|
The NO on Prop 8 thread.... (pg. 17)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| TSG |
| quote: | Originally posted by pnutttty
btw, i am gay and i do not wear pink-skirts, skirts, or even eat fruitcakes. |
Do you still wear chanklas and push a shopping cart while yelling ELOTES? :D
j/k between pnuttty & I ;) |
|
|
| pnutttty |
| quote: | Originally posted by TSG
Do you still wear chanklas and push a shopping cart while yelling ELOTES? :D
j/k between pnuttty & I ;) |
yes i do. i like pushing the shopping cart with the ice chest filled with hot water and elotes. on special days, i will have tamales. |
|
|
| dollaroff |
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
Does anyone know what percentage of votes is needed for a California constitutional amendment to pass? Is it a majority plus one, or is it two-thirds of the vote? |
(http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov...ve_ref_qual.pdf)
simple majority. |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
That PDF doesn't go into anything for something to pass, just to get it on the ballot. And it doesn't pertain to the state constitution either. |
|
|
| xenpro |
The real family marriage proposition
The threesome marriage
Anyone want to start a signature drive and get this on the ticket next time around?...hehe |
|
|
| naeblis |
There has been a cry for tolerance (a disposition to allow freedom of choice and behavior), yet it is always a one way street... Regardless if you want to vote yes or no on it. That being said, I think so many of you on here are hypocrites. There is a huge crying out for “tolerance” and “equality”, yet you yourselves post things that could be seen as hateful, scathing, and be judged offensive by any means and standards. And, then when someone gets called out on it, we conveniently apologize about our intents, when (I think), if you were honest with yourselves, you were in fact having intent to harm and put-down… How in the world will anyone ever achieve these ideals, when both sides demonize and attack each other with abhorrence for different views? I don’t think that this is any way to solve differences…
There has been a fair share of "demon-ization" by both sides, that I think really polarizes a lot of people--which to be honest, isn't really a fair portrayal of what many people think and feel. E.g. if you are voting for prop 8, you are "intolerant", "discriminating", "a religious zealot", and basically you hate homosexuals. Others who are voting no on prop 8 are considered liberal, "threat to Christianity", challenging the countries ideals, left-wing progressives, and a whole slew of other negative or derogatory untruths.
Not only that, but most of us are entirely unqualified to sit and argue about the goods and bads of different social policy, because nobody does a thorough job on their homework. I myself am included in this group, as I am to some extent ignorant of all facts and circumstances… So I am not trying to talk down to anyone, but rather I just want people to not only be aware of their own shortcomings and ignorance, but please don’t attack me for my own shortcomings and ignorance.
Also, if you’re not willing to do A TON OF READING, then don’t bother replying please.
While I don’t view myself as a “biblethumper”, hopefully I can explain my thoughts here in a logical and straightforward manner that does not polarize anyone too much, as many others have continued here, and yet still form an intelligible statement that doesn’t entirely “lean on god's will” and that so called “sensational piece of fiction”.
Many people are making this out to be an argument about rights and equalities; San Francisco is not Selma. This is not an argument about rights or equalities. It is an argument about what the definition of marriage is. (Before you erupt and say "BS" please read further :) )
Some of this is a repeat from the last thread about this when it was first proposed, but being as that was a long time ago, nobody probably remembers.
Legally: Marriage has long been defined as two requirements
1. Two people
2. One is a man (groom), the other is a woman (bride)
Why we are on the legal turf for marriage, it might be educational to clear up some of the rhetoric about marriage as a civil right. While it is true that marriage in the state bucket of civil law, I think there needs to be some clarity about adding any marriage amendment to the Constitution.
1. http://www.cpjustice.org/stories/storyReader$1178
2. http://www.nhhousegop.com/Reports/ExecSumm-p26-50.pdf
Socially:
1. Sex Integration
2. Contingency for procreation
3. These combined as a coherent whole
Religiously: This view is held by many religious institutions for a long time too. However, an added degree of “sanctity” is added to it, in the sense that it is believed to be designed by God. It is viewed that the optimal environment to raise children is a family with a mother and father in the home, who have a healthy loving relationship in which they rear and teach their children. Thus, it becomes the most basic building block of society. Meaning, somehow or another we all have to be raised and grow up. Anyone who has children (which is relatively few on here) wants them to grow up in and do well, and a common belief (though by no means unanimous) among religious people, is that the optimal environment for that is a marriage between a man and a woman.
Thus this begs the question: What is the core, the essentials, the nature of the relationship type that we have in mind when we refer to "gay marriage"? Note that the government does not own the foundational social institution of civil society. Perhaps your starting place is such a government takeover; but then you would be the proponent of a lessening of civil rights, not an expansion. Civil society is not a creature of the government. But you seem far too ready to turn that upside down and to abolish the man-woman criterion of marriage.
That is, you'd ban or forbid society, through its government, from recognizing the core of marriage which is the most pro-child social institution that we have. You'd prohibit the preferential status of marriage by merging it with nonmarriage, at law.
The relationship type you have in mind is not sex-integrative and cannot provide contingency for responsible procreation -- it cannot unite motherhood and fatherhood. So, if you think this relationship type is banned, forbidden, and otherwise spurned by Proposition 8, please state clearly the defining features of that relationship.
Explain how these features distinguish that relationship type from all other nonmarital relationship types that are already tolerated and/or protected by the laws in California.
If it is then a question about rights and equality, then why should we “discriminate” against singles? I mean, if marriage is no longer between a man and a woman, why should we let married couples have any more rights than those that are single? Why should those who prefer multiple lovers be “discriminated against”? So, too, are same-sex couples "discriminated against" by marriage. Each of these groups is now demanding redress from this "discrimination." Such redress will spell the end of marriage.
The difficulties and challenges of GBLTs are special precisely because they do not derive from the "discrimination" of marriage. The real source of the challenges of gay life is the problem of sexual difference. It is terribly difficult to grow up with a different sort of sexuality than most of the world around you. Marriage does not cause this problem, and it cannot solve it.
Yet, out of understandable compassion for the sorrows and difficulties of gays, many Americans want to offer marriage as a kind of consolation or remedy for the challenges inherent in the gay situation.
The increased social tolerance for gays in America is largely a good thing, as far as I'm concerned. But using marriage to accomplish a purpose for which it was not intended — and which it cannot fulfill — will not fundamentally alter the situation of gays. It will, however, spell the end of marriage, and of the protection marriage offers to vulnerable children who cannot vote or articulate their interests. The number of children potentially endangered by the collapse of marriage is far larger than the number of gays or "polyamorists." The number of single people who will never marry is substantial and growing, yet society is right to "discriminate" against these single people in ways that are relatively modest — but which sustain an institution that protects children. |
|
|
| CaptKirk |
| quote: | | If it is then a question about rights and equality, then why should we “discriminate” against singles? I mean, if marriage is no longer between a man and a woman, why should we let married couples have any more rights than those that are single? Why should those who prefer multiple lovers be “discriminated against”? So, too, are same-sex couples "discriminated against" by marriage. Each of these groups is now demanding redress from this "discrimination." Such redress will spell the end of marriage. |
naeblis, very nice point here. The argument of developing the happy, healthy child as a result of man/woman union never really impressed me however, I think you've touched a nerve with me here on this point. Well said. |
|
|
| DJ Reese |
I understand and respect the views of some of the people whom oppose "no on prop 8." But it's this kind of stuff that upsets me. You want to talk about pushing your beliefs? Check this out. This is an e-mail from a committee member on the board for "No on Prop 8." They are actually doing this...or trying to at least.
________________________________________________________________________________________
If lies don't work, then maybe threats and blackmail will.
Yesterday, donors and supporters of Equality California began receiving threatening letters for their support of the statewide organizations efforts to protect LGBT youth and seniors from the "Yes on 8" campaign leadership.
These letters threatened to "expose" the donors listed on Equality California's website if they don't donate to the "Yes on 8" campaign and refrain from supporting LGBT equality in the future.
That's how low the other side is willing to go.
In any other circumstance I would characterize this despicable strategy as sad -- but we are in the fight of lives here in California.
So, will you stand with us? Will you make a donation to support equality?
Will you show that you won't be intimidated by their threats or lies?
Make a donation today to show the other side that we will not go back to the closet of inequality.
The letter, sent on their campaign letterhead, was signed by four members of the group's executive committee and suggests our donors withdraw their support for their own good. It demands an equivalent donation or else:
"Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. You would leave us no other reasonable assumption. The names of any companies...that choose not to donate...to ProtectMarriage.com...will be published.
...We will contact you shortly to discuss your contribution."
This outrageous attempt to raise money by using threats reveals their true agenda: permanently to harm the LGBT community, our organizations, our allies and our supporters.
Donate now and send a message to the other side -- We reject your effort to intimidate us, and we reject your shameful lies. We will fight to protect our freedom.
Please forward this message to everyone you know, and ask them to stand with us too.
We will not give in to these un-American ways of bullying and lies. We call on all Californians to reject these McCarthy-like tactics.
In solidarity,
Geoff Kors
Executive Committee Member
No On 8 |
|
|
| selfEvolution |
The California Sumpreme Court ruled in favor of NONheterosexual marriage because they had examined states and countries where it is already permitted. They found no evidence that it leads to "three-way marriages", "animal marriage" and all the other lies and nonsense too many of the "YES" people are attempting to push on people. The bottom line is, that NONheteosexual marriage in no way harms anyone, and has never been found to.
The notion that "procreation" should be the "primary function" of marriage is yet another LIE, and borders on communism, because no person nor couple should be told by the masses what to do with their INDIVIDUAL bodies. Further:
1. There are plenty of married heterosexual couples who cannot have children.
2. There are plenty of married heterosexual couples who DO NOT WANT children.
3. There are plenty of married heterosexual men who are infertile.
4. Humans are not baby factories who have to "procreate", especially in light of today's growing population and limited resources. Consider the homophobia and racism of John Gibson, one of the former "all stars" at Fox so-called "news" - On the May 11th show of The Big Story, Gibson advised "white heterosexual" listeners to: "Do your duty. Make more babies", noting that "nearly half of U.S. children are minorities". This is pure racism and heterosexual supremacy-it's EXACTLY what the NAZIS asked of "whites" in the name of racism, while sending NONheterosexuals and other minorities to the concentration camps and gas chambers. We're ALL PEOPLE first, not colors and sex. Two consenting adults who love each other should have the right to be equal on a par with any other *two* consenting adults. Until then, America has no standing when preaching about freedom and equality to other nations who treat their minorities with the same contempt. |
|
|
| in2muzikk |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Reese
Yesterday, donors and supporters of Equality California began receiving threatening letters for their support of the statewide organizations efforts to protect LGBT youth and seniors from the "Yes on 8" campaign leadership.
These letters threatened to "expose" the donors listed on Equality California's website if they don't donate to the "Yes on 8" campaign and refrain from supporting LGBT equality in the future. |
Easy solution here would be for companies to proudly publicize their support for human rights and the "NO on Prop 8" initiative. Then there is nothing to expose, ey?
Apple donated $100,000 to "NO on Prop 8," and has no intention of being quiet about it. I have a couple of iPods, iPhone and a Mac Pro, and am very glad that I bought them all. Will send out my thank you letter to them soon.
If it comes down to a choice, I'll support a business that stands up for human rights rather than those that choose to encourage discrimination anyday. So put that list up and I'll shop accordingly...be careful what you wish for! :D |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
A buddy of mine said it so eloquently, and the way it will be seen in the eyes of the law. All of the DOMA-type statutory laws and state constitution changes will end up being rejected at the highest court in the US, the Supreme court.
"Equal protection: “no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”
Prop 8 fails to uphold this essential right. If the government recognizes one set of beliefs on marriage it must recognize all beliefs. "
Forget any and all opinions (aka beliefs) on what marriage should be (it is a contract in the eyes of the law and nothing more) and approach it this way. |
|
|
| teknotexan |
| quote: | Originally posted by naeblis
If it is then a question about rights and equality, then why should we “discriminate” against singles? I mean, if marriage is no longer between a man and a woman, why should we let married couples have any more rights than those that are single?...
The difficulties and challenges of GBLTs are special precisely because they do not derive from the "discrimination" of marriage. The real source of the challenges of gay life is the problem of sexual difference. It is terribly difficult to grow up with a different sort of sexuality than most of the world around you. Marriage does not cause this problem, and it cannot solve it.
Yet, out of understandable compassion for the sorrows and difficulties of gays, many Americans want to offer marriage as a kind of consolation or remedy for the challenges inherent in the gay situation.
The increased social tolerance for gays in America is largely a good thing, as far as I'm concerned. But using marriage to accomplish a purpose for which it was not intended — and which it cannot fulfill — will not fundamentally alter the situation of gays. It will, however, spell the end of marriage, ... |
naeblis, I applaud you for such a well-cited and thorough rebuttal!
I have three queries regarding your point:
You compare singledom to marriage, and infer that singles are discriminated against because of being single and not married. Well, people who have business that are incorpartated are treated and taxed differently from people who only make an income through wages. So what is the point? It doesn't make sense to make this comparison, since singles are all treated the same and married couples are all treated the same. Comparing two people from completely different social institutions is a argumentative fallacy. Then again, I percieve that you are making a rhetorical statement simply for effect. I ascertain that you are highlighting how absurd people may be buy thinking RDP's are treated differently than bonafide marriages. I would need clarification on the direction of this statement.
I completely agree with you on the "consolation prize" Americans are offering LGBT for their trials and tribulations. Yet, this is short-sighted to leave at that and not dig deeper into challenges of their "sexual difference". Not being allowed to freely express your undying love for someone in the form of a socailly sacntioned institution IS a challenge of sexual difference, thus a challenge to the institution of marriage. Marriage will not solve it either, but it will further integrate these "fringe folk" into the mainstream. This is not a colsolation prize but a warm welcome into the home of all American peoples, a welcome that is long overdue. Could you clarify this point, that if sexual difference is not related to enjoying all the benefits of society's "regular" people?
Earlier, you stated (and in the paper you cited) that marriage is a safe place for children to be raised. You also state that "the increased social tolerance for gays in America is largely a good thing." If a child is raised in a RPD household, with commited partners and doting parents, wouldn't that be a healthy environment for the child to be in? Should a child NOT feel different or weird or "an outsider" if everyone at school has a mommy but he has two daddys, or should that child be subjected to the intolerance of younger children and many others for years to come? The love is real between life partners, and no one can deny that fact. So how can two committed, loving, supportive parents who want to raise children in an accepting society, spell the end of marriage? Marriage is already so watered down by divorce and infidelity and this "me-first" generation we live in, that it is really hard to find any negative effects gay people will have on the institution.
In the long run, more people will be making more money. More people will live happier, and all of our children will grow up in a society where they accept people for who they are. More wedding ceremonies means more revenue for local businesses! Happier gay people will make more productive members of our society. Well raised children will not chastise one another for being so different, and maybe we all will think back at this argument and wonder "What was the big deal?" |
|
|
|
|
