Tidal Wave Building Against Mormon Church After Prop 8 Passes

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jschmuck2

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2005
5,623
3
81
Just think of how much he'll swear at me now.

I'm not upset that you disagree with me - I'm upset that you're not seeing my point. Again, my point is that you (and when I use that pronoun it's a general "you," as in like minded voters - the Royal "you," if you will") want to legislate and deny the rights of a certain minority, via the electorate, based on the beliefs and teachings of a specific "God," and that is something you cannot do.
 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Just think of how much he'll swear at me now.

I'm not upset that you disagree with me - I'm upset that you're not seeing my point. Again, my point is that you (and when I use that pronoun it's a general "you," as in like minded voters - the Royal "you," if you will") want to legislate and deny the rights of a certain minority, via the electorate, based on the beliefs and teachings of a specific "God," and that is something you cannot do.

Am I wrong or did prop 8 pass?
As I have stated numerous times they have thier rights what they want is to redefine what marriage is.
 

Jschmuck2

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2005
5,623
3
81
So you wouldn't be opposed to the voters in California, tomorrow, voting into effect a constitutional amendment banning the mentally handicapped from street corners? So long as it was voted on?
 

Azndude2190

Golden Member
Jul 4, 2005
1,779
0
76
Prop 8 passed by a narrow majority.Who says the majority is always right?IMO this is clearly another case in which the tyranny of the majority trying to take away the rights of a minority.

BTW the definition of marriage has/is constantly changing.Lets not forget that women use to be the property of men, or that men had multiple wives,etc.And interracial marriage was illegal until 1967 with the ruling on Loving v. Virginia.So the whole idea of equal rights in a marriage between a man and woman is a fairly recent development, its unfair to characterize it as "traditional" marriage.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
So then by the same token, you would argue that segregated schools, busses and water fountains (were they still in place today) should stay the same because that is the way they've always been defined?

no.
A black man is born black with no choice..
A gay man has a choice. (and I have already heard all the arguments that he doesn't, so plz spare the bandwidth)
If he chooses to be Gay then enter into a gay union. legally you can.
If he chooses to be straight then Marry a woman like any other, he is deprived of nothing.

you had a choice go become a buddhist and recognize same sex marriages

you had a choice not to JUDGE your brothers and sisters.. and FORCE them to follow your religious beliefs..

Trust Me.. God will LOL at you people who think you are doing his works... denyong two of his the opportunity to SPREAD LOVE...

LOVE
LOVE
LOVE
LOVE
LOVE

 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: Azndude2190
Prop 8 passed by a narrow majority.Who says the majority is always right?IMO this is clearly another case in which the tyranny of the majority trying to take away the rights of a minority.

BTW the definition of marriage has/is constantly changing.Lets not forget that women use to be the property of men, or that men had multiple wives,etc.And interracial marriage was illegal until 1967 with the ruling on Loving v. Virginia.So the whole idea of equal rights in a marriage between a man and woman is a fairly recent development, its unfair to characterize it as "traditional" marriage.

Just feel extremely thankful that Christianity has lost control of society.. or you would be
Christianized
Civilized
Colonized

and if you were a homeopathist then you might be considered a witch and murdered by their fears

be thankful that slaves were taken away from the christians
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: daniel49
they have the exact same rights under civil union laws.
No one is deprived.
He simply objects to redefining mairrage.
That's not true.

Only marriage offers federal benefits and protections.

According to the federal government's General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 1,100 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage. Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.

Because same-sex marriages in Massachusetts and California, civil unions, and domestic partnerships are not federally recognized, any benefits available at the state or local level are subject to federal taxation. For example, a woman whose health insurance covers her female partner must pay federal taxes on the total employer cost for that insurance.


 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: daniel49

no.
A black man is born black with no choice..
A gay man has a choice. (and I have already heard all the arguments that he doesn't, so plz spare the bandwidth)
If he chooses to be Gay then enter into a gay union. legally you can.
If he chooses to be straight then Marry a woman like any other, he is deprived of nothing.

So your argument is basically: If I ignore science and make up wrong facts about homosexuality being a choice then I am justified in discriminating against it. All a gay person has to do is marry someone he isn't attracted to and he can have all the rights we do!
 

ScottMac

Moderator<br>Networking<br>Elite member
Mar 19, 2001
5,471
2
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
I dont really get what the point of protesting Prop 8 is. Either a judge will strike it down, or it will stand. It is out of the hands of the people at this point.

To raise awareness of the Mormon church's involvement in this issue with the hope of weakening support for them in some manner, or to make the Mormon church think twice about participating in a future issue in this way.

The Mormons have had a lot worse to deal with in the past than a bunch of alternate lifestyle activists.

The more radical they (that would be the alternative lifstylers) get, the more the average person will turn against them. Instead of acting like spoiled brats that don't get their way and beating up old ladies, they should try intelligent marketing (whoa ... oxymoron there ... sorry).

 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: ScottMac
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
I dont really get what the point of protesting Prop 8 is. Either a judge will strike it down, or it will stand. It is out of the hands of the people at this point.

To raise awareness of the Mormon church's involvement in this issue with the hope of weakening support for them in some manner, or to make the Mormon church think twice about participating in a future issue in this way.

The Mormons have had a lot worse to deal with in the past than a bunch of alternate lifestyle activists.

The more radical they (that would be the alternative lifstylers) get, the more the average person will turn against them. Instead of acting like spoiled brats that don't get their way and beating up old ladies, they should try intelligent marketing (whoa ... oxymoron there ... sorry).

Well you can debate the effectiveness of their protest if you want, I was just telling our good friend Ocguy the likely reason behind why they were doing it.

That is true though, the mormons once fought the US army.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,952
8,007
136
The protesters should be removed by force, legal use or not. The will of the people should not be undone.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: daniel49

they have the exact same rights under civil union laws.
No one is deprived.
He simply objects to redefining mairrage.

As others have pointed out, NO, gays do NOT have the same rights under civil unions. They do not have the same rights, including tax advantages, under Federal laws.

It is NOT "simply redefining" marriage." The very act of re-naming it imposes a discriminatory brand on such unions. It is a well established principle of Constitutional law that "separate but equal" is NOT equal.

A black man is born black with no choice..
A gay man has a choice. (and I have already heard all the arguments that he doesn't, so plz spare the bandwidth)
If he chooses to be Gay then enter into a gay union. legally you can.
If he chooses to be straight then Marry a woman like any other, he is deprived of nothing.

You don't know your BIGOTED ass from a hole in the ground. You have no legal or physical evidence to support your BIGOTRY. All you have is your BIGOTED opinion as a lame excuse to deprive other American citizens of the same rights you claim for your BIGOTED self.

Screw you and your bandwidth. You ARE the embodiment of the Cristian Taliban. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:
 

uli2000

Golden Member
Jul 28, 2006
1,257
1
71
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: ScottMac
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
I dont really get what the point of protesting Prop 8 is. Either a judge will strike it down, or it will stand. It is out of the hands of the people at this point.

To raise awareness of the Mormon church's involvement in this issue with the hope of weakening support for them in some manner, or to make the Mormon church think twice about participating in a future issue in this way.

The Mormons have had a lot worse to deal with in the past than a bunch of alternate lifestyle activists.

The more radical they (that would be the alternative lifstylers) get, the more the average person will turn against them. Instead of acting like spoiled brats that don't get their way and beating up old ladies, they should try intelligent marketing (whoa ... oxymoron there ... sorry).

Well you can debate the effectiveness of their protest if you want, I was just telling our good friend Ocguy the likely reason behind why they were doing it.

That is true though, the mormons once fought the US army.

Nice facts there. The Mormons never fought the US Army. The "Utah War" started because the federal government heard rumors the Utah territory wanted to ceceede and govern themselves. Troops were sent to Utah, but no battles ever took place (with the exception of a few Mormon farms and buildings being destroyed).
 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: daniel49

they have the exact same rights under civil union laws.
No one is deprived.
He simply objects to redefining mairrage.

As others have pointed out, NO, gays do NOT have the same rights under civil unions. They do not have the same rights, including tax advantages, under Federal laws.

It is NOT "simply redefining" marriage." The very act of re-naming it imposes a discriminatory brand on such unions. It is a well established principle of Constitutional law that "separate but equal" is NOT equal.

A black man is born black with no choice..
A gay man has a choice. (and I have already heard all the arguments that he doesn't, so plz spare the bandwidth)
If he chooses to be Gay then enter into a gay union. legally you can.
If he chooses to be straight then Marry a woman like any other, he is deprived of nothing.

You don't know your BIGOTED ass from a hole in the ground. You have no legal or physical evidence to support your BIGOTRY. All you have is your BIGOTED opinion as a lame excuse to deprive other American citizens of the same rights you claim for your BIGOTED self.

Screw you and your bandwidth. You ARE the embodiment of the Cristian Taliban. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

And you are the embodiment of a moron.
Have a wonderful day:music:
 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: daniel49
they have the exact same rights under civil union laws.
No one is deprived.
He simply objects to redefining mairrage.
That's not true.

Only marriage offers federal benefits and protections.

According to the federal government's General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 1,100 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage. Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.

Because same-sex marriages in Massachusetts and California, civil unions, and domestic partnerships are not federally recognized, any benefits available at the state or local level are subject to federal taxation. For example, a woman whose health insurance covers her female partner must pay federal taxes on the total employer cost for that insurance.
for the sake of argument. give me some state and federal links and I'll read about it.

 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: daniel49

And you are the embodiment of a moron.
Have a wonderful day:music:

And you are the embodiment of a BIGOT.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: ScottMac
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
I dont really get what the point of protesting Prop 8 is. Either a judge will strike it down, or it will stand. It is out of the hands of the people at this point.

To raise awareness of the Mormon church's involvement in this issue with the hope of weakening support for them in some manner, or to make the Mormon church think twice about participating in a future issue in this way.

The Mormons have had a lot worse to deal with in the past than a bunch of alternate lifestyle activists.

The more radical they (that would be the alternative lifstylers) get, the more the average person will turn against them. Instead of acting like spoiled brats that don't get their way and beating up old ladies, they should try intelligent marketing (whoa ... oxymoron there ... sorry).

Given posts like yours, it's hard to see who the target market for "intelligent marketing" would be. :roll:

I don't agree with the protests, but basically this is a bunch of people who voted against giving other people rights their straight fellow citizens enjoy, and you get your panties in a twist when they're a little pissed off about it. Have you ever considered that maybe YOU aren't the wronged party here?

Then again, if this was a few decades ago, something tells me you'd be complaining about "uppity negros" too. I know that nobody likes that comparison, but honestly...you're not leaving me a lot to work with here.
 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: daniel49

And you are the embodiment of a moron.
Have a wonderful day:music:

And you are the embodiment of a BIGOT.

Has anyone ever mentioned you sound like a bitter twisted old man?
ok. nevermind. I won't mention it then.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: daniel49

Has anyone ever mentioned you sound like a bitter twisted old man?

ok. nevermind. I won't mention it then.

Has anyone ever mentioned you sound like a bitter, twisted BIGOT?

And I will continue to mention it as long as you continue to spout manifest ignorance as a piss poor excuse to ustify denying others the rights you claim for yourself.
 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: daniel49

Has anyone ever mentioned you sound like a bitter twisted old man?

ok. nevermind. I won't mention it then.

Has anyone ever mentioned you sound like a bitter, twisted BIGOT?

And I will continue to mention it as long as you continue to spout manifest ignorance as a piss poor excuse to ustify denying others the rights you claim for yourself.

As a matter of fact outside of this forum, No one has ever mentioned it no..
But thank you for asking.
However you avoided my question with more of your blather. a simple yes or no would have done it.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Rainsford
[I don't agree with the protests, but basically this is a bunch of people who voted against giving other people rights their straight fellow citizens enjoy, and you get your panties in a twist when they're a little pissed off about it. Have you ever considered that maybe YOU aren't the wronged party here?

Why the hell not?

Then again, if this was a few decades ago, something tells me you'd be complaining about "uppity negros" too. I know that nobody likes that comparison, but honestly...you're not leaving me a lot to work with here.

You make the correct connection - why are you looking for 'room to work with' to avoid it?

(Since I've pointed out bigotry among most opponents of gay equality, I should be clear that does not apply to you in what I've seen, but you sound overly accomodating for some reason to the 'other side', citing how some 'don't like the comparison' between civil rights of one group and another as if you are sympathetic to their position and reluctant to say what you said.

Why any reluctance? The reason they don't like the comparison is because they now accept the race civil rights and don't like it pointed out that thye're wrong on gays.)

 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: daniel49
they have the exact same rights under civil union laws.
No one is deprived.
He simply objects to redefining mairrage.
That's not true.

Only marriage offers federal benefits and protections.

According to the federal government's General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 1,100 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage. Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.

Because same-sex marriages in Massachusetts and California, civil unions, and domestic partnerships are not federally recognized, any benefits available at the state or local level are subject to federal taxation. For example, a woman whose health insurance covers her female partner must pay federal taxes on the total employer cost for that insurance.
for the sake of argument. give me some state and federal links and I'll read about it.
I don't have a ton of time to dig up links, but perhaps start with this:

http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html

When I have time later, I'll see if I can locate something better.
 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: daniel49
they have the exact same rights under civil union laws.
No one is deprived.
He simply objects to redefining mairrage.
That's not true.

Only marriage offers federal benefits and protections.

According to the federal government's General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 1,100 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage. Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.

Because same-sex marriages in Massachusetts and California, civil unions, and domestic partnerships are not federally recognized, any benefits available at the state or local level are subject to federal taxation. For example, a woman whose health insurance covers her female partner must pay federal taxes on the total employer cost for that insurance.
for the sake of argument. give me some state and federal links and I'll read about it.
I don't have a ton of time to dig up links, but perhaps start with this:

http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html

When I have time later, I'll see if I can locate something better.

ok thx monkey guy I'll bookmark it for a lil later. Right now football has my attention.:D
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Rainsford
[I don't agree with the protests, but basically this is a bunch of people who voted against giving other people rights their straight fellow citizens enjoy, and you get your panties in a twist when they're a little pissed off about it. Have you ever considered that maybe YOU aren't the wronged party here?

Why the hell not?

Because I don't agree with protesting with violence, intimidation or any other questionable tactic. Just because the people being protested against are assholes doesn't mean it's OK for the protesters to be.
Then again, if this was a few decades ago, something tells me you'd be complaining about "uppity negros" too. I know that nobody likes that comparison, but honestly...you're not leaving me a lot to work with here.

You make the correct connection - why are you looking for 'room to work with' to avoid it?

(Since I've pointed out bigotry among most opponents of gay equality, I should be clear that does not apply to you in what I've seen, but you sound overly accomodating for some reason to the 'other side', citing how some 'don't like the comparison' between civil rights of one group and another as if you are sympathetic to their position and reluctant to say what you said.

Why any reluctance? The reason they don't like the comparison is because they now accept the race civil rights and don't like it pointed out that thye're wrong on gays.)

Don't get me wrong, I think many people protesting against gay marriage, are dyed in the wool bigots who should be called out for what they are. The problem is that not everyone believes exactly the same thing, and it's a mistake to treat them that way. I think there are people who are against gay marriage who haven't really thought about it, or who just automatically reject new ideas without having any real problem with the ideas themselves. Support for gay marriage in California shot WAY up between 2000 and 2008, all those people who switched sides didn't go from bigot to not in 8 years.