Prop 8, tyranny of the majority?

[ShivaX]

I don't see why amending a state constitution is so damn easy. I'm of the mindset that you should need a supermajority of some sort to do things like this. I'm also of the mindset that these things should be done by representatives and not popular vote. And now for some extremely relevant quotes:

In a democracy the majority of citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppressions upon the minority...and that oppression of the majority will extend to far great number, and will be carried on with much greater fury, than can almost ever be apprehended from the dominion of a single sceptre. Under a cruel prince they have the plaudits of the people to animate their generous constancy under their sufferings; but those who are subjected to wrong under multitudes are deprived of all external consolation: they seem deserted by mankind, overpowered by a conspiracy of their whole species.


It is a besetting vice of democracies to substitute public opinion for law. This is the usual form in which masses of men exhibit their tyranny
Authority has always attracted the lowest elements in the human race. All through history mankind has been bullied by scum. Those who lord it over their fellows and toss commands in every direction and would boss the grass in the meadow about which way to bend in the wind are the most depraved kind of prostitutes. They will submit to any indignity, perform any vile act, do anything to achieve power. The worst off-sloughings of the planet are the ingredients of sovereignty. Every government is a parliament of whores. The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us.

[neutralism]

Yeah, what really could have been an extremely joyous day was tarnished by these Proposition passage "victories." :(

I'm particularly upset with the ones that passed in Michigan and Massachusetts. :mad:

I agree, the process needs to change to make these kinds of things more difficult for a simple majority to enjoy.

[Heresyte]

It's being said that Obama's victory proves that America has evolved and joined the 21st century, but that is demonstratably false as so far 4 MILLION Californians have voted to eliminate a right in order to make a minority group second class citizens. It's still possible for liberty to prevail, but the odds aren't looking good.

[Purple Santa]

It's being said that Obama's victory proves that America has evolved and joined the 21st century, but that is demonstratably false as so far 4 MILLION Californians have voted to eliminate a right in order to make a minority group second class citizens. It's still possible for liberty to prevail, but the odds aren't looking good.

It's not that America "evolved". Obama ran an excellent campaign. There was some great stuff on this in the NY Times yesterday on this yesterday. But I digress...What is sad, going back on topic, is to realize how the beliefs of many lead to "distorted" thought. I don't expect everyone to have the same opinion. I don't think everyone should have the same values as myself. Where the distortion comes in is when those beliefs encroach on the lives of others or how they will live. We don't do a good job of "educating" ourselves about being "different" and as different groups of humans that we are, that this being "different" is okay. What was once a survival trait, to "fear" those that are different is now a trait that is as useful as the appendix. It's unfortunate so much legislation gets built upon this learned fear.

[Seika]

From what I've personally seen, most people basically voted yes because they didn't want their children to be taught about the "gay ways" (as a fellow college student put it) in the schools.

:facepalm:

All I can say to all those that just became second class citizens, sorry about that, I made my vote, I tried to tell the truth, but there was just too much money on the other side. Oh well...

So much for equality for all.
Not that it matters, that one was already in pretty bad shape anyway, just another shoe print.

[aVaKus]

Thanks to everyone who tried to stop these horrible measures from going through. I honestly feel as though I just got kicked in the stomach. I was expecting for the measures in AZ and FL to pass, but California?

It's hard to even be the slightest bit excited over the Obama win when I know America just took a step backward for people like me.

A person's civil rights should never be put up to the popular vote. History has shown us this and now that this hatred is 'Constitutional', I'm not sure about the next step.

I guess I will continue to go about my life as a second class citizen.....for now.

[Inspector Fowler]

Not to be rude, but to be a devil's advocate - you realize this is a democracy, right?

There were some ballot intitiatives in CO I felt very strongly about that got defeated - including one referendum that would have (as you mentioned above) made it much more difficult to ammend the state Constitution. I will not go around saying how dumb the voters are. I won't stomp around like some kind of elitist child, saying how stupid, cruel, or "tyrannical" the voters are.

One of my least favorite elements of a democracy has been to watch how the minority (the losers) spend some time ridiculing, belittling, and insulting the majority (the winners). It doesn't win anybody to your cause any more than an insulting right-wing Christian bumper sticker is going to make somebody convert to Christianity.

I know this is going to upset you guys, which is fine. I'll be at work ;)

But think about this before you get super angry: If you want real change, think about those who have caused it in our nation. They were, and are, overwhelmingly positive. Dr. King railed against racism, he didn't try to shame those who held racist beliefs. He didn't go around (as some of us may) talking about how dumb, backwards, or inbred racists were. If I were a person, especially a southerner, with racist beliefs, that would just encourage me to isolate myself and my beliefs even more. Being attacked would just "prove" to me that I was right.

In the same way, I would encourage you to not take this attitude with Prop 8. Trying to make people feel evil or stupid is just going to reinforce their belief that they were right to vote against gay marriage. It's going to make them feel attacked and encourage their feelings of "us vs them".

Just something to think about going forward.

[Telefrog]

I agree with most people on this. California voters really dropped the ball on Prop 8. Most of them bought into the "attack on marriage" line without even thinking about it.

Prejudice sucks.

[Thanasimos]

Fuck my state. I called it -- I said Prop 8 would pass. But that doesn' tmean I like it.

[KingGorilla]

I am happy that patients of my state have a new option in pain treatment. Stem cell research as a ban was an unfortunate consequence of poorly worded Dr. Death laws and ammendments from the 90's. I saw it as a good first step to groundbreaking medical research and techniques.

[cppcrusader]

Amendment 2 passed here, same deal. I was genuinely surprised considering how big the gay community is here Central Florida. I guess in the end the crotchety, senile, prejudiced old folks still outnumber everyone else in Florida.

[KingGorilla]

But with full faith and credit, these bans are moot. That is Federal mandate there, and the exception to gay marriage there failed.

And there are also the courts to consider. There is way more precedent against these bans than for. Dr. King did not get the ball rolling for nothing after all.

[Johan]

Here's a shocker...in a country of 300 million people, you're not going to get political/social wins across the board. You have the House, Senate, and White House, Democratic Party! Take your case to the people and to your political representatives who actually write the NATIONAL laws, rather than begging liberal judges to legislate from the bench. Convince your representatives and the public, and your victory will be lasting.

America is a modestly conservative nation; center-right. This isn't news...it's reality.

[Straximus]

Shameful.

I have little doubt that 30 years from now, our children will study this period with the same wonderment over the rampant and senseless intolerance that I studied the Jim Crow era with. Here's to the rest of the 21st century - May it end better than it began.

[ShivaX]

Not to be rude, but to be a devil's advocate - you realize this is a democracy, right?

Actually its a republic. The founders pretty well mocked democracy as a form of government. In fact its been universally mocked until recent times, when its meaning changed to mean democratic republic.

When it comes to the rights of others it when it really bothers me. I don't think a simple majority vote should be able to strip the rights of other people. If it was a 2/3 majority I would be more willing to accept it.

[Generation ABXY]

I rather chuckle at the idea that, when people vote for something you like (like Obama), it is a success of our great country and stands as a real beacon of what we can overcome. But, when it is for something you don't like (like this), it is a crushing failure and there is no hope for mankind.

That wasn't directed at anything in particular, just in general.

[ShivaX]

I rather chuckle at the idea that, when people vote for something you like (like Obama), it is a success of our great country and stands as a real beacon of what we can overcome. But, when it is for something you don't like (like this), it is a crushing failure and there is no hope for mankind.

That wasn't directed at anything in particular, just in general.

Yeah but voting for a person is different than voting for people's rights. I've always hated politicians who couldn't look at a poll before making a choice. This goes beyond that and just makes popular opinion into law. If we had done the same thing with civil rights, odds are blacks would still have seperate bathrooms in quite a few states.

Also easy amendments to a constitution is just stupid anyway. California's Constitution is fucking stupid. Its like 100+ pages because its so easy to amend. Things that should just be laws made by a legislature are instead amendments to the constitution.

[Purple Santa]

Here's a shocker...in a country of 300 million people, you're not going to get political/social wins across the board. You have the House, Senate, and White House, Democratic Party! Take your case to the people and to your political representatives who actually write the NATIONAL laws, rather than begging liberal judges to legislate from the bench. Convince your representatives and the public, and your victory will be lasting.

America is a modestly conservative nation; center-right. This isn't news...it's reality.

True and truer. But it's so much easier to sit for to many and just bitch. I'm already looking at next year's elections locally. There is someone in office for way to long, and since it's an office that no one really understands, they get to stay nice and cozy. I'm not in this area where I am now for a long period of time, but i'm getting active to put some pressure on the elected official. If we see something wrong, we need to act upon it. Even if it's just handing out leaflets or going door to door, with proverbail door getting slammed in your face.

[Johan]

True and truer.

Yes, but we're on opposite sides of the issue.

[Bone]

I am glad we have people looking out for marriage. My wife and I could barely stay married if we knew that gay people were allowed to do the same. Because traditional marriage is a rock, but gay marriage is paper- and we all know that paper beats rock.

[TheFlyingOrc]

The solution is still to get government to quit defining marriage, because the word has far more metaphysical meaning than legal.

[Johan]

The solution is still to get government to quit defining marriage, because the word has far more metaphysical meaning than legal.

Getting government out of marriage sounds great, but there's a major problem related to the government; taxes.

Our tax code looks like someone ate ten tons of spaghetti noodles, digested it, crapped it out, ate it again, vomited it up, and then tried to draw a picture with the noodles. It's a freaking mess. Marital tax breaks and the like would need to be addressed. So would inheritance tax laws. So would a lot of other tax-related stuff, but I can't tell because the noodles are a mess.

[KingGorilla]

Is lesbian marriage scissors?

[Goronmon]

I rather chuckle at the idea that, when people vote for something you like (like Obama), it is a success of our great country and stands as a real beacon of what we can overcome. But, when it is for something you don't like (like this), it is a crushing failure and there is no hope for mankind.Would you be chuckling if this amendment removed the rights for blacks to be married? I don't want to get into an argument of "what ifs", but I don't see how this is comparable to the election of a politician. This removes some fairly basic rights for a significant group of people for no reason other than the prejudice of another significant group.

Edit: I will cease considering the passing of this and other related amendments ridiculous if someone can provide me with a single logical reason why gays should not be allowed to be married.

[ShivaX]

Getting government out of marriage sounds great, but there's a major problem related to the government; taxes.

Our tax code looks like someone ate ten tons of spaghetti noodles, digested it, crapped it out, ate it again, vomited it up, and then tried to draw a picture with the noodles. It's a freaking mess. Marital tax breaks and the like would need to be addressed. So would inheritance tax laws. So would a lot of other tax-related stuff, but I can't tell because the noodles are a mess.

Thats why all marriages should be "civil unions" in the eyes of the law. Marriage is just a religious recognition of that union. It should not be a legal term. I think most people would be fine with civil unions for everyone, they only have an issue with marriage because they see it as an attack on their religious values, even though it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with legal rights.

[KingGorilla]

Because the Bible sort of almost kinda says that you shouldn't?

[Johan]

Is lesbian marriage scissors?

I suppose some would say that "those scissors can sharpen my rock any time!" right? ;)

Thats why all marriages should be "civil unions" in the eyes of the law.

Ravioli.

Because the Bible sort of almost kinda says that you shouldn't?

Not if you skip every other word.

Every other page, if you're really pressed for time, as I advise my students.

[Generation ABXY]

Would you be chuckling if this amendment removed the rights for blacks to be married? I don't want to get into an argument of "what ifs", but I don't see how this is comparable to the election of a politician. This removes some fairly basic rights for a significant group of people for no reason other than the prejudice of another significant group.

Who said I wanted blacks to marry?

I kid, I kid!

Seriously, I just look at how it works in general. A lot of the same people complaining now are the same ones who are also complaining at the idea of banning abortion; if you ask me, that is putting the rights of one person over the rights of another. Some people want to make hateful slurs a crime - I don't particularly care for that (slurs) myself, but I respect the idea that people can say what they want, especially since banning words won't remove the underlying hate that exists. But, our system has been based on the majority making a decision. If the decision isn't what you would have liked, the onus is then on you to convice other people why your side is the correct one. Don't just sit back and then piss vinegar when the "wrong" choice is picked.

Edit: I will cease considering the passing of this and other related amendments ridiculous if someone can provide me with a single logical reason why gays should not be allowed to be married.

I, for one, don't care anymore whether they get married. I was kind of excited at the idea that it won't be in the news anymore, so I guess this ban - which my state wasn't voting on - is kind of a step in the wrong direction, as far as never hearing about it again. But, I also respect the choice of the majority here, just as I do with the presidential election.

[National Kato]

This is just a shameful reflection of how far we still have to go as a country. I'm not going to get too upset, because the close-minded people who voted for these bans will never achieve what they really want. All they've done is postpone the inevitable.

[Young Al Capone]

Shameful.

I have little doubt that 30 years from now, our children will study this period with the same wonderment over the rampant and senseless intolerance that I studied the Jim Crow era with. Here's to the rest of the 21st century - May it end better than it began.

This is exactly how I feel about it. The majority is holding down a minority, and one of the main reasons we have the our constitutional rights is to prevent exactly this.

Lately it has really struck me as a glaring issue, as it is outright discrimination as I see it. Morally you can be opposed as you see fit, but legally what ground is there to tell a couple that they cannot marry or enter a civil union?

[Goronmon]

But, I also respect the choice of the majority here, just as I do with the presidential election.For cases like this I certainly don't.

[Johan]

...but legally what ground is there...

Rights don't come out of nowhere; they need an external source of authority to provide the basis for them. Is your external authority religious? Secular? Textual? You just can't declare a right and it comes into being. It needs a basis apart from subjective opinion upon which to be founded...a legal, or spiritual, or other basis.

The demagoguery and invective in this thread are silly, because the legal right operative here is the right of people in particular states, according to our own national Constitution, to amend their own state constitutions and conduct most of their own internal affairs. Now, you may disagree with that, but upon what basis do you or others cast aspersions on the character of people who oppose gay marriage, and do so through the legal mechanism of their own state constitutions? Is there some religious authority you turn to for the basis of your disapproval? Some foreign entity's constitution? Our own Constitution allows for the states to exercise this judgment, whether you agree or not.

This is a problem without a national solution. If there were a national solution to this and other tough issues like abortion, we would have found it. The next-best, and imperfect but legal, solution is the states. CT, VT, and MA are quite hospitable to gay marriage/unions. The people of California have decided that their state is not, and done so by popular vote and mandate, as did FL and AZ.

It's life. You don't get everything you want, but you can find a place that offers more of what you want. I moved to a state that more closely reflected my desire for lower taxes and a state government that wasn't a nanny. I'm quite happy with that choice. Either mobilize and work through the system, or move. Quit casting insults at how your own moral code is somehow superior to the majority of Californians. You have no basis for that stance. They legally changed their constitution. Change it again, or move to "warmer" climes.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Getting government out of marriage sounds great, but there's a major problem related to the government; taxes.

Our tax code looks like someone ate ten tons of spaghetti noodles, digested it, crapped it out, ate it again, vomited it up, and then tried to draw a picture with the noodles. It's a freaking mess. Marital tax breaks and the like would need to be addressed. So would inheritance tax laws. So would a lot of other tax-related stuff, but I can't tell because the noodles are a mess.

That's fine - make them all civil unions. If they weren't CALLED marriages, we wouldn't have this problem in the first place.

[Young Al Capone]

Rights don't come out of nowhere; they need an external source of authority to provide the basis for them. Is your external authority religious? Secular? Textual? You just can't declare a right and it comes into being. It needs a basis apart from subjective opinion upon which to be founded...a legal, or spiritual, or other basis.

...

The Constitution. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/dixon_02.htm) I know that is not the most damning evidence, but cut me some slack; I am writing this between my responsibilities here at work and that is the result of a quick and sloppy Google search.

I don't cast aspersions into the character of others based on anything, I said you can be as opposed as you want on a moral ground. However the reality of it as it is is that legally it is being used to hold down a minority based on moral beliefs. Moral beliefs that not everyone holds, and more importantly are supposed to be completely seperate from our government.

I am not even going to get into a solution for it, and I do see it as a national issue, so there is some fundemental disconnects between me and you on this one.

Look, I don't usually reply in these threads for a reason, but this one bugs me. The way I see it a minority is having thier rights, or opportunities based on how you view it, taken away by the majority and that is fundementally opposed to one of the very reasons our Constitution exist.

[Gwinny]

Rights don't come out of nowhere; they need an external source of authority to provide the basis for them. Is your external authority religious? Secular? Textual? You just can't declare a right and it comes into being. It needs a basis apart from subjective opinion upon which to be founded...a legal, or spiritual, or other basis.

I guess the disagreement comes from the fact that some see being able to form a union with whomever they like as an inalienable right, which doesn't require any of those external sources of authority. In this country it is perceived as an inalienable right for heterosexual couples (as long as one of them isn't, you know, nine), and it is this double-standard that sticks in people's craws.

[Bone]

Is lesbian marriage scissors?Yep, very sexy scissors. But traditional marriage crushes those with a rock of voyeurism, leaving nothing to counter the insidious gay paper marriage.

[Johan]

The Constitution. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/dixon_02.htm)

The Constitution allows states wide latitude in regulating their own affairs. You may have a basis for a lawsuit, but not for calling the majority of Californians "shameful," or of Massachusetts "wonderful." I'm sure there will be a lawsuit or two...or two hundred, but it's a part of their constitution now.

I guess the disagreement comes from the fact that some see being able to form a union with whomever they like as an inalienable right, which doesn't require any of those external sources of authority. In this country it is perceived as an inalienable right for heterosexual couples (as long as one of them isn't, you know, nine), and it is this double-standard that sticks in people's craws.

It's a legally governed/granted right with privileges and responsibilities. If people want to declare marriage an inalienable right, they're going to need some evidence for that. I see none in our national Constitution. A few states have judges that have interpreted that right and legislated it from the bench.

People must be relying upon some religious document somewhere to enforce this moral "right" then, I suppose? Where else does it come from? And why is it subsequently limited to heterosexual and homosexual couples? Why not polygamists?

[ShivaX]

it's a part of their constitution now.

So is a lot of other crap that shouldn't be there.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/const-toc.html

ARTICLE X A WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ......................... 1-8
ARTICLE XIX B MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL SALES TAX REVENUES AND
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT FUNDING .................. 1


Really? Those needed to be in the Constitution? Maybe I'm old school, but I think the Constitution should be rules for how the government works and the rights of the citizens. It shouldn't be a random collection of laws.

[Johan]

So is a lot of other crap that shouldn't be there.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/const-toc.html

Sure. That doesn't invalidate the reality that Californians just yesterday added something to their constitution which they are legally entitled to add, by popular vote.

Nor would it invalidate a change, were that to happen in a few elections. Vote on it again!

I think the Constitution should be rules for how the government works and the rights of the citizens.

It is, and that's exactly what happened here, according to a legal process. Just because what you think is "right" lost doesn't invalidate that in any way.

[ShivaX]

People must be relying upon some religious document somewhere to enforce this moral "right" then, I suppose? Where else does it come from? And why is it subsequently limited to heterosexual and homosexual couples? Why not polygamists?

Well the other side of that coin is that if marriage isn't a right then you can't get any extra benefits from it. That means you lose all your marital rights and I don't really think anyone wants to go that way with things. Why should you get to add another person to your health care coverage when I can't? Why should you get visitation rights when I don't? Etc, etc.

Every single priviledge given to married people would have to either be removed or applied to everyone.

[Johan]

Every single priviledge given to married people would have to either be removed or applied to everyone.

Then work for that. At this point, you have victories in several states which you can either build upon where you are (to gain such benefits/rights for your own state), or move to one where those rights are already available.

Also, unless you have some moral code that you believe is applicable to all people anywhere, then the only "rights" are the ones society agrees to abide by and grant those within society.

Is there some basic moral foundation for right and wrong? If not, it's the sloppy outworking of society's compromises.

[ShivaX]

Then work for that. At this point, you have victories in several states which you can either build upon where you are (to gain such benefits/rights for your own state), or move to one where those rights are already available.
I'm not gay, but I am single, so I should be allowed all the rights of a married person. I don't so its discrimination against non-married people.

Or we can just call it all civil unions as far as the law is concerned. You can call it marriage, she can call it a monkeypaw, it doesn't matter. All that matters is that everyone gets the same rights.

[Johan]

All that matters is that everyone gets the same rights.

Fight for that legislatively, constitutionally, legally, and otherwise. That argument failed in California, AZ, and FL, but it's succeeded in CT, MA, and VT.

[ShivaX]

Fight for that legislatively, constitutionally, legally, and otherwise. That argument failed in California, AZ, and FL, but it's succeeded in CT, MA, and VT.

I'm sure thats what people will do, its just a matter of innocent people being punished for years while it works through the courts.

[johnperkins21]

Is there some basic moral foundation for right and wrong?

Yes, it's called human decency, or more commonly, The Golden Rule. Treat others as you would have them treat you. If gays were the majority, would you agree that it is right for them to oppress your right to a heterosexual marriage? No? Then why oppress their right?

[pomeroy]

Fight for that legislatively, constitutionally, legally, and otherwise. That argument failed in California,

I wonder if the actual argument did fail, or if the way the argument was worded did the trick.

[MagGnome]

I'll probably stay away from this thread, as this is a very personal and emotional issue to me for reasons that should be obvious. Besides, others have already been far more eloquent than I can be at this time.

This is the kind of thing that makes me not "proud" to be an American.

This is the kind of thing that makes me roll my eyes when I hear someone spouting off on how America is so great, blah blah.

This is the kind of thing that makes me realize that there are a lot of fucked up, hateful people out there that have nothing better to do with their time than take away my rights and worry about what I'm doing in my private life. Who gives a shit about poverty or homelessness or underfunded schools or healthcare when the gays are getting married, right?

If this "majority" had their way I wouldn't be allowed to be with another man at all. Thinking about the world they'd like to create scares the shit out of me to be honest.

[Gwinny]

It's a legally governed/granted right with privileges and responsibilities. If people want to declare marriage an inalienable right, they're going to need some evidence for that. I see none in our national Constitution. A few states have judges that have interpreted that right and legislated it from the bench.

People must be relying upon some religious document somewhere to enforce this moral "right" then, I suppose? Where else does it come from? And why is it subsequently limited to heterosexual and homosexual couples? Why not polygamists?

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights enumerates marriage between people of full age, regardless of race, religion, or nationality as a right for all humans, and that's the mindset that prevails in the United States. It sounds rather synonymous to me - universal human right, natural right, inalienable right. It sounds like I'm appealing to the authority of the United Nations, but they aren't claiming to be the originator of these rights, instead, they come to all by virtue of being human.

I tried to think of an example, but... the closest I could get was that the laws against mixed-race marriages were taken off the books. To be fair one could argue that came from an appeal to legal authority (the Constitution) once African-Americans were considered full citizens.

I don't presume to be able to sort out where the current definition of marriage came from - it's too long and tangled a history. In the ancestral environment were we polygamous apes? Probably, some of us. But there must also have been an instinct for monogamy too. How that translates to the centuries and centuries of shifting cultural, social, and religious norms, I couldn't tell you.

[TrackZero]

Here's to the rest of the 21st century - May it end better than it began.

Oh it will. So keep preparing for the war with the zombies, followed by the the war with the machines.

[LongStepMantis]

I'll probably stay away from this thread, as this is a very personal and emotional issue to me for reasons that should be obvious. Besides, others have already been far more eloquent than I can be at this time.

This is the kind of thing that makes me not "proud" to be an American.

This is the kind of thing that makes me roll my eyes when I hear someone spouting off on how America is so great, blah blah.

This is the kind of thing that makes me realize that there are a lot of fucked up, hateful people out there that have nothing better to do with their time than take away my rights and worry about what I'm doing in my private life. Who gives a shit about poverty or homelessness or underfunded schools or healthcare when the gays are getting married, right?

If this "majority" had their way I wouldn't be allowed to be with another man at all. Thinking about the world they'd like to create scares the shit out of me to be honest.

Then take solace in the fact that the world they want to create will never last. When I was young you would have been hard pressed to find anyone willing to admit they didn't mind gay lifestyles, let alone support it. Now I see and hear people every day openly advocating equal rights for gays...when they themselves, are not.

In my opinion, it's only a matter of time before the general consensus of gays shifts into the positive. Right now, obviously not...but unless people simply stop being gay, it will never end. Like women, minorities, and others before them...they will get what they want eventually. It cannot be stopped, it's an inevitability.

[Banacek]

I thought this country was founded on protecting the minorities, the downtrodden. It seems I was wrong. My only consolation is that we have about one more generation before this is over.

[aVaKus]

Thanks for saying this Dan. It's just really hard to be optimistic right now after taking such a hard blow. Seems like every time we gain a little ground these hateful religious groups manage to step in trample it.

I just want to be myself, live my life, and be as happy as I can in the process. Isn't that what everyone wants? Why am I not allowed to do that?

Then take solace in the fact that the world they want to create will never last. When I was young you would have been hard pressed to find anyone willing to admit they didn't mind gay lifestyles, let alone support it. Now I see and hear people every day openly advocating equal rights for gays...when they themselves, are not.

In my opinion, it's only a matter of time before the general consensus of gays shifts into the positive. Right now, obviously not...but unless people simply stop being gay, it will never end. Like women, minorities, and others before them...they will get what they want eventually. It cannot be stopped, it's an inevitability.

[MagGnome]

Then take solace in the fact that the world they want to create will never last. When I was young you would have been hard pressed to find anyone willing to admit they didn't mind gay lifestyles, let alone support it. Now I see and hear people every day openly advocating equal rights for gays...when they themselves, are not.

In my opinion, it's only a matter of time before the general consensus of gays shifts into the positive. Right now, obviously not...but unless people simply stop being gay, it will never end. Like women, minorities, and others before them...they will get what they want eventually. It cannot be stopped, it's an inevitability.

You speak the truth, and there is some small comfort in that.

Still, it's hard waiting and putting up with all of the hate directed at me and those with a "different" sexual orientation.

The tide is turning in our favor though, and it's only a matter of time before those who use hate to take away our rights are looked at as an oddity, much as we look back at Jim Crow and the like today.

[walkstheplanes]

I wonder if the actual argument did fail, or if the way the argument was worded did the trick.

A large part of the reason why Prop 8 passed was because supporters claimed that churches would be sued if they didn't marry gay couples and because they thought that gay marriage would be rammed down their childrens' throats in school.

Lies. Here's a link that presents rebuttals to Prop 8 arguments.

http://www.mormonsformarriage.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/mat-responses-to-six-consequences-if-prop-8-fails-rev-1-1.pdf

Anecdote:

I have a deeply religious Christian friend who I had a heated argument with in regards to Prop 8. Tensions ran pretty damn high, but I managed to get him to turn the other way when I explained to him how the bit on law suits and education were red herrings, and how he was imposing his religious beliefs on other people. He still says still he won't be disappointed if prop 8 passes (which it just did -- but we had this conversation before the election), but he says if he were more informed he would have voted no, despite his own belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. So there's hope, and there's a way if arguments remain civil.

I'm EXTREMELY dissapointed in California, but we'll see again in two years if we can allow gays to marry and prevent second-class citizen legislature.

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/props/index.html

There's a link to the results of our State Ballot Measures. They had up, for a while, a good map of the districts with how each county voted, but it's gone.

[KingGorilla]

Look gayness is just scary. I have a diffivulty just peeing or showering without fear that catching a glimpse of my naked self will scar my soul with an insatiable craving for cock.

The idea that there are those who willfully pursue them, makes me wonder if that flying green horse I saw last night was more than the crystal meth playing tricks.

[biosc1]

I for one am happy that Prop 8 passed...our city gets some nice tourism dollars from couples wishing to get married here because they can't in their own state :) I like to think we've been pretty far ahead of the curve in this matter, though it has some very heated debates still.

I'm all for supporting our economy.

[Widgetcraft]

It's a legally governed/granted right with privileges and responsibilities. If people want to declare marriage an inalienable right, they're going to need some evidence for that. I see none in our national Constitution. A few states have judges that have interpreted that right and legislated it from the bench.

People must be relying upon some religious document somewhere to enforce this moral "right" then, I suppose? Where else does it come from? And why is it subsequently limited to heterosexual and homosexual couples? Why not polygamists?

It's called common sense. You don't need an invisible man to tell you what's right and what's wrong; some things are just obvious.

[Johan]

Yes, it's called human decency, or more commonly, The Golden Rule. Treat others as you would have them treat you.

You've already pinpointed the problem...everyone has differing notions of how they want to be treated. There is no "Golden Rule" that spans the world with its moral code, known by all. That's just not a reality. People disagree on very basic stuff.

This is the kind of thing that makes me realize that there are a lot of fucked up, hateful people out there

I'm sorry that this is such a personal loss for you, but it doesn't help to demonize people who disagree.

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights enumerates marriage between people of full age, regardless of race, religion, or nationality as a right for all humans, and that's the mindset that prevails in the United States.

The Constitution, not the UNHDR, covers the United States. Even basic rights like equality of women and the right to freedom of conscience in religious choice are not respected nor adhered to around the world. The UNDHR applies fully nowhere.

these hateful religious groups

Again...demonizing those you oppose isn't helpful. It's not going to persuade the moderately conservative to turn from aligning with the terribly conservative. You need another message.

A large part of the reason why Prop 8 passed was because supporters claimed that churches would be sued if they didn't marry gay couples and because they thought that gay marriage would be rammed down their childrens' throats in school.

The fear of lawsuits is not a lie. It's a reality. Also, "ramming" does go on.

More info. here. (http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/issues/traditionalfamily/default.aspx?cid=3482)

In some areas of the country where homosexual activists have had free reign for years, the indoctrination of children starts as early as kindergarten. At a Massachusetts Gay, Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN) conference, there was a specific workshop on how to “incorporate gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender issues into the early elementary years.”1 On the GLSEN website, there are elementary school lesson plans featuring the themes “What is Boy/Girl?” along with books with titles such as Queering Elementary Education. 2

GLSEN is one of the most vocal pro-homosexual groups. Its efforts to indoctrinate children are relentless. On April 9, 2003, GLSEN staged its second annual “Day of Silence.” Students were encouraged to remain silent throughout the day and not respond to their teachers or administrators. Organizers of the event told children that they should “brainstorm” a list of people “who stand in your way.” Those people included teachers, counselors, and administrators who have “denied you their support in the past and who’ve expressed bias against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered people. It also suggested that the list include other children, school board members, people in the community, and relatives “who have shown intolerance” of homosexuality. The organizing manual notes that “people who oppose you on your issue are known as, you guessed it, your opponents.”

So, GLSEN is telling little children that their relatives are the “enemy” if they oppose homosexual behavior. Our question (and we are afraid of the answer): Does “relatives” include Mom and Dad? Indeed, we will see that this is exactly what GLSEN means. It does mean mom and dad.

In Silverlake, Massachusetts, a freshman health text says: “Testing your ability to function sexually and give pleasure to another person may be less threatening in your early teens with people of your own sex . . . You may come to the conclusion that growing up means rejecting the values of your parents” [emphasis added].4This statement blatantly acknowledges the agenda of radical homosexual activists: convince early teenagers to experiment with homosexual behavior and to reject the values of their parents. The students who received this text were told they could not take it home.


Now, I'm sorry it makes people so emotional, but the reality is that there is a battle going on for the hearts and minds of children, attempting to make "normative" for kids what some parents don't want their children to view as normative. It's not surprising that, when people see this pushed at their children and they oppose it as parents, that they push back.

It's also unfortunate people demonize their opponents, but again...we live in a society where those who disagree must be hateful, horrible people.

It's called common sense. You don't need an invisible man to tell you what's right and what's wrong; some things are just obvious.

NOTHING as it relates to morality is obvious, unless you have an external, universal moral code you live by? Some...invisible man or woman, perhaps?

[TheFlyingOrc]

It's called common sense. You don't need an invisible man to tell you what's right and what's wrong; some things are just obvious.
So we, creatures who are no more then complex chemical reactions, have ways that we "ought" to act because....?

[Heresyte]

Marriage is thus something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men. There can be no prohibition of marriage except for an important social objective and by reasonable means. No law within the broad areas of state interest may be unreasonably discriminatory or arbitrary.... Legislation infringing such rights must be based upon more than prejudice and must be free from oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws.

That is from the California Supreme Court in 1948, when they got rid of the law against interracial marriage.

[Widgetcraft]

NOTHING as it relates to morality is obvious, unless you have an external, universal moral code you live by? Some...invisible man or woman, perhaps?

On the contrary, unless you have an invisible man whispering in your ear, there is absolutely no reason to find offense in the idea of gay marriage.

[Food Nipple]

Now, I'm sorry it makes people so emotional, but the reality is that there is a battle going on for the hearts and minds of children, attempting to make "normative" for kids what some parents don't want their children to view as normative. It's not surprising that, when people see this pushed at their children and they oppose it as parents, that they push back.

It's also unfortunate people demonize their opponents, but again...we live in a society where those who disagree must be hateful, horrible people.


Sorry, but this is one case where the opponents deserve it. If Christians want to deny rights to gay people, they shouldn't be surprised if they're called bigots. I see no fundamental difference between anti-gay Christians and Islamist extremists who force women into burkas. Your religious beliefs do not allow you to infringe on other people's rights. Some might think this is "demonizing" your opponents, but it's simply calling a spade a spade, and if you take offense, perhaps you should take a moment to consider what you believe.

[National Kato]

If this "majority" had their way I wouldn't be allowed to be with another man at all. Thinking about the world they'd like to create scares the shit out of me to be honest.

Mags, I hope in light of losses like this you remain confident that people are fighting for you. Throughout our history, in almost every case, equality wins out over ignorance. This will happen with this issue as well...albeit slowly.

[aVaKus]

Sorry, but this is one case where the opponents deserve it. If Christians want to deny rights to gay people, they shouldn't be surprised if they're called bigots. I see no fundamental difference between anti-gay Christians and Islamist extremists who force women into burkas. Your religious beliefs do not allow you to infringe on other people's rights. Some might think this is "demonizing" your opponents, but it's simply calling a spade a spade, and if you take offense, perhaps you should take a moment to consider what you believe.

Much more eloquently put than anything I could have come up with, thank you.

[Bone]

If Christians want to deny rights to gay people, they shouldn't be surprised if they're called bigots. I see no fundamental difference between anti-gay Christians and Islamist extremists who force women into burkas. Your religious beliefs do not allow you to infringe on other people's rights. Some might think this is "demonizing" your opponents, but it's simply calling a spade a spade, and if you take offense, perhaps you should take a moment to consider what you believe.
Thank you Food. There was also a time when majorities were against freedom for black people and equality for women. I'm sometimes surprised that so many people with religious convictions could support anything denying equal treatment for humans. Jesus would probably not be too cool with that.

[National Kato]

Well said, Food. Thanks.

[GunnyMo]

I'm just constantly amused that conservatives somehow think that male/female marriages are the only way to go. Divorce anyone? If marriage was such a sacred institution these people should be pushing for a ban on divorce.

There is absolutely no legal or moral reason that makes any logical sense that says children should only be raised by a man and a woman in marriage seeing as that is usually the fundamental argument used. "What about the children?!" Suuuuuuuure. Single parents raising many hundreds of thousands of kids, married couples creating latchkey children, custody battles, etc.

These straight people have shown they are awful at marriage and saving the children. How could gays possibly make it any worse?

[Heresyte]

NOTHING as it relates to morality is obvious, unless you have an external, universal moral code you live by? Some...invisible man or woman, perhaps?
This issue has nothing to do with morality. If you discriminate against gays then you do not value the principles of freedom and equality that our country is supposed to stand for. Whether or not you can argue that these american ideals are morally right (or morally wrong) is completely irrelevant. The point is that this kind of discrimination violates our countries most fundamental principles and thus doesn't belong in the united states.

[KingGorilla]

Why is the, illogical, fallback position on this issue "marriage is not a right?". That is not the issue, equal opportunity and access is a right, a human right. Freedom from arbitrary denial of privilages is a right. If a gay person had Aids, deny him/her a license just as you would a straight couple.

[National Kato]

There is absolutely no legal or moral reason that makes any logical sense that says children should only be raised by a man and a woman in marriage seeing as that is usually the fundamental argument used. "What about the children?!" Suuuuuuuure. Single parents raising many hundreds of thousands of kids, married couples creating latchkey children, custody battles, etc.

That's just it. They may say it's 'for the children' but it's not. Kids don't care what sex their parents are, just like they don't care if they're raised by their birth parents or total strangers: they just need to be loved and raised in a loving household.

Any other excuse is just the close-minded adults projecting their own prejudices and fears.

[GunnyMo]

Now, I'm sorry it makes people so emotional, but the reality is that there is a battle going on for the hearts and minds of children, attempting to make "normative" for kids what some parents don't want their children to view as normative. It's not surprising that, when people see this pushed at their children and they oppose it as parents, that they push back.


lol This isn't about children in any way shape or form. It's about a backwards religious ideology trying to force its archaic beliefs onto others through the law. These same religious nuts thought it would be the end of morality for their children if black children were allowed to attend the same schools as white children.

If you don't want your children to see something you don't like as "normative" then guess what? Be a parent and teach your child. Quite honestly, I abhor the idea of my son going to church or being indoctrinated into the absurdity of man's religion but I don't stop him from talking about it. Hell, his daycare is INSIDE a church. I don't stop him from asking questions. I don't try to get the laws changed to say that churches shouldn't teach to children who can't make informed decisions. I parent and let him make his own choices.

So called "christians" could learn a thing or two from their own Savior.

[Banacek]

Sorry, but this is one case where the opponents deserve it. If Christians want to deny rights to gay people, they shouldn't be surprised if they're called bigots. I see no fundamental difference between anti-gay Christians and Islamist extremists who force women into burkas. Your religious beliefs do not allow you to infringe on other people's rights. Some might think this is "demonizing" your opponents, but it's simply calling a spade a spade, and if you take offense, perhaps you should take a moment to consider what you believe.

Exactly. Don't cry when I call you a bigot because you acted like a bigot.

[GunnyMo]

That's just it. They may say it's 'for the children' but it's not. Kids don't care what sex their parents are, just like they don't care if they're raised by their birth parents or total strangers: they just need to be loved and raised in a loving household.

Any other excuse is just the close-minded adults projecting their own prejudices and fears.

Now I'm going to agree with you. :D Kids love who loves them. They don't question their parents sexuality. No argument. No morality. No religion.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Perhaps an amendment banning religious marriages is in order. We've progressed past needing an imaginary god to bless a union. Civil unions work just fine.

Kids aren't racist until racist parents teach that to them. Kids aren't homophobes until parents teach it to them.

[roboninja]

These straight people have shown they are awful at marriage and saving the children. How could gays possibly make it any worse?

Worse?!? How could it be worse?? Jehovah! Jehovah!!

R_hlMK7tCks

Some levity for a heated topic.

[shunoshi]

Some levity for a heated topic.

Hahaha, The Life of Brian is so awesome. :D

[walkstheplanes]

The fear of lawsuits is not a lie. It's a reality. Also, "ramming" does go on.


Not in California. It is an absolute lie. Churches cannot be sued and have any sort of monetary consequences (if any consequences) in our state for denying gays from getting married.

It is people imposing personal beliefs on others, plain and simple. Whether people choose to restrict others based on (primarily religious) beliefs is up to the voter. It's their insistence on these red herring possibilities that made the campaign for Pro Prop 8 so infuriating.

[Banacek]

Not in California. It is an absolute lie. Churches cannot be sued and have any sort of monetary consequences (if any consequences) in our state for denying gays from getting married.

That won't stop them from saying it. Apparently to Christians, the end always justify the means.

[Maskatron]

Prop 8 passed mostly due to heavy support from Orange County and San Diego County. Today I am reminded why I moved from OC a decade ago. :mad:

[Johan]

On the contrary, unless you have an invisible man whispering in your ear, there is absolutely no reason to find offense in the idea of gay marriage.

Disagreeing with something doesn't equate with "finding offense." It also seems that, considering you find disagreement to be offensive yourself, you have a basis for this apparently obvious moral code. Invisible what now?

If Christians want to deny rights to gay people, they shouldn't be surprised if they're called bigots.

equality wins out over ignorance.

Two further examples of intolerant anger, name-calling, and hatred.

This issue has nothing to do with morality. If you discriminate against gays then you do not value the principles of freedom and equality that our country is supposed to stand for.

So, it has nothing to do with morality, but it's a question of moral principles? :confused:

Any other excuse is just the close-minded adults projecting their own prejudices and fears.

The only people who are hostile, close-minded, and angry in this thread are the people who are supposedly the ones with this apparently universally understood moral code.

Seriously...the name calling is a sign of desperation, intellectual bankruptcy on the issue, and the same kind of horrid mentality you decry.

If you don't want your children to see something you don't like as "normative" then guess what? Be a parent and teach your child.

That freedom is being removed, as I've already linked to and shown.

Exactly. Don't cry when I call you a bigot because you acted like a bigot.

Kids aren't racist until racist parents teach that to them. Kids aren't homophobes until parents teach it to them.

More of the same intolerant hatred.

It is people imposing personal beliefs on others, plain and simple.

On this we agree. We disagree as to who is attempting to impose beliefs upon whom, however.

Really, the rabid hatred, anger, and name-calling is incredible. It's intolerance of the first order. You LOST. Go back and try to WIN in the arena of public debate and action. Bitching people out with horrible accusations makes YOU look like what you decry in others.

[walkstheplanes]

Prop 8 passed mostly due to heavy support from Orange County and San Diego County. Today I am reminded why I moved from OC a decade ago. :mad:

Coastal counties were strongly against the prop, while central, far north, and the counties you mentioned (and LA county -- strong Catholic presence there) were pro. I was hoping the cities would overcome this proposition (primarily because it is THEM who would be actually impacted by this), but looks like there's a lot of haters.

[DylonCorp]

Exactly. Don't cry when I call you a bigot because you acted like a bigot.

Back at the red house I was told I was a bigot because I was bigoted against bigots. Then I got confused, lay down and took a nap.

I felt like the 43rd President of the United States.

[Goronmon]

Seriously...the name calling is a sign of desperation, intellectual bankruptcy on the issue, and the same kind of horrid mentality you decry.Oh sorry, I'll be sure to use the correct "person who is devoted to the intolerance of gay couples" instead of the word "bigot". I wouldn't want to offend anyone.

[Scaryfaced]

I feel somehow compelled to bring up the fact that Marriage, as it's understood today, is a relatively new concept in human history. Polygamy is actually much more common in history than what we call "traditional" marriage today. Any member of a society with wealth would most likely marry several wives, as well as keep a hariem of concubines at his disposal as well. This was directly related to how rich the man was, as his number of wives was dictated by his own personal wealth. Only marry as many as you can support. Marriages between one man and one woman were reserved for the poorest levels of society, which were more often than not used for financial gain. Women were sold to their husbands along with a dowery, usually used to cement a relationship between their own family and the family they were marrying into. That's what "traditional" gets you. This is a symptom of ALL patriarchal societies. Matriarchal societies, which are few and far between, worked exactly opposite with a single female attended by a harem of "husbands".

So basically, if anyone tries to tell you what "traditional marriage" is, they probably don't actually know much about the history of marriage. According to many traditions in the Catholic church, both Kings and Bishops had the legal right to deflower you bride on your own wedding night. How's that for tradition?

I'll also point out that children need to learn about homosexuality as they're going to encounter it sooner or later. Some of their classmates and friends will undoubtable be homosexuals. It's an inevitability in the world we currently live in. If it's not taught in schools, when will they ever learn to accept people's differences? What of the gay and lesbian children at the Kindergarten level? I've heard numerous accounts from gay friends saying they started feeling different at about the kindergarten or first grade level. Will they have to live in the dark, always feeling different from other children and never understanding why? If we expect to live in a society that understands the difference between people, we have to make the effort actually try and understand people that are different then us. What better time to instill acceptance of people's differences than at a young age?

I'll tell you this, if a kid isn't gay, learning about gay and lesbian marriages wont change that fact. What your fighting for is the right to make sure your kids feel just as intolerant of another group of people as you do. It may be an extreme example, but it reminds me of KKK members raising their children to hate other races. There's a singing group called Prussian Blue, made up of two beatiful young girls. Their families have raised them to hate and frankly, it's one of the saddest things I've ever seen.
________
Wwwfucktube.Com (http://www.fucktube.com/)

[walkstheplanes]

On this we agree. We disagree as to who is attempting to impose beliefs upon whom, however.


I'm seeing one group of people trying to turn another group of people into second class citizens -- a group of people who are trying to live monogamist, harmless lives.

Regardless, yes, we will be trying again in two years to overturn this change of the CA Constitution. It was forced into the State by predominantly Church beliefs through lies/misdirection, a tactic that was definitely never the focus by the opposing party.

[Banacek]

More of the same intolerant hatred.

From where I'm sitting, all the hatred is one one side of the table.

It's a shame that you and most Christians can't just come out and admit that you hate gay people. It's not surprising seeing that the Christian faith is built on hypocrisy and lies. But go on and embrace your moral high horse. Your kind won't win this fight forever.

[Johan]

Oh sorry, I'll be sure to use the correct "person who is devoted to the intolerance of gay couples" instead of the word "bigot". I wouldn't want to offend anyone.

Those of you standing in this thread, shouting invective at people who disagree with you, are no different than the Phelps family. You're the same coin, on the other side.

I believe very, very intensely that pregnancy involves a baby...a human life. Calling you a fucking baby killer who melts the skin off unborn babies, rips out their brains, tears off their limbs, and tosses 3,500 of them in the garbage every day in America alone, making you an immoral, heartless bastard...

DOES NO GOOD in convincing ANYONE of the rightness of my cause or wrongness of your position.

Go back to work politically and socially, and drop the name-calling. You have no basis to morally pronounce millions of people bigots because they disagree with you.

It's a shame that you and most Christians can't just come out and admit that you hate gay people. It's not surprising seeing that the Christian faith is built on hypocrisy and lies. But go on and embrace your moral high horse. Your kind won't win this fight forever.

There is no hatred involved at all. Your intolerance and hatred of people who disagree with you is obvious, however. I've done nothing but calmly explain my position, and that of millions and millions of others. You and others have simply resorted to moral pronouncements and name-calling.

Win your way in the public realm. Give up the hatred and name-calling. It diminishes you.

[Banacek]

Those of you standing in this thread, shouting invective at people who disagree with you, are no different than the Phelps family. You're the same coin, on the other side.

I believe very, very intensely that pregnancy involves a baby...a human life. Calling you a fucking baby killer who melts the skin off unborn babies, rips out their brains, tears off their limbs, and tosses 3,500 of the in the garbage every day in America alone, making you an immoral, heartless bastard...

DOES NO GOOD in convincing ANYONE of the rightness of my cause or wrongness of your position.

Go back to work politically and socially, and drop the name-calling. You have no basis to morally pronounce millions of people bigots because they disagree with you.

Common Christian tactic. Bring up something involving children when the discussion isn't even about it. Good luck with that.

[walkstheplanes]

From where I'm sitting, all the hatred is one one side of the table.

It's a shame that you and most Christians can't just come out and admit that you hate gay people. It's not surprising seeing that the Christian faith is built on hypocrisy and lies. But go on and embrace your moral high horse. Your kind won't win this fight forever.

I talked with another (extremely devout) religious friend of mine, and it's hard to convince them of this when they believe homosexuality is morally wrong.

I did manage to convince him, though, that he shouldn't let his personal religious beliefs interfere with the ideas of others -- ESPECIALLY when these people are harmless in the big picture. He said he would not be disappointed if prop 8 passed, but would have voted no if I had talked to him before he sent in his ballot. It boiled down to separation of Church and State.

Christians can realize this with civil discourse (assuming both parties are open minded, which my friend certainly was, despite his extreme devoutness). Give them a chance, as much as you don't want to.

[Banacek]

Win your way in the public realm. Give up the hatred and name-calling. It diminishes you.

Sorry, but the Christian Right started this war, not me. I just intend to see it to the end :)

[Johan]

Common Christian tactic. Bring up something involving children when the discussion isn't even about it. Good luck with that.

The discussion is a heated, divisive emotional issue...just as abortion is. Calling others names over divisive social issues is pointless, as I've said. It's not a "tactic." It's a request for intelligent discussion, not moralistic pronouncements of how RIGHT one side is and how WRONG the other is.

In fact, I am one of the few in this thread who seems willing to actually calmly discuss the issue without resorting to petty attacks.

Christians can realize this with civil discourse

I have been extremely civil in this thread, but most of you have not. The moral invective is hostile, intolerant, hateful, and unconvincing of their moral/social authority on the issue.

[Goronmon]

I believe very, very intensely that pregnancy involves a baby...That's great, but we are talking about gay rights, not abortion, which is a much hairier subject.

Go back to work politically and socially, and drop the name-calling. You have no basis to morally pronounce millions of people bigots because they disagree with you.Again, I fail to see how the term "bigot" is incorrect here. Are you arguing that people who believe gays don't have the right to marriage do in fact believe gay people have equal rights and opportunities and should not be treated as lower class citizens? What term do you find acceptable to sum up the stance that gay people should not have equal rights and opportunities?

[walkstheplanes]

Sorry, but the Christian Right started this war, not me. I just intend to see it to the end :)

This is so true in the case of California.

Man, I'm so disappointed in my state.

Are you from California, or one of the states with Gay Marriage ballots?

[Banacek]

I did manage to convince him, though, that he shouldn't let his personal religious beliefs interfere with the ideas of others -- ESPECIALLY when these people are harmless in the big picture. He said he would not be disappointed if prop 8 passed, but would have voted no if I had talked to him before he sent in his ballot. It boiled down to separation of Church and State.

That's the thing. I have always lived my life with the notion that everyone has the right to believe how they see fit. I would defend Christians that want to pray in schools, or those who don't want to study evolution. I'm just sick of them never returning the courtesy. Now I just don't care. Let society return to feeding them to lions.

[Banacek]

This is so true in the case of California.

Man, I'm so disappointed in my state.

Are you from California, or one of the states with Gay Marriage ballots?

I'm living in Cali. I got everyone I know up and voting to shoot down Prop 8. It's a shame that it wasn't enough.

[Johan]

I'm just sick of them never returning the courtesy.

That's just hyperbolic extremism, and unsupportable.

You have a conservative individual in this thread right now who is respectfully listening...to hateful speech and name-calling. Where is the reasoned intellect, the understanding, the humility that no one individual can possibly be right all the time and be the moral voice of a nation?

The best way to convince conservative people, religious or not, is to rub elbows with them in the real world, be respectful, and win them over with reason.

Again, I fail to see how the term "bigot" is incorrect here.

Then there's really no point in talking, is there? Why would you talk with a bigot? Move along...

[VerseD]

I was really disappointed when this bill passed, for a lot of reasons, but especially because the majority is taking away rights from a minority population. That's a terrible precedent.

What bugs me is that these are the same people who make the slippery slope argument, that by allowing gay marriage you erode the institution and move us closer towards allowing polygamy and incest or whatever.

Well Prop 8 definitely sets us down a slippery slope, allowing a religious majority to define a civil institution according to their beliefs. It's so backwards I can hardly believe it.

All of the arguments for Prop 8 were ridiculous. As others have pointed out, marriage as we understand it is much more liberal than "traditional marriage." Marriage is not a religious institution, its a civic and social one. And should we remove evolution and the big bang theory from school curriculum because some parents want to teach their kids about creationism? Fuck no.

Saying same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry is discrimination, and saying they should be happy with civil unions is segregation. How can people be so blind to that?

Really, the rabid hatred, anger, and name-calling is incredible. It's intolerance of the first order. You LOST. Go back and try to WIN in the arena of public debate and action. Bitching people out with horrible accusations makes YOU look like what you decry in others.

People who defend the rights of a minority are bigoted and intolerant? I think you need to learn what those words mean.

[walkstheplanes]

I'm living in Cali. I got everyone I know up and voting to shoot down Prop 8. It's a shame that it wasn't enough.

Well, I'll see you at the polls in two years when we can return the constitution to its pre prop 8 state. Keep fighting the good fight!

[Banacek]

That's just hyperbolic extremism, and unsupportable.

You have a conservative individual in this thread right now who is respectfully listening...to hateful speech and name-calling. Where is the reasoned intellect, the understanding, the humility that no one individual can possibly be right all the time and be the moral voice of a nation?

The best way to convince conservative people, religious or not, is to rub elbows with them in the real world, be respectful, and win them over with reason.

But conversion is never going to happen, is it?

Ok, I'm going to step back for a second. Tell me why you think that banning gay marriage is the correct course of action. Let's start the dialogue.

[Johan]

People who defend the rights of a minority are bigoted and intolerant? I think you need to learn what those words mean.

First of all, don't invent quotes for me. I haven't called anyone in here bigoted. It is indeed INTOLERANT to conduct a debate on a contentious social issue by stating that those who disagree are bigoted.

In fact, that's not a debate. That's a sermon from a pulpit. Interesting, that...ironic.

But conversion is never going to happen, is it?

Perhaps...perhaps not.

Ok, I'm going to step back for a second. Tell me why you think that banning gay marriage is the correct course of action. Let's start the dialogue.

I'm unconvinced that you believe there is anything to actually discuss. Can you blame me? Really...your own words don't appear to leave any room for discussion.

I have found that rubbing elbows with people in the real world helps one to open to possibilities that one might never have considered. I believe I have a logical position theologically, and I also believe I have a logical position socially. In fact, I've already said that the states and the public square is the place for this debate to occur. Work within one's own state, or move to "warmer" climes.

I don't know what else you want. Perhaps ammunition to attack? :confused:

[walkstheplanes]

You have a conservative individual in this thread right now who is respectfully listening...to hateful speech and name-calling. Where is the reasoned intellect, the understanding, the humility that no one individual can possibly be right all the time and be the moral voice of a nation?


Well, I hope you keep this mentality up. We on the "left" deal with as many close minded individuals are you are perceiving, so you can understand the animosity of some of our members.

[Scaryfaced]

I had a girl in class today tell me her mother had recently read the bible several times and never found a line saying marriage was between a man and a woman. It said something to the tune of "Marriage is a bond between two consenting people". I asked her to name which Bible she was referring to, so hopefully I'll get that info next week. Another student tried to counter this by referring to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, which is a failed interpretation of both the biblical story and our modern use of the word "Sodomy", a word we've invented to refer to specific act, not an actual act innumerated in biblical text. Sodom and Gomorrah seems to be more about a lesson in hospitality and the treatment of strangers than anything that could be construed as an arguement against gay marriage.
________
Elena Ford Specifications (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Elena_Ford)

[Banacek]

Well, I'll see you at the polls in two years when we can return the constitution to its pre prop 8 state. Keep fighting the good fight!

I'm not sure if that's possible. I think that once something enters the California Constitution that it takes 2/3rds of the state legislature to overturn it. I could be mistaken though.

[Goronmon]

It is indeed INTOLERANT to conduct a debate on a contentious social issue by stating that those who disagree are bigoted.You're right, I'm intolerant of bigoted behavior. Consider it a character flaw.

[Banacek]

I had a girl in class today tell me her mother had recently read the bible several times and never found a line saying marriage was between a man and a woman. It said something to the tune of "Marriage is a bond between two consenting people". I asked her to name which Bible she was referring to, so hopefully I'll get that info next week. Another student tried to counter this by referring to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, which is a failed interpretation of both the biblical story and our modern use of the word "Sodomy", a word we've invented to refer to specific act, not an actual act innumerated in biblical text. Sodom and Gomorrah seems to be more about a lesson in hospitality and the treatment of strangers than anything that could be construed as an arguement against gay marriage.

Leviticus and Romans mentions that gay sex is wrong. Though Leviticus also says to stone your wife if has her period in your bed and Paul says that women are better seen and not heard :)

[Johan]

You're right, I'm intolerant of bigoted behavior. Consider it a character flaw.

Again...if that is your position, you've been clear. You certainly shouldn't dirty yourself talking with one, and can safely move on.

Well, I hope you keep this mentality up.

I'm not sure why anyone would, frankly. If I showed this thread to the members of any church in the area, they would universally be horrified, regardless of their liberal or conservative inclinations.

[MagGnome]

I have been extremely civil in this thread, but most of you have not. The moral invective is hostile, intolerant, hateful, and unconvincing of their moral/social authority on the issue.

Overexxagerate much? Give me a break.

[Johan]

Overexxagerate much? Give me a break.

I know this is very personal for you, but I haven't been offensive, and the things people have said in here have been extremely offensive.

Of course, we can't even agree on that, so I suppose we don't need to discuss it further?? :confused:

[J'onn J'onnz]

It's a damn shame that the fundamentalists in this country have so much sway, taking away the right for someone to enter into union with another consenting adult is just wrong. We pride ourselves on being free here, when in reality this is all it takes to take away someones "inalienable rights", it's disgusting that people have their rights stripped away because a group wants to make their religious beliefs the basis for law.

[Goronmon]

Again...if that is your position, you've been clear. You certainly shouldn't dirty yourself talking with one, and can safely move on.Where did I say that discourse was out of the question? If I see someone being a dick I'll say "Stop being a dick." I don't just put them on some sort of universal permanent ignore.

[Scaryfaced]

Can we actually have a discussion about the issues instead of throwing insults or sporting a holier than thou attitude? Why should marriage be defined as a bond between a MAN and a WOMAN? What basis to you have to dictate who someone else can marry? Religious arguements don't count, as even if we considered them to be real arguements, they're full of holes on even a theological basis.

Why do you feel that gays and lesbians shouldn't have the right to marry whoever they want and be equally treated under the law?
________
MASTURBATION PUBLIC (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/756/public/videos/1)

[Johan]

Can we actually have a discussion about the issues...

It doesn't look like it. That's unfortunate.

If I see someone being a dick I'll say "Stop being a dick."

Finally, the basis for discussion. People who disagree with you aren't just bigots; they're dicks! :D

[Goronmon]

Why do you feel that gays and lesbians shouldn't have the right to marry whoever they want and be equally treated under the law?As far as I know, no one on this site actually thinks that gays and lesbians should not be allowed to marry, so we are relegated to arguing with hypothetical characterizations of people who disagree with us.

[Alatheia]

The Declaration of Independence states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Now, I would consider that for someone to marry the person they love as included in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...

[Gormanimal]

If Christians want to deny rights to gay people, they shouldn't be surprised if they're called bigots.

examples of intolerant anger, name-calling, and hatred.

bigoted – (adjective): utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

Johan, how is it name-calling when the definition fits? It may be that people against gay marriage don't like being called bigots, but if they're intolerant of the choice others have the right to make they earn themselves the title.

[Banacek]

It doesn't look like it. That's unfortunate.

Well, don't ignore the posts where people ask for one and we could have it.

[Banacek]

Overexxagerate much? Give me a break.

I love how the moral majority gets so scared when their own tactics are used against them.

[Banacek]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/us/politics/06ballot.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Among the more unusual measures on this year’s ballots was one in Florida that would repeal an old clause in the state constitution that allows legislators to bar Asian immigrants from owning land. The repeal would be symbolic, as equal protection laws would prevent lawmakers from applying the ban. With 78 percent of precincts reporting just before 11 p.m. Tuesday, the vote was close, with 52 percent voting to preserve the clause.

And we're supposed to listen to the majority? :confused:

[J Arcane]

I guess sometimes I must just have been revering a totally different God than most American Christians, because I always thought he was pretty big on Love, and I don't see him condemning the union of two people who love each other.

He also never really seemed like a bigot to me either, all that gay hate just doesn't mesh with a religion supposedly founded by Jesus Christ, a man who was one of the most tolerant and forgiving human beings ever born to this earth.

Now Paul, he was kind of a bastard, but frankly I never fully bought his side of the story, and never really considered him more than just another overzealous fresh convert. Some "Christians" though seem more "Paulian" than anything, more interested in his words than those of their supposed Savior.

I find it sad, and disheartening, that a religion of love and forgiveness has become so perverted and corrupt, and yes, bigoted in this country, especially given this is supposedly a country all about freedom and whatnot.

[walkstheplanes]

I love how the moral majority gets so scared when their own tactics are used against them.

Anti-8 never resorted to the lies and scare tactics of the Pro-8. The slimy way the "Moral Majority" behaved alone maddens me to no end.

[Banacek]

Now Paul, he was kind of a bastard, but frankly I never fully bought his side of the story, and never really considered him more than just another overzealous fresh convert. Some "Christians" though seem more "Paulian" than anything, more interested in his words than those of their supposed Savior.

You hit the nail on the head. It's a shame that most Christians aren't more like Christ. But without Paul the Christian faith dies in it's first century. Funny how that works.

[walkstheplanes]

bigoted – (adjective): utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

Johan, how is it name-calling when the definition fits? It may be that people against gay marriage don't like being called bigots, but if they're intolerant of the choice others have the right to make they earn themselves the title.

Considering that gay people, in nearly every aspect of their lives, are identical to heterosexuals, I'm going to have to agree that I see the advocates of straight-only marriage as bigots (particularly in the context of California considering that there will be little to no repercussions on the part of the Pro voters).

And no, it is not the same as being intolerant of polygamists, rapists, etc. Let's not go down Red Herring Rd.

[Alatheia]

It's a really small step but King County (one Seattle is in) passed an amendment to the county charter that added disability, sexual orientation, and gender identity to the list of things that cannot be discriminated against.

I'm glad that it passed but a bit sad that we'd even need a list of things that can't be discriminated against in the first place :|

[5y1v4r]

I'm hesitant to jump into this thread now because there seems to already be a lot of vitriol on both sides but this is an issue really close to home for me so I'm going to add my two cents.
I have lesbian parents, my moms were "married" in a private ceremony seven years before I was born and have been together since. Both me and my little brother were born through artificial insemination from anonymous donors so in a very real sense we have only ever had our two moms for parents. Ironically we both turned out to be straight. So I think I'm pretty darn qualified to speak on this.
It bothers me on a fundamental level to see people treat gays as a threat to "the marriage institution." There really is no possible way that they could undermine marriage, there is no slippery slope, there are only responsible adults wanting to express their love. There are practical concerns too, unfortunately marriage has become both a spiritual and a legal entity. It seems to me like an individual church refusing to marry a gay couple is fine, that's their religious belief... but the government refusing legal benefits and the same opportunities of marriage to a partnership based solely on religious/moral grounds skates right over the edge of separation of church and state to my thinking.
It saddens me because I thought we as a country were better than this. And yet here is this stupid proposition 8 and yesterday I read that Arkansas successfully passed it's Ban Gay Adoption measure. It's mind boggling to me that a majority of people still consider it perfectly ok to make my parents second class citizens... that's just not right.

[Scaryfaced]

Leviticus and Romans mentions that gay sex is wrong. Though Leviticus also says to stone your wife if has her period in your bed and Paul says that women are better seen and not heard :)

The real problem here is that the Bible we refer to today, and who many believe to be unfailable, isn't the same Bible that was written two thousand years ago. The original books of the bible, as well as a handful of apocrypha that were deamed unfit for the Catholic religion, were written mostly in Latin. Depending on which Bible you adhere to, it's most likely been translated several times into several different languages. This works just like the school game "telephone", where a message is given to one student, who then tells another and another, making its way around the class. The experiment obviously shows that a message diseminated through several sources often changes as it goes. You can do the same thing by translating sentences using Babelfish, then translating them back to English.

What I'm saying is that the passages we refer to as "God's honest truth" aren't necesarily what the author originally wrote. Many, many people have translated those texts over the years, mistranslating this word or putting their own spin on that word. Often, translations were challenged in the church's history to be inaccurate as theologians studied and compaired texts to their original sources. I'm currently in a college course talking about Martin Luther, as well as the Anibaptists, which would later become Baptists, Menonites, Amish, etc. As religious scholarship rose, so to did the challenges raised as to the accuracy of the text. This largely accounts for why these denominations split from the Catholic church in the first place.
________
ASIAN PORN STAR (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/135/porn-star/videos/1)

[walkstheplanes]

You hit the nail on the head. It's a shame that most Christians aren't more like Christ. But without Paul the Christian faith dies in it's first century. Funny how that works.

Jesus himself claimed he never passed judgements...

Romans 14:1-12 is all about not passing judgement on non-consequential beliefs and ideas of other people.

I have a few "liberal" Christians friends who get by using those quotes.

[GunnyMo]

More of the same intolerant hatred.




I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not. If not, do you actually believe that for me to say kids are taught racism and homophobia by homophobic and racist parents is intolerant hatred on my part? I hope I'm wrong on you there.

I have never said I begrudge people the right to their own beliefs whether they are wrong in my view or not. What I begrudge is people forcing their morality onto other people through the law. There are basics to morals that transcend, and are eerily similar, in the basis of every religion or belief on this planet.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Love they neighbor as thyself, etc.

These homophobic christians are not practicing either of those to any degree in this arena. Gays are not asking if they can get married and then fuck on the sofa of every straight couple out there. All they want is the same rights and privileges as any other citizen of this country. There is no moral argument against that. None. Gays marrying will not destroy this country or our way of life. The idea that it will is quite honestly ignorant.

Again, these types of homophobes are the exact same people, and use the exact same arguments, as racists did to justify slavery, degradation and denial of rights to women, or any other morally unjustifiable act in history. Dressing it up in fancy talk and asking to be "civil" by these same people is disgusting hypocrisy.

[itchyeyes]

I guess sometimes I must just have been revering a totally different God than most American Christians, because I always thought he was pretty big on Love, and I don't see him condemning the union of two people who love each other.

He also never really seemed like a bigot to me either, all that gay hate just doesn't mesh with a religion supposedly founded by Jesus Christ, a man who was one of the most tolerant and forgiving human beings ever born to this earth.

Now Paul, he was kind of a bastard, but frankly I never fully bought his side of the story, and never really considered him more than just another overzealous fresh convert. Some "Christians" though seem more "Paulian" than anything, more interested in his words than those of their supposed Savior.

I find it sad, and disheartening, that a religion of love and forgiveness has become so perverted and corrupt, and yes, bigoted in this country, especially given this is supposedly a country all about freedom and whatnot.
To be fair, I think the two party system is as much at play here as the Christian religion. Political discourse in our nation has devolved to nothing more than "us" vs "them" drivel. You're either with "us", or you're with "them". As an independent this is especially apparent, as everyone identifies you as "them", oftentimes even if you're in agreement on a particular issue.

So for every issue, there has to be two sides that are given equal weight regardless of how rational that may be. So if "they" are pushing for gay marriage then "we" must be against it, otherwise someone might think of us as one of "them". And so the reasoning goes on election day, and 5.3 million people show up and check yes, a good portion of them doing so not because they have particularly strong feelings on the issue but simply because it's what "we" do and not what "they" do.

[Banacek]

What I'm saying is that the passages we refer to as "God's honest truth" aren't necesarily what the author originally wrote. Many, many people have translated those texts over the years, mistranslating this word or putting their own spin on that word. Often, translations were challenged in the church's history to be inaccurate as theologians studied and compaired texts to their original sources. I'm currently in a college course talking about Martin Luther, as well as the Anibaptists, which would later become Baptists, Menonites, Amish, etc. As religious scholarship rose, so to did the challenges raised as to the accuracy of the text. This largely accounts for why these denominations split from the Catholic church in the first place.

Well, for the first 1500 years or so the Bible wasn't taken at it's literal translation at all. It wasn't until the Bible was converted into the language of the common man and his lack of intelligence of the subject that people started believing in a literal translation.

As Augustine said (paraphrasing): "Why would God need 6 days to do something he could do in an instant?"

[MagGnome]

I love how the moral majority gets so scared when their own tactics are used against them.

Crying about name calling when someone points out that you are a bigot is just ridiculous.

Try being called faggot, cocksucker, fudge packer, or virus breeder. Try being told that you should be killed or die of AIDs. Try having someone threaten to hang you from a tree just because you are different.

Try dealing with all of that on a regular basis, and then come crying to me about being called a bigot.

[Alatheia]

Mags... /hug

[Bone]

I know this is very personal for you, but I haven't been offensive, and the things people have said in here have been extremely offensive.

Of course, we can't even agree on that, so I suppose we don't need to discuss it further?? :confused:
I think you really need to reflect on the word bigot.

If I were calling you a racist, and you said that you discriminate against blacks but that you're not a racist- would this also be me hating on you? We're talking about the definition of a word here.

If you discriminate against gays- people who are otherwise human and equal to you- then I think you should call yourself a bigot, and do so proudly if that's what you believe.

[sparkfizt]

I'm hesitant to jump into this thread now because there seems to already be a lot of vitriol on both sides but this is an issue really close to home for me so I'm going to add my two cents.
I have lesbian parents, my moms were "married" in a private ceremony seven years before I was born and have been together since. Both me and my little brother were born through artificial insemination from anonymous donors so in a very real sense we have only ever had our two moms for parents. Ironically we both turned out to be straight. So I think I'm pretty darn qualified to speak on this.
It bothers me on a fundamental level to see people treat gays as a threat to "the marriage institution." There really is no possible way that they could undermine marriage, there is no slippery slope, there are only responsible adults wanting to express their love. There are practical concerns too, unfortunately marriage has become both a spiritual and a legal entity. It seems to me like an individual church refusing to marry a gay couple is fine, that's their religious belief... but the government refusing legal benefits and the same opportunities of marriage to a partnership based solely on religious/moral grounds skates right over the edge of separation of church and state to my thinking.
It saddens me because I thought we as a country were better than this. And yet here is this stupid proposition 8 and yesterday I read that Arkansas successfully passed it's Ban Gay Adoption measure. It's mind boggling to me that a majority of people still consider it perfectly ok to make my parents second class citizens... that's just not right.

Funny stuff that your post seems to have been passed over :P

I think there's legitimate fear from the people voting against this. It raises the eternal question of nature vs nurture and how much those two things interact. If you feel gay people will end up going to hell by nature of that choice, and also believe the environment of gay parents would increase the odds of a child going gay then it's pretty obvious why they'd be against it. The problem is that there is'nt really an answer to this question as we don't even know why people are gay, if it's nature then gay adoption means nothing.

I'm fairly in the middle, but would vote to legalize gay marriage when given the choice. I do personally wonder why there's a line between gay marriage and polygamy? if two people love each other and get married, how is that any different than 3? should polygamy be disallowed but gay marriage allowed?

The problem is the people attempting to discuss this at present have wildly different world views on this subject. So different that both sides feel the other guy is completely invalid in their decision with no room for discussion.

[Bingley Joe]

People who support any law that denies homosexuals the same legal rights as any other human being are closed-minded, ignorant, pathetic, bigoted scum. They need to fuck off. All of them.

[Johan]

I'm going to have to agree that I see the advocates of straight-only marriage as bigots

More of the same...

I'm hesitant to jump into this thread now because there seems to already be a lot of vitriol on both sides

There's only vitriol on one side. Reread the thread.

these types of homophobes are the exact same people, and use the exact same arguments, as racists did to justify slavery, degradation and denial of rights to women, or any other morally unjustifiable act in history. Dressing it up in fancy talk and asking to be "civil" by these same people is disgusting hypocrisy.

I like how you quoted me. Respectful.

Try dealing with all of that on a regular basis, and then come crying to me about being called a bigot.

I'm sorry you've had to deal with that. I've never done that to you. Does it somehow feel better to do that to others? I'm not sure why that would be satisfying or somehow a good thing...

If you discriminate against gays- people who are otherwise human and equal to you- then I think you should call yourself a bigot, and do so proudly if that's what you believe.

I don't consider it discrimination, nor bigoted.

To many of you in this thread; a discussion requires a number of things...a successful pluralistic society requires them too. (1) genuine mutual respect. (2) An ability to reason calmly. (3) A willingness to compromise and accommodate others.

It's a big country; 300 million people. There are a lot of different views, and one of the ways we hash that out in life is to allow states the freedom to make many of the decisions that affects life in those states. The country is already accommodating and compromising on this issue. VT, CT, and MA are well on their way to making many of you understandably happy. Other states may follow. You can work to change your own state, or move to one already changing, or just continue to pronounce the evil of others and your own moral authority.

It's called intolerant, and it's not coming from me.

People who support any law that denies homosexuals the same legal rights as any other human being are closed-minded, ignorant, pathetic, bigoted scum. They need to fuck off. All of them.

More evidence of what we shouldn't be doing if we truly live in a pluralistic society. Or, is the real point here not actually tolerance, but that others conform to your own views?

That sounds very intolerant. Almost religious, even.

[Scaryfaced]

Well, for the first 1500 years or so the Bible wasn't taken at it's literal translation at all. It wasn't until the Bible was converted into the language of the common man and his lack of intelligence of the subject that people started believing in a literal translation.

As Augustine said (paraphrasing): "Why would God need 6 days to do something he could do in an instant?"

You speak the truth, sir. During it's time as a latin document, few people could even read it, let alone understand what it meant. Most priests receited mass from memory and tradition, holding little understanding of the importance of the individual steps. Hell, the mass was recited in Latin up until the Vatican II in the 70s.

I fully believe the Bible was written in the same style as Aesops Fables. It's a series of stories that are meant to teach you valuable lessons, but were intended to be interesting and easy to recite by memory. It isn't a series of exact rules and certainly wasn't meant to be disected word for word as it is today. After all, The Christian religion was a secret one up until Constantine adopted it and made it the religion of the state. The stories had to be catchy and easy to remember, as preaching was the only way to gain converts and the stories had to grab listeners interests as they'd be joining a condemned religion. Its also widely accepted by Historians that the authors of the Bible never actually met Jesus. He had been exocuted long before the stories of his life ever made it on paper. They existed as an oral tradition up until Christianity gained acceptance many, many years later.
________
Essential vaaapp (http://essentialvaaappvaporizer.com)

[Banacek]

Crying about name calling when someone points out that you are a bigot is just ridiculous.

Try being called faggot, cocksucker, fudge packer, or virus breeder. Try being told that you should be killed or die of AIDs. Try having someone threaten to hang you from a tree just because you are different.

Try dealing with all of that on a regular basis, and then come crying to me about being called a bigot.

Oh, they won't have any problem crying about it. Because in their mind, you are sinful and getting what you deserve, but if we call them on their bigotry we're persecuting them for their beliefs.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

I guess that doesn't apply if your gay. So sad.

[Banacek]

It's called intolerant, and it's not coming from me.

I must be confused. I didn't realize that you supported gay marriage.

[Johan]

Oh, they won't have any problem crying about it. Because in their mind, you are sinful and getting what you deserve, but if we call them on their bigotry we're persecuting them for their beliefs.

I must be confused. I didn't realize that you supported gay marriage.

You were never interested in a genuine, open-minded, respectful discussion of this topic. Why did you pretend to be? :confused:

If it's just a matter of enforcing your moral authority, do so through the ballot box! You have the House, Senate, and White House. You also have many state legislatures, governorships, liberal judges, and allies in others.

In this thread, you're just being petty and trying to score cheap insult points. :(

[J Arcane]

I love the "You're just intolerant of intolerance" nonsense argument, because after seeing it so many times, it's basically become obvious that it really translates to "I'm a raging bigot, AND too much of a coward to admit it".

It's just like the idiots who start screeching about "PC" this and "PC" that. It's just a last ditch equivalent to "I'm rubber, you're glue" or "I know you are but what am I?"

Since we're all quoting stuff, here's a favorite of mine:
[B]ut VT was the opposite of TV. He'd never accuse someone of being PC because it's so frigging dumb to say. The term arose on the Columbus Day Quincentennary when the republic was honest about the conquest and wouldn't party as previously promised. If someone uses a nonoffensive vocabulary that person is considerate, not PC. If someone has a heavy-handed agenda that person is narrow-minded, not PC. Unless you mean Providence College, PC is as meaningless as the president's apology for slavery.

[Scaryfaced]

You were never interested in a genuine, open-minded, respectful discussion of this topic. Why did you pretend to be? :confused:

If it's just a matter of enforcing your moral authority, do so through the ballot box! You have the House, Senate, and White House. You also have many state legislatures, governorships, liberal judges, and allies in others.

In this thread, you're just being petty and trying to score cheap insult points. :(

You obviously don't feel a discussion is necessary either. You've yet to back up the opinion that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry by any kind of reasoning other than it's legally possible. The rest of us could care less about it's legality. Segregation was legal a few short decades ago. As I said earlier, both Nobles and Bishops were legally allowed to screw your wife on your wedding night. Legality doesn't automatically equate to something being right or not.

On second thought, you did say something about teaching your kids about homosexuality. Would you mind fleshing this reasoning out a little?
________
Medical marijuana (http://medicalmarijuanacard.info)

[Rogue_hunter]

Try being called faggot, cocksucker, fudge packer, or virus breeder. Try being told that you should be killed or die of AIDs.

Not to derail, but that sounds alot like any general multiplayer game online. Those were all the first words I heard when joining TF2 during the beta last year. :S


As for the issue, I had the biggest "LULZ" moment this morning. The local Fox news (not the national channel, KTTV Fox 11 in Los Angeles) had a reporter in West Hollywood asking reactions to the passage of 8. For those of you who don't know, West Hollywood is the epicenter of the gay culture, and naturally alot were upset. Then this one guy is all "YEAH, it's awesome this passed!" The reporter was shocked and said, "You do know that the passage actually banned gay marriage?" He did a double take and was all "Huh? I thought a yes vote was allowing them to marry?" I could see alot of people being confused.

And one small anecdotal counter to marriage. Something like 50% of marriages end in divorce (or is that just some joke number). The State of California recognizes civil unions, which (to my understanding) provide the same types of benefits, just without the actual certificate, and most employee benefit systems won't cover your partner.
And sadly enough, a lesbian couple that had been together for 30 years got married the first day, and were divorced within a week. (There was a human interest article in the LA Times over the summer, I believe). Are you sure you want marriages? In some perverse way, maybe it is a good thing? Like, gays are able to more focus on their relationship and develop that even more than having to worry about being married, and all that baggage (Just a devil's advocate here)

[shunoshi]

I find it sad, and disheartening, that a religion of love and forgiveness has become so perverted and corrupt, and yes, bigoted in this country, especially given this is supposedly a country all about freedom and whatnot.

I wasn't going to mess with this thread until I read this. Looks like there's someone out there that has the same view on this that I do. Thanks, J Arcane.

[ShivaX]

It's a big country; 300 million people. There are a lot of different views, and one of the ways we hash that out in life is to allow states the freedom to make many of the decisions that affects life in those states. The country is already accommodating and compromising on this issue. VT, CT, and MA are well on their way to making many of you understandably happy. Other states may follow. You can work to change your own state, or move to one already changing, or just continue to pronounce the evil of others and your own moral authority.


So by that logic, blacks should have just moved up North and everyone should have been cool with segregation? If you lived in New York, you shouldn't care about people in Mississippi?

I'm trying to understand the logic here. Of course the irony of it all is that you're basically telling a minority that they need to be a majority so they'll be heard. Well that and hinting that we should let the judicial system fix things, even though that always leads to cries of "legislation from the bench" by everyone.

And since I started with some quotes, heres some from a founding father that are appropriate:

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.

[J Arcane]

I wasn't going to mess with this thread until I read this. Looks like there's someone out there that has the same view on this that I do. Thanks, J Arcane.
It's an issue I have fought with my whole life, really, and one that even now is tearing apart the Episcopal Church I'd thought I had finally found a home in.

It's one of the reasons I have for so long hesitated to use the term "Christian" to describe my beliefs, because that word has come to mean certain things that simply do not define what I believe.

[Johan]

I love the "You're just intolerant of intolerance" nonsense argument, because after seeing it so many times, it's basically become obvious that it really translates to "I'm a raging bigot, AND too much of a coward to admit it".

Keep it classy! Stay on target with the crowd!

You obviously don't feel a discussion is necessary either.

See the quote above, and many, many others for why a discussion is impossible.

So by that logic

Actually, by logic, this thread is titled very, very appropriately. There is a majority in here, and they obviously believe opposition to their will is impossible and worthy of immense disrespect.

[Blue]

Sorry, but this is one case where the opponents deserve it. If Christians want to deny rights to gay people, they shouldn't be surprised if they're called bigots. I see no fundamental difference between anti-gay Christians and Islamist extremists who force women into burkas. Your religious beliefs do not allow you to infringe on other people's rights. Some might think this is "demonizing" your opponents, but it's simply calling a spade a spade, and if you take offense, perhaps you should take a moment to consider what you believe.

I honestly don't think that blanketing is going to help your case. A really good friend of mine is a raging Atheist (to the point of absolute annoyance) and he is opposed to gay marriage. So where does he fit? Under the Christian umbrella that so many people are using? You have to keep in mind it isn't simply the Moral Majority that are opposed to the idea of gay marriage. Maybe it makes the pill easier to swallow to have someone to blanket and lash out over, who knows.

Where do I fall? I am absolutely a Christian and had I lived in California I would have hands down voted no on Proposition 8. Why? Because I believe that it sucks that the same God who created everyone made me and that I somehow won the lottery and got lucky that I like girls so that makes me okay. But had I lost the Powerball drawing and liked boys? Well then I'm screwed. That's simply something I cannot agree on nor wrap my head around. If I honestly believe that God has grace and love and compassion somewhere out for me than God does for everyone else and just because you like someone that I don't doesn't mean the same cannot apply.

So I do believe that there should fully be equal rights for gay marriage and that it not having passed is a kick in the stomach. But I too get bothered when the first knee-jerk reaction is "Christians want this". Not all of us do, so stop blanketing the group due to the more vocal of us. That's like me assuming all gay people are like Jack from Will and Grace and I seriously doubt anyone would want that. Keep in mind that other people outside of the wicked Christians exist as well.

[Banacek]

In this thread, you're just being petty and trying to score cheap insult points. :(

While your posts are vapid and inflammatory under the guise of being "tolerant". Not sure why I expected you to answer a real question. That just wouldn't be your style!

[ShivaX]

Actually, by logic, this thread is titled very, very appropriately. There is a majority in here, and they obviously believe opposition to their will is impossible and worthy of immense disrespect.

You still have the right to say whatever you want. The majority hasn't stripped you of any rights based on you beliefs. If anything many people are trying to understand why you have them. Now they might be doing that to try to tear you down, but I can't read minds and neither can you, so who can say?

Your position is hard to respect when you don't clarify why you feel that way. There are extremely close paralles between homophobia and racism. Racism was allowed because the majority imposed their will on a minority. You can believe whatever you want, but when it flys in the face of reason and liberty, people are going to question you and challenge you on it.

I realize its a personal thing for you, but the problem with faith is always that most positions based on it are indefensible rationally. Even going within the Bible its a stretch to defend homophobia, especially when one gets to Christ's words.

I'm trying to be as fair as I can be, but I don't see much of a difference between homosexuality and race. I don't think you're a bad person, but at the same time it becomes hard to seperate what I believe to be intolerance and bigoted ideas from the person saying them.

[shunoshi]

It's one of the reasons I have for so long hesitated to use the term "Christian" to describe my beliefs, because that word has come to mean certain things that simply do not define what I believe.

I couldn't have said it any better myself. I'm in the same position and it's very unfortunate. The fact that Christianity even has "denominations" confuses me to no end. It's one religion. I guess everyone needs their shot at pushing their definition of what the bible says and what passages are of more importance than others....

[J Arcane]

While your posts are vapid and inflammatory under the guise of being "tolerant". Not sure why I expected you to answer a real question. That just wouldn't be your style!
And yet people gave me shit for saying the same damn thing . . .

[Khrymsyn]

Guys, I'm going to play a little devil's advocate, because, well frankly, I think Johan is getting slammed for pointing out a point of view, and he's doing it without resorting to insults, name calling, or even asking for bad things to happen to anyone, but getting attacked in those exact paths in return...

The topic here is about "Marriage", and the definition thereof. Oddly enough, while sexual orientation is absolutely a component of the discussion, it really is a discussion about what "Marriage" is, and what it means. To many, they are taught that Marriage is between a Man and a Woman to become one whole person under the eyes of god. To others, Marriage is a union between two people that love each other. Yet, to other people, it's a partnership that grants advantages both monetarily (tax laws, etc), and in acceptibility, and yet ANOTHER view is that Marriage is nothing but an outdated ideal that serves no purpose anymore than to legally tie one person to another for the purposes of "trapping" someone by monetary blackmail if the marriage doesn't pan out.

There is nothing inherently wrong with any of those. What IS wrong is thinking that YOUR belief is the only possible and only accurate one. What Banaceck believes and what I believe, might be two completely things, but neither are inherently wrong because "Marriage" is a construct of humanity, and not of nature. If someone believes truly that Marriage is a bond between man and woman under God, and a law comes by and says that it's for gay people as well, YES that's going to cause anger. You're taking "MY" belief, and ramming yours down my throat. The same as if you do NOT allow it, you're taking the "conservative" believe, and ramming it down the liberal's throat. Really, when it comes down to it, I think some of the problem (I'm not naive enough to believe it's completely the problem), is that a current set of laws were based almost solely on a religious concept, and are now being altered separate from that religious concept, while still holding the same title, description, and connotation. People do not like their beliefs challenged, nor changed. To me it should never have been called marriage in the first place, and while the argument may still have existed, the religious backbone of it would not be as prevalent, so it wouldn't be painted as a "bad christians, bad!" type issue.

and for the record? I think Marriage is bullshit and shouldn't exist in the first place =P At least, not in it's current form.

[itchyeyes]

I love the "You're just intolerant of intolerance" nonsense argument, because after seeing it so many times, it's basically become obvious that it really translates to "I'm a raging bigot, AND too much of a coward to admit it".
I agree with you to an extent. However, "intolerance" is a rather broadly defined term. For instance, one can be intolerant of rape and not be a bigot. An extreme example yes, but it illustrates that there is a point where it is socially acceptable for tolerance to break down. The problem is the point at which people view a thing to no longer be tolerable is different for everyone.

I'm not saying whether this is applicable to the discussion of prop 8, I just wanted to point it out. Tolerance is a word that people use a lot without contemplating its full meaning first.

[Johan]

I recommend everyone go back and reread this thread. It is full of hate, anger, and horrible demonization...ironically, from those who are supposedly tolerant.

I'm done with it. Feel free to continue to degrade yourselves in a cesspool of angry recrimination. I'll be spending my time in a more valuable way for the rest of this evening. I wish you all...tolerance, from the majority that is yourselves. I feel badly for how angry many of you are. It's not good. I've done a really good job for myself and my own health in letting that stuff go. I would recommend it. Learn to live with people who oppose you. It's a big world.

[Scaryfaced]

Once again, it seems I'm not going to get an answer to any of the numerous issues I've posed so far in this thread. It's to be expected, I suppose. It's easy to decry that other's won't have a relatively civil discussion on a topic and to use it as an excuse to avoid the discussion entirely.

I love a good discussion, but it's practically impossible to get a real one out of some people. It may be hard to believe, but some of us have the ability to put ourself in other's shoes or mind sets. If I knew where you were coming from, perhaps I'd better understand the finer points of that side of the arguement. When someone can't come up with any, I don't really have any other choice than to chalk it up to intolerance or ignorance.
________
Gay video (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/22/gay/videos/1)

[Banacek]

And yet people gave me shit for saying the same damn thing . . .

No one should give you shit for saying that to Johan. He's a self professed forum troll. If he really believed that gay marriage was wrong he'd be able to tell us why. But he refused to answer the question. I can only wonder why.

Oh well. Good luck to him on his crusade of bigotry!

In case you missed it, Johan is a bigot.

Bigot.

I can go all day :)

[J Arcane]

I agree with you to an extent. However, "intolerance" is a rather broadly defined term. For instance, one can be intolerant of rape and not be a bigot. An extreme example yes, but it illustrates that there is a point where it is socially acceptable for tolerance to break down. The problem is the point at which people view a thing to no longer be tolerable is different for everyone.

I'm not saying whether this is applicable to the discussion of prop 8, I just wanted to point it out. Tolerance is a word that people use a lot without contemplating its full meaning first.
In all the wasted hours of my life burned away on forums like these, I've seen that very same "defense" used to defend everything from homophobia, to racism, to child molestation, and God knows what other evils I've blocked out of my mind.

When someone has the disconnect from basic public decency to actually use it, it's usually a pretty damn good indicator that that person is someone deserving of the worst kind of disgust.

[Banacek]

I recommend everyone go back and reread this thread. It is full of hate, anger, and horrible demonization...ironically, from those who are supposedly tolerant.

I'm done with it. Feel free to continue to degrade yourselves in a cesspool of angry recrimination. I'll be spending my time in a more valuable way for the rest of this evening. I wish you all...tolerance, from the majority that is yourselves. I feel badly for how angry many of you are. It's not good. I've done a really good job for myself and my own health in letting that stuff go. I would recommend it. Learn to live with people who oppose you. It's a big world.

It's a shame you can't take what your people has dished out for centuries. Maybe if your cause wasn't so self-righteous you'd find a better response. Oh well, no love lost! :)

[ShivaX]

What IS wrong is thinking that YOUR belief is the only possible and only accurate one.

While thats fair to say, one of those "beliefs" is codified in law and grants people rights. THAT is what is unfair and isn't a matter of opinion. Denying two people the same rights as two other people because you disagree with them is not right.

[Khrymsyn]

While thats fair to say, one of those "beliefs" is codified in law and grants people rights. THAT is what is unfair and isn't a matter of opinion. Denying two people the same rights as two other people because you disagree with them is not right.

Here's a question, and this is basically because I don't believe in Marriage... but..

Why is Marriage a right?

I understand why owning property is, and the ability to earn for you and/or family, as well as things like voting, and buying things... but why is Marriage? Why is a "relgious institution" a right?

[J Arcane]

Why is Marriage a right?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

[ShivaX]

Calling Johan names doesn't get us anywhere and needs to stop.

I believe he is intolerant of homosexuals. He would likely agree, though he would probably pick a different word than intolerant. He doesn't believe gays should be married. Thats his right, just as its anyone's right to believe whatever they want.

I'm disappointed he doesn't think it worth his time to explain his position. Its not like he insulted everyone while refusing to explain himself, so I can't fault him in that regard (though I would fault others for taking that route).

So lets refrain from any overt name calling. Just revel in the fact that when your having an argument with someone and they can't defend their position you've likely won. :p

[pomeroy]

It doesn't look like it. That's unfortunate.

If you really think you can't have a discussion in here, then why are you still poking at people? I've seen you asked many times to actually defend your arguments, and all you say is that everyone is too mean and why should you have to. That's not real discourse, either.

I do think people are very upset about this right now and that's why you are seeing so much emotion...the wound is very new. For several of our posters, this is a precedent that directly speaks to their worth as citizens. It's not shocking that they are lashing out at a person who supports the removal of rights (I am assuming that you're for Prop 8 and against gay marriage, correct? I've looked in the thread and all I've seen is you telling people that they need to have nice attitudes and try to win next time) that they had.

As for me, I'm very disappointed in the outcome of this vote. I do think that the way the proposition was worded had a great deal to do with voting (it was confusing to many people). I really don't like treating citizens differently over their sexual orientation...and I get very confused when religious reasons are brought into the gay marriage argument. Atheists can get married, as long as they are a man and a woman of consenting age, so it just seems that using a religious argument is a bit invalid (unless you also believe atheists should not be married).

[Banacek]

Calling Johan names doesn't get us anywhere and needs to stop.

I believe he is intolerant of homosexuals. He would likely agree, though he would probably pick a different word than intolerant. He doesn't believe gays should be married. Thats his right, just as its anyone's right to believe whatever they want.

I'm disappointed he doesn't think it worth his time to explain his position. Its not like he insulted everyone while refusing to explain himself, so I can't fault him in that regard (though I would fault others for taking that route).

So lets refrain from any overt name calling. Just revel in the fact that when your having an argument with someone and they can't defend their position you've likely won. :p

Um, no it doesn't. If Johan can't handle it he should stop starting flamewars. He's a big boy, he can take it.

[ClannerDelta]

Why does anyone try to discuss anything with Johan?

He's definitely in the minority on this board (and others) with his political views. It allows him to easily play the victim. Which is his favorite role, it allows him to duck out of any discourse with his nose held high.

For his sake, your sake, and the board's sake. Just ignore Johan. He plays the victim, people gang up on him, he sinks deeper into that role, etc. It's not good for him or anyone else. Leave it be.

[Khrymsyn]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

But where does it say "marriage" in there?

There are millions of people quite happy without marriage (and I'm sure some would argue that more would be without it. haha), and marriage does not bestow life, nor assist in receiving any judicial liberty.

[J Arcane]

Why does anyone try to discuss anything with Johan?

He's definitely in the minority on this board (and others) with his political views. It allows him to easily play the victim. Which is his favorite role, it allows him to duck out of any discourse with his nose held high.

For his sake, your sake, and the board's sake. Just ignore Johan. He plays the victim, people gang up on him, he sinks deeper into that role, etc. It's not good for him or anyone else. Leave it be.
Eh. Good enough point. I wasn't really even surprised to see what side he fell down in this thread, nor by the methods he used to troll it.

FFVB'd now though, basically, he's banned from MY CoG, and I have faith he will be for real sooner or later.

[J Arcane]

But where does it say "marriage" in there?

There are millions of people quite happy without marriage (and I'm sure some would argue that more would be without it. haha), and marriage does not bestow life, nor assist in receiving any judicial liberty.
When some people have the right to do one thing, but other people are not, how is that treating them equally?

Further, did you miss the part about "pursuit of happiness"? If two people wish to do something that causes no harm to anyone else, but allows them to be happy, what right is it of the government or the people to deny them that?

These are supposed to be the fundamental principles of our republic, I can't believe I'm having to explain them to someone at all, but I guess that's public schools for you now days.

[ShivaX]

Why is Marriage a right?


Because it has a laundry list of rights associated with it. You can't give out rights selectively to people.

I would argue the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause comes into play.

[itchyeyes]

In all the wasted hours of my life burned away on forums like these, I've seen that very same "defense" used to defend everything from homophobia, to racism, to child molestation, and God knows what other evils I've blocked out of my mind.

When someone has the disconnect from basic public decency to actually use it, it's usually a pretty damn good indicator that that person is someone deserving of the worst kind of disgust.
Again, I agree with you on principle. However, there are definitely some issues where intolerance isn't such a black and white issue. For example, there are a great many people who consider homosexual marriage tolerable but not polygamy. There are many people who consider the use of marijuana tolerable but not heroin. As a society we make decisions every day about what is acceptable to tolerate and what isn't.

[Khrymsyn]

Why does anyone try to discuss anything with Johan?

Because Johan actually CAN have a conversation. Unfortunately, often posts he is involved in result in people attacking him before asking for his opinion. He goes on the defensive (and I could be assuming a lot), gets emotional, and loses the ability and caring to discuss his point of view to a bunch of people he feels write him off from sentence 1.

If I say I think Russians are a bunch of fucking morons, and someone responds to me with "ignorant" or "bigot", why would I ever respond with anything other than feeling insulted?

[Blue]

Why does anyone try to discuss anything with Johan?

He's definitely in the minority on this board (and others) with his political views. It allows him to easily play the victim. Which is his favorite role, it allows him to duck out of any discourse with his nose held high.

For his sake, your sake, and the board's sake. Just ignore Johan. He plays the victim, people gang up on him, he sinks deeper into that role, etc. It's not good for him or anyone else. Leave it be.

This is something I noticed a lot on EvAv (or, "that which shall not be named"...though I guess I went and named it :) ) and I'm not promoting nor demoting anything Johan has said, so please keep that in mind: as a Christian it's really difficult to not get dumped on here, by and large. I'm not saying that I drastically care as I already know I'm in the minority (though I'd say I'm a liberal Christian so maybe I'm in the middle...who knows), but it's not a matter of him or anyone else playing a victim because it's easy. At least I think he and I tend to come from the same place.

A lot of people on these boards will rant and rave about how Christians or even religious folks are intolerant and bigots and hateful (etc) but they then turn around and do the exact same thing. Turn about is fair play, sure, but then you're stuck with being a hypocrite. I think Johan's overall point, and I don't want to speak for him as it's not my place, is that you cannot have it both ways. It becomes frustrating when someone to me just paints a wide brush saying "Christianity" and then gets mad or even defensive when they're called out on it. Again, this is my take.

I know I'm personally fighting an uphill battle on a message board especially given my set of beliefs. However I do thinks it's very unfair for anyone to play the high horse and say "ignore so and so" and to think they're simply the victim. If that's what helps you get by, fine and dandy (though Carlin says you cannot be both), but I think it's a cop-out. Realize where he - and I to an extent - are coming from. People here scream about intolerance and are intolerant themselves and that's frustrating as I'm sure it's frustrating for non-religious people compared to what loud-mouth Christians say. Realize you cannot play the open-minded trump card if you're going to turn around and do the exact same thing. Self believed open mindedness and being a hypocrite shouldn't go hand in hand and that happens quite a bit in these threads.

[Scaryfaced]

Here's a question, and this is basically because I don't believe in Marriage... but..

Why is Marriage a right?

I understand why owning property is, and the ability to earn for you and/or family, as well as things like voting, and buying things... but why is Marriage? Why is a "relgious institution" a right?

Marriage is a legal word for pair bonding. The human species can only have a small number of children at a time and these children need to be protected for a substancial period of their lives in order to survive. As such, we form close personal bonds with a partner in the process. The feeling of love is more than likely a natural way to keep us together long enough for our children to survive. It isn't unique to our species, though we seem to be unique in our pair bonding as far as primates are concerned.

However, pair bonding happens in situations outside of just baby production. Many, many other animal species in the world that form long lasting relationships between two individuals show homosexual behavior as well. Emperor penguins have been witnessed forming long lasting homosexual relationships. Off the top of my head, both Flamingo(be suprise!;)) and Bonobo monkeys also display this behavior.

Basically, marriage isn't a "right", per say. It's only turned into a right as it became a cause to champion within Europe's christian dominated government structure during the middle ages.
________
MILF VID (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/28/milf/videos/1)

[shunoshi]

But where does it say "marriage" in there?

There are millions of people quite happy without marriage (and I'm sure some would argue that more would be without it. haha), and marriage does not bestow life, nor assist in receiving any judicial liberty.

Actually you do receive a sizable tax deduction on the year you get married and an almost non-existant one every year there after. Marriage should have never become a government institiute, but it has and nothing will change that now.

[ShivaX]

Why does anyone try to discuss anything with Johan?

He's definitely in the minority on this board (and others) with his political views. It allows him to easily play the victim. Which is his favorite role, it allows him to duck out of any discourse with his nose held high.

For his sake, your sake, and the board's sake. Just ignore Johan. He plays the victim, people gang up on him, he sinks deeper into that role, etc. It's not good for him or anyone else. Leave it be.

Because debate and discussion where everyone agrees is boring as shit.

I think he does have some bad habits when it comes to things, but I still wonder about his beliefs and where hes coming from. It bothers me to no end when people dodge questions, but hes been good about not insulting people while doing it, so he can do whatever he likes in that respect. He'd better expect people to nail him on it when he pulls it though.

Theres nothing to be gained from ganging up on him, even if he might have a part in creating that scenario. It certainly doesn't give anyone free reign to disparage the man. You can attack his beliefs, you can attack his actions (or lack thereof), but theres no reason to attack anyone personally (even if you REALLY want to).

[DiBiddilyBop]

This is definitely a disappointment as a Californian and I can only hope that a few years from now, it will be up for decision again and can be reversed.

Although I have no vested interest in whether or not Prop 8 passes (I am not gay and actually don't have any gay friends living in California), I am at heart a libertarian and I hate seeing the majority push their agenda and/or beliefs on the minority.

But for all of those pointing fingers of hate at Christians, realize that while they're part of it, they make up a slice of a bigger pie. I live in the heart of Orange County and share a room at work with a Muslim and a Hinduist, both of whom voted yes on prop 8. Most religions fundamentally share intolerance toward homosexuals. I don't understand how allowance for gay marriages hurts them... maybe someone who approves of gay marriage bans can enlighten me as to why it's important to have this legislated rather than just leaving it as a personal issue between individuals and their churches. I would ask but I don't want to create a hostile work environment on what is obviously a hot button issue. But for all those who are pointing fingers and calling names, I do have to agree with Johan that you're as bad as the people you're deriding.

[J'onn J'onnz]

These are supposed to be the fundamental principles of our republic, I can't believe I'm having to explain them to someone at all, but I guess that's public schools for you now days.

Hah, I learned the hard way that they can shove as much religion down your throat as they wish at private school, being one of the few athiest, middle class, and blacks at that school was a pretty eye opening experience for me. Before that I'd never really had to deal with crazed evangelists, and thankfully haven't had to since.

[Khrymsyn]

When some people have the right to do one thing, but other people are not, how is that treating them equally?

But we do that all the time in this country. You can be president, but only if you were born here. You can take maternal leave, but only if you are a woman. You can vote, but only if you're "registered", or never been convicted of a felony. Churches don't have to pay taxes, I do.

There's lots of "inequality" in the country.

Further, did you miss the part about "pursuit of happiness"? If two people wish to do something that causes no harm to anyone else, but allows them to be happy, what right is it of the government or the people to deny them that?

Again, government does all the time. If two people are at home growing weed to smoke it themselves, think the government won't step in if it is reported?

These are supposed to be the fundamental principles of our republic, I can't believe I'm having to explain them to someone at all, but I guess that's public schools for you now days.

There's the attitude that Johan had a problem with. Because you are having to explain yourself, you feel frustrated and annoyed that people don't agree with you. You have a problem tolerating other people's opinions, and have to insinuate negative connotations to thier personality (in this case, insinuating my ignorance). I understand the principles of our republic. Doesn't mean that I can't ask how Marriage falls into "life, liberty, and pursuit of happyness".

Because it has a laundry list of rights associated with it. You can't give out rights selectively to people.
I would argue the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause comes into play.

That right there is a good argument in favor of gay marriages. I'd give ya a cookie Shiva, but I can't bake for shit =)

Again, I agree with you on principle. However, there are definitely some issues where intolerance isn't such a black and white issue. For example, there are a great many people who consider homosexual marriage tolerable but not polygamy. There are many people who consider the use of marijuana tolerable but not heroin. As a society we make decisions every day about what is acceptable to tolerate and what isn't.

Thank you itchy, I think that is a well phrased response.


The key folks is to educate people who disagree with you. Not completely invalidate them as a person, but try to discuss why you feel what you do, and back it up with why you feel it's right. By doing nothing but namecalling and throwing around things like "bigot" and "ignorant" you turn the conversation into a tug of war where both sides are pulling against each other. All it takes is a little consideration and explanation. Unfortuately Prop8 did not go in a direction I would have agreed with, but if all you are going to do is push away those people who disagreed with you, you'll find they'll just disagree again next time, instead of possibly seeing a different point of view (and you might just learn something about yourself and them as well!)

[KingGorilla]

Actually you do receive a sizable tax deduction on the year you get married and an almost non-existant one every year there after. Marriage should have never become a government institiute, but it has and nothing will change that now.

Probably the largest inequity and where the greatest energy should be put towards is to get sharing of health benefits, regardless of orientation.

I think that Spain's solution was very elegant. Marriage is outlawed, all people are domestic partners.

And to the gormless CHUDs trying to sound smart by asking where it is stated that marriage is a right. Is eating at a restaurant,using a restroom, riding a bus a right? How about going to college? Equality of opportunity is a right. Everyone is guaranteed the same opportunity for "privileges" under our law. If you do not see marriage or the adoption of children in here, go fuck yourself with a shotgun.

[Scaryfaced]

Realize where he - and I to an extent - are coming from.

But there in lies the problem. We don't understand where your coming from. Or at least, I don't. I tend to try to focus on logical arguements in a discussion. I expect people who disagree with me to have some sort of reason as to why they disagree and to be able to express that to me. If we are to have opinions, it's absolutely imperative that we know why we hold these opinions. What kind of logic or evidence backs your opinion up? If you can't find any, perhaps you should rethink your point of view.

I'll even go so far as to argue scripture with Christians. I don't feel it's valid to base your opinions on religious text personally, but I'm not opposed to dicussing your views on that level. I just wish someone would give me something to work with so I could figure out just where your opinion is coming from.
________
Vaporizer Volcano (http://volcanovaporizer.net/)

[Blue]

But for all of those pointing fingers of hate at Christians, realize that while they're part of it, they make up a slice of a bigger pie. I live in the heart of Orange County and share a room at work with a Muslim and a Hinduist, both of whom voted yes on prop 8. Most religions fundamentally share intolerance toward homosexuals. I don't understand how allowance for gay marriages hurts them... maybe someone who approves of gay marriage bans can enlighten me as to why it's important to have this legislated rather than just leaving it as a personal issue between individuals and their churches. I would ask but I don't want to create a hostile work environment on what is obviously a hot button issue. But for all those who are pointing fingers and calling names, I do have to agree with Johan that you're as bad as the people you're deriding.

The best answer I have for you (and not one that will satisfy, most likely only stir up drek which I don't want) is that from a Bible stance, anyone of the same sex hooking up is considered an abomination. Which means it's pretty darn bad.

That is the driving force for a lot of them. Not all, but a lot. What a lot of Christians do, self included, is pick and choose. Obviously everyone does this in every aspect of their lives but religious folks just get called out on it more I think (at least publicly). So where they Christian who says it's an abomination and points to the Bible they also then forget - if they're male - that they shouldn't shave, eat pork, etc. I mean, I shouldn't even get a tattoo or get pierced, but I have so I too pick and choose.

So yeah, I don't want to start a crap war with my answer, but that's the reason traditionally. While I really believe that Church and State need to be kept well away from one another, many others don't and when they vote they feel they need to do so with their moral heart (which I also would not denounce because everyone does that) which is why they believe it should be overturned. For better or worse. Hope I (maybe) answered your ?.

[ClannerDelta]

I know I'm personally fighting an uphill battle on a message board especially given my set of beliefs. However I do thinks it's very unfair for anyone to play the high horse and say "ignore so and so" and to think they're simply the victim. If that's what helps you get by, fine and dandy (though Carlin says you cannot be both), but I think it's a cop-out. Realize where he - and I to an extent - are coming from. People here scream about intolerance and are intolerant themselves and that's frustrating as I'm sure it's frustrating for non-religious people compared to what loud-mouth Christians say. Realize you cannot play the open-minded trump card if you're going to turn around and do the exact same thing. Self believed open mindedness and being a hypocrite shouldn't go hand in hand and that happens quite a bit in these threads.

You are speaking to the wrong person. That message was for Johan's benefit as much as everyone else.

This is the trend that sent Johan spiraling into that horrible place he was at before. Don't paint me as some douche who writes Johan off like he can't have some valid points.

The problem is, Johan can't opt out. I've been reading his posts for 3 years and I could probably count on one hand the amount of times he ignored a random idiot for the sake of the discussion he was in at the time.

He can have a healthy discussion until -anyone- regardless of who they are, calls him a name. Then he paints everyone speaking out against him like they personally said it.

It's not an isolated incident. It's how almost every P&R thread he invested time in ended. It's formulaic at this point, it's Johan doing what Johan does. It's self-destructive and detrimental to the community. Support his viewpoints, not his methods.

[Blue]

But there in lies the problem. We don't understand where your coming from. Or at least, I don't. I tend to try to focus on logical arguements in a discussion. I expect people who disagree with me to have some sort of reason as to why they disagree and to be able to express that to me. If we are to have opinions, it's absolutely imperative that we know why we hold these opinions. What kind of logic or evidence backs your opinion up? If you can't find any, perhaps you should rethink your point of view.

I'll even go so far as to argue scripture with Christians. I don't feel it's valid to base your opinions on religious text personally, but I'm not opposed to dicussing your views on that level. I just wish someone would give me something to work with so I could figure out just where your opinion is coming from.

Keeping in mind I said I'm for gay marriage as a Christian. Unless you're asking for scripture for that. All I was saying regarding Johan (though I'm mostly talking about a Christian here, though I'm not sure if Johan is...I only assume) is that it's frustrating when people cry intolerance and then they themselves are to us. And again like I said people will say "turn about" which just makes you look immature.

That's what I meant by "where we're coming from" not necessarily the Christian standpoint. Though if you want answers as to why I think what I do I'd be happy to give them as long as people don't crap on me (but please keep in mind I'm again more liberal I'd say than some Christians so I might not give you the total answer you'd like).

[ShivaX]

I think that Spain's solution was very elegant. Marriage is outlawed, all people are domestic partners.

Legally this is how it should be. Call it whatever you want, civil union, domestic partners, whatever. Take the word "marriage" out of law and remove any legal connotations it has.

Then religious people can get married, the state can grant them a civil union and gays can get a civil union and hold a pagan ceremony or whatever. As long as at the end of it everyone has the same set of rights as everyone else.

[Johan]

It's formulaic at this point, it's Johan doing what Johan does.

I haven't done anything in this thread except reveal what was already within many of you guys, which is a truly horrible anger and intolerance to people who don't adopt your positions. Re-read the thread. I haven't insulted anyone.

I wish you all a happier tomorrow. This is not a good place to be, which is really too bad. You can excuse it away, but the stones and insults were not mine, and they have been many and varied from this group in this thread.

Goodbye. Don't stay angry. Life is too short for that. Work for your values in a productive, respectful way.

[Blue]

You are speaking to the wrong person. That message was for Johan's benefit as much as everyone else.

This is the trend that sent Johan spiraling into that horrible place he was at before. Don't paint me as some douche who writes Johan off like he can't have some valid points.

The problem is, Johan can't opt out. I've been reading his posts for 3 years and I could probably count on one hand the amount of times he ignored a random idiot for the sake of the discussion he was in at the time.

He can have a healthy discussion until -anyone- regardless of who they are, calls him a name. Then he paints everyone speaking out against him like they personally said it.

It's not an isolated incident. It's how almost every P&R thread he invested time in ended. It's formulaic at this point, it's Johan doing what Johan does. It's self-destructive and detrimental to the community. Support his viewpoints, not his methods.

I apologize for quoting your post as I wasn't totally pinpointing you, just speaking on the vibe I often get from Johan. Heck, he and I got into it the other day because of what I feel he often does (or what others feel he does) so I do sympathize, but I also don't think people need to start cutting anyone down regardless.

If you feel that's what he does, rise above and don't talk about him in the negative. Be an adult. Again, that's not at you but a general and I'm sorry if it looked like I was directing anything towards you individually.

[KingGorilla]

Legally this is how it should be. Call it whatever you want, civil union, domestic partners, whatever. Take the word "marriage" out of law and remove any legal connotations it has.

Then religious people can get married, the state can grant them a civil union and gays can get a civil union and hold a pagan ceremony or whatever. As long as at the end of it everyone has the same set of rights as everyone else.

I believe it is Germany where a "marriage" cannot legally be performed in a church at all, it is not a legal union until you go to the court house. The sad tale of post WWII America is the story of steady eroding of our secular government and inserting a theocracy into it. You have judges, governors, senators, campaigning in and being promoted by churches, that is illegal on so many levels. That collection of Atheists, Deists, Anglicans, and Baptists only put god in that documents once, for a reason, and that was because an atheist requested it be included.

[DiBiddilyBop]

Hope I (maybe) answered your ?.

You did and didn't. That's an answer I would expect, but it brings me right back to the beginning... if it's my sin and my life (and chances are we don't even share the same religion), why would someone else feel it necessary to intercede? It still feels like something that should be handled within the churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, whatevers, and not in the law books.

From your response, I think you and I probably agree on the issue. I guess I just don't understand why others don't.

[ClannerDelta]

I haven't done anything in this thread except reveal what was already within many of you guys, which is a truly horrible anger and intolerance to people who don't adopt your positions. Re-read the thread. I haven't insulted anyone.

I wish you all a happier tomorrow. This is not a good place to be, which is really too bad. You can excuse it away, but the stones and insults were not mine, and they have been many and varied from this group in this thread.

Goodbye. Don't stay angry. Life is too short for that. Work for your values in a productive, respectful way.

This is a textbook Johan post. Like his last one, he claims to leave a thread while still claiming the victim. Take notes.

[Khrymsyn]

I think that Spain's solution was very elegant. Marriage is outlawed, all people are domestic partners.

I agree 100% but don't think there's a chance in hell it'll happen here.


And to the gormless CHUDs trying to sound smart by asking where it is stated that marriage is a right. Is eating at a restaurant,using a restroom, riding a bus a right? How about going to college? Equality of opportunity is a right. Everyone is guaranteed the same opportunity for "privileges" under our law. If you do not see marriage or the adoption of children in here, go fuck yourself with a shotgun.

Seriously, why did I deserve the insult? Why do people feel it necessary to insult people they don't agree with. What did I really say that was that offensive to deserve a personal attack? Ooooo, I asked a question.

[5y1v4r]

Legally this is how it should be. Call it whatever you want, civil union, domestic partners, whatever. Take the word "marriage" out of law and remove any legal connotations it has.

Then religious people can get married, the state can grant them a civil union and gays can get a civil union and hold a pagan ceremony or whatever. As long as at the end of it everyone has the same set of rights as everyone else.
That's my view exactly. Marriage can either be a legal or a religious institution, it can't be both. If you are giving specific, government legislated, rights to married couples, you can't deny those rights to other couples on grounds that can't be said to be anything but religious. That's separation of church and state. If you are saying that marriage is a purely religious institution then legal rights should not be applied to it.

[KingGorilla]

Nothing personal, just funny how Jim Crow grew back into favor in hearts and minds. I know I will never keep ignorant bigots from being just that. But if a few fornicated with firearms, life would be better for all parties.

[J'onn J'onnz]

This is a textbook Johan post. Like his last one, he claims to leave a thread while still claiming the victim. Take notes.

Not to seem dense or anything, is he just trolling, or is he trying to make a legitimate argument? Because he evaded every single rational question hes been asked.

[ShivaX]

I haven't done anything in this thread except reveal what was already within many of you guys, which is a truly horrible anger and intolerance to people who don't adopt your positions. Re-read the thread. I haven't insulted anyone.
While thats true of some, its not true of everyone. Don't paint everyone who disagrees with you with the same brush.

I wish you all a happier tomorrow. This is not a good place to be, which is really too bad. You can excuse it away, but the stones and insults were not mine, and they have been many and varied from this group in this thread.

Goodbye. Don't stay angry. Life is too short for that. Work for your values in a productive, respectful way.
I'm not sure where you were going with this. All I can say is that for a lot of people this is a really big deal and a very fresh wound. People are going to be passionate about their rights and especially about losing them. Even if you don't agree with them you have to see that side of it and understand that some of them will be angry.

That said, launching insults shouldn't fly with anyone.

And having said that sometimes people need to just ignore those people or have slightly thicker skin about things.

[ClannerDelta]

Not to seem dense or anything, is he just trolling, or is he trying to make a legitimate argument? Because he evaded every single rational question hes been asked.

Johan is like Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. I'm not convinced he goes into threads (well, knowingly) to destroy all discourse.

However, he goes from a thoughtful poster to a broken record as soon as he's poked. After he goes on the defensive, Johan will refuse to discuss anything. "the guys" are after him and hateful and they call him names. No need for him to dirty himself by speaking to them!

It's why it's best to leave him alone once he goes defensive. Though, with the elections over, the political threads should be gone soon.

[walkstheplanes]

I think most people expect opponents to address the entirety of another's argument and choose not to cherry pick with or without ad hominem attacks. From personal experience, I know I've gotten plenty annoyed when "discussing" something with Johan. It gets a bit difficult because I've always felt he had the tendency to ignore a good chunk of a person's post and focus on responding to an out of context statement, he's often responded with some sort of non substantial quip (ad hominem or playing victim, usually). This is what infuriated everyone who has ever argued with him, but it looks like he's at least trying to be civil now, and he's gotten better (at least in the beginning of this thread) at addressing actual points. It'd just make everything worse if everyone starts ragging on him, especially now that he's an active poster in this circle again. Everyone (and I mean everyone) has to stop taking things as personal attacks.

Anyways, back on topic:

SF City Attorney to file legal challenge to Prop 8

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10905867

[Re3x]

I dont care if they are a allowed to get married, but are people still compairing Jim Crow to letting gay marriage be recognized? Honestly, it's not even close to the same boat.

[johnperkins21]

We had this discussion at EvAv a while ago and Johan linked to a long diatribe about how if gay marriage were legal, it would demean the institution, and kids across the country would stop getting married and all of society would fall. He said that pretty much summed up his stance on gay marriage.

I wish I could find that link, but the thread has been removed from EvAv, and a quick Google search didn't turn anything up. But for those who were asking for his reasons to be against gay marriage, according to that article, his stance is: if gay marriage is allowed, bigots everywhere would decide not to marry as the institution would no longer be respected.

Not sure if he's changed his beliefs since then, but that was the only response I've ever seen from him that even come close to detailing his thoughts on the subject.

Oh and Mags,
Try being called faggot, cocksucker, fudge packer, or virus breeder.

They kind of have a point there. I mean, I couldn't really argue with you if you called me a carpet muncher. :p

[ShivaX]

I dont care if they are a allowed to get married, but are people still compairing Jim Crow to letting gay marriage be recognized? Honestly, it's not even close to the same boat.

Actually its very close when you look at inter-racial marriage. Many of the same arguments against it are even being recycled.

[Karmakin]

This comes down to really two points of view, why you'd oppose gay marriage.

First, you just don't understand what the issue is really about. Most people who oppose gay marriage are in this boat. They think that gay marriage, natch marriage itself is nothing more than a symbolic gesture that in legal terms is basically meaningless.

Second, they're people who are going to point and laugh, keep homosexual couples form visiting one another in the hospital, or sue to invalidate wills, etc. This actually does happy, but thankfully it's rare. These people are the real bigots.

But far too many people think that this issue is..well..a joke. It's not. It's actually very important to what is a growing number of people.

Edit:As a side note, the group that put forward this proposition, it's come out that they're firmly in the second group. They viewed allowing hospital visitation as something that "they'd have to give up" and not as something that should be an automatic beginning of their position.

[KingGorilla]

Not to seem dense or anything, is he just trolling, or is he trying to make a legitimate argument? Because he evaded every single rational question hes been asked.

A and B, and always evading.

[Scaryfaced]

Keeping in mind I said I'm for gay marriage as a Christian. Unless you're asking for scripture for that. All I was saying regarding Johan (though I'm mostly talking about a Christian here, though I'm not sure if Johan is...I only assume) is that it's frustrating when people cry intolerance and then they themselves are to us. And again like I said people will say "turn about" which just makes you look immature.

That's what I meant by "where we're coming from" not necessarily the Christian standpoint. Though if you want answers as to why I think what I do I'd be happy to give them as long as people don't crap on me (but please keep in mind I'm again more liberal I'd say than some Christians so I might not give you the total answer you'd like).

I understand that we actually agree on this issue, but I'm going to rant a little anyways. Please excuse my use of the form "you" and "your". I'm using it as a general term for the view point we're discussing and i hope you don't take it personally.

I also completely understand that no one wants to be called intolerant. It's a fair point to make, especially when the group damning you for it is being intolerant themselves. However, in this case, one group's intolerance is directly effecting another group's basic rights. People might not like being called names for being homophobic, but it has no effect on their life. They can still get married and have the same rights as everyone else. At that point, it's simply a case of name calling and having your feelings hurt. Frankly, your feelings mean diddily squat in a conversation like this. It's hypocritical and your fair to point that out, but that doesn't make your possition any more reasonable. We're not discussing whether you can dislike homosexuals or not, were discussing why your opinion of a group of people is important enough to take away the rights that rest of us are free to enjoy.

I'd also argue that people who think the Bible names homosexuality as an "abomination" don't really know much about the bible they're reading. I doubt you really want me to break down each passage that refers to homosexuality, the original latin phrasing that it was translated from, the perposeful mistranslation to infuse religious texts with the author's own point of view and what mistakes might have been made along the way. Just as an example, many theologians argue that the condemnation of homosexuality was used to condemn Roman culture at a period when christians were being fed to Roman lions. I'm not trying to piss on your beliefs or anything, I'm just saying that we can't always point at the Bible and say "See! God says it so it must be true!".

Again, I'm not directly referring to you or your beliefs, Blue. Just attacking what I see as a failed arguement from a large group of people that, at least as far as I can see, you lump youself in with.
________
Pov Masturbatio (http://www.fucktube.com/video/33372/pov-sticky-masturbation-session-with-syrup)

[J Arcane]

But we do that all the time in this country. You can be president, but only if you were born here. You can take maternal leave, but only if you are a woman. You can vote, but only if you're "registered", or never been convicted of a felony. Churches don't have to pay taxes, I do.

There's lots of "inequality" in the country.

Yup. But there's actual good reasons for many of those, as opposed to "gays are icky". THe presidential requirement is to prevent foreign influence from co-opting the gov't. Maternal leave is because women can get pregnant and men can't, and shouldn't be punished for it (if anything, that's an example of promoting equality). Voter registration amounts to filling out a simple form and putting it in the mail, not exactly a great preventative measure, and helps prevent voter fraud. Felons aren't allowed to vote as part of their punishment by society. Churches don't have to pay taxes because of the principles of the seperation of church and state.

Show me the genuinely good, logical reason for gay marriage to be banned, or for homosexuals to be discriminated against.

Again, government does all the time. If two people are at home growing weed to smoke it themselves, think the government won't step in if it is reported?

I fucking hate weed, I fucking hate most of the people I've ever known who've been heavy users of it, and I'd still vote to legalize it in a heartbeat, and the entire American legal system would lose a seriously heavy burden if it happened.

Cut with the weak deconstructions and the lame devil's advocate ploys, and just point to one good fucking reason why gay's shouldn't be allowed the same rights as straight people.


There's the attitude that Johan had a problem with. Because you are having to explain yourself, you feel frustrated and annoyed that people don't agree with you. You have a problem tolerating other people's opinions, and have to insinuate negative connotations to thier personality (in this case, insinuating my ignorance). I understand the principles of our republic. Doesn't mean that I can't ask how Marriage falls into "life, liberty, and pursuit of happyness".

Yup, you got me there, I really do get baffled when people are staggeringly ignorant of the principles of a free society. Call it a character flaw.

The best answer I have for you (and not one that will satisfy, most likely only stir up drek which I don't want) is that from a Bible stance, anyone of the same sex hooking up is considered an abomination. Which means it's pretty darn bad.

It really doesn't though. The same word that gets translated as "abomination" in the OT gets used to apply to a lot of utterly trivial shit that not a one Christian follows today. And Paul's words on the matter have to be taken in the cultural context of someone trying to rabble rouse in an environment with a lot of homosexual activity, and really, were more about condemning Greek hedonism that homosexuality directly.

It's an exaggeration that comes from ignorance, and nothing more.

Not to seem dense or anything, is he just trolling, or is he trying to make a legitimate argument? Because he evaded every single rational question hes been asked.

He's a troll, a collosal troll, and discussing anything with him is useless, because he's just going to keep playing the condescending victim card.

FFVB (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/7023). Use it.

[Blue]

You did and didn't. That's an answer I would expect, but it brings me right back to the beginning... if it's my sin and my life (and chances are we don't even share the same religion), why would someone else feel it necessary to intercede? It still feels like something that should be handled within the churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, whatevers, and not in the law books.

From your response, I think you and I probably agree on the issue. I guess I just don't understand why others don't.

I think one of the large reasons a religious person (Christians namely as that's my background) tends to feel the need to intercede is because, from Christ, they're called to. Jesus asks us that we go out and find those doing wrong (sin) and try and have them not. Fishers of Men he calls it. So for many Christians it is absolutely they're moral duty (and even a Godly order) to go up to someone sinning and do something about it.

For many Christians that is the ultimate calling right there and why you're more apt to hear them say something. Because we're told to. Is that more along the lines of what you were asking or did I dodge it again?

[GunnyMo]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

(you forget the part that was written in invisible ink)..."unless you are a woman, Asian, African, Mexican, homosexual, Democrat or otherwise not a white, Christian male." :D

Needless to say, we've corrected most of those but it's a work in progress.

[TurboKinny]

You know what's stupid? If my boyfriend and I wanted to be domestic partners, we can't.

(b) A domestic partnership shall be established in California when
both persons file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the
Secretary of State pursuant to this division, and, at the time of
filing, all of the following requirements are met:
(1) Both persons have a common residence.
(2) Neither person is married to someone else or is a member of
another domestic partnership with someone else that has not been
terminated, dissolved, or adjudged a nullity.
(3) The two persons are not related by blood in a way that would
prevent them from being married to each other in this state.
(4) Both persons are at least 18 years of age.
(5) Either of the following:
(A) Both persons are members of the same sex.
(B) One or both of the persons meet the eligibility criteria under
Title II of the Social Security Act as defined in 42 U.S.C. Section
402(a) for old-age insurance benefits or Title XVI of the Social
Security Act as defined in 42 U.S.C. Section 1381 for aged
individuals. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section,
persons of opposite sexes may not constitute a domestic partnership
unless one or both of the persons are over the age of 62.

If domestic partnerships are the same as marriage, why can't I have a domestic partnership with him just because we're not the same sex?

[Blue]

It really doesn't though. The same word that gets translated as "abomination" in the OT gets used to apply to a lot of utterly trivial shit that not a one Christian follows today. And Paul's words on the matter have to be taken in the cultural context of someone trying to rabble rouse in an environment with a lot of homosexual activity, and really, were more about condemning Greek hedonism that homosexuality directly.

It's an exaggeration that comes from ignorance, and nothing more.
FFVB (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/7023). Use it.

You and I don't disagree here. I mean heck, one of the chief reasons it was seen as wrong (man and man) was they believed that semen was limited and one of the big things way back when was reproducing so if you have sex with someone who cannot reproduce (again, man and man), it's limiting your chances to have a boy and continue your bloodline as your semen is limited.

Where we differ I'd say is the use of the word "ignorant" as it's almost immediately inflammatory. I'd often say that many non-Christians sling around how intelligent they are and how unintelligent we are for not believing in invisible men in the sky. People do need to research things for themselves before making a trek out to preach to the masses, absolutely, however know that many Christians view the Bible as absolute (for better or worse) and feel that right there is all the research they need.

I knew a person that often said "if the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it." Does that make them wrong or right? Not necessarily either I'd say (as opinions like that, especially religious on either front are hard for me to label "wrong"). Understand that a lot of people do fall under that frame of mind so to them if the Bible says it's wrong, it's wrong plain and simple.

Again, not where I come from as a Christian but it's certainly there and, for many, it has validity no matter how much someone might try and label them as "ignorant". So you cannot write that off as a reason.

[DiBiddilyBop]

Is that more along the lines of what you were asking or did I dodge it again?

Nope, that pretty much hits the nail on the head. It just underscores why I have a contemptuous relationship with religion in general (I don't like being told what to believe), and would lead me to further debate should someone use that reasoning with me (Isn't that a lazy man's way of saving people? Does it really prevent individuals from "living in sin," or does it just make you feel better about not having to deal with it? In that respect, have you actually accomplished anything worthwhile for your religion, or have you only succeeded in making "sinners" less happy?). Since you and I agree on the issue, it's a moot point. I guess I'll just have to wait for some poor fundamentalist to try and "convert" me, at which point I'll lay into them and hopefully give them nightmares for a few weeks to come. :D

[Blue]

I understand that we actually agree on this issue, but I'm going to rant a little anyways. Please excuse my use of the form "you" and "your". I'm using it as a general term for the view point we're discussing and i hope you don't take it personally.

I also completely understand that no one wants to be called intolerant. It's a fair point to make, especially when the group damning you for it is being intolerant themselves. However, in this case, one group's intolerance is directly effecting another group's basic rights. People might not like being called names for being homophobic, but it has no effect on their life. They can still get married and have the same rights as everyone else. At that point, it's simply a case of name calling and having your feelings hurt. Frankly, your feelings mean diddily squat in a conversation like this. It's hypocritical and your fair to point that out, but that doesn't make your possition any more reasonable. We're not discussing whether you can dislike homosexuals or not, were discussing why your opinion of a group of people is important enough to take away the rights that rest of us are free to enjoy.

I'd also argue that people who think the Bible names homosexuality as an "abomination" don't really know much about the bible they're reading. I doubt you really want me to break down each passage that refers to homosexuality, the original latin phrasing that it was translated from, the perposeful mistranslation to infuse religious texts with the author's own point of view and what mistakes might have been made along the way. Just as an example, many theologians argue that the condemnation of homosexuality was used to condemn Roman culture at a period when christians were being fed to Roman lions. I'm not trying to piss on your beliefs or anything, I'm just saying that we can't always point at the Bible and say "See! God says it so it must be true!".

Again, I'm not directly referring to you or your beliefs, Blue. Just attacking what I see as a failed arguement from a large group of people that, at least as far as I can see, you lump youself in with.

Nah, I totally get that. More or less said the same thing with J. Arcane above. And I am absolutely a Christian, I just distance myself from the finger-wavers as I don't think that's what a Christian should be in any way shape or form. You can't win anyone to your side (and not just becoming a Christian but even just a "yeah, okay, I can see that") if all you do is chew someone down and too often people quote scripture to do just that.

[Scaryfaced]

I wish I could find that link, but the thread has been removed from EvAv, and a quick Google search didn't turn anything up. But for those who were asking for his reasons to be against gay marriage, according to that article, his stance is: if gay marriage is allowed, bigots everywhere would decide not to marry as the institution would no longer be respected.

I truely detest this arguement. All you have to do is watch a few nights of network television's prime time reality shows to tell you just how respectable marriage is. What will you find? 30 women eating bull testicles for the chance to marry a man they've known for 5 whole minutes. Or perhaps they disguise a poor constuction worker as a millionaire and find a group of lovely young gold diggers to fight it out for that magical ring. Oh, better yet! Lets just swap our partners for a week or so and let them drive eachother's spouses crazy! Yeah, that's what the sanctity of marriage is all about.
________
Montana medical marijuana dispensary (http://montana.dispensaries.org/)

[J Arcane]

So you cannot write that off as a reason.

I sure as hell can. I can also write it off for being the same ludicrous behavior that Christ condemned the Pharisees for.

Ignorance is ignorance. That said ignorance is willful and deliberately undertaken does not make it any less ignorant.

The Creator created us in his image, which means we have reason and intelligence, and it is our duty as human beings and to our Creator to utilize them.

To do otherwise is frankly an insult to Him.

[Blue]

Nope, that pretty much hits the nail on the head. It just underscores why I have a contemptuous relationship with religion in general (I don't like being told what to believe), and would lead me to further debate should someone use that reasoning with me (Isn't that a lazy man's way of saving people? Does it really prevent individuals from "living in sin," or does it just make you feel better about not having to deal with it? In that respect, have you actually accomplished anything worthwhile for your religion, or have you only succeeded in making "sinners" less happy?). Since you and I agree on the issue, it's a moot point. I guess I'll just have to wait for some poor fundamentalist to try and "convert" me, at which point I'll lay into them and hopefully give them nightmares for a few weeks to come. :D

Heck, I've had Christians try and convert me and I'm one of them :) And honestly, it underscores a great deal with what I disagree with in religion in general as well. For me, if you want to know what I think, I'll tell you no worries. If you tell me what you think, awesome. If I expect you to be respectful of who I am and what I believe and you to allow me to live out my God-given free will (as I find it to be, others will argue) then how can I not do the same? It'd be wrong for me to cut anyone down for being an Atheist and then cry foul when they cut me down for being Christian.

[Blue]

I sure as hell can. I can also write it off for being the same ludicrous behavior that Christ condemned the Pharisees for.

Ignorance is ignorance. That said ignorance is willful and deliberately undertaken does not make it any less ignorant.

Fair enough, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Unless you disagree with doing that then we're screwed.

[walkstheplanes]

This got swamped. Just reposting.


Anyways, back on topic:

SF City Attorney to file legal challenge to Prop 8

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10905867

[Karmakin]

At least when I use the word "ignorant', what I'm meaning is that, we And as such, we're all ignorant about something or another. The reality is I find that even for people who most oppose these things, there's a lot of ignorance about their own issues. They have a basic opposition, and that opposition might be very intense, but that doesn't mean that they know very much about it.

That's my big beef with religion by the way, is when it promotes this type of black and white thinking. I was driving today and a church had a sign up..

"Faith is not hurt by thinking"

And that says a lot. What we should be talking about, is if we should or should not deny gays a blanket right to visit their partner in the hospital. Or if we should they should be allowed to have a preference when it comes to wills, or should they have any sort of marital privilage in legal matters (The first two are easy. The third is...much more complex IMO).

And maybe the way to have those things is not marriage per se. Maybe it's just civil unions that are on par with marriage. Although to be honest, within a generation, they will be marriage, if not by law, they will be by culture.

I was watching one of the king fucktards of tihs world, Bill Bennett on CNN last night, who was harping on about how Obama had to watch his ideology and how it's pulled and all that. It took a guy I don't really like either...James Carville, to mention to the like that ideology is dead. And it is. The cold war is over folks.

The new world is about problems and solutions. Problems and solutions. That's the new paragrim. Get with it or get left behind.

[DiBiddilyBop]

Heck, I've had Christians try and convert me and I'm one of them :) And honestly, it underscores a great deal with what I disagree with in religion in general as well. For me, if you want to know what I think, I'll tell you no worries. If you tell me what you think, awesome. If I expect you to be respectful of who I am and what I believe and you to allow me to live out my God-given free will (as I find it to be, others will argue) then how can I not do the same? It'd be wrong for me to cut anyone down for being an Atheist and then cry foul when they cut me down for being Christian.

Fortunately, most Christians I know share your attitude. Unfortunately, I don't think the majority do, which is evident from prop 8.

[GunnyMo]

People do need to research things for themselves before making a trek out to preach to the masses, absolutely, however know that many Christians view the Bible as absolute (for better or worse) and feel that right there is all the research they need.



The funny thing is, most don't research the Bible. They essentially live off of the Cliff's Notes version given by the Pastor every Sunday. You ask the majority of Christians about any of the "mistakes" in there that anyone who can read and comprehend would catch and they are clueless. Now, granted here, I'm talking more about fundamentalists or literalists when it comes to the Bible.

I'll give you a personal example: my father. He has a Master's in Theology. He was a pastor for close to twenty years. I asked him back in the 90's what he thought of the two conflicting versions of creation in Genesis that are within sentences of each other he said, "What? No there isn't." lol

It took me years to shake off the untruths and misconceptions I was taught in church growing up. I seriously thought men had one more rib than women until I was in the military. I was taught to believe that God drowning the entire human population and all non-aquatic animal life on the planet was a good thing or that the drunk Noah who enjoyed laying around naked in front of family and friends was a "righteous" man. I was taught that masturbation is wrong because, well, because it just is. It wasn't until later I learned that the story of Onan it's based off of is tragic. God kills Onan because Onan didn't want to defile his dead brother's wife because he thought it was wrong so he "spilled his seed" outside of her and that's the basis for masturbation is bad? A man chooses the morally right thing to do and God kills him. Sigh, I guess I'm getting off topic here but, seriously, to say most Christians research their opinions (even if the Bible is their source) doesn't quite sit with me.

(btw, Blue, I do agree with what you said overall. :) )

[TurboKinny]

This got swamped. Just reposting.I've been trying to find the text of her filed suit, but it doesn't seem to be posted anywhere.

[Heresyte]

I got distracted while I was typing this, and during that time Johan left and things got rational again so it looks like this point has already been made, but since I already typed it up I'm going to post it anyways.

I don't see why are so many of you hung up on insults and intolerance. It's completely beside the point. I can hold the opinion that all christians are bigots and call them nasty names all day long, but that will never be the same thing as passing a law that discriminates against them and makes them second class citizens. When a state passes a law that christians can't adopt children, or can't marry other christians or even marry at all, then the christian bigots can complain that "the other side" is just as nasty as they are (And yes, not all christians are bigots, and not all the anti-gay bigots are christians, but you can't deny that christian beliefs are the biggest cause of the discrimination that led to this discussion).

The issues at hand here (as adressed in the topic, imagine that) are freedom and equality. Nobody has to respect or tolerate homosexuals, everybody has the right to disrespect others for any reason they choose because the united states is (supposed to be) a free country.

But what happened yesterday is 5.3 million californians went to the polls and said "I want to prevent gays from being able to marry their loved ones. Only heterosexuals should have that right." They used their status as the majority in order to restrict the freedom of a minority by forcing everybody to follow their personal beliefs.

You know what's stupid? If my boyfriend and I wanted to be domestic partners, we can't.

If domestic partnerships are the same as marriage, why can't I have a domestic partnership with him just because we're not the same sex?
Because then gays wouldn't be seperate but equal, you bigot. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[GunnyMo]

(And yes, not all christians are bigots, and not all the anti-gay bigots are christians, but you can't deny that christian beliefs are the biggest cause of the discrimination that led to this discussion).



That's interesting you say that because I was just thinking about that tonight. Other than fascism or the Stalinistic USSR (I know those are two really BIG "other thans" but I'm talking more about here in the US or perhaps democratic countries), I really have never run into, seen or heard from anyone that is bigoted or discriminatory based on race, sex or sex preference that isn't coming to those beliefs from some form of religion.

Seriously, are there really any that don't use their religion as the basis? I've never met an atheist or agnostic that is as virulently opposed gays, races or women as those of religious persuasion tend to be.

I'm not bashing all religions here but honestly curious.

[J'onn J'onnz]

That's interesting you say that because I was just thinking about that tonight. Other than fascism or the Stalinistic USSR (I know those are two really BIG "other thans" but I'm talking more about here in the US or perhaps democratic countries), I really have never run into, seen or heard from anyone that is bigoted or discriminatory based on race, sex or sex preference that isn't coming to those beliefs from some form of religion.

Seriously, are there really any that don't use their religion as the basis? I've never met an atheist or agnostic that is as virulently opposed gays, races or women as those of religious persuasion tend to be.

I'm not bashing all religions here but honestly curious.

You're correct, a lot of ignorant people use their religions as a scapegoat, saying their discrimination is gods will, when in reality they probably haven't read a bible, or even can read. I'm an athiest, but I don't think that makes me any better than a religious person, as morality and religion are not mutually exclusive. It just so happens that by rejecting all known religion makes it a little difficult for you to be close minded about anything.

[Blue]

The funny thing is, most don't research the Bible. They essentially live off of the Cliff's Notes version given by the Pastor every Sunday. You ask the majority of Christians about any of the "mistakes" in there that anyone who can read and comprehend would catch and they are clueless. Now, granted here, I'm talking more about fundamentalists or literalists when it comes to the Bible.

I'll give you a personal example: my father. He has a Master's in Theology. He was a pastor for close to twenty years. I asked him back in the 90's what he thought of the two conflicting versions of creation in Genesis that are within sentences of each other he said, "What? No there isn't." lol

It took me years to shake off the untruths and misconceptions I was taught in church growing up. I seriously thought men had one more rib than women until I was in the military. I was taught to believe that God drowning the entire human population and all non-aquatic animal life on the planet was a good thing or that the drunk Noah who enjoyed laying around naked in front of family and friends was a "righteous" man. I was taught that masturbation is wrong because, well, because it just is. It wasn't until later I learned that the story of Onan it's based off of is tragic. God kills Onan because Onan didn't want to defile his dead brother's wife because he thought it was wrong so he "spilled his seed" outside of her and that's the basis for masturbation is bad? A man chooses the morally right thing to do and God kills him. Sigh, I guess I'm getting off topic here but, seriously, to say most Christians research their opinions (even if the Bible is their source) doesn't quite sit with me.

(btw, Blue, I do agree with what you said overall. :) )

Oh I understand that that being considered research (Bible and only Bible) doesn't sit well. Completely. Doesn't mean that for them that isn't research.

And while I don't have a Master's one of my Bachelor degree's is in Theology and I don't know half of what I'm ever talking about on the subject, though that's mostly true with anything for me.

[neutralism]

I haven't done anything in this thread except reveal what was already within many of you guys, which is a truly horrible anger and intolerance to people who don't adopt your positions. Re-read the thread. I haven't insulted anyone.

I wish you all a happier tomorrow. This is not a good place to be, which is really too bad. You can excuse it away, but the stones and insults were not mine, and they have been many and varied from this group in this thread.

Goodbye. Don't stay angry. Life is too short for that. Work for your values in a productive, respectful way.

:D

Looks like the hivemind mobbed you. I've been there, trust me. Only I was rude and obtuse while you were respectful and reasonable in your discourse...

And you still got raked over the coals and called a troll! :D

Well, back on-topic, I am still ambivalent over the issue involved with CA's Proposition 8, but I agree with the OP (which was his original point, I think) that it should not be easy for a simple majority to get something in their favor. Just like it has upset many here over the passage of 8 in CA, I am outraged at MI and MA for passages of proposition that impose the majority belief on the minority. :mad:

I must say, though, that while people have brought up good points in why 8 got passed, my opinion on why a lot of these things never go the way people want is because of a vocal minority within that minority that is trying to gain recognition of rights or freedoms.

In the case of Prop 8, I think the flamboyants ruined it for the rest of the group. I think members like these create more harm to a worthy cause because they project an image that the other side will only focus on and therefore only results in increased staunch opposition. For example:


http://i36.tinypic.com/208v96p.jpg

How does the presence of Sister Margaret Snatcher of the LA "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" positively help in any way shape or form in getting others to understand that certain rights should be available for all equally? :confused:

On a weird but related note, I was kind of shocked that with the historic election of an African-American as President and all the real sentiment and emotion I have seen firsthand from that elated group, that exit polls conducted on Prop 8 revealed this:

http://i37.tinypic.com/2jc68nd.jpg

:confused:

[itchyeyes]

It wasn't until later I learned that the story of Onan it's based off of is tragic. God kills Onan because Onan didn't want to defile his dead brother's wife because he thought it was wrong so he "spilled his seed" outside of her and that's the basis for masturbation is bad? A man chooses the morally right thing to do and God kills him. Sigh, I guess I'm getting off topic here but, seriously, to say most Christians research their opinions (even if the Bible is their source) doesn't quite sit with me.

(btw, Blue, I do agree with what you said overall. :) )
Actually that's not the basis for why many Christians consider masturbation wrong. Most denominations base it on an interpretation of the 9th commandment

Thou shalt not... covet thy neighbor's wife

Along with an interpretation of Matthew 5:27-28

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

While the verses don't explicitly condemn masturbation, most Christians consider masturbation an expression of lust and therefore a violation of their teachings.

[ClannerDelta]

While the verses don't explicitly condemn masturbation, most Christians consider masturbation an expression of lust and therefore a violation of their teachings.

This is why I could never be a Christian. I had to choose between furious masturbation... and reading an old book.

Well, I think we know how that ended.

[ShivaX]

http://i37.tinypic.com/2jc68nd.jpg

:confused:

Well those numbers would have defeated it, so I find them fairly suspect. :)

Historically African Americans aren't fans of the gay community.

[Heresyte]

That's interesting you say that because I was just thinking about that tonight. Other than fascism or the Stalinistic USSR (I know those are two really BIG "other thans" but I'm talking more about here in the US or perhaps democratic countries), I really have never run into, seen or heard from anyone that is bigoted or discriminatory based on race, sex or sex preference that isn't coming to those beliefs from some form of religion.

Seriously, are there really any that don't use their religion as the basis? I've never met an atheist or agnostic that is as virulently opposed gays, races or women as those of religious persuasion tend to be.

I'm not bashing all religions here but honestly curious.

I think the source of the problem is the "us vs. them" mentality that seems to be a part of human nature. Religion plays a role in that it encourages that behavior and determines who counts as "us" and who counts as "them", whereas without it people are able to use other criteria.

But that isn't to say that discrimination as a whole would neccessarily end in the absence of religion. In many societies a particular religion is considered the default position to have, and many people have a hard time escaping that. I don't think it's a stretch to guess that the kind of people who are able to escape the religious beliefs imposed on them by society are also the kind of people who can see how ridiculous the "us vs. them" mentality is.

[J Arcane]

I think the source of the problem is the "us vs. them" mentality that seems to be a part of human nature. Religion plays a role in that it encourages that behavior and determines who counts as "us" and who counts as "them", whereas without it people are able to use other criteria.

But that isn't to say that discrimination as a whole would neccessarily end in the absence of religion. In many societies a particular religion is considered the default position to have, and many people have a hard time escaping that. I don't think it's a stretch to guess that the kind of people who are able to escape the religious beliefs imposed on them by society are also the kind of people who can see how ridiculous the "us vs. them" mentality is.
And in some societies and points in history, the religious "us" has been a force for great positive change.

Remember that much of the abolitionist movement in the US was strongly Christian. MLK was Christian, a minister in fact. The former pope John Paul II was an important symbol for Polish independence and freedom.

[shunoshi]

What's the population in CA again...? ;)

http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l175/shunoshi/2jc68nd.jpg

[mister slim]

Anyways, back on topic:

SF City Attorney to file legal challenge to Prop 8

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10905867

Yeah, there's a lot of interesting questions left by Prop 8. One thing I've seen pointed out is that while Prop 8 does enshrine a particular definition of marriage in the CA constitution, it doesn't change the equal rights requirements. So it'll be interesting to see how the courts interpret the interaction between the two clauses. It's been suggested that if the justices hold to the viewpoint on rights that was the basis for In re Marriage Cases in their interpretation of Prop 8, California would no longer be able to recognize any marriages at all. Which would be a hilarious mess. Hopefully the insurance companies will recognize what a windfall that would be for them and start pushing for such an interpretation.

[Heresyte]

On a weird but related note, I was kind of shocked that with the historic election of an African-American as President and all the real sentiment and emotion I have seen firsthand from that elated group, that exit polls conducted on Prop 8 revealed this:

(pic removed)

:confused:
Polls done prior to the election showed that black voters were much more likely to support it than other races, and asians were the only ones who were more likely to oppose it than support it.

Apparently the CA constitution has seperate rules for "revisions" as opposed to amendments. People are suing on the grounds that since the constitution already gives everyone the right to marry, eliminating that right counts as a revision and can't be done through an amendment. A revision requires a 2/3 vote in the state legislature.

Hey look, these people look happy. (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/lat-loomis10_k9upc7nc20081105081259,0,7130590.photo) I wonder what they're cheering for? There's no way they're cheering because they succeeding in preventing gay people from marrying their loved ones, because that would be disgusting. :(

[Heresyte]

Yeah, there's a lot of interesting questions left by Prop 8. One thing I've seen pointed out is that while Prop 8 does enshrine a particular definition of marriage in the CA constitution, it doesn't change the equal rights requirements. So it'll be interesting to see how the courts interpret the interaction between the two clauses. It's been suggested that if the justices hold to the viewpoint on rights that was the basis for In re Marriage Cases in their interpretation of Prop 8, California would no longer be able to recognize any marriages at all. Which would be a hilarious mess. Hopefully the insurance companies will recognize what a windfall that would be for them and start pushing for such an interpretation.
That is interesting, because the logic does hold. The constitution requires that homosexuals and heterosexuals have equal rights, and now the constitution also says that homosexuals don't have the right to marry, so the only way for them to have equal rights is that nobody has the right to marry.

There is definitely a problem that needs to be addressed, but if anything is done to fix this situation I'm guess it will be that prop 8 is declared null and void.

[GunnyMo]

Actually that's not the basis for why many Christians consider masturbation wrong. Most denominations base it on an interpretation of the 9th commandment

Along with an interpretation of Matthew 5:27-28

While the verses don't explicitly condemn masturbation, most Christians consider masturbation an expression of lust and therefore a violation of their teachings.

I think it's a combination of them both as I've talked to a number of theologians over the years who've cited both. Personally, I think many Christians like the 9th commandment one because it's rather vague and they don't have to talk about spilled seed. Seriously. ;)

...I don't know half of what I'm ever talking about on the subject [theology], though that's mostly true with anything for me.

I think everyone's in that boat whether they want to admit it or not. Hell, half of life and interaction with other humans is BSing our way through the conversation.

"Hey, do you remember that movie with the guy who did the thing?"

"Oh...um...yeah! I think I do! That sounds familiar!"

:D

[walkstheplanes]

You know what's stupid? If my boyfriend and I wanted to be domestic partners, we can't.


If domestic partnerships are the same as marriage, why can't I have a domestic partnership with him just because we're not the same sex?

Domestic partnership was catered towards the gay community as an alternative, "lesser" form of marriage. If you got enough people behind you, I'm fairly certain you will have no trouble at all getting this across, unless a certain group forces upon you that the only way two heterosexuals can be together in civil union is, as defined by their guidelines in their book of rules, in marraige. My sister gained domestic partnership with her boyfriend, but this is in Colorado.

I've been trying to find the text of her filed suit, but it doesn't seem to be posted anywhere.

The suit's less than a day old. Give it time. The Lesbian couple who are suing are planning it, according to the article, so you might want to give that some time too. ;)

[Karmakin]

That is interesting, because the logic does hold. The constitution requires that homosexuals and heterosexuals have equal rights, and now the constitution also says that homosexuals don't have the right to marry, so the only way for them to have equal rights is that nobody has the right to marry.

There is definitely a problem that needs to be addressed, but if anything is done to fix this situation I'm guess it will be that prop 8 is declared null and void.

That's not only a reasonable reading of the situation, that's actually the logical reading of the situation. There's othing in prop 8 that removes anything from California's equal protection standards, and thusly the only logical result is to..well..ban marriage altogether.

That's what you get with these social conservative organizations. They're rarely anything more than pure reactionarism. They have no concept over the big picture on a world where their goals are actually accomplished. They have no clue what it would even look like. To put it simply, they don't have goals, past mere opposition.

[itchyeyes]

What's the population in CA again...? ;)
It's an exit poll, not the actual ballot results.

[Inspector Fowler]

You guys need to learn that Johan is to be ignored. He can't be reasoned with, he can't be bought, he can't be bullied. Some men just want to see the forum burn.

Man, that made me laugh.

During my time at EvAv and now here, I have, in turns, been enraged by Johan, rolled my eyes at his ability to be insulted and drawn in by almost any argument, felt bad for him on those occassions when he presented a non-majority view and was mocked for it.

But above all, I am a fan of Batman, and you sir, have touched my heart. Bravo. :)

[KingGorilla]

What's the population in CA again...? ;)

http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l175/shunoshi/2jc68nd.jpg

Statistically speaking, any larger of a sample would have been of no significance.

[sparkfizt]

Statistically speaking, any larger of a sample would have been of no significance.

Statistics, she is a counter-intuitive beast :)

[Generation ABXY]

That's interesting you say that because I was just thinking about that tonight. Other than fascism or the Stalinistic USSR (I know those are two really BIG "other thans" but I'm talking more about here in the US or perhaps democratic countries), I really have never run into, seen or heard from anyone that is bigoted or discriminatory based on race, sex or sex preference that isn't coming to those beliefs from some form of religion.

Seriously, are there really any that don't use their religion as the basis? I've never met an atheist or agnostic that is as virulently opposed gays, races or women as those of religious persuasion tend to be.

I'm not bashing all religions here but honestly curious.

Religion is one of the major things I’ve seen tossed out there, as is the idea that, if we allow gay marriage, we’ll soon have to allow anyone to do whatever they want (pedophilia, polygamy, bestiality, etc.). As an atheist, the only argument open to me was the latter, but I eventually realized I was just searching for a reason to condemn it (probably due to my highly religious childhood), and that’s when I stopped worrying about it.

Now, at the risk of perhaps offending people here who I would otherwise like to think I have a friendship with, I’m going to be completely honest: I find the concept of homosexuality unnatural and, quite frankly, it disgusts me. However, I no longer see that as a reason to oppose gay marriage. In fact, I’ve even come to view that as a reason to support it, if the measure was ever brought up here. You see, I’ve found that I don’t disapprove of the people so much as I do the lifestyle they live.

Legalizing gay marriage will allow it to become a non-issue and, silly as it may sound, the news is one less outlet to constantly bombard me with it. Legalizing it will allow these people to do what they want to do, and just live their lives. And, so long as they keep it to themselves (which, you have to admit, so people do the exact opposite of, seemingly going out of their way to make you uncomfortable), I have no problem with. I know some people may see that as unfair, saying we allow straight couples to make out in public in the sort, but the truth is I don’t much care for that either; as those of who know me can vouch for, I am very reserved in most respects – hell, I won’t even sing with the radio when I’m alone.

In short, I may disapprove of homosexuality, but I approve of people being able to make their own choices (so long as it doesn't come at the expense of anyone else, 'natch). Sorry for the block of text, I just thought I would share another side of it as clearly as I could. Hopefully I didn’t offend anyone too much with it, but it seemed easier to just lay my cards on the table at this point.

[ShivaX]

We should start a thread analyzing Johan.

Look the man isn't perfect, but can we stop bringing him up and bashing him? Please?

[mister slim]

In short, I may disapprove of homosexuality, but I approve of people being able to make their own choices (so long as it doesn't come at the expense of anyone else, 'natch). Sorry for the block of text, I just thought I would share another side of it as clearly as I could. Hopefully I didn’t offend anyone too much with it, but it seemed easier to just lay my cards on the table at this point.

Just want to say you are the kind of libertarian I wish we still had more of.

[Banacek]

Look the man isn't perfect, but can we stop bringing him up and bashing him? Please?

This thread alone proves that Johan gets what he asks for. It's no surprise that he took his ball and went home. It's a common tactic of his. Stop defending him, you're doing yourself a disservice.

[Generation ABXY]

Just want to say you are the kind of libertarian I wish we still had more of.

I'm not too sure the differences between that and a Republican (which I've been registered as since the start), but thanks. So long as no-one comes out and says I've made them ashamed to be an American, I may actually not regret posting it. :D

[ShivaX]

This thread alone proves that Johan gets what he asks for. It's no surprise that he took his ball and went home. It's a common tactic of his. Stop defending him, you're doing yourself a disservice.

I can live with the disservice of acting agreeably. I'd be lying if I said the man didn't piss me off sometimes, but attacking him repeatedly gets us nowhere and leads to a atmosphere that does noone any good.

You can call him on not explaining his position, but he never insulted anyone (though what he believes might be insulting to you).

[ShivaX]

I'm not too sure the differences between that and a Republican (which I've been registered as since the start), but thanks.

The difference is exactly what you said. "I approve of people being able to make their own choices (so long as it doesn't come at the expense of anyone else)."

Well that and you probably want to actually be fiscally responsible, which the GOP decided wasn't worth the effort to bother with. Why cut taxing and spending when you can just cut taxes and get it all? Why is China repoing Alaska?

[Generation ABXY]

The difference is exactly what you said. "I approve of people being able to make their own choices (so long as it doesn't come at the expense of anyone else)."

Well that and you probably want to actually be fiscally responsible, which the GOP decided wasn't worth the effort to bother with. Why cut taxing and spending when you can just cut taxes and get it all? Why is China repoing Alaska?

Ah, I see. I guess I should see about changing my party affiliation, than. :p

[ClannerDelta]

Why is China repoing Alaska?

Repoing? If I take the meaning of that as "Repossessing" then I'm confused. When did China own Alaska?

[ShivaX]

Repoing? If I take the meaning of that as "Repossessing" then I'm confused. When did China own Alaska?

Russia sent them. Its a complex credit swap thing.

[ClannerDelta]

Still confused, mind explaining where you're coming from a bit more?

[Generation ABXY]

Still confused, mind explaining where you're coming from a bit more?

I do believe he was just joking, and merely tried to get out of his misstep with economic nuances few people even realize exist...