Mongoose probably gets it. While I agree with the points being made by KT and Kara, we have to be sensitive to the fact that labeling people as homophobes (even when true) is not likely to make them friendly to the cause.
As for the biological argument, the idea that non-reproductive sexuality is a waste, or not supported by evolution, is clearly flawed - there are many species out there with bizarre and seemingly counterproductive sexual systems that actually benefit the species.
You could postulate, for instance (though it'd be an unsubstantiated fairy tale!) that the reason younger brothers are more likely to be gay is so they can support the family group without taking up resources for their own children.
-
I think Mongoose probably gets it. While I agree with the points being made by KT and Kara, we have to be sensitive to the fact that labeling people as homophobes (even when true) is not likely to make them friendly to the cause.
At least someone gets it. I really don't give a damn what people think of me for expressing my views, but at least be aware that, by slinging that term around all over the place, all you're doing is galvanizing those who oppose your own viewpoints. Which, as Prop8 showed in the first place, is generally a frickin' stupid way to get what you want accomplished. Nothing illustrates that more clearly than KT's adorable post up there. (<3 you too, man.) It's that heavy-handed, unilateral condemnation of another person's entire mindset, whether or not the accuser has even so much as spoken with said person, that cheeses me off the most. And again I say, by demonizing one entire side of the debate as "redneck fundie homophobes," you're doing something that's not all that remarkably different from the actual examples of such saying, "God hates fags." Hauling out loaded terms like that accomplishes absolutely nothing for anyone.
And yes, iamzack, I'm aware of how cliche and patronizing that statement generally is, but there really isn't any other way of putting certain viewpoints into context. Unless you know some other way of differentiating someone trying to make a reasoned point from the aforementioned lynch-mob types, that is.
As for my real argument, what the hell, I'm already in it up to my neck. I am just going to stick with the biological angle, since Battuta's quote makes a good jumping-off point (or leaves me just enough rope to hang myself, depending on your viewpoint):
As for the biological argument, the idea that non-reproductive sexuality is a waste, or not supported by evolution, is clearly flawed - there are many species out there with bizarre and seemingly counterproductive sexual systems that actually benefit the species.
I do understand that there are a wide range of sexual reproductive practices at work in the animal kingdom; as I implied to karajorma, I'm not going to sit here and deny something like bonobo chimps using homosexual activity as a means of group bonding and asserting dominance. (As even you admitted, the example you provided for humans is completely fictional, its theoretical merits aside.) But looking at the process more fundamentally, the biological purpose of sexual reproduction in animals is for just that: reproduction, the passing on of one's genes to a new generation of organism. From an evolutionary standpoint, the reason that we are differentiated into male and female genders, and the reason we have this plumbing between our legs, is to facilitate that purpose. We feel attraction toward members of the opposite sex in order to facilitate the eventual act of intercourse (insert pick-up line joke here) in an attempt to create offspring. The reason that males, by default, are so hard-wired visually toward picking up on attractive members of the opposite sex is for that purpose, as is the perhaps more emotionally-founded response of females toward males. Without that evolutionary need for reproduction, whatever we did have between our legs wouldn't have much practical purpose, nor would the social practices that facilitate it. While more complex practices like those Battuta alluded to can be beneficial in some sort of group dynamic setting, at the individual, mano-a-mano level, it comes down to the guy and girl trying to get together.
Now I'm obviously not trying to say that vaginal sexual intercourse is the only possible means for using one's sexual organs, but it does stand as the fundamental reason we have them in the first place. As such, it's biologically natural for males to show sexual interest in females, and vice versa. And as such, I would argue, any proof of a hypothesis like Battuta's nonwithstanding, the tendency to show sexual interest in members of one's gender represents the equivalent of an evolutionary dead-end. In short, it's something akin to a congenital defect (going strictly by the genetic propensity idea). Up until a few decades ago, homosexuality was considered to be a psychiatric condition; I'm of the opinion that it would be better described as a genetic one. It's something that got tweaked at the DNA level to the point where the individual is not only disinterested in, but flat-out averse to, the normal reproductive function of their sexual organs. At least in my opinion, trying to state that a relationship founded on that "tweak" is completely akin to that between a male and female without it completely whitewashes all of the implications associated with that original defect.
In the end, for me, I view homosexuality as a biologically-induced condition, in the same vein as something like Asperger's syndrome. And in that light, I don't see it as being beneficial from a societal or species standpoint for homosexual unions to be legally enshrined at the same level as heterosexual marriage.
So now I've said my piece. I don't expect anyone to agree with any of this, nor am I really interested in going back-and-forth incessantly over it, since I probably should have kept my foot firmly in my mouth and never posted in here in the first place, but there it is anyway. One thing I will say in closing, whether anyone believes me or not, is that I've seen true homophobia in action, and it disgusts me as much as any form of prejudice directed at an individual for reasons outside of their control.
-
First: I'm glad you enjoyed my post. Whenever I try to be serious, nobody seems to listen. Clearly, being cute is my strong suit.
Secondly: You should know that when I call you a homophobe, I'm packing no more malice behind it than when I refer to students as students, gays as gays, women as women. You are what you are. Your person and your actions make that decision. Normally, denying (gay) citizens equal rights under the US Constitution just because you don't think its right would certainly make you homophobic and a bigot, not out of spite, but by definition. If you don't like that title, if it offends you, then don't represent it. You being a homophobe by discriminating against gays is no more an insult than me being a procrastinator is when I procrastinate. The message here is, check yourself before you wreck yourself.
Thirdly: ....nevertheless, you've finally given an actual example of your logic, which if true by your account, is more pathetic than offensive. Enlightening, if anything else.
In the end, for me, I view homosexuality as a biologically-induced condition, in the same vein as something like Asperger's syndrome. And in that light, I don't see it as being beneficial from a societal or species standpoint for homosexual unions to be legally enshrined at the same level as heterosexual marriage.
So after a long explanation that essentially boiled down to "genitals should be used for child production (which somehow should be the regulating factor in marriage - because every married couple needs to have kids to stay married... like how every non-married straight couple doesn't birth or raise kids........) " you come to "Being gay is like having Asperger's?" Where's High Max? He's the resident Aspie, right? We should get him in here and see how he feels about it.
But no, that's not the best part.
What you're advocating is that being Gay is a "biologically-induced condition" that should exclude people from eligibility to be married? So now we're legislating for social eugenics?
Are. You. ****ing. Serious.
-
It's easy to see why you believe what you do, since I once thought the same thing, but I suggest you read up on human sexuality. You can't make blanket assumptions about the 'purpose' of the plumbing or the behaviors without totally ignoring a massive amount of interesting research.
What's more, if there was anything wrong with homosexuality as a genetic defect, selection pressure would have long ago knocked it out of action. It's not gone. So at the very least it's neutral.
These people are not defective, and, unfortunately, it's still hateful and homophobic to say that they are. It would be even if scientific evidence didn't point to something much more complicated and interesting that may even favor homosexuality.
You cannot say what is biologically natural and what is biologically unnatural because nature defines what is natural. And homosexuality is clearly present all across nature, in a way that Asperger's, for example, isn't.
-
First: I'm glad you enjoyed my post. Whenever I try to be serious, nobody seems to listen. Clearly, being cute is my strong suit.
Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....
-
These people are not defective, and, unfortunately, it's still hateful and homophobic to say that they are. It would be even if scientific evidence didn't point to something much more complicated and interesting that may even favor homosexuality.
Y'know, this is what I love about this whole debate. I state an opinion, and I get called a bigot. I provide my reasoning for said opinion, and I get called a bigot. I could do twenty hours of research on human sexuality, social structures, psychology, whatever, come back and write a ten-page dissertation on my opinion...and I'd be called a bigot. Clearly, if I am not entirely in lock-step with your own opinions, I'm the very definition of evil, someone who loathes his fellow human beings based on a single condition.
You know what, **** it. I'm out. Y'all enjoy your circle-jerk here, but I'll be jerking it somewhere else.
-
These people are not defective, and, unfortunately, it's still hateful and homophobic to say that they are. It would be even if scientific evidence didn't point to something much more complicated and interesting that may even favor homosexuality.
Y'know, this is what I love about this whole debate. I state an opinion, and I get called a bigot. I provide my reasoning for said opinion, and I get called a bigot. I could do twenty hours of research on human sexuality, social structures, psychology, whatever, come back and write a ten-page dissertation on my opinion...and I'd be called a bigot. Clearly, if I am not entirely in lock-step with your own opinions, I'm the very definition of evil, someone who loathes his fellow human beings based on a single condition.
You know what, **** it. I'm out. Y'all enjoy your circle-jerk here, but I'll be jerking it somewhere else.
lolz
Well no **** Sherlock, if your 10-page thesis is on how gays have a genetic condition and therefore shouldn't be treated as equal citizens, you could research until your eyes bleed from reading and you'd still be a bigot. Explaining your bigotry doesn't negate it. Straight Man's Burden, anyone?
And nobody said you're evil. You are violating the spirit of the US Constitution, and being a bigot. But that's hardly the definition of evil. As an American, I will respect your right to be wrong, your right to be a bigot and your right to express your bigoted and wrong ideas. I'll even protect them. But it stops when those ideas encroach upon the freedoms of other citizens, as laid out by the Constitution.
Despite all this, as a Christian, I'll forgive you for your bigotry and unlawfulness. Funny how that works.
-
You know what, **** it. I'm out. Y'all enjoy your circle-jerk here, but I'll be jerking it somewhere else.
He'll be jerking it allright. To men. Because the only people who hate the gays so much are closet gays themselves. (example: Republicans)
-
You know what, **** it. I'm out. Y'all enjoy your circle-jerk here, but I'll be jerking it somewhere else.
He'll be jerking it allright. To men. Because the only people who hate the gays so much are closet gays themselves. (example: Republicans)
Turambar has obviously never heard of the Log Cabin Republicans.
-
You know what, **** it. I'm out. Y'all enjoy your circle-jerk here, but I'll be jerking it somewhere else.
He'll be jerking it allright. To men. Because the only people who hate the gays so much are closet gays themselves. (example: Republicans)
Seriously, I'm laughing my ass off over here. The universe continues to provide infinite amusements. :lol:
Oh, and KT, as a hypothetical, I'm curious...does denying someone with Down's syndrome the ability to obtain a driver's license and operate a motor vehicle also count as not treating them as an equal citizen? Or denying a convicted felon the right to vote? Or making any of the other numerous distinctions between citizens that the government does on a daily basis, for a variety of reasons? I'm dying to know.
Also, if you can point to the clause in the Constitution where it states verbatim that states' recognition of marriage must include any and all combinations of persons, or indeed where the term "marriage" comes up at all, I'd love to be informed of that as well.
Once again, it's hilarious how, when one side says the other is wrong, they're right, but when the other says the first is wrong, they're dead wrong. And it's all determined by those within the debate.
-
A married couple is not required to procreate, or even have sex. A pair of best friends could marry, thus receiving all the legal benefits of marriage. Marriage isn't about biology or religion or what's natural. It's a legal contract between two people (who are willing and able to sign such contracts) wherein they effectively become a "family."
That's all there is to it.
-God says no: invalid (many religions don't mind marrying gays)
-marriage is religious: invalid (the verb "to marry" is used in many contexts in modern english)
-gays can't procreate: invalid (procreation has nothing to do with marriage)
-gays are just defective/freaks/etc: invalid (irrelevant)
Did I miss anything?
-
lolz
You know, it's amusing to me that your whole argument can be summed up right there, because the rest of it is based on inferences not present in your opponent's, extaggeration, and general ****wittery.
I know, I know, that's to be expected from you, but seriously. Logic 100 class. Look into it.
And now you start arguing about the "spirit of the Constitution" like it has some kind of relevance, when oh**** the "spirit of the Constitution" is the spirit of a group of dead white people who would have voted against Prop 8. When was the last time we passed an amendment, or even tried to? 70's? Yeah, you see what I mean.
Also, this whole tossing around of "homophobe" is, as Mongoose states, bull****. (KT has now moved on to "bigot" preemptively, which is better.) This word implies fear, and Mongoose has already suitably demonstrated (inasmuch as this is possible in this form of communication) that such is not the case dealing with him. Now I know somebody will hop in here with some "oppression equals fear" sociological argument or something, but that's not the case. Oppression is mostly a crime of opportunity.
-God says no: invalid (many religions don't mind marrying gays)
We live in a country of religious plurality, mainly run by Abrahamic religions.
And it is a valid reason to vote against it. Oh****, yes, I just went there.
Welcome to the flaw inherent in a democratic system, folks. People vote their beliefs, religious or otherwise. You can't seperate church and state at the ballot box (one of many reasons why California's system is terribly flawed), only once in office.
Marriage is also, manifestly, not a legal contract exclusively or even at all. Before there was government regulation, there was religious regulation. Marriage was/is regulated religiously in a social sense far more than it is regulated by the state. The gay marriage movement is, in fact, the first major movement in the history of marriage in this country to see things in these terms of being primarily a legal contract.
Therein lies the problem. The government should not be involved in marriage as such. Civil unions for all is the only logical means for them to do so, rather than get wrapped up in many many thousands of years of religious marriage (more or less the only kind there was until the 1700s and common law marriage).
-
-God says no: invalid (many religions don't mind marrying gays)
We live in a country of religious plurality, mainly run by Abrahamic religions.
And it is a valid reason to vote against it. Oh****, yes, I just went there.
Welcome to the flaw inherent in a democratic system, folks. People vote their beliefs, religious or otherwise. You can't seperate church and state at the ballot box (one of many reasons why California's system is terribly flawed), only once in office.
Marriage is also, manifestly, not a legal contract exclusively or even at all. Before there was government regulation, there was religious regulation. Marriage was/is regulated religiously in a social sense far more than it is regulated by the state. The gay marriage movement is, in fact, the first major movement in the history of marriage in this country to see things in these terms of being primarily a legal contract.
Therein lies the problem. The government should not be involved in marriage as such. Civil unions for all is the only logical means for them to do so, rather than get wrapped up in many many thousands of years of religious marriage (more or less the only kind there was until the 1700s and common law marriage).
Okay, well, first of all, here in America, majority does not get to do whatever the **** it wants to the minorities. What if a racist majority decided interracial marriage should "be called something else" because it's "just not natural" and "majority rules."
Marriage absolutely is a legal contract. It doesn't matter even a little bit how we "used" to think. We used to think it was a good idea to forcibly sterilize people we deemed unworthy of reproducing. Just because we are now realising that marriage is a legal contract doesn't mean it wasn't always, as far as marriage in relation to the government is concerned. The religious aspect has never been necessary in registering a marriage with the state.
Also, nobody gives a damn what it is called. Legally call it all "civil unions" if you want. People will still refer to it as "marriage" in the way that we still say "roll up the window" even though most cars now have a button.
The point is that marriage as it is has *thousands* of legal benefits which are only given to man/woman couples entering the contract, which is wholly unfair. Why can't two men or two women file taxes together, obtain next-of-kin status, have the right to hospital visitation and prison conjugal visits, etc, etc?
-
THERE ARE NO GAY ANIMALS! HE'S JUST GIVING HIM A PIGGYBACK!!!!11111 :p
Isn't there a difference between homosexuality and bisexuality?
Marriage isn't about biology or religion or what's natural. It's a legal contract between two people (who are willing and able to sign such contracts) wherein they effectively become a "family."
Well, I think the problem is marriage is about biology, religion AND a legal contract between two people (who are willing and able to sign such contracts) wherein they effectively become a "family".
There are things mixed, that shouldn't be.
If I have a loved one, I maybe want him to be allowed to make decisions if I am in coma, simply as a person of trust, no matter the sex or gender.
However, I don't know if it is like that everywhere, but there are also regulations for married people that try to help them making babies (financial support that has in mind the traditional "mother (or more recently, 1 parent) at home caring for the children, father (or the other one) working for money".
Imho you can't simply allow homosexuals to marry (legal marriage, I'm excluding the church here, doesn't matter) without changing the whole legal system around the marriage, and even think about laws like heritage etc. You also have to think about this: If you allow (legal) marriage between two people, why shouldn't a marriage between three or more be allowed?
I'm not saying we shouldn't change all this, though.
-
Oh, and KT, as a hypothetical, I'm curious...does denying someone with Down's syndrome the ability to obtain a driver's license and operate a motor vehicle also count as not treating them as an equal citizen? Or denying a convicted felon the right to vote? Or making any of the other numerous distinctions between citizens that the government does on a daily basis, for a variety of reasons? I'm dying to know.
You realize that these analogies are absurd, right?
In the first case, the person with Down Syndrome would be denied a license for the sole reason that his or her operation of a motor vehicle would pose a threat to other drivers. Like it or not, a gay person's marriage poses no threat to anyone else's safety or rights. Your marriage is no less valid if your neighbor gets married too, whether he marries a man or a woman.
In the second case, the felon has violated the social contract and in that way forfeit some of his or her rights as a citizen. Gay people, in general, have not done anything wrong, and if they have it generally has nothing to do with their choice of partners.
A marriage between two men or two women will not affect your life in any way. It does not infringe on your rights. They have not done anything to deserve your infringing on theirs.
-
Therein lies the problem. The government should not be involved in marriage as such. Civil unions for all is the only logical means for them to do so, rather than get wrapped up in many many thousands of years of religious marriage (more or less the only kind there was until the 1700s and common law marriage).
As incredulous as some might be at me saying this, I honestly think I'd be all for an initiative to get government out of the "marriage" business completely. Call them "civil unions," call them "legal partnerships," call them what have you, but create some arrangement where any two people, no matter what relationship they share, could enjoy the legal benefits that married couples enjoy today, such as inheriting property and carrying power of attorney. Leave the designation of "marriage" to whatever any individual religious institution decides to limit it to. That way, everyone gets a fair playing field in the legal sense, individual faiths are able to practice their beliefs without angering a certain segment of the population, and society as a whole doesn't get alternative conventions thrust into its face by force of law.
Like NGTM-1R said, and it's a point I sorely should have made instead of responding to insults with sarcasm, the institution known as "marriage" isn't some legal construct that sprang into being with the authorship of the constitution of any particular country. It's a societal construct founded primarily on religious ceremony that's been practiced for thousands of years across almost every human society, and even when it extended to polygamy, its driving purpose was generally the establishment of family units and rearing of children. What particularly incenses myself, and I'm sure many others, about the recent gay marriage movement is that it completely turns a blind eye to those millennia of history, willing to brush it aside as inconsequential, even as they attempt to fundamentally alter the avenue which gives it meaning. If members of the movement are honestly surprised at the hostility generated against it, perhaps they'd do well to take a look at that history and understand why the institution in its current form is so important to so many.
Edit: Gah, rapid-fire posting.
You realize that these analogies are absurd, right?
...
A marriage between two men or two women will not affect your life in any way. It does not infringe on your rights. They have not done anything to deserve your infringing on theirs.
I know that my examples didn't apply to gay marriage in terms of why those specific restrictions are applied, but my point to KT was that double standards between how two different people are treated do exist in the legal sense, which he seemed to be denying with his "equal citizens" speech. In fact, the judicial review principle of "strict scrutiny" usually applies in such cases, determining what compelling interests are served by applying said restrictions and ensuring that they are as narrow as possible.
And while the principle of same-sex marriage does not harm me personally or affect my ability to marry someone of the opposite gender, I do view it as harming those thousands of years of societal precedence, if for no other reason than its complete disregard for said precedence. When someone gets in my face and screams, "We're doing it this way now, just because," while ignoring why it has been done a certain way for so long, my reaction tends to be to yell, "No," just as loudly back at them.
-
Oh, that's right, because gay people don't want to get married and start families, they just went benefits. *sigh*
Aside from that absurdity, though, I'm impressed by your levelheadedness.
EDIT: Just read this choice bit.
These people are not defective, and, unfortunately, it's still hateful and homophobic to say that they are. It would be even if scientific evidence didn't point to something much more complicated and interesting that may even favor homosexuality.
Y'know, this is what I love about this whole debate. I state an opinion, and I get called a bigot. I provide my reasoning for said opinion, and I get called a bigot. I could do twenty hours of research on human sexuality, social structures, psychology, whatever, come back and write a ten-page dissertation on my opinion...and I'd be called a bigot. Clearly, if I am not entirely in lock-step with your own opinions, I'm the very definition of evil, someone who loathes his fellow human beings based on a single condition.
You know what, **** it. I'm out. Y'all enjoy your circle-jerk here, but I'll be jerking it somewhere else.
Don't be an absolutist. No one called you the very definition of evil. You're promoting a martyrdom complex as a defensive affect reaction. I simply told you were bigoted. As KT pointed out, 'bigot' is a descriptor, not a deprecation. Everyone's bigoted to some degree. Opinions can be more bigoted than the people who spout them.
You're being called a bigot because you're being bigoted. You came back with incomplete and misunderstood scientific support, which was also bigoted. You haven't done anything to not be bigoted yet.
If you went and did research as thoroughly as you say, you'd probably start coming around to our view (though it'd likely take twenty months or years instead of hours.)
-
Oh, that's right, because gay people don't want to get married and start families, they just went benefits. *sigh*
Nobody needs a contract to be in love.
-
Oh, that's right, because gay people don't want to get married and start families, they just went benefits. *sigh*
Nobody needs a contract to be in love.
What? I was poking fun at Mongoose's assertion that gay people are ignoring the history of marriage as a way to create and protect families.
-
Oh, that's right, because gay people don't want to get married and start families, they just went benefits. *sigh*
The issue of starting families opens up a whole other can of worms, given what research shows on the presence of both male and female role models impacting childhood development, but I think the marriage topic in and of itself is far more than enough for one thread.
-
Okay, well, first of all, here in America, majority does not get to do whatever the **** it wants to the minorities. What if a racist majority decided interracial marriage should "be called something else" because it's "just not natural" and "majority rules."
Here in California, because of the way we've constructed our governmental system, the majority does get to do whatever the **** it wants to minorities. Now I'm pretty sure you don't live here, or just slept through your government classes, so you should probably do some research on how the proposition system works before continuing this argument.
The state budget crisis is a broader example of this in action; we've voted in via the same system used for Prop 8 too many things whose funds are earmarked regardless of surplus or which present extra drain on the treasury that cannot be controlled that we're now going to end up screwing many, many minorities because we have to cut their services.
This is the system. These are the rules. They were not well-concieved.
Marriage absolutely is a legal contract. It doesn't matter even a little bit how we "used" to think. We used to think it was a good idea to forcibly sterilize people we deemed unworthy of reproducing. Just because we are now realising that marriage is a legal contract doesn't mean it wasn't always, as far as marriage in relation to the government is concerned. The religious aspect has never been necessary in registering a marriage with the state.
Foolishness. In an ideal world you might have a point, but you don't here. Marriage has always been a religious institution recognized by the state until British Common Law adopted the common-law marriage in the 1700s. Even then, it was not until later that marriages were licensed by the state. Even now a majority of marriages continue to fall under the religious union being regulated by the state. Legal precedent mocks you.
Also, nobody gives a damn what it is called. Legally call it all "civil unions" if you want. People will still refer to it as "marriage" in the way that we still say "roll up the window" even though most cars now have a button.
The Judicial Branch and a government composed of lawyers care. So do the people who managed to pass civil union laws but not marriage ones.
The point is that marriage as it is has *thousands* of legal benefits which are only given to man/woman couples entering the contract, which is wholly unfair. Why can't two men or two women file taxes together, obtain next-of-kin status, have the right to hospital visitation and prison conjugal visits, etc, etc?
Unfortunately, this is irrevelant to what I am discussing. I do not oppose this; I merely explain unto you how what happened happened.
-
Oh, that's right, because gay people don't want to get married and start families, they just went benefits. *sigh*
The issue of starting families opens up a whole other can of worms, given what research shows on the presence of both male and female role models impacting childhood development, but I think the marriage topic in and of itself is far more than enough for one thread.
No study has yet established that having 'two mommies' or 'two daddies' leads to negative life outcomes. It may lead to different opinions or values, however.
Saying that a male and a female parent must be present a) ignores that non-parental role models are available and b) suggests that the problem lies with having two mommies or two daddies, rather than the societal pressures placed on a child raised by a same-sex couple, since s/he is unusual.
-
Oh ya.... Briteny can have her 55 hour marrage, but if da-gays get da-marrage OMGWTFIGO!!!!!!!!!111111oneoneone!!
-
Mongoose, I thought you'd left to go masturbate?
Oh, and KT, as a hypothetical, I'm curious...does denying someone with Down's syndrome the ability to obtain a driver's license and operate a motor vehicle also count as not treating them as an equal citizen? Or denying a convicted felon the right to vote? Or making any of the other numerous distinctions between citizens that the government does on a daily basis, for a variety of reasons? I'm dying to know.
Your examples are as ridiculous as your theory of marriage and "gay biology." Rian pointed out why. Contrary to what you'd like to think, Gays are not retarded and/or a danger to others because of their sexual orientation, and they're also not criminals by virtue of being gay. We live in a nation where every citizen gets all the freedoms and rights they're entitled to until they impede the freedoms or rights of others. Sexual orientation and marriage in no way affects anyone else. Stop failing.
Also, if you can point to the clause in the Constitution where it states verbatim that states' recognition of marriage must include any and all combinations of persons, or indeed where the term "marriage" comes up at all, I'd love to be informed of that as well.
I pointed out some great ones earlier on page one. Go back and check them out. Better yet, go buy a copy of the Constitution. It sounds like you need to re-read it.
Once again, it's hilarious how, when one side says the other is wrong, they're right, but when the other says the first is wrong, they're dead wrong. And it's all determined by those within the debate.
You're wrong when you're wrong. Stop trying to be a martyr.
lolz
You know, it's amusing to me that your whole argument can be summed up right there, because the rest of it is based on inferences not present in your opponent's, extaggeration, and general ****wittery.
Inferences not present in my opponent's [arguments] ? Which ones were those? The part where Mongoose is afraid to give Gays equal rights? The part where he thinks they shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't have children together? The part where he's being a bigot? I'm confused by your accusation.
I don't know what extaggeration is.
And if you're going to act like a clown, I'm going to call you one.
And now you start arguing about the "spirit of the Constitution" like it has some kind of relevance, when oh**** the "spirit of the Constitution" is the spirit of a group of dead white people who would have voted against Prop 8. When was the last time we passed an amendment, or even tried to? 70's? Yeah, you see what I mean.
No, I don't see what you mean.
Don't presume to think you know what the forefathers would have done. That never works, and only makes you look like a fool. And you're right. Spirit was a poor choice of words. I should have used "word of the Constitution" because it clearly states that all citizens have equal rights. Nobody has to prove or earn their Rights. They're given to you by virtue of being an American. Nowhere does it say "equal rights unless you're a queer." Gays pay the same taxes, work the same jobs, speak the same language, live in the same communities, have the same ambitions, and love the same, as all the other citizens of the United States. Except for some reason, bigots (yes) and homophobes (yes) have deemed them unfit to marry. Or to serve in the Military. Don't even get me started on that one.
Also, this whole tossing around of "homophobe" is, as Mongoose states, bull****. (KT has now moved on to "bigot" preemptively, which is better.) This word implies fear, and Mongoose has already suitably demonstrated (inasmuch as this is possible in this form of communication) that such is not the case dealing with him. Now I know somebody will hop in here with some "oppression equals fear" sociological argument or something, but that's not the case. Oppression is mostly a crime of opportunity.
You already answered your own question. But just to humor you, let's check out fear, courtesy of dictionary.com
Fear –noun
1. a distressing emotion aroused by impending danger, evil, pain, etc., whether the threat is real or imagined; the feeling or condition of being afraid.
2. a specific instance of or propensity for such a feeling: an abnormal fear of heights.
3. concern or anxiety; solicitude: a fear for someone's safety.
4. reverential awe, esp. toward God.
5. that which causes a feeling of being afraid; that of which a person is afraid: Cancer is a common fear.
1 - Mongoose seems to be pretty distressed about gays potentially being married (apparently because they have biological conditions) - so much so, he's willing to legislate against them doing so, violating his own Constitution. Talk about trading liberty for security. I guess its chill if its not your liberty. Check.
2- Mongoose appears to have a specific propensity of said fear toward Gays - Gay marriage is harmless to him, yet he still wants to legislate against it. Note, even if Gays can't have kids, I still fail to see how them being married hurts Mongoose. Check.
3 - Mongoose very much appears to fear for the safety of... well.. I'm not sure. The "Marriage Institution?" Biology? Underpopulation? Check.
4 - lol
5 - Gay marriage is almost as bad as cancer, amirite? Check.
So that's 4.5/5 out of five definitions of fear, which then fits into a fear of homos - homophobia. Where was I wrong again?
We live in a country of religious plurality, mainly run by Abrahamic religions.
And it is a valid reason to vote against it. Oh****, yes, I just went there.
Welcome to the flaw inherent in a democratic system, folks. People vote their beliefs, religious or otherwise. You can't seperate church and state at the ballot box (one of many reasons why California's system is terribly flawed), only once in office.
Marriage is also, manifestly, not a legal contract exclusively or even at all. Before there was government regulation, there was religious regulation. Marriage was/is regulated religiously in a social sense far more than it is regulated by the state. The gay marriage movement is, in fact, the first major movement in the history of marriage in this country to see things in these terms of being primarily a legal contract.
Therein lies the problem. The government should not be involved in marriage as such. Civil unions for all is the only logical means for them to do so, rather than get wrapped up in many many thousands of years of religious marriage (more or less the only kind there was until the 1700s and common law marriage).
What. We live in a country... run by abrahmic religions? Are you sure? Where do you live dude, because I live in America, where we separate the Churches (<--- that way) and the State. (----> that way) This ain't Israel. This ain't Saudi Arabia. This ain't Afghanistan. There ain't no Sharia law governing me, or any of the other 299,999,999 people who've come from all over the world to live here.
You can vote based on whatever you like. That's what makes voting awesome. It doesn't make whatever you like legal though, if what you like is illegal. Nor does getting 51% of your boys to vote for whatever you like. That just makes you a majority of people who are wrong and unlawful. It does not make you right. That's the whole reason we have a Constitution to govern our actions. That's the whole reason we have the third branch, the Supreme Court, who is supposed to protect the minority from the majority in cases where the minority is wrong. That's Poli Sci 1, to borrow your phrase. Try it.
And again, the fourth branch of Californian Gov. ( the People) are essentially a watered down, direct version of the first one. (the Legislature) If the Legislature votes for something that's unconstitutional (they don't usually, because they're not complete idiots, and like to waste money elsewhere) then the Supreme Court has the authority and responsibility to strike it down, just as they should have hear. If the 4th branch legally allowed for mob rule, then we wouldn't really have need for any of the other ones. Which is precisely why it wasn't included in the national Constitution.
Marriage is also, manifestly, not a legal contract exclusively or even at all. Before there was government regulation, there was religious regulation. Marriage was/is regulated religiously in a social sense far more than it is regulated by the state. The gay marriage movement is, in fact, the first major movement in the history of marriage in this country to see things in these terms of being primarily a legal contract.
Therein lies the problem. The government should not be involved in marriage as such. Civil unions for all is the only logical means for them to do so, rather than get wrapped up in many many thousands of years of religious marriage (more or less the only kind there was until the 1700s and common law marriage).
- Precedent is not justice. Blacks had been oppressed for centuries as slaves and subhumans. Are you going to say that things should never change, that the Emancipation Proclamation, that the 14th Amendment, that the Civil Rights movement were all wrong because they betrayed "the way things had been?" Seriously?
- I'm beating my own dead horse. Marriage is not owned by any church. Marriage predates any of your Abrahamic religions you touted earlier. Where do you come up with this ****? When your Mormons, or Christians, or Catholics go and get a trademark on Marriage, come back and talk to me.
Therein lies the problem. The government should not be involved in marriage as such. Civil unions for all is the only logical means for them to do so, rather than get wrapped up in many many thousands of years of religious marriage (more or less the only kind there was until the 1700s and common law marriage).
As incredulous as some might be at me saying this, I honestly think I'd be all for an initiative to get government out of the "marriage" business completely. Call them "civil unions," call them "legal partnerships," call them what have you, but create some arrangement where any two people, no matter what relationship they share, could enjoy the legal benefits that married couples enjoy today, such as inheriting property and carrying power of attorney. Leave the designation of "marriage" to whatever any individual religious institution decides to limit it to. That way, everyone gets a fair playing field in the legal sense, individual faiths are able to practice their beliefs without angering a certain segment of the population, and society as a whole doesn't get alternative conventions thrust into its face by force of law.
This is wrong, see above.
Like NGTM-1R said, and it's a point I sorely should have made instead of responding to insults with sarcasm, the institution known as "marriage" isn't some legal construct that sprang into being with the authorship of the constitution of any particular country. It's a societal construct founded primarily on religious ceremony that's been practiced for thousands of years across almost every human society, and even when it extended to polygamy, its driving purpose was generally the establishment of family units and rearing of children. What particularly incenses myself, and I'm sure many others, about the recent gay marriage movement is that it completely turns a blind eye to those millennia of history, willing to brush it aside as inconsequential, even as they attempt to fundamentally alter the avenue which gives it meaning. If members of the movement are honestly surprised at the hostility generated against it, perhaps they'd do well to take a look at that history and understand why the institution in its current form is so important to so many.
Precedent is not justice. Your short sightedness is amazing. Do you live on a plantation somewhere in the South, untouched by the last 150 years of history?
I know that my examples didn't apply to gay marriage in terms of why those specific restrictions are applied, but my point to KT was that double standards between how two different people are treated do exist in the legal sense, which he seemed to be denying with his "equal citizens" speech. In fact, the judicial review principle of "strict scrutiny" usually applies in such cases, determining what compelling interests are served by applying said restrictions and ensuring that they are as narrow as possible.
What double standards? Sufficiently Mentally handicapped people can't drive because they can't pass a driving test and /or because their being behind wheels of cars would be dangerous for other people. Just like how "drunk people" are "denied their privileged to drive." There is no double standard here. Your example is incredibly stupid and you know it.
And while the principle of same-sex marriage does not harm me personally or affect my ability to marry someone of the opposite gender, I do view it as harming those thousands of years of societal precedence, if for no other reason than its complete disregard for said precedence. When someone gets in my face and screams, "We're doing it this way now, just because," while ignoring why it has been done a certain way for so long, my reaction tends to be to yell, "No," just as loudly back at them.
Jim Crowe thinks negros looking white women in the eye violates hundreds of years of precedence and bad manners. Want to go start a lynch mob?
Okay, well, first of all, here in America, majority does not get to do whatever the **** it wants to the minorities. What if a racist majority decided interracial marriage should "be called something else" because it's "just not natural" and "majority rules."
Here in California, because of the way we've constructed our governmental system, the majority does get to do whatever the **** it wants to minorities. Now I'm pretty sure you don't live here, or just slept through your government classes, so you should probably do some research on how the proposition system works before continuing this argument.
No, you're wrong. See above. Pay attention in high school gov. class. I know its hard. Drink Red Bull.
The state budget crisis is a broader example of this in action; we've voted in via the same system used for Prop 8 too many things whose funds are earmarked regardless of surplus or which present extra drain on the treasury that cannot be controlled that we're now going to end up screwing many, many minorities because we have to cut their services.
This is the system. These are the rules. They were not well-concieved.
Entirely different problem, and the budget laws make sense - despite what kind of economic debt California is in, it's still our tax dollars that get debated on how to be spent, and in California, we have the opportunity to decide how to spend them, for better or worse of the budget. This in no way violates anyone's rights.
-
Marriage is also, manifestly, not a legal contract exclusively or even at all. Before there was government regulation, there was religious regulation. Marriage was/is regulated religiously in a social sense far more than it is regulated by the state. The gay marriage movement is, in fact, the first major movement in the history of marriage in this country to see things in these terms of being primarily a legal contract.
Also, this bothered the **** out of me, because... it's not true.
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/get_informed/marriage_basics/faq.php#4
In fact, take a gander at the entire faq and website. The both of you. It'll help clear a ton of misconceptions and false truths, as well as explain why its so important for nobody to be excluded from marriage.
-
(...)the institution known as "marriage" isn't some legal construct that sprang into being with the authorship of the constitution of any particular country. It's a societal construct founded primarily on religious ceremony
No, it isn't. Marriage predates religion.
that's been practiced for thousands of years across almost every human society, and even when it extended to polygamy, its driving purpose was generally the establishment of family units and rearing of children.
Not even sociologists know why marriage was created. It could very well be for a very different intent than what you propose, to lower the ammount of competition and activity surrounding the whole mating thing allowing us to do other things.
-
It's almost like Michael Richards himself was advising the posting in this thread. "I'm not a homophobe*, that's what's so insane about this..."
* replace this word with a lighter one if your sensibilities were offended. :)
To maybe actually add something to this thread: does anyone know why the Church of LDS threw so much money into Proposition 8? I went to school with a lot of Mormons and they were all real chill, so it's hard for me to reconcile my memories of them with what I've heard about the Church's fundraising activities in regards to Prop 8.
-
To maybe actually add something to this thread: does anyone know why the Church of LDS threw so much money into Proposition 8? I went to school with a lot of Mormons and they were all real chill, so it's hard for me to reconcile my memories of them with what I've heard about the Church's fundraising activities in regards to Prop 8.
To be as objective as possible : I'd say for the same reason so many other conservative Christian right-wing organizations did. The Mormon's only stand out because of how wealthy they are, I'd assume. They're very strict and respectful of their tithing what they do to the Church.
The Mormon paradox is kind of hard to reconcile - I've known at least a dozen individual Mormons on a personal basis in my life. With the exception of one, they've all been some of the kindest, nicest people I know. All I can really say is that despite their staunch beliefs, they do their very best to represent themselves the best possible manner they can in their personal, professional, as well as religious lives. Seriously, they're some of the most well mannered people I know. As an additional note, I'd also point out that there's a large amount of cohesion within the LDS church, as opposed to Catholicism or whichever variety of Protestantism you look at.
-
Where do you live dude, because I live in America, where we separate the Churches (<--- that way) and the State. (----> that way)
(http://blog.puppetgov.com/wp-content/2008/09/1in_god_we_trust.jpg)
That argument ends right there.
-
You can vote based on whatever you like. That's what makes voting awesome. It doesn't make whatever you like legal though, if what you like is illegal. Nor does getting 51% of your boys to vote for whatever you like. That just makes you a majority of people who are wrong and unlawful. It does not make you right. That's the whole reason we have a Constitution to govern our actions. That's the whole reason we have the third branch, the Supreme Court, who is supposed to protect the minority from the majority in cases where the minority is wrong. That's Poli Sci 1, to borrow your phrase. Try it.
See, now you're talking like you're opposing what I said and are in fact just repeating it. It's really pretty sad.
And again, the fourth branch of Californian Gov. ( the People) are essentially a watered down, direct version of the first one. (the Legislature) If the Legislature votes for something that's unconstitutional (they don't usually, because they're not complete idiots, and like to waste money elsewhere) then the Supreme Court has the authority and responsibility to strike it down, just as they should have hear. If the 4th branch legally allowed for mob rule, then we wouldn't really have need for any of the other ones. Which is precisely why it wasn't included in the national Constitution.
Except the Constitution recognizes no such explicit right. You don't even have an explicit right to marry at all, it's all in the interpretation. It's already gone to the US Supreme Court; they have refused to establish homosexuality as a "protected class" to use the legalese, unlike they did with race. They have also refused to hear the case on Prop 8, endorsing the upholding decision that it is a legal amendment legally passed. Your arguments are void. There is no constitutional precedent here. Discussion over. Go home and cry.
No, you're wrong. See above. Pay attention in high school gov. class. I know its hard. Drink Red Bull.
Likewise, likewise, likewise, likewise, and likewise.
-
Where do you live dude, because I live in America, where we separate the Churches (<--- that way) and the State. (----> that way)
(http://blog.puppetgov.com/wp-content/2008/09/1in_god_we_trust.jpg)
That argument ends right there.
It's funny because our currency has about as much backing it up as god does
Also, gotta interject here, any close association of religion (make-believe) and government (the real world) is part of the problem, not part of the solution, and should be viewed as a cancer to be removed. Let the gays marry and then ignore that they have the ability to do so because it doesn't impact you in the slightest.
-
Where do you live dude, because I live in America, where we separate the Churches (<--- that way) and the State. (----> that way)
(http://blog.puppetgov.com/wp-content/2008/09/1in_god_we_trust.jpg)
That argument ends right there.
It's funny because our currency has about as much backing it up as god does
That was brilliant, I almost rolled out of my chair when I saw it.
-
First... this thread is getting way too heated. Everybody relax. :) (http://www.emergencyyodel.com/) Click that link a few times (also try clicking in rapid succession :D) and you'll feel better, I promise.
Now, on to business...
To maybe actually add something to this thread: does anyone know why the Church of LDS threw so much money into Proposition 8? I went to school with a lot of Mormons and they were all real chill, so it's hard for me to reconcile my memories of them with what I've heard about the Church's fundraising activities in regards to Prop 8.
Since I'm LDS, I'll answer that the best I can. I don't live in California, so I'm not totally familiar with all of the campaigning that went on, but I do have a couple of points of perspective I'm willing to contribute. :) I'm really not interested in debate; I just want to offer my perspective.
1. The church itself didn't spend money on Prop 8. Individual members (including several very wealthy ones) decided to donate their money to the cause. This is a minor point, but IMO an important one.
2. Why do so many Mormons feel so strongly about gay marriage? Basically, because we believe that Marriage is, at its ultimate source, a divine institution that was designed specifically for man + woman. We also believe that marriage and the traditional nuclear family is the foundation of a healthy society. As a result, Mormons tend to view the legitimization of gay marriage as an attempt to essentially change the structure of society, and we tend to believe that it is a restructuring for the worse. So, they vote against it.
3. A lot of Mormons are very skeptical about the promises that churches won't ever be forced to recognize or solemnize marriages between homosexuals. What happens if 30 years from now, every major religion except for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints decides that gay marriage is OK? Do you really think that legal pressure wouldn't be applied? It's happened before: the church was practicing plural marriage in the 1880s, and the government made it illegal. For a while, most of the leadership of the the church was in hiding. This wikipedia section provides a fairly accurate summary. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_marriage#Federal_government_actions_against_polygamy) Given that in our history, it shouldn't be surprising that a lot of people in the church worry that something like it could happen again over gay marriage.
4. Would Mormons support the government getting out of the marriage business entirely? I don't know of any official church statement on the matter, but I know many who would support something like that (probably including me, depending on the details). I do know that the church has no problem playing along in other countries where civil marriage is entirely separate from religious marriage.
Here is an official statement from the church regarding the recent Prop 8 court decision (source (http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-response-to-california-supreme-court-decision-on-proposition-8)):
Today’s decision by the California Supreme Court is welcome. The issue the court decided was whether California citizens validly exercised their right to amend their own constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The court has overwhelmingly affirmed their action.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recognizes the deeply held feelings on both sides, but strongly affirms its belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman. The bedrock institution of marriage between a man and a woman has profound implications for our society. These implications range from what our children are taught in schools to individual and collective freedom of religious expression and practice.
Accordingly, the Church stands firmly for what it believes is right for the health and well-being of society as a whole. In doing so, it once again affirms that all of us are children of God, and all deserve to be treated with respect. The Church believes that serious discussion of these issues is not helped when extreme elements on both sides of the debate demonize the other.
And here is some info from the official church site summarizing our position on homosexuality in general (source (http://mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/basic-beliefs/glossary/glossary-definition/homosexuality#)):
"We believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. We believe that marriage may be eternal through exercise of the power of the everlasting priesthood in the house of the Lord.
"People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are.
"We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families" (Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71).
I hope this helps. Someone asked a good question, and I figured I was more qualified to answer than most. :) I'll be happy to try to clarify anything that needs it. Again, I'm not interested in angry debate, so if that's your intention, please pretend this post never happened.
P.S. One more for good measure! (http://www.emergencyyodel.com/)
-
We could have guessed all that. Of course LDS support for prop 8 falls under the heading of "God says no."
-
Where do you live dude, because I live in America, where we separate the Churches (<--- that way) and the State. (----> that way)
(http://blog.puppetgov.com/wp-content/2008/09/1in_god_we_trust.jpg)
That argument ends right there.
So what? There's also a huge pyramid with an eye on top of it on the $1. I don't see very many of those around here. When being sworn into commissioning or office, you can even choose to affirm (rather than swear [under God]) your allegiance. Saying that what's printed on currency equals state policy, when governing documents state otherwise is kind of ridiculous.
Sushi: Thanks for the background on Mormons. :yes:
-
And while the principle of same-sex marriage does not harm me personally or affect my ability to marry someone of the opposite gender, I do view it as harming those thousands of years of societal precedence, if for no other reason than its complete disregard for said precedence. When someone gets in my face and screams, "We're doing it this way now, just because," while ignoring why it has been done a certain way for so long, my reaction tends to be to yell, "No," just as loudly back at them.
That's absurd. They're not promoting gay marriage just for ****s and giggles or "because", they're doing it to improve on people's quality of life, while at the same time not infringing on yours. Who gives a **** about precedence. What if everyone was like "2+2=5" and one day I come along and I'm like "No, sorry, I've done research and I've found that it's 4. My study is peer-reviewed.", and they say "Nope, sorry. We can't change because we've been doing it this way for 3000 years.". Why not change? Why should we care about precedence, what do we gain from sticking to old and outmoded views when they infringe on the constitutional rights of others, while the change would not affect us in the least?
EDIT: As KT said, another example. Black slavery. "Oh, well it's been done that way for years, so we really shouldn't change. We don't have any reason not to change, but you know, precedence man."
-
Where do you live dude, because I live in America, where we separate the Churches (<--- that way) and the State. (----> that way)
(http://blog.puppetgov.com/wp-content/2008/09/1in_god_we_trust.jpg)
That argument ends right there.
So what? There's also a huge pyramid with an eye on top of it on the $1. I don't see very many of those around here. When being sworn into commissioning or office, you can even choose to affirm (rather than swear [under God]) your allegiance. Saying that what's printed on currency equals state policy, when governing documents state otherwise is kind of ridiculous.
Yeah, I mean, the **** printed on the money everyone is expected by the law of the land to dedicate their lives to? Has no meaning whatsoever. They just painted some **** on there, so it looks pretty. Might as well have been a rodeo clown, doesn't mean anything.
-
Where do you live dude, because I live in America, where we separate the Churches (<--- that way) and the State. (----> that way)
(http://blog.puppetgov.com/wp-content/2008/09/1in_god_we_trust.jpg)
That argument ends right there.
So what? There's also a huge pyramid with an eye on top of it on the $1. I don't see very many of those around here. When being sworn into commissioning or office, you can even choose to affirm (rather than swear [under God]) your allegiance. Saying that what's printed on currency equals state policy, when governing documents state otherwise is kind of ridiculous.
Yeah, I mean, the **** printed on the money everyone is expected by the law of the land to dedicate their lives to? Has no meaning whatsoever. They just painted some **** on there, so it looks pretty. Might as well have been a rodeo clown, doesn't mean anything.
Right, neither does the Constitution apparently. It's just a cool, really old piece of paper written by some old guys a long time ago, right? Looks really tight in a museum and keeps Nicholas Cage's movie career alive, ya? I mean, you could pay attention to what it says if you want. But you don't really need to. More of a list of suggested guidelines rather than rules. You could just as well take it out and replace it with something more posh, like Machiavelli.
-
I think they settled that one in Money vs. Constitution.
Money won, by a landslide.
-
So, remember High Max? He wanted me to post this for you guys since he got "monkeyed" - apparently meaning he can't post anymore(?). I thought it was pretty interesting, and seeing as he
suffers is blessed with Asperger's which was brought up to be analogous in causation and sentiment to homosexuality by Mongoose, I thought he should be able to have his voice heard one last time.
"Being gay is like having Asperger's?" Where's High Max? He's the resident Aspie, right? We should get him in here and see how he feels about it.
First of all, I wonder if the majority of HLP members have lives or do they just waste time making silly topics on forums about things like "Oreo Cookies" though it was a little funny, and talking smack behind others' backs like children. You didn't have to use my member name "High Max" as an example and say "aspergers" when you and all people on the forum don't know the story, and I assure you that I'm not like the average person with so-called Aspergers.
I'm quite well off even for that so-called diagnoses. I like to keep busy, do side jobs, work out in the gym, and ride bike for exercise, besides reading and watching Ed programs. But the majority here seem nerdy and waste countless hours on the forum and don't care to have balance in life and improving themselves in all areas, therefore having a black and white pure physical modest nerdy point of view and can't accept the truth that no one knows all, they don't know it all, and no one knows for sure what happens when a person dies and if they have an afterlife. Instead the ysay things like "we are all just "goo" and there is no chance of an afterlife. People here always talk in absolutes like they think they know it all when the truth is no one knows.
Secondly, aspergers is not a lifestyle choice but homosexuality is in most cases. Of course it may also be an inbalance of testosterone and estrogen levels. However, what bothers me the most is the adoption of kids by homosexual couples because that can't have good psychological effects on the child and it isn't natural or fair for that child. Also, wouldn't Americans have to pay more taxes if gay marriage is legalized to support the cause?
Judging by the way you talked in that topic, I assume you are gay (using the word "we"), but I have no problem with them as long as they are friendly and not mean or tried anything on me. Of course any person who is not friendly to me and is mean to me, lies to me, or says they care or love me but treats me like I'm unimportant to them, makes me angry. Doesn't matter who they are.
It never ceases to amaze me the pointless and odd topics that are created on HLP. Looks like at least a couple of others were monkeyed too, including iamzack. At least now I know that mods and admins aren't playing favorites and disliking anyone who is non-athiest or has any conservative values. I was beginning to think that if someone on this board has any spirituality or conservative values or believes in the likely possibility that there is more than just the physical world, or if a member is not a pure liberal and doesn't think that spirituality is impossible and his mind doesn't accept only pure science and nothing else, like many close minded members on this board seem to think and do (only believing in science and everything else is impossible; thinking like Spock or a robot), then that makes the chances of him getting monkeyed much more likely over an atheist who was to commit the same offense, since the admins seemed to play favorites. But thankfully I seem to be wrong about admins playing favorites.
Oh yeah, and I have been online on HLP sometimes. I just changed my setting to invisible on HLP so others can't see my status or what topic I'm on, but can still see when I was last online by going in my profile, though I'm set to be signed in forever.
Even if my monkeying gets removed, I don't want to be active with posts much at all, if at all, or waste time with too many posts since I'm tired of the people here and the way they talk and insult anyone who isn't an atheist fanatic or close minded like a religious person or atheist. People here bigot all the time but whine about being bigotted towrds. It's good to be a bigot about certain things however. Have balance and stand up for your way of thinking. But many people here are being hypocrite and can't take a taste of their own medicine or practice what they preach.
So I thought it to be funny to delete my posts to screw up their topics and rid my history on this forum as much as possible and also make it look like they were replying to each other and didn't make sense. I got a laugh out of that. Plus, since I'm not appreciated here, I don't want others to have my advice and I want it removed. I know about the weekly backup and assumed it was there to backup the forum, but deleting my posts was addictive and I had a hard time making it less noticeable by only deleting a few at a time. I also should have timed it right before Thurday, when the weekly backup seems to takes place, so my posts couldn't have been restored. I'm not stupid.
I had a little trouble understanding at first, but I think I got the jist after a couple times reading it. To translate:
- He isn't sure if HLP users have lives.
- He does a lot of things, despite having Asperger's syndrome ( :yes: ) unlike a lot of HLP posters apparently ( :( ), which explains why we posters always speak in absolutes.
- You can't choose to be an Aspie, but you can choose to be a homosexual! Or maybe you can't. However, homosexual adoption is clearly terrible, right? It'll also increase your taxes, right?! (lolwut)
- I'm probably gay, by the way I talk (fair enough.) But he's cool with it as long as I'm not mean, don't hit on him, or tell him I love him before leaving him. (Don't worry bro, I'm never gonna tell a lie and hurt you.)
- Admins don't like anyone who isn't a liberal robot who thinks we all turn into goo upon death. Except for Zack. Apparently the administration seemed to be one way, but weren't really. Good to know.
- He's always signed in, even if you can't see him. Like God.
- He's tired of being persecuted because he's not closed minded like a religious person but also not an atheist fanatic. It's also good to be a bigot though. Stand up for yourself and be a bigot.
- Deleting your posts is funny, especially when you give really good advice. tee hee. He's not stupid though, he knows the server is trying to keep him from deleting his advice. So he's being very sneaky.
-
- Admins don't like anyone who isn't a liberal robot who thinks we all turn into goo upon death. Except for Zack. Apparently the administration seemed to be one way, but weren't really. Good to know.
Sorry, wrong. He says that "At least now I know that mods and admins aren't playing favorites..."
-
God, I swear, every time I read a thread in GD, I get more stupid.
-
He doesn't seem to realize that all his posts just go to the Recycler where we can read them all we want and restore them if we like.
-
How long was he monkeyed for, anyway?
-
- Admins don't like anyone who isn't a liberal robot who thinks we all turn into goo upon death. Except for Zack. Apparently the administration seemed to be one way, but weren't really. Good to know.
Sorry, wrong. He says that "At least now I know that mods and admins aren't playing favorites..."
My bad. Appears my translating skills aren't quite up to par.
-
Internet-- serious business.
-
God, I swear, every time I read a thread in GD, I get more stupid.
What, you were expecting something else? I come here to feel better about myself. It's so totally fulfilling.
-
Sorry, wrong. He says that "At least now I know that mods and admins aren't playing favorites..."
We aren't.
Well unless you call discrimination against utter stupidity playing favourites.
And I find the claim that the admins around here pick only on the religious hilarious cause I run most of my decisions past Goober and get told I should have been harsher about as often as I get told to be more lenient. :p
-
For those who feel like they are getting picked on:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/
-
Oh, huh, forgot about this thread.
Ehhh... why not?
First of all, I wonder if the majority of HLP members have lives or do they just waste time making silly topics on forums about things like "Oreo Cookies" though it was a little funny, and talking smack behind others' backs like children. You didn't have to use my member name "High Max" as an example and say "aspergers" when you and all people on the forum don't know the story, and I assure you that I'm not like the average person with so-called Aspergers.
I'm quite well off even for that so-called diagnoses. I like to keep busy, do side jobs, work out in the gym, and ride bike for exercise, besides reading and watching Ed programs.
Nobody gives a damn that you have asperger's. Shut up about it already.
Secondly, aspergers is not a lifestyle choice but homosexuality is in most cases.
WRONG-O! You don't pick who you are attracted to.
However, what bothers me the most is the adoption of kids by homosexual couples because that can't have good psychological effects on the child and it isn't natural or fair for that child.
Uhhmmm... two dads > no parents at all
This "it's not natural" business is bull****. Must I bring up the gay penguins that adopted an orphaned chick and raised it just fine?
Also, wouldn't Americans have to pay more taxes if gay marriage is legalized to support the cause?
No.
Judging by the way you talked in that topic, I assume you are gay (using the word "we"), but I have no problem with them as long as they are friendly and not mean or tried anything on me. Of course any person who is not friendly to me and is mean to me, lies to me, or says they care or love me but treats me like I'm unimportant to them, makes me angry. Doesn't matter who they are.
So... you have the same standards for gays as hetero folk? Good to know. By the way, I have no problem with blacks as long as they don't mug me.
*snip* (the rest of it)
Agh, nevermind. Like 75% of the post is inane ramblings about how great he is.
-
Off topic but a response to the PM from iamzack:
First, I knew you had a religion (you claimed to), I didn't forget, but I was mainly refering to most of the others.
Secondly, I thought that it was an HLP joke about Turambur being your boyfriend. It is hard to know what are jokes and what aren't in HLP.
Third, I was just very angry last night about other things and also angry at your mean comments in this thread, so if I seemed immature, that was why.
Fourth, sometimes I act over confident but sometimes I feel like I'm not important, but I try to improve myself when many people don't. I know I'm only one person with little importance. I only talked big because I was angry. I actually lacked a lot of confidence until a few years ago.
Fifth: I didn't know I was unmonkeyed because it didn't have the reply button appearing in the threads. But now I won't post much and I will be quiet to avoid stress and save time.
Also, the truth is that lately, I'm quite scared of death and worry about the possibility that I have no afterlife. I am trying to look up research so I can have some comfort. I won't lie. I keep my mind open to pretty much any possibility. All I can do is hope I have one, continue living as long as I can on Earth, I look at the little evidence that it is likely there is one.
-
Why respond to a PM in a public channel?
-
Also, the truth is that lately, I'm quite scared of death and worry about the possibility that I have no afterlife. I am trying to look up research so I can have some comfort. I won't lie. I keep my mind open to pretty much any possibility. All I can do is hope I have one, continue living as long as I can on Earth, I look at the little evidence that it is likely there is one.
How about you just make the best of the time you know you have, and if there happens to be something after, it's a bonus.
-
Why respond to a PM in a public channel?
Because I was unmonkeyed. I wonder if Trashman will be unmonkeyed soon. If he isn't, he may not make another chapter of FoW. But I should stop so I don't go off topic more.
-
But I should stop so I don't go off topic more.
:blah:
:)
:lol:
:wakka:
Dude, do you realize how incredibly off topic this thread already is? If it was any more off topic, we'd actually be talking about FreeSpace! :P