62% no so far, way to go 62% no so far, way to go piggies!
I have no clue why it would be any of my business who someone else marries. I mean really.
meadandale
October 27, 2008 @
10:54 AM
svelte wrote:62% no so far, [quote=svelte]62% no so far, way to go piggies![/quote]
Sample size of less than 20. Yep, that’s a scientific representation.
svelte
October 28, 2008 @
4:40 PM
meadandale wrote:svelte [quote=meadandale][quote=svelte]62% no so far, way to go piggies![/quote]
Sample size of less than 20. Yep, that’s a scientific representation.
[/quote]
Maybe you missed the words “so far”. ??
jimmyle
October 31, 2008 @
4:03 PM
Sample size is 100 now, No is Sample size is 100 now, No is still 62%.
[quote=meadandale][quote=svelte]62% no so far, way to go piggies![/quote]
Sample size of less than 20. Yep, that’s a scientific representation.
[/quote]
XBoxBoy
October 27, 2008 @
11:03 AM
Vote no on all the Vote no on all the propositions. Ballot initiatives are a really lousy way of doing government and the sooner they stop succeeding the better.
peterb
October 27, 2008 @
12:07 PM
More money spent on weddings More money spent on weddings and divorces can only be a good thing for the economy. Let everyone enjoy the bliss that is matramony.
CDMA ENG
October 27, 2008 @
2:26 PM
When asked if he was against When asked if he was against gay marriages Fred Thompson replied… “I’m against anyone getting married!”. Gotta love that reasoning. Anything that has a greater than 50 percent chance of failing isn’t that sacared. I bet in 20 years we find out the amount of succesful marriages in the gay community far exceeds the straight per capita.
I for one will not deny someone this…
Equality is Equality.
Oink,
CE
afx114
October 27, 2008 @
2:59 PM
I refuse to vote yes on I refuse to vote yes on anything that has “ELIMINATES RIGHT” in the title, regardless of what comes after those two words.
Mark Holmes
October 27, 2008 @
3:07 PM
Thank you Piggingtons!
My Thank you Piggingtons!
My partner and I just voted early, both of us against Prop. 8.
Please think twice before supporting something that takes away the rights of others. Please.
meadandale
October 27, 2008 @
3:38 PM
Even the chosen one, your Even the chosen one, your liberator, and his right hand man Joe the Senator are anti-gay marriage.
Mark Holmes
October 27, 2008 @
4:22 PM
Yeah, Barack and Joe aren’t Yeah, Barack and Joe aren’t on the same page as some on the gay marriage issue, but they are certainly more supportive of gay rights than the GOP.
Also, they both oppose the national version of Prop. 8, changing the US Constitution to outlaw gay marriage. So if gay people are allowed to continue to marry here, at least the federal government won’t stand in the way.
jficquette
October 28, 2008 @
3:18 PM
Mark Holmes wrote:Yeah, [quote=Mark Holmes]Yeah, Barack and Joe aren’t on the same page as some on the gay marriage issue, but they are certainly more supportive of gay rights than the GOP.
Also, they both oppose the national version of Prop. 8, changing the US Constitution to outlaw gay marriage. So if gay people are allowed to continue to marry here, at least the federal government won’t stand in the way.[/quote]
How can you stay obama and Biden are more supportive of Gay Marriage then the GOP when Obama and Biden rejects the notion of Gay Marriage??
John
Mark Holmes
October 28, 2008 @
4:39 PM
“How can you stay obama and “How can you stay obama and Biden are more supportive of Gay Marriage then the GOP when Obama and Biden rejects the notion of Gay Marriage??
John”
Um, I didn’t. I would think you would at least read your own post, but apparently you didn’t read yours or mine.
I said they are more supportive of gay rights, not gay marriage.
And John, I have to ask you; are you gay? Because otherwise I don’t understand your concern with this. How, exactly, does it affect you personally?
Mark Holmes
October 27, 2008 @
4:25 PM
Sorry, double post. Sorry, double post.
urbanrealtor
October 27, 2008 @
6:08 PM
Mark does have a point or Mark does have a point or two.
Ricechex
October 27, 2008 @
7:18 PM
afx114 wrote:I refuse to vote [quote=afx114]I refuse to vote yes on anything that has “ELIMINATES RIGHT” in the title, regardless of what comes after those two words.[/quote]
My sentiments exactly.
Kilohana
October 27, 2008 @
7:55 PM
I agree with Fred Thompson. I agree with Fred Thompson. Everyone should have the opportunity to see just how blissful marriage can be at times. Especially when it’s time to go shopping for a home. Ahhh… Pure heaven!
Aecetia
October 27, 2008 @
7:59 PM
The divorce attorneys are The divorce attorneys are rejoicing.
DWCAP
October 27, 2008 @
7:38 PM
afx114 wrote:I refuse to vote [quote=afx114]I refuse to vote yes on anything that has “ELIMINATES RIGHT” in the title, regardless of what comes after those two words.[/quote]
This is exactly why Jerry Brown rewrote the admendment that was origionally submitted (ie the signatures were collected for). Not that I am gonna vote for prop 8, but we need to recognize when we are being manipulated politically.
tucker...
October 27, 2008 @
8:16 PM
i think gays should have i think gays should have rights together if they want. but calling it a marriage is going to far.
marriage is for a man and a woman.
(Sorry if you don’t feel the same way)
i don’t really have anything against gays,unless its put in my face like prop 8
Mark Holmes
October 27, 2008 @
10:11 PM
“i don’t really have anything “i don’t really have anything against gays,unless its put in my face like prop 8”
Proposition 8 was not put in your face “by gays”. It was put in your face by the “Christian” Right. The courts made the decision to allow gay marriage and the right is trying to force their idea of morality on my life, and that of others. Propisition 8, if passed, will amend the state constitution to outlaw what is now legal – gay marriage.
Gay marriage has been legal since the spring and the world hasn’t come to an end. Can’t people just live and let live?
underdose
October 27, 2008 @
10:41 PM
tucker… wrote:i think gays [quote=tucker…]i think gays should have rights together if they want. but calling it a marriage is going to far.
marriage is for a man and a woman.
(Sorry if you don’t feel the same way)
i don’t really have anything against gays,unless its put in my face like prop 8[/quote]
I agree. Gay people should have something separate but equal to marriage. Kind of like riding on the back of the bus.
“Civil unions” are demeaning. If something is recognized as “marriage” by the state for one segment of society, then it must be “marriage” for everyone.
This is a simple matter of the First Amendment. The 1st Amendment forbids the government from favoring Christianity over other religious beliefs (or non-beliefs). Since I am not a Christian, I do not find homosexuality a “sin”. There is no rational, non-dogmatic argument against equal marriage rights for everyone.
urbanrealtor
October 27, 2008 @
11:18 PM
“I agree. Gay people should
“I agree. Gay people should have something separate but equal to marriage. Kind of like riding on the back of the bus.”
Props underdog.
That is the single most illustrative and sound-bite friendly way of describing it.
I will use that tomorrow.
I was called by the no on 8 campaign.
I decided after reading some of the stupid things here and elsewhere (honestly, blogs are much more willing to spit hate and vitriol than the TV) to accept their invitation to volunteer at their headquarters. Thank you Tucker for helping me to decide.
Enorah
October 28, 2008 @
8:12 AM
urbanrealtor wrote:
“I agree. [quote=urbanrealtor]
“I agree. Gay people should have something separate but equal to marriage. Kind of like riding on the back of the bus.”
Props underdog.
That is the single most illustrative and sound-bite friendly way of describing it.
I will use that tomorrow.
I was called by the no on 8 campaign.
I decided after reading some of the stupid things here and elsewhere (honestly, blogs are much more willing to spit hate and vitriol than the TV) to accept their invitation to volunteer at their headquarters. Thank you Tucker for helping me to decide.
[/quote]
Awesome urbanrealtor. I awoke this morning to my radio alarm clock stating that 4.something percent of the money to fund prop 8 came from N County, including Encinitas. Made me want to move.
Casca
October 28, 2008 @
8:22 AM
LMAO, priceless! It will be LMAO, priceless! It will be entertaining to watch these numbers transposed on election day by the polity. Evidently the majority is not quite ready to legitimize perversion.
I remember explaining abortion to my children when they were young and full of questions, after which my eight year old daughter asked, “Why would they want to do that?” Why indeed.
Anonymous
October 27, 2008 @
11:33 PM
Looks like I’m in the Looks like I’m in the minority on this site. ‘Marriage’ isn’t a right, it’s a definition of a societal relationship–which was originally, and has been throughout cultures to this point referred to a relationship between a man and a woman. I can’t understand why same-sex couples have to steal the word marriage and use it to define their relationships when their relationship is NOT the same as a relationship between a man and a woman–simply because it isn’t a relationship between a man and a woman. EVERYONE has the right to marry if they choose someone of the opposite gender and EVERYONE has the right to a civil union if they are not inclined to be in a relationship with someone of the opposite gender. I don’t believe it is fair to someone who wants a traditional ‘marriage’ to have to make a special request to have ‘bride’ and ‘groom’ on their wedding certificate because same-sex couples have now required a change to more neutral terminology. Some people do care about societal tradition and definitions, hopefully there are many of these–although I think regardless of the success or failure of Prop8, the lawsuits and contention will continue (hello, doesn’t anyone remember the people voted on this already and the judges overulled us). If there are concerns that ‘civil union’ doesn’t mean the same thing as ‘marriage’, battle on that front and improve the social image for that special relationship to be on the same level of acceptance that marriage has built up through centuries of establishment–but don’t try redefine what the word ‘marriage’ means and call it a ‘rights’ issue.
underdose
October 27, 2008 @
11:55 PM
whysteal, I kind of admire whysteal, I kind of admire you for sticking your neck out. Yep, you are in the minority here, and for good reason. Incidentally, was it a typo when you called it “Prod8”? I like that! It is a “prod” into our rights.
I partially agree with you that marriage is a definition, except that the government is in the marriage business and it has a legal recognition. That’s why I made the “separate but equal” comment in my earlier post. You say that everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite gender. Does everyone have the right to be born straight? Or white?
Marriage is a definition, as you say: two people promising themselves to each other for life. Marriage transcends any religion, as most religions have a concept of marriage. Therefore, it is not a gift from the Christian god, as the institution existed before Christianity became a religion. It is not a gift from any other god either, as atheists (like myself) marry for love. It is not a means of procreation, as non-child-bearing couples (like my wife and I) marry for love. There is nothing “sacred” about marriage being a man and a woman, not on religious grounds or child bearing grounds. There is a tradition, maybe, but there was a tradition to enslave people with darker skin at one point. Traditions are often bigoted and misguided and need to be abandoned or amended with more enlightened thought.
Many people who oppose gay marriage say it will take something away from their straight marriage. I’ll go the other direction. I want gay marriage to be legal because I think it will add something to my straight marriage. What the world needs now, is love, sweet love.
Anonymous
October 28, 2008 @
12:24 AM
Although some traditions can Although some traditions can be bigoted and misguided, marriage has withstood with its standard definition (between a man and a woman) because it does not meet either one of these categories. Comparisons to slavery are completely disingenuous. It’s not the same thing to say ‘this word means a certain thing to me and I don’t want your definition to make my definition of the word and convention disappear’ as it is to say ‘you as a person are not equal to me thus I will make you my slave or treat you as inferior’. Civil union DOES offer the same legal basis, so from a legal standpoint the government is in both the marriage and civil union business. I wouldn’t ever presume to say that from a legal standpoint one is better than the other (thus my comment if anyone finds differences those should be attacked with vigor).
Just a side note to any No on 8 supporters that are in the groups defacing signs and or public property (houses with spray paint on the garage door, friend of mine had their car keyed with a No message because they had a Yes on 8 bumper sticker)–this doesn’t really send a message of love, sweet love to those of us trying to get our message out there and act on an actual right: to free speech. Not exactly my ‘definition’ of love, sweet love, but I guess it’s all about redefining anyway, isn’t it.
urbanrealtor
October 28, 2008 @
12:10 AM
Marriage as a term and a Marriage as a term and a category has two primary values.
Marriage is a civil union in the eyes of the government.
It is a holy union in the eyes of the faithful.
This is really about bringing parity in terms of the rights of different types of civil unions. I am married. I was married by the chaplain of Caesar’s Palace (classy I know). Wife and I set it up online. That marriage is clearly a civil union. No priest does (or probably would) recognize this (though the after-party may have some relevance there) as a holy union.
If all civil unions were treated equally (they’re not) this conversation about names would not be happening and the courts would not be involved in the same way.
The fact is that those called “marriage” are treated differently in a way that is unfair. Addressing that unfairness and correcting laws that violate the constitution is the domain of the supreme court.
You can pass any law or referendum you want but the court always the right to make sure you follow the highest law.
And yeah, Whysteal, its a right and we all get equal rights. Its not tradition but tradition seldom trumps the constitution.
urbanrealtor
October 28, 2008 @
12:12 AM
dammit underdose quit posting dammit underdose quit posting while I am posting. It just makes me (more) redundant.
Anonymous
October 28, 2008 @
12:46 AM
urbanrealtor: Civil unions in urbanrealtor: Civil unions in CA do have the same legal rights.
I missed the part of the constitution (USA or CA) that grants the right to ‘marriage’ without societal definition. Marriage has had changes throughout the history of the USA to actually be MORE restrictive than some historical times(someone better let the polygamists or child-mate-seeking of all gender know their rights are being violated!!!) but the definition of being between a man and a woman has withstood and I hope it will continue to. California voters passed Proposition 22 in 2000 by more than 61%, saying that a marriage in California is between a man and a woman, judges have overturned that, but this is the chance for people to speak with their vote again. I’m sure the legal challenges will continue from both sides regardless of the outcome of the vote (looking on the bright side, at least a few lawyers can rejoice in job security!!).
urbanrealtor
October 28, 2008 @
8:31 AM
whysteal wrote:urbanrealtor: [quote=whysteal]urbanrealtor: Civil unions in CA do have the same legal rights.
I missed the part of the constitution (USA or CA) that grants the right to ‘marriage’ without societal definition. Marriage has had changes throughout the history of the USA to actually be MORE restrictive than some historical times(someone better let the polygamists or child-mate-seeking of all gender know their rights are being violated!!!) but the definition of being between a man and a woman has withstood and I hope it will continue to. California voters passed Proposition 22 in 2000 by more than 61%, saying that a marriage in California is between a man and a woman, judges have overturned that, but this is the chance for people to speak with their vote again. I’m sure the legal challenges will continue from both sides regardless of the outcome of the vote (looking on the bright side, at least a few lawyers can rejoice in job security!!).[/quote]
Similarity of rights:
Since same-sex unions are not recognizable outside the state of CA, they do not have the same rights as marriage. That is why this public conversation is happening. Allowing marriage per se will move this a step closer to universal federal recognition.
Legislating from the bench (and other Bushisms):
It is not only the right but the responsibility for courts to overturn laws that violate the state or national constitution. It says so right in the constitution (61% or not).
Right to marriage:
I was referring to equal protection. That is a constitutional right and one of the bases to allow gay unions that can be called “marriage” on paper. You can have a church marriage to multiple people. There is only a restriction on how many people can be in a civil marriage. As far as comparing homosexuality to pederasty, I really think that is despicable on your part whysteal and I think you should be ashamed of yourself.
Enorah
October 28, 2008 @
8:52 AM
Amazing the things that Amazing the things that people will say and choose to believe when they feel terrified.
What is so terrifying about gay sex? (cause let’s face it, that is what this really comes down to). Is it your programing that tells you one will go to hell for it?
Be not afraid.
Out of the body, we do not have gender. We are beings of light who hold both male and female energies at the same time.
Life is so much easier and more joyful when you release your programming and begin to exist in the moment.
nostradamus
October 28, 2008 @
9:23 AM
I think this is a great I think this is a great example of how people get distracted from real issues.
Arraya
October 28, 2008 @
9:43 AM
nostradamus wrote:I think [quote=nostradamus]I think this is a great example of how people get distracted from real issues.[/quote]
No kidding, the whole argument reminds me of what a physicist said about the science community accepting new truths.
[Sometimes] a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
whysteal wrote:urbanrealtor: [quote=whysteal]urbanrealtor: Civil unions in CA do have the same legal rights.
I missed the part of the constitution (USA or CA) that grants the right to ‘marriage’ without societal definition. Marriage has had changes throughout the history of the USA to actually be MORE restrictive than some historical times(someone better let the polygamists or child-mate-seeking of all gender know their rights are being violated!!!) but the definition of being between a man and a woman has withstood and I hope it will continue to. California voters passed Proposition 22 in 2000 by more than 61%, saying that a marriage in California is between a man and a woman, judges have overturned that, but this is the chance for people to speak with their vote again. I’m sure the legal challenges will continue from both sides regardless of the outcome of the vote (looking on the bright side, at least a few lawyers can rejoice in job security!!).[/quote]
Courts should also be looking hard at propositions passed by an electorate that is easily manipulated by lobbyists (they don’t have the money to hire their own lobbyists to investigate the matter) and when those propositions are passed by 61% of those WHO VOTED!! not of the population of the state. I think typically voter turnout is less than half of eligible voters, so the courts should most certainly be critical of these “laws” passed by less than 50% of an uneducated electorate.
Has anyone been following the news/rumor that the push for Yes on Prop 8 is majorly funded by the Mormon church? Isn’t that like Utah trying to tell California what to do? It’s anti-federalism!
afx114
November 1, 2008 @
10:23 PM
Shadowfax wrote:Has anyone [quote=Shadowfax]Has anyone been following the news/rumor that the push for Yes on Prop 8 is majorly funded by the Mormon church? Isn’t that like Utah trying to tell California what to do? It’s anti-federalism![/quote]
The irony here is that the Mormans are constantly under attack for their “fringe” beliefs about marriage. And yet here they are promoting that which would ban a “fringe” belief about marriage.
How is Prop 8 beneficial to Mormons?
Enorah
November 1, 2008 @
10:51 PM
One of the owners of One of the owners of Bolthouse Farms threw in 100,000 for prop 8
About Bolthouse Farms
by The Bilerico Project
Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 02:19:59 PM PDT
William Bolthouse has just donated $100,000 dollars to the ballot initiative to amend California’s constitution to ban same-sex marriage. He owns 43% of Bolthouse Farms, a company famous for its juice.
A couple of blogs have mentioned this before, but, really, it’s just par for the course for Bolthouse juice. Since 2000, much of that money from the juice has gone to fund fundamentalist, homophobic, and right wing operations.
Back in 2000, he donated $2000 to Bush’s presidential campaign and $1000 to GWB’s campaign in 2004…………………..
svelte
November 1, 2008 @
10:54 PM
Enorah wrote:A couple of [quote=Enorah]A couple of blogs have mentioned this before, but, really, it’s just par for the course for Bolthouse juice. Since 2000, much of that money from the juice has gone to fund fundamentalist, homophobic, and right wing operations.
[/quote]
Reminds me of Anita Bryant and the Florida Orange Growers Association.
Anybody else remember that debacle?
markzuber
October 29, 2008 @
2:29 PM
Yes on prop 8. Yes on prop 8.
markzuber
October 29, 2008 @
2:32 PM
I completely agree whysteal. I completely agree whysteal. I respect gay people and I have few gay friends. But we should not change the definition of marriage to include the same sex unions. The tradition of marriage has been established mostly for the purpose of protecting children, outcome of relationship between man and woman.
svelte
October 29, 2008 @
2:59 PM
How does gay marriage fail to How does gay marriage fail to protect children?
If you were really, truly interested in protecting children, then you would push for the abolition of the Catholic Church where so, so many children have been molested over the years.
[quote=markzuber]The tradition of marriage has been established mostly for the purpose of protecting children…
[/quote]
scaredyclassic
October 28, 2008 @
7:14 AM
I’m opposed to gay marriage I’m opposed to gay marriage int he sense that im opposed to all marriage. the thing I always liekd about gay guysin the old days was they got laid all the time, no minivans. are the days of wine and roses and leather underwear over forever? are gays going to be as dull as the rest of us. still prop 8 is repellent. get a life, people; standing on the street waving yes on prop 8 signs seems kind of small and weird. I’m going to assume from now on that theyre just opposed to gay marriage because they’re opposed to all marriage, and that sign-furlers want us all to live more like I remmeber gay guys in the west village in the 70’s. Man, I wish i coulda been gay back then , without the prospect of aids. it woulda been awesome. the only downside; you don’ get to have sex with women. dammit.
Anonymous
October 28, 2008 @
9:47 AM
Issue is changing the Issue is changing the definition of something- especially that is fundamental building block of civilization. Any deviation or perversion of definition of marriage has another name (polygamy, beastiality- yes some of them do claim to marry their pets). All of you who vote NO on Prop 8 and want to change the definition of something- you must logically support the cuase for polygamists, 2 men and 3 women, human and animal, or just 1 person marrying themself. If you do not, then you are close minded, hateful and want to deny others theri right to marry anyone(s) or anything they want. Basically, if you are going to call orange green, why not call it purple or white.
Sorry, emotions and whims crack and break against the rocks of logic.
peterb
October 28, 2008 @
9:57 AM
The major emotions that are The major emotions that are human…hope, fear and greed. We’re headed into fear at this time, it’s gaining momentum. Greed is busy being destroyed in the market. How long can hope last after fear is accepted as the norm?
I love fear! It gives the fearless the advantage over most people. Greed and hope keep the competition in the game. What a hassle it is to have competition! Long live fear!!!
afx114
October 28, 2008 @
10:06 AM
ppablo123 wrote:All of you [quote=ppablo123]All of you who vote NO on Prop 8 and want to change the definition of something- you must logically support the cuase for polygamists, 2 men and 3 women, human and animal, or just 1 person marrying themself.[/quote]
Obligatory quote: “Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!”
Even if there were dogs and cats living together, why would that matter to you and your marriage? Isn’t your marriage between you, your spouse, and God?
I also wonder if you’d like to outlaw divorce in order to protect the sanctity of marriage.
peterb
October 28, 2008 @
10:14 AM
Be very afraid of gay people. Be very afraid of gay people. They want what everyone else wants. That’s dangerous! There’s only so much marriage to go around, ya know! Plus, this will open the door to all those other people that pose a threat to our world! Pretty soon native americans will want things they shouldnt have, too… like casino’s. Oops, too late, the devils got that now, too. Pretty soon catholic preist will want to marry their alter boys! The mind boggles at the endless possibilities.
Damn these freedom things!! They get outta control so darn fast!
Anonymous
October 28, 2008 @
10:39 AM
I notice you didnt respond to I notice you didnt respond to the logic of my argument. I never dicussed outlawing anything- stick with the facts- something a lot of people seem to have a hard time doing! Take your emotions out of the equation and focus. I’m not trying to be mean or rude, but everyone is so emotionally hysterical- and logic and reason usually goes out the window when that happens.
afx114
October 28, 2008 @
10:48 AM
ppablo123 wrote:I notice you [quote=ppablo123]I notice you didnt respond to the logic of my argument.[/quote]
That’s because the premise of your argument is irrelevant. Who cares if men are marrying men or men are marrying multiple women or if dogs are marrying cats? As long as everyone involved is happy and no rights are being infringed, why does any of that matter?
Can you explain to me how any of the above situations affect you?
Anonymous
October 28, 2008 @
10:58 AM
afx
you wrote, Who cares if afx
you wrote, Who cares if men are marrying men or men are marrying multiple women or if dogs are marrying cats? As long as everyone involved is happy
Hmmm, yeah I think most people would care. I dont think most people would want their tax dollars in the form of marriage benefits to go to cats, or welfare to pay for a man with 5 wives and 18 kids- would you?
Please think your comments all the way through.
afx114
October 28, 2008 @
11:17 AM
ppablo123 wrote:I dont think [quote=ppablo123]I dont think most people would want their tax dollars in the form of marriage benefits to go to cats, or welfare to pay for a man with 5 wives and 18 kids- would you?[/quote]
Why would single people want their tax dollars in the form of marriage benefits to go to a man and a woman who are married? Are you married? Are you willing to give up your tax benefits for those people who are single? Why should single people subsidize married peoples’ lives?
When you advise people to follow your logic, perhaps you should start by following your own.
Anonymous
October 28, 2008 @
11:29 AM
afx
how would you know that afx
how would you know that I’m not following my own logic if you didn’t know what my answers would be to your questions? Also, my answers to those questions would have no ramification to the logic and reason I asked you to follow regarding the argument in my original post.
afx- I dont know how many times I asked to take emotion out of this- now go back and re-read your last statement. It sounds childish- aside from the fact that it doens’t bare on the original facts of my argument- you are bringing up entirely different facts- and you still didnt answer any of the previous questions.
You must be a liberal- I can tell by how you think. Not trying to be demeaning, but your idea flow and argumentaion technique is so obscure and jumpy- its just very similar to liberals.
afx114
October 28, 2008 @
11:44 AM
ppablo,
Each of my retorts ppablo,
Each of my retorts has been a response to one of yours.
1) You bring up the marrying of animals which has nothing to do with Prop 8. I point out how this is irrelevant.
2) You bring up tax benefits of marriage, saying it would be unfair for dogs & cats getting tax breaks for being married. I point out that un-married people are already subsidizing married peoples’ lives and it is unfair to single people.
3) You call me childish and a liberal – ad hominem, thought I wear the liberal label proudly.
Sounds to me that each time your arguments get shot down your bust out a new premise instead of sticking to the argument at hand.
So lets get back to the original question. Do you support Prop 8 because:
a) You don’t want animals to be able to marry someday
b) You don’t think it’s fair for married people to get tax breaks
c) Civilization will crumble if Prop 8 fails
d) Some other reason (if so, please specify)
e) All of the above
Anonymous
October 28, 2008 @
12:14 PM
afx,
sorry- you havent shot afx,
sorry- you havent shot down anything yet.
1. go back to my original post. 2 men, 3 women, 1 man, 10 women, marrying oneself, marrying animals- you should support all of them to be logically consistent. Otherwise, you just want to change the definition of something to include one groups rights, but want to deny those same rights to all those other groups I just mentioned. So if we are going to change the definition, and you are for that- why not make it open ended to include anything- that way everyone’s rights are honored- the polygamists, the animal love groups, a group of 5 women, 2 men and 3 cats, or just 1 person by themself. If its really not between a man and woman, who said it has to be between 2 people? U never answered that- sure didnt shoot it down.
2. You point out the obvious, I agree with you. I just asked would you want those benefits extended to all these other groups in #1.
3. And the liberal thing- I knew it (not meant as an ad hominem- but your comment I referenced was very childish though- be honest enought to admit that too) Thanks for being honest enough. But the reason I could tell was not from your position on this issue, its on how you formulate thought- the rudiments of how your brain works and puts ideas together. Logic and reason dont play a huge part in that. Nothing wrong, some people think with emotion and feeling- be proud of it- just dont try and call it what it is not.
afx114
October 28, 2008 @
12:47 PM
ppablo:
I have no problem ppablo:
I have no problem with polygamy, or men marrying dogs, assuming all parties involved willfully agree. Whether or not a dog could willfully agree to marriage is another discussion.
Yeah, I definitely have no logic or reason. You got me there, buddy! That’s what makes me a liberal I guess. I’m sure if I had logic and reason I’d be a conservative. I’m guessing that psychic abilities are also conservative traits, seeing how you can see the rudiments of how other peoples’ brains work.
With that out of the way, are you ready to abolish divorce?
DWCAP
October 28, 2008 @
1:36 PM
afx114 wrote:ppablo:
I have [quote=afx114]ppablo:
I have no problem with polygamy, or men marrying dogs, assuming all parties involved willfully agree. Whether or not a dog could willfully agree to marriage is another discussion.
[/quote]
Hopefully without getting my head bit off in this little Blog-o-war Id just like to comment that the above is definatly something that needs to be considered. There are groups that will raise the issue that if marriage can be between any two people, why not three? OR Four? Or Ten? Why can’t I marry a man, AND a woman if I am bi? That is my biology, shouldnt it also be my right?
I know AFX doesnt care about this side of the issue, but what about the rest of the no on 8 majority? Do you care if everyone has the right to marry anyone and everyone? And yes it will effect you, if in no other way than the fact that most Americans get Health Insurance from their employeer, and spouses are often included. More people on the insurance, the more it will most likely cost (if everyone was really really healthy, I guess it could cost less but I digress).
Personally, I think the government needs to get out of the marriage buisness all together. Benifits for things like children, which the state most assuradly has an interest in, could be tied to the actual rearing of children, and not the potential for making them. We could allow for a legal “union” form to encourage basic support and caring for one another. The law would simply state that it is only valid for one person, or if we are ok with polygamy then we could increase it without endangering “marriage”. If you dont want to support that person anymore, then the contract has a specified ending. It would simplify what we now know as divorce and end the messy and angry fights as the end was previously agreed upon. basically it is required Prenup.
Religious institutions could easily still preform “marriages” within the congregation, and the forms from the Gov would be exactly the same. I guess you could argue that this strips atheists from being “married” but isnt it the rights that are important and not the word? If the word is important, then there must be something to the yes on 8 campaign.
I personally have wondered about this issue, and I guess I just come down the fact that this is all more about acceptance of homosexual relations than anything. Civil unions provide all the same rights as marriages but are thought to be unequal in societal terms. Fine. How about everyone gets a civil union from the government and a marriage from whatever religious institution you decided to join, even if it is the “1st house of atheiest disbelievers”.
Anonymous
October 28, 2008 @
4:15 PM
afx,
I didn’t say you dont afx,
I didn’t say you dont have any logic, just that you dont seem to have a very thorough understanding of it and how it works, how language is used to express it…
I dont need to be psychic to see how your mind works, I just need to listen (or in this case read) and be observant of how you express thoughts, the order you choose to do so and the flow between them- nothing psychic involved.
As far as abolishing divorce (which is something unrelated to the proposition, this board and any of my posts)- I dont understand why you would want to do that- or anyone else for that matter. I certainly never suggested it. Basically it is a termination of the contract of marriage.
Remember, my point was and always has been about the definition of marriage- what it is and what it is not. Something tells me you wouldn’t be supporting and wasting time writing on a blog about a guy wanting to marry another guy and 8 women, or a goldfish though.
peterb
October 28, 2008 @
4:19 PM
Come on everybody, quit Come on everybody, quit picking onthe tard. Something tells me he’s living under a bridge.
davelj
October 28, 2008 @
4:37 PM
I’d prefer that I’d prefer that church/state-sanctioned “marriages” didn’t exist. Just have legally recognized civil unions – between one man, one woman, or multiple men and multiple women – I don’t give a rat’s ass so long as they’re adults and human. The fact that so many people spend so much time worrying about how other people live their private lives shows just how pitiful their own lives are. I honestly feel sorry for these folks.
afx114
October 28, 2008 @
4:37 PM
ppablo123 wrote:As far as [quote=ppablo123]As far as abolishing divorce (which is something unrelated to the proposition, this board and any of my posts)[/quote]
Marrying dogs and polygamy is unrelated to the Proposition too, so why did you bring them up? These are your words:
All of you who vote NO on Prop 8 and want to change the definition of something- you must logically support the cuase for polygamists, 2 men and 3 women, human and animal, or just 1 person marrying themself.
You can’t just spout off talking points and not expect them to get shot down.
[quote=ppablo123]As far as abolishing divorce I certainly never suggested it. Basically it is a termination of the contract of marriage.[/quote]
No, you didn’t suggest it. But you suggested that opponents of Prop 8 should also support polygamy and bestiality, something that neither I nor the Prop suggest. I’m doing the same thing for proponents of Prop 8 and divorce in order to point out the absurdity of giant leaps of logic. One of your reasons for supporting Prop 8 is that marriage is the fabric of society, and in order to preserve society, we need to preserve marriage. Following this logic, we should also ban divorce. This is following your own logic.
Pot, meet kettle.
Anonymous
October 28, 2008 @
5:10 PM
afx,
I try to be nice, but afx,
I try to be nice, but you still dont get the logic thing, even though you use the word a lot. Bringing up divorce is not logically consistant with changing the definition of marriage. Multiple people married, animals, 1 person all represent the wishes of many people- if you change a definition to include your group- why are leaving out others? That is a logical question- what basis do you use to keep marriage from these other groups? Divorce- this is something completely different- not logically consistant. Prop 8 isn’t proposing or changing definitions or words. It is called a non sequiter- meaning it doesn’t follow.
Your emotions- you say “preserving marriage and preserving society” your words, not mine. I’m just talking about definition and what something is, and what it isn’t.
afx, good luck on the 4th and in life. One thing I think we can agree on, an ability to understand logic or think that way, a high or low IQ, rich or poor shouldn’t make one ineligible to vote or be heard- all human beings are created equal regardless of what ability they possess or how much they lack. Thats one thing that makes this country great!
afx114
October 28, 2008 @
5:16 PM
ppablo123 wrote:afx, good [quote=ppablo123]afx, good luck on the 4th and in life. One thing I think we can agree on, an ability to understand logic or think that way, a high or low IQ, rich or poor shouldn’t make one ineligible to vote or be heard- all human beings are created equal regardless of what ability they possess or how much they lack. Thats one thing that makes this country great![/quote]
This is perhaps the only thing I agree with you on. 🙂
But I find it ironic that you say “all human beings are created equal” in the same thread where you profess your support for a Prop that will do the opposite.
Anyway, good luck to you and your logical, high-IQ friends on the 4th!
Anonymous
October 28, 2008 @
7:14 PM
All humans being equal has All humans being equal has nothing to do with what the definition of ‘marriage’ is. Like I said many posts ago, anyone can get ‘married’ and anyone can get a ‘civil union’. They are definitions of different things and I haven’t heard one valid argument that legitimizes making their name the same. If civil unions are lacking, spend the money and energy to remediate that condition.
Oh, and to whoever said shame on me for comparing child-marriage to this situation–my comparison was only a factual representation of what some societies have considered within the boundary of the marriage definition). Our society (and I agree) has deemed this to be not part of the definition of marriage we accept.
I agree with the poster that the government could simplify it all and get out of the marriage business altogether, but as long as it is still being defined at the gov. level I am optimistic that our society will repeat what they have already voiced by defining the definition of marriage (again) as being between 1 man and 1 woman.
eimie
October 28, 2008 @
10:34 AM
ppablo123 wrote:Issue is [quote=ppablo123]Issue is changing the definition of something- especially that is fundamental building block of civilization. Any deviation or perversion of definition of marriage has another name (polygamy, beastiality- yes some of them do claim to marry their pets). All of you who vote NO on Prop 8 and want to change the definition of something- you must logically support the cuase for polygamists, 2 men and 3 women, human and animal, or just 1 person marrying themself. If you do not, then you are close minded, hateful and want to deny others theri right to marry anyone(s) or anything they want. Basically, if you are going to call orange green, why not call it purple or white.
Sorry, emotions and whims crack and break against the rocks of logic.[/quote]
Where’s CONCHO when we need him?
Arraya
October 28, 2008 @
10:41 AM
Issue is changing the Issue is changing the definition of something- especially that is fundamental building block of civilization.
You obviously don’t know the history of marriage or the definition of civilization for that matter. In ancient greece a wife had less rights the high class prostitutes and was primarily for housekeeping and child rearing. Actually the only instances of “romantic” love noted during this time was between men. Interestingly this is where the democracy was thought of. In Rome for a brief period same sex marriage was permitted by the state. In early Christianity marriage was a private matter and no state was involved later after the state became involved it was more of a proprietary affair and was primarily for making family alliances and building wealth. Definitions have most assuredly changed overtime on many different levels.
Civilization may or may not continue, but it will have nothing to do with gay marriage if it ends and spending energy on this subject takes time away from the issues that very well could end civilization, which there are many.
Actually, thinking about it gay people are valuable contributors to the overpopulation problem which may be one of civilization’s biggest enemies at this point. So in that respect they are a saviour of civilization. More breeders we do not need.
Anonymous
October 28, 2008 @
10:51 AM
arraya
by mentioning the arraya
by mentioning the different forms or perversions of something from different peoples thousands of years ago- sorry but it doesn’t make your point. Im talking about this country, this people, this constitution, this definition.
If you respond to me- please keep to the facts of my original post. Logic and reason please, please, please. Thank you.
sd_bear
October 28, 2008 @
11:11 AM
ppablo123 wrote:Issue is [quote=ppablo123]Issue is changing the definition of something- especially that is fundamental building block of civilization. Any deviation or perversion of definition of marriage has another name (polygamy, beastiality- yes some of them do claim to marry their pets). All of you who vote NO on Prop 8 and want to change the definition of something- you must logically support the cuase for polygamists, 2 men and 3 women, human and animal, or just 1 person marrying themself. If you do not, then you are close minded, hateful and want to deny others theri right to marry anyone(s) or anything they want. Basically, if you are going to call orange green, why not call it purple or white.
Sorry, emotions and whims crack and break against the rocks of logic.[/quote]
Rocks of logic!? The fact that you see your mental delusions as logic disturbs me.
This is legalizing marriage for TWO consenting adults. There is nothing LOGICAL about your slippery slope argument. A child cannot consent to marriage. A dog cannot consent to marriage. A horse cannot consent to marriage. It does not open this up to ANY of that.
peterb
October 28, 2008 @
11:25 AM
ppablo123, for someone who ppablo123, for someone who harps on logic and sticking to the arguement…you sure lack a lot of it yourself! You jump to your own conlusions and judgement by mearly stating them like they are fact. When they are your judgements, and not fact or logic at all. By saying a dog has four feet, does everything with four feet now become a dog? According you, it does. So, you lack the most basic of logical cognition capabilities. Two consenting adults. Doesnt sound that hard to me.Not dogs, not cats, not children, not anything else you allude to as well. Before you retort with your usual lack of logic, let me quote your judgements.
“..fundamental building block of civilization.”
“Any deviation or perversion of definition of marriage has another name..”
Man, I thought Bush could sound stupid. But I guess the people that voted for him are better at it than even he.
Anonymous
October 28, 2008 @
11:36 AM
perteb-
you sound like afx. perteb-
you sound like afx. Just because you use the word logic in a sentence- that doens’t make you smart or even show you really know what it means, how to use it… your example of the dog is evidence of that. Then you go with the ad hominem attack- yes I must be stupid because you cant comprehend me- WOW- you must be really smart!
What is the building block of civilization. Ask any sociologist (a group of which I used to belong to). Country, state, county, city…person. But a person cant build on their own- here it is doen through family- they grow and multiply. And the family’s nuclieaus is man and woman. Again, they grow and multiply.
So there is your sociology lesson for the day- free of charge. (and yes, other forms of relationship have other names)
afx114
October 28, 2008 @
12:01 PM
ppablo123 wrote:Country, [quote=ppablo123]Country, state, county, city…person. But a person cant build on their own- here it is doen through family- they grow and multiply. And the family’s nuclieaus is man and woman.[/quote]
A family can grow just fine without some label “marriage.” And if a family’s nucleus is a man and woman, does that mean I am not a valid member of society because I was raised by a single mom? Does that make me a second class citizen? There are countless examples of individuals and families that have been successful without marriage. It’s not as important to the grand scheme of society as you’ve been lead to believe. Therefore, a man marrying a man will not have the dire consequences for society that you think.
And I will restate: By your logic we should also outlaw divorce. If marriage is so required for a successful society, we should do our best to prevent the breakdown of marriage. I propose prop 8 in 4 years: Restrict the right of married couples to divorce.
mike92104
October 31, 2008 @
10:42 PM
Prop 8 seems silly to me. Prop 8 seems silly to me. Instead of re-writing the constitution, we just need to get webster to change the definition. Straights and gays already have the same rights, but it’s the wording that is different, and who really cares about a word. To be fair though, either everybody should have the right to a civil union, or everybody should have the right to marriage.
Arraya
October 28, 2008 @
11:14 AM
ppablo123 wrote:Issue is [quote=ppablo123]Issue is changing the definition of something- especially that is fundamental building block of civilization. Any deviation or perversion of definition of marriage has another name (polygamy, beastiality- yes some of them do claim to marry their pets). All of you who vote NO on Prop 8 and want to change the definition of something- you must logically support the cuase for polygamists, 2 men and 3 women, human and animal, or just 1 person marrying themself. If you do not, then you are close minded, hateful and want to deny others theri right to marry anyone(s) or anything they want. Basically, if you are going to call orange green, why not call it purple or white.
Sorry, emotions and whims crack and break against the rocks of logic.[/quote]
Your argument has NO logic. First you start with a false premise that marriage between and man and women is the building block of civilization, which is ridiculous on its face then you say a societal norm has a well defined definition. Which it never has and never will because that is the nature of societal norms. They are constantly morphing and changing to new information whether you like it or not, which I have clearly outlined. The burden is on you to show historically how marriage between and man a woman has always been the same from the beginning of time. As well as how changing that could undermine civilization. Let me give you a hint. You can’t.
beanmaestro
October 28, 2008 @
5:14 PM
ppablo123 wrote:Issue is [quote=ppablo123]Issue is changing the definition of something- especially that is fundamental building block of civilization. Any deviation or perversion of definition of marriage has another name (polygamy, beastiality- yes some of them do claim to marry their pets).
[/quote]
Not to be at all snarky about this, female orgasm was, in the last century, called “hysterical paroxysm”. Psychologists have a less-than-spotless reputation of categorizing these things.
[quote=ppablo123]All of you who vote NO on Prop 8 and want to change the definition of something- you must logically support the cuase for polygamists, 2 men and 3 women, human and animal, or just 1 person marrying themself.
[/quote]
Personally, I’ll apply the same logic to polygamists as I did in an earlier post: I may not agree with their tastes, but it’s none of my business what adults choose to do freely in their homes without harming anyone. Or more precisely, I’d rather not let other people have a say in my marriage; therefore the golden rule tells me to stay out of theirs.
Child abuse & bestiality are red herrings. They have nothing to do with consensual relations between adults.
beanmaestro
October 28, 2008 @
4:43 PM
I was raised Jewish. My wife I was raised Jewish. My wife was raised Catholic. A few centuries ago, it was illegal for us to get married. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s still illegal and opposed by the majority in certain countries. Our marriage is working out very well despite their opinions.
We have a handful of mixed-race married friends, who are very happy together, and very much couldn’t legally get married 60 years ago, when it was apparently opposed by a majority of the state.
Now, I may find male homsexuality kinda gross and unnatural, and have negative reactions to certain gay friends who are way to promiscuous for their own good, but I don’t see why my opinion should affect their desire to get married. I don’t want anyone else’s opinion affecting the legality of my marriage, and I’ll give them the same courtesy.
Anonymous
October 28, 2008 @
10:34 PM
I think really we should have I think really we should have marriage be the way it is in Europe: everyone has the “civil union” and then you have the optional church marriage later. I think that marriage is between a man and a woman, but if you are going to assign rights and privileges to people based on a “marital” status, then lets just take marriage out of the state, and keep it in the church. Civil unions for everyone, with the same legal rights.
svelte
October 29, 2008 @
7:46 AM
The perfect solution! I like The perfect solution! I like that alot.
[quote=kitty-kat]I think really we should have marriage be the way it is in Europe: everyone has the “civil union” and then you have the optional church marriage later. I think that marriage is between a man and a woman, but if you are going to assign rights and privileges to people based on a “marital” status, then lets just take marriage out of the state, and keep it in the church. Civil unions for everyone, with the same legal rights. [/quote]
cr
October 29, 2008 @
8:14 AM
I’m with you pablo. I’ve I’m with you pablo. I’ve asked the same question about 3 people marrying and most responses say that ridiculous, and will never happen, which proves my point.
This proposition is a masked attempt to provide “equal rights” in the form of destroying what marriage is and means.
A better way to pose this proposition would be “Do you support the traditional marriage-based family?”
I’m all for equal rights for civil unions – they’re still people – but this proposition misdirects it’s efforts and traditional family values, morals, and marriages are at risk.
Right idea, wrong approach. Vote yes, but then find a better way to administer these rights.
urbanrealtor
October 29, 2008 @
10:09 AM
Cooprider:
Since the law is Cooprider:
Since the law is totally oriented around these labels, the use and permission around these labels matters a lot.
If civil union were equivalent to marriages then we would not be having these conversation. But, like I said earlier, they are not. They do not convey the same bundle of rights. Most long-term same-sex partners I know have lawyers and trusts set up to handle this. However, one should not have to spend thousands of dollars to hire a lawyer to get the same rights that others only have to purchase a marriage license to get.
Fairness is what the government is there for. Whether it is framed as justice or jurisprudence, thats what the govt does.
To Whysteal:
Sorry, you must have been comparing homosexuality to pedophilia in good way. My mistake. Perhaps you could build upon this and compare minorities to animals while you are at it.
As far as whether other alternative marriages will be coming, honestly, who knows?
However, currently our culture, not just our laws, don’t permit for child or animal marriages. Both our culture and our laws only allow for consenting adults to make adult decisions.
If consenting adults decide for some other kind of alternative marriage (eg: polygamy), then maybe it will happen. If it does not hurt me, I don’t mind. Honestly, I don’t have a problem with my son learning about it either. If others want to raise their children in bigoted or fundamentalist ways, then that is there prerogative.
On a side note:
I was raised in public schools and with a strong religious background. I find it interesting and ironic to see fake Christians frame bigotry (homophobia, islamophobia) as God’s will. Better yet, there is this pervasive fear that same sex relationships will undermine morals or society. Have you been to gay neighborhoods? They tend to be really nice. Also, I am not sure how mutually consenting sexual acts define one’s morals. I think it would be more fair to say that those worried about upholding tradition live in an ongoing state fear of any change.
cr
October 29, 2008 @
10:11 AM
UR, then give them equal UR, then give them equal rights upon entering a civil union – change that law. Don’t destroy what marriage is.
urbanrealtor
October 29, 2008 @
3:39 PM
Since marriage is a civil Since marriage is a civil union, whether we make same sex unions equivalent to marriage or marriage open to same sex pairings seems irrelevant…except for one thing.
We are saying that same sex unions are separate but equal. That is not a logic that typically holds in policy circles. Nor should it.
Primarily, that is because separate is by definition never equal. If civil unions were recognized in every state (as marriage is), then the distinction between the 2 categories would be essentially non-existent. But it is more time effective to open up an existing category than change policy (on civil unions) in 50 states.
Even your separate but equal solution would make marriage into just a civil union (or at least indistinguishable). And you might get that wish.
kicksavedave
October 31, 2008 @
12:10 PM
cooprider wrote:UR, then give [quote=cooprider]UR, then give them equal rights upon entering a civil union – change that law. Don’t destroy what marriage is.[/quote]
I have yet to see one single lucent argument as to exactly why allowing same sex couples to call themselves married will in any way, shape or form, will destroy marriage for opposite sex couples. Not one single reason how this will hurt so called traditional marriages.
So I’ll simply ask… how will this destroy “what marriage is”???
BTW, if I could marry my dog I would. She’s unconditionally loyal and affectionate, she only nags me for food and “outside”, and I get more compliments for how “cute” she is, than I do for my human wife, by about 2-1. She’s my real trophy wife! Make it legal!
kicksavedave
October 31, 2008 @
12:16 PM
Never mind, UR just perfectly Never mind, UR just perfectly stated all the real reasons why its going to destroy real marriages. Well done sir (or maam)… Great stuff! 🙂
urbanrealtor
October 31, 2008 @
2:45 PM
kicksavedave wrote:Never [quote=kicksavedave]Never mind, UR just perfectly stated all the real reasons why its going to destroy real marriages. Well done sir (or maam)… Great stuff! 🙂
[/quote]
DUde, calling me a maam just cuz I am an agent in Hillcrest is so…..gay.
That joke goes over better in my office. I am the only breeder (that means non-gay).
The humor for me being that most of the older lesbians have kids.
DWCAP
October 29, 2008 @
12:53 PM
urbanrealtor wrote:
To [quote=urbanrealtor]
To Whysteal:
Sorry, you must have been comparing homosexuality to pedophilia in good way. My mistake. Perhaps you could build upon this and compare minorities to animals while you are at it.[/quote]
AH yes, the “you dont agree with me so you must represent every negative hatful point of view ever observed” attack. Good one UR, especially from someone who ususally tries to stick to the facts. I dont remember Whysteal saying anything racist, but then obviously anyone who doesnt agree with you on this point must also not agree with you on other similar issues and should be beaten down to a pulp so that they can be ignored by the more “enlightened” among us.
Calling someone a racist is the easiest way to win the topic because there is no defence against it and everyone will turn against those who have now been labelled. Weither they are making a racist argument or not is besides the point. If he had made racist statements, then attack him for those, not his precieved homophobia.
The point being made right now is a valid one, no matter how many rude attacks you make against those making it. It is a theoritical and open ended look at what we call marriage and the societal implications of changing something that has been static in American culture since its founding. If we are gonna change the definition because it no longer fits our needs, fine, but lets do it completely instead of piece meal. You obviously understood all this on some level because you go into the rather lengthy points below that begin to adress the question posted.
[quote=urbanrealtor] As far as whether other alternative marriages will be coming, honestly, who knows?
However, currently our culture, not just our laws, don’t permit for child or animal marriages. Both our culture and our laws only allow for consenting adults to make adult decisions.
If consenting adults decide for some other kind of alternative marriage (eg: polygamy), then maybe it will happen. If it does not hurt me, I don’t mind. Honestly, I don’t have a problem with my son learning about it either. If others want to raise their children in bigoted or fundamentalist ways, then that is there prerogative.
[/quote]
The point I take away from the more rational parts of your post was that our culture and laws only allows marriage between consenting adults, and only one other person so the change we are making is small. That and as long as you are not personally hurt (you being a plural anyone) or endangered by there actions who cares.
First off I would disagree as many states currently allow an age of consent of less than 18. In California we allow marriage at any age with either parental consent or a judge approval. So two 15 year olds could get married with parental consent. I am not saying it ever will happen, I am saying there is no law against it as you state there is.
Second our “culture” is not a single ententy in our city, let alone our country. What is acceptable in San Francisco culturally would not be culturally acceptable only 80 miles to the east. However, if the law is written to allow the most permissive cultures to have total freedom, what will that do to the other cultures who are now being forced to change? These are questions that need to be asked, just as the opposite of if the most restrictive cultures are allowed total control, what happens to the most accepting? I dont know the answer to that one, I dont think anyone can, but I do know it is acceptable to ask the question without being a bigot or a racist.
urbanrealtor
October 29, 2008 @
4:10 PM
DWCAP:
No, I don’t think that DWCAP:
No, I don’t think that any disagreement with me equates to a “hatful” (your spelling) view.
I am criticizing his explicit comparison of homosexual relationships to pedophilic relationships. And yes I think it is intellectually equivalent to comparing minorities to animals.
You should read the post referenced before you comment.
As you point out, I did address the actual question of societal implications.
As you point out, in our state, the legal age of consent is 18 but the age at which parents can consent to marriage is not. In other words, adults make those adult decisions. Thank you for backing up my point.
You are correct that culture is slippery.
However, the assertions I presented are almost universally held (like by more than 90% of the people)in the US and in the city.
The vast majority (myself included) accept uncritically that making adult decisions (eg marriage) is a decision left to adults (as in your consent example).
I don’t think that asking a question is bigotry. I think that rebutting my argument with age of consent or “culture is slippery” arguments is pretty weak though.
It would be more productive to point out how gay marriage hurts society or how legitimizing same sex marriage hurts me. I can’t see it now but I will listen to any points you make.
meadandale
October 31, 2008 @
12:28 PM
svelte wrote:The perfect [quote=svelte]The perfect solution! I like that alot.
[quote=kitty-kat]I think really we should have marriage be the way it is in Europe: everyone has the “civil union” and then you have the optional church marriage later. I think that marriage is between a man and a woman, but if you are going to assign rights and privileges to people based on a “marital” status, then lets just take marriage out of the state, and keep it in the church. Civil unions for everyone, with the same legal rights. [/quote]
[/quote]
Gay people can get civilly unionized all day long and have all the same legal rights as heteros as far as I am concerned but don’t try to make me accept it as ‘marriage’ and we’ll get along just fine.
Enorah
October 31, 2008 @
1:09 PM
Sometimes people who are Sometimes people who are opposed to anything that has to do with homosexuals or homosexual behavior are often latent homosexuals themselves.
We have seen a lot of that kind of thing in our politicians over the last couple of years.
afx114
October 31, 2008 @
1:21 PM
Another funny anecdote:
If Another funny anecdote:
If you’re against gay sex, then you should vote NO on Prop 8. Because, as most heterosexuals will tell you, once you get married, your sex life all but ends.
CardiffBaseball
October 31, 2008 @
7:42 PM
Enorah wrote:Sometimes people [quote=Enorah]Sometimes people who are opposed to anything that has to do with homosexuals or homosexual behavior are often latent homosexuals themselves.
We have seen a lot of that kind of thing in our politicians over the last couple of years.[/quote]
Enorah this is where you are wrong at least as it pertains to me (but certainly true of some closet repubs). You need to check your vibration sources. If you would remote view CardiffBaseball sometime and check me out, you’d find that it’s the wrong closet I am afraid of. (not a gay one)
Rather what scares the living hell out of me is that if I vote No on Prop 8, that I might be a closet liberal. That’s enough to frighten me into making, caustic comments. Damn scary, especially on Halloween.
Enorah
October 31, 2008 @
10:46 PM
CardiffBaseball wrote:Enorah [quote=CardiffBaseball][quote=Enorah]Sometimes people who are opposed to anything that has to do with homosexuals or homosexual behavior are often latent homosexuals themselves.
We have seen a lot of that kind of thing in our politicians over the last couple of years.[/quote]
Enorah this is where you are wrong at least as it pertains to me (but certainly true of some closet repubs). You need to check your vibration sources. If you would remote view CardiffBaseball sometime and check me out, you’d find that it’s the wrong closet I am afraid of. (not a gay one)
Rather what scares the living hell out of me is that if I vote No on Prop 8, that I might be a closet liberal. That’s enough to frighten me into making, caustic comments. Damn scary, especially on Halloween.
[/quote]
What makes you think I was talking about you? LOL
Remote view
funny.
NotCranky
October 31, 2008 @
11:15 PM
Seems to me lots of Seems to me lots of heterosexuals want to have cover for safe posturing as asexuals because they can’t deal with sex for whatever reason. Maybe because it shows how similiar we are to other primates? Babies come from storks not from mommie and daddy doing the old in and out. Jesus coming from a virgin is akin to the myth that babies come from storks. Jesus came from two primates doing the same thing that got any other kid here. Accepting homosexuality really messes with the lie.
socrattt
October 31, 2008 @
11:59 PM
Coop, I figured you would Coop, I figured you would stop fighting the three ignorant pigs that seem to condemn anything that attempts to protect the fundamentals of this Country. Leave it to Afx, Urbanrealtor and Arraya along with a few newbies to continue their bashing of something they know little about.
I have no problem with homosexuality in fact I have some great friends that are gay!! I have absolutely no problem with them. They have the right to do as they please. Here is my problem. Society continues to accept anything, but shouldn’t there be some point where morally we put our foot down? It just seems somewhat logical to assume that allowing amendments to our Constitution and changes to the moral fiber of our country will only continue to cause problems in the US. I think our Forefathers had a great idea. The problem is the logical ideas seem to always be tweaked just enough to open the door to all the garbage we see every time we vote.
If someone can honestly tell me that the buck stops here, I would probably vote No on Prop 8, but that’s just it, it won’t. We open this door and then Prop 8 in 2012 will look something like “Man wants to marry a Man and Woman”. Now that’s not too far fetched is it? There are people out there doing odd stuff like this everyday.
You people defending Prop 8 obviously don’t understand how morals affect our society. This is a moral issue that needs to be addressed correctly and pushing homosexuality on children is a problem. It is not necessary to take my child on a field trip to a gay marriage! I can just imagine California’s population in 2020. CA would probably have 30% less people in the State due to our brilliance of instating laws of teaching everything but procreation. We are put on this planet to procreate, let’s at least try to teach that to our children!
Ricechex
November 1, 2008 @
12:27 AM
socrattt wrote: I can just [quote=socrattt] I can just imagine California’s population in 2020. CA would probably have 30% less people in the State due to our brilliance of instating laws of teaching everything but procreation. We are put on this planet to procreate, let’s at least try to teach that to our children!
[/quote]
Wow, socratte. We have an overpopulation problem if you have not noticed. Thus, 30% less of population is a good thing.
Teaching “procreation?” Ummm, how do you teach that? Unprotected sex is the best for procreation. All those morals, suggest a bible thumper.
Our planet has limited resources, so less population is less to consume valuable resources. Duh. Living under a rock are ya?
urbanrealtor
November 1, 2008 @
12:45 AM
socrattt wrote:Coop, I [quote=socrattt]Coop, I figured you would stop fighting the three ignorant pigs that seem to condemn anything that attempts to protect the fundamentals of this Country. Leave it to Afx, Urbanrealtor and Arraya along with a few newbies to continue their bashing of something they know little about.
[/quote]
Yeah I’m real ignorant.
Enlighten me.
[quote=socrattt]
I have no problem with homosexuality in fact I have some great friends that are gay!![/quote]
I am sure you have loads.
[quote=socrattt]
I have absolutely no problem with them. They have the right to do as they please. Here is my problem. Society continues to accept anything, but shouldn’t there be some point where morally we put our foot down? It just seems somewhat logical to assume that allowing amendments to our Constitution and changes to the moral fiber of our country will only continue to cause problems in the US. I think our Forefathers had a great idea. The problem is the logical ideas seem to always be tweaked just enough to open the door to all the garbage we see every time we vote.
If someone can honestly tell me that the buck stops here, I would probably vote No on Prop 8, but that’s just it, it won’t. We open this door and then Prop 8 in 2012 will look something like “Man wants to marry a Man and Woman”. Now that’s not too far fetched is it? There are people out there doing odd stuff like this everyday.
[/quote]
Our forefathers seemed to have a defining thread of “Leave me the hell alone unless I am hurting someone.”
Frankly, I don’t see how even having polygamous marriages will screw up society. I was raised around queers and divorced catholics. I really don’t think that makes my marriage weaker.
Marriage is currently pretty weak in the US as an institution. I don’t think that we can blame our national problems on it though.
Our biggest problems currently are a loose credit hangover and war.
Which of these are caused by queers (or anyone) damaging society?
[quote=socrattt]
You people defending Prop 8 obviously don’t understand how morals affect our society. This is a moral issue that needs to be addressed correctly and pushing homosexuality on children is a problem. It is not necessary to take my child on a field trip to a gay marriage! I can just imagine California’s population in 2020. CA would probably have 30% less people in the State due to our brilliance of instating laws of teaching everything but procreation. We are put on this planet to procreate, let’s at least try to teach that to our children!
[/quote]
And you are the one decrying prop 8. I guess you did not realize that prop 8 BANS gay marriage.
Now based on your assertions, are you saying that you want procreation taught to children? Then maybe we can agree on something.
I find it funny and ironic that you call me ignorant.
socrattt
November 1, 2008 @
8:10 PM
urbanrealtor wrote:
Frankly, [quote=urbanrealtor]
Frankly, I don’t see how even having polygamous marriages will screw up society. I was raised around queers and divorced catholics. I really don’t think that makes my marriage weaker.
Marriage is currently pretty weak in the US as an institution. I don’t think that we can blame our national problems on it though.
[/quote]
Ok, I guess you answered my question. You really don’t see this as opening to Pandora’s Box. I can’t really argue with a man that sees any type of relationship including polygamy as a future legal amendment. Scary stuff, but I guess you are the type of citizen that is willing to allow anything in this country because we don’t want to discriminate. Why the heck do even have border fences? That shouldn’t be legal either, let the herds in and while your at it give them a driver’s licenses. I am done with this topic because today I learned:
1) My gay friends hate me becuase I disagree with them.
2) There is no need to have a Constitution when all it does is hinder rights.
3) We need population control so teaching little ones about gay marriage is a great idea.
This is extremely inspiring!!
You can say as you please, but as I said I am done with this topic.
CardiffBaseball
November 1, 2008 @
12:28 AM
Enorah wrote:
What makes you [quote=Enorah]
What makes you think I was talking about you? LOL
Remote view
funny.[/quote]
Enorah you are sharp, nice job, you got me. Here I was trying to be crude and funny about your original comment, yet you actually just had an open-ended comment.
Just for that I’ll listen to your show and stop being a malcontent on this thread.
jficquette
October 29, 2008 @
9:10 AM
kitty-kat wrote:I think [quote=kitty-kat]I think really we should have marriage be the way it is in Europe: everyone has the “civil union” and then you have the optional church marriage later. I think that marriage is between a man and a woman, but if you are going to assign rights and privileges to people based on a “marital” status, then lets just take marriage out of the state, and keep it in the church. Civil unions for everyone, with the same legal rights. [/quote]
I like that idea.
John
Anonymous
October 29, 2008 @
8:59 AM
Here’s a video on prop 8 that Here’s a video on prop 8 that appears almost impartial until the end. How true is it?
How true is it? Well, as a gay Californian, I can tell you that “friends” and “neighbors” like “Jan & Tom” would leave me and my partner extremely hurt and angry with their decision to support Prop. 8. The idea of “having a barbecue” with “Jan & Tom” after their support of Prop. 8 would not be likely. It would be more likely that “Dan & Michael” would move after their relationship with “tolerant” “Jan & Tom” quickly deteriorated.
I really don’t think that supporters of Prop. 8 have any idea how the signs, commercials and other support of Prop. 8 makes gay people and their families feel. Have you ever been made to feel like an “other”?
Have you ever been in a situation where it was made clear to you that you were not welcome? Imagine how it would feel if the whole state of California was making you feel that way?
Are any of you African-American? Latino? Handicapped? Asian? Muslim? Just different somehow? Why would you want to make gay people feel this way?
Because I still, for the life of me, cannot figure out how gay people being allowed to marry affects the marriage of any straight person.
Why do you care?
And how on God’s Green Earth should you be allowed to decide who I can marry? I don’t remember anyone checking in with me on your decision on who to marry.
Arty
October 29, 2008 @
5:39 PM
I want a prop for a minimum I want a prop for a minimum of 24 months sentence in jail if a divorce occurred involving children. Come on, we do want to safe guard our institution of marriage 😛
Enorah
October 29, 2008 @
5:56 PM
Hey Mark Holmes. I want you Hey Mark Holmes. I want you to know I really appreciate and respect your honesty and candor on this thread.
Mark Holmes
October 29, 2008 @
10:20 PM
Enorah,
Thanks for the kind Enorah,
Thanks for the kind words.
I will be very glad when this election is over.
At this point, my emotions are very raw. Whatever the result, it will be good to have this behind us on November 5th.
If Prop. 8 does pass, though, it will be tough for this native Californian to ever feel the same way about my home state again.
paramount
October 29, 2008 @
10:38 PM
Yes on 8 Yes on 8
nostradamus
October 29, 2008 @
10:42 PM
No on 8, No on 8
Yes on No on 8, No on 8
Yes on separation of church and state
paramount
October 30, 2008 @
4:47 PM
Yes on Separation of Church Yes on Separation of Church and State?
When that happens we will have lost any remaining rights – what the State gives the State can take away, including rights.
But what our Founding Father’s so wisely recognized is that your Rights are ultimately granted by your Creator, which no man or woman can remove.
“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”
nostradamus
October 30, 2008 @
4:55 PM
Prop 8 aims to change the Prop 8 aims to change the state constitution (you know, the one our wise founding fathers wrote). What if the pursuit of happiness includes marrying your same sex partner? Prop 8 is a proposal to restrict rights, not give them.
It amuses me the ads for prop 8: they say 4 San Fran judges went against 50 million voters and overturned a same-sex marriage ban. What they don’t tell you is that these four judges chose to not amend the state constitution. In other words, those judges are protecting our constitution. Pro-Prop-8 people want to change it. This contradicts what you said, paramount, that our founding fathers were wise. If so, why would we need to amend what they wrote?
paramount
October 30, 2008 @
5:21 PM
Wise is not the same as Wise is not the same as perfect, nor were they prophets.
I think they understood that the Constitution would be open to interpretation among other things.
That’s why the Constitution can be changed, but it requires a tremendous amount of effort.
nostradamus
October 30, 2008 @
6:49 PM
you’re right. I think they you’re right. I think they worded things rather loosely (and often times contradictory, like “endowed by their creator” vs. “separation of church and state”), perhaps the intention was to make room for changes (and create jobs for lawyers).
I do think prop-8 is mainly a “religious morality” issue. I hope it doesn’t pass since I see religion as a sort of tradition rather than a superstitious belief. Plus I wouldn’t want to shoot down something other people want when it would have no affect whatsoever on me.
TheBreeze
October 30, 2008 @
7:17 PM
I didn’t really care about I didn’t really care about this puppy one way or the other so I just left this one blank on my ballot.
Enorah
October 29, 2008 @
10:42 PM
Mark Holmes [quote=Mark Holmes]Enorah,
Thanks for the kind words.
I will be very glad when this election is over.
At this point, my emotions are very raw. Whatever the result, it will be good to have this behind us on November 5th.
If Prop. 8 does pass, though, it will be tough for this native Californian to ever feel the same way about my home state again.[/quote]
Mark, much love to you.
Please try to remember that there are many terrified people out there. I know you feel discriminated against. Their fear says and means nothing about you.
urbanrealtor
October 30, 2008 @
12:15 AM
Hey guys, I know warmth and Hey guys, I know warmth and support is important but a love in does not support our cause.
BTW, the No on 8 headquarters in Hillcrest is like the absolute worst place to meet pretty girls.
Just sayin.
But I am still glad I volunteered.
Arraya
October 30, 2008 @
12:28 AM
“BTW, the No on 8 “BTW, the No on 8 headquarters in Hillcrest is like the absolute worst place to meet pretty girls.”
Just go down the street to Wine Steals;)
urbanrealtor
October 30, 2008 @
12:39 AM
arraya wrote:”BTW, the No on [quote=arraya]”BTW, the No on 8 headquarters in Hillcrest is like the absolute worst place to meet pretty girls.”
Just go down the street to Wine Steals;) [/quote]
I have tried doing the whole sales call thing with a drink in my hand.
Absolutely worthless.
I can only imagine how unproductive a phone bank at wine steals would be.
Or at least very funny.
JustLurking
October 30, 2008 @
11:49 AM
I was driving home yesterday I was driving home yesterday and there was a large crowd on the corner at a busy intersection holding “Yes on 8” signs and yelling at the passing cars. My 2 young children were in the car with me. My youngest (4) was frightened by the yelling. My oldest can read and asked what “Yes on 8” means. I told him that those people believe that men shouldn’t be allowed to marry men and that women shouldn’t be allowed to marry women. He thought about it for a minute and said “I don’t understand why they are so mad – why do they care who someone else marries?” I told him that I have no idea and that it makes no sense to me either.
We saw the “scary number 8 people” (my daughter’s description) again this morning. I guess she doesn’t understand that those people are fighting to protect her family. From whatever it is they are protecting us from.
Enorah
October 30, 2008 @
12:40 PM
programmed and terrified programmed and terrified zombies
Enorah
October 30, 2008 @
4:23 PM
NO ON PROP 8
Sorry, but I saw NO ON PROP 8
Sorry, but I saw way too many “yes on 8” signs out there today.
It’s a scary sea of yellow.
NO ON PROP 8
Mark Holmes
October 30, 2008 @
4:54 PM
Enorah wrote:NO ON PROP [quote=Enorah]NO ON PROP 8
Sorry, but I saw way too many “yes on 8” signs out there today.
It’s a scary sea of yellow.
NO ON PROP 8[/quote]
Our neighborhood (Normal Heights) is a sea of blue No On 8 signs; we’re all just preaching to the choir here, though. The real battle will be throughout the state. The best thing we can do is contribute to the No On 8 campaign:
And Enorah, thanks once again for all your kind words. I hope this election is another step forward for your loving way of thinking.
urbanrealtor
October 30, 2008 @
11:42 PM
Mark Holmes wrote:
Our [quote=Mark Holmes]
Our neighborhood (Normal Heights) is a sea of blue No On 8 signs; we’re all just preaching to the choir here, though. [/quote]
Like the one next to the Valero????
That big one that says Yes?!!
urbanrealtor
October 31, 2008 @
12:05 AM
On a more general note, not On a more general note, not specific to this issue, I am kind of appalled that the state constitution can be change by a simple majority on a petition.
I know this is nerdy (and so I am expecting Rich will jump in) but doesn’t that make us effectively a common-law government? I mean not technically, but how serious is any constitution that can be altered so easily? Sounds a lot like a more direct form of British democracy.
If you want an interesting discussion of differences in democracies read some of this guy’s stuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lijphart
Wikipedia does not mention his role in helping to draft the new constitution of South Africa or his consultancy to the Israeli Knesset.
cr
October 31, 2008 @
10:09 AM
I think it’s more disturbing I think it’s more disturbing that the people can vote one way then 4 of the 7 members of the CA supreme court tell the state voters they’re wrong and force a change down their throats.
This is still a democracy, right? Of course, Democracy relies heavily on the overall good of the people, which I’m questioning more than ever these days.
beanmaestro
October 31, 2008 @
10:38 AM
Nope, I’m going with it being Nope, I’m going with it being more disturbing that we put minority rights to a popular vote.
JustLurking
October 31, 2008 @
10:45 AM
Cardiffbaseball – My kids are Cardiffbaseball – My kids are too young to understand sex, but they are not too young to understand hate when they see it.
If you really do have children, it is heartwarming to see that intolerance is being passed along to the next generation.
nostradamus
October 31, 2008 @
11:07 AM
It’s most disturbing that It’s most disturbing that this country was founded by people fleeing religious persecution, and now the religious are the ones doing all the persecuting.
Enorah
October 31, 2008 @
11:34 AM
nostradamus wrote:It’s most [quote=nostradamus]It’s most disturbing that this country was founded by people fleeing religious persecution, and now the religious are the ones doing all the persecuting.[/quote]
and dictating
Twice I was on the “No on prop 8” headquarters website today, getting info.
Both times, while on the site, I lost my internet connection and had to reset my router to be able to access the internet again.
urbanrealtor
October 31, 2008 @
11:45 AM
Why I have decided to vote Why I have decided to vote yes on prop 8:
1) Being gay is not natural.
Correct. Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, air conditioning, tattoos, piercings, and silicon breasts.
2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay.
Correct. The same principle applies that; hanging around tall people will make you tall and hanging out with beautiful people will make you beautiful.
3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior.
Correct. People will marry their pets because a dog or cat has legal status and can sign a marriage contract. Lamps, power tools, shoes and sports teams are next.
4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all.
Correct. Under current marriage laws; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed.
Correct. The sanctity of an institution where half the unions end in divorce, which are illegal, is worth saving. Plus the meaningfulness of a Britney Spears’ style 55-hour just-for-fun Vegas marriage must be be preserved.
6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children.
Correct. Gay couples, infertile couples, old people and people who simply do not want children aren’t allowed to marry because our population isn’t out of control, our orphanages aren’t full yet, and there’s still enough food and water for everyone.
7) Gay parents will raise gay children.
Correct. Straight parents only raise straight children. Proven fact.
8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion.
Correct. In America, there is only one religion that dictates the culture, freedoms, and values of the entire country.
9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home.
Correct. Our society expressly forbids single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society
Correct. Our culture hasn’t adapted to foundation change like; electricity, personal transportation, radio, television, phones, nuclear power, personal radio televisions and phones, computers, the service-sector economy, and longer life spans. In fact, our religious institution has suffered greatly because of these foundation changes.
11) Legalization of Gay marriage will become part of curriculum in schools.
Correct. Love, healthy sexual attitudes, birth control, commitment, and marriage are currently part of the public educational curriculum. The study of these subjects has never raised issues in anyones household, unlike History, Anthropology, Physics and Economics. Also, the works of Oscar Wilde, Walt Whitman, Langston Hughes, Gertrude Stein, Tchaikovsky, Leonard Bernstein, Andy Warhol, David Hockney, Sappho, Leonardo Da Vinci, Socrates and countless other queer thinkers are not part of the curriculum.
Vote NO on 8. Another dumb proposition with no facts, ideas or arguments to dictate the behavior of people because of fear and ignorance.
Enorah
October 31, 2008 @
11:51 AM
Thanks for the laugh Thanks for the laugh Urbanrealtor
larrylujack
October 31, 2008 @
10:48 PM
UA, brutally funny.
Also, UA, brutally funny.
Also, thanks for making this website more interesting than usual.
BTW, I just tell my kids if they see that 2 folks o the same sex be smoochin to not worry about it that it may be different ‘but not less worthy. and then I ask their opinion…
CardiffBaseball
October 31, 2008 @
12:10 PM
JustLurking, so people JustLurking, so people holding up a sign “hate”? Is it because they disagree or because they are too aggressive?
Are you honestly suggesting people who agree with your side don’t have angry aggressive sign flippers? My response to you was as silly as your little anecdotal story, because the point really was who cares. There are angry, aggressive sign flippers of every political stripe.
Now I will admit to raising my kids not to be weak little metrosexual pussies, but I don’t teach hate or intolerance. We were quite tolerant of the little dude banging on the door trying to register Obama voters. After he left my son said “dad I thought you don’t like Obama”, and I said absolutely but that kid is just trying to find people who might like him. I also explained that what he’s doing is not easy and worthy of respect. Nothing intolerant about that.
Now if I hear them giggle when they see a couple of dudes holding hands, I don’t make it a point to correct that, because …well it is kind of funny. Doesn’t mean you have to hate them.
urbanrealtor
October 31, 2008 @
2:40 PM
CardiffBaseball wrote:
Now I [quote=CardiffBaseball]
Now I will admit to raising my kids not to be weak little metrosexual pussies, but I don’t teach hate or intolerance. We were quite tolerant of the little dude banging on the door trying to register Obama voters. After he left my son said “dad I thought you don’t like Obama”, and I said absolutely but that kid is just trying to find people who might like him. I also explained that what he’s doing is not easy and worthy of respect. Nothing intolerant about that.
Now if I hear them giggle when they see a couple of dudes holding hands, I don’t make it a point to correct that, because …well it is kind of funny. Doesn’t mean you have to hate them.[/quote]
You are,in my opinion why people should need licenses to reproduce.
I applaud your valiant efforts to keep your kids from becoming “metrosexual pussies” as you put it.
Sorry dude you are a hater. You are training your kids to be haters. Sorry that you are perpetuating ignorance.
CardiffBaseball
October 31, 2008 @
7:34 PM
urbanrealtor wrote:
You [quote=urbanrealtor]
You are,in my opinion why people should need licenses to reproduce.
I applaud your valiant efforts to keep your kids from becoming “metrosexual pussies” as you put it.
Sorry dude you are a hater. You are training your kids to be haters. Sorry that you are perpetuating ignorance. [/quote]
Naah you hand wringers just take this stuff too damn seriously as usual. I actually lived weeks at a time with some gay guys while on remote assignment and this was over a two year period. (I rented from them). My kids were taught at a young age to respect these guys because they were very welcoming to my family. Now I will admit that helped that were macho types, not queens (thus big-time sports fans, like myself).
This site is swarming with plenty of intolerance for christians and one thing keeping from pulling the no lever on prop 8 is knowing that I am siding with a bunch of other intolerant assholes. Voting yes goes against my basic libertarian kind of live and let live conservatism, but the internal struggle is siding with guys like you.
In any case you people need to lighten up regarding someone giggling, it’s natural. The kids also enjoy Adam Sandler flicks for instance and one thing he always manages to do it seems (in every movie) is tease gayness in such a way that is not homophobic. The funny look when two guys kiss, Chuck and Larry, yet in the end all are accepted and that’s all I’m talking about. You can giggle about the little things without hating. Well if you can’t, you also probably don’t watch comedians. I like comedians of all stripes no matter who they offend, and yet my favorite one is an executive transvestite.
CardiffBaseball wrote:
Naah [quote=CardiffBaseball]
Naah you hand wringers just take this stuff too damn seriously as usual. I actually lived weeks at a time with some gay guys while on remote assignment … macho types, not queens (thus big-time sports fans, like myself).
This site is swarming with plenty of intolerance for christians … Adam Sandler flicks …not homophobic.
[/quote]
Dude, are you…uh…coming out to me?
I don’t wring my hands. I just think that people who make fun of others for who they are, are…well..shits. I think it is unfortunate you are training your kids in that mold. Its sure a good thing your keeping them cultured with the Adam Sandler films. I’m sure they’ll turn out great.
I agree that intolerance for Christians is crappy (I was raised Christian) but it sure is ironic to hear somebody encourage prejudice and then complain about it (do you consider that a Christian trait?).
You seem to think a lot about queers for someone in North County who is so “macho” (like the village people?).
The nonpartisan, statewide survey shows 44 percent of likely voters favoring Proposition 8, 49 percent opposing it and the remaining 7 percent undecided.
A pretty hard-hitting no-on-8 ad was just released with Samuel Jackson narrating:
I wonder what effect it will have… I was really hoping he would be screaming, VOTE NO ON 8 MOTHERFUCKER!!!@#$%!
Arraya
November 1, 2008 @
7:41 AM
We are put on this planet to We are put on this planet to procreate, let’s at least try to teach that to our children!
Ironically, I am the non-religious one and think we have a higher purpose than that of cancer, viruses or bacteria.
socrattt
November 1, 2008 @
9:51 AM
Urbanrealtor, I feel sorry Urbanrealtor, I feel sorry for your clients, but I can’t imagine you have any. You are the kind of person that will argue with anyone even when you are unsure of your facts.
You know my opinions and you are more than welcome to have yours but just remember you aren’t always right even though you do your best to make it sound like it!
Oh and by the way, I do have a number of gay friends contrary to your belief, but I don’t need to try to argue with you because as I stated you are always right!
Enorah
November 1, 2008 @
10:20 AM
socratt, do your gay friends socratt, do your gay friends know you are voting yes on prop 8? If they do I wonder if they consider you to be their friend any longer.
Civil Unions DO NOT provide the same rights as marriage.
Anyone in North County who is interested the “no on prop 8” campaign is having a volunteer thingy in Carlsbad this morning from 10am – 2pm at the Pilgrim United Church of Christ – 2020 Chestnut Ave, Carlsbad
for more info 760-758-2410
socrattt
November 1, 2008 @
11:20 AM
Enorah wrote:socratt, do your [quote=Enorah]socratt, do your gay friends know you are voting yes on prop 8?[/quote]
Enorah, DO YOUR STRAIGHT FRIENDS KNOW YOU ARE VOTING NO ON PROP 8? What a ignorant response. Unlike others on this board my friends allow me to have my own opinions and yes of course they know how I feel. Do I have to be politically correct to keep my friends?
Some of these comments are just mind boggling!
afx114
November 1, 2008 @
11:36 AM
I love the “but I have gay I love the “but I have gay friends!” defense… classic!
It’s a bit like… “I’m not racist, I have a black friend!”
Enorah
November 1, 2008 @
12:04 PM
afx114 wrote:I love the “but [quote=afx114]I love the “but I have gay friends!” defense… classic!
It’s a bit like… “I’m not racist, I have a black friend!”
[/quote]
:roflmao:
Enorah
November 1, 2008 @
12:03 PM
socrattt wrote:Enorah [quote=socrattt][quote=Enorah]socratt, do your gay friends know you are voting yes on prop 8?[/quote]
Enorah, DO YOUR STRAIGHT FRIENDS KNOW YOU ARE VOTING NO ON PROP 8? What a ignorant response. Unlike others on this board my friends allow me to have my own opinions and yes of course they know how I feel. Do I have to be politically correct to keep my friends?
Some of these comments are just mind boggling![/quote]
Yes I am sure that everyone I know, knows where I stand on this issue. 🙂
I suggest you check out Mark Holmes’s response to the issue of “friends of gays who wish to deny them rights” earlier on this thread.
urbanrealtor
November 1, 2008 @
3:26 PM
socrattt wrote:Urbanrealtor, [quote=socrattt]Urbanrealtor, I feel sorry for your clients, but I can’t imagine you have any. You are the kind of person that will argue with anyone even when you are unsure of your facts.
You know my opinions and you are more than welcome to have yours but just remember you aren’t always right even though you do your best to make it sound like it!
Oh and by the way, I do have a number of gay friends contrary to your belief, but I don’t need to try to argue with you because as I stated you are always right![/quote]
I don’t think you have enough information to say anything about how I do business. However, since you have resorted the you’re-wrong-because-you’re-wrong argument, I am not terribly concerned that responding would matter.
I am not a fan of political correctness. I do consider prop 8 to be bigotry. So yeah, I am curious about you actually having gay friends and marginalizing their rights. I dare you to ask them about this in writing in an open ended question and how they feel about your position and/or activism and how it affects their friendship with you. Then I dare you to reprint that conversation here. I figure either
A: they are not gay
B: they are not your friends or
C: they care a lot that you are voting to marginalize their relationships
It is possible that they are an exception. Some black folks were not in favor of civil rights legislation. If so, please include contact info so that we can all ask them questions.
Anonymous
November 1, 2008 @
9:31 AM
I received this article from I received this article from a friend. It’s been submitted to a variety of papers, but I doubt it will make publication since they’ve all publically gone with the no approach….
The Case for Tolerance– and Proposition 8
By Steven D. Smith,
(Professor of Law, University of San Diego)
Many people think the issue of same-sex marriage presents a test of our tolerance. It does. But the test is a lot more complicated than many suppose.
Supporters of same-sex marriage point out that legalization provides a choice, not a command. People who oppose same-sex marriage on religious or moral grounds are still free to continue in these beliefs– and, if they choose, to marry only opposite-sex partners. On this view, the tolerant course is to let people marry whom they please. Conversely, those who oppose granting this choice are gratuitously “imposing their values on others.” They are being intolerant. It looks pretty simple.
Americans generally want to be tolerant– to “live and let live.” So this depiction of the controversy makes a powerful case for legalizing same-sex marriage.
But the depiction also oversimplifies the matter, drastically. What it ignores is the existence of Americans– millions of them, most likely– who believe something like this: They acknowledge, or firmly insist, that gays and lesbians are human beings, as fully citizens and as equal in dignity and worth as their straight neighbors. These Americans recognize that gays and lesbians have often been the victims of senseless prejudice, discrimination and violence. They readily agree that gays and lesbians are as entitled to “the pursuit of happiness” as anyone else, and that it is a good thing for gays and lesbians, like everyone else, to enjoy stable, loving personal relationships.
What these Americans do not believe is that same-sex unions are in all respects equivalent to traditional marriage. More specifically, on moral or religious or purely prudential grounds, they believe that it is better for children to be raised in a family with a father and a mother. These Americans understand, of course, that reality often falls tragically short of the ideal. But it does not follow that the ideal itself should be abandoned: ideals continue to exert influence even when imperfectly realized.
And this is where things get complicated– and where the “live and let live” sentiment obscures more than it illuminates. That is because if same-sex marriage is legalized, and thus officially deemed equivalent to traditional marriage, then this settlement will converge with powerful antidiscrimination policies and laws that exist in every state and at the national level. The convergence will have legal consequences, and it will work upon culture. And the result will be, inevitably, that the traditional view, and those who hold it, will be disadvantaged in a variety of ways.
“Prediction is very hard,” as Yogi Berra observed, “especially about the future.” Nonetheless, our experience permits some modestly confident predictions about a few likely legal and cultural consequences of the convergence of same-sex marriage with antidiscrimination laws and policies.
Public schools may not be legally required to teach anything about marriage at all. But the fact is that they do teach about marriage, deliberately or casually, and a consequence of legalizing same-sex marriage will almost inevitably be that the schools will teach the full acceptability of such unions. People will still be free to disagree, of course. But children will in effect be officially instructed that parents and religions who try to teach the traditional views are wrong.
Institutions that adhere to the traditional view will be subjected to legal restrictions, some of them likely quite severe. In Massachusetts, the Catholic adoption agency was recently forced either to transgress church teachings by placing children with same-sex couples or else to get out of the adoption business. The agency chose to adhere to its beliefs. By forcing this choice upon the agency, the state acted to the potential detriment of thousands of children.
By the familiar logic which equates opposition to same-sex marriage with opposition to interracial marriage, it is possible that institutions that adhere to the traditional view will eventually be denied tax exempt status, as happened with Bob Jones University. That outcome would be the financial equivalent of fining such institutions millions of dollars for maintaining the traditional view.
In short, “live and let live” is an admirable sentiment; on this issue, unfortunately, there is no way, as Lincoln remarked, to please all of the people all of the time. Whichever position the state adopts, it will in important ways be “imposing its values” on those who disagree. So the question becomes how best to accommodate the variety of conflicting positions.
There is no obvious answer to that question. But a strong case can be made that the best accommodation– and hence the most tolerant course– is to recognize and respect “domestic partnerships” or “civil unions” for same-sex couples while not legally equating this status with traditional marriage. In short, the most tolerant position, albeit an inelegant one, may be the compromise that prevailed in California until recently– until the state Supreme Court, on fanciful grounds, invalidated Proposition 22, which the people overwhelmingly approved less than a decade earlier.
A “yes” vote on Proposition 8 would be a vote to restore that condition of tolerance.
svelte
November 1, 2008 @
4:25 PM
whysteal wrote:The Case for [quote=whysteal]The Case for Tolerance– and Proposition 8
By Steven D. Smith,
(Professor of Law, University of San Diego)
…
A “yes” vote on Proposition 8 would be a vote to restore that condition of tolerance.
[/quote]
Geez, talk about peeing on someone’s leg and telling them it’s raining!
And from the epitome of non-religious thought, USD, no less.
Shadowfax
November 1, 2008 @
9:37 PM
whysteal wrote:I received [quote=whysteal]I received this article from a friend. It’s been submitted to a variety of papers, but I doubt it will make publication since they’ve all publically gone with the no approach….
The Case for Tolerance– and Proposition 8
By Steven D. Smith,
(Professor of Law, University of San Diego)
A “yes” vote on Proposition 8 would be a vote to restore that condition of tolerance. [/quote]
Oh, this guy. He’s a new (within the last 10 years) conlaw prof at USD. I almost took his class until I learned he was planning to teach the Constitution According to the Bible. (I am not sure what this means, but why does he keep saying “gays and lesbians”–why not just “homosexuals?”)
I just can’t fathom why people have to inflict their beliefs on others. I don’t see Hindus out screaming that gay marriage is so alarming. The fact is, it’s one narrow demographic of the american pie–most of whom believe the bible should be taken literally–who are promoting this proposition. Everyone should be treated the same. Two gays getting married does nothing to my marriage. By Larry and Steve getting a marriage license, my kids don’t suddenly become impressed into servitude to learn and support the “gay way of life.”
UR: I usually agree with you, and I am pretty liberal–but I think giggling at two guys necking on the street is a MILD way of dealing with something that really bothers a lot of people. Better to giggle than go the extreme hate-crime route. Maybe better to let it out in harmless ways. Honestly, watching anyone smooch in public is kinda gross–that’s what the internet if for, no? Voyeurism in private? And why is there a double standard for watching to chicks smooch? Oh, here it comes…
svelte
October 31, 2008 @
9:40 PM
Well said, Well said, beanman.
[quote=beanmaestro]Nope, I’m going with it being more disturbing that we put minority rights to a popular vote.[/quote]
Why people feel it is their right and duty to cram their lifestyle down other’s throats I completely fail to understand.
CardiffBaseball
October 30, 2008 @
4:20 PM
I prefer my girls showered I prefer my girls showered and cleaned up so the lib activists are out.
Like JustLurking I too was driving down the road the other day and there were some scary looking people (girls I think) screaming NO on 8, No on 8. My son said daddy what were those scary people screaming at our mini-van about and are they daddies or mommies? What does No on 8 mean? I said well son those people want it to be ok for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman. He said, why would a daddy want to marry another daddy? I said well maybe they love one another. he says “but I thought daddies married mommies”… uh-well, there are some good looking trannies son and, well some daddies like each other.
I also explained to him you know when daddy is yelling “c’mon kiss” at two pretty ladies on TV?? Maybe that’s what the mommies want to do also.
I also brought up that you really don’t have to worry about girls who change sides to the other team. If they are really good-looking they’ll still get married to a daddy and just ask daddy for threesomes with her good looking friends and most daddies think that’s just dandy. And if they don’t like guys at all, they probably were not as hot as the mommies who invite other mommies over, so let them get married.
capeman
October 30, 2008 @
11:34 PM
I’m a big fan of the I’m a big fan of the prayer-fest going on at Qualcomm this weekend in support of Prop-8. The logic totally eludes me. With all of that prayer power I would much rather see it pointed at repealing the absurd Wall St. bailout that our children and grandchildren will pay for. Everybody protesting on this Prop. is wasting their time and effort while being eternally hosed by the government and bankers. Hosed… totally…
Keep at it sheeple and I’m still voting no on Prop 8 and not taking away my fellow citizen’s rights.
svelte
October 31, 2008 @
12:06 PM
Absolutely beautiful, Absolutely beautiful, urbanrealtor!! I’m saving that to my hard drive for future use!!
I’ve always laughed at ppl who say being gay is not natural. I guess those people have never been around dogs much cuz I’ve seen a ton of gay behavior from those creatures!
EJ
October 31, 2008 @
4:31 PM
Stop the hate, do not change Stop the hate, do not change the constitution, do not eliminate any more rights.
Live and let live …
No on prop 8
BKinLA
November 1, 2008 @
2:20 PM
For those of you who For those of you who self-identify as Libertarian, Reason has (IMHO) a logical thesis on the issue. It’s a 24-page PDF, but mostly white space and an easy read.
“…Chief among the considerations in considering the gay marriage issue is determining whether any individual has a fundamental right to marry another person and form a family. If such a fundamental right does exist, then the state has no right to deny this right to certain groups of people, regardless of their sexual orientation or other factors. As In re Marriage Cases affirms, the right of marriage is, indeed, a fundamental one: “[T]he right to marry is not properly viewed as simply a benefit or privilege that a government may establish or abolish as it sees fit, but rather that the right constitutes a basic civil or human right of all people.”…”
Setting the trusty way-back machine to 1996 we hear from another Libertarian publication, The Economist:
“…To this principle of social policy, add a principle of government. Barring a compelling reason, governments should not discriminate between classes of citizens. As recently as 1967, blacks and whites in some American states could not wed. No one but a crude racist would defend such a rule now. Even granting that the case of homosexuals is more complex than the case of miscegenation, the state should presume against discriminating—especially when handing out something as important as a marriage licence. Thus the question becomes: is there a compelling reason to bar homosexuals from marriage?…”
urbanrealtor
November 2, 2008 @
3:53 PM
The Case For Intolerance: The Case For Intolerance:
This is the letter I wrote to Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith,
The following is in response to the assertions and points you put forward in your “Case for Tolerance” article that promotes Prop 8. I am copying this message to several others for their response. This includes publications.
I am not an attorney or an academic. My diction may be pedestrian but I hope it gets the point across.
The Case for Intolerance.
(Background:
In the piece The Case for Tolerance–and Proposition 8, Steven Smith, a professor of law at University of San Diego (a local Catholic College) makes several assertions regarding the debate over Prop 8, which is designed to amend the amend the California Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage through a ballot referendum.)
Below are the assertions you made and my responses to them.
1: Your assertion: That that the state court’s recognition of same-sex marriage ignores the millions of Americans who don’t believe gay marriage should be legal.
Unless I am mistaken, the domain of high courts is to act as a check on unconstitutional suppression of minority rights. I don’t recall Brown v. Board being voted on by the good people of Topeka. It should not be a surprise that a rights decision has the capacity to be unpopular.
2: Your assertion: That this majority believes in the human, equal, and civil rights of gay people and feel their pain as victims of abuse and prejudice.
Two questions come to mind here. How is this relevant? Nobody cares about the nice words sentiments used to dress up unequal rights. Also, what polls are you using for this assertion?
This appears to be just a red herring to build sympathy for those opposed to gay marriage.
3: Your assertion: That the “ideal” is to have children raised by a mother and a father.
Codifying ideals into law is a slippery business. That is the goal for some proponents of prop 8. Since this is the ideal, that implies that those without kids or who are unmarried, or are gay are less legitimate or valuable members of society. This is due to their relative distance from the “ideal”. Would gay parents be more or less “ideal”? Since these criteria are not generally considered valid categories for inclusion (as opposed to say, a criminal record), it is unclear why legislating the nuclear family would be beneficial.
4:Your assertion: That this majority will be disadvantaged or harmed in a “variety of ways” by gay marriage being legalized (primarily due to legal prohibitions on discrimination against protected classes).
This is a bold assertion but I will reserve judgment for the examples of said harm.
5:Your assertion: That children will learn in school that same sex relationships are acceptable and that parents opposing this are wrong.
As with any change in law, children will learn of it on the playground and in the classroom. Teachers may or may not mention it, but as a part of our culture and legal framework it will be there.
It is not at all clear how parents or children will be harmed with this. This happened with the passage of everything from civil rights to prop 13. Generally, in our state, disagreeing with a law does not equate to “wrongness”. How many parents have had to tell their children they disagree with the president or his policies? Were the parents harmed by this? If so, how?
6: Your assertion: That adoption agencies would harm children by forcing adoption centers to either place them with same-sex parents or get out of the adoption business.
As adoption centers, they act as licensed, regulated service providers. As a protected class, applicants’ sexual orientation should already be off limits as a consideration. When race and religion became protected classes many adoption centers had to change practices or get out. This is no different.
Further, the argument that allowing adoption centers to ignore class protection would somehow benefit children is weak to the point of absurdity. What would be gained if adoption centers could screen parents based on their church affiliation or skin color?
7: Your assertion: That the government recognizing same-sex marriages would put religious institutions opposed to it in the position of being political actors and thereby losing their tax-exempt status.
Again, as licensed providers of government services (legally recognized marriage) they would be regulated by the government. Having a church ceremony is not required for marriage (I was married in a casino) nor is the reverse true.
Many churches have strong stances on political issues and pontificate about them during service. This is as true today (abortion, capital punishment, war), as it was in the past (segregation, slavery, indulgence). This does not typically cost them there tax-exempt standing.
8: Your assertion: That recognizing same sex unions will upset people who are opposed to this and so in the name of harmony the best option is to ban the recognition of same sex marriages and try to work on a separate though equal recognition of civil unions.
The reason the high court overturned the previous ballot measure was that it found separate to be unequal by design. Further, building a framework for rights around who will be irritated is not a recipe for sound governance. To invoke Rawls, effective governments are just. Justice is about fairness. Fairness is what this conversation is about. Separate but equal is unfair (and therefore unsustainable) even if it’s primary purpose is base appeasement.
9: Your assertion: That this elimination of rights would be the most tolerant of those whose rights would be eliminated.
Well here is the real problem. Gay people are not asking to be tolerated. They are asking to be respected equally. I tolerate the police helicopter that flies over my neighborhood at night. I respect my neighbor (even if I don’t like him). The whole conversation about tolerance misses the point. Intolerance and suppression led to Stonewall. Condescending and sarcastic tolerance leads to unfair laws and lip-service to civil rights.
On a personal note:
That you are a constitutional law professor speaks particularly poorly of your reasoning (as represented in your piece) and more generally of the reputation of USD Law. Like Gavin Newsom and Jesse Helms, you will likely get your footnote in the history books.
—
Dan Cassidy
cr
November 2, 2008 @
6:04 PM
I’ve yet to hear a bleeding I’ve yet to hear a bleeding heart liberal who opposes prop 8 give an intelligent answer as to why the next step isn’t legalizing polygamy.
afx114
November 2, 2008 @
6:25 PM
cooprider wrote:I’ve yet to [quote=cooprider]I’ve yet to hear a bleeding heart liberal who opposes prop 8 give an intelligent answer as to why the next step isn’t legalizing polygamy.[/quote]
This bleeding heart liberal replies: So what if it is? I’d also reply: try reading the thread from the beginning, we’ve already been over this.
urbanrealtor
November 2, 2008 @
10:45 PM
afx114 wrote:cooprider [quote=afx114][quote=cooprider]I’ve yet to hear a bleeding heart liberal who opposes prop 8 give an intelligent answer as to why the next step isn’t legalizing polygamy.[/quote]
This bleeding heart liberal replies: So what if it is? I’d also reply: try reading the thread from the beginning, we’ve already been over this.
[/quote]
Again, as the other bleeding heart:
I am not concerned in the slightest about plural adult unions (polygamy).
Why do you care so much about other people’s romantic relationships and legal unions?
Are you somebody who is “just curious” about the gay thing?
Is chicken coop riding like a euphemism for something? (though I really cant imagine what….)
Does it involve feathers?
Enorah
November 2, 2008 @
7:11 PM
wow
just wow
How about we wow
just wow
How about we just do away with marriage all together?
Please
My partner and I have been together for almost 10 years and are not married. One of the reasons we are not married is because of all the religious crap attached to marriage.
Seriously, let’s do away with it, create a civil union that is nationally recognized, and then marriage can be the thing you all do, more of an optional choice, as opposed to the ONLY choice.
fredo4
November 12, 2008 @
9:37 PM
Enorah wrote:My partner and I [quote=Enorah]My partner and I have been together for almost 10 years and are not married. One of the reasons we are not married is because of all the religious crap attached to marriage.[/quote]
I have the perfect solution for you. It’s called a civil union- it’s completely devoid of “religious crap”.
p.s. “religious crap” how very tolerant.
Enorah
November 13, 2008 @
9:02 AM
fredo4 wrote:Enorah wrote:My [quote=fredo4][quote=Enorah]My partner and I have been together for almost 10 years and are not married. One of the reasons we are not married is because of all the religious crap attached to marriage.[/quote]
I have the perfect solution for you. It’s called a civil union- it’s completely devoid of “religious crap”.
p.s. “religious crap” how very tolerant.[/quote]
Fredo, my partner and I do not meet the requirements to legally form a domestic partnership, as we are a heterosexual couple below 62 years of age. Also, domestic partnerships DO NOT provide the same rights as marriage, they are only recognized at the state level. California does not have a civil union option, just domestic partnership, but even if we could file as a civil union here, it would mean nothing at the federal level.
As far as my “religious crap” comment goes, I did not mean to imply that all religion is crap, but on this thread, well, there is a fair amount of “religious crap” being flung about as we speak. When religion is used to enslave, it becomes crap to me.
[quote]FAMILY.CODE
SECTION 297-297.5
297. (a) Domestic partners are two adults who have chosen to share
one another’s lives in an intimate and committed relationship of
mutual caring.
(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.
(6) Both persons are capable of consenting to the domestic
partnership.
(c) “Have a common residence” means that both domestic partners
share the same residence. It is not necessary that the legal right
to possess the common residence be in both of their names. Two
people have a common residence even if one or both have additional
residences. Domestic partners do not cease to have a common
residence if one leaves the common residence but intends to return.[/quote]
Arraya
November 3, 2008 @
6:27 AM
cooprider wrote:I’ve yet to [quote=cooprider]I’ve yet to hear a bleeding heart liberal who opposes prop 8 give an intelligent answer as to why the next step isn’t legalizing polygamy.[/quote]
Because this is changing the subject and means you have no clear concise arguments against gay marriage
Polygamy was a response to certain pre-modern social conditions but that modern egalitarian, capitalist and individualist societies create little need for and considerable pressure against polygamy.
Polygamy flourished in primitive, male-dominated societies where women had little freedom of movement, education or employment skills and were dependent on men, where inequalities of wealth allowed some men to acquire several wives while others had none, and/or where male deaths in frequent military campaigns sharply reduced the number of potential husbands.
But in modern societies, women have equal access to advanced education and economic independence, social value apart from the status or wealth of a husband, and an equal male-female ratio. It is hard to imagine many women in the contemporary U.S. cheerfully welcoming competing wives or voluntarily becoming a second, third, or fourth wife.
In addition, women in third world nations — and southern Utah — who have left polygamous households describe them as rife with favoritism, rivalries, domestic abuse, and the like. It is hard to imagine a modern, educated woman entering or staying in such a family environment.
Nor would polygamy seem desirable for most males. Assuming an equal male-female population, a man who married two or more women would deprive one or more heterosexual men of the pleasures of a romantic, sexual and domestic life with a wife.
In fact, we may say that just as same-sex marriage is good because it allows more people to enjoy the pleasures and benefits of marriage, polygamy is undesirable because it deprives some people of the pleasures and benefits of marriage.
In short: None of the principles supporting gay marriage offers support for polygamy. Rather the opposite. And polygamy is not likely to be widely advocated because — unlike same-sex marriage — it answers no needs and removes no inequities in modern societies.
cr
November 3, 2008 @
8:18 AM
arraya wrote:In short: None [quote=arraya]In short: None of the principles supporting gay marriage offers support for polygamy. Rather the opposite. And polygamy is not likely to be widely advocated because — unlike same-sex marriage — it answers no needs and removes no inequities in modern societies.[/quote]
Well said, and I agree to a point, but it doesn’t answer the question. Giving “the right of marriage” to what is a non-traditional union sets a precendent. Aside from the fact that in and of itself a homosexual relationship cannot produce children, the idea that marriage rights should not be withheld for any reason will soon move beyond 2 people of the same sex.
No one who opposes 8 sees it that way, but how can you argue against it? You said it answers no needs, but what about the need of 3 people to have equal rights?
That’s why this is a poorly written proposition. Give homosexual unions all the same rights – I have no problem whatsoever with that, but don’t destroy that value and definition of marriage in the name of civil rights.
If prop 8 fails, I can promise you it’s only a matter of time before polygamy, child/adult (w/o parental consent) and sibling marriages attempt to follow suit.
Sure, it may sound ridiculous today, but recognizing a gay couple as married sounded ridiculous not so long ago.
afx114
November 3, 2008 @
10:14 AM
cooprider wrote:If prop 8 [quote=cooprider]If prop 8 fails, I can promise you it’s only a matter of time before polygamy, child/adult (w/o parental consent) and sibling marriages attempt to follow suit.[/quote]
Nobody supports non-consensual marriage. Well, except for maybe those who want to limit rights…
urbanrealtor
November 11, 2008 @
11:42 PM
Best discussion about prop 8 Best discussion about prop 8 ever.
afx114 wrote:Nobody supports [quote=afx114]Nobody supports non-consensual marriage. Well, except for maybe those who want to limit rights…[/quote]
Who said anything about non-consensual? And just wait until someone wants the tax right off under a marraige with their dog…
It sounds absurd, because it is, and so is the fact that this was voted on 8 years ago, some renegade judge turned it over, it was voted on again, and a small minority of people still won’t accept it.
Get over it. You don’t see Republicans filing suit because Obama won.
You want rights, fine, but maybe it’s time to find another way that isn’t such a direct offense to those who value traditional marriage.
Mark Holmes
November 12, 2008 @
12:41 PM
You don’t see Republicans You don’t see Republicans filing suit because Obama winning does not take away their constitutional right to marry.
This will eventually end with gay people having the right to marry. It’s obvious that the electorate is coming around to the idea that gays being able to marry is simply fair.
Ten or twenty years from now, people will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about. And many of those who did vote for Prop. 8 will look back on their decision with some measure of shame.
meadandale
November 12, 2008 @
1:31 PM
Mark Holmes wrote:You don’t [quote=Mark Holmes]You don’t see Republicans filing suit because Obama winning does not take away their constitutional right to marry.
This will eventually end with gay people having the right to marry. It’s obvious that the electorate is coming around to the idea that gays being able to marry is simply fair.
Ten or twenty years from now, people will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about. And many of those who did vote for Prop. 8 will look back on their decision with some measure of shame.[/quote]
The irony is that the Black voters, who came out in droves for Obama, are the ones who put prop 8 over the top. Yet, I still haven’t seen any rallies, blockades or demonstrations at any BLACK churches, just white ones.
The people have spoken…AGAIN and they’ve said loud and clear that they are in favor of a traditional definition of ‘marriage’. Not just in Klownifornia but in a half dozen states around the country in this election alone.
Face it, the majority of people don’t want to have same sex marriage shoved down their throat and are in favor of traditional ‘values’. That your goal is to brush this aside in favor of YOUR moral compass shows how much you value and tolerate the opinions and beliefs of those whom you are vilifying right now for their supposed lack of tolerance.
Even without the California marriage ban, the federal government still does not recognize same sex marriage for the purposes of income tax and SS benefits. Why aren’t you picketing congress and the whitehouse?
Enorah
November 12, 2008 @
1:32 PM
Black voters DID NOT tip the Black voters DID NOT tip the scales for prop 8
[quote]The state’s Black population is 6.2 percent, and it accounted for 10 percent of the overall vote. In other words, blaming African Americans for the referendum’s passage ignores 90 percent of the vote.[/quote]
afx114
November 12, 2008 @
1:38 PM
Black voters may have voted Black voters may have voted in greater % in favor of Prop 8, but it is more of a generational divide than it is a racial divide. Take a look at the voting by age:
Vote by Age
Yes No
18-29 (20%) 39 61
30-44 (28%) 55 45
45-64 (36%) 54 46
65+ (15%) 61 39
When that 18-29 age group moves into the 30-44 age group, we’ll see vastly different results.
fredo4
November 12, 2008 @
3:23 PM
You gay people are going You gay people are going about this whole thing completely wrong. Admit it, what you’re looking for basically is acceptance and respect- and you should have it. We’re way past the whole tolerance thing- except for a few idiots, that was achieved a long time ago. Instead of being so annoyingly pushy about changing well established institutions, how about making yourselves, as a group more worthy of respect. If I was gay, the first thing I would do is get rid of the gay pride parades. I can’t think of anything more demeaning and less worthy of respect than a bunch of guys on a float wearing cone bras. I’m not being flip- I really mean it.
fredo4
November 12, 2008 @
3:59 PM
FYI That last post can be FYI That last post can be commented on by non gays too.
Mark Holmes
November 12, 2008 @
4:03 PM
What makes you think we’re What makes you think we’re NOT trying to tone down behavior at parades? And just because some people act silly once a year in a parade does NOT mean that we should not be asking for the same rights the rest of the country already has.
And WTF….
ANNOYINGLY PUSHY?!?!!!
WTF?!
Were African-Americans “annoyingly pushy” when they asked for the right to sit at the front of the bus?
Were women “annoyingly pushy” when they asked for the right to vote?
How asking for a right that cannot directly affect straight people, in any way, is “annoyingly pushy” is beyond me.
I mean, are you joking?
meadandale
November 12, 2008 @
4:12 PM
Mark Holmes wrote:
How asking [quote=Mark Holmes]
How asking for a right that cannot directly affect straight people, in any way, is “annoyingly pushy” is beyond me.
[/quote]
By defining “marriage” to include men/men, women/women, you are debasing the meaning of marriage in the eyes of millions of married people who actually take the conventional meaning seriously.
If that is considered not “directly affecting” other people, it seems to be a pretty selfish definition.
Enorah
November 12, 2008 @
4:17 PM
Hey Mark
I so understand your Hey Mark
I so understand your anger, and sometimes I read some of the carp here and I want to yell and scream as well.
I mean
wow
just wow
Just lending my support.
afx114
November 12, 2008 @
4:33 PM
meadandale wrote:
By defining [quote=meadandale]
By defining “marriage” to include men/men, women/women, you are debasing the meaning of marriage in the eyes of millions of married people who actually take the conventional meaning seriously.[/quote]
How about a quick little find/replace:
By defining “marriage” to include black/white, you are debasing the meaning of marriage in the eyes of millions of married people who actually take the conventional meaning seriously.
Are you going to defend that statement too? Not trying to play the bigot card here, I just want to point out that your argument has been used ineffectively in the past, and if history is any indication, it won’t stand for long.
meadandale
November 12, 2008 @
4:37 PM
afx114 wrote:If you define [quote=afx114]If you define your own marriage by someone else’s, you’re doing it wrong.[/quote]
Ok, consider an allegory:
I work my ass off in school and get an A. That grade means something to me as it represents alot of work and a recognition of excellence.
If the teacher decided at the end of the term to just reward everyone in the class with A’s regardless of effort, I’d be pissed. It would diminish and demean the value of the ‘A’ I received and worked for.
As to the canard of comparing gay marriage to interracial marriage…
I have no problem with having the government get out of the ‘marriage’ business. The government should recognize any man/man, woman/woman, man/woman partnership for legal purposes (adoption, taxes, survivor benefits) as a “civil union”. Give everyone the same rights under a civil union. Just don’t call it marriage and we’ll have no issues. Capice?
afx114
November 12, 2008 @
5:10 PM
meadandale wrote:I have no [quote=meadandale]I have no problem with having the government get out of the ‘marriage’ business. The government should recognize any man/man, woman/woman, man/woman partnership for legal purposes (adoption, taxes, survivor benefits) as a “civil union”. Give everyone the same rights under a civil union. Just don’t call it marriage and we’ll have no issues. Capice?[/quote]
So you want government out of marriage, but you want them banning certain kinds of marriage? You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
I’m not generally a fan of “separate but equal.”
meadandale
November 12, 2008 @
8:05 PM
afx114 wrote:So you want [quote=afx114]So you want government out of marriage, but you want them banning certain kinds of marriage?
[/quote]
I said I’d be happier with having the government out of the marriage business. Short of that, I’ll continue to fight for what I construe as the definition of marriage.
And, the government ALREADY limits who can get married to who. I can’t marry my sister (in most states). I can’t marry my mother. I can’t marry my father. I can’t marry more than one person. I can’t marry someone under 18 (in most states).
I don’t see gays protesting and ‘fighting the good fight’ to relax restrictions on any of these OTHER categories of people who can’t marry. After all, their rights are being taken away…right? RIGHT?!
Arraya
November 12, 2008 @
4:37 PM
Christianity:
“Therefore all Christianity:
“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” Matthew 7:12, King James Version.
Shinto:
“The heart of the person before you is a mirror. See there your own form”
Buddhism:
“…a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?” Samyutta NIkaya v. 353
Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.” Udana-Varga 5:18
Hinduism:
This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you. Mahabharata 5:1517
Native American
“All things are our relatives; what we do to everything, we do to ourselves. All is really One.” Black Elk
Epictetus: “What you would avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on others.” (circa 100 CE)
Kant: “Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature.”
Plato: “May I do to others as I would that they should do unto me.” (Greece; 4th century BCE)
Mark Holmes
November 12, 2008 @
6:42 PM
meadandale wrote:Mark Holmes [quote=meadandale][quote=Mark Holmes]
How asking for a right that cannot directly affect straight people, in any way, is “annoyingly pushy” is beyond me.
[/quote]
By defining “marriage” to include men/men, women/women, you are debasing the meaning of marriage in the eyes of millions of married people who actually take the conventional meaning seriously.
If that is considered not “directly affecting” other people, it seems to be a pretty selfish definition.
[/quote]
Your statement is evidence of your bigotry. The only way gay marriage could “debase” your marriage is if being gay were somehow bad, immoral or negative. It’s like saying that if gays were allowed to be members of your country club, then your membership would somehow be worth less. It betrays your bias.
fredo4
November 12, 2008 @
5:25 PM
Mark Holmes wrote:
Were [quote=Mark Holmes]
Were African-Americans “annoyingly pushy” when they asked for the right to sit at the front of the bus?[/quote]
How can you possibly equate gays not being able to marry with the problems that African Americans have had to endure in this country? Don’t you think that’s a little silly? It just makes your argument seem more ludicris. And I don’t know about you but I’ve BEEN to a gay pride parade and it’s not just a couple of guys acting silly, the whole thing is set up to be bawdy and in your face. I’m just telling you what I’d do if I was gay and wanted more respect and acceptance. And starting a movement to change the image of the gay community is the first thing I would do. You can dismiss what I have to say and get offended if you want, but if it’s acceptance and respect that you want that’s what needs to happen.
Mark Holmes
November 12, 2008 @
7:03 PM
fredo4 wrote:Mark Holmes [quote=fredo4][quote=Mark Holmes]
Were African-Americans “annoyingly pushy” when they asked for the right to sit at the front of the bus?[/quote]
How can you possibly equate gays not being able to marry with the problems that African Americans have had to endure in this country? Don’t you think that’s a little silly? It just makes your argument seem more ludicris. And I don’t know about you but I’ve BEEN to a gay pride parade and it’s not just a couple of guys acting silly, the whole thing is set up to be bawdy and in your face. I’m just telling you what I’d do if I was gay and wanted more respect and acceptance. And starting a movement to change the image of the gay community is the first thing I would do. You can dismiss what I have to say and get offended if you want, but if it’s acceptance and respect that you want that’s what needs to happen.
[/quote]
How can I possibly equate what gays have gone through with what African Americans have gone through?
Hmmmmmmmm, let’s see:
Like African-Americans, gay people have been harassed, imprisoned, denied jobs and housing, thrown out of the military, beaten and murdered for their sexual orientation.
Like African Americans, they do not choose their orientation, as African Americans do not choose their skin color.
Unlike African Americans, they are routinely disowned by their families, friends and citizens when revealing their status.
Unlike African Americans, it is still acceptable to discriminate against them.
I cannot control the behavior of every gay person. I conduct my life in a respectable, dignified manner. I go to work, I pay my bills, I pay my taxes, feed my dogs, mow my lawn and live my life much like you do. I’ve been to three gay pride parades in my life. Yes, I saw a few outrageous floats. I also saw a lot of middle-aged, boring gay people out enjoying a walk. I saw parents and friends of gay people walking with the PFLGAG contingent. I saw gay and lesbian couples carrying their children.
Did you actually go to a Pride Parade, Fredo? Or did you just see photos and video of one in the news, which typically runs the most outrageous pictures they get?
You must certainly be an exceptional individual, to be able to sit in moral judgement of so many others…
Have you ever sinned? Gotten drunk and made a fool of yourself? Said something you regretted later? Broken a law, but didn’t get caught?
I doubt that you are perfect; and I doubt even more that all the people you would claim as part of your community are perfect either. Don’t be so quick to judge others.
Ricechex
November 12, 2008 @
7:17 PM
fredo4 wrote: If I was gay, [quote=fredo4] If I was gay, the first thing I would do is get rid of the gay pride parades. I can’t think of anything more demeaning and less worthy of respect than a bunch of guys on a float wearing cone bras. I’m not being flip- I really mean it.[/quote]
I voted no against prop 8. Rights are rights, after all, and I think being selective about who gets what rights, it is not fair.
However, the gay pride parade really doesn’t help the cause here. I have been to a few back in the day, and they were fun and all, but sheesh, it really does get very obnoxious. Then the party goes to the park where it disintegrates into a slut fest. It is a really gross free for all in my book.
HomeShopping
November 12, 2008 @
10:18 PM
For those that support Prop For those that support Prop 8, what is your opinion on Obama and Biden stating that they do not support gay marriage? I know that they may have not supported prop 8 for constitutional reasons, but essentially, they are against gay marriage.
urbanrealtor
November 12, 2008 @
10:41 PM
To Cafeluv:
Let me ask, if To Cafeluv:
Let me ask, if you see Leviticus as only applying to certain people, in a certain time, which parts of the Bible do you see as outlawing being gay?
I also study the bible (including the parts predating the Council of Nicea and the canonization of the Torah) and I don’t really see it.
If we are going based more on today’s norms (which your post seems to imply), that does not seem to be a good place to locate hatred of (or condescension about) sexual acts between consenting adults. Most people in cosmopolitan and suburban America don’t feel gayness to be socially offensive.
But I’ll bite. Which parts of which testament seem to outlaw gayness (bearing in mind that “sodomy” does not literally mean anal or homosexual sex)?
Seems like a slippery argument for someone claiming to be part of a club known for love.
Rich Toscano
November 13, 2008 @
9:12 AM
Folks, “cafeluv” is Marion Folks, “cafeluv” is Marion inexplicably wasting everyone’s time (including her own) by sneaking back into the site yet again to post things that are only going to get deleted. She has done this about a dozen times in the past few days.
She was banned from the site a while back because she crossed the line and started posting personal information about another forum member. I will continue to ban each of her new usernames and to delete all her posts. (BTW yes I have blocked her IP but that’s easy enough to get around).
If she comes back as yet another a new user, not engage her because A) it only seems to encourage her and B) replies to her comments are automatically deleted when I delete the parent comment.
Marion, if you are reading this: we all have better things to do, including you. Please stop.
October 27, 2008 @ 10:37 AM
62% no so far, way to go
62% no so far, way to go piggies!
I have no clue why it would be any of my business who someone else marries. I mean really.
October 27, 2008 @ 10:54 AM
svelte wrote:62% no so far,
[quote=svelte]62% no so far, way to go piggies![/quote]
Sample size of less than 20. Yep, that’s a scientific representation.
October 28, 2008 @ 4:40 PM
meadandale wrote:svelte
[quote=meadandale][quote=svelte]62% no so far, way to go piggies![/quote]
Sample size of less than 20. Yep, that’s a scientific representation.
[/quote]
Maybe you missed the words “so far”. ??
October 31, 2008 @ 4:03 PM
Sample size is 100 now, No is
Sample size is 100 now, No is still 62%.
[quote=meadandale][quote=svelte]62% no so far, way to go piggies![/quote]
Sample size of less than 20. Yep, that’s a scientific representation.
[/quote]
October 27, 2008 @ 11:03 AM
Vote no on all the
Vote no on all the propositions. Ballot initiatives are a really lousy way of doing government and the sooner they stop succeeding the better.
October 27, 2008 @ 12:07 PM
More money spent on weddings
More money spent on weddings and divorces can only be a good thing for the economy. Let everyone enjoy the bliss that is matramony.
October 27, 2008 @ 2:26 PM
When asked if he was against
When asked if he was against gay marriages Fred Thompson replied… “I’m against anyone getting married!”. Gotta love that reasoning. Anything that has a greater than 50 percent chance of failing isn’t that sacared. I bet in 20 years we find out the amount of succesful marriages in the gay community far exceeds the straight per capita.
I for one will not deny someone this…
Equality is Equality.
Oink,
CE
October 27, 2008 @ 2:59 PM
I refuse to vote yes on
I refuse to vote yes on anything that has “ELIMINATES RIGHT” in the title, regardless of what comes after those two words.
October 27, 2008 @ 3:07 PM
Thank you Piggingtons!
My
Thank you Piggingtons!
My partner and I just voted early, both of us against Prop. 8.
Please think twice before supporting something that takes away the rights of others. Please.
October 27, 2008 @ 3:38 PM
Even the chosen one, your
Even the chosen one, your liberator, and his right hand man Joe the Senator are anti-gay marriage.
October 27, 2008 @ 4:22 PM
Yeah, Barack and Joe aren’t
Yeah, Barack and Joe aren’t on the same page as some on the gay marriage issue, but they are certainly more supportive of gay rights than the GOP.
Also, they both oppose the national version of Prop. 8, changing the US Constitution to outlaw gay marriage. So if gay people are allowed to continue to marry here, at least the federal government won’t stand in the way.
October 28, 2008 @ 3:18 PM
Mark Holmes wrote:Yeah,
[quote=Mark Holmes]Yeah, Barack and Joe aren’t on the same page as some on the gay marriage issue, but they are certainly more supportive of gay rights than the GOP.
Also, they both oppose the national version of Prop. 8, changing the US Constitution to outlaw gay marriage. So if gay people are allowed to continue to marry here, at least the federal government won’t stand in the way.[/quote]
How can you stay obama and Biden are more supportive of Gay Marriage then the GOP when Obama and Biden rejects the notion of Gay Marriage??
John
October 28, 2008 @ 4:39 PM
“How can you stay obama and
“How can you stay obama and Biden are more supportive of Gay Marriage then the GOP when Obama and Biden rejects the notion of Gay Marriage??
John”
Um, I didn’t. I would think you would at least read your own post, but apparently you didn’t read yours or mine.
I said they are more supportive of gay rights, not gay marriage.
And John, I have to ask you; are you gay? Because otherwise I don’t understand your concern with this. How, exactly, does it affect you personally?
October 27, 2008 @ 4:25 PM
Sorry, double post.
Sorry, double post.
October 27, 2008 @ 6:08 PM
Mark does have a point or
Mark does have a point or two.
October 27, 2008 @ 7:18 PM
afx114 wrote:I refuse to vote
[quote=afx114]I refuse to vote yes on anything that has “ELIMINATES RIGHT” in the title, regardless of what comes after those two words.[/quote]
My sentiments exactly.
October 27, 2008 @ 7:55 PM
I agree with Fred Thompson.
I agree with Fred Thompson. Everyone should have the opportunity to see just how blissful marriage can be at times. Especially when it’s time to go shopping for a home. Ahhh… Pure heaven!
October 27, 2008 @ 7:59 PM
The divorce attorneys are
The divorce attorneys are rejoicing.
October 27, 2008 @ 7:38 PM
afx114 wrote:I refuse to vote
[quote=afx114]I refuse to vote yes on anything that has “ELIMINATES RIGHT” in the title, regardless of what comes after those two words.[/quote]
This is exactly why Jerry Brown rewrote the admendment that was origionally submitted (ie the signatures were collected for). Not that I am gonna vote for prop 8, but we need to recognize when we are being manipulated politically.
October 27, 2008 @ 8:16 PM
i think gays should have
i think gays should have rights together if they want. but calling it a marriage is going to far.
marriage is for a man and a woman.
(Sorry if you don’t feel the same way)
i don’t really have anything against gays,unless its put in my face like prop 8
October 27, 2008 @ 10:11 PM
“i don’t really have anything
“i don’t really have anything against gays,unless its put in my face like prop 8”
Proposition 8 was not put in your face “by gays”. It was put in your face by the “Christian” Right. The courts made the decision to allow gay marriage and the right is trying to force their idea of morality on my life, and that of others. Propisition 8, if passed, will amend the state constitution to outlaw what is now legal – gay marriage.
Gay marriage has been legal since the spring and the world hasn’t come to an end. Can’t people just live and let live?
October 27, 2008 @ 10:41 PM
tucker… wrote:i think gays
[quote=tucker…]i think gays should have rights together if they want. but calling it a marriage is going to far.
marriage is for a man and a woman.
(Sorry if you don’t feel the same way)
i don’t really have anything against gays,unless its put in my face like prop 8[/quote]
I agree. Gay people should have something separate but equal to marriage. Kind of like riding on the back of the bus.
“Civil unions” are demeaning. If something is recognized as “marriage” by the state for one segment of society, then it must be “marriage” for everyone.
This is a simple matter of the First Amendment. The 1st Amendment forbids the government from favoring Christianity over other religious beliefs (or non-beliefs). Since I am not a Christian, I do not find homosexuality a “sin”. There is no rational, non-dogmatic argument against equal marriage rights for everyone.
October 27, 2008 @ 11:18 PM
“I agree. Gay people should
“I agree. Gay people should have something separate but equal to marriage. Kind of like riding on the back of the bus.”
Props underdog.
That is the single most illustrative and sound-bite friendly way of describing it.
I will use that tomorrow.
I was called by the no on 8 campaign.
I decided after reading some of the stupid things here and elsewhere (honestly, blogs are much more willing to spit hate and vitriol than the TV) to accept their invitation to volunteer at their headquarters. Thank you Tucker for helping me to decide.
October 28, 2008 @ 8:12 AM
urbanrealtor wrote:
“I agree.
[quote=urbanrealtor]
“I agree. Gay people should have something separate but equal to marriage. Kind of like riding on the back of the bus.”
Props underdog.
That is the single most illustrative and sound-bite friendly way of describing it.
I will use that tomorrow.
I was called by the no on 8 campaign.
I decided after reading some of the stupid things here and elsewhere (honestly, blogs are much more willing to spit hate and vitriol than the TV) to accept their invitation to volunteer at their headquarters. Thank you Tucker for helping me to decide.
[/quote]
Awesome urbanrealtor. I awoke this morning to my radio alarm clock stating that 4.something percent of the money to fund prop 8 came from N County, including Encinitas. Made me want to move.
October 28, 2008 @ 8:22 AM
LMAO, priceless! It will be
LMAO, priceless! It will be entertaining to watch these numbers transposed on election day by the polity. Evidently the majority is not quite ready to legitimize perversion.
I remember explaining abortion to my children when they were young and full of questions, after which my eight year old daughter asked, “Why would they want to do that?” Why indeed.
October 27, 2008 @ 11:33 PM
Looks like I’m in the
Looks like I’m in the minority on this site. ‘Marriage’ isn’t a right, it’s a definition of a societal relationship–which was originally, and has been throughout cultures to this point referred to a relationship between a man and a woman. I can’t understand why same-sex couples have to steal the word marriage and use it to define their relationships when their relationship is NOT the same as a relationship between a man and a woman–simply because it isn’t a relationship between a man and a woman. EVERYONE has the right to marry if they choose someone of the opposite gender and EVERYONE has the right to a civil union if they are not inclined to be in a relationship with someone of the opposite gender. I don’t believe it is fair to someone who wants a traditional ‘marriage’ to have to make a special request to have ‘bride’ and ‘groom’ on their wedding certificate because same-sex couples have now required a change to more neutral terminology. Some people do care about societal tradition and definitions, hopefully there are many of these–although I think regardless of the success or failure of Prop8, the lawsuits and contention will continue (hello, doesn’t anyone remember the people voted on this already and the judges overulled us). If there are concerns that ‘civil union’ doesn’t mean the same thing as ‘marriage’, battle on that front and improve the social image for that special relationship to be on the same level of acceptance that marriage has built up through centuries of establishment–but don’t try redefine what the word ‘marriage’ means and call it a ‘rights’ issue.
October 27, 2008 @ 11:55 PM
whysteal, I kind of admire
whysteal, I kind of admire you for sticking your neck out. Yep, you are in the minority here, and for good reason. Incidentally, was it a typo when you called it “Prod8”? I like that! It is a “prod” into our rights.
I partially agree with you that marriage is a definition, except that the government is in the marriage business and it has a legal recognition. That’s why I made the “separate but equal” comment in my earlier post. You say that everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite gender. Does everyone have the right to be born straight? Or white?
Marriage is a definition, as you say: two people promising themselves to each other for life. Marriage transcends any religion, as most religions have a concept of marriage. Therefore, it is not a gift from the Christian god, as the institution existed before Christianity became a religion. It is not a gift from any other god either, as atheists (like myself) marry for love. It is not a means of procreation, as non-child-bearing couples (like my wife and I) marry for love. There is nothing “sacred” about marriage being a man and a woman, not on religious grounds or child bearing grounds. There is a tradition, maybe, but there was a tradition to enslave people with darker skin at one point. Traditions are often bigoted and misguided and need to be abandoned or amended with more enlightened thought.
Many people who oppose gay marriage say it will take something away from their straight marriage. I’ll go the other direction. I want gay marriage to be legal because I think it will add something to my straight marriage. What the world needs now, is love, sweet love.
October 28, 2008 @ 12:24 AM
Although some traditions can
Although some traditions can be bigoted and misguided, marriage has withstood with its standard definition (between a man and a woman) because it does not meet either one of these categories. Comparisons to slavery are completely disingenuous. It’s not the same thing to say ‘this word means a certain thing to me and I don’t want your definition to make my definition of the word and convention disappear’ as it is to say ‘you as a person are not equal to me thus I will make you my slave or treat you as inferior’. Civil union DOES offer the same legal basis, so from a legal standpoint the government is in both the marriage and civil union business. I wouldn’t ever presume to say that from a legal standpoint one is better than the other (thus my comment if anyone finds differences those should be attacked with vigor).
Just a side note to any No on 8 supporters that are in the groups defacing signs and or public property (houses with spray paint on the garage door, friend of mine had their car keyed with a No message because they had a Yes on 8 bumper sticker)–this doesn’t really send a message of love, sweet love to those of us trying to get our message out there and act on an actual right: to free speech. Not exactly my ‘definition’ of love, sweet love, but I guess it’s all about redefining anyway, isn’t it.
October 28, 2008 @ 12:10 AM
Marriage as a term and a
Marriage as a term and a category has two primary values.
Marriage is a civil union in the eyes of the government.
It is a holy union in the eyes of the faithful.
This is really about bringing parity in terms of the rights of different types of civil unions. I am married. I was married by the chaplain of Caesar’s Palace (classy I know). Wife and I set it up online. That marriage is clearly a civil union. No priest does (or probably would) recognize this (though the after-party may have some relevance there) as a holy union.
If all civil unions were treated equally (they’re not) this conversation about names would not be happening and the courts would not be involved in the same way.
The fact is that those called “marriage” are treated differently in a way that is unfair. Addressing that unfairness and correcting laws that violate the constitution is the domain of the supreme court.
You can pass any law or referendum you want but the court always the right to make sure you follow the highest law.
And yeah, Whysteal, its a right and we all get equal rights. Its not tradition but tradition seldom trumps the constitution.
October 28, 2008 @ 12:12 AM
dammit underdose quit posting
dammit underdose quit posting while I am posting. It just makes me (more) redundant.
October 28, 2008 @ 12:46 AM
urbanrealtor: Civil unions in
urbanrealtor: Civil unions in CA do have the same legal rights.
I missed the part of the constitution (USA or CA) that grants the right to ‘marriage’ without societal definition. Marriage has had changes throughout the history of the USA to actually be MORE restrictive than some historical times(someone better let the polygamists or child-mate-seeking of all gender know their rights are being violated!!!) but the definition of being between a man and a woman has withstood and I hope it will continue to. California voters passed Proposition 22 in 2000 by more than 61%, saying that a marriage in California is between a man and a woman, judges have overturned that, but this is the chance for people to speak with their vote again. I’m sure the legal challenges will continue from both sides regardless of the outcome of the vote (looking on the bright side, at least a few lawyers can rejoice in job security!!).
October 28, 2008 @ 8:31 AM
whysteal wrote:urbanrealtor:
[quote=whysteal]urbanrealtor: Civil unions in CA do have the same legal rights.
I missed the part of the constitution (USA or CA) that grants the right to ‘marriage’ without societal definition. Marriage has had changes throughout the history of the USA to actually be MORE restrictive than some historical times(someone better let the polygamists or child-mate-seeking of all gender know their rights are being violated!!!) but the definition of being between a man and a woman has withstood and I hope it will continue to. California voters passed Proposition 22 in 2000 by more than 61%, saying that a marriage in California is between a man and a woman, judges have overturned that, but this is the chance for people to speak with their vote again. I’m sure the legal challenges will continue from both sides regardless of the outcome of the vote (looking on the bright side, at least a few lawyers can rejoice in job security!!).[/quote]
Similarity of rights:
Since same-sex unions are not recognizable outside the state of CA, they do not have the same rights as marriage. That is why this public conversation is happening. Allowing marriage per se will move this a step closer to universal federal recognition.
Legislating from the bench (and other Bushisms):
It is not only the right but the responsibility for courts to overturn laws that violate the state or national constitution. It says so right in the constitution (61% or not).
Right to marriage:
I was referring to equal protection. That is a constitutional right and one of the bases to allow gay unions that can be called “marriage” on paper. You can have a church marriage to multiple people. There is only a restriction on how many people can be in a civil marriage. As far as comparing homosexuality to pederasty, I really think that is despicable on your part whysteal and I think you should be ashamed of yourself.
October 28, 2008 @ 8:52 AM
Amazing the things that
Amazing the things that people will say and choose to believe when they feel terrified.
What is so terrifying about gay sex? (cause let’s face it, that is what this really comes down to). Is it your programing that tells you one will go to hell for it?
Be not afraid.
Out of the body, we do not have gender. We are beings of light who hold both male and female energies at the same time.
Life is so much easier and more joyful when you release your programming and begin to exist in the moment.
October 28, 2008 @ 9:23 AM
I think this is a great
I think this is a great example of how people get distracted from real issues.
October 28, 2008 @ 9:43 AM
nostradamus wrote:I think
[quote=nostradamus]I think this is a great example of how people get distracted from real issues.[/quote]
No kidding, the whole argument reminds me of what a physicist said about the science community accepting new truths.
November 1, 2008 @ 9:05 PM
whysteal wrote:urbanrealtor:
[quote=whysteal]urbanrealtor: Civil unions in CA do have the same legal rights.
I missed the part of the constitution (USA or CA) that grants the right to ‘marriage’ without societal definition. Marriage has had changes throughout the history of the USA to actually be MORE restrictive than some historical times(someone better let the polygamists or child-mate-seeking of all gender know their rights are being violated!!!) but the definition of being between a man and a woman has withstood and I hope it will continue to. California voters passed Proposition 22 in 2000 by more than 61%, saying that a marriage in California is between a man and a woman, judges have overturned that, but this is the chance for people to speak with their vote again. I’m sure the legal challenges will continue from both sides regardless of the outcome of the vote (looking on the bright side, at least a few lawyers can rejoice in job security!!).[/quote]
Courts should also be looking hard at propositions passed by an electorate that is easily manipulated by lobbyists (they don’t have the money to hire their own lobbyists to investigate the matter) and when those propositions are passed by 61% of those WHO VOTED!! not of the population of the state. I think typically voter turnout is less than half of eligible voters, so the courts should most certainly be critical of these “laws” passed by less than 50% of an uneducated electorate.
Has anyone been following the news/rumor that the push for Yes on Prop 8 is majorly funded by the Mormon church? Isn’t that like Utah trying to tell California what to do? It’s anti-federalism!
November 1, 2008 @ 10:23 PM
Shadowfax wrote:Has anyone
[quote=Shadowfax]Has anyone been following the news/rumor that the push for Yes on Prop 8 is majorly funded by the Mormon church? Isn’t that like Utah trying to tell California what to do? It’s anti-federalism![/quote]
The irony here is that the Mormans are constantly under attack for their “fringe” beliefs about marriage. And yet here they are promoting that which would ban a “fringe” belief about marriage.
How is Prop 8 beneficial to Mormons?
November 1, 2008 @ 10:51 PM
One of the owners of
One of the owners of Bolthouse Farms threw in 100,000 for prop 8
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/5/171142/9458/387/530481
About Bolthouse Farms
by The Bilerico Project
Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 02:19:59 PM PDT
William Bolthouse has just donated $100,000 dollars to the ballot initiative to amend California’s constitution to ban same-sex marriage. He owns 43% of Bolthouse Farms, a company famous for its juice.
A couple of blogs have mentioned this before, but, really, it’s just par for the course for Bolthouse juice. Since 2000, much of that money from the juice has gone to fund fundamentalist, homophobic, and right wing operations.
Back in 2000, he donated $2000 to Bush’s presidential campaign and $1000 to GWB’s campaign in 2004…………………..
November 1, 2008 @ 10:54 PM
Enorah wrote:A couple of
[quote=Enorah]A couple of blogs have mentioned this before, but, really, it’s just par for the course for Bolthouse juice. Since 2000, much of that money from the juice has gone to fund fundamentalist, homophobic, and right wing operations.
[/quote]
Reminds me of Anita Bryant and the Florida Orange Growers Association.
Anybody else remember that debacle?
October 29, 2008 @ 2:29 PM
Yes on prop 8.
Yes on prop 8.
October 29, 2008 @ 2:32 PM
I completely agree whysteal.
I completely agree whysteal. I respect gay people and I have few gay friends. But we should not change the definition of marriage to include the same sex unions. The tradition of marriage has been established mostly for the purpose of protecting children, outcome of relationship between man and woman.
October 29, 2008 @ 2:59 PM
How does gay marriage fail to
How does gay marriage fail to protect children?
If you were really, truly interested in protecting children, then you would push for the abolition of the Catholic Church where so, so many children have been molested over the years.
[quote=markzuber]The tradition of marriage has been established mostly for the purpose of protecting children…
[/quote]
October 28, 2008 @ 7:14 AM
I’m opposed to gay marriage
I’m opposed to gay marriage int he sense that im opposed to all marriage. the thing I always liekd about gay guysin the old days was they got laid all the time, no minivans. are the days of wine and roses and leather underwear over forever? are gays going to be as dull as the rest of us. still prop 8 is repellent. get a life, people; standing on the street waving yes on prop 8 signs seems kind of small and weird. I’m going to assume from now on that theyre just opposed to gay marriage because they’re opposed to all marriage, and that sign-furlers want us all to live more like I remmeber gay guys in the west village in the 70’s. Man, I wish i coulda been gay back then , without the prospect of aids. it woulda been awesome. the only downside; you don’ get to have sex with women. dammit.
October 28, 2008 @ 9:47 AM
Issue is changing the
Issue is changing the definition of something- especially that is fundamental building block of civilization. Any deviation or perversion of definition of marriage has another name (polygamy, beastiality- yes some of them do claim to marry their pets). All of you who vote NO on Prop 8 and want to change the definition of something- you must logically support the cuase for polygamists, 2 men and 3 women, human and animal, or just 1 person marrying themself. If you do not, then you are close minded, hateful and want to deny others theri right to marry anyone(s) or anything they want. Basically, if you are going to call orange green, why not call it purple or white.
Sorry, emotions and whims crack and break against the rocks of logic.
October 28, 2008 @ 9:57 AM
The major emotions that are
The major emotions that are human…hope, fear and greed. We’re headed into fear at this time, it’s gaining momentum. Greed is busy being destroyed in the market. How long can hope last after fear is accepted as the norm?
I love fear! It gives the fearless the advantage over most people. Greed and hope keep the competition in the game. What a hassle it is to have competition! Long live fear!!!
October 28, 2008 @ 10:06 AM
ppablo123 wrote:All of you
[quote=ppablo123]All of you who vote NO on Prop 8 and want to change the definition of something- you must logically support the cuase for polygamists, 2 men and 3 women, human and animal, or just 1 person marrying themself.[/quote]
Obligatory quote: “Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!”
Even if there were dogs and cats living together, why would that matter to you and your marriage? Isn’t your marriage between you, your spouse, and God?
I also wonder if you’d like to outlaw divorce in order to protect the sanctity of marriage.
October 28, 2008 @ 10:14 AM
Be very afraid of gay people.
Be very afraid of gay people. They want what everyone else wants. That’s dangerous! There’s only so much marriage to go around, ya know! Plus, this will open the door to all those other people that pose a threat to our world! Pretty soon native americans will want things they shouldnt have, too… like casino’s. Oops, too late, the devils got that now, too. Pretty soon catholic preist will want to marry their alter boys! The mind boggles at the endless possibilities.
Damn these freedom things!! They get outta control so darn fast!
October 28, 2008 @ 10:39 AM
I notice you didnt respond to
I notice you didnt respond to the logic of my argument. I never dicussed outlawing anything- stick with the facts- something a lot of people seem to have a hard time doing! Take your emotions out of the equation and focus. I’m not trying to be mean or rude, but everyone is so emotionally hysterical- and logic and reason usually goes out the window when that happens.
October 28, 2008 @ 10:48 AM
ppablo123 wrote:I notice you
[quote=ppablo123]I notice you didnt respond to the logic of my argument.[/quote]
That’s because the premise of your argument is irrelevant. Who cares if men are marrying men or men are marrying multiple women or if dogs are marrying cats? As long as everyone involved is happy and no rights are being infringed, why does any of that matter?
Can you explain to me how any of the above situations affect you?
October 28, 2008 @ 10:58 AM
afx
you wrote, Who cares if
afx
you wrote, Who cares if men are marrying men or men are marrying multiple women or if dogs are marrying cats? As long as everyone involved is happy
Hmmm, yeah I think most people would care. I dont think most people would want their tax dollars in the form of marriage benefits to go to cats, or welfare to pay for a man with 5 wives and 18 kids- would you?
Please think your comments all the way through.
October 28, 2008 @ 11:17 AM
ppablo123 wrote:I dont think
[quote=ppablo123]I dont think most people would want their tax dollars in the form of marriage benefits to go to cats, or welfare to pay for a man with 5 wives and 18 kids- would you?[/quote]
Why would single people want their tax dollars in the form of marriage benefits to go to a man and a woman who are married? Are you married? Are you willing to give up your tax benefits for those people who are single? Why should single people subsidize married peoples’ lives?
When you advise people to follow your logic, perhaps you should start by following your own.
October 28, 2008 @ 11:29 AM
afx
how would you know that
afx
how would you know that I’m not following my own logic if you didn’t know what my answers would be to your questions? Also, my answers to those questions would have no ramification to the logic and reason I asked you to follow regarding the argument in my original post.
afx- I dont know how many times I asked to take emotion out of this- now go back and re-read your last statement. It sounds childish- aside from the fact that it doens’t bare on the original facts of my argument- you are bringing up entirely different facts- and you still didnt answer any of the previous questions.
You must be a liberal- I can tell by how you think. Not trying to be demeaning, but your idea flow and argumentaion technique is so obscure and jumpy- its just very similar to liberals.
October 28, 2008 @ 11:44 AM
ppablo,
Each of my retorts
ppablo,
Each of my retorts has been a response to one of yours.
1) You bring up the marrying of animals which has nothing to do with Prop 8. I point out how this is irrelevant.
2) You bring up tax benefits of marriage, saying it would be unfair for dogs & cats getting tax breaks for being married. I point out that un-married people are already subsidizing married peoples’ lives and it is unfair to single people.
3) You call me childish and a liberal – ad hominem, thought I wear the liberal label proudly.
Sounds to me that each time your arguments get shot down your bust out a new premise instead of sticking to the argument at hand.
So lets get back to the original question. Do you support Prop 8 because:
a) You don’t want animals to be able to marry someday
b) You don’t think it’s fair for married people to get tax breaks
c) Civilization will crumble if Prop 8 fails
d) Some other reason (if so, please specify)
e) All of the above
October 28, 2008 @ 12:14 PM
afx,
sorry- you havent shot
afx,
sorry- you havent shot down anything yet.
1. go back to my original post. 2 men, 3 women, 1 man, 10 women, marrying oneself, marrying animals- you should support all of them to be logically consistent. Otherwise, you just want to change the definition of something to include one groups rights, but want to deny those same rights to all those other groups I just mentioned. So if we are going to change the definition, and you are for that- why not make it open ended to include anything- that way everyone’s rights are honored- the polygamists, the animal love groups, a group of 5 women, 2 men and 3 cats, or just 1 person by themself. If its really not between a man and woman, who said it has to be between 2 people? U never answered that- sure didnt shoot it down.
2. You point out the obvious, I agree with you. I just asked would you want those benefits extended to all these other groups in #1.
3. And the liberal thing- I knew it (not meant as an ad hominem- but your comment I referenced was very childish though- be honest enought to admit that too) Thanks for being honest enough. But the reason I could tell was not from your position on this issue, its on how you formulate thought- the rudiments of how your brain works and puts ideas together. Logic and reason dont play a huge part in that. Nothing wrong, some people think with emotion and feeling- be proud of it- just dont try and call it what it is not.
October 28, 2008 @ 12:47 PM
ppablo:
I have no problem
ppablo:
I have no problem with polygamy, or men marrying dogs, assuming all parties involved willfully agree. Whether or not a dog could willfully agree to marriage is another discussion.
Yeah, I definitely have no logic or reason. You got me there, buddy! That’s what makes me a liberal I guess. I’m sure if I had logic and reason I’d be a conservative. I’m guessing that psychic abilities are also conservative traits, seeing how you can see the rudiments of how other peoples’ brains work.
With that out of the way, are you ready to abolish divorce?
October 28, 2008 @ 1:36 PM
afx114 wrote:ppablo:
I have
[quote=afx114]ppablo:
I have no problem with polygamy, or men marrying dogs, assuming all parties involved willfully agree. Whether or not a dog could willfully agree to marriage is another discussion.
[/quote]
Hopefully without getting my head bit off in this little Blog-o-war Id just like to comment that the above is definatly something that needs to be considered. There are groups that will raise the issue that if marriage can be between any two people, why not three? OR Four? Or Ten? Why can’t I marry a man, AND a woman if I am bi? That is my biology, shouldnt it also be my right?
I know AFX doesnt care about this side of the issue, but what about the rest of the no on 8 majority? Do you care if everyone has the right to marry anyone and everyone? And yes it will effect you, if in no other way than the fact that most Americans get Health Insurance from their employeer, and spouses are often included. More people on the insurance, the more it will most likely cost (if everyone was really really healthy, I guess it could cost less but I digress).
Personally, I think the government needs to get out of the marriage buisness all together. Benifits for things like children, which the state most assuradly has an interest in, could be tied to the actual rearing of children, and not the potential for making them. We could allow for a legal “union” form to encourage basic support and caring for one another. The law would simply state that it is only valid for one person, or if we are ok with polygamy then we could increase it without endangering “marriage”. If you dont want to support that person anymore, then the contract has a specified ending. It would simplify what we now know as divorce and end the messy and angry fights as the end was previously agreed upon. basically it is required Prenup.
Religious institutions could easily still preform “marriages” within the congregation, and the forms from the Gov would be exactly the same. I guess you could argue that this strips atheists from being “married” but isnt it the rights that are important and not the word? If the word is important, then there must be something to the yes on 8 campaign.
I personally have wondered about this issue, and I guess I just come down the fact that this is all more about acceptance of homosexual relations than anything. Civil unions provide all the same rights as marriages but are thought to be unequal in societal terms. Fine. How about everyone gets a civil union from the government and a marriage from whatever religious institution you decided to join, even if it is the “1st house of atheiest disbelievers”.
October 28, 2008 @ 4:15 PM
afx,
I didn’t say you dont
afx,
I didn’t say you dont have any logic, just that you dont seem to have a very thorough understanding of it and how it works, how language is used to express it…
I dont need to be psychic to see how your mind works, I just need to listen (or in this case read) and be observant of how you express thoughts, the order you choose to do so and the flow between them- nothing psychic involved.
As far as abolishing divorce (which is something unrelated to the proposition, this board and any of my posts)- I dont understand why you would want to do that- or anyone else for that matter. I certainly never suggested it. Basically it is a termination of the contract of marriage.
Remember, my point was and always has been about the definition of marriage- what it is and what it is not. Something tells me you wouldn’t be supporting and wasting time writing on a blog about a guy wanting to marry another guy and 8 women, or a goldfish though.
October 28, 2008 @ 4:19 PM
Come on everybody, quit
Come on everybody, quit picking onthe tard. Something tells me he’s living under a bridge.
October 28, 2008 @ 4:37 PM
I’d prefer that
I’d prefer that church/state-sanctioned “marriages” didn’t exist. Just have legally recognized civil unions – between one man, one woman, or multiple men and multiple women – I don’t give a rat’s ass so long as they’re adults and human. The fact that so many people spend so much time worrying about how other people live their private lives shows just how pitiful their own lives are. I honestly feel sorry for these folks.
October 28, 2008 @ 4:37 PM
ppablo123 wrote:As far as
[quote=ppablo123]As far as abolishing divorce (which is something unrelated to the proposition, this board and any of my posts)[/quote]
Marrying dogs and polygamy is unrelated to the Proposition too, so why did you bring them up? These are your words:
You can’t just spout off talking points and not expect them to get shot down.
[quote=ppablo123]As far as abolishing divorce I certainly never suggested it. Basically it is a termination of the contract of marriage.[/quote]
No, you didn’t suggest it. But you suggested that opponents of Prop 8 should also support polygamy and bestiality, something that neither I nor the Prop suggest. I’m doing the same thing for proponents of Prop 8 and divorce in order to point out the absurdity of giant leaps of logic. One of your reasons for supporting Prop 8 is that marriage is the fabric of society, and in order to preserve society, we need to preserve marriage. Following this logic, we should also ban divorce. This is following your own logic.
Pot, meet kettle.
October 28, 2008 @ 5:10 PM
afx,
I try to be nice, but
afx,
I try to be nice, but you still dont get the logic thing, even though you use the word a lot. Bringing up divorce is not logically consistant with changing the definition of marriage. Multiple people married, animals, 1 person all represent the wishes of many people- if you change a definition to include your group- why are leaving out others? That is a logical question- what basis do you use to keep marriage from these other groups? Divorce- this is something completely different- not logically consistant. Prop 8 isn’t proposing or changing definitions or words. It is called a non sequiter- meaning it doesn’t follow.
Your emotions- you say “preserving marriage and preserving society” your words, not mine. I’m just talking about definition and what something is, and what it isn’t.
afx, good luck on the 4th and in life. One thing I think we can agree on, an ability to understand logic or think that way, a high or low IQ, rich or poor shouldn’t make one ineligible to vote or be heard- all human beings are created equal regardless of what ability they possess or how much they lack. Thats one thing that makes this country great!
October 28, 2008 @ 5:16 PM
ppablo123 wrote:afx, good
[quote=ppablo123]afx, good luck on the 4th and in life. One thing I think we can agree on, an ability to understand logic or think that way, a high or low IQ, rich or poor shouldn’t make one ineligible to vote or be heard- all human beings are created equal regardless of what ability they possess or how much they lack. Thats one thing that makes this country great![/quote]
This is perhaps the only thing I agree with you on. 🙂
But I find it ironic that you say “all human beings are created equal” in the same thread where you profess your support for a Prop that will do the opposite.
Anyway, good luck to you and your logical, high-IQ friends on the 4th!
October 28, 2008 @ 7:14 PM
All humans being equal has
All humans being equal has nothing to do with what the definition of ‘marriage’ is. Like I said many posts ago, anyone can get ‘married’ and anyone can get a ‘civil union’. They are definitions of different things and I haven’t heard one valid argument that legitimizes making their name the same. If civil unions are lacking, spend the money and energy to remediate that condition.
Oh, and to whoever said shame on me for comparing child-marriage to this situation–my comparison was only a factual representation of what some societies have considered within the boundary of the marriage definition). Our society (and I agree) has deemed this to be not part of the definition of marriage we accept.
I agree with the poster that the government could simplify it all and get out of the marriage business altogether, but as long as it is still being defined at the gov. level I am optimistic that our society will repeat what they have already voiced by defining the definition of marriage (again) as being between 1 man and 1 woman.
October 28, 2008 @ 10:34 AM
ppablo123 wrote:Issue is
[quote=ppablo123]Issue is changing the definition of something- especially that is fundamental building block of civilization. Any deviation or perversion of definition of marriage has another name (polygamy, beastiality- yes some of them do claim to marry their pets). All of you who vote NO on Prop 8 and want to change the definition of something- you must logically support the cuase for polygamists, 2 men and 3 women, human and animal, or just 1 person marrying themself. If you do not, then you are close minded, hateful and want to deny others theri right to marry anyone(s) or anything they want. Basically, if you are going to call orange green, why not call it purple or white.
Sorry, emotions and whims crack and break against the rocks of logic.[/quote]
Where’s CONCHO when we need him?
October 28, 2008 @ 10:41 AM
Issue is changing the
Issue is changing the definition of something- especially that is fundamental building block of civilization.
You obviously don’t know the history of marriage or the definition of civilization for that matter. In ancient greece a wife had less rights the high class prostitutes and was primarily for housekeeping and child rearing. Actually the only instances of “romantic” love noted during this time was between men. Interestingly this is where the democracy was thought of. In Rome for a brief period same sex marriage was permitted by the state. In early Christianity marriage was a private matter and no state was involved later after the state became involved it was more of a proprietary affair and was primarily for making family alliances and building wealth. Definitions have most assuredly changed overtime on many different levels.
Civilization may or may not continue, but it will have nothing to do with gay marriage if it ends and spending energy on this subject takes time away from the issues that very well could end civilization, which there are many.
Actually, thinking about it gay people are valuable contributors to the overpopulation problem which may be one of civilization’s biggest enemies at this point. So in that respect they are a saviour of civilization. More breeders we do not need.
October 28, 2008 @ 10:51 AM
arraya
by mentioning the
arraya
by mentioning the different forms or perversions of something from different peoples thousands of years ago- sorry but it doesn’t make your point. Im talking about this country, this people, this constitution, this definition.
If you respond to me- please keep to the facts of my original post. Logic and reason please, please, please. Thank you.
October 28, 2008 @ 11:11 AM
ppablo123 wrote:Issue is
[quote=ppablo123]Issue is changing the definition of something- especially that is fundamental building block of civilization. Any deviation or perversion of definition of marriage has another name (polygamy, beastiality- yes some of them do claim to marry their pets). All of you who vote NO on Prop 8 and want to change the definition of something- you must logically support the cuase for polygamists, 2 men and 3 women, human and animal, or just 1 person marrying themself. If you do not, then you are close minded, hateful and want to deny others theri right to marry anyone(s) or anything they want. Basically, if you are going to call orange green, why not call it purple or white.
Sorry, emotions and whims crack and break against the rocks of logic.[/quote]
Rocks of logic!? The fact that you see your mental delusions as logic disturbs me.
This is legalizing marriage for TWO consenting adults. There is nothing LOGICAL about your slippery slope argument. A child cannot consent to marriage. A dog cannot consent to marriage. A horse cannot consent to marriage. It does not open this up to ANY of that.
October 28, 2008 @ 11:25 AM
ppablo123, for someone who
ppablo123, for someone who harps on logic and sticking to the arguement…you sure lack a lot of it yourself! You jump to your own conlusions and judgement by mearly stating them like they are fact. When they are your judgements, and not fact or logic at all. By saying a dog has four feet, does everything with four feet now become a dog? According you, it does. So, you lack the most basic of logical cognition capabilities. Two consenting adults. Doesnt sound that hard to me.Not dogs, not cats, not children, not anything else you allude to as well. Before you retort with your usual lack of logic, let me quote your judgements.
“..fundamental building block of civilization.”
“Any deviation or perversion of definition of marriage has another name..”
Man, I thought Bush could sound stupid. But I guess the people that voted for him are better at it than even he.
October 28, 2008 @ 11:36 AM
perteb-
you sound like afx.
perteb-
you sound like afx. Just because you use the word logic in a sentence- that doens’t make you smart or even show you really know what it means, how to use it… your example of the dog is evidence of that. Then you go with the ad hominem attack- yes I must be stupid because you cant comprehend me- WOW- you must be really smart!
What is the building block of civilization. Ask any sociologist (a group of which I used to belong to). Country, state, county, city…person. But a person cant build on their own- here it is doen through family- they grow and multiply. And the family’s nuclieaus is man and woman. Again, they grow and multiply.
So there is your sociology lesson for the day- free of charge. (and yes, other forms of relationship have other names)
October 28, 2008 @ 12:01 PM
ppablo123 wrote:Country,
[quote=ppablo123]Country, state, county, city…person. But a person cant build on their own- here it is doen through family- they grow and multiply. And the family’s nuclieaus is man and woman.[/quote]
A family can grow just fine without some label “marriage.” And if a family’s nucleus is a man and woman, does that mean I am not a valid member of society because I was raised by a single mom? Does that make me a second class citizen? There are countless examples of individuals and families that have been successful without marriage. It’s not as important to the grand scheme of society as you’ve been lead to believe. Therefore, a man marrying a man will not have the dire consequences for society that you think.
And I will restate: By your logic we should also outlaw divorce. If marriage is so required for a successful society, we should do our best to prevent the breakdown of marriage. I propose prop 8 in 4 years: Restrict the right of married couples to divorce.
October 31, 2008 @ 10:42 PM
Prop 8 seems silly to me.
Prop 8 seems silly to me. Instead of re-writing the constitution, we just need to get webster to change the definition. Straights and gays already have the same rights, but it’s the wording that is different, and who really cares about a word. To be fair though, either everybody should have the right to a civil union, or everybody should have the right to marriage.
October 28, 2008 @ 11:14 AM
ppablo123 wrote:Issue is
[quote=ppablo123]Issue is changing the definition of something- especially that is fundamental building block of civilization. Any deviation or perversion of definition of marriage has another name (polygamy, beastiality- yes some of them do claim to marry their pets). All of you who vote NO on Prop 8 and want to change the definition of something- you must logically support the cuase for polygamists, 2 men and 3 women, human and animal, or just 1 person marrying themself. If you do not, then you are close minded, hateful and want to deny others theri right to marry anyone(s) or anything they want. Basically, if you are going to call orange green, why not call it purple or white.
Sorry, emotions and whims crack and break against the rocks of logic.[/quote]
Your argument has NO logic. First you start with a false premise that marriage between and man and women is the building block of civilization, which is ridiculous on its face then you say a societal norm has a well defined definition. Which it never has and never will because that is the nature of societal norms. They are constantly morphing and changing to new information whether you like it or not, which I have clearly outlined. The burden is on you to show historically how marriage between and man a woman has always been the same from the beginning of time. As well as how changing that could undermine civilization. Let me give you a hint. You can’t.
October 28, 2008 @ 5:14 PM
ppablo123 wrote:Issue is
[quote=ppablo123]Issue is changing the definition of something- especially that is fundamental building block of civilization. Any deviation or perversion of definition of marriage has another name (polygamy, beastiality- yes some of them do claim to marry their pets).
[/quote]
Not to be at all snarky about this, female orgasm was, in the last century, called “hysterical paroxysm”. Psychologists have a less-than-spotless reputation of categorizing these things.
[quote=ppablo123]All of you who vote NO on Prop 8 and want to change the definition of something- you must logically support the cuase for polygamists, 2 men and 3 women, human and animal, or just 1 person marrying themself.
[/quote]
Personally, I’ll apply the same logic to polygamists as I did in an earlier post: I may not agree with their tastes, but it’s none of my business what adults choose to do freely in their homes without harming anyone. Or more precisely, I’d rather not let other people have a say in my marriage; therefore the golden rule tells me to stay out of theirs.
Child abuse & bestiality are red herrings. They have nothing to do with consensual relations between adults.
October 28, 2008 @ 4:43 PM
I was raised Jewish. My wife
I was raised Jewish. My wife was raised Catholic. A few centuries ago, it was illegal for us to get married. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s still illegal and opposed by the majority in certain countries. Our marriage is working out very well despite their opinions.
We have a handful of mixed-race married friends, who are very happy together, and very much couldn’t legally get married 60 years ago, when it was apparently opposed by a majority of the state.
Now, I may find male homsexuality kinda gross and unnatural, and have negative reactions to certain gay friends who are way to promiscuous for their own good, but I don’t see why my opinion should affect their desire to get married. I don’t want anyone else’s opinion affecting the legality of my marriage, and I’ll give them the same courtesy.
October 28, 2008 @ 10:34 PM
I think really we should have
I think really we should have marriage be the way it is in Europe: everyone has the “civil union” and then you have the optional church marriage later. I think that marriage is between a man and a woman, but if you are going to assign rights and privileges to people based on a “marital” status, then lets just take marriage out of the state, and keep it in the church. Civil unions for everyone, with the same legal rights.
October 29, 2008 @ 7:46 AM
The perfect solution! I like
The perfect solution! I like that alot.
[quote=kitty-kat]I think really we should have marriage be the way it is in Europe: everyone has the “civil union” and then you have the optional church marriage later. I think that marriage is between a man and a woman, but if you are going to assign rights and privileges to people based on a “marital” status, then lets just take marriage out of the state, and keep it in the church. Civil unions for everyone, with the same legal rights. [/quote]
October 29, 2008 @ 8:14 AM
I’m with you pablo. I’ve
I’m with you pablo. I’ve asked the same question about 3 people marrying and most responses say that ridiculous, and will never happen, which proves my point.
This proposition is a masked attempt to provide “equal rights” in the form of destroying what marriage is and means.
A better way to pose this proposition would be “Do you support the traditional marriage-based family?”
I’m all for equal rights for civil unions – they’re still people – but this proposition misdirects it’s efforts and traditional family values, morals, and marriages are at risk.
Right idea, wrong approach. Vote yes, but then find a better way to administer these rights.
October 29, 2008 @ 10:09 AM
Cooprider:
Since the law is
Cooprider:
Since the law is totally oriented around these labels, the use and permission around these labels matters a lot.
If civil union were equivalent to marriages then we would not be having these conversation. But, like I said earlier, they are not. They do not convey the same bundle of rights. Most long-term same-sex partners I know have lawyers and trusts set up to handle this. However, one should not have to spend thousands of dollars to hire a lawyer to get the same rights that others only have to purchase a marriage license to get.
Fairness is what the government is there for. Whether it is framed as justice or jurisprudence, thats what the govt does.
To Whysteal:
Sorry, you must have been comparing homosexuality to pedophilia in good way. My mistake. Perhaps you could build upon this and compare minorities to animals while you are at it.
As far as whether other alternative marriages will be coming, honestly, who knows?
However, currently our culture, not just our laws, don’t permit for child or animal marriages. Both our culture and our laws only allow for consenting adults to make adult decisions.
If consenting adults decide for some other kind of alternative marriage (eg: polygamy), then maybe it will happen. If it does not hurt me, I don’t mind. Honestly, I don’t have a problem with my son learning about it either. If others want to raise their children in bigoted or fundamentalist ways, then that is there prerogative.
On a side note:
I was raised in public schools and with a strong religious background. I find it interesting and ironic to see fake Christians frame bigotry (homophobia, islamophobia) as God’s will. Better yet, there is this pervasive fear that same sex relationships will undermine morals or society. Have you been to gay neighborhoods? They tend to be really nice. Also, I am not sure how mutually consenting sexual acts define one’s morals. I think it would be more fair to say that those worried about upholding tradition live in an ongoing state fear of any change.
October 29, 2008 @ 10:11 AM
UR, then give them equal
UR, then give them equal rights upon entering a civil union – change that law. Don’t destroy what marriage is.
October 29, 2008 @ 3:39 PM
Since marriage is a civil
Since marriage is a civil union, whether we make same sex unions equivalent to marriage or marriage open to same sex pairings seems irrelevant…except for one thing.
We are saying that same sex unions are separate but equal. That is not a logic that typically holds in policy circles. Nor should it.
Primarily, that is because separate is by definition never equal. If civil unions were recognized in every state (as marriage is), then the distinction between the 2 categories would be essentially non-existent. But it is more time effective to open up an existing category than change policy (on civil unions) in 50 states.
Even your separate but equal solution would make marriage into just a civil union (or at least indistinguishable). And you might get that wish.
October 31, 2008 @ 12:10 PM
cooprider wrote:UR, then give
[quote=cooprider]UR, then give them equal rights upon entering a civil union – change that law. Don’t destroy what marriage is.[/quote]
I have yet to see one single lucent argument as to exactly why allowing same sex couples to call themselves married will in any way, shape or form, will destroy marriage for opposite sex couples. Not one single reason how this will hurt so called traditional marriages.
So I’ll simply ask… how will this destroy “what marriage is”???
BTW, if I could marry my dog I would. She’s unconditionally loyal and affectionate, she only nags me for food and “outside”, and I get more compliments for how “cute” she is, than I do for my human wife, by about 2-1. She’s my real trophy wife! Make it legal!
October 31, 2008 @ 12:16 PM
Never mind, UR just perfectly
Never mind, UR just perfectly stated all the real reasons why its going to destroy real marriages. Well done sir (or maam)… Great stuff! 🙂
October 31, 2008 @ 2:45 PM
kicksavedave wrote:Never
[quote=kicksavedave]Never mind, UR just perfectly stated all the real reasons why its going to destroy real marriages. Well done sir (or maam)… Great stuff! 🙂
[/quote]
DUde, calling me a maam just cuz I am an agent in Hillcrest is so…..gay.
That joke goes over better in my office. I am the only breeder (that means non-gay).
The humor for me being that most of the older lesbians have kids.
October 29, 2008 @ 12:53 PM
urbanrealtor wrote:
To
[quote=urbanrealtor]
To Whysteal:
Sorry, you must have been comparing homosexuality to pedophilia in good way. My mistake. Perhaps you could build upon this and compare minorities to animals while you are at it.[/quote]
AH yes, the “you dont agree with me so you must represent every negative hatful point of view ever observed” attack. Good one UR, especially from someone who ususally tries to stick to the facts. I dont remember Whysteal saying anything racist, but then obviously anyone who doesnt agree with you on this point must also not agree with you on other similar issues and should be beaten down to a pulp so that they can be ignored by the more “enlightened” among us.
Calling someone a racist is the easiest way to win the topic because there is no defence against it and everyone will turn against those who have now been labelled. Weither they are making a racist argument or not is besides the point. If he had made racist statements, then attack him for those, not his precieved homophobia.
The point being made right now is a valid one, no matter how many rude attacks you make against those making it. It is a theoritical and open ended look at what we call marriage and the societal implications of changing something that has been static in American culture since its founding. If we are gonna change the definition because it no longer fits our needs, fine, but lets do it completely instead of piece meal. You obviously understood all this on some level because you go into the rather lengthy points below that begin to adress the question posted.
[quote=urbanrealtor] As far as whether other alternative marriages will be coming, honestly, who knows?
However, currently our culture, not just our laws, don’t permit for child or animal marriages. Both our culture and our laws only allow for consenting adults to make adult decisions.
If consenting adults decide for some other kind of alternative marriage (eg: polygamy), then maybe it will happen. If it does not hurt me, I don’t mind. Honestly, I don’t have a problem with my son learning about it either. If others want to raise their children in bigoted or fundamentalist ways, then that is there prerogative.
[/quote]
The point I take away from the more rational parts of your post was that our culture and laws only allows marriage between consenting adults, and only one other person so the change we are making is small. That and as long as you are not personally hurt (you being a plural anyone) or endangered by there actions who cares.
First off I would disagree as many states currently allow an age of consent of less than 18. In California we allow marriage at any age with either parental consent or a judge approval. So two 15 year olds could get married with parental consent. I am not saying it ever will happen, I am saying there is no law against it as you state there is.
Second our “culture” is not a single ententy in our city, let alone our country. What is acceptable in San Francisco culturally would not be culturally acceptable only 80 miles to the east. However, if the law is written to allow the most permissive cultures to have total freedom, what will that do to the other cultures who are now being forced to change? These are questions that need to be asked, just as the opposite of if the most restrictive cultures are allowed total control, what happens to the most accepting? I dont know the answer to that one, I dont think anyone can, but I do know it is acceptable to ask the question without being a bigot or a racist.
October 29, 2008 @ 4:10 PM
DWCAP:
No, I don’t think that
DWCAP:
No, I don’t think that any disagreement with me equates to a “hatful” (your spelling) view.
I am criticizing his explicit comparison of homosexual relationships to pedophilic relationships. And yes I think it is intellectually equivalent to comparing minorities to animals.
You should read the post referenced before you comment.
As you point out, I did address the actual question of societal implications.
As you point out, in our state, the legal age of consent is 18 but the age at which parents can consent to marriage is not. In other words, adults make those adult decisions. Thank you for backing up my point.
You are correct that culture is slippery.
However, the assertions I presented are almost universally held (like by more than 90% of the people)in the US and in the city.
The vast majority (myself included) accept uncritically that making adult decisions (eg marriage) is a decision left to adults (as in your consent example).
I don’t think that asking a question is bigotry. I think that rebutting my argument with age of consent or “culture is slippery” arguments is pretty weak though.
It would be more productive to point out how gay marriage hurts society or how legitimizing same sex marriage hurts me. I can’t see it now but I will listen to any points you make.
October 31, 2008 @ 12:28 PM
svelte wrote:The perfect
[quote=svelte]The perfect solution! I like that alot.
[quote=kitty-kat]I think really we should have marriage be the way it is in Europe: everyone has the “civil union” and then you have the optional church marriage later. I think that marriage is between a man and a woman, but if you are going to assign rights and privileges to people based on a “marital” status, then lets just take marriage out of the state, and keep it in the church. Civil unions for everyone, with the same legal rights. [/quote]
[/quote]
Gay people can get civilly unionized all day long and have all the same legal rights as heteros as far as I am concerned but don’t try to make me accept it as ‘marriage’ and we’ll get along just fine.
October 31, 2008 @ 1:09 PM
Sometimes people who are
Sometimes people who are opposed to anything that has to do with homosexuals or homosexual behavior are often latent homosexuals themselves.
We have seen a lot of that kind of thing in our politicians over the last couple of years.
October 31, 2008 @ 1:21 PM
Another funny anecdote:
If
Another funny anecdote:
October 31, 2008 @ 7:42 PM
Enorah wrote:Sometimes people
[quote=Enorah]Sometimes people who are opposed to anything that has to do with homosexuals or homosexual behavior are often latent homosexuals themselves.
We have seen a lot of that kind of thing in our politicians over the last couple of years.[/quote]
Enorah this is where you are wrong at least as it pertains to me (but certainly true of some closet repubs). You need to check your vibration sources. If you would remote view CardiffBaseball sometime and check me out, you’d find that it’s the wrong closet I am afraid of. (not a gay one)
Rather what scares the living hell out of me is that if I vote No on Prop 8, that I might be a closet liberal. That’s enough to frighten me into making, caustic comments. Damn scary, especially on Halloween.
October 31, 2008 @ 10:46 PM
CardiffBaseball wrote:Enorah
[quote=CardiffBaseball][quote=Enorah]Sometimes people who are opposed to anything that has to do with homosexuals or homosexual behavior are often latent homosexuals themselves.
We have seen a lot of that kind of thing in our politicians over the last couple of years.[/quote]
Enorah this is where you are wrong at least as it pertains to me (but certainly true of some closet repubs). You need to check your vibration sources. If you would remote view CardiffBaseball sometime and check me out, you’d find that it’s the wrong closet I am afraid of. (not a gay one)
Rather what scares the living hell out of me is that if I vote No on Prop 8, that I might be a closet liberal. That’s enough to frighten me into making, caustic comments. Damn scary, especially on Halloween.
[/quote]
What makes you think I was talking about you? LOL
Remote view
funny.
October 31, 2008 @ 11:15 PM
Seems to me lots of
Seems to me lots of heterosexuals want to have cover for safe posturing as asexuals because they can’t deal with sex for whatever reason. Maybe because it shows how similiar we are to other primates? Babies come from storks not from mommie and daddy doing the old in and out. Jesus coming from a virgin is akin to the myth that babies come from storks. Jesus came from two primates doing the same thing that got any other kid here. Accepting homosexuality really messes with the lie.
October 31, 2008 @ 11:59 PM
Coop, I figured you would
Coop, I figured you would stop fighting the three ignorant pigs that seem to condemn anything that attempts to protect the fundamentals of this Country. Leave it to Afx, Urbanrealtor and Arraya along with a few newbies to continue their bashing of something they know little about.
I have no problem with homosexuality in fact I have some great friends that are gay!! I have absolutely no problem with them. They have the right to do as they please. Here is my problem. Society continues to accept anything, but shouldn’t there be some point where morally we put our foot down? It just seems somewhat logical to assume that allowing amendments to our Constitution and changes to the moral fiber of our country will only continue to cause problems in the US. I think our Forefathers had a great idea. The problem is the logical ideas seem to always be tweaked just enough to open the door to all the garbage we see every time we vote.
If someone can honestly tell me that the buck stops here, I would probably vote No on Prop 8, but that’s just it, it won’t. We open this door and then Prop 8 in 2012 will look something like “Man wants to marry a Man and Woman”. Now that’s not too far fetched is it? There are people out there doing odd stuff like this everyday.
You people defending Prop 8 obviously don’t understand how morals affect our society. This is a moral issue that needs to be addressed correctly and pushing homosexuality on children is a problem. It is not necessary to take my child on a field trip to a gay marriage! I can just imagine California’s population in 2020. CA would probably have 30% less people in the State due to our brilliance of instating laws of teaching everything but procreation. We are put on this planet to procreate, let’s at least try to teach that to our children!
November 1, 2008 @ 12:27 AM
socrattt wrote: I can just
[quote=socrattt] I can just imagine California’s population in 2020. CA would probably have 30% less people in the State due to our brilliance of instating laws of teaching everything but procreation. We are put on this planet to procreate, let’s at least try to teach that to our children!
[/quote]
Wow, socratte. We have an overpopulation problem if you have not noticed. Thus, 30% less of population is a good thing.
Teaching “procreation?” Ummm, how do you teach that? Unprotected sex is the best for procreation. All those morals, suggest a bible thumper.
Our planet has limited resources, so less population is less to consume valuable resources. Duh. Living under a rock are ya?
November 1, 2008 @ 12:45 AM
socrattt wrote:Coop, I
[quote=socrattt]Coop, I figured you would stop fighting the three ignorant pigs that seem to condemn anything that attempts to protect the fundamentals of this Country. Leave it to Afx, Urbanrealtor and Arraya along with a few newbies to continue their bashing of something they know little about.
[/quote]
Yeah I’m real ignorant.
Enlighten me.
[quote=socrattt]
I have no problem with homosexuality in fact I have some great friends that are gay!![/quote]
I am sure you have loads.
[quote=socrattt]
I have absolutely no problem with them. They have the right to do as they please. Here is my problem. Society continues to accept anything, but shouldn’t there be some point where morally we put our foot down? It just seems somewhat logical to assume that allowing amendments to our Constitution and changes to the moral fiber of our country will only continue to cause problems in the US. I think our Forefathers had a great idea. The problem is the logical ideas seem to always be tweaked just enough to open the door to all the garbage we see every time we vote.
If someone can honestly tell me that the buck stops here, I would probably vote No on Prop 8, but that’s just it, it won’t. We open this door and then Prop 8 in 2012 will look something like “Man wants to marry a Man and Woman”. Now that’s not too far fetched is it? There are people out there doing odd stuff like this everyday.
[/quote]
Our forefathers seemed to have a defining thread of “Leave me the hell alone unless I am hurting someone.”
Frankly, I don’t see how even having polygamous marriages will screw up society. I was raised around queers and divorced catholics. I really don’t think that makes my marriage weaker.
Marriage is currently pretty weak in the US as an institution. I don’t think that we can blame our national problems on it though.
Our biggest problems currently are a loose credit hangover and war.
Which of these are caused by queers (or anyone) damaging society?
[quote=socrattt]
You people defending Prop 8 obviously don’t understand how morals affect our society. This is a moral issue that needs to be addressed correctly and pushing homosexuality on children is a problem. It is not necessary to take my child on a field trip to a gay marriage! I can just imagine California’s population in 2020. CA would probably have 30% less people in the State due to our brilliance of instating laws of teaching everything but procreation. We are put on this planet to procreate, let’s at least try to teach that to our children!
[/quote]
And you are the one decrying prop 8. I guess you did not realize that prop 8 BANS gay marriage.
Now based on your assertions, are you saying that you want procreation taught to children? Then maybe we can agree on something.
I find it funny and ironic that you call me ignorant.
November 1, 2008 @ 8:10 PM
urbanrealtor wrote:
Frankly,
[quote=urbanrealtor]
Frankly, I don’t see how even having polygamous marriages will screw up society. I was raised around queers and divorced catholics. I really don’t think that makes my marriage weaker.
Marriage is currently pretty weak in the US as an institution. I don’t think that we can blame our national problems on it though.
[/quote]
Ok, I guess you answered my question. You really don’t see this as opening to Pandora’s Box. I can’t really argue with a man that sees any type of relationship including polygamy as a future legal amendment. Scary stuff, but I guess you are the type of citizen that is willing to allow anything in this country because we don’t want to discriminate. Why the heck do even have border fences? That shouldn’t be legal either, let the herds in and while your at it give them a driver’s licenses. I am done with this topic because today I learned:
1) My gay friends hate me becuase I disagree with them.
2) There is no need to have a Constitution when all it does is hinder rights.
3) We need population control so teaching little ones about gay marriage is a great idea.
This is extremely inspiring!!
You can say as you please, but as I said I am done with this topic.
November 1, 2008 @ 12:28 AM
Enorah wrote:
What makes you
[quote=Enorah]
What makes you think I was talking about you? LOL
Remote view
funny.[/quote]
Enorah you are sharp, nice job, you got me. Here I was trying to be crude and funny about your original comment, yet you actually just had an open-ended comment.
Just for that I’ll listen to your show and stop being a malcontent on this thread.
October 29, 2008 @ 9:10 AM
kitty-kat wrote:I think
[quote=kitty-kat]I think really we should have marriage be the way it is in Europe: everyone has the “civil union” and then you have the optional church marriage later. I think that marriage is between a man and a woman, but if you are going to assign rights and privileges to people based on a “marital” status, then lets just take marriage out of the state, and keep it in the church. Civil unions for everyone, with the same legal rights. [/quote]
I like that idea.
John
October 29, 2008 @ 8:59 AM
Here’s a video on prop 8 that
Here’s a video on prop 8 that appears almost impartial until the end. How true is it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI-GjWY-WlA
October 29, 2008 @ 1:04 PM
Superman160 wrote:Here’s a
[quote=Superman160]Here’s a video on prop 8 that appears almost impartial until the end. How true is it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI-GjWY-WlA
[/quote]
How true is it? Well, as a gay Californian, I can tell you that “friends” and “neighbors” like “Jan & Tom” would leave me and my partner extremely hurt and angry with their decision to support Prop. 8. The idea of “having a barbecue” with “Jan & Tom” after their support of Prop. 8 would not be likely. It would be more likely that “Dan & Michael” would move after their relationship with “tolerant” “Jan & Tom” quickly deteriorated.
I really don’t think that supporters of Prop. 8 have any idea how the signs, commercials and other support of Prop. 8 makes gay people and their families feel. Have you ever been made to feel like an “other”?
Have you ever been in a situation where it was made clear to you that you were not welcome? Imagine how it would feel if the whole state of California was making you feel that way?
Are any of you African-American? Latino? Handicapped? Asian? Muslim? Just different somehow? Why would you want to make gay people feel this way?
Because I still, for the life of me, cannot figure out how gay people being allowed to marry affects the marriage of any straight person.
Why do you care?
And how on God’s Green Earth should you be allowed to decide who I can marry? I don’t remember anyone checking in with me on your decision on who to marry.
October 29, 2008 @ 5:39 PM
I want a prop for a minimum
I want a prop for a minimum of 24 months sentence in jail if a divorce occurred involving children. Come on, we do want to safe guard our institution of marriage 😛
October 29, 2008 @ 5:56 PM
Hey Mark Holmes. I want you
Hey Mark Holmes. I want you to know I really appreciate and respect your honesty and candor on this thread.
October 29, 2008 @ 10:20 PM
Enorah,
Thanks for the kind
Enorah,
Thanks for the kind words.
I will be very glad when this election is over.
At this point, my emotions are very raw. Whatever the result, it will be good to have this behind us on November 5th.
If Prop. 8 does pass, though, it will be tough for this native Californian to ever feel the same way about my home state again.
October 29, 2008 @ 10:38 PM
Yes on 8
Yes on 8
October 29, 2008 @ 10:42 PM
No on 8, No on 8
Yes on
No on 8, No on 8
Yes on separation of church and state
October 30, 2008 @ 4:47 PM
Yes on Separation of Church
Yes on Separation of Church and State?
When that happens we will have lost any remaining rights – what the State gives the State can take away, including rights.
But what our Founding Father’s so wisely recognized is that your Rights are ultimately granted by your Creator, which no man or woman can remove.
“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”
October 30, 2008 @ 4:55 PM
Prop 8 aims to change the
Prop 8 aims to change the state constitution (you know, the one our wise founding fathers wrote). What if the pursuit of happiness includes marrying your same sex partner? Prop 8 is a proposal to restrict rights, not give them.
It amuses me the ads for prop 8: they say 4 San Fran judges went against 50 million voters and overturned a same-sex marriage ban. What they don’t tell you is that these four judges chose to not amend the state constitution. In other words, those judges are protecting our constitution. Pro-Prop-8 people want to change it. This contradicts what you said, paramount, that our founding fathers were wise. If so, why would we need to amend what they wrote?
October 30, 2008 @ 5:21 PM
Wise is not the same as
Wise is not the same as perfect, nor were they prophets.
I think they understood that the Constitution would be open to interpretation among other things.
That’s why the Constitution can be changed, but it requires a tremendous amount of effort.
October 30, 2008 @ 6:49 PM
you’re right. I think they
you’re right. I think they worded things rather loosely (and often times contradictory, like “endowed by their creator” vs. “separation of church and state”), perhaps the intention was to make room for changes (and create jobs for lawyers).
I do think prop-8 is mainly a “religious morality” issue. I hope it doesn’t pass since I see religion as a sort of tradition rather than a superstitious belief. Plus I wouldn’t want to shoot down something other people want when it would have no affect whatsoever on me.
October 30, 2008 @ 7:17 PM
I didn’t really care about
I didn’t really care about this puppy one way or the other so I just left this one blank on my ballot.
October 29, 2008 @ 10:42 PM
Mark Holmes
[quote=Mark Holmes]Enorah,
Thanks for the kind words.
I will be very glad when this election is over.
At this point, my emotions are very raw. Whatever the result, it will be good to have this behind us on November 5th.
If Prop. 8 does pass, though, it will be tough for this native Californian to ever feel the same way about my home state again.[/quote]
Mark, much love to you.
Please try to remember that there are many terrified people out there. I know you feel discriminated against. Their fear says and means nothing about you.
October 30, 2008 @ 12:15 AM
Hey guys, I know warmth and
Hey guys, I know warmth and support is important but a love in does not support our cause.
BTW, the No on 8 headquarters in Hillcrest is like the absolute worst place to meet pretty girls.
Just sayin.
But I am still glad I volunteered.
October 30, 2008 @ 12:28 AM
“BTW, the No on 8
“BTW, the No on 8 headquarters in Hillcrest is like the absolute worst place to meet pretty girls.”
Just go down the street to Wine Steals;)
October 30, 2008 @ 12:39 AM
arraya wrote:”BTW, the No on
[quote=arraya]”BTW, the No on 8 headquarters in Hillcrest is like the absolute worst place to meet pretty girls.”
Just go down the street to Wine Steals;) [/quote]
I have tried doing the whole sales call thing with a drink in my hand.
Absolutely worthless.
I can only imagine how unproductive a phone bank at wine steals would be.
Or at least very funny.
October 30, 2008 @ 11:49 AM
I was driving home yesterday
I was driving home yesterday and there was a large crowd on the corner at a busy intersection holding “Yes on 8” signs and yelling at the passing cars. My 2 young children were in the car with me. My youngest (4) was frightened by the yelling. My oldest can read and asked what “Yes on 8” means. I told him that those people believe that men shouldn’t be allowed to marry men and that women shouldn’t be allowed to marry women. He thought about it for a minute and said “I don’t understand why they are so mad – why do they care who someone else marries?” I told him that I have no idea and that it makes no sense to me either.
We saw the “scary number 8 people” (my daughter’s description) again this morning. I guess she doesn’t understand that those people are fighting to protect her family. From whatever it is they are protecting us from.
October 30, 2008 @ 12:40 PM
programmed and terrified
programmed and terrified zombies
October 30, 2008 @ 4:23 PM
NO ON PROP 8
Sorry, but I saw
NO ON PROP 8
Sorry, but I saw way too many “yes on 8” signs out there today.
It’s a scary sea of yellow.
NO ON PROP 8
October 30, 2008 @ 4:54 PM
Enorah wrote:NO ON PROP
[quote=Enorah]NO ON PROP 8
Sorry, but I saw way too many “yes on 8” signs out there today.
It’s a scary sea of yellow.
NO ON PROP 8[/quote]
Our neighborhood (Normal Heights) is a sea of blue No On 8 signs; we’re all just preaching to the choir here, though. The real battle will be throughout the state. The best thing we can do is contribute to the No On 8 campaign:
http://www.noonprop8.com/
And Enorah, thanks once again for all your kind words. I hope this election is another step forward for your loving way of thinking.
October 30, 2008 @ 11:42 PM
Mark Holmes wrote:
Our
[quote=Mark Holmes]
Our neighborhood (Normal Heights) is a sea of blue No On 8 signs; we’re all just preaching to the choir here, though. [/quote]
Like the one next to the Valero????
That big one that says Yes?!!
October 31, 2008 @ 12:05 AM
On a more general note, not
On a more general note, not specific to this issue, I am kind of appalled that the state constitution can be change by a simple majority on a petition.
I know this is nerdy (and so I am expecting Rich will jump in) but doesn’t that make us effectively a common-law government? I mean not technically, but how serious is any constitution that can be altered so easily? Sounds a lot like a more direct form of British democracy.
Could we just outlaw anything?
I guess the answer is yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_constitution
If you want an interesting discussion of differences in democracies read some of this guy’s stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lijphart
Wikipedia does not mention his role in helping to draft the new constitution of South Africa or his consultancy to the Israeli Knesset.
October 31, 2008 @ 10:09 AM
I think it’s more disturbing
I think it’s more disturbing that the people can vote one way then 4 of the 7 members of the CA supreme court tell the state voters they’re wrong and force a change down their throats.
This is still a democracy, right? Of course, Democracy relies heavily on the overall good of the people, which I’m questioning more than ever these days.
October 31, 2008 @ 10:38 AM
Nope, I’m going with it being
Nope, I’m going with it being more disturbing that we put minority rights to a popular vote.
October 31, 2008 @ 10:45 AM
Cardiffbaseball – My kids are
Cardiffbaseball – My kids are too young to understand sex, but they are not too young to understand hate when they see it.
If you really do have children, it is heartwarming to see that intolerance is being passed along to the next generation.
October 31, 2008 @ 11:07 AM
It’s most disturbing that
It’s most disturbing that this country was founded by people fleeing religious persecution, and now the religious are the ones doing all the persecuting.
October 31, 2008 @ 11:34 AM
nostradamus wrote:It’s most
[quote=nostradamus]It’s most disturbing that this country was founded by people fleeing religious persecution, and now the religious are the ones doing all the persecuting.[/quote]
and dictating
Twice I was on the “No on prop 8” headquarters website today, getting info.
Both times, while on the site, I lost my internet connection and had to reset my router to be able to access the internet again.
October 31, 2008 @ 11:45 AM
Why I have decided to vote
Why I have decided to vote yes on prop 8:
1) Being gay is not natural.
Correct. Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, air conditioning, tattoos, piercings, and silicon breasts.
2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay.
Correct. The same principle applies that; hanging around tall people will make you tall and hanging out with beautiful people will make you beautiful.
3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior.
Correct. People will marry their pets because a dog or cat has legal status and can sign a marriage contract. Lamps, power tools, shoes and sports teams are next.
4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all.
Correct. Under current marriage laws; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed.
Correct. The sanctity of an institution where half the unions end in divorce, which are illegal, is worth saving. Plus the meaningfulness of a Britney Spears’ style 55-hour just-for-fun Vegas marriage must be be preserved.
6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children.
Correct. Gay couples, infertile couples, old people and people who simply do not want children aren’t allowed to marry because our population isn’t out of control, our orphanages aren’t full yet, and there’s still enough food and water for everyone.
7) Gay parents will raise gay children.
Correct. Straight parents only raise straight children. Proven fact.
8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion.
Correct. In America, there is only one religion that dictates the culture, freedoms, and values of the entire country.
9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home.
Correct. Our society expressly forbids single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society
Correct. Our culture hasn’t adapted to foundation change like; electricity, personal transportation, radio, television, phones, nuclear power, personal radio televisions and phones, computers, the service-sector economy, and longer life spans. In fact, our religious institution has suffered greatly because of these foundation changes.
11) Legalization of Gay marriage will become part of curriculum in schools.
Correct. Love, healthy sexual attitudes, birth control, commitment, and marriage are currently part of the public educational curriculum. The study of these subjects has never raised issues in anyones household, unlike History, Anthropology, Physics and Economics. Also, the works of Oscar Wilde, Walt Whitman, Langston Hughes, Gertrude Stein, Tchaikovsky, Leonard Bernstein, Andy Warhol, David Hockney, Sappho, Leonardo Da Vinci, Socrates and countless other queer thinkers are not part of the curriculum.
Vote NO on 8. Another dumb proposition with no facts, ideas or arguments to dictate the behavior of people because of fear and ignorance.
October 31, 2008 @ 11:51 AM
Thanks for the laugh
Thanks for the laugh Urbanrealtor
October 31, 2008 @ 10:48 PM
UA, brutally funny.
Also,
UA, brutally funny.
Also, thanks for making this website more interesting than usual.
BTW, I just tell my kids if they see that 2 folks o the same sex be smoochin to not worry about it that it may be different ‘but not less worthy. and then I ask their opinion…
October 31, 2008 @ 12:10 PM
JustLurking, so people
JustLurking, so people holding up a sign “hate”? Is it because they disagree or because they are too aggressive?
Are you honestly suggesting people who agree with your side don’t have angry aggressive sign flippers? My response to you was as silly as your little anecdotal story, because the point really was who cares. There are angry, aggressive sign flippers of every political stripe.
Now I will admit to raising my kids not to be weak little metrosexual pussies, but I don’t teach hate or intolerance. We were quite tolerant of the little dude banging on the door trying to register Obama voters. After he left my son said “dad I thought you don’t like Obama”, and I said absolutely but that kid is just trying to find people who might like him. I also explained that what he’s doing is not easy and worthy of respect. Nothing intolerant about that.
Now if I hear them giggle when they see a couple of dudes holding hands, I don’t make it a point to correct that, because …well it is kind of funny. Doesn’t mean you have to hate them.
October 31, 2008 @ 2:40 PM
CardiffBaseball wrote:
Now I
[quote=CardiffBaseball]
Now I will admit to raising my kids not to be weak little metrosexual pussies, but I don’t teach hate or intolerance. We were quite tolerant of the little dude banging on the door trying to register Obama voters. After he left my son said “dad I thought you don’t like Obama”, and I said absolutely but that kid is just trying to find people who might like him. I also explained that what he’s doing is not easy and worthy of respect. Nothing intolerant about that.
Now if I hear them giggle when they see a couple of dudes holding hands, I don’t make it a point to correct that, because …well it is kind of funny. Doesn’t mean you have to hate them.[/quote]
You are,in my opinion why people should need licenses to reproduce.
I applaud your valiant efforts to keep your kids from becoming “metrosexual pussies” as you put it.
Sorry dude you are a hater. You are training your kids to be haters. Sorry that you are perpetuating ignorance.
October 31, 2008 @ 7:34 PM
urbanrealtor wrote:
You
[quote=urbanrealtor]
You are,in my opinion why people should need licenses to reproduce.
I applaud your valiant efforts to keep your kids from becoming “metrosexual pussies” as you put it.
Sorry dude you are a hater. You are training your kids to be haters. Sorry that you are perpetuating ignorance. [/quote]
Naah you hand wringers just take this stuff too damn seriously as usual. I actually lived weeks at a time with some gay guys while on remote assignment and this was over a two year period. (I rented from them). My kids were taught at a young age to respect these guys because they were very welcoming to my family. Now I will admit that helped that were macho types, not queens (thus big-time sports fans, like myself).
This site is swarming with plenty of intolerance for christians and one thing keeping from pulling the no lever on prop 8 is knowing that I am siding with a bunch of other intolerant assholes. Voting yes goes against my basic libertarian kind of live and let live conservatism, but the internal struggle is siding with guys like you.
In any case you people need to lighten up regarding someone giggling, it’s natural. The kids also enjoy Adam Sandler flicks for instance and one thing he always manages to do it seems (in every movie) is tease gayness in such a way that is not homophobic. The funny look when two guys kiss, Chuck and Larry, yet in the end all are accepted and that’s all I’m talking about. You can giggle about the little things without hating. Well if you can’t, you also probably don’t watch comedians. I like comedians of all stripes no matter who they offend, and yet my favorite one is an executive transvestite.
[img_assist|nid=9459|title=Executive Transvestite|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=430|height=306]
November 1, 2008 @ 1:09 AM
CardiffBaseball wrote:
Naah
[quote=CardiffBaseball]
Naah you hand wringers just take this stuff too damn seriously as usual. I actually lived weeks at a time with some gay guys while on remote assignment … macho types, not queens (thus big-time sports fans, like myself).
This site is swarming with plenty of intolerance for christians … Adam Sandler flicks …not homophobic.
[/quote]
Dude, are you…uh…coming out to me?
I don’t wring my hands. I just think that people who make fun of others for who they are, are…well..shits. I think it is unfortunate you are training your kids in that mold. Its sure a good thing your keeping them cultured with the Adam Sandler films. I’m sure they’ll turn out great.
I agree that intolerance for Christians is crappy (I was raised Christian) but it sure is ironic to hear somebody encourage prejudice and then complain about it (do you consider that a Christian trait?).
You seem to think a lot about queers for someone in North County who is so “macho” (like the village people?).
November 1, 2008 @ 3:09 AM
Quick update:
Prop. 8 trails,
Quick update:
Prop. 8 trails, yet gap keeps narrowing
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20081031-9999-1n31field.html
A pretty hard-hitting no-on-8 ad was just released with Samuel Jackson narrating:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj-0xMrsyxE
I wonder what effect it will have… I was really hoping he would be screaming, VOTE NO ON 8 MOTHERFUCKER!!!@#$%!
November 1, 2008 @ 7:41 AM
We are put on this planet to
We are put on this planet to procreate, let’s at least try to teach that to our children!
Ironically, I am the non-religious one and think we have a higher purpose than that of cancer, viruses or bacteria.
November 1, 2008 @ 9:51 AM
Urbanrealtor, I feel sorry
Urbanrealtor, I feel sorry for your clients, but I can’t imagine you have any. You are the kind of person that will argue with anyone even when you are unsure of your facts.
You know my opinions and you are more than welcome to have yours but just remember you aren’t always right even though you do your best to make it sound like it!
Oh and by the way, I do have a number of gay friends contrary to your belief, but I don’t need to try to argue with you because as I stated you are always right!
November 1, 2008 @ 10:20 AM
socratt, do your gay friends
socratt, do your gay friends know you are voting yes on prop 8? If they do I wonder if they consider you to be their friend any longer.
Civil Unions DO NOT provide the same rights as marriage.
Anyone in North County who is interested the “no on prop 8” campaign is having a volunteer thingy in Carlsbad this morning from 10am – 2pm at the Pilgrim United Church of Christ – 2020 Chestnut Ave, Carlsbad
for more info 760-758-2410
November 1, 2008 @ 11:20 AM
Enorah wrote:socratt, do your
[quote=Enorah]socratt, do your gay friends know you are voting yes on prop 8?[/quote]
Enorah, DO YOUR STRAIGHT FRIENDS KNOW YOU ARE VOTING NO ON PROP 8? What a ignorant response. Unlike others on this board my friends allow me to have my own opinions and yes of course they know how I feel. Do I have to be politically correct to keep my friends?
Some of these comments are just mind boggling!
November 1, 2008 @ 11:36 AM
I love the “but I have gay
I love the “but I have gay friends!” defense… classic!
It’s a bit like… “I’m not racist, I have a black friend!”
November 1, 2008 @ 12:04 PM
afx114 wrote:I love the “but
[quote=afx114]I love the “but I have gay friends!” defense… classic!
It’s a bit like… “I’m not racist, I have a black friend!”
:roflmao:
November 1, 2008 @ 12:03 PM
socrattt wrote:Enorah
[quote=socrattt][quote=Enorah]socratt, do your gay friends know you are voting yes on prop 8?[/quote]
Enorah, DO YOUR STRAIGHT FRIENDS KNOW YOU ARE VOTING NO ON PROP 8? What a ignorant response. Unlike others on this board my friends allow me to have my own opinions and yes of course they know how I feel. Do I have to be politically correct to keep my friends?
Some of these comments are just mind boggling![/quote]
Yes I am sure that everyone I know, knows where I stand on this issue. 🙂
I suggest you check out Mark Holmes’s response to the issue of “friends of gays who wish to deny them rights” earlier on this thread.
November 1, 2008 @ 3:26 PM
socrattt wrote:Urbanrealtor,
[quote=socrattt]Urbanrealtor, I feel sorry for your clients, but I can’t imagine you have any. You are the kind of person that will argue with anyone even when you are unsure of your facts.
You know my opinions and you are more than welcome to have yours but just remember you aren’t always right even though you do your best to make it sound like it!
Oh and by the way, I do have a number of gay friends contrary to your belief, but I don’t need to try to argue with you because as I stated you are always right![/quote]
I don’t think you have enough information to say anything about how I do business. However, since you have resorted the you’re-wrong-because-you’re-wrong argument, I am not terribly concerned that responding would matter.
I am not a fan of political correctness. I do consider prop 8 to be bigotry. So yeah, I am curious about you actually having gay friends and marginalizing their rights. I dare you to ask them about this in writing in an open ended question and how they feel about your position and/or activism and how it affects their friendship with you. Then I dare you to reprint that conversation here. I figure either
A: they are not gay
B: they are not your friends or
C: they care a lot that you are voting to marginalize their relationships
It is possible that they are an exception. Some black folks were not in favor of civil rights legislation. If so, please include contact info so that we can all ask them questions.
November 1, 2008 @ 9:31 AM
I received this article from
I received this article from a friend. It’s been submitted to a variety of papers, but I doubt it will make publication since they’ve all publically gone with the no approach….
The Case for Tolerance– and Proposition 8
By Steven D. Smith,
(Professor of Law, University of San Diego)
Many people think the issue of same-sex marriage presents a test of our tolerance. It does. But the test is a lot more complicated than many suppose.
Supporters of same-sex marriage point out that legalization provides a choice, not a command. People who oppose same-sex marriage on religious or moral grounds are still free to continue in these beliefs– and, if they choose, to marry only opposite-sex partners. On this view, the tolerant course is to let people marry whom they please. Conversely, those who oppose granting this choice are gratuitously “imposing their values on others.” They are being intolerant. It looks pretty simple.
Americans generally want to be tolerant– to “live and let live.” So this depiction of the controversy makes a powerful case for legalizing same-sex marriage.
But the depiction also oversimplifies the matter, drastically. What it ignores is the existence of Americans– millions of them, most likely– who believe something like this: They acknowledge, or firmly insist, that gays and lesbians are human beings, as fully citizens and as equal in dignity and worth as their straight neighbors. These Americans recognize that gays and lesbians have often been the victims of senseless prejudice, discrimination and violence. They readily agree that gays and lesbians are as entitled to “the pursuit of happiness” as anyone else, and that it is a good thing for gays and lesbians, like everyone else, to enjoy stable, loving personal relationships.
What these Americans do not believe is that same-sex unions are in all respects equivalent to traditional marriage. More specifically, on moral or religious or purely prudential grounds, they believe that it is better for children to be raised in a family with a father and a mother. These Americans understand, of course, that reality often falls tragically short of the ideal. But it does not follow that the ideal itself should be abandoned: ideals continue to exert influence even when imperfectly realized.
And this is where things get complicated– and where the “live and let live” sentiment obscures more than it illuminates. That is because if same-sex marriage is legalized, and thus officially deemed equivalent to traditional marriage, then this settlement will converge with powerful antidiscrimination policies and laws that exist in every state and at the national level. The convergence will have legal consequences, and it will work upon culture. And the result will be, inevitably, that the traditional view, and those who hold it, will be disadvantaged in a variety of ways.
“Prediction is very hard,” as Yogi Berra observed, “especially about the future.” Nonetheless, our experience permits some modestly confident predictions about a few likely legal and cultural consequences of the convergence of same-sex marriage with antidiscrimination laws and policies.
Public schools may not be legally required to teach anything about marriage at all. But the fact is that they do teach about marriage, deliberately or casually, and a consequence of legalizing same-sex marriage will almost inevitably be that the schools will teach the full acceptability of such unions. People will still be free to disagree, of course. But children will in effect be officially instructed that parents and religions who try to teach the traditional views are wrong.
Institutions that adhere to the traditional view will be subjected to legal restrictions, some of them likely quite severe. In Massachusetts, the Catholic adoption agency was recently forced either to transgress church teachings by placing children with same-sex couples or else to get out of the adoption business. The agency chose to adhere to its beliefs. By forcing this choice upon the agency, the state acted to the potential detriment of thousands of children.
By the familiar logic which equates opposition to same-sex marriage with opposition to interracial marriage, it is possible that institutions that adhere to the traditional view will eventually be denied tax exempt status, as happened with Bob Jones University. That outcome would be the financial equivalent of fining such institutions millions of dollars for maintaining the traditional view.
In short, “live and let live” is an admirable sentiment; on this issue, unfortunately, there is no way, as Lincoln remarked, to please all of the people all of the time. Whichever position the state adopts, it will in important ways be “imposing its values” on those who disagree. So the question becomes how best to accommodate the variety of conflicting positions.
There is no obvious answer to that question. But a strong case can be made that the best accommodation– and hence the most tolerant course– is to recognize and respect “domestic partnerships” or “civil unions” for same-sex couples while not legally equating this status with traditional marriage. In short, the most tolerant position, albeit an inelegant one, may be the compromise that prevailed in California until recently– until the state Supreme Court, on fanciful grounds, invalidated Proposition 22, which the people overwhelmingly approved less than a decade earlier.
A “yes” vote on Proposition 8 would be a vote to restore that condition of tolerance.
November 1, 2008 @ 4:25 PM
whysteal wrote:The Case for
[quote=whysteal]The Case for Tolerance– and Proposition 8
By Steven D. Smith,
(Professor of Law, University of San Diego)
…
A “yes” vote on Proposition 8 would be a vote to restore that condition of tolerance.
[/quote]
Geez, talk about peeing on someone’s leg and telling them it’s raining!
And from the epitome of non-religious thought, USD, no less.
November 1, 2008 @ 9:37 PM
whysteal wrote:I received
[quote=whysteal]I received this article from a friend. It’s been submitted to a variety of papers, but I doubt it will make publication since they’ve all publically gone with the no approach….
The Case for Tolerance– and Proposition 8
By Steven D. Smith,
(Professor of Law, University of San Diego)
A “yes” vote on Proposition 8 would be a vote to restore that condition of tolerance. [/quote]
Oh, this guy. He’s a new (within the last 10 years) conlaw prof at USD. I almost took his class until I learned he was planning to teach the Constitution According to the Bible. (I am not sure what this means, but why does he keep saying “gays and lesbians”–why not just “homosexuals?”)
I just can’t fathom why people have to inflict their beliefs on others. I don’t see Hindus out screaming that gay marriage is so alarming. The fact is, it’s one narrow demographic of the american pie–most of whom believe the bible should be taken literally–who are promoting this proposition. Everyone should be treated the same. Two gays getting married does nothing to my marriage. By Larry and Steve getting a marriage license, my kids don’t suddenly become impressed into servitude to learn and support the “gay way of life.”
UR: I usually agree with you, and I am pretty liberal–but I think giggling at two guys necking on the street is a MILD way of dealing with something that really bothers a lot of people. Better to giggle than go the extreme hate-crime route. Maybe better to let it out in harmless ways. Honestly, watching anyone smooch in public is kinda gross–that’s what the internet if for, no? Voyeurism in private? And why is there a double standard for watching to chicks smooch? Oh, here it comes…
October 31, 2008 @ 9:40 PM
Well said,
Well said, beanman.
[quote=beanmaestro]Nope, I’m going with it being more disturbing that we put minority rights to a popular vote.[/quote]
Why people feel it is their right and duty to cram their lifestyle down other’s throats I completely fail to understand.
October 30, 2008 @ 4:20 PM
I prefer my girls showered
I prefer my girls showered and cleaned up so the lib activists are out.
Like JustLurking I too was driving down the road the other day and there were some scary looking people (girls I think) screaming NO on 8, No on 8. My son said daddy what were those scary people screaming at our mini-van about and are they daddies or mommies? What does No on 8 mean? I said well son those people want it to be ok for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman. He said, why would a daddy want to marry another daddy? I said well maybe they love one another. he says “but I thought daddies married mommies”… uh-well, there are some good looking trannies son and, well some daddies like each other.
I also explained to him you know when daddy is yelling “c’mon kiss” at two pretty ladies on TV?? Maybe that’s what the mommies want to do also.
I also brought up that you really don’t have to worry about girls who change sides to the other team. If they are really good-looking they’ll still get married to a daddy and just ask daddy for threesomes with her good looking friends and most daddies think that’s just dandy. And if they don’t like guys at all, they probably were not as hot as the mommies who invite other mommies over, so let them get married.
October 30, 2008 @ 11:34 PM
I’m a big fan of the
I’m a big fan of the prayer-fest going on at Qualcomm this weekend in support of Prop-8. The logic totally eludes me. With all of that prayer power I would much rather see it pointed at repealing the absurd Wall St. bailout that our children and grandchildren will pay for. Everybody protesting on this Prop. is wasting their time and effort while being eternally hosed by the government and bankers. Hosed… totally…
Keep at it sheeple and I’m still voting no on Prop 8 and not taking away my fellow citizen’s rights.
October 31, 2008 @ 12:06 PM
Absolutely beautiful,
Absolutely beautiful, urbanrealtor!! I’m saving that to my hard drive for future use!!
I’ve always laughed at ppl who say being gay is not natural. I guess those people have never been around dogs much cuz I’ve seen a ton of gay behavior from those creatures!
October 31, 2008 @ 4:31 PM
Stop the hate, do not change
Stop the hate, do not change the constitution, do not eliminate any more rights.
Live and let live …
No on prop 8
November 1, 2008 @ 2:20 PM
For those of you who
For those of you who self-identify as Libertarian, Reason has (IMHO) a logical thesis on the issue. It’s a 24-page PDF, but mostly white space and an easy read.
http://www.reason.org/pb76_marriage.pdf
“…Chief among the considerations in considering the gay marriage issue is determining whether any individual has a fundamental right to marry another person and form a family. If such a fundamental right does exist, then the state has no right to deny this right to certain groups of people, regardless of their sexual orientation or other factors. As In re Marriage Cases affirms, the right of marriage is, indeed, a fundamental one: “[T]he right to marry is not properly viewed as simply a benefit or privilege that a government may establish or abolish as it sees fit, but rather that the right constitutes a basic civil or human right of all people.”…”
Setting the trusty way-back machine to 1996 we hear from another Libertarian publication, The Economist:
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2515389
“…To this principle of social policy, add a principle of government. Barring a compelling reason, governments should not discriminate between classes of citizens. As recently as 1967, blacks and whites in some American states could not wed. No one but a crude racist would defend such a rule now. Even granting that the case of homosexuals is more complex than the case of miscegenation, the state should presume against discriminating—especially when handing out something as important as a marriage licence. Thus the question becomes: is there a compelling reason to bar homosexuals from marriage?…”
November 2, 2008 @ 3:53 PM
The Case For Intolerance:
The Case For Intolerance:
This is the letter I wrote to Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith,
The following is in response to the assertions and points you put forward in your “Case for Tolerance” article that promotes Prop 8. I am copying this message to several others for their response. This includes publications.
I am not an attorney or an academic. My diction may be pedestrian but I hope it gets the point across.
The Case for Intolerance.
(Background:
In the piece The Case for Tolerance–and Proposition 8, Steven Smith, a professor of law at University of San Diego (a local Catholic College) makes several assertions regarding the debate over Prop 8, which is designed to amend the amend the California Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage through a ballot referendum.)
Below are the assertions you made and my responses to them.
1: Your assertion: That that the state court’s recognition of same-sex marriage ignores the millions of Americans who don’t believe gay marriage should be legal.
Unless I am mistaken, the domain of high courts is to act as a check on unconstitutional suppression of minority rights. I don’t recall Brown v. Board being voted on by the good people of Topeka. It should not be a surprise that a rights decision has the capacity to be unpopular.
2: Your assertion: That this majority believes in the human, equal, and civil rights of gay people and feel their pain as victims of abuse and prejudice.
Two questions come to mind here. How is this relevant? Nobody cares about the nice words sentiments used to dress up unequal rights. Also, what polls are you using for this assertion?
This appears to be just a red herring to build sympathy for those opposed to gay marriage.
3: Your assertion: That the “ideal” is to have children raised by a mother and a father.
Codifying ideals into law is a slippery business. That is the goal for some proponents of prop 8. Since this is the ideal, that implies that those without kids or who are unmarried, or are gay are less legitimate or valuable members of society. This is due to their relative distance from the “ideal”. Would gay parents be more or less “ideal”? Since these criteria are not generally considered valid categories for inclusion (as opposed to say, a criminal record), it is unclear why legislating the nuclear family would be beneficial.
4:Your assertion: That this majority will be disadvantaged or harmed in a “variety of ways” by gay marriage being legalized (primarily due to legal prohibitions on discrimination against protected classes).
This is a bold assertion but I will reserve judgment for the examples of said harm.
5:Your assertion: That children will learn in school that same sex relationships are acceptable and that parents opposing this are wrong.
As with any change in law, children will learn of it on the playground and in the classroom. Teachers may or may not mention it, but as a part of our culture and legal framework it will be there.
It is not at all clear how parents or children will be harmed with this. This happened with the passage of everything from civil rights to prop 13. Generally, in our state, disagreeing with a law does not equate to “wrongness”. How many parents have had to tell their children they disagree with the president or his policies? Were the parents harmed by this? If so, how?
6: Your assertion: That adoption agencies would harm children by forcing adoption centers to either place them with same-sex parents or get out of the adoption business.
As adoption centers, they act as licensed, regulated service providers. As a protected class, applicants’ sexual orientation should already be off limits as a consideration. When race and religion became protected classes many adoption centers had to change practices or get out. This is no different.
Further, the argument that allowing adoption centers to ignore class protection would somehow benefit children is weak to the point of absurdity. What would be gained if adoption centers could screen parents based on their church affiliation or skin color?
7: Your assertion: That the government recognizing same-sex marriages would put religious institutions opposed to it in the position of being political actors and thereby losing their tax-exempt status.
Again, as licensed providers of government services (legally recognized marriage) they would be regulated by the government. Having a church ceremony is not required for marriage (I was married in a casino) nor is the reverse true.
Many churches have strong stances on political issues and pontificate about them during service. This is as true today (abortion, capital punishment, war), as it was in the past (segregation, slavery, indulgence). This does not typically cost them there tax-exempt standing.
8: Your assertion: That recognizing same sex unions will upset people who are opposed to this and so in the name of harmony the best option is to ban the recognition of same sex marriages and try to work on a separate though equal recognition of civil unions.
The reason the high court overturned the previous ballot measure was that it found separate to be unequal by design. Further, building a framework for rights around who will be irritated is not a recipe for sound governance. To invoke Rawls, effective governments are just. Justice is about fairness. Fairness is what this conversation is about. Separate but equal is unfair (and therefore unsustainable) even if it’s primary purpose is base appeasement.
9: Your assertion: That this elimination of rights would be the most tolerant of those whose rights would be eliminated.
Well here is the real problem. Gay people are not asking to be tolerated. They are asking to be respected equally. I tolerate the police helicopter that flies over my neighborhood at night. I respect my neighbor (even if I don’t like him). The whole conversation about tolerance misses the point. Intolerance and suppression led to Stonewall. Condescending and sarcastic tolerance leads to unfair laws and lip-service to civil rights.
On a personal note:
That you are a constitutional law professor speaks particularly poorly of your reasoning (as represented in your piece) and more generally of the reputation of USD Law. Like Gavin Newsom and Jesse Helms, you will likely get your footnote in the history books.
—
Dan Cassidy
November 2, 2008 @ 6:04 PM
I’ve yet to hear a bleeding
I’ve yet to hear a bleeding heart liberal who opposes prop 8 give an intelligent answer as to why the next step isn’t legalizing polygamy.
November 2, 2008 @ 6:25 PM
cooprider wrote:I’ve yet to
[quote=cooprider]I’ve yet to hear a bleeding heart liberal who opposes prop 8 give an intelligent answer as to why the next step isn’t legalizing polygamy.[/quote]
This bleeding heart liberal replies: So what if it is? I’d also reply: try reading the thread from the beginning, we’ve already been over this.
November 2, 2008 @ 10:45 PM
afx114 wrote:cooprider
[quote=afx114][quote=cooprider]I’ve yet to hear a bleeding heart liberal who opposes prop 8 give an intelligent answer as to why the next step isn’t legalizing polygamy.[/quote]
This bleeding heart liberal replies: So what if it is? I’d also reply: try reading the thread from the beginning, we’ve already been over this.
[/quote]
Again, as the other bleeding heart:
I am not concerned in the slightest about plural adult unions (polygamy).
Why do you care so much about other people’s romantic relationships and legal unions?
Are you somebody who is “just curious” about the gay thing?
Is chicken coop riding like a euphemism for something? (though I really cant imagine what….)
Does it involve feathers?
November 2, 2008 @ 7:11 PM
wow
just wow
How about we
wow
just wow
How about we just do away with marriage all together?
Please
My partner and I have been together for almost 10 years and are not married. One of the reasons we are not married is because of all the religious crap attached to marriage.
Seriously, let’s do away with it, create a civil union that is nationally recognized, and then marriage can be the thing you all do, more of an optional choice, as opposed to the ONLY choice.
November 12, 2008 @ 9:37 PM
Enorah wrote:My partner and I
[quote=Enorah]My partner and I have been together for almost 10 years and are not married. One of the reasons we are not married is because of all the religious crap attached to marriage.[/quote]
I have the perfect solution for you. It’s called a civil union- it’s completely devoid of “religious crap”.
p.s. “religious crap” how very tolerant.
November 13, 2008 @ 9:02 AM
fredo4 wrote:Enorah wrote:My
[quote=fredo4][quote=Enorah]My partner and I have been together for almost 10 years and are not married. One of the reasons we are not married is because of all the religious crap attached to marriage.[/quote]
I have the perfect solution for you. It’s called a civil union- it’s completely devoid of “religious crap”.
p.s. “religious crap” how very tolerant.[/quote]
Fredo, my partner and I do not meet the requirements to legally form a domestic partnership, as we are a heterosexual couple below 62 years of age. Also, domestic partnerships DO NOT provide the same rights as marriage, they are only recognized at the state level. California does not have a civil union option, just domestic partnership, but even if we could file as a civil union here, it would mean nothing at the federal level.
As far as my “religious crap” comment goes, I did not mean to imply that all religion is crap, but on this thread, well, there is a fair amount of “religious crap” being flung about as we speak. When religion is used to enslave, it becomes crap to me.
[quote]FAMILY.CODE
SECTION 297-297.5
297. (a) Domestic partners are two adults who have chosen to share
one another’s lives in an intimate and committed relationship of
mutual caring.
(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.
(6) Both persons are capable of consenting to the domestic
partnership.
(c) “Have a common residence” means that both domestic partners
share the same residence. It is not necessary that the legal right
to possess the common residence be in both of their names. Two
people have a common residence even if one or both have additional
residences. Domestic partners do not cease to have a common
residence if one leaves the common residence but intends to return.[/quote]
November 3, 2008 @ 6:27 AM
cooprider wrote:I’ve yet to
[quote=cooprider]I’ve yet to hear a bleeding heart liberal who opposes prop 8 give an intelligent answer as to why the next step isn’t legalizing polygamy.[/quote]
Because this is changing the subject and means you have no clear concise arguments against gay marriage
Polygamy was a response to certain pre-modern social conditions but that modern egalitarian, capitalist and individualist societies create little need for and considerable pressure against polygamy.
Polygamy flourished in primitive, male-dominated societies where women had little freedom of movement, education or employment skills and were dependent on men, where inequalities of wealth allowed some men to acquire several wives while others had none, and/or where male deaths in frequent military campaigns sharply reduced the number of potential husbands.
But in modern societies, women have equal access to advanced education and economic independence, social value apart from the status or wealth of a husband, and an equal male-female ratio. It is hard to imagine many women in the contemporary U.S. cheerfully welcoming competing wives or voluntarily becoming a second, third, or fourth wife.
In addition, women in third world nations — and southern Utah — who have left polygamous households describe them as rife with favoritism, rivalries, domestic abuse, and the like. It is hard to imagine a modern, educated woman entering or staying in such a family environment.
Nor would polygamy seem desirable for most males. Assuming an equal male-female population, a man who married two or more women would deprive one or more heterosexual men of the pleasures of a romantic, sexual and domestic life with a wife.
In fact, we may say that just as same-sex marriage is good because it allows more people to enjoy the pleasures and benefits of marriage, polygamy is undesirable because it deprives some people of the pleasures and benefits of marriage.
In short: None of the principles supporting gay marriage offers support for polygamy. Rather the opposite. And polygamy is not likely to be widely advocated because — unlike same-sex marriage — it answers no needs and removes no inequities in modern societies.
November 3, 2008 @ 8:18 AM
arraya wrote:In short: None
[quote=arraya]In short: None of the principles supporting gay marriage offers support for polygamy. Rather the opposite. And polygamy is not likely to be widely advocated because — unlike same-sex marriage — it answers no needs and removes no inequities in modern societies.[/quote]
Well said, and I agree to a point, but it doesn’t answer the question. Giving “the right of marriage” to what is a non-traditional union sets a precendent. Aside from the fact that in and of itself a homosexual relationship cannot produce children, the idea that marriage rights should not be withheld for any reason will soon move beyond 2 people of the same sex.
No one who opposes 8 sees it that way, but how can you argue against it? You said it answers no needs, but what about the need of 3 people to have equal rights?
That’s why this is a poorly written proposition. Give homosexual unions all the same rights – I have no problem whatsoever with that, but don’t destroy that value and definition of marriage in the name of civil rights.
If prop 8 fails, I can promise you it’s only a matter of time before polygamy, child/adult (w/o parental consent) and sibling marriages attempt to follow suit.
Sure, it may sound ridiculous today, but recognizing a gay couple as married sounded ridiculous not so long ago.
November 3, 2008 @ 10:14 AM
cooprider wrote:If prop 8
[quote=cooprider]If prop 8 fails, I can promise you it’s only a matter of time before polygamy, child/adult (w/o parental consent) and sibling marriages attempt to follow suit.[/quote]
Nobody supports non-consensual marriage. Well, except for maybe those who want to limit rights…
November 11, 2008 @ 11:42 PM
Best discussion about prop 8
Best discussion about prop 8 ever.
http://www.colbertnation.com/home
If you missed it tonight, watch it at 8 tomorrow.
Awesome.
November 12, 2008 @ 10:08 AM
afx114 wrote:Nobody supports
[quote=afx114]Nobody supports non-consensual marriage. Well, except for maybe those who want to limit rights…[/quote]
Who said anything about non-consensual? And just wait until someone wants the tax right off under a marraige with their dog…
It sounds absurd, because it is, and so is the fact that this was voted on 8 years ago, some renegade judge turned it over, it was voted on again, and a small minority of people still won’t accept it.
Get over it. You don’t see Republicans filing suit because Obama won.
You want rights, fine, but maybe it’s time to find another way that isn’t such a direct offense to those who value traditional marriage.
November 12, 2008 @ 12:41 PM
You don’t see Republicans
You don’t see Republicans filing suit because Obama winning does not take away their constitutional right to marry.
This will eventually end with gay people having the right to marry. It’s obvious that the electorate is coming around to the idea that gays being able to marry is simply fair.
Ten or twenty years from now, people will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about. And many of those who did vote for Prop. 8 will look back on their decision with some measure of shame.
November 12, 2008 @ 1:31 PM
Mark Holmes wrote:You don’t
[quote=Mark Holmes]You don’t see Republicans filing suit because Obama winning does not take away their constitutional right to marry.
This will eventually end with gay people having the right to marry. It’s obvious that the electorate is coming around to the idea that gays being able to marry is simply fair.
Ten or twenty years from now, people will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about. And many of those who did vote for Prop. 8 will look back on their decision with some measure of shame.[/quote]
The irony is that the Black voters, who came out in droves for Obama, are the ones who put prop 8 over the top. Yet, I still haven’t seen any rallies, blockades or demonstrations at any BLACK churches, just white ones.
The people have spoken…AGAIN and they’ve said loud and clear that they are in favor of a traditional definition of ‘marriage’. Not just in Klownifornia but in a half dozen states around the country in this election alone.
Face it, the majority of people don’t want to have same sex marriage shoved down their throat and are in favor of traditional ‘values’. That your goal is to brush this aside in favor of YOUR moral compass shows how much you value and tolerate the opinions and beliefs of those whom you are vilifying right now for their supposed lack of tolerance.
Even without the California marriage ban, the federal government still does not recognize same sex marriage for the purposes of income tax and SS benefits. Why aren’t you picketing congress and the whitehouse?
November 12, 2008 @ 1:32 PM
Black voters DID NOT tip the
Black voters DID NOT tip the scales for prop 8
http://socialistworker.org/2008/11/11/myth-of-the-black-gay-divide
[quote]The state’s Black population is 6.2 percent, and it accounted for 10 percent of the overall vote. In other words, blaming African Americans for the referendum’s passage ignores 90 percent of the vote.[/quote]
November 12, 2008 @ 1:38 PM
Black voters may have voted
Black voters may have voted in greater % in favor of Prop 8, but it is more of a generational divide than it is a racial divide. Take a look at the voting by age:
When that 18-29 age group moves into the 30-44 age group, we’ll see vastly different results.
November 12, 2008 @ 3:23 PM
You gay people are going
You gay people are going about this whole thing completely wrong. Admit it, what you’re looking for basically is acceptance and respect- and you should have it. We’re way past the whole tolerance thing- except for a few idiots, that was achieved a long time ago. Instead of being so annoyingly pushy about changing well established institutions, how about making yourselves, as a group more worthy of respect. If I was gay, the first thing I would do is get rid of the gay pride parades. I can’t think of anything more demeaning and less worthy of respect than a bunch of guys on a float wearing cone bras. I’m not being flip- I really mean it.
November 12, 2008 @ 3:59 PM
FYI That last post can be
FYI That last post can be commented on by non gays too.
November 12, 2008 @ 4:03 PM
What makes you think we’re
What makes you think we’re NOT trying to tone down behavior at parades? And just because some people act silly once a year in a parade does NOT mean that we should not be asking for the same rights the rest of the country already has.
And WTF….
ANNOYINGLY PUSHY?!?!!!
WTF?!
Were African-Americans “annoyingly pushy” when they asked for the right to sit at the front of the bus?
Were women “annoyingly pushy” when they asked for the right to vote?
How asking for a right that cannot directly affect straight people, in any way, is “annoyingly pushy” is beyond me.
I mean, are you joking?
November 12, 2008 @ 4:12 PM
Mark Holmes wrote:
How asking
[quote=Mark Holmes]
How asking for a right that cannot directly affect straight people, in any way, is “annoyingly pushy” is beyond me.
[/quote]
By defining “marriage” to include men/men, women/women, you are debasing the meaning of marriage in the eyes of millions of married people who actually take the conventional meaning seriously.
If that is considered not “directly affecting” other people, it seems to be a pretty selfish definition.
November 12, 2008 @ 4:17 PM
Hey Mark
I so understand your
Hey Mark
I so understand your anger, and sometimes I read some of the carp here and I want to yell and scream as well.
I mean
wow
just wow
Just lending my support.
November 12, 2008 @ 4:33 PM
meadandale wrote:
By defining
[quote=meadandale]
By defining “marriage” to include men/men, women/women, you are debasing the meaning of marriage in the eyes of millions of married people who actually take the conventional meaning seriously.[/quote]
How about a quick little find/replace:
Are you going to defend that statement too? Not trying to play the bigot card here, I just want to point out that your argument has been used ineffectively in the past, and if history is any indication, it won’t stand for long.
November 12, 2008 @ 4:37 PM
afx114 wrote:If you define
[quote=afx114]If you define your own marriage by someone else’s, you’re doing it wrong.[/quote]
Ok, consider an allegory:
I work my ass off in school and get an A. That grade means something to me as it represents alot of work and a recognition of excellence.
If the teacher decided at the end of the term to just reward everyone in the class with A’s regardless of effort, I’d be pissed. It would diminish and demean the value of the ‘A’ I received and worked for.
As to the canard of comparing gay marriage to interracial marriage…
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27530
Look, I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again:
I have no problem with having the government get out of the ‘marriage’ business. The government should recognize any man/man, woman/woman, man/woman partnership for legal purposes (adoption, taxes, survivor benefits) as a “civil union”. Give everyone the same rights under a civil union. Just don’t call it marriage and we’ll have no issues. Capice?
November 12, 2008 @ 5:10 PM
meadandale wrote:I have no
[quote=meadandale]I have no problem with having the government get out of the ‘marriage’ business. The government should recognize any man/man, woman/woman, man/woman partnership for legal purposes (adoption, taxes, survivor benefits) as a “civil union”. Give everyone the same rights under a civil union. Just don’t call it marriage and we’ll have no issues. Capice?[/quote]
So you want government out of marriage, but you want them banning certain kinds of marriage? You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
I’m not generally a fan of “separate but equal.”
November 12, 2008 @ 8:05 PM
afx114 wrote:So you want
[quote=afx114]So you want government out of marriage, but you want them banning certain kinds of marriage?
[/quote]
I said I’d be happier with having the government out of the marriage business. Short of that, I’ll continue to fight for what I construe as the definition of marriage.
And, the government ALREADY limits who can get married to who. I can’t marry my sister (in most states). I can’t marry my mother. I can’t marry my father. I can’t marry more than one person. I can’t marry someone under 18 (in most states).
I don’t see gays protesting and ‘fighting the good fight’ to relax restrictions on any of these OTHER categories of people who can’t marry. After all, their rights are being taken away…right? RIGHT?!
November 12, 2008 @ 4:37 PM
Christianity:
“Therefore all
Christianity:
“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” Matthew 7:12, King James Version.
Shinto:
“The heart of the person before you is a mirror. See there your own form”
Buddhism:
“…a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?” Samyutta NIkaya v. 353
Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.” Udana-Varga 5:18
Hinduism:
This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you. Mahabharata 5:1517
Native American
“All things are our relatives; what we do to everything, we do to ourselves. All is really One.” Black Elk
Epictetus: “What you would avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on others.” (circa 100 CE)
Kant: “Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature.”
Plato: “May I do to others as I would that they should do unto me.” (Greece; 4th century BCE)
November 12, 2008 @ 6:42 PM
meadandale wrote:Mark Holmes
[quote=meadandale][quote=Mark Holmes]
How asking for a right that cannot directly affect straight people, in any way, is “annoyingly pushy” is beyond me.
[/quote]
By defining “marriage” to include men/men, women/women, you are debasing the meaning of marriage in the eyes of millions of married people who actually take the conventional meaning seriously.
If that is considered not “directly affecting” other people, it seems to be a pretty selfish definition.
[/quote]
Your statement is evidence of your bigotry. The only way gay marriage could “debase” your marriage is if being gay were somehow bad, immoral or negative. It’s like saying that if gays were allowed to be members of your country club, then your membership would somehow be worth less. It betrays your bias.
November 12, 2008 @ 5:25 PM
Mark Holmes wrote:
Were
[quote=Mark Holmes]
Were African-Americans “annoyingly pushy” when they asked for the right to sit at the front of the bus?[/quote]
How can you possibly equate gays not being able to marry with the problems that African Americans have had to endure in this country? Don’t you think that’s a little silly? It just makes your argument seem more ludicris. And I don’t know about you but I’ve BEEN to a gay pride parade and it’s not just a couple of guys acting silly, the whole thing is set up to be bawdy and in your face. I’m just telling you what I’d do if I was gay and wanted more respect and acceptance. And starting a movement to change the image of the gay community is the first thing I would do. You can dismiss what I have to say and get offended if you want, but if it’s acceptance and respect that you want that’s what needs to happen.
November 12, 2008 @ 7:03 PM
fredo4 wrote:Mark Holmes
[quote=fredo4][quote=Mark Holmes]
Were African-Americans “annoyingly pushy” when they asked for the right to sit at the front of the bus?[/quote]
How can you possibly equate gays not being able to marry with the problems that African Americans have had to endure in this country? Don’t you think that’s a little silly? It just makes your argument seem more ludicris. And I don’t know about you but I’ve BEEN to a gay pride parade and it’s not just a couple of guys acting silly, the whole thing is set up to be bawdy and in your face. I’m just telling you what I’d do if I was gay and wanted more respect and acceptance. And starting a movement to change the image of the gay community is the first thing I would do. You can dismiss what I have to say and get offended if you want, but if it’s acceptance and respect that you want that’s what needs to happen.
[/quote]
How can I possibly equate what gays have gone through with what African Americans have gone through?
Hmmmmmmmm, let’s see:
Like African-Americans, gay people have been harassed, imprisoned, denied jobs and housing, thrown out of the military, beaten and murdered for their sexual orientation.
Like African Americans, they do not choose their orientation, as African Americans do not choose their skin color.
Unlike African Americans, they are routinely disowned by their families, friends and citizens when revealing their status.
Unlike African Americans, it is still acceptable to discriminate against them.
I cannot control the behavior of every gay person. I conduct my life in a respectable, dignified manner. I go to work, I pay my bills, I pay my taxes, feed my dogs, mow my lawn and live my life much like you do. I’ve been to three gay pride parades in my life. Yes, I saw a few outrageous floats. I also saw a lot of middle-aged, boring gay people out enjoying a walk. I saw parents and friends of gay people walking with the PFLGAG contingent. I saw gay and lesbian couples carrying their children.
Did you actually go to a Pride Parade, Fredo? Or did you just see photos and video of one in the news, which typically runs the most outrageous pictures they get?
You must certainly be an exceptional individual, to be able to sit in moral judgement of so many others…
Have you ever sinned? Gotten drunk and made a fool of yourself? Said something you regretted later? Broken a law, but didn’t get caught?
I doubt that you are perfect; and I doubt even more that all the people you would claim as part of your community are perfect either. Don’t be so quick to judge others.
November 12, 2008 @ 7:17 PM
fredo4 wrote: If I was gay,
[quote=fredo4] If I was gay, the first thing I would do is get rid of the gay pride parades. I can’t think of anything more demeaning and less worthy of respect than a bunch of guys on a float wearing cone bras. I’m not being flip- I really mean it.[/quote]
I voted no against prop 8. Rights are rights, after all, and I think being selective about who gets what rights, it is not fair.
However, the gay pride parade really doesn’t help the cause here. I have been to a few back in the day, and they were fun and all, but sheesh, it really does get very obnoxious. Then the party goes to the park where it disintegrates into a slut fest. It is a really gross free for all in my book.
November 12, 2008 @ 10:18 PM
For those that support Prop
For those that support Prop 8, what is your opinion on Obama and Biden stating that they do not support gay marriage? I know that they may have not supported prop 8 for constitutional reasons, but essentially, they are against gay marriage.
November 12, 2008 @ 10:41 PM
To Cafeluv:
Let me ask, if
To Cafeluv:
Let me ask, if you see Leviticus as only applying to certain people, in a certain time, which parts of the Bible do you see as outlawing being gay?
I also study the bible (including the parts predating the Council of Nicea and the canonization of the Torah) and I don’t really see it.
If we are going based more on today’s norms (which your post seems to imply), that does not seem to be a good place to locate hatred of (or condescension about) sexual acts between consenting adults. Most people in cosmopolitan and suburban America don’t feel gayness to be socially offensive.
But I’ll bite. Which parts of which testament seem to outlaw gayness (bearing in mind that “sodomy” does not literally mean anal or homosexual sex)?
Seems like a slippery argument for someone claiming to be part of a club known for love.
November 13, 2008 @ 9:12 AM
Folks, “cafeluv” is Marion
Folks, “cafeluv” is Marion inexplicably wasting everyone’s time (including her own) by sneaking back into the site yet again to post things that are only going to get deleted. She has done this about a dozen times in the past few days.
She was banned from the site a while back because she crossed the line and started posting personal information about another forum member. I will continue to ban each of her new usernames and to delete all her posts. (BTW yes I have blocked her IP but that’s easy enough to get around).
If she comes back as yet another a new user, not engage her because A) it only seems to encourage her and B) replies to her comments are automatically deleted when I delete the parent comment.
Marion, if you are reading this: we all have better things to do, including you. Please stop.
Rich
November 13, 2008 @ 9:27 AM
Thanks Rich
Thanks Rich