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

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.

phillyfan26

Blue Crack Supplier
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
30,343
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.
 
cultural elites... little or no tolerance for dissenting political views or religion based moral codes.

Your signature sickens me, by the way.

Thanks for proving my point. :applaud:

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.
 
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.
 
Thanks for proving my point. :applaud:

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.
 
Thanks for proving my point. :applaud:

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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?

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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. :up:
 
Giving women the right to vote extinguished someone's liberty? Giving minorities equal protection under the law extinguished someone's liberty?

Flawless logic. :up:

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.:wink:
 
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?
 
Nobody cares about Canada

has Canada even even been hit with a terrorist attack?

Are Canadians even worth taking hostage?
 
Just shows how much you know.

The Serbs did tie that one peacekeeper dude to a tree a few years back.

You Canadians will see your value skyrocket when, according to the voices in random bloggers' heads, you and Mexico finally join forces and merge with the U.S., in what can only be described as Justice League 2009. Chuck Norris is behind this somehow.
 
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.

I know why the slaves were counted as less than a whole.

I think your interpretation is interesting.
From a historical standpoint, I think it a grand leap to conclude the document iteself was about protecting the minority to providing rights to certain groups within a society. I do not necessarily subscribe to this point of view.
 
I for one am sick and tired of all this partisan bullshit. Can't we just come up with a workable compromise?

I propose that we outlaw all marriages between gay men (I think we are all comfortable with lesbians - thanks L Word). They will not have standing as official couples. This will please the conservative right.

Then while we take that away, we do some sort of Affirmative Action hiring to make sure that gay men lead almost every Boy Scout troop in America.

Deal?
 
Some schools have a program where they make young girls carry around a 10 bag of flour for a week. They learn what it would be like to have a baby to be responsible for.

Some girls do go on and become mothers, at lease they know what it is like to lug around a kid.


Thirteen year old boys all have a best friend. The school curriculum should include an exercise where they pair off and have a one week ‘Civil Union” with their best friend. They should have to learn how to launder their clothes properly. Learn how to chose a coordinated ensemble (dress in clothes that match). Learn proper hygiene. (Shave each other’s back hair). They could practice CPR and heimlich maneuvers on each other. These are all beneficial skills for all young men to master.

I believe this is already the curriculum at Catholic schools.
 
Every time an issue is declared "a right" and thus free from the vote, we extinguish part of our liberty. Ever think of that?


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.


yep. get them blacks outta my public schools and universities.

the logic behind denying basic civil rights to people on the basis of being gay is NO DIFFERENT than denying basic civil rights on the basis of skin color.
 
the logic behind denying basic civil rights to people on the basis of being gay is NO DIFFERENT than denying basic civil rights on the basis of skin color.

Absolutely.

Do you have to sit in a special section of the bus, the pink triangle section perhaps, in DC?

If so, that is disgraceful, and I condemn it.
 
Absolutely.

Do you have to sit in a special section of the bus, the pink triangle section perhaps, in DC?

If so, that is disgraceful, and I condemn it.



firstly, my people were tossed into the ovens, which is where we get the pink triangle.

secondly, it is legal to fire my people in many states and deny them housing on the basis of sexual orientation. it is illegal in FL to adopt children. and, as we know, it is illegal to be married except in MA or CA.

i wonder how you'd feel coming over here 100 some odd years ago to "No Irish" signs in various places of employment. it's kind of like that.

and i challenge you to find a group as discriminated against on a worldwide level as violently as homosexuals. we face execution in many countries in Africa and the Middle East.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom