SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage - Page 38 - 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 11-05-2008, 06:52 PM   #741
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: 06:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
I just can't comprehend how someone could justify this in a pluralistic society where religious beliefs are not supposed to infringe on anyone's freedoms, when it is supposed to be a self-evident truth that all men (and women) are created equal.
You know what this means don't you? Thomas Jefferson was a damn liar.
__________________

Dalton is offline  
Old 11-05-2008, 06:54 PM   #742
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 06:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
I just can't comprehend how someone could justify this in a pluralistic society where religious beliefs are not supposed to infringe on anyone's freedoms, when it is supposed to be a self-evident truth that all men (and women) are created equal.
Again, your responses are ones you've heard already: that this isn't a religious issue and that there are ways to be against gay marriage without it being about religion. That this isn't a "right." That civil unions are just as good.
__________________

phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 11-05-2008, 06:59 PM   #743
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,663
Local Time: 06:42 AM
Personally I've yet to find one person whose opposition to gay marriage wasn't founded on religious beliefs. I know I've heard arguments that omit that part of the equation, but it's basically the elephant in the room whenever they attempt that.
Diemen is offline  
Old 11-05-2008, 07:02 PM   #744
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 07:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
I'm serious, though. I want someone to rationally explain to me how allowing gays to marry will damage society.
There's nothing rational about it, and nobody once said that people ever had to act rationally. The sheer fact is that, globally, we're not as "advanced" as we think we are, and "The End of History" is laughably false.
melon is offline  
Old 11-05-2008, 07:42 PM   #745
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,738
Local Time: 06:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
You know what this means don't you? Thomas Jefferson was a damn liar.
Maybe next time you're drunk, you can shout out curses to Jefferson and leave poor Jackson out of it.
VintagePunk is offline  
Old 11-05-2008, 07:46 PM   #746
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 05:42 AM
Guess I can take down my cyber yard sign now.

By voting "yes" on Proposition 8 the citizens of California were actually saying "no."

No to a radical redefinition of marriage.
No to judicial activism.
And no to the "Proposition hate" bullying of the Angry Left.
INDY500 is offline  
Old 11-05-2008, 07:55 PM   #747
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 06:42 AM
And "no" to basic civil rights. Congrats. 16,000 stripped of marriages.

In the words of Bill Hicks, "Sleep tight."
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 11-05-2008, 07:56 PM   #748
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 07:42 AM
INDY, I hope that you'll be clapping in a few years when this all goes down the way it should have long ago.
anitram is offline  
Old 11-05-2008, 07:58 PM   #749
Refugee
 
toscano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,032
Local Time: 04:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Guess I can take down my cyber yard sign now.

By voting "yes" on Proposition 8 the citizens of California were actually saying "no."

No to a radical redefinition of marriage.
No to judicial activism.
And no to the "Proposition hate" bullying of the Angry Left.
And "yes" to bigotry.
toscano is offline  
Old 11-05-2008, 07:59 PM   #750
musicidalist
 
Miroslava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: KVKX
Posts: 10,747
Local Time: 07:42 AM
Nothing I can say about this can express my disgust with the decision on Prop 8, and the glee some people are displaying about it around here.

I just don't know how I would react if one morning I woke up and someone told me "oh, we nullified your marriage because we don't agree with it". Actually, I do know how I would react, and it wouldn't be pretty...

While I would have been pissed about this regardless, remembering that we got married on the same day as someone around here whose marriage is no longer (or will soon be) invalid made things even more real.

No one else's marriage affects my marriage and I would have assumed that would be the same for everyone.
Miroslava is offline  
Old 11-05-2008, 08:21 PM   #751
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,900
Local Time: 08:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Guess I can take down my cyber yard sign now.

By voting "yes" on Proposition 8 the citizens of California were actually saying "no."

No to a radical redefinition of marriage.
No to judicial activism.
And no to the "Proposition hate" bullying of the Angry Left.
Reading things like this make me sad and angry at the same time. You're fooling yourself if you think excluding a whole section of people the same basic rights that the majority have is not being a bigot. It's categorically wrong. And pathetic.

Marriage as an institution would not cease to exist if homosexuals are allowed to marry. It simply would not. I'm speechless when I see people spew this kind of hate.

Let me put it this way: Let's say, for the sake of argument, that heterosexuals were the minority. Would you want to be told whom you can and cannot marry? I don't think you would. So why not put yourselves in other people's shoes and imagine how they feel?

And please show me how two same-sex individuals marrying would negatively affect you, personally, and society in general. Tell me. Teach me. Show me.
__________________

BoMac is offline  
Old 11-05-2008, 08:30 PM   #752
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 06:42 AM
Guys, give up. You will not get an answer to that question. There is none.
BVS is offline  
Old 11-05-2008, 08:44 PM   #753
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 07:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Guess I can take down my cyber yard sign now.

By voting "yes" on Proposition 8 the citizens of California were actually saying "no."

No to a radical redefinition of marriage.
No to judicial activism.
And no to the "Proposition hate" bullying of the Angry Left.


you sure put those faggots in their place, didn't you?

way to go!
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-05-2008, 08:49 PM   #754
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 12:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Personally I've yet to find one person whose opposition to gay marriage wasn't founded on religious beliefs.
I've known several, and my guess is you have too, if only glancingly, but just didn't realize it. It's just that for nonreligious opponents (qualifier: I wouldn't put nonreligious people who were raised in a religious environment in this category), their 'arguments' are typically limited to raw, wholly non-intellectualized revulsion at what seems different, unnatural, 'gross'. And that kind of 'argument' is generally seen as embarrassingly crude and vulgar by most, so it gets quickly tossed out of the public sphere. When on the other hand someone appears to be speaking humbly, from a position of concern for the stereotypically most vulnerable (i.e. children, and perhaps women), and acting in service of an ideal greater than themselves, that incurs respect. That doesn't mean their thinking is firmly grounded in feeling for the common humanity of others (such as their love for and devotion to their families), as moral thinking always should be.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 11-05-2008, 09:00 PM   #755
Blue Crack Addict
 
redkat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: racing to the waterside
Posts: 19,620
Local Time: 04:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Guess I can take down my cyber yard sign now.

By voting "yes" on Proposition 8 the citizens of California were actually saying "no."

No to a radical redefinition of marriage.
No to judicial activism.
And no to the "Proposition hate" bullying of the Angry Left.
They were saying yes to hate. There is no reason other than hate and fear. If there has ever been a bullying campaign this was it. The ads were false and misleading, the proponents were in your face on a daily basis spreading fear. "what about the children" "free speech" "support our schools" wtf if you weren't paying attention you'd think you were voting for a school bond.

Not one person is positively impacted by this proposition.
redkat is offline  
Old 11-05-2008, 09:07 PM   #756
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 04:42 AM
I don't think that Gay couples who are esposed now would be stripped of those spousal privileges.

I can't see the Straight Gestapo coming in and taking a gay spouse off of a mortgage, or deleting a gay spouse from a will etc.

I'm sure that the State of Calif will come up w a way to resolve Mayor Newsom's high handedness which caused all of this mess.

<>
diamond is offline  
Old 11-05-2008, 09:10 PM   #757
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 07:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
I don't think that Gay couples who are esposed now would be stripped of those spousal privliges.
Why not? If gays getting married really are hurting the children, devaluing hetero marriage, and bringing in the downfall of Western Civilization, then why shouldn't they be nullified?

Or is it, as most of us here believe, an arbitary and hate-filled amendment after all?
melon is offline  
Old 11-05-2008, 09:13 PM   #758
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 04:42 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
Why not? If gays getting married really are hurting the children, devaluing hetero marriage, and bringing in the downfall of Western Civilization, then why shouldn't they be nullified?

Or is it, as most of us here believe, an arbitary and hate-filled amendment after all?
No, I think a correction will be made on their licenses from 'marriage' to 'union', altho there is one way a gay couple could get around it.

Other than that, everything else should remain the same.

<>
diamond is offline  
Old 11-05-2008, 09:14 PM   #759
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 06:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
No, I think a correction will be made on their licenses from 'marriage' to 'union'.

Everything else should remain the same.

<>
Why? What's the big deal about the word?
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 11-05-2008, 09:14 PM   #760
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 07:42 AM
This was at issue in Canada as well when the bigots spoke up before they were shut down.

Essentially, what would happen to existing marriages? Well, under existing legislation, spouse was defined as somebody of the opposite sex. When the courts ruled this to be unconstitutional, they ordered the province to amend all legislation in order to change the definition of spouse. This is a massive undertaking, as you can imagine, because it literally affects everything from family laws, custody, taxes, wills and trusts, etc.

Now if you pass the amendment, then the newly changed legislation would by definition become unconstitutional. So not only are you stripping the couples of their marriage, but of every other right that was afforded to them as a married couple since by default, the definition of spouse must go back to two members of the opposite sex.
__________________

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 06:42 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
×