TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- USA - West Coast / Las Vegas
-- The NO on Prop 8 thread....
Pages (20): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20]

"In America....the poorest laborer stood on equal ground with the wealthiest millionaire, and generally on a more favored one whenever their rights seem to jar."
--Thomas Jefferson: Answers to de Meusnier Questions, 1786. ME 17:8

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
--Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. ME 2:221

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. "
--Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. ME 2:221

"Don't tell me what the majority wants. If you were in Vienna in March 1938, you would have seen hundreds of thousands of people hollering "SIG HEIL" Every one of those people was wrong."
-- John Ford

"[The] liberty of speaking and writing... guards our other liberties." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Philadelphia Democratic Republicans, 1808. ME 16:304

self: Ok if I knew you were who I know you are now that would have been awesome.

Josh: I can't believe you have never met him! lol him and Don were always at circus. He was always in teh back room or the main room usually.

quote:

Originally posted by gehzumteufel self: Ok if I knew you were who I know you are now that would have been awesome. Josh: I can't believe you have never met him! lol him and Don were always at circus. He was always in teh back room or the main room usually.

Thanks gehzumteufel. My apologies, but I'm not too familiar with screen names and can't readily associate them with faces. Do you have a homepage or picture gallery somewhere ?

Some of mine are at:

http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/ind...&albumId=255375

(Add about ten years and ten pounds to most of them) - LOL....I gotta start dancing more often and get back to roller skating. Of course, cutting down on the ten-pound double-dipped, chocolate-cream-filled, triple-chocolate-mousse-cakes with three scoops of double-fudge ice cream might help too. I've made a good start - with only one cherry on top from now on.

Actually I saw your pic on FB and am totally clear on who ya are.

Here I am at my best friends sisters wedding reception lol

LOL I know who you are now. I think we met through aaron michael one day. Anyway, i see you at circus nearly every time im there...you always there bright and early!

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen LOL I know who you are now. I think we met through aaron michael one day. Anyway, i see you at circus nearly every time im there...you always there bright and early!

haha yeah he is always there early. I gotta make it out there one of these days. Even if I am bored of trance.

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen LOL I know who you are now. I think we met through aaron michael one day. Anyway, i see you at circus nearly every time im there...you always there bright and early!

Yep, yep, except when I'm at LoveFest, Sports Arena, Vanguard, Nocturnal, etc. This December I'm in Arizona, Texas and Louisiana most of the month.

quote:

Originally posted by gehzumteufel Actually I saw your pic on FB and am totally clear on who ya are.

Thanks, now I am totally clear on who you are too. I visited aukes.com - totally beautiful people.

thought i'd double post this from the mormon thread...


i haven't followed this issue since election day and still haven't read the last few pages on this thread, but i thought i'd point out that old age, religion, low education and low cultural integration are prominent symptoms of yes on 8 voters. supporters have less formal education, are recent immigrants, religious and/or elderly... all types easily manipulated by fear and lies. there is no correlation with wealth/income.

quote:

Some areas of S.F. voted to ban same-sex marriage Heather Knight, Chronicle Staff Writer Friday, November 14, 2008 For all the talk of San Francisco values, a Chronicle analysis of how the city voted on the state's same-sex marriage ban shows a city geographically divided on the issue - and voting trends that turn San Francisco's typical political spectrum on its head. One in 4 San Franciscans voted in favor of Proposition 8, far fewer than the 52 percent who voted to ban same-sex marriage statewide. But a closer look shows race, age and education influenced voters more than anything else - even among those living in one of the world's most gay-friendly cities. Voters in 54 of San Francisco's 580 precincts supported the ban, with a high of 65 percent of voters favoring it in parts of Chinatown and downtown. More than half of voters in large swaths of Bayview-Hunters Point, Visitacion Valley, the Excelsior and areas around Lake Merced also voted to ban same-sex marriage. Neighborhoods including the Marina, Laurel Heights and Mission Bay - which almost always vote more conservatively than neighborhoods such as Bayview and Chinatown - voted overwhelmingly against Prop. 8. "With the racial and religious overprint that we're seeing, the standard San Francisco politics get thrown out the window on this one," said political consultant David Latterman, who further crunched the precinct-by-precinct voting results that The Chronicle obtained this week from the Department of Elections. "This issue is very separate from what we usually think of as liberal and conservative," he said. The trends Latterman said the issue played out in San Francisco the same way it plays out everywhere else: Race, age and education were big influences in one's vote on Prop. 8. Latterman did not factor in religion, but exit polls throughout California showed a strong church affiliation correlated with a vote in favor of the ban among all racial groups. In San Francisco, the more white people living in a precinct, the more likely it was to vote against the proposition. The opposite was true for precincts with many Asian or African American residents. Voters ages 18 to 29 were overwhelmingly against the measure, while those older 60 were overwhelmingly for it. And those with only a high school education mostly voted for the measure, while those who graduated from college were largely against it. Income did not correlate with San Franciscans' votes on Prop. 8, Latterman said. For example, 65 percent of voters living in the few blocks around Bloomingdale's downtown - including posh condos inside the Four Seasons and St. Regis Hotel - voted to ban same-sex marriage. But only 35 percent of those living in the stately mansions of St. Francis Wood and 24 percent of those in Sea Cliff voted for the ban. Latterman guessed that businesspeople moving downtown are newly arrived from other places, whereas the others have been "part of the city's fabric for a long time." Speaking of St. Francis Wood, the neighborhood was the most conservative of any in the city, according to Latterman's Progressive Voting Index, which looks at how the city's precincts have voted on a variety of controversial ballot measures. That includes a measure that called for impeaching President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney and an initiative to ban firearms. Where a precinct fell on Latterman's index had very little correlation with how it voted on Prop. 8. Only 35 percent of St. Francis Wood voters favored the same-sex marriage ban, which is not too far off from the precinct around BART's 24th Street Station. That Mission District precinct is considered the city's most liberal, and 1 in 5 voters there supported the ban. Campaign smarts Chinatown also voted differently than its usual politics might suggest, said David Lee, executive director of the Chinese American Voter Education Committee, which has done its own analysis of the results. The neighborhood voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama for president and left-leaning David Chiu for supervisor, but also voted most heavily for Prop. 8. Lee said immigrants who've been in the city for less than 10 years tended to vote for the ban, while those who've been here longer tended to vote against it. He said the Yes on 8 campaign took out full-page ads in Chinese-language newspapers, which influenced a lot of voters. "It shaped the opinion of this population that wasn't being communicated to by the No on 8 campaign until very late," he said. In Visitacion Valley, where more than half of voters supported Prop. 8, many residents told The Chronicle they voted that way for one of two reasons: their religious beliefs or fear that children would learn about gay marriage in school, which was played up in Yes on 8 television commercials. Some in the neighborhood wrongly believed it was written into the measure. "I don't have anything against gays, but I don't think it's right teaching kids about it in school," said Terrance Powell, 32, who was cutting hair in a barbershop on Leland Avenue. "I have a son, and I'd rather teach him that at home." Joe Tan, a 40-year-old taxi driver who was picking up his son from the nearby Busy Bee Child Care Center, said his priest told the congregation repeatedly that marriage was between one man and one woman. "I'm Catholic, and I follow my religion," he said. Not surprisingly, the precincts with the least amount of support for Prop. 8 - 3 percent yes - were concentrated around the Castro. Steve Gibson, 42 and the director of a gay men's health center, was sipping coffee outside Spike's Coffees and Teas and said he was surprised that a quarter of his fellow San Franciscans voted to take away his right to marry. "I live in a bubble," he said, shaking his head. He campaigned with the No on 8 side in Albany on election day, but hadn't considered going to neighborhoods in the city. "I wasn't focused on San Francisco." All of this demographic information can be useful in strengthening outreach for the next time around, but shouldn't be used to blame anybody for Prop. 8's passage, said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "Our natural impulse when something happens that really hurts us and wounds us deeply is to lash out," she said. "However, there's no one group that can be blamed for that, and there's nothing productive in attempting to assign blame. ... A conversation that blames is a conversation that looks backward and does nothing to build bridges."

this was never a surprise to me, but if you weren't aware of your alignment on the issue, here it is. if you have a problem with same sex marriage, then you think like an elderly, religious, low-education recent immigrant.

quote:

Originally posted by gehzumteufel haha yeah he is always there early. I gotta make it out there one of these days. Even if I am bored of trance.

Well...I'd like to meet you all too (not talking to Josh cause I already know him...but would love to kick it with him for a good night at Circus) Nov 22nd at Nikita!
I'm playing one of my last LA gigs...probably for a while that night.

quote:

Originally posted by bas Yeah! Why should gay people be left out of that statistic? Totally unfair imo

Finding anything approaching a perfect "happy marriage" is a fantasy because there is no such thing as "Mr. or Mrs. Right" - we're fortunate to find 50% because few people can meet even half our desires, expectations or dreams. Even the best marriages often take a lot of work, patience, understanding, cooperation - in other words, it takes the best within us - and that's all NONheterosexuals want..."is that EQUAL fighting chance - even if the odds are stacked against them, even if it's only in NAME"..... to raise a family and not have to explain to their previously unwanted adoptive or foster children why they are called "domestic partners" while Bill and Barbie next store are called "married".

Voting "NO" on Prop 8 was a plea for the best within us. A plea for mercy, tolerance, equality and understanding, even if all of these qualities were only represented by one word - "Marriage". This was also a great chance for heterosexuals and "Christians" to stand up for one of the last minorities who are openly vilified and hated at worse, or who are all-too-often stereotyped in the worse ways based on the worse behavior of a few in their group, even in this day when people should know better. For evidence, see DjJosh's post where he singles out gay violence while ignoring the hundreds of thousands of NONheterosexuals who have died at the hands of "believers" in the past century alone. Who and what do so-called "civilized nations" owe that to?

By the FBI's own statistics, for every gay-on-straight "hate crime" DJJosh can cite, any student of logic or sociology can easily find thousands of "straight-on-gay" hate crimes, and the FBI estimates many are under reported. This should come as no surprise, as many "gays" and bisexuals are still too afraid to come out of the closet, especially to the police. It is no secret that *some* police officers have been far-less-than-friendly to the NONheterosexual community. A relatively small minority that the police are sworn under oath to their god & government to "serve and protect".

It is often said that a nation is only as great as it treats the most powerless among them. This holds true for individuals as well. Qualities such as tolerance and respect is mightiest in the mighty, for it is the mighty majority who have the power to give the most. Instead, last November 4th, they took it away in favor of their prejudices and unfounded fears about their own "marriages". If their "marriage" was really threaten by two consenting adults of the same gender getting married, then many of them didn't have much of a marriage to begin with. Divorce rates confirm this. Divorce is their greatest threat, not Ellen & Elizabeth getting married.

On a local TV show, "Hollywood Today" I interviewed Mitch Grobeson, an openly gay LAPD officer, and he was routinely mocked and harassed by his fellow officers. Two wrongs have never made a right - and just as violence among a few "gay" people does not represent all NONheterosexuals by the a long-shot, neither does violence against "gays" by "straights" represent most heterosexuals. It's very telling when *some* people single out evil in the context of an entire group. It exposes a very thinly-veiled agenda based on their own deep-rooted prejudice.

quote:

Originally posted by R!CH thought i'd double post this from the mormon thread... i haven't followed this issue since election day and still haven't read the last few pages on this thread, but i thought i'd point out that old age, religion, low education and low cultural integration are prominent symptoms of yes on 8 voters. supporters have less formal education, are recent immigrants, religious and/or elderly... all types easily manipulated by fear and lies. there is no correlation with wealth/income.

Dude, I am sorry R!CH, but you're ideas are ridiculous. If you are going to make offensive comments to fit your own prejudices than please back them up with some sort of measurable statistics. Those in the news paper article, really don't help much, because most voters in CA have more than a high school education. Put some numbers to the statistics, and it will paint a different picture.


SelfEvolution: I have really appreciated most of your comments on this topic. I haven't visited this thread without you being the most recent poster. Hah! Thanks though for your thoughts btw. Despite that I disagree with you about many things, I couldn't agree more with you on your last comment about taking a single instance and extrapolating it to the entire population (be it "Yes-ers" or "No-ers"). Like I said before, I really think there are a million beautiful shades of gray on this topic.

quote:

Originally posted by naeblis Dude, I am sorry R!CH, but you're ideas are ridiculous. If you are going to make offensive comments to fit your own prejudices than please back them up with some sort of measurable statistics. Those in the news paper article, really don't help much, because most voters in CA have more than a high school education. Put some numbers to the statistics, and it will paint a different picture.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1

Ballot Measures

California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage
California Proposition 8:
Ban on Gay Marriage
2,240 Respondents

Are you a college graduate?

Total                               Yes          No

Yes (50%)                       47%        53%

No (50%)                        58%        42%

quote:

Originally posted by in2muzikk Source: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1 Ballot Measures California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage 2,240 Respondents Are you a college graduate? Total                               Yes          No Yes (50%)                       47%        53% No (50%)                        58%        42%

Thanks In2Muzikk. Perhaps the above can be more clearly detailed as follows:

California Proposition 8:
Ban on Gay Marriage
2,240 Respondents

Non College Graduates who voted to NOT ban "Gay" Marriage: 42%

College Graduates who voted to NOT ban "Gay" Marriage: 53%

Difference: 11%


In statistics courses, we would call the above a "significant correlation", with self-reported NONcollege graduates voting 11% more to Ban NONheterosexual marriage than those who have graduated from college. There is usually a margin of error of plus or minus 3% to 6% as people can misreport their education, but that would work both ways and the percentage differences are still "significant" even with the highest margin of error.

In other words, although it is not a 100% objective, quantitative poll, no poll can be - they are qualitative in nature. Nevertheless, the above study is very telling as a qualitative poll based on qualitative methods used in peer-review journals in the fields of Sociology & Political Science. Such qualitative polls are usually very accurate, as were almost every poll about Obama and other Democrats leads over Republicans, for the White House, Senate and Congress. Almost every major poll, except for Fox "news", were generally correct in that the Democrat's had significant leads in all three areas, based on polling conducted more than a month before the November 4t election.

Of course there were some "confounding variable" such as Sarah Palin, who managed to confound over half the population and even many Republican leaders.

In terms of the Propostion 8 votes;

In three other words: It's kinda obvious.

Many studies have been conducted in both Psychology and Sociology that indicate that NONcolledge graduates are more likely to score high on scales measuring prejudice towards sexual minorities. In other words, in anonymous questionnaires, where large groups of individuals can check answers A,B, C or D that measure negative opinions and attitudes towards NONheterosexuals, NONcollege students are more likely to test high high in negative attribution, stereotypes, superstitions, etc. Even if we swallowed the superstition that marriage is just about words or semantics, clearly for many it's also about hatred, prejudice and just plain old willful ignorance, even if that willfulness is subconscious.

In other words: It's been kinda obvious for too long, and here was a chance for a portion of our society to evolve and grow out of their primitive fears and prejudices. To purge themselves of ancient predispositions born of archaic misinformation.

A slight majority of California voters failed themselves in that regard. Many of their votes are now deemed by millions the world over as wantingly cruel, and in terms of the Golden Rule, all the more sinful, in that alleged "Christians" above all, should know how to practice the Golden Rule. Instead, many of them did just the opposite even if it meant more sins of lies, distortions and "baring false witness".

Proposition 8 will go down as some of the ugliest pages in the books of Religious History and Human Intolerance. I feel sorry for those who blindly helped to write the chapters. Your names will be attached to them forever. Prejudice, be not proud, because the likelihood that some of our current and future friends and family will be NONheterosexual is probably 100%.

Yeah, that's it. I was gonna let the reader figure it out for themselves, but...

quote:

Originally posted by selfEvolution In three other words: It's kinda obvious.

here's some more interesting info on the YES voter from that cnn link...

they make up

75% of the 6% of voters who are black women
70% of the 10% of voters who are black
61% of the 15% of voters who are 65 years or older
58% of the 17% of voters who never attended college
82% of the 29% who are republicans
85% of the 30% who are conservatives
84% of the 32% who attend church weekly
81% of the 17% who are evangelical/born-again christians
65% of the 24% who are very worried about another terrorist attack in the usa
80% of the 38% who voted for bush in 2004
85% of the 30% who approve of the war in iraq
71% of the 9% who feel the race of the candidate is an important factor
86% of the 21% who approve of how george w bush is handling his job
84% of the 38% who voted for mccain


naeblis i'm sorry if these statistical correlations offend your ego. you should learn to embrace your epistemic community or reconcile whatever it is that makes you uncomfortable with these associations.

This thread continues, wow. I say lets change it up a bit.

here is a smashing billboard hit

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen This thread continues, wow. I say lets change it up a bit.

I don't think you've change anything "up a bit" - it's still more negative stereotyping based on generalized myths, this time, thinly veiled as self-degrading humor.

I know of plenty of gay guys who don't take it "in the butt", and there are plenty of heterosexuals who do - for evidence, read their letters to editors in Playboy, Playgirl and Hustler.

To paraphrase the emotionally intelligent Thomas Jefferson:

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to cram cocks or toys up his or her butt, whether they be gay or straight. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. " -Thomas Jefferson, Notes to PlayColonists Magazine, 1782

quote:

Originally posted by selfEvolution I don't think you've change anything "up a bit" - it's still more negative stereotyping based on generalized myths, this time, thinly veiled as self-degrading humor.

You should really relax my friend. Did you know that this guy actually tours in gay bars around the country? That is why it is so comical to me, that he is actually for real. Straight, gay, whatever, its funny. Take a break from your search for material for your new book and have yourself a chuckle.

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen Take a break from your search for material for your new book and have yourself a chuckle.

The above statement assumes too much - Call me coo-coo, but I've been joking and laughing with friends and staff most of the weekend and today. (I've done a few stand-up acts before). As I noted, the video you posted definitely has "humor" but it's still self-degrading in my humble opinion. It buys into the hate-filled stereotype that's too often seen all over the net, where homophobia is expressed by reducing entire groups to "fudge packers". There is nothing funny about that.

As noted before, gay marriage may not be a serious issue for some, but it is for millions of people. Nevertheless, you would never catch me telling anyone when to "chuckle" or not - I'm merely making an expression that I'm sure many NONheterosexuals would agree with - not all of "them" think alike nor "chuckle" at the same things.

LOL - and I don't think you read my "relaxed" quote? - (which in this context can have more than one meaning). It's a paraphrased quote from Thomas Jefferson. That's my idea of humor which doesn't have to falsely stereotype or single out any specific group.....so exxxccccuzzzz me.

Peace,
Chris

Saw on CNN that Obama has been studying the writings of Abraham Lincoln a lot these days. Word is that Abe was gay*, so things get more interesting...




* In The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror XIX one of the segments highlighted Lincoln's sexuality, ending with Lincoln squeezing Homer's rear end. Source: Wikipedia

I've been advocating all along that the emotions and ignorance of the masses should never dictate the rights of minorities, and as predicted, the California Supreme Court is going to review the discriminatory vote against "gay" marriage based on those grounds. In a true democracy, freedom is based on the rights of the *individual*, not the entire group who try to dictate what should be "normal".

Who or what is "normal"? The fact is, being *different* is *normal* because we're ALL *different*.... unless you're marching goose-step with some militant, elitist group or army which deems itself better than so-called "minorities".

E Pluribus Unum (Of many, ONE) was on our coins as early as 1786, long before "In God We Trust" appeared in 1864...and for those who believe in the alleged "god" the question should be, due to centuries of slavery, war and homophobia, "Does God Trust US". It's a relevant question because too many church-going "Christians" obviously do not live by their god's Golden Rule. Fortunately, as we evolve, more and more Christians are apprehending something my atheists friends have been advocating for decades:

That we are all minorities, and when we lesson the rights and respect towards one minority group, we lesson our humanity, our nation and the world. Here was an opportunity to build bridges, and instead of building those bridges of tolerance and understanding, so-called "Christians" built bigger and higher walls of inequality and division. Divided we fail, united in equality, we straighten the greater bonds that make us all equality members of the same human family.

From Equality California:

California Supreme Court Grants Review
in Prop 8 Legal Challenges

Court to Determine Constitutionality of Prop 8

Today the California Supreme Court granted review in the legal challenges to Proposition 8, which passed by a narrow margin of 52 percent on November 4. In an order issued today, the Court agreed to hear the case and set an expedited briefing schedule. The Court also denied an immediate stay.

On November 5, 2008, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit challenging the validity of Proposition 8 in the California Supreme Court on behalf of six couples and Equality California. The City of San Francisco, joined by the City of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles, and Santa Clara County, filed a similar challenge, as did a private attorney in Los Angeles.

The lawsuits allege that, on its face, Proposition 8 is an improper revision rather than an amendment of the California Constitution because, in its very title, which was "Eliminates the right to marry for same-sex couples," the initiative eliminated an existing right only for a targeted minority. If permitted to stand, Proposition 8 would be the first time an initiative has successfully been used to change the California Constitution to take way an existing right only for a particular group. Such a change would defeat the very purpose of a constitution and fundamentally alter the role of the courts in protecting minority rights. According to the California Constitution, such a serious revision of our state Constitution cannot be enacted through a simple majority vote, but must first be approved by two-thirds of the Legislature.

Since the three lawsuits submitted on November 5, three other lawsuits challenging Proposition 8 have been filed. In a petition filed on November 14, 2008, leading African American, Latino, and Asian American groups argued that Proposition 8 threatens the equal protection rights of all Californians.

On November 17, 2008, the California Council of Churches and other religious leaders and faith organizations representing millions of members statewide, also filed a petition asserting that Proposition 8 poses a severe threat to the guarantee of equal protection for all, and was not enacted through the constitutionally required process for such a dramatic change to the California Constitution. On the same day, prominent California women's rights organizations filed a petition asking the Court to invalidate Proposition 8 because of its potentially disastrous implications for women and other groups that face discrimination.

In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court held that barring same-sex couples from marriage violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and violates the fundamental right to marry among two, consenting adults. Proposition 8 would completely eliminate the right to marry only for same-gender couples. No other initiative has ever successfully changed the California Constitution to take away a right only from a targeted minority group.

Over the past 100 years, the California Supreme Court has heard nine cases challenging either legislative enactments or initiatives as invalid revisions of the California Constitution. In three of the most recent cases, the Court invalidated those measures.

quote:

Originally posted by tjpatel See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

That was too funny!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.