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.
^

Honestly this thread is a perfect example of what I meant when I was having that discussion about Sean about how it's simply not worth and not possible to change some people's minds. They are flat out bigots and discussion will NOT result in anything illuminating.

There's something train-wreck-like when you watch them try to rationalize their bigotry, it's also sad in a way; we've had a Catholic President, a Black one, we've had Jews and Women be on General Election tickets, but somehow the one thing which galvanizes bigotry from those who would accuse others of bigotry, is this one simple issue of equality.
 
It's made all the worse by the fact that gay marriage doesn't affect them in any way whatsoever.

I must have asked 50 times here for an explanation of how it is that the societies where gay marriage has full legal protections have fundamentally changed. Nobody ever answers it.
 
Interesting:

Thomas Sowell: Gays act like marriage is a 'right'Thursday, November 20 (updated 3:01 am)
By Thomas Sowell
Comments
Comment on this article and read what other readers have to say.
Among the many new "rights" being conjured out of thin air, a new one seems to be a "right" to win.

Americans have long had the right to put their candidates and their ideas to a vote. Now there seems to be a sense that your rights have been trampled on if you don't win.

ThomasSowell.jpg


Hillary Clinton's supporters were not merely disappointed, but outraged, when she lost the Democrats' nomination to Barack Obama. Some took it as a sign that, while racial barriers had come down, the "glass ceiling" holding down women was still in place.

Apparently, if you don't win, somebody has put up a barrier or a ceiling. The more obvious explanation of the nomination outcome was that Obama ran a better campaign than Hillary. There is no reason to doubt that she would have been the nominee if the votes in the primaries had come out her way.

As the election approached, pundits warned that, if Obama lost, there would be riots in the ghetto. We will never know. But since when does any candidate have a right to win any office, much less the White House?

The worst of all the reactions from people who act as if they have a right to win have come from gay activists in the wake of voter rejection of so-called "gay marriage," which is to say, redefining what marriage has meant for centuries.

Blacks and Mormons have been the main targets of the gay activists' anger. Seventy percent of blacks voted against gay marriage in California, so racial epithets were hurled at blacks in Los Angeles -- not in black neighborhoods, by the way.

Blacks who just happened to be driving through Westwood, near UCLA, were accosted in their cars and, in addition to being denounced, were warned, "You better watch your back."

Even blacks who were carrying signs in favor of gay marriage were denounced with racial epithets.

In Michigan, an evangelical church service was invaded and disrupted by gay activists, who also set off a fire alarm, because evangelicals had dared to exercise their right to express their opinions at the polls.

In Oakland, Calif., a mob gathered outside a Mormon temple in such numbers that officials shut down a nearby freeway exit for more than three hours.

In their midst was a San Francisco supervisor who said, "The Mormon church has had to rely on our tolerance in the past, to be able to express their beliefs." He added, "This is a huge mistake for them. It looks like they've forgotten some lessons."

Apparently Mormons don't have the same rights as other Americans, at least not if they don't vote the way gay activists want them to vote.

There was another gay activist mob gathered outside a Mormon temple in Orange County, California.

In the past, gay activists have disrupted Catholic services, and their "gay pride" parades in San Francisco have crudely mocked nuns.

While demanding tolerance from others, gay activists apparently feel no need to show any themselves.

How did we get to this kind of situation?

With all the various groups who act as if they have a right to win, we got to the present situation over the years, going back to the 1960s, where the idea started gaining acceptance that people who felt aggrieved don't have to follow the rules or even the law.

"No justice, no peace!" was a slogan that found resonance.

Like so many slogans, it sounds good if you don't stop and think -- and awful if you do.

Almost by definition, everybody thinks their cause is just. Does that mean that nobody has to obey the rules? That is called anarchy.

Nobody is in favor of anarchy. But some people want everybody else to obey the rules, while they don't have to.

What they want is not decisive, however. It is what other people are willing to tolerate that determines how far any group can go.

When the majority of the people become like sheep, who will tolerate intolerance rather than make a fuss, then there is no limit to how far any group will go.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. His Web site is Thomas Sowell | Home.
 
:blahblah:

How dare those gays protest against those who openly hate them. :sad: I guess that made MLK, Jr. and Gandhi a couple of ingrates, not to mention the American Founding Fathers. They should have just sucked it up and respected those who were really in charge!

While demanding tolerance from others, gay activists apparently feel no need to show any themselves.

And, to re-repeat from John Locke, one should not tolerate intolerance. Gay activists owe these people absolutely nothing, and must press forward to reclaim their inalienable rights.
 
We're so simple out here in equality land.

They don't even know themselves !



In addition to doctrinal concerns, Elder Clayton said the church's support for Prop. 8 did involve concerns over "the potential loss of religious liberty. How and where that would play out I can't say"

When asked about whether Latter-day Saints who publicly opposed Prop. 8 would be subject to some kind of church discipline, Elder Clayton said

"All we can say is that the LDS Church gives way to the spiritual discernment of local leaders in the handling of any matter that might involve the kind of question you have raised."

Oh yeah: "vote your conscience......" riiigghhhhtttt........
 
Elder Clayton said the church's support for Prop. 8 did involve concerns over "the potential loss of religious liberty. How and where that would play out I can't say"

Yeah, it's kind of hard to elucidate imaginary fears.
 
Sometimes it's a waste of one's time debating certain topics with certain people...everyone knows nothing mutually illuminating will come of it, and all that results is fraying tempers and snarky jibes. Why bother? Even on the internet, you can still pick and choose your battles. Might as well go for those that at least have potential to go somewhere--if not towards agreement or compromise, then at least towards a helpful insight into how someone else thinks. Anything less than that gets pretty old pretty quickly.

Ever the voice of reason. :)
 
In what way do homosexuals want "more protection" or "special protection?" I keep hearing this, but I've never seen it. Not once. This isn't some affirmative action. They want equality. You want to give them "separate but equal," a demonstrably failing idea.



ok, so i'm way behind in this discussion, and i'm taking next week off from FYM, but i'm going to address this really quickly.

did you know that if i talk about my partner, that if i put up pictures of him and i, say, in Zermatt, Switzerland, or if i talk about the cooking classes we took in Oaxaca, or if i simply refer to him or perhaps relationships i've had in the past, then i'm "flaunting" my sexuality?

it's true!

and if a straight person talks about his wife, his kids, where they went on vacation, how they need to get a math tutor for their 5th grader, and how they had thought about having a third but decided against it, that person is totally *not* flaunting their sexuality.

ultimately, when gay people walk around as if they have nothing to be ashamed of, when they assume that their relationships are just as good as anyone elses, when they talk like there's more to their sexuality than simply fucking, then they are actively seeking more rights than heterosexuals, who are just normal.
 
and if a straight person talks about his wife, his kids, where they went on vacation, how they need to get a math tutor for their 5th grader, and how they had thought about having a third but decided against it, that person is totally *not* flaunting their sexuality.

Don't forget wearing a wedding ring. That shouts straight form the freaking rooftops.
 
Don't forget wearing a wedding ring. That shouts straight form the freaking rooftops.



i know, right? that ring is all, "dude, i love chicks! i put my penis in a vagina! i'm all about being hetero and *you* MUST accept me and my lifestyle!"

it's very rude. because whenever i think of straight people, all i think of is them fucking each other. because that's all heterosexuality is. fucking. there's nothing more to it than that. fucking.

that's it.

fucking. maybe some oral. who knows what *they* do in that lifestyle.

but it's only about sex.

unlike my beautiful, multi-dimensional, complex homosexuality.
 
All relationships related to sex, it makes sense to me, although I have better luck of passing on my genes than you :hyper:

:wink:
 
NH civil union sponsor will push for gay marriage
By Associated Press | Saturday, November 29, 2008

CONCORD, N.H. - The legislator who sponsored New Hampshire’s civil union bill will push next year to legalize same-sex marriage.

But Portsmouth Democrat Jim Splaine will face a fight, as those opposed to civil unions vow to try to pare the law down.

Splaine says civil unions give same-sex couples about 90 percent of the benefits and obligations that heterosexual couples get through marriage. He says same-sex marriage is the only way for same-sex couples to attain full equality. Splaine describes the bill as necessary to propel debate.

Meanwhile, there will be debate on the current law.

Hooksett Republican David Hess has filed a request to repeal a portion of the law that recognizes same-sex marriages from other states as civil unions in New Hampshire.
 


The Church's response:

False Claims on Proposition 8 and the Church's Contributions
From FAIR, the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research


Criticism: Opponents claim the Church improperly contributed to the success of the campaign to support California Prop 8. First, opponents criticize the Church for donating money directly to the “yes on 8” campaign. This claim is false. Records filed with the State of California indicate that the Church did not make any contributions with the exception of an "in kind" contribution (non monetary) for travel expenses for a single general authority. All other LDS-related money was contributed by Church members individually, not by the Church. Secondly, critics claim that members of the Church outside of California contributed to the “yes on 8" campaign, and this involvement of people outside of California was improper.

The following chart shows the amounts of money contributed by both in-state and out-of-state individuals and groups to each side.





For Proposition 8

$25,388,955 In-State Donations
$10,733,582 Out-of-State Donations
$36,122,538 Total Donations

Against Proposition 8

$26,464,589 In-State Donations
$11,968,285 Out-of-State Donations
$38,432,873 Total Donations

Totals
$51,853,544
$22,701,867
$74,555,411

Source: Tracking the money, Los Angeles Times


Note that out-of-state contributions to the "No" side were over $1.2 million higher than the out-of-state contributions to the "Yes" side. A third claim is that the Church violated its tax-exempt status by participating in the “Yes on 8" campaign. According to IRS rules, a tax-exempt organization may not support particular candidates or parties. However, the church did not participate in or intervene in any of the political campaigns for any of the candidates running in the 2008 election. The IRS does, however, permit a Church to take positions on issues.

Critics then claim that companies the Church owns violated those rules.

Companies that are owned by the Church, such as Bonneville Communications, are in business to make a profit. These businesses pay their taxes just like any other business: They are not part of the tax-exempt portion of the Church. They have the same opportunities and rights to act in this manner as any other tax paying entities in our country.
Another claim is that contributions by Church members were unfairly considered tax deductible. This is patently false. California members who chose to donate to the Prop 8 campaign were explicitly told that their donations would not be tax deductible. None of the funds donated to the campaign are allowed as deductions. Critics claim that members were told by the Church how much to contribute. Church headquarters did not pass down individual contribution goals to members. In some cases local Church leaders may have asked members to contribute a specific amount. Some goals were suggested to the general membership by their Stake President, such as “one dollar per day.” Some Stakes provided wards with goals that they were expected to meet. Humanitarian efforts Critics have been making the claim that the Church invested more money in Proposition 8 than in all of its combined humanitarian efforts. The question is not relevant, since the Church as an organization did not donate any money to “Yes on 8.” The Church does, however, fund a significant humanitarian effort through member donations. The amount contributed by the Church to humanitarian causes far outweighs anything that individual members contributed toward the effort to pass Prop 8. Critics do not seem as concerned about the money that could have been donated to humanitarian causes that was donated to the “No on 8" campaign instead. Conclusion

The Church did not donate any funds to support Proposition 8. That members exercised their consciences to donate funds or to participate in voluntary activities to express their views is in the best traditional of citizenship.

There are many other issues which draw critical attention. The full FAIR wiki article may be accessed by clicking here.


Another question Prop 8:

Those opposing Prop 8 outspent those in favor by the tune of $2,000,000.
What's the problem?

More info:

Proposition 8 - Tracking the money - Los Angeles Times

<>
 
"Voters' economic status and religious convictions played a greater role than race and age in determining whether they supported the Nov. 4 ballot measure outlawing same-sex marriage in California, a new poll shows."

"The poll also showed that the measure got strong backing from voters who did not attend college (69 percent), voters who earned less than $40,000 a year (63 percent)"

"People who identified themselves as practicing Christians were highly likely to support the constitutional amendment"

Do they call it practicing because they still don't understand Jesus' message yet and they're trying to wrap their (apparently not very well educated) heads around it ?
 
Back
Top Bottom