Proposition 8 discussion continued

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
What I don't understand is that it's been legal for same sex individuals to marry in California. Suddenly that right has been withdrawn? Yet across the country there are some states in which same sex marriage is legalized? :down: Make it equal across the states either way, yet if it's been legal and recognized already in some areas then it's only fair to make it so country-wide. Personally I don't have much faith in the union of marriage (messy divorce after 20 yrs of marriage here) but I believe it should be fair for same sexes to marry.
 
I'm assuming Prop 8 is denying same-sex marriage? Only in California or all America? Is it legal or not at the moment?

I'd have no idea where I stand on this issue; for one I suppose the very essence of marriage is the love between a man and a woman, and a lot of dictionaries state it thus, and I think the traditionalists would want it kept that way. But in the end, really, it's just a couple of signatures, is it not? And I mean what would change majorly? If you're in a committed relationship, a marriage is really just a few signatures recognising the relationship. It's just an extra step. To deny gays that right, when you look at it simply, does seem a bit preposterous to me.

:shrug:

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court of California ruled that, based on the state's constitution, same-sex marriage rights could not be denied by the state. So, thousands of same-sex couples took advantage of their rights and wed.

Opposition to same-sex marriage created a ballot initiative called "Proposition 8," which bans same-sex marriage, without anything to put in its place as far as civil unions or something. It was primarily funded by a few individuals and the LDS church.

Those against Proposition 8 (the "No on 8" campaign) are against the banning of civil rights.

Those for Proposition 8 believe a couple of things:

1. It's very, very complicated. Extremely complex.
2. Re-defining a word is too much time and effort.
3. They're certainly not bigots.
4. This could mean that homosexuality is taught in schools!
5. A man and a woman will always, in every case, raise a child better than a gay couple because that's how it's always been. K-Fed and Britney will be a better parental couple than Irvine and Memphis.
6. Gay parents could turn their adopted kids gay too!
7. Really, they're not bigots. We're serious. It's too complex for them to be bigots.
8. Think of the children!

So, "Yes on 8" won with scare mongering, and, no more gay couples can wed in California. It's yet to be determined whether or not the rest of them will be nullified or not. Legal battles will ensue.
 
Given that the religious so often insist that atheism is a religion perhaps I should put myself forward for some tax exemption.

Look up the Duggar family. They're basically two evangelicals who don't believe in birth control and have 17 or 18 children and the woman is pregnant again. They raise their kids like it's a hundred years ago, with the girls basically doing all the work in the house and dress them like it's 50 years ago. Really very troubling, of course they're home schooled and so on. But they make TV shows constantly.

Anyway, they declared themselves a church since they have enough people for it and so they pay no property taxes on their massive house or the land.

So you may be on to something.
 
tt081107__1226077296_7323.jpg
 
Look up the Duggar family. They're basically two evangelicals who don't believe in birth control and have 17 or 18 children and the woman is pregnant again. They raise their kids like it's a hundred years ago, with the girls basically doing all the work in the house and dress them like it's 50 years ago. Really very troubling, of course they're home schooled and so on. But they make TV shows constantly.

Anyway, they declared themselves a church since they have enough people for it and so they pay no property taxes on their massive house or the land.

So you may be on to something.

:shocked: Really? I've seen that family on shows at least a few times, but had no idea they had declared themselves a church. That's absolutely ridiculous, and to me, gives yet another reason why churches shouldn't be allowed tax-exempt status just based on the fact that they are a church.
 
Those against Proposition 8 (the "No on 8" campaign) are against the banning of civil rights.

You mean civil rights like having every vote count? Voter disenfranchisement wasn't cool in 2000. Why is it cool in 2008?

Those for Proposition 8 believe a couple of things:

Gosh, thanks for putting words in our mouths. How even-handed.

Here's some stuff to chew on:

Prop 8 voters supported:

1. Parental notification rights when it comes to discussions of sexuality in school.
2. Separation of church and state.
3. Freedom of speech.
4. The freedom of a self-governed society to decide whether it's going to redefine a core social value.
5. Thousands of years of tradition.

You're right, we're all crazy hate-mongers with wacky ideas.

And if you guys are going to start knocking the Duggars and setting K-Fed and Britney as the standard for heterosexual marriage, I'd like to re-open the conversation about NAMBLA, if you don't mind.
 
Gosh, thanks for putting words in our mouths. How even-handed.

Here's some stuff to chew on:

Prop 8 voters supported:

1. Parental notification rights when it comes to discussions of sexuality in school.
2. Separation of church and state.
3. Freedom of speech.
4. The freedom of a self-governed society to decide whether it's going to redefine a core social value.
5. Thousands of years of tradition.

You're right, we're all crazy hate-mongers with wacky ideas.

And if you guys are going to start knocking the Duggars and setting K-Fed and Britney as the standard for heterosexual marriage, I'd like to re-open the conversation about NAMBLA, if you don't mind.

Separation of church and state, really? Like imposing religious values (marriage is only for a man and woman) upon the rest of society?

I wasn't knocking the Duggars, only commenting on the ridiculousness of them becoming their own church. And, comparing them to NAMBLA is just as ridiculous. :tsk:
 
I'd like to re-open the conversation about NAMBLA, if you don't mind.

Only if every Christian straight man who ever fucked a little girl for kicks can be brought up.

You are treading on dangerous and ugly ground. It won't do you any good to take this road. Get off it now before you are sorry you started it. That's not a threat; it's a reminder that there are more examples of straight men fucking children than gay men.

And I will bring up every one if you want me to.
 
And if you guys are going to start knocking the Duggars and setting K-Fed and Britney as the standard for heterosexual marriage, I'd like to re-open the conversation about NAMBLA, if you don't mind.



as has been noted, this is not just a stretch, but a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.

if you're going to limit marriage solely to heterosexuals -- and, by your own definition, parenthood, because, according to you, the only reason to get married is to have children -- then you must be willing to stand by Britney and K-Fed as, by definition, superior parents to any and all gay parents, like Varitek's parents.

NAMBLA is a fringe-of-the-fringe organization that has no mainstream support that seeks to change age-of-consent laws, much like NORMAL seeks to change drug laws. NAMBLA is free to exist as an advocacy organization, like anyone else who wishes to change the law -- like Warren Jeffs, who really wants to fuck and marry lots of 14 year old girls -- but should they violate the law, they will be tossed into jail just like anyone else.

and so, Nathan, you really do belie your protestations about bigotry when you bring up fucking NAMBLA.

if someone were to assume my support of NAMBLA, or even to associate me with the group or ask that i answer and account for them simply because i am gay, i'd break their nose.
 
4. The freedom of a self-governed society to decide whether it's going to redefine a core social value.


it's about rights, nathan. it's about equal treatment under the law. your values will in no way be impacted should a couple of guys in West Hollywood get to visit each other in the hospital and put each other on a life insurance policy.

though perhaps you view cruelty as a core social value? because that's the only value i've seen reinforced with Prop 8 -- the longstanding, time tested, thousand-year history of, "there are people out there who are different from us, so we must make sure that they know that we are better than them."



5. Thousands of years of tradition.

You're right, we're all crazy hate-mongers with wacky ideas.


thousands of years of slavery ... thousands of years of pederasty ... thousands of years of polygamy ... thousands of years of beating your wife because she displeases you ... thousands of years of war for the control of resources ... thousands of years of genocide ...
 
What was the total vote tally of Prop 8 in Calif?

How many millions for the measure, how many against?

<>
 
i was reading through the "Yes" on Prop 8 website, and came across this lie, that was probably extremely convincing to people who don't know any gay people:


Proposition 8 is NOT an attack on gay couples and does not take away the rights that same-sex couples already have under California’s domestic partner law. California law already grants domestic partners all the rights that a state can grant to a married couple. Gays have a right to their private lives, but not to change the definition of marriage for everyone else.

Passing Proposition 8 protects our children and places into the Constitution the simple definition that a marriage is between a man and a woman.



make no mistake, the "Yes" crowd ran a much, much better campaign.
 
I still haven't heard an explanation for how gay marriage would hurt children.

Society hasn't fallen apart in Canada, Belgium, The Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, and Spain as a result of the legalization of gay marriage, and supporters of proposition 8 have never been able to adequately or sufficiently explain that.

Until an explanation for that is given, proposition 8 supporters have no ground to stand on.
 
I still haven't heard an explanation for how gay marriage would hurt children.

Society hasn't fallen apart in Canada, Belgium, The Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, and Spain as a result of the legalization of gay marriage, and supporters of proposition 8 have never been able to adequately or sufficiently explain that.

Until an explanation for that is given, proposition 8 supporters have no ground to stand on.



much like with gay parenthood, all the studies show that absolutely nothing happens. kids do just as well with gay parents as with straight ones. the canard that "kids do best with a mother and a father" is derived from studies that show, on average, kids do better with two parents than with a single parent. when kids with two parents are compared -- two gay parents and two straight parents -- there is nothing to show that kids are somehow disadvantaged by having gay parents, nor advantaged by having straight parents. so the only thing that can be derived from this is that kids do better with two parents, rather than one, but we all know that single parents can do a remarkable job as well.

in fact, many gay parents tend to have, in droves, the things that adoption agencies are looking for. they tend to be a bit older, tend to be very well educated, and they tend to have really, really thought through their decisions to be parents.

but none of this matters to the state of Arkansas, apparently.
 
Society hasn't fallen apart in Canada, Belgium, The Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, and Spain as a result of the legalization of gay marriage, and supporters of proposition 8 have never been able to adequately or sufficiently explain that.

diamond has repeatedly told us that these other places don't matter and that Americans are suspicious of them anyway and that the USA is waaaaaay more fantastical.
 
diamond has repeatedly told us that these other places don't matter and that Americans are suspicious of them anyway and that the USA is waaaaaay more fantastical.

Massachusetts hasn't fallen apart either, and they have had the lowest divorce rate in the country too. I think most of this country could learn from their example.
 
Mind you, I've always felt that the man and a woman thing is an essence that only exists because our ancestors were horrid scumbags who got a sad kick out of asserting their authority...
Or perhaps they realized that only "the man and woman thing" would allow them to become ancestors.
 
Or perhaps they realized that only "the man and woman thing" would allow them to ever become ancestors.

The man and many women thing was part of 'tradition' too. Still is in LDS-affiliated circles. I'm sure it's based on solely a need for more successors....

I'm sure you're right and that homosexuality is just a 20th century flirtation with sexual experimentation.
 
Or perhaps they realized that only "the man and woman thing" would allow them to become ancestors.



same-sex marriage is going to stop teenagers in Wasilla from getting knocked up and then forced into shotgun weddings?

and are we now not going to let, say, post-menopausal women get married later in life?

however, since INDY and nathan point to "thousands of years of tradition" and the need for procreation, we should certainly then see them advocating the need for a return to polygamy. after all, if we want lots of children, we need to realize that one man can fertilize many women, but a woman can only be pregnant one at a time. so it seems to make sense, as it did to our ancestors, that powerful men with resources should take multiple brides so he can keep them in various stages of pregnancy in order to further along our species. one man with one women might get, at most, 8-10 kids. but one man and 4-5 women is going to give that man as many children as he can provide for.

*that's* tradition.
 
Actually, he is right in that it takes two members of the opposite sex to naturally create offspring. But since bearing children isn't a requirement of marriage, the point doesn't really bear much relevance to this discussion.
 
Actually, he is right in that it takes two members of the opposite sex to naturally create offspring. But since bearing children isn't a requirement of marriage, the point doesn't really bear much relevance to this discussion.

I'm not sure that "relevance" ever mattered much to the Religious Right anyway, when it came to their arguments.

jesus-dinosaur.jpg
 
Actually, he is right in that it takes two members of the opposite sex to naturally create offspring. But since bearing children isn't a requirement of marriage, the point doesn't really bear much relevance to this discussion.



it's not?

i thought it was the purpose of getting married, that this is why marriage must be protected because the very fate of our species is dependent upon it's exclusionary status.
 
Back
Top Bottom