SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-27-2008, 12:51 AM   #1
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 11:06 AM
SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage

Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
In other words, cultural elites with little or no tolerance for dissenting political views or religion based moral codes. I don't know if Sarah Palin will ever be vice-president or president but it's safe to assume she could never be mayor of San Franciso.
"Cultural elites" is the favorite term of conservatives with no grasp as to what liberals even stand for. It's a mix of ignorance and jealousy, with no basis in reality.

Your signature sickens me, by the way.
__________________

phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 09-27-2008, 10:32 AM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 10:06 AM
Quote:
cultural elites... little or no tolerance for dissenting political views or religion based moral codes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfan26 View Post
Your signature sickens me, by the way.
Thanks for proving my point.

It's a ballot initiative, democracy in it's purest form. You know, self-determination. Sorry if even the merest hint of an opposing viewpoint so "sickens" you. Maybe public debate in a free society just isn't for you.
__________________

INDY500 is offline  
Old 09-27-2008, 11:04 AM   #3
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 31,889
Local Time: 11:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
It's a ballot initiative, democracy in it's purest form. You know, self-determination. Sorry if even the merest hint of an opposing viewpoint so "sickens" you. Maybe public debate in a free society just isn't for you.


i say we put your civil rights up for vote.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-27-2008, 11:43 AM   #4
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 11:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Thanks for proving my point.

It's a ballot initiative, democracy in it's purest form. You know, self-determination. Sorry if even the merest hint of an opposing viewpoint so "sickens" you. Maybe public debate in a free society just isn't for you.
The economy, foreign policy, gun control ... those are issues. Those have viewpoints.

Civil rights is not that way. There's right and wrong with that.
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 09-27-2008, 12:09 PM   #5
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,534
Local Time: 11:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Thanks for proving my point.

It's a ballot initiative, democracy in it's purest form. You know, self-determination. Sorry if even the merest hint of an opposing viewpoint so "sickens" you. Maybe public debate in a free society just isn't for you.
You really have no idea how offensive what you're saying is to A)Those of us who support gay rights and B)ESPECIALLY those who are actually affected by it due to being gay.

I recently happened upon a quote from actress Jennifer Beals - she's not a star by any means and there's probably a lot of people who don't know who she is. But from what little I've read of her, she seems like a very intelligent person. What she says is dead-on. Here is the quote:

"I'm always shocked that gay marriage is such a big deal. You have to realize how precious human life is, when there are tsunamis and mudslides, when there are armies and terrorists - at any moment, you could be gone, and potentially in the most brutal fashion. And then you have to realize that love is truly one of the most extraordinary things you can experience in your life. To begrudge someone else their love of another person because of gender seems to be absolutely absurd. It's based in fear, fear of the other, fear of what is not like you. But when you are able to see lives on a day-to-day basis, rather than reducing it to politics, then it humanizes a whole community of people that were otherwise invisible."

Taken from her imdb profile page.
namkcuR is offline  
Old 09-27-2008, 12:13 PM   #6
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 11:06 AM
It should not even be put to a vote. The point of the US Constitution was to protect the minority groups (in this case, homosexuals) from the "tyranny of the majority" (in this case, fearful heterosexuals). The whole point of moving from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution was to avoid democracy being allowed to vote rights away (as it was allowed in the early Pennsylvania Constitution). And, unfortunately, we have moved on from the vision of the founding fathers and allowed fear to replace logic.
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 09-27-2008, 12:21 PM   #7
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 17,358
Local Time: 11:06 AM
You know putting it to a vote may not be such a bad idea. That way in 50 years when these people's children and grandchildren wonder who the hell was it that wanted a 2nd class citizenry a la the back of the bus for blacks, they won't have to look far or wonder.
anitram is offline  
Old 09-27-2008, 01:03 PM   #8
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 31,889
Local Time: 11:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
You know putting it to a vote may not be such a bad idea. That way in 50 years when these people's children and grandchildren wonder who the hell was it that wanted a 2nd class citizenry a la the back of the bus for blacks, they won't have to look far or wonder.


the citizens of CA are going to vote, and they are going to reject it.

it's still offensive in the extreme. should they have voted to allow African-Americans to attend the University of Alabama?
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-27-2008, 01:06 PM   #9
Blue Crack Addict
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Little hand says it's time to rock and roll.
Posts: 15,151
Local Time: 11:06 AM
I'd like to vote on whether or not them uppity blacks can drink from my watering fountain. You let'em do that and the next thing you know they'll want to be president.
Dalton is offline  
Old 09-27-2008, 01:09 PM   #10
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 31,889
Local Time: 11:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
I'd like to vote on whether or not them uppity blacks can drink from my watering fountain. You let'em do that and the next thing you know they'll want to be president.


and then they'll be givin' out condoms to 5 year olds.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-27-2008, 01:11 PM   #11
Blue Crack Addict
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Little hand says it's time to rock and roll.
Posts: 15,151
Local Time: 11:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
and then they'll be givin' out condoms to 5 year olds.
Jelly balloons?
Dalton is offline  
Old 09-27-2008, 01:16 PM   #12
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 31,889
Local Time: 11:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
Jelly balloons?


dental dams as well.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-27-2008, 06:51 PM   #13
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 11:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfan26 View Post
It should not even be put to a vote. The point of the US Constitution was to protect the minority groups (in this case, homosexuals) from the "tyranny of the majority" (in this case, fearful heterosexuals). The whole point of moving from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution was to avoid democracy being allowed to vote rights away (as it was allowed in the early Pennsylvania Constitution). And, unfortunately, we have moved on from the vision of the founding fathers and allowed fear to replace logic.
It was to protect minority groups?

This is the same constitution that counted slaves as less than a whole human? Weren't they a minority?

The point of moving from the Articles of Confederation was what?

Please direct me to some historical books where the sentiment above, is expounded upon.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-27-2008, 07:32 PM   #14
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 11:06 AM
James Madison - Federalist 10 and Federalist 51.

The slaves were counted less than a whole because they were forced to compromise with the southern states in order to move forward. Had they not, the Articles would have remained and the union would have further split, and I imagine it would have taken much longer for the slaves to get their rights.

Quote:
It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 09-27-2008, 08:09 PM   #15
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 10:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfan26 View Post
It should not even be put to a vote. The point of the US Constitution was to protect the minority groups (in this case, homosexuals) from the "tyranny of the majority" (in this case, fearful heterosexuals).
I think "tyranny of the government" is more accurate but you could argue that is the majority, anyway.

Without majority rule how can we be self-governing? Western societies live under a combination of two theories; liberalism (individual rights) and democracy (popular sovereignty). We respect the rights of the individual but they must either be universal or enumerated in our Constitution.

Every time an issue is declared "a right" and thus free from the vote, we extinguish part of our liberty. Ever think of that?

Quote:
The whole point of moving from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution was to avoid democracy being allowed to vote rights away (as it was allowed in the early Pennsylvania Constitution).
A self-determining society may well decide to allow same-sex marriage but to say that it has ever existed as a right would simply be untrue.
It certainly isn't in the Constitution in any specific language one could point to and no philosopher, legal scholar, religious thinker or civic leader has ever put forth the argument that it is implied prior to this generation.
INDY500 is offline  
Old 09-27-2008, 08:20 PM   #16
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:06 AM
Quote:
Every time an issue is declared "a right" and thus free from the vote, we extinguish part of our liberty. Ever think of that?
There is a word for such paired thinking. How can the some couples entering into marriage contracts deprive you of your liberties?

Sexual activity should be restricted to consenting parties, by definition adults and human beings, as far as the state is concerned arguments for banning sodomy are off the table. State intervention against homosexual activity is state run discrimination.

Marriage is a contract between consenting adults, the religious prohibitions against homosexuality (which are dismissed too lightly in this day and age) are irrelevant for public policy.

Gay marriage is just as much a right as heterosexual marriage, the right of consenting parties to enter into a marriage contract.
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-27-2008, 08:56 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 10:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
There is a word for such paired thinking. How can the some couples entering into marriage contracts deprive you of your liberties?

Sexual activity should be restricted to consenting parties, by definition adults and human beings, as far as the state is concerned arguments for banning sodomy are off the table. State intervention against homosexual activity is state run discrimination.

Marriage is a contract between consenting adults, the religious prohibitions against homosexuality (which are dismissed too lightly in this day and age) are irrelevant for public policy.

Gay marriage is just as much a right as heterosexual marriage, the right of consenting parties to enter into a marriage contract.
It's a tad more than a legal contract. Marriage is the foundation of society thus changing it's definition will radically change society. Who would argue that no-fault divorce and single parent households haven't done just that?
States have legitimate reasons for defining marriage. And in a democracy, the people have every expectation of being able to decide the nature of their community so long as they respect truly protected rights.

Any definition of marriage will include some people while excluding others. Including yours. But most importantly, if that definition is to change than it should be because the will of the people wishes it to.
INDY500 is offline  
Old 09-27-2008, 08:56 PM   #18
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,505
Local Time: 10:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Every time an issue is declared "a right" and thus free from the vote, we extinguish part of our liberty. Ever think of that?
Giving women the right to vote extinguished someone's liberty? Giving minorities equal protection under the law extinguished someone's liberty?

Flawless logic.
Diemen is offline  
Old 09-27-2008, 08:59 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2isthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vision over visibility....
Posts: 12,332
Local Time: 12:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Giving women the right to vote extinguished someone's liberty? Giving minorities equal protection under the law extinguished someone's liberty?

Flawless logic.
Ellen and Portia got married a few weeks ago. As a straight woman, my liberty hasn't been snuffed out yet, but I'm still watching my back.
U2isthebest is offline  
Old 09-27-2008, 09:03 PM   #20
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 17,358
Local Time: 11:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
It's a tad more than a legal contract. Marriage is the foundation of society thus changing it's definition will radically change society.
In which radical ways has the Canadian society changed?

Can you comment on that a little bit?
__________________

anitram is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×