SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage - Page 2 - 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, 08:07 PM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 02:22 AM
Nobody cares about Canada

has Canada even even been hit with a terrorist attack?

Are Canadians even worth taking hostage?
__________________

deep is offline  
Old 09-27-2008, 08:11 PM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 06:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
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.
__________________

anitram is offline  
Old 09-27-2008, 08:14 PM   #23
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2isthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vision over visibility....
Posts: 12,332
Local Time: 06:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
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.
U2isthebest is offline  
Old 09-27-2008, 08:18 PM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Little hand says it's time to rock and roll.
Posts: 15,153
Local Time: 05:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
Nobody cares about Canada

has Canada even even been hit with a terrorist attack?

Are Canadians even worth taking hostage?
So true.
Dalton is offline  
Old 09-27-2008, 08:21 PM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 05:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfan26 View Post
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.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-27-2008, 08:33 PM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Little hand says it's time to rock and roll.
Posts: 15,153
Local Time: 05:22 AM
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?
Dalton is offline  
Old 09-27-2008, 10:18 PM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 02:22 AM
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.
deep is offline  
Old 09-27-2008, 10:38 PM   #28
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 06:22 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?


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.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-27-2008, 10:43 PM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 11:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
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.
financeguy is offline  
Old 09-27-2008, 10:46 PM   #30
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 06:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
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.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-27-2008, 10:52 PM   #31
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 11:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
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.

Well, I think that this speaks to the classic difference between the liberal and the conservative way of looking at the world.

Conservatives - and on this I agree with them - tend to be sceptical of sectional gender/race/sexuality politics, because they think it divides people and is bad for society.
financeguy is offline  
Old 09-27-2008, 10:57 PM   #32
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 06:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Well, I think that this speaks to the classic difference between the liberal and the conservative way of looking at the world.

Conservatives - and on this I agree with them - tend to be sceptical of sectional gender/race/sexuality politics, because they think it divides people and is bad for society.


this misses the point.

what we're talking about is not putting civil rights up to a vote. if we had voted on whether or not to allow interracial marriage in Virginia in 1967 or to integrate the schools after 1956, just what do you think "the people" would have chosen? what do you think would have happened if the citizens of 19th century New York had been asked to put their ability to discriminate against Irish in employment to the vote? after all, you couldn't trust them, Bridget and Paddy were always drunk, always fighting, not good for business. it is absolutely the right of good Protestant business owners to determine who does and who does not work for them, and it's just too much of a risk to hire Irish given their past track record.

or, do we agree that people have basic rights regardless of whatever differences there are, that sexual orientation is as immutable and unchosen a human characteristic as race and gender, and can be demonstrated that it is entirely harmless and in fact the only harm that is done in regards to sexual orientation are those that are discriminated against on the basis of it, and thusly, we seek to protect those in the minority from the prejudices of the majority, that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law regardless of what the masses of bigots might think.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-27-2008, 11:11 PM   #33
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 11:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
this misses the point.
It precisely addresses the point. As I see it, we are talking about an ideological distinction between statism and liberty. And I'll explain what I mean.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
what we're talking about is not putting civil rights up to a vote. if we had voted on whether or not to allow interracial marriage in Virginia in 1967 or to integrate the schools after 1956, just what do you think "the people" would have chosen? what do you think would have happened if the citizens of 19th century New York had been asked to put their ability to discriminate against Irish in employment to the vote? after all, you couldn't trust them, Bridget and Paddy were always drunk, always fighting, not good for business. it is absolutely the right of good Protestant business owners to determine who does and who does not work for them, and it's just too much of a risk to hire Irish given their past track record.

I disagree fundamentally with employment (so-called) 'anti-discrimination' legislation. So, for the sake of argument, I simply do not agree that these Protestant business owners should have been legally compelled to employ Irish workers against their will (i.e., the will of the Protestant business owners).

After all, it is, or rather was, THEIR businesses. Or, alternatively, I do not agree that Irish Catholic business owners should be, or should have been, legally compelled to employ WASP's. You as a liberal presumably disagree with this approach. And that's fine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
or, do we agree that people have basic rights regardless of whatever differences there are, that sexual orientation is as immutable and unchosen a human characteristic as race and gender, and can be demonstrated that it is entirely harmless and in fact the only harm that is done in regards to sexual orientation are those that are discriminated against on the basis of it, and thusly, we seek to protect those in the minority from the prejudices of the majority, that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law regardless of what the masses of bigots might think.
You can't legislate against bigotry. You might want to, but it's pointless, counterproductive and anti liberty (and I know I might be coming across a little Ayn Randian here).

I have the right to life, and freedom of expression, and to give my labour freely.

I do not have the right to compel an unwilling employer to employ me.

Do you think a gay nightclub should be compelled, against its will, to employ heterosexuals to fulfil an equality quota? Let's say the nightclub has 50 staff, and is required to employ at least 50% heteros.

What if said nightclub is situated in a very conservative state or country? What if it can't find any non-homophobic heterosexuals? Is it right for the state to COMPEL them to employ homophobic bigots? What then?
financeguy is offline  
Old 09-28-2008, 12:14 AM   #34
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 06:22 AM
Quote:
You can't legislate against bigotry. You might want to, but it's pointless, counterproductive and anti liberty (and I know I might be coming across a little Ayn Randian here).

except that you can. i'm going to assume that you're not actually advocating for Jim Crow laws, and what you're trying to say is that you can't make people like each other. that's absolutely true. but you can pass laws that make it impossible for people to discriminate in cases of legal rights on the basis of bigotry.

so what we're saying is that it's not that someone must hire Irish, but that they can be penalized if the deliberately do not hire Irish (and it's a rather tough thing to prove, legally). now if you want to talk quotas, that's something else, but again, as i said, this misses the point. we've gone onto a tangent about same-sex marriage. barring gay people from marrying is no different, in structure or intent, than was the barring of black students from white schools.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-28-2008, 12:34 AM   #35
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Lila64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: ♥Set List Lane♥
Posts: 52,894
Local Time: 03:22 AM
where's the SNL clip....gotta find it!

Quote:
Originally Posted by U2isthebest View Post
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.
Lila64 is offline  
Old 09-28-2008, 11:31 AM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 04:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
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.
I would agree if we were talking about equal protection. But I don't think we are.

Anti-miscegenation laws clearly did although, unfortunately, it wasn't seen that way until 50 years ago. So if homosexuals (who have suffered civil rights abuses) were not being allowed to marry -- period -- that would without question be another civil rights violation. But same-sex activists seek a right never possessed by anyone, anywhere at anytime. The right to marry members of your own sex. Marriage has changed over the past 1500 years but always, always, even in polygamy marriages (which do at least have a history), it was a bonding of a male and a female.
I don't begrudge gay people (who even in a mean country like America teeming with homophobes) have found increasing acceptance from taking the next step and seeking legally recognized marriage as it's not without it's merits. But I do resent how it's being done (through judicial activism rather than democratic means, denigrating religious morals and slandering same-sex marriage opponents as modern-day Bull Connors.)

Which brings me to my other point about an earlier post of yours.
Quote:
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?
There's that false analogy again !!

Weren't we told during the Federal Marriage Amendment debate that we shouldn't "federalize" the issue, that it "should be left to the states to decide"? Can't I go back and quote you making that argument?
But isn't that exactly what California is now doing? So why is that now so "offensive in the extreme"?

Maybe because by "decide" what you really meant was "have it decided for them by a handful of lawyers in robes."
That's how I lose my liberty.
INDY500 is offline  
Old 09-28-2008, 12:04 PM   #37
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,663
Local Time: 05:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Maybe because by "decide" what you really meant was "have it decided for them by a handful of lawyers in robes."
That's how I lose my liberty.
Exactly how, again, does allowing gays to marry diminish your liberty?
Diemen is offline  
Old 09-28-2008, 12:15 PM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,724
Local Time: 06:22 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. 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.
You say it would radically change society. How do you know? Since marriage has always been between a man and a woman, how do we have ANY CLUE how homosexual marriages would 'radically change society'? What is the frame of reference? There is none. There is no proof of this. It is speculation.

Also, it is hard for me to imagine a time in which homosexuals outnumber heterosexuals, so even if gay marriage is legal nationwide, homosexual marriages are always going to be a sizable minority of marriages. I fail to see how that is going to 'radically change society'.
namkcuR is offline  
Old 09-28-2008, 12:24 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 04:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Exactly how, again, does allowing gays to marry diminish your liberty?
By subverting both the legislative process and the will of the people through judicial manufacture of "bogus" constitutional rights.
INDY500 is offline  
Old 09-28-2008, 12:29 PM   #40
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 05:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
By subverting both the legislative process and the will of the people through judicial manufacture of "bogus" constitutional rights.
If someone stated that they thought federal laws about race were "bogus" and that their rights were being taken away because of it, would you agree?
__________________

phillyfan26 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 05:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×