You're leaving out the hundreds of posts asking them their reasons for opposing gay marriage, and based on the responses determing the answer is bigotry.
You're leaving out the hundreds of posts asking them their reasons for opposing gay marriage, and based on the responses determing the answer is bigotry.
Right from the rainsford's mouth. You are clearly stating that "doesn't mean their [the electorate] word should be law" Actually it does and I am just pointing out that your whole post was a distortion of what a democracy is and what the actual rule of law is on proposition's voted by the citizens of CA.
Prop 8 won. You demand that the people who voted for it should be ashamed--that's fine that's opinion; however, you clearly state that the vote should be overrule/not enforced. To ignore or overrule a vote in a democracy is counter to the democracy.
You're a liar, JD50. I don't call everyone, or even most, or even many people I disagree with bigots. I call bigots I disagree with bigots.
Because you are too much the idiot, you are too much the liar, to deal with the issue of bigotry, you attack the use of the word which accurately describes the issue.
Here's a clue for you, which will do about as much good as singing lessons for a pig. The way bigotry works is that it affects people's views, and then they try to rationalize their views, often unaware of their own bigotry - they fit the justification to fit the prejudice. I'll give you an exmample of two.
When gay marriage comes up, many opponents first lead with "marriage is all about the children, and THAT'S the only reason I'm against calling gay couples married."
The thing is, they speak too soon, because then it's pointed out that elderly and other straight people unable to conceive are allowed to marry, and that many gay couples raise children, whether from a surrogate or adopted. Then they have to say 'oops' and instead of syaing 'good point, gay marriage is ok', they scramble for the next excuse why it's not ok, because *they aren't being fair in their judgement, they are rationalizing their pre-existing prejudice against gays by looking for an 'acceptable' reason'*.
You see countless such examples - we saw one recently where someone tried to discuss that the 'quality' of gay marriages is lacking in some measurements, and that's a reason to oppose gay marriage, while the've never oppposed straight marriages for any such reasons, and presumably would not.
It's why "states' rights" was such a popular political cause in the South - not because the public has a great interest in the theories of federalism's boundaries, but because it was an acceptable name for hiding behind in calling for the continuation of discrimination that was actually based in bigotry.
Bigotry is a serious, real, specific issue, and it should not be thrown around reclessly where it's inaccurate.
The thing is, I don't. I've spent years giving the 'other side' every chance to make any rational case for their position, and they can't.
My use of the word bigotry is very careful, and it's the posters like you who are the reckless attackers against the careful use of the word, to try to deny the facts.
You ignored the word moral when I said moral right. DOn't post an idiotic post based on misrepresenting the issue as his right to vote.
The issue is his right to vote to deny others' equal rights. It's the same question as "what gives you the right to vote for bringing slavery back?"
An answer to that question deals with why it's wrong to support slavery, not that it's his mechanical right to vote for slavery.
see my above post (just posted it) and furthermore, re-read my post you quoted since I said their are different rules for different states and rules for federal guidelines on voting in laws or ballot proposals. This one is law because it follows CA's rules; he implys that it should pass because it didn't pass the federal guidelines for passing a bill; however, this is a CA ballot proposal NOT a bill going through congress.
Clearly he was not 100% right when we should overrule the electorate and/or ignore him which he clearly stated in his post (also explained in the post above this one).
People on the wrong side of an issue are always helpful with their advice for their opposition.
Thanks, but you're wrong. Pointing out that the issue is bigotry is exactly what is needed.
During the civil rights era, almost no one opposed the principles of equal rights. Instead, they just explained how it would all come 'in due course', if you just don't push too hard.
AstroManLucas' point is right, but it's not going to change many votes.
Denying the issue, and pretending that the anti-gay-marriage position has some moral validitiy it lascks, is the formula for making the gay marriage opponents comfortably continue their immoral position. It's when they realize their position is immoral that things change, and that happens when they are told, repeatedly. The civil rights movement took decades for the message to sink in. Same with gay rights.
prop 8 passed
Many young boys were just spared a bad childhood.
I knew a guy with a last name wiener who had a rough time growing up. Kids making fun of him. I can't imagine what it would be like if your parents were two gay dudes.
And you know, Denny's food kinda sucks, so banning blacks from eating there is sort of doing them a favor. I'm constantly reminded the right are mostly idiots.
Originally posted by: net
prop 8 passed
Many young boys were just denied a bunch of rights.
fixed
Clearly you ignored the importance of the capitalized words: marriage isn't a right it is a privilage. If you can't realize the difference between a right and a privilage, then we will cease to be able to debate this issue.
Where do you have the moral right to equate gay marriage with enslavement and abuse of african americans? One can't get a slip of paper that says your married while slavery was the depravement and denial of rights of a human being by another based on the color of skin. I just don't see a moral equivalance.
Go learn about the concept of a constitution some time.
If the people voted to pass a law saying "black people can't eat at Denny's", and the constitution guarantees equal rights, do you think the law should be enforced?
If not, it fits everything you blathered - 'the people spoke' and so on - yet should not be enforced.
The intracicies of the CA constitution are clearly something you're not ready for.
Not letting blacks eat at Denny's isn't terrorizing them, Mister straw man. It is wrong.
It is denying them equal rights. Whether the matter is small or large is not the issue, and I'd say the right to marry is not small.
In addition, there are many federal rights limited to married couples, not civil unions.
California is a very diverse state. Remember who the two presidents we gave the nation are? Hint, they were not liberals.
We have a percentage of the population that's 'inland' that is just like the midwest rednecks; we have a percentage that are 'modern urban wealthy Republicans'.
You are not going to easily summarize the politics of a state that elect as Governor Ronald Reagan and Jerry Brown back to back.
Yes. You can run around and say you think that Nazis are the American ideal if you like, it's all just opinion right? But Rainsford is right, and you are not.
There are things called American principles, they are well documented in a variety of writings and parts of our history, but you can remain ignorant and deny they exist.
Idiotic. The people who want equal rights are not the ones 'forcing their views on others'.
You sound like a damned southern racist who complained about blacks forcing their views.
The war on poverty permanently reduced the percent of Americans living below the poverty line by one-third. It was a great success as a start, ended by Republicans.
Why do you feel the need to deny gays the word marriage?
How about we tell black people they can have civil unions but not the word "marriage"?
Um, idiot, most 'liberals' in California voted against the amendment. In fatc, 86% of 'strong liberals' were against it.
If you want to attack the 10% who were in favor of it, fine, but you did not separate that 10%, you attacked all California liberals. Who's the Jackass?
Infohawk, part of the 'whole point' of a consitution being supreme is to have principles not easily changed by a simple majority.
The CA constitution is apparently not like the federal constitution, where all amendments require a super-majority to pass, and can change any part of the document.
The CA constitution has parts that require a super-majority to modify; this amendment did not change those, they remian in effect, this only required a simply majority.
Why is that? Because the bigots don't have the votes to change the actual constitutional protection - only to use the lesser process with their 52% of the vote.
Depending how the consitution deals with conflicts between its principles - which are already ruled to protect gay marriage - and these simple majoriyt amendments will determine what happens (for the four honest justices who found the right exists in the first place, at least). But this was apparently not like the federal constitution, where amendments are passed by a super-majority and there's no lesser type of amendment.
Apparently modifying the part of the constitution that has the equal rights protection would require a super-majority, and that process did not happen.
I'm constantly reminded that the right is mostly idiots. The US is not a democracy under your rules, since the simple majority can't pass any damn thing it wants.
Jschmuck2
Diamond Member
- Jul 13, 2005
- 5,623
- 3
- 81
Originally posted by: net
prop 8 passed
Many young boys were just spared a bad childhood.
I knew a guy with a last name wiener who had a rough time growing up. Kids making fun of him. I can't imagine what it would be like if your parents were two gay dudes.
Thank you for reinforcing the Orange County stereotype. Kindly DIAF.
It's about their having equal access to the same acknowledgment and rights under the law.
Respect isn't for the state, it's a personal act. Like how I lack respect for you.
Originally posted by: loki8481
reading gay blogs tonight, most of the anger seems to be split between african americans and mormons.
god help any black mormons in California
I heard Barack is a black mormon.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter