A political ad campaign officially breaks the BSometer

[Demon-Xanth]

California prop 8 is about a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Simple and straight forward enough, right?

The proponents first started out saying "It's all about kids and education", to which the anti prop 8 ads raised the BS flag because it's obviously about neither. Their latest ad said it's about "Religious freedom", I'm not shitting you. They're trying to spin this one more than a DJ spins a record.

They should just say it how it is. It's about gay marriage. For or against, it's up to the people to vote. Calling it something else is just trying to hide it.

 

[Robor]

I saw an ad here in FL this week about the 'protect marriage' amendment (#2 here). They had a man and woman talking about how it would break their 'civil union'. I didn't realize male/female couples did that.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
California prop 7 is about a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Simple and straight forward enough, right?

The proponents first started out saying "It's all about kids and education", to which the anti prop 7 ads raised the BS flag because it's obviously about neither. Their latest ad said it's about "Religious freedom", I'm not shitting you. They're trying to spin this one more than a DJ spins a record.

They should just say it how it is. It's about gay marriage. For or against, it's up to the people to vote. Calling it something else is just trying to hide it.

Of course they have to call it something else, otherwise the people voting against gay marriage wouldn't care. If everyone was honest about the impact gay people getting married would have on their lives (none), the anti-gay marriage movement would go away. So instead it has to be "about the children" or about protecting straight marriage, or fighting communism or something.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Robor
I saw an ad here in FL this week about the 'protect marriage' amendment (#2 here). They had a man and woman talking about how it would break their 'civil union'. I didn't realize male/female couples did that.

So they are finally making divorce unconstitutional? Because if you truly were out to protect marriage, you couldn't find a more destructive institution to the sanctity of marriage than divorce.

 

[chess9]

Given the current state of heterosexual marriage, I think we should protect gays from the evils of marriage.

-Robert

 

[MadAmos]

it's prop 8 not 7

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: MadAmos
it's prop 8 not 7

:laugh:

Funny how people rant and rave...and have their basic facts wrong.

 

[SecPro]

Originally posted by: chess9
Given the current state of heterosexual marriage, I think we should protect gays from the evils of marriage.

-Robert

Bullshit, we should insist that they have the opportunity to be just as miserable as the rest of us.

 

[MikeyLSU]

you mean like pro choice and pro life.

Should just call it what it is, pro abortion, and anti abortion.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU
you mean like pro choice and pro life.

Should just call it what it is, pro abortion, and anti abortion.

Uhhh no.

I am pro-choice but do not support nor condone abortion.

I am just not so arrogant to insist that my personal beliefs should be mandated into law that will negatively affect the lives of hundreds of thousands of other people.

I leave an opening to the very real possibility that I could be wrong on some topics and others shouldn't be forced to alter their entire existence just so I can continue to fool myself into thinking that I am morally superior.

 

[MikeyLSU]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU
you mean like pro choice and pro life.

Should just call it what it is, pro abortion, and anti abortion.

Uhhh no.

I am pro-choice but do not support nor condone abortion.

I am just not so arrogant to insist that my personal beliefs should be mandated into law that will negatively affect the lives of hundreds of thousands of other people.

I leave an opening to the very real possibility that I could be wrong on some topics and others shouldn't be forced to alter their entire existence just so I can continue to fool myself into thinking that I am morally superior.

not saying you are, but when voting, you vote to allow abortion, or vote to ban abortion.

Just like this should be you are for gay marriage or anti gay marriage. Very simple. But each side tries to name it in such a way that it sounds more positive.

 

[AstroManLuca]

You could just as easily say "pro choice" vs. "anti choice" but that's just as disingenuous.

The most accurate way of describing the abortion issue, IMO, is "thinks unborn embryos are people" vs. "doesn't think unborn embryos are people."

 

[PingSpike]

Abortion is a gray area for me. Its not something I would do or support, but acknowledging it isn't cut and dry and that other people's circumstances are different then mine I prefer to error on the side less restrictive laws.

That said, I do get a little annoyed with my wife when you goes crazy on politicians when they aren't pro choice. While I may not agree with their position, its not like being anti-abortion is the position of a malicious scoundrel or something. Its a perfectly valid moral opinion in my view.

This discussion has been had a million times over though and we all know nothing good can come of it!

 

[MikeyLSU]

I wasn't intending to bring up abortion discussion, just the naming as it aplies to the OP story.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Robor
I saw an ad here in FL this week about the 'protect marriage' amendment (#2 here). They had a man and woman talking about how it would break their 'civil union'. I didn't realize male/female couples did that.

Oh dude! Yes! I voted HELL FUCKING NO to that amendment. Not only am I ok with gays getting married, but I am one of the MANY people who have a civil union with my SO and am not married to her nor should I get married to her.

If I got married to her the following would happen:

1. She would have to quit school because her financial aid would be taken away.
2. Her son would lose his Florida Kid Care health insurance.
3. We would pay about $2000 more in taxes.


If amendment 2 gets passed both her son (my stepson) and she would lose dental and medical insurances because they get it through where I work (school district) just like married people do. Not to mention the ridiculously long list of other legal stuff that people simply do not think about because they are married that people like us can also utilize because amendments like Florida's #2 and Cali's #8 do not exist.

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU
Just like this should be you are for gay marriage or anti gay marriage. Very simple. But each side tries to name it in such a way that it sounds more positive.

As I proved above, these amendments do not just effect gay couples. They effect heterosexual couples too. Anyone who supports these amendments supports the idea of placing a TON of heavy pressure on people to get married even though it greatly harms them fiscally and progressively. That's exactly what it would do to me and it will happen to many others. Why would we do that to people? Why would we practically force them to do that?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
Abortion is a gray area for me. Its not something I would do or support, but acknowledging it isn't cut and dry and that other people's circumstances are different then mine I prefer to error on the side less restrictive laws.

That said, I do get a little annoyed with my wife when you goes crazy on politicians when they aren't pro choice. While I may not agree with their position, its not like being anti-abortion is the position of a malicious scoundrel or something. Its a perfectly valid moral opinion in my view.

Indeed it is, but you'd have a heck of a time getting most pro-choices to admit that, or even admit a person can be pro-life w/o citing religion for the reason. Pro-life atheists are not mythical creatures; they actually exist!

 

[OrByte]

I knew as soon as I saw this thread title it would be about Prop 8.

the proponents of Prop 8 know it will not win on its merits alone. They have to throw everything and the kitchen sink in its argument in order to win its votes.

Its pathetic but infuriating.

 

[Mursilis]

I try to at least see both sides of any issue, but for the life of me, I can't come up with any rational basis to oppose gay civil unions. I just can't see a rational, secular basis for such opposition.

That being said, how can the state draw the line at just two people being allowed to marry? Other than a logistical argument (it would be a nightmare to keep track of rights within a 3+ party marriage), I can't think of any good reason polygamy is outlawed.

 

[thirtythree]

Which side was using the freedom of religion argument? Because it does seem like a religious freedom issue to some extent -- if marriage is redefined as being between a man and a woman, it gives legitimacy to traditional Christian religions and rules out any other interpretations. If the argument is that marriage is a religious institution, don't other religions have just as much right to define marriage as they see fit?

 

[Vic]

Allowing people their freedoms is NOT the same as condoning their actions. Allowing gays to get married to each other is NOT the same as condoning homosexuality. Allowing women to choose to get an abortion is NOT the same as condoning the act of abortion. Allowing drug users to poison their own bodies is NOT the same as condoning drug use.

The fallacy in thinking that you are compelled to protect people from making their own choices because you disapprove of those choices is antithetical to the basic concepts of freedom and liberty that define this country.
And that is why the moral authoritarians who try to force their views on others like this, in the absence of justice, face such strong opposition, and why social liberals rankle at being called "pro-abortion." It's an ad hom that completely intentionally misses the point.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Robor
I saw an ad here in FL this week about the 'protect marriage' amendment (#2 here). They had a man and woman talking about how it would break their 'civil union'. I didn't realize male/female couples did that.

Oh dude! Yes! I voted HELL FUCKING NO to that amendment. Not only am I ok with gays getting married, but I am one of the MANY people who have a civil union with my SO and am not married to her nor should I get married to her.

If I got married to her the following would happen:

1. She would have to quit school because her financial aid would be taken away.
2. Her son would lose his Florida Kid Care health insurance.
3. We would pay about $2000 more in taxes.

Ah, learn something every day! They really should have presented this side of the amendment earlier and more often. FWIW, I voted 'No' on it.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: thirtythree
Which side was using the freedom of religion argument? Because it does seem like a religious freedom issue to some extent -- if marriage is redefined as being between a man and a woman, it gives legitimacy to traditional Christian religions and rules out any other interpretations. If the argument is that marriage is a religious institution, don't other religions have just as much right to define marriage as they see fit?

Excellent point and good question!

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic
Allowing people their freedoms is NOT the same as condoning their actions. Allowing gays to get married to each other is NOT the same as condoning homosexuality. Allowing women to choose to get an abortion is NOT the same as condoning the act of abortion. Allowing drug users to poison their own bodies is NOT the same as condoning drug use.

The fallacy in thinking that you are compelled to protect people from making their own choices because you disapprove of those choices is antithetical to the basic concepts of freedom and liberty that define this country.
And that is why the moral authoritarians who try to force their views on others like this, in the absence of justice, face such strong opposition, and why social liberals rankle at being called "pro-abortion." It's an ad hom that completely intentionally misses the point.

What is happening in California is that bigots are on the verge of writing their bigotry into the state constitution. This monstrous evil is about to become manifest.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Their latest ad said it's about "Religious freedom", I'm not shitting you. They're trying to spin this one more than a DJ spins a record.

Their ads also SAY it's about "restoring traditional marriage." It's not. NOTHING in current law or their bigoted proposition has anything to do with "traditional" marriage, one way or another. The clearest statement that it is intended to deny equal rights to a designated group of citizens is the description on the ballot:

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY INITIATEVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes California Constitution to elmiinate the right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in Californial.

I'll repeat those words to make it clear...

ELIMINATES RIGHT...

That's contrary to what they say in their ads. It ELIMINATES a Constitutional RIGHT of a designated group of citizens, just like Jim Crow laws and other disgusting bigotry once embedded in state and Federal laws.

The lying fig puckers pimping this measure are a disgrace to all Americans who believe in the principles enshrined in our U.S. Constitution. They include the Catholic dioces and other religious wingnuts. Christians like them are the reason I always root for the Lions. :thumbsdown: :|

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Vic
Allowing people their freedoms is NOT the same as condoning their actions. Allowing gays to get married to each other is NOT the same as condoning homosexuality. Allowing women to choose to get an abortion is NOT the same as condoning the act of abortion. Allowing drug users to poison their own bodies is NOT the same as condoning drug use.

The fallacy in thinking that you are compelled to protect people from making their own choices because you disapprove of those choices is antithetical to the basic concepts of freedom and liberty that define this country.
And that is why the moral authoritarians who try to force their views on others like this, in the absence of justice, face such strong opposition, and why social liberals rankle at being called "pro-abortion." It's an ad hom that completely intentionally misses the point.

Comparing abortion with gay marriage/drug legalization is apples and oranges. Every pro-lifer I've met opposes abortion because they view it as the destruction of a life (the fetus). You may reject that premise, but don't you at least accept the premise that the state may protect one from being harmed by another? Whereas with drug use/homosexuality, if you're "harming" anyone, it's only yourself and maybe another consenting adult (assuming you believe drug use/homosexuality is immoral), but regardless, because there's no innocent third party involved, the state should have no role. This is certainly how I see it. I am and vote pro-life because I think the fetus has the same rights as the infant, but I don't oppose gay marriage or drug legalization, because they don't affect anyone else.