Armed Polite Society
September 19, 2020, 04:55:50 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: R.I.P. Scout26
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 12
  Print  
Author Topic: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8  (Read 103197 times)
makattak
Dark Lord of the Cis
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 12,753



« Reply #100 on: November 11, 2008, 05:18:58 PM »

I read your post and found it flawed.  Some traditions have a reason, others are just a tradition because they are.  If we followed tradition at all times we would never advance, never change.  We would become stagnant and fall in on ourselves as a society. 

And I hate to break it to you, Tradition is not a good enough reason to deny a person or entire class of person the same rights and freedoms we give to others.  People had that mindset with woman's rights, and civil rights for blacks.   Of course I am sure there are a number of people who feel that both woman's suffrage and civil rights are a bad thing.  They are also reviled and ridiculed by most of the population.

I have yet to see a single person give a response to how they see if would be different if a Constitutional amendment was passed that forbid mixed race couples again or perhaps stated that a couple had to produce children.  Even if something like this somehow passed it would not be right.  So what is the difference here?

I'm sorry, where is marriage a right?

If we denied gay people the right to vote or denied them the right to own property or denied them the right to refuse to quarter soldiers, you might have a point.

WHERE is a government recognized marriage a right?

Why do you want to force people to accept and celebrate what they find deviant?

Also, I'm sure it's ok to reject tradition out of hand. I'm sure you're far more intelligent than the millions who came before us.
Report to moderator   Logged

“Wisdom is the right use of knowledge. To know is not to be wise. Many men know a great deal, and are all the greater fools for it. There is no fool so great a fool as a knowing fool. But to know how to use knowledge is to have wisdom.”
MicroBalrog
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 14,505


« Reply #101 on: November 11, 2008, 05:20:19 PM »

Quote
Also, I'm sure it's ok to reject tradition out of hand. I'm sure you're far more intelligent than the millions who came before us.

Intelligence is not additive.
Report to moderator   Logged

Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner
makattak
Dark Lord of the Cis
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 12,753



« Reply #102 on: November 11, 2008, 05:25:09 PM »

Intelligence is not additive.

Dang, I guess we have to start physics from scratch and ignore that Newton guy...
Report to moderator   Logged

“Wisdom is the right use of knowledge. To know is not to be wise. Many men know a great deal, and are all the greater fools for it. There is no fool so great a fool as a knowing fool. But to know how to use knowledge is to have wisdom.”
MicroBalrog
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 14,505


« Reply #103 on: November 11, 2008, 05:31:12 PM »

Dang, I guess we have to start physics from scratch and ignore that Newton guy...

Millions of people across the world supported human slavery for millenia. I bet they were very smart... no.

Besides, Newton was one guy.
Report to moderator   Logged

Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner
Kwelz
Member
*
Posts: 139


« Reply #104 on: November 11, 2008, 05:34:25 PM »

Perhaps I should clarify something first.  I think a church should be able to marry or not marry whomever they want to.  Just like any other non governmental entity it should have the right to make such decisions.  However the issue at hand is the governmental recognition of marriage.  You don't need a ceremony to be married you need a document from your county signed by someone who is authorized to do so and a couple witnesses.  

Perhaps marriage is not a right as recognized by the constitution however once the government starts arbitrarily telling people whom they can and can not marry it is no far stretch for them to start dictating other things.  Oh I don't know, like firearms ownership.  

And I am sorry that you find two people caring for each other Deviant.  But what impact does that have on your ability to live your life.  Remember that your rights end where mine begin.  And once you start crossing that line and trying to dictate another persons life you have ventured outside of what I personally would consider proper and civilized behavior.  

Millions of so called "intelligent" men approved of slavery.  Millions of so called "intelligent" men thought it was ok to keep women as a second class citizen.  None of those millions were right.  So yes in some cases I do think I am more intelligent or at the very least a more honorable person than those people.  Once again, give me facts.  Not just because, or it has always been that ways..  
Report to moderator   Logged
Ron
friends
Senior Member
***
Posts: 8,009


like a tree planted by rivers of water


« Reply #105 on: November 11, 2008, 07:44:33 PM »

Quote
Perhaps I should clarify something first.  I think a church should be able to marry or not marry whomever they want to.  Just like any other non governmental entity it should have the right to make such decisions.

Churches are not really non government entities.

Churches are tax exempt corporations which by definition I believe are called entities of the state.

If the state acknowledges same sex marriage how long before churches are required by threat of force to obey the state by recognizing same sex unions or lose their tax exempt status?

The power to tax truly is the power to control.

 

Report to moderator   Logged

The wish not to believe can influence as strongly as the wish to believe.

Who can escape their own cognitive biases?
roo_ster
Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 21,225


Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats


« Reply #106 on: November 11, 2008, 07:45:35 PM »

It seems that most arguments against Gay Marriage come from a Religious reasoning.

"Most?"  Doubtful. 

Generally only one of the tangential arguments is religiously based.  I usually don't even bother making it. 

OTOH, most attacks on those who wish to preserve marriage come from an anti-religious vector.  For some reason, they think that if they claim loudly and frequently that all opposition is religious-based bigotry, their lie will be made true.

The arguments I have made are usually based on:
1. Biology
2. Economics
3. Equal treatment
4. The illegitimacy of comparing homosexual practice with race/ethnicity
5. Civilizational Survival
6. Resistance to vocal minorities attempting to impose thier value system on the majority
7. Respect for the COTUS and the various state constitutions and processes vs disdain for them in pursuit of some political goal
Report to moderator   Logged

Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton
freakazoid
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 6,151


« Reply #107 on: November 11, 2008, 08:28:09 PM »

Quote
Also, Freakazoid, if you don't want to take a study from the Department of Health and Human Services during CLINTON'S presidency, you are willfully blind.

What does it being during Clintons presidency have to do with anything. By calling myself a leftists I DON'T Democrat. To us you are all right wing.

Quote
because they really don't stand for anything?  cause generally they are parasitic?

 angry  angry
Report to moderator   Logged

"so I ended up getting the above because I didn't want to make a whole production of sticking something between my knees and cranking. To me, the cranking on mine is pretty effortless, at least on the coarse setting. Maybe if someone has arthritis or something, it would be more difficult for them." - Ben

"I see a rager at least once a week." - brimic
Eleven Mike
friends
Senior Member
***
Posts: 546


All your desert are belong to us.


« Reply #108 on: November 11, 2008, 08:33:27 PM »

I have yet to see a single person give a response to how they see if would be different if a Constitutional amendment was passed that forbid mixed race couples again or perhaps stated that a couple had to produce children.  Even if something like this somehow passed it would not be right.  So what is the difference here?


That tired argument is nothing more than a race card.  You can't claim a right, simply by comparing your pet cause to Black civil rights.  Racial issues shed no light at all on this issue.
Report to moderator   Logged
freakazoid
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 6,151


« Reply #109 on: November 11, 2008, 08:35:26 PM »

It is the exact same thing.
Report to moderator   Logged

"so I ended up getting the above because I didn't want to make a whole production of sticking something between my knees and cranking. To me, the cranking on mine is pretty effortless, at least on the coarse setting. Maybe if someone has arthritis or something, it would be more difficult for them." - Ben

"I see a rager at least once a week." - brimic
GigaBuist
friends
Senior Member
***
Posts: 4,345



WWW
« Reply #110 on: November 11, 2008, 09:16:32 PM »

If we denied gay people the right to vote or denied them the right to own property or denied them the right to refuse to quarter soldiers, you might have a point.

WHERE is a government recognized marriage a right?

Interesting that you compare the two.  It's a perfect example that illustrates just how wrong you are, legally speaking.

We don't have a right to vote, what we have are a series of protections to prohibit discrimination against various groups when it comes to exercising the power of voting.  If you let group A do it, group B and C get to too.

California's Supreme Court has already held that somewhere in their State Constitution (something like a equal-rights non-discrimination amendment or clause, I forget the details) applies to gays and it applies to marriage, ergo, if you allow group A to marry group B and C get to too.  Since Prop 8 is effectively revising the document instead of just tagging onto it they're going to shoot it down.  Prop 8 supporters are going to need more than a simple majority if they want to get the State Constitution properly amended to prohibit gays from marrying.

Let's say it doesn't go down in flames though.  What's next?

Probably the right to marry within the family, something I fully support if we're going to have gay marriage.  Put away the pitchforks.  It's not like that.

The reasoning behind most laws against marrying your cousin or sister is the slightly elevated risk of various genetic diseases.  Some states actually allow you to marry a 1st cousin if you're unable to have kids, like the male has gotten a vasectomy, or you're both over 65 years old.  They're state laws, so they're different, but that's the general theme.

So, if two dudes can get married why can't I marry my brother? 

Stop looking at me like that.  This is a thought exercise!

There doesn't have to be any sex going on, but I can see why this would be beneficial to old guys that are unmarried.  Tie the knot with your brother and your insurance covers him, it's easier to share assets, and in my state (MI) we'd be able to trade handguns back and forth without any stupid paperwork or registration hassles.

Next, with it firmly established in our society that you cannot discriminate based on sex, why couldn't a dude marry his sister?  Cousin?  I could see a legal argument for it.  It'd probably be shot down, but somebody would try exploring it.

I'm not trying to make a slippery-slope argument here or anything.  I'm fine with gay marriage, just exploring the unintended legal consequences.
Report to moderator   Logged
Eleven Mike
friends
Senior Member
***
Posts: 546


All your desert are belong to us.


« Reply #111 on: November 11, 2008, 09:27:12 PM »

It is the exact same thing.

What?  Interracial marriage and homosexual marriage?  You're honestly telling me that those two things are the same issue?  A difference in skin color is "exactly" the same issue as the lack of an opposite-sex partner? 

You can't be that blind. 

You do understand that marriage is an opposite-sex sort of thing, right? 
Report to moderator   Logged
Kwelz
Member
*
Posts: 139


« Reply #112 on: November 11, 2008, 09:35:08 PM »



1. Biology

Most mammals exhibit some form of homosexuality.
 
2. Economics

I would like to see this supposed negative economic impact that allowing two people to marry would have.  If this is the case we need to start limiting all marriages because they will just get out of hand otherwise. 


3. Equal treatment

I think everyone should be treated equal regardless of who they decide to love and/or sleep with.

4. The illegitimacy of comparing homosexual practice with race/ethnicity

The only difference is that one is obvious at first glance and the other can be hidden. 

5. Civilizational Survival

No one is saying that everyone has to be gay.  There are plenty of strait people out there who will continue the population.

6. Resistance to vocal minorities attempting to impose thier value system on the majority

Yeah, how dare they want the same status as everyone else.  Just like those uppity women and black people. 


7. Respect for the COTUS and the various state constitutions and processes vs disdain for them in pursuit of some political goal

A constitution that represses a people is worthy of nothing but disdain and contempt.  Thankfully our National constitution has been mostly fixed in regards to relegating any class of person to second class status.  Now we just need to fix the state ones.  This includes making sure they guarantee people the right to defend themselves as well as be with whomever they want. 
 


GigaBuist

You touch on another issue where I probably differ from most people.  While I personally think that would be a bit...  Well ick.  I also think that 2 consenting and knowledgeable adults should be able to have whatever relationship they want. 

And where do we draw the line.  There are many Heterosexual acts that many people here would consider immoral I am sure.  This ranges from pre/extra marital sex to fetishes like watersports, scat, bondage, Ponyplay, S&M, these are all outside the norm.  SO do we outlaw these acts because some people find them abhorrent.  We should always look to expand rights and freedoms never restrict or take them away. 

Eleven Mike

I am saying that they are exactly the same thing.  To some people a persons sex makes them no different than a persons skin color.  Marriage to some people is a bond between 2 people.  They don't put ANY restriction on whom those 2 people are.  (Excluding of course children)
Report to moderator   Logged
freakazoid
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 6,151


« Reply #113 on: November 11, 2008, 09:44:24 PM »

Quote
And where do we draw the line.  There are many Heterosexual acts that many people here would consider immoral I am sure.  This ranges from pre/extra marital sex to fetishes like watersports, scat, bondage, Ponyplay, S&M, these are all outside the norm.  SO do we outlaw these acts because some people find them abhorrent.  We should always look to expand rights and freedoms never restrict or take them away.

Not only that but some believe it should ONLY be reserved for the purpose of procreation. Perhaps it should be a law that that is the only reason for sex. Of course if you are planning on putting that you have to enforce it...

Also what are watersports?
Report to moderator   Logged

"so I ended up getting the above because I didn't want to make a whole production of sticking something between my knees and cranking. To me, the cranking on mine is pretty effortless, at least on the coarse setting. Maybe if someone has arthritis or something, it would be more difficult for them." - Ben

"I see a rager at least once a week." - brimic
Kwelz
Member
*
Posts: 139


« Reply #114 on: November 11, 2008, 09:48:43 PM »

Not only that but some believe it should ONLY be reserved for the purpose of procreation. Perhaps it should be a law that that is the only reason for sex. Of course if you are planning on putting that you have to enforce it...

Also what are watersports?

Don't ask a question unless you want an honest answer....  LOL

It is a nice way of saying people who like to either urinate on others or be urinated on themselves.  Some of the more extreme people also ingest it. 
Report to moderator   Logged
freakazoid
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 6,151


« Reply #115 on: November 11, 2008, 09:55:44 PM »

Ohhh.... ewwww. lol Didn't know that that was what it was called.
Report to moderator   Logged

"so I ended up getting the above because I didn't want to make a whole production of sticking something between my knees and cranking. To me, the cranking on mine is pretty effortless, at least on the coarse setting. Maybe if someone has arthritis or something, it would be more difficult for them." - Ben

"I see a rager at least once a week." - brimic
GigaBuist
friends
Senior Member
***
Posts: 4,345



WWW
« Reply #116 on: November 11, 2008, 10:15:04 PM »

Quote
And where do we draw the line.  There are many Heterosexual acts that many people here would consider immoral I am sure.  This ranges from pre/extra marital sex to fetishes like watersports, scat, bondage, Ponyplay, S&M, these are all outside the norm.  SO do we outlaw these acts because some people find them abhorrent.

That's actually where the gay-rights issue started in the courts. Lawson was a case in Texas challenging their anti-sodomy laws. With the anti-sodomy laws shot down it was now legal to actually be gay and sexually active.

So, I guess we can thank the gay activist community for legal oral sex.  They're not ALL bad, eh?
Report to moderator   Logged
Eleven Mike
friends
Senior Member
***
Posts: 546


All your desert are belong to us.


« Reply #117 on: November 11, 2008, 10:15:29 PM »

Quote
Eleven Mike

I am saying that they are exactly the same thing.  To some people a persons sex makes them no different than a persons skin color.  Marriage to some people is a bond between 2 people.  They don't put ANY restriction on whom those 2 people are.  (Excluding of course children)


Those feelings are interesting to consider.  But since facts are more relevant to our legal system, let's go through a few of those. 

1.  Race does not equal sex.  Race is a social construct, based on our view of certain inherited characteristics.  Sex (i.e. male or female) is a biological matter, entailing real differences in physiology and psychology.  Sexual orientation is something else entirely, and we could spend pages of forum space debating whether it is learned, inherited, a genetic predisposition, a choice, and so on and so forth.  That being the case, it would be decidedly foolish to think that we could plug each issue into the same mold. 

2.  Marriage is a heterosexual institution, requiring at least one member of each sex.  This is not an opinion, a religious belief, a custom or a tradition.  It is a fact.

And finally, a question.  If you're saying that my side are no better than racists, will you quit complaining when we compare homosexuals to pedophiles?  Seems fair to me. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Kwelz
Member
*
Posts: 139


« Reply #118 on: November 11, 2008, 10:42:55 PM »

I see what you are getting at there however a couple other things to consider.  First It is illegal by law to discriminate against someone based on Race or sex.  That means both are considered "protected classes" by the .gov. 
Secondly there is some very minor biological differences between the races does exist.  Some races are more inclined to certain diseases, etc. 

Marriage, like many other things has changed over time.  One can argue good or bad on this but things do change.  Once again Marriage is an institution between two people.  Many of us, regardless of our personal orientation, don't see any difference between the sexes for marriage.  IN fact many laws do not make a determination on a marriage being male/female only. 

I don't know how to answer your last question.  I see any bigotry as wrong regardless of the target.  I am at a loss as to how you could compare Homosexuals to Pedophiles. 
Report to moderator   Logged
GigaBuist
friends
Senior Member
***
Posts: 4,345



WWW
« Reply #119 on: November 11, 2008, 11:16:40 PM »

1.  Race does not equal sex.

Well, they're both controlled by genetics.  Seems equal to me.

Quote
Race is a social construct, based on our view of certain inherited characteristics.

Not really. I mean, we're talking about a legal issue here.  Not actual racism.  In terms of the law generally speaking if you have ANY African blood in you you're considered African-American.  I'm not aware of any period in this nation's history, or California's history, which put an "inherited characteristics" test on the racial makeup of a person.

Legally you're an African-American or not.  It doesn't matter what you look like.  Kim duToit and Michael Jackson don't LOOK African-American, but they are.

Quote
Sex (i.e. male or female) is a biological matter, entailing real differences in physiology and psychology.

Yes and no.  Sex is determined based on the presence of a Y chromosome, not whether or not you've actually go a penis or a vagina.  Things get wonky when you stumble up on the rare XXY folks.

Quote
2.  Marriage is a heterosexual institution, requiring at least one member of each sex.  This is not an opinion, a religious belief, a custom or a tradition.  It is a fact.
Not according to the California Supreme Court.

Quote
And finally, a question.  If you're saying that my side are no better than racists, will you quit complaining when we compare homosexuals to pedophiles?  
Hey, why stop there?  Let's go whole hog and just blame the Jews for Communism and every problem with our country!

Did you just seriously defend the position that homosexuals are pedophiles as a rule of thumb?  You might as well have said that inter-racial marriage is going to result in the black men raping our white women.
Report to moderator   Logged
MicroBalrog
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 14,505


« Reply #120 on: November 12, 2008, 12:04:30 AM »

Quote
2.  Marriage is a heterosexual institution, requiring at least one member of each sex.  This is not an opinion, a religious belief, a custom or a tradition.  It is a fact.

You repeating 'it is a fact' does not make it so. Marriage is a social institution. Its definition is a social institution morphs through the years.

Quote
Sex (i.e. male or female) is a biological matter, entailing real differences in physiology and psychology.

Gender though is a social creature, having to do with self-definition and mindset – which is why people sometimes require reassignment surgery – but that's a topic for a whole other thread.
Report to moderator   Logged

Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner
Eleven Mike
friends
Senior Member
***
Posts: 546


All your desert are belong to us.


« Reply #121 on: November 12, 2008, 04:18:01 AM »

Quote
I am at a loss as to how you could compare Homosexuals to Pedophiles.

I'm not comparing them.  But if you look at any thread on this subject, you'll see someone point out similarities between the two issues.  NOT necessarily saying that homosexuals ARE pedophiles, but just comparing the two issues, in the abstract.  This is always met by shocked outrage, by someone who has no problem making the miscegenation argument.  See below.


Did you just seriously defend the position that homosexuals are pedophiles as a rule of thumb?  You might as well have said that inter-racial marriage is going to result in the black men raping our white women.

 grin   Way to miss the point!  How about you folks don't call us racists, and we don't say that they're like pedophiles?  Deal? 
Report to moderator   Logged
roo_ster
Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 21,225


Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats


« Reply #122 on: November 12, 2008, 04:56:12 AM »

Way to miss the point!  How about you folks don't call us racists, and we don't say that they're like pedophiles?  Deal? 

11M:

They won't agree, because nearly the entirely of their argument consists of the risible habit of conflating race and sexual practice.

Oddly enough, the huge proportion of black and hispanic folks who voted FOR Prop 8 who are, you know, actually black & hispanic, do not agree the two are in any way similar.
Report to moderator   Logged

Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton
MicroBalrog
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 14,505


« Reply #123 on: November 12, 2008, 05:21:47 AM »

11M:

They won't agree, because nearly the entirely of their argument consists of the risible habit of conflating race and sexual practice.

Oddly enough, the huge proportion of black and hispanic folks who voted FOR Prop 8 who are, you know, actually black & hispanic, do not agree the two are in any way similar.

Forget race.

Race, as we all know, is not a choice, and we do not know whether sexual orientation (rather than behavior) is a choice.

How about religion? Religion is a choice. Nobody argues Christianity is genetic.

How would you appreciate a NO DOGS AND CHRISTIANS ALLOWED sign?
Report to moderator   Logged

Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner
cassandra and sara's daddy
friends
Senior Member
***
Posts: 20,781


« Reply #124 on: November 12, 2008, 07:17:40 AM »

Oddly enough, the huge proportion of black and hispanic folks who voted FOR Prop 8 who are, you know, actually black & hispanic, do not agree the two are in any way similar.


and wisely the heros of the revolution chose a white church to stage their event.   try a black baptist or ame church and it would be youtube fabulous
Report to moderator   Logged

It is much more powerful to seek Truth for one's self.  Seeing and hearing that others seem to have found it can be a motivation.  With me, I was drawn because of much error and bad judgment on my part. Confronting one's own errors and bad judgment is a very life altering situation.  Confronting the errors and bad judgment of others is usually hypocrisy.


by someone older and wiser than I
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 12
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!