Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 170
  1.    #101  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Sure, but people are always telling us that we should be more focused on acceptance and diversity. I'm a mutt, too.

    Well, what better way to perpetuate a system than to enforce it that way? Do you think God really carved 'honor thy father and mother' into stone tablets, or do you think that the older people taught that to more easily control the youth?
    LOL. Good point except that it only reinforces the argument that religion has a long history when it comes to marriage. Yes, there were always legal obligations for married people (or to be married in some societies) but they centered around obligations the couple had more so than civil rights. So perhaps I should have stated things differently - but it would seem we largely agree on the main point:

    Gay/Lesbians are being discriminated against and should be allowed to marry with the same legal rights bestowed upon straight couples when they marry.
  2. #102  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    LOL. Good point except that it only reinforces the argument that religion has a long history when it comes to marriage.
    It only reinforces it in the sense that people have always had some sort of 'religion' in an effort to explain things they couldn't explain, and people have always had some sort of marriage as long as people have had children, tried to bond tribes, or tried to seek 'security' in numbers.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  3. #103  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    What didn't get a lot of press is that, in response to the courts' approval of same sex marriage in my state (CT), there was an attempt to have a Constitutional Convention to change our constitution and over-rule this decision. Despite a great deal of advertising, it was resoundingly defeated.
    I know! Go CT!!! It's the influence of those liberal massholes.
  4. #104  
    Quote Originally Posted by questionfear
    Um...gee. I wonder why. Maybe because while you might be a very nice person, I have no desire to be tied to you in the legal sense? That's a ridiculous assertion, and it completely undermines the fact that I wish to have a lasting, legally recognized union with another person.
    Let me ask two things (based on the above boldface):

    1 – Does the government, be it a marriage or a civil union, care one way or another why two people join together?

    2 – If you wanted to marry me not for love, but merely because we were good friends and wished to give authority to one another to make medical decisions as well as will our property to the other, should the government stop us?

    Think carefully as the point is to show that the law has no concern—not a single one—as to why we might marry, but more so a matter of what sex we marry. This is the problem and it actually has little to do with who you love or are attracted to or not.

    And that's great, but reality is unfortunately quite different.
    So basically, even though I have already lined out a plan that would put you on the exact same footing as any heterosexual marriage, you still don’t care merely because it’s not a reality (at least at this point)?

    Do you actually want a legal recognized union that offers the same privileges and protections or not? Or is it that you are just hung up on having the title, “marriage?” It’s starting to sound like the latter over the former.

    Really? In my world I call it rank bigotry. The court system of the State of California acknowledged there was no legal reason to not grant a right (marriage) to a group of people. The voters decided to say **** you to the constitution and change it.

    You clearly don't take the right of marriage for all people seriously if you think ANY same-sex marriage advocate should feel shamed. None of the advocates of same-sex marriage wanted that on the ballot. We were given a right in a state, and then people swooped in and vote it out, despite the fact that it in no way shape or form did it impact their lives. I have no idea why so many Americans believe that equal rights are fine and dandy as long as they are for straight people. As far as I am concerned, every single person who voted for Prop 8 is a homophobic bigot, plain and simple.
    Well, you are wrong—it’s hypocrisy. The moment someone voted, the automatically accepted the notion that the outcome may be one they don’t desire. That was the point of creating an analogy with Obama.

    And actually, the real problem isn’t that I don’t take individual rights seriously because as it has been clearly shown, I’ve put a significant more amount of thought into this subject than most anyone in this thread—at least according to what I have read. I find you incredibly pompous to even say such a thing right after telling me—how did it go?—“reality is unfortunately quite different.”

    Are you kidding me? I tell you I developed a plan that would permit homosexual couples to have the exact same privileges and protections under the law and that as a bonus, it also manages to secure a number of other individual liberties and you respond by suggesting I don’t take liberties seriously?

    Good for you. This isn't the same as a candidate getting elected or not getting elected. This is about equal rights. I don't need to back down or say I'm sorry or congratulations to the people who spread lies and false advertising about what same-sex marriage means. I don't need to congratulate people who think that my existence is a blot on the morality of society. This isn't a ****ing game of baseball, this is my ****ing life and other people get to tell me what rights I can and can't have in it. And that is as anti-American as it gets.
    And I have aptly covered equal rights—which for the record extend well beyond gay person’s situations if you’d actually take the time to look—for all persons. You want to talk about being American? How about accepting defeat without pouting?

    The moment any advocate voted in favor of same-sex marriages, they automatically are obligated to accept the fact that the result would be less than desired (in other words, they might lose).

    IF
    advocates really believe that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right they had ZERO business voting on it. They should have garnered full support from all advocates and refused to vote on the issue, period.


    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  5. #105  
    And I have aptly covered equal rights—which for the record extend well beyond gay person’s situations if you’d actually take the time to look—for all persons. You want to talk about being American? How about accepting defeat without pouting?
    Yes, and those pesky black people should have just accepted that the majority voted for Jim Crow laws....after all, the education gave them, to use DL's term "the exact same rights and privileges" as white people. And the water was just as cold in those "different but equal" water fountains.

    I'm glad that we have such strong advocates against same-sex marriage in other parts of the country....after all, here in CT, the ability for gay people to be married immediately devalued my 20-year marriage. I'm afraid it may just turn Mrs. Bujin and I gay.
    Last edited by Bujin; 11/09/2008 at 09:17 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  6. #106  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Yes, and those pesky black people should have just accepted that the majority voted for Jim Crow laws....after all, the education gave them, to use DL's term "the exact same rights and privileges" as white people. And the water was just as cold in those black water fountains.
    I have to reverse my decision to converse with you. First you misquote me and then you create an analogy that doesn't work based on something silly . . . like history. Since you want to compare the vote in CA to Jim Crow Laws, tell me:

    How many of those laws were blacks given the option to vote for or against?



    Considering that Jim Crow was between 1876 and 1965 along with the fact that it wasn't until 1965 when blacks were fully given the right to vote, it would seem that you are ill informed in your analogy.

    Unlike same-sex advocates (many who are actually gay) in CA, blacks were not given the option to vote, and in many cases the laws were actually created to intentionally prevent them from voting on these very laws.

    Now tell me, exactly how does the situation of Jim Crow Laws comport with the situation with Proposition 8 in California?
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  7. #107  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    I have to reverse my decision to converse with you. First you misquote me and then you create an analogy that doesn't work based on something silly . . . like history. Since you want to compare the vote in CA to Jim Crow Laws, tell me:

    How many of those laws were blacks given the option to vote for or against?

    Considering that Jim Crow was between 1876 and 1965 along with the fact that it wasn't until 1965 when blacks were fully given the right to vote, it would seem that you are ill informed in your analogy.

    Unlike same-sex advocates (many who are actually gay) in CA, blacks were not given the option to vote, and in many cases the laws were actually created to intentionally prevent them from voting on these very laws.

    Now tell me, exactly how does the situation of Jim Crow Laws comport with the situation with Proposition 8 in California?

    I'm quite well-informed, thanks. For example, I have learned that same-sex marriage doesn't actually cause cooties.

    I'm sorry if I brought up that "silly" history of segregation. Despite the fact that you seem to want to divert from it, the real issue has nothing to do with respective voting rights of gays / blacks. Evan with the ability to vote, the fact is that gay people's minority position prevents them from fully protecting their civil rights from the will of the majority. That's the definition of Tyranny of the Majority.

    That, in short, is how Jim Crow is analogous to Proposition 8...it's not an identical situation but the premise is the same. That is why it's called an analogy.

    By the way, you never answered this proposal:

    heterosexual couples can be married, while gay people can have civil unions. However, if a heterosexual couple do not produce their own children within five years, their relationship reverts to a civil union. In that way, your contention that inability to have children will disqualify anyone (regardless of orientation) from being married. Your criteria of procreation becomes the deciding factor, rather than orientation.

    Could you support that? Or do gay people, because of their orientation alone, need to have a different type of union?
    Last edited by Bujin; 11/09/2008 at 10:04 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  8. #108  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I'm quite well-informed, thanks. I usually find that, when people resort to personal attacks, they have little of value to add to a discussion.
    Funny, usually I find that when people start talking about being personally attacked when it is suggested--with evidence--that they are ill-informed about an issue, they in fact, are grasping at straws.

    I'm sorry if I brought up that "silly" history of segregation. Of course, none of what you say above is really relevant to the issue. The issue has nothing to do with whether gay people can vote and black people couldn't.
    It has everything to do with the issue of voting, I mean you did challenge the notion that those who voted in Prop 8 shouldn't have to sit back and accept defeat and now all of a sudden the fact that they could vote didn't matter?

    Un-freaking-believable. This is the most amount of intellectual dishonesty I have seen in some time.



    Now, for this foolish talk about tyranny of the majority . . . Did you see the results of the election? I'll cite, just in case you didn't:

    Yes - 52.3%
    No - 47.7


    If, as you say, the minority status of gay persons prevents them from getting a good foothold in the vote, exactly how do you reconcile the fact that 47.7% of the vote was against Proposition 8?

    That's not a tyranny unless you are going to sit here and say that 47.7% of all the voters had something direct to gain from the vote (read: were gay). If that's the case, they aren't such a small minority after all. If it's not the case, then the majority really isn't such a tyranny (note: they only needed roughly 3% more to have won) as many from the majority voted in favor of gays.

    Maybe I don't have anything to add to the conversation . . . except facts and well-reasoned arguments that don't contradict the facts.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  9. #109  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I'm quite well-informed, thanks. For example, I have learned that same-sex marriage doesn't actually cause cooties.

    I'm sorry if I brought up that "silly" history of segregation. Despite the fact that you seem to want to divert from it, the real issue has nothing to do with respective voting rights of gays / blacks. Evan with the ability to vote, the fact is that gay people's minority position prevents them from fully protecting their civil rights from the will of the majority. That's the definition of Tyranny of the Majority.

    That, in short, is how Jim Crow is analogous to Proposition 8...it's not an identical situation but the premise is the same. That is why it's called an analogy.

    By the way, you never answered this proposal:
    I don't think some get it... when you fail to have compassion for your fellow man, you fail to act rationally.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  10. #110  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    I don't think some get it... when you fail to have compassion for your fellow man, you fail to act rationally.
    I would agree; however, the "compassion" here is defying not only logic, but the facts. I mean "compassion" compared Prop 8 to Jim Crow, but the facts say otherwise. The facts show that advocates lost by a mere 3% . . . seriously, three more percent would have won it and you call it compassion to compare that to Jim Crow where blacks lost by 100%. Three percent is no where near 100%.

    That's called an insult, so don't parade around here talking about lack of compassion.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  11. #111  
    Look, it's pretty simple. There are certain rights given to couples who willingly enter into a legal union. You can call it marriage or civil unions but the fact is, homosexual couples are entitled to these same rights.

    Now if everyone keeps getting hung up on semantics, the gov't legal verbiage will become civil union and marriage ceremonies will be within those religions which permit gay marriage.

    It simply resolves to this and will be handled at the fed level eventually, so why keep bashing it about?
  12. #112  
    Now, for this foolish talk about tyranny of the majority . . . Did you see the results of the election? I'll cite, just in case you didn't:

    Yes - 52.3%
    No - 47.7
    The actual percentage is not the issue - that only shows that there exists a substantial number of people who recognize that we should not deny civil rights to any group, as it diminishes us all. The 47% absolutely had something to gain... they voted for a fair, equitable America, which benefits everyone.

    I never said that being gay denies them a foothold in the vote - I said that it denies them their rights. Tyranny of the Majority doesn't require a certain percentage of the vote... if a majority can, by virtue of their stance as the "ruling party", deny rights to a minority, then the label applies.

    Un-freaking-believable. This is the most amount of intellectual dishonesty I have seen in some time.
    I refer you to the case of "Rubber v. Glue"
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  13. #113  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Look, it's pretty simple. There are certain rights given to couples who willingly enter into a legal union. You can call it marriage or civil unions but the fact is, homosexual couples are entitled to these same rights.

    Now if everyone keeps getting hung up on semantics, the gov't legal verbiage will become civil union and marriage ceremonies will be within those religions which permit gay marriage.

    It simply resolves to this and will be handled at the fed level eventually, so why keep bashing it about?
    I think I proposed that about three pages ago.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  14.    #114  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I think I proposed that about three pages ago.
    Yup.
  15. #115  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Look, it's pretty simple. There are certain rights given to couples who willingly enter into a legal union. You can call it marriage or civil unions but the fact is, homosexual couples are entitled to these same rights.

    Now if everyone keeps getting hung up on semantics, the gov't legal verbiage will become civil union and marriage ceremonies will be within those religions which permit gay marriage.

    It simply resolves to this and will be handled at the fed level eventually, so why keep bashing it about?
    Isn't our law based on bashing out these semantics? We are careful to properly define everything else, yet here all of a sudden we aren't supposed to? What kind of consistency is that?

    If I kill someone, it could be any of the following: murder, homicide, self-defense or manslaughter--all based on varying aspects of me killing another person.



    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin
    The actual percentage is not the issue - that only shows that there exists a substantial number of people who recognize that we should not deny civil rights to any group, as it diminishes us all.
    Got it . . . facts don't matter, history doesn't matter . . . all that matters is your a priori bias that refuses to acknowledge silly and trite items such as facts.


    Furthermore, what you have failed to acknowledge in your alleged, tyranny of the majority is the "tyranny" part. What happened in California amounts to a balanced table for which the minority to get a fair chance.

    - No one was intimidated
    - No one was prevented from casting their say (vote)
    - No one received retribution from their say (vote)

    This is why your analogy of Jim Crow is completely bogus. The majority was free to choose either "Yes" or "No" as was the minority group. Because they lost in no way suggests a tyranny without at least showing some tyranny. By that very logic, anytime a majority group wins an election it would be tyranny--including the fact that Obama (a male) garnered the nomination over Hillary (a female).

    Seriously, your assertion doesn't match up and so terribly so that Alexis de Tocqueville himself (the writer who coined the phrase Tyranny of the Majority) wouldn't agree with you.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  16. #116  
    DL, I'd suggest that you simply look up Tyranny of the Majority. It has absolutely nothing to do with the majority suppressing the minority's ability to vote, merely the fact that, because the can control the outcome of the vote, they can deny the rights of the minority.

    I'm going to leave you now, because it is obvious that you are getting very cranky, probably because you're tired from all of the mental pretzels you're tying yourself into to logically justify a position that is inherently illogical. You can continue to rant about how gay people don't deserve civil rights. I'll be at home, thankful that the majority don't have the sopport to overturn the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because by your logic, that would be justifiable as long as the majority ruled.
    Last edited by Bujin; 11/10/2008 at 06:12 AM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  17. #117  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    DL, I'd suggest that you simply look up Tyranny of the Majority. It has absolutely nothing to do with the majority suppressing the minority's ability to vote, merely the fact that, because the can control the outcome of the vote, they can deny the rights of the minority.
    And when you can prove that the majority actually controlled the outcome, you'll have a case. Until then, you just have your eloquent versions of, "not uh" to cling against.


    You can continue to rant about how gay people don't deserve civil rights.
    Hmm, never said that and you know full well you can't prove otherwise.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  18.    #118  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    And when you can prove that the majority actually controlled the outcome, you'll have a case. Until then, you just have your eloquent versions of, "not uh" to cling against.

    Hmm, never said that and you know full well you can't prove otherwise.
    Okay DL, here is your big chance. Please articulate succinctly what is your position on the following (please keep the "why" to one sentence) to :

    1. Civil Unions of Gay Couples (yes or no and why)?

    2. Legally Recognized Marriage of Gay Couples (yes or no and why)?

    3. Do Civil Unions and Marriage Offer to the Same Legal Rights (yes or no and why)?

    4. Should Government Be Allowed to Decide Which Marriage, and from Which Churches, are Recognized as Legal Unions (yes or no and why)?

    5. Similar to Previous Civil Rights Matters, Should the Federal Government Play a Role in Standardizing Gay/Lesbian/Straight Couples Rights in Marriage and/or Civil Unions? (yes or no and why)?
  19. #119  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    And when you can prove that the majority actually controlled the outcome, you'll have a case. Until then, you just have your eloquent versions of, "not uh" to cling against.
    I'll return just to clarify, because you seem to be having difficulty with this concept: the majority (straight people) control the outcome by virtue of having more voting power, thereby denying civil rights to the minority (gay people). No proof is required - the fact that the vote turned out the way it did, on an issue regarding denying civil rights to the minority group, is the definition of Tyranny of the Majority. Glad to be of help!

    (By the way, I have no clue what your "not uh" message means - is it in code? Or can I buy a vowel?)
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  20. #120  
    DL: Your argument regarding same-sex marriage advocates buying into the system by voting is absolutely absurd. No one in California who was pro-same-sex marriage brought that to the people. It was determined via the court system that the constitution of California allowed same-sex marriages. People who believed otherwise brought the amendment to the voters. Should everyone who was for same-sex marriage have stayed home instead?

    My main point, and I apologize if in my general crankiness and stress level yesterday I did not make this clear, is that this is not an issue that should have ever gone to the people of California. Civil rights in this country have never been at the whim of the majority. Would you believe it was ok if after "Brown vs the Board of Education" the USA passed a constitutional amendment changing the equal protection clause to make "separate but equal" legal? After all, the people who are against it get the chance to vote.

    Democracy at the point of a gun (vote and lose your right to complain; don't vote and lose your right anyway) is not democracy. The rights of two consenting adults to form a lasting legal union is not one that my neighbors get to determine. And when the constitution grants a minority a right, the answer is not to override the constitution. That is absolutely anti-American in my view.

Posting Permissions