Jon Stewart FTMFW

[HardcoreRobot]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

wtf are you talking about? did you read the thread? nowhere in the post you quoted did i advocate govt. legislating anything regarding marriage, in fact,that is the total opposite of everything i have said here.

fair enough if you are not advocating for Prop 8 then that is my mistake. But your view of marriage imho is still very much narrowminded making the rest of my post still valid.

No your post is still way off base and makes a lot of assumptions about my opinion which are clearly wrong if you read what I have posted. Like I said to other postersyou see religion + marriage in my text and jump to conclusions, having made up your mind without bothering to actually read and process the meaning of what is there.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
So when is Obama going to get the message that gay marriage is OK?

Probably around the time you get the message that you are a fucking troll.

So anyone that points out the hypocrisy in the democratic party will be called a "troll"?

No junior. But you won't find Obama agreeing with almost anything Huckabee said. And your setting up the democratic party, which happens to have millions of people in it who don't all agree on every single issue, as a strawman for your unclever quip, does have heavy trollish qualities.

Add in that 77% of republicans voted to ban in CA while 65% of Dems voted against banning shows the massive divide on the issue, and which side is overwhelmingly against equal rights, and which side is very strongly in favor.

Oh, and the OP didn't mention reps or dems btw, it was purely about the arguments against gay marriage, and how there aren't any.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
So when is Obama going to get the message that gay marriage is OK?

Probably around the time you get the message that you are a fucking troll.

So anyone that points out the hypocrisy in the democratic party will be called a "troll"?


Way to add to the discussion there Jr.!

Awe, just because I call you a troll doesn't necessarily make you one. You do a pretty damn fine job of proving that with each new inane one liner you post, however.

And thanks, you're a bastion of knowledge and input yourself Betty!

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

wtf are you talking about? did you read the thread? nowhere in the post you quoted did i advocate govt. legislating anything regarding marriage, in fact,that is the total opposite of everything i have said here.

fair enough if you are not advocating for Prop 8 then that is my mistake. But your view of marriage imho is still very much narrowminded making the rest of my post still valid.

No your post is still way off base and makes a lot of assumptions about my opinion which are clearly wrong if you read what I have posted. Like I said to other postersyou see religion + marriage in my text and jump to conclusions, having made up your mind without bothering to actually read and process the meaning of what is there.

Then I will re read!

 

[HardcoreRobot]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

wtf are you talking about? did you read the thread? nowhere in the post you quoted did i advocate govt. legislating anything regarding marriage, in fact,that is the total opposite of everything i have said here.

fair enough if you are not advocating for Prop 8 then that is my mistake. But your view of marriage imho is still very much narrowminded making the rest of my post still valid.

No your post is still way off base and makes a lot of assumptions about my opinion which are clearly wrong if you read what I have posted. Like I said to other postersyou see religion + marriage in my text and jump to conclusions, having made up your mind without bothering to actually read and process the meaning of what is there.

Then I will re read!

I really dont mind if people disagree with me, its just frustrating when i feel like i am not being understood, and suspect that if i were, there would be no disagreement!

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

wtf are you talking about? did you read the thread? nowhere in the post you quoted did i advocate govt. legislating anything regarding marriage, in fact,that is the total opposite of everything i have said here.

fair enough if you are not advocating for Prop 8 then that is my mistake. But your view of marriage imho is still very much narrowminded making the rest of my post still valid.

No your post is still way off base and makes a lot of assumptions about my opinion which are clearly wrong if you read what I have posted. Like I said to other postersyou see religion + marriage in my text and jump to conclusions, having made up your mind without bothering to actually read and process the meaning of what is there.

Then I will re read!

I really dont mind if people disagree with me, its just frustrating when i feel like i am not being understood, and suspect that if i were, there would be no disagreement!

After re-reading I suspect much that same! No disagreement!!

As I stated very clearly, if the government is not involved in personal relationships, there is no question of which unions to support (MF, MM, FF, MFF, MMF, MD, MFFFFFFFFFF etc.), and my personal opinion becomes politically irrelevant. Way too many personal issues exist out in political space..

I guess what I am seeing in your posts is idealistic, alot of "what ifs." I think we can establish that in a perfect world our system of government would have first established a "civil union" and kept the term "marriage off the law books. And I agree that YES that would have kept everyone's opinions/beliefs to their damnselves where it belongs. And if I am right and that is the jest of your argument then I do agree.

I think that the reality is when we crack open the law books we do see government legislation intertwined with religion in all sorts of ways. And I guess my point is with regards to the issue of gay marriage, we, as a society, are in a struggle to determine where and how religion impacts legislation. I just don't see religion or personal belief(s) prevailing over equal protection wrt gay marriage particularly because of precedence (interracial marriage)

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Huckabee's a raging bigot just like the rest of the homophobes in the Republican party. No surprise there. Stewart owned his ass last night.

Apparently you missed the part where the president elect (D) is also a "homophobe"?

What about the part where prop 8 here in CA passed largely due to a segment of democrats known as "African Americans"?

While im not denying there are tons of religious freaks are homophobes in the Republican party, you should look around at the other side as well, because the homophobia is strong.

Two-party system. Gotta love it. :roll:

There are certainly anti-gay folks in the Democratic party, but there are far more in the Republican party. The majority of prop 8 supporters in California were Republicans, and while black Democrats who apparently are too dumb to understand irony made for an interesting story, their impact was very overplayed.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Apparently you missed the part where the president elect (D) is also a "homophobe"?

Umm... No. Actually, he's been a bit ambivalent on the issue. He has said that he doesn't support gay marriage, but he has also said he could be wrong. He said he would approve "civil unions" that provide ALL the rights of marriage, including the right to assist their loved ones in times of emergency as well as equal health insurance, employment benefits, and property and adoption rights.

He has also said he would not approve Constitutional amendment against it, he would repeal the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, he would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. He and voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment. He says the Employment Non-Discrimination Act should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity, and he advocated legislation to expand federal hate crimes law to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

What about the part where prop 8 here in CA passed largely due to a segment of democrats known as "African Americans"?

"Largely' is pushing it. It wasn't 100% for any group, but this Field Poll shows that religion and education were major determinants. This site presented the results in tabularized format, which I re-formatted for the forum software:

1. Survey Results by Party
   
   Democrats: Yes: 28% No: 65% Undecided: 7%
   Republicans: Yes: 75% No: 20% Undecided: 5%
   Non-partisans/Other: Yes: 31% No: 60% Undecided: 11%
   
   Survey Results By Education
   
   High school graduate or less: Yes: 62% 27No: % Undecided: 11%
   Some college/trade school: Yes: 45% No: 49% Undecided: 6%
   College degree: Yes: 41% No: 54% Undecided: 5%
   Post-graduate work: Yes: 33% No: 61% Undecided: 6%
   
   Survey Results By Religion
   
   Protestant: Yes: 60% No: 33% Undecided: 7%
   Catholic: Yes: 44% No: 48% Undecided: 8%
   Other religions: Yes: 30% No: 64% Undecided: 6%
   No Preference: Yes: 17% No: 77% Undecided: 6%

This suggests that the dominant group responsible for passing Prop. 8 was in fact less educated Republican Protestants. I'm not suprised that progressively less educated voters were progressively more in favor of Prop. 8.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Huckabee's a raging bigot just like the rest of the homophobes in the Republican party. No surprise there. Stewart owned his ass last night.

Apparently you missed the part where the president elect (D) is also a "homophobe"?

What about the part where prop 8 here in CA passed largely due to a segment of democrats known as "African Americans"?

While im not denying there are tons of religious freaks are homophobes in the Republican party, you should look around at the other side as well, because the homophobia is strong.

Two-party system. Gotta love it. :roll:

I'm sorry, but only the GOP runs on an anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion platform. You don't see the Democrats trying to legislate morality. Whatever Obama's position on the subject hardly matters within the context of this thread, but I guarantee you, he's not going to propose re-writing the U.S. Constitution to codify bigotry like that Huckabee jackass.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Huckabee's a raging bigot just like the rest of the homophobes in the Republican party. No surprise there. Stewart owned his ass last night.

Apparently you missed the part where the president elect (D) is also a "homophobe"?

What about the part where prop 8 here in CA passed largely due to a segment of democrats known as "African Americans"?

While im not denying there are tons of religious freaks are homophobes in the Republican party, you should look around at the other side as well, because the homophobia is strong.

Two-party system. Gotta love it. :roll:

There are certainly anti-gay folks in the Democratic party, but there are far more in the Republican party. The majority of prop 8 supporters in California were Republicans, and while black Democrats who apparently are too dumb to understand irony made for an interesting story, their impact was very overplayed.

Quite true. The break-down in pro vs anti-prop 8 voters largely broke along education levels, not racial groups. Stupid, ignorant, uneducated morons voted "yes" on Prop 8 and you can guess who didn't...

57% of Voters with College Degrees Voted against Prop 8; 69% of High-School Only Californians Voted for It...

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6732

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Huckabee's a raging bigot just like the rest of the homophobes in the Republican party. No surprise there. Stewart owned his ass last night.

Apparently you missed the part where the president elect (D) is also a "homophobe"?

What about the part where prop 8 here in CA passed largely due to a segment of democrats known as "African Americans"?

While im not denying there are tons of religious freaks are homophobes in the Republican party, you should look around at the other side as well, because the homophobia is strong.

Two-party system. Gotta love it. :roll:

There are certainly anti-gay folks in the Democratic party, but there are far more in the Republican party. The majority of prop 8 supporters in California were Republicans, and while black Democrats who apparently are too dumb to understand irony made for an interesting story, their impact was very overplayed.

Quite true. The break-down in pro vs anti-prop 8 voters largely broke along education levels, not racial groups. Stupid, ignorant, uneducated morons voted "yes" on Prop 8 and you can guess who didn't...

57% of Voters with College Degrees Voted against Prop 8; 69% of High-School Only Californians Voted for It...

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6732

Truly sig worthy :thumbsup:

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
marriage is a religious institution

No, it is not, and tens of millions of Americans agree.

how is that relevant? marriage was created by religion, and thats where it should stay

Son, marriage predates Judaism and exists in Norse Mythology, Thor had a Wife before anyone knew what Christianity was.

It's not a religious institution, it's a social construct you dolt.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
marriage is a religious institution and has no business being recognized or legislated upon by the government in any capacity

nailed it.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
So when is Obama going to get the message that gay marriage is OK?

Probably around the time you get the message that you are a fucking troll.

So anyone that points out the hypocrisy in the democratic party will be called a "troll"?

No junior. But you won't find Obama agreeing with almost anything Huckabee said. And your setting up the democratic party, which happens to have millions of people in it who don't all agree on every single issue, as a strawman for your unclever quip, does have heavy trollish qualities.

Add in that 77% of republicans voted to ban in CA while 65% of Dems voted against banning shows the massive divide on the issue, and which side is overwhelmingly against equal rights, and which side is very strongly in favor.

Oh, and the OP didn't mention reps or dems btw, it was purely about the arguments against gay marriage, and how there aren't any.

You think 65% of the "Non-discriminatory" party is a good amount to vote "no" on discrimination? In a state that has San Francisco, San Diego, West Hollywood, Berkeley, and tons of inner-city poor who vote (D)?

Plus, non-religious center-right like myself voting "no"?


When laws like these pass in a state like CA, there is a long way to go. It isnt Alabama holding the nation back on this one. You have to look at everyone.

 

[sportage]

Marriage is not in any sorts a "religious" ceremony.
You "can" conduct it in a church... but you do not "have to", to
get legally married.
Definitions are often hijacked.
Like Jews being told they were sub human...
Same with blacks...
Same with women...
Same with Japanese...
Same with Gays...
Show me the "LAW" where you MUST get married in a church by a minister....!!!
Problem is, with these bigots, is that many gays will chose to get married in a church.

 

[Zebo]

I don't like homosexuality and don't want culture to define it as OK behavior by sanctioning with marriage contract it but at the same time we, in USA, should have equal rights, protections and opportunity so I can't really impose my bigotry on them. That ain't right. My feelings take a back seat to they living life on equal footing. All these obfuscations the people say are bullshit.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Zebo
I don't like homosexuality and don't want culture to define it as OK behavior by sanctioning with marriage contract it but at the same time we, in USA, should have equal rights, protections and opportunity so I can't really impose my bigotry on them. That ain't right. My feelings take a back seat to they living life on equal footing. All these obfuscations the people say are bullshit.

This is an opinion I can get behind. I don't like your bigotry, but I applaud both your acceptance that it is bigotry and your willingness to not attempt to codify it in law as it infringes on the freedoms of others.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
marriage is a religious institution and has no business being recognized or legislated upon by the government in any capacity

missed it.

Fixed.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
You think 65% of the "Non-discriminatory" party is a good amount to vote "no" on discrimination? In a state that has San Francisco, San Diego, West Hollywood, Berkeley, and tons of inner-city poor who vote (D)?

Obviously it could be better, but don't forget that includes mostly older dems, and this is still a generational issue. Despite your assertion Dems are not the "non-discriminatory" party, though we certainly have a much higher percentage of tolerance than the Reps. The white working class Dems who were so pro-Hillary were not planning on voting for that other fella who eventually won. The Dems are not a homogenious party, but look at the numbers. 2 out of 3 dems voted NO, while on the Rep side, 3 out of 4 voted YES. It's also largely generational. Under 30 voted 2-1 against prop 8, and that number included the young Republicans, nix them and you're probably looking at 4-1.

Food for thought:

According to the group Religious Tolerance, 90 percent of Americans disapproved of interracial marriage when it was first legalized by the California Supreme Court in 1948. Nineteen years later, when the U.S. Supreme Court legalized the practice, 72 percent of Americans still disapproved. The magical 50 percent threshold wasn?t crossed until 1991-a change of 50 percentage points in 53 years.

I don't know why anyone would want to be remembered by future generations as being part of the "old guard" who was the last generation to be opposed to granting equal treatment under the law. No one looks back at the people who opposed interracial marriage and says, oh, they had good reasons. In a few decades we won't be praising those fighting against marriage equality either.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
So when is Obama going to get the message that gay marriage is OK?

Probably around the time you get the message that you are a fucking troll.

So anyone that points out the hypocrisy in the democratic party will be called a "troll"?

No junior. But you won't find Obama agreeing with almost anything Huckabee said. And your setting up the democratic party, which happens to have millions of people in it who don't all agree on every single issue, as a strawman for your unclever quip, does have heavy trollish qualities.

Add in that 77% of republicans voted to ban in CA while 65% of Dems voted against banning shows the massive divide on the issue, and which side is overwhelmingly against equal rights, and which side is very strongly in favor.

Oh, and the OP didn't mention reps or dems btw, it was purely about the arguments against gay marriage, and how there aren't any.

You think 65% of the "Non-discriminatory" party is a good amount to vote "no" on discrimination? In a state that has San Francisco, San Diego, West Hollywood, Berkeley, and tons of inner-city poor who vote (D)?

Plus, non-religious center-right like myself voting "no"?


When laws like these pass in a state like CA, there is a long way to go. It isnt Alabama holding the nation back on this one. You have to look at everyone.

The city of San Diego itself is barely Democratic leaning, and the surrounding counties are heavily Republican. It's hardly a place where Democrats/left causes rack up tons of votes.

As for Obama opposing gay marriage, does anyone really think that was anything but a pander to the center for the election? You know the easiest way to tell what he really thinks? Look at what else he says on gay marriage. He's against a Constitutional ban on it, and he favors the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. I'm not sure if you guys realize this, but the repeal of the DOMA instantly makes gay marriage legal around the whole country so long as one state continues to issue gay marriage licenses. Without the DOMA as cover, states are forced to accept other states' marriages... so you'll just have a million gays getting married in Massachusetts and then coming home. Obama must know this. So what does that make you think he really believes?

 

[thraashman]

The problem in here is the people who think that marriage is or originated as a religious institution. Marriages have existed for thousands of years in virtually every single culture on earth. Not all cultures have actually had a religion though and not all cultures that have had marriage have had a religion. Religion is even tough to define really. Ancient Roman and Greek societies had stories of gods and whatnot but often those societies had little actual belief that these stories were true. When religions arose and began to take control of society and they took some of the most important concepts, like marriage, and made them religious concepts for control. Many of our morals and interactions that people claim are because of religion existed long before religion. Concepts like murdering is bad and working together are based on evolved societal traits. As humans gained knowledge they began to realize how little they knew, and invented religions to compensate for that lack. Religions answered questions that had no answers by making them up and attributing them to a god or gods. People often turned away from intellectuals for answers as they never claimed to everything and instead turned to the religious who claimed to have answers because they just made them up. Religions then became a form of control through fear. And to make control more complete they intermingled themselves with the most important concepts in a society. Marriage wasn't religious until it was stolen by some religions.

 

[child of wonder]

Originally posted by: CLite

Do you realize the amount of work the government would have to do to change all the laws/documents/contracts to re-name marriage as a legal union.

sed 's/marriage/legal union/g' *

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: thraashman
The problem in here is the people who think that marriage is or originated as a religious institution. Marriages have existed for thousands of years in virtually every single culture on earth. Not all cultures have actually had a religion though and not all cultures that have had marriage have had a religion. Religion is even tough to define really. Ancient Roman and Greek societies had stories of gods and whatnot but often those societies had little actual belief that these stories were true. When religions arose and began to take control of society and they took some of the most important concepts, like marriage, and made them religious concepts for control. Many of our morals and interactions that people claim are because of religion existed long before religion. Concepts like murdering is bad and working together are based on evolved societal traits. As humans gained knowledge they began to realize how little they knew, and invented religions to compensate for that lack. Religions answered questions that had no answers by making them up and attributing them to a god or gods. People often turned away from intellectuals for answers as they never claimed to everything and instead turned to the religious who claimed to have answers because they just made them up. Religions then became a form of control through fear. And to make control more complete they intermingled themselves with the most important concepts in a society. Marriage wasn't religious until it was stolen by some religions.

thats pretty much it

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
marriage is a religious institution and has no business being recognized or legislated upon by the government in any capacity

That statement is so moronic I don't know where to begin. My wife and I got married by the mayor in his office. I guess we're not 'officially' married then, eh?

Edit: Reading further I see you're pro civil unions rather than marriage. There's a long list of problems there. Much easier to let same sex couples have the same opportunities hetero couples have.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
marriage is a religious institution and has no business being recognized or legislated upon by the government in any capacity

um, that perspective would sure make probate court really interesting.

"We lived together for 40 years, I'm 75 years old, what do you mean I can't stay in my house?"

"Sorry maam, it wasn't in your name, and this guy you lived with, your "husband" or something, the government doesn't recognize such a relationship. Now pack up your shit and get out."

what is the problem? if she owns the house she should be on the deed.

More with the stupidity? My wife isn't on our deed. I've lived there 9 years. We got married 18 months ago. I asked the bank if they could put her name on the mortgage and they said only if we refinanced. Do you expect us to refinance just to put her name on it?