Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thanks for the link = the second one chicagonow is much
easier to read. The most interesting part was this - why because the basis behind the proponents of Preposition 8
is children. Their reason for the exclusion of gays to marry is for children...
I didn't even know statements like the above are even
allowed in a court case - there is no relevancy there.
The above statements have slammed everyone from adoptive parents, single fathers and single mothers, and
a woman's role in marriage.
This holier than thow mentality of selective normalcy has to stop. Do they actually think "their children" have the
best situation, simply because it is a marriage between a man and a women with biological children? I beg to differ - and I am not wearing a white coat either
I never knew my role in my marriage was to civilize my husband. God knows he has left the house in a yellow jogging suit, that I told him never to wear - I must be
married to a caveman
In the reading of the whole case, I have never seen more
stereotypes and discrimination in my life. You might be
able to pass this stuff off in your church, but not on a
legal level.
They couldn't get away with it a court of law where they actually have to produce credible evidence for their claims. Their star "expert" witness's only peer-reviewed scholarly paper was on 18th century English cabinet making.
If a vote were taken now in California, I wonder if so many people would be as quick to vote Yes on Prop 8. Especially knowing as we do now where so much of the funding for the campaign came from.
If a vote were taken now in California, I wonder if so many people would be as quick to vote Yes on Prop 8. Especially knowing as we do now where so much of the funding for the campaign came from.
I'm not sure it would be any different. Most of the votes,
came from organized religious groups. I am sure that is, and always will be, their stance. They just do not want to leave their religious beliefs in the church, where it belongs. That is one of the reasons it never should have been placed in the voting booth, in the first place.
Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter. Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law.
Civil law has always been supreme in defining and regulating marriage. Religious practices and ceremonies have no particular bearing on the validity of marriages. Any clerics, ministers, rabbis, that were accustomed to performing marriages, only do so because the state has given them authority to do that.
California, like every other state, has never required that
individuals entering a marriage be willing or able to
procreate.
Affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the
designation of marriage will not impinge upon the
religious freedom of any religious organization,
official, or any other person; no religion will be
required to change its religious policies or practices
with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious
officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in
contravention of his or her religious beliefs.
Civil law, not religious custom, is supreme in defining and regulating marriage in the United States.
Aww, well let's look at the definition of marriage, shall we? To do that, we should probably have some grasp of its origins... and to make you feel better, we'll ignore the fact that the top dictionaries in the world (including the Oxford dictionary, which is recognized as being the definitive record of the English language) acknowledge that "marriage" is a union which may exist between a man and a woman, OR between a man and a man OR between a woman and a woman. Because gosh, we'd hate like heck to acknowledge that the people who are recognized as being qualified to definitively define a word don't actually share YOUR definition.
Ok, so these all reference the word "marry" - so let's look at that:
We kind of run into a bit of a circular dead end at that point. So we'll look at "wed," since it comes up a lot within the definitions themselves.
Huh... yeah... you know, I'm seeing a lot of indication that these words (marry, married, marriage, wed) all seem to relate to making some sort of pledge or promise to another person, but gosh darn if I can find anywhere that specifies that the other person has to be of the opposite gender.
That's... so strange...
*chuckle*
Umm.. Sorry, if you can't figure out how absurd your logic is here, well... I am not going to help you. You are right. /pats you on the head.
Umm.. Sorry, if you can't figure out how absurd your logic is here, well... I am not going to help you. You are right. /pats you on the head.
Aww, is that like your "rational argument" that you presented, had shot down, and have since ignored because you know darn well your position is indefensible?
You're doing about as well as the defendant's witnesses... their position couldn't stand up to scrutiny either.
But it's ok... when gay marriage becomes legal and protected, an inevitable outcome, I promise no one is going to drag you to their weddings or make you catch "teh ghey." *pats you right back*
I find it very interesting that the percentage of poll respondents who would approve the legalization of gay marriage has hovered consistently at 60% since the thread was posted.
Yes, I've been curious about that too. I have wondered if it might be because ppl on this forum (or at least internet savvy ppl) might be more informed/educated or younger. Many of the voters who voted FOR Prop 8 were older (typically not as internet savvy), more first generation immigrants and blacks. Those ppl may not be as represented on this forum. only my opinion.
Aww, is that like your "rational argument" that you presented, had shot down, and have since ignored because you know darn well your position is indefensible?
You're doing about as well as the defendant's witnesses... their position couldn't stand up to scrutiny either.
But it's ok... when gay marriage becomes legal and protected, an inevitable outcome, I promise no one is going to drag you to their weddings or make you catch "teh ghey." *pats you right back*
Yes yes, that is exactly it.
I would even have chose using such ignorant slang as you chosen! /boggle
Actually, your method of reasoning is simply flawed. Flawed to the point that it is apparent that your position is emotionally drawn. There is nothing I can do to make a point, you are sold hook line and sinker into your emotional position. All my points would do is move you to a position of fallacious dismissal or extend your comments to personal attack (much as you are doing right now).
nothing to be gained from arguing with a fool as a fool comes to their position in a manner that no logical argument can reason with.
So, I abstain, you are right. Good for you. /pats you on the head.
I would even chose using such ignorant slang as you choose! /boggle
Actually, your method of reasoning is simply flawed. Flawed to the point that it is apparent that your position is emotionally drawn. There is nothing I can do to make a point, you are sold hook line and sinker into your emotional position. All my points would do is move you to a position of fallacious dismissal or extend your comments to personal attack (much as you are doing right now).
nothing to be gained from arguing with a fool as a fool comes to their position in a manner that no logical argument can reason with.
So, I abstain, you are right. Good for you. /pats you on the head.
*laughs hard*
Oh the irony...
What makes this truly funny is that I don't doubt nearly everyone who reads the last few pages will recognize the irony... but it goes right over your head.
So much for your "rational argument." Btw - most people who participate in political discussions are actually savvy enough to recognize your methodology for what it is (ie: presenting a half-baked argument and when it is refuted, the poster ignores the refute and instead indicates that further debate is "clearly" a waste of their time)... an admission that you know you haven't got a leg to stand on, but need some way to save face.
But that's ok... you just wander off and tell yourself how you "won teh internetz..." I'm sure someday you'll be recognized for your rational, well-structured arguments... right alongside the two star witnesses for the defense.
If you ever actually DO decide you want to have a discussion about your assertion that marriage and procreational potential are intrinsically bound, let me know. Actually, if you ever actually find some sort of documentation to back that up, let me know. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would very much like to see that.
nothing to be gained from arguing with a fool as a fool comes to their position in a manner that no logical argument can reason with.
You have valid points. But, your views on bloodlines, procreation are from a place in previous centuries, when we were a rural society. The traditions and subservient roles of the 1800's, is as an example. It gave way to the women suffrage movement around the world during the industrial
revolution. Things change. Equality is good. Discrimination is bad.
First off, they can't marry. You can change the word all you like, you can disregard the history of the word, the purpose and the design of it, but in the end all you are trying to sell me is slang that has no meaning.
They want to be accepted. Period. They want everyone to look at them as normal. They are not. They are abnormal, uncommon, deviant of the norm, etc...
They represent a very small percentage of the population, yet they demand most of the attention. They are either born with or socially develop actions of sexual deviant behavior and expect everyone to look at them as simply a normal process of life. What they choose to do such on their own is fine, but they have been pushing to inject their position into society for a very long time. They view themselves as if they are a race that is discriminated against, which is an insult to those who have had such hardships.
They want to be normal, they can not be. They must accept that not everyone accepts such deviant behavior. They have a right to live as they choose and not be attacked for it, but past that, they have no right to inject their position into every aspect of life by redefining the language, demanding equal placement and attention. They will never be such unless they force people and forced acceptance only breeds contempt.
Any long drawn out explanation as to why I as an openly gay man, should not be allowed to marry the man I want is based on a bias of hate, bigotry and ignorance.
Any long drawn out explanation as to why I as an openly gay man, should not be allowed to marry the man I want is based on a bias of hate, bigotry and ignorance.
And fear.
Some people are just desperately terrified of change and/or what they don't understand. You mention ignorance, which is a significant component of fear, hate and bigotry.
But it's worth remembering that a lot of people are willfully ignorant and they got no free pass for their cultivated refusal to understand the world.
Happily (though it may be small comfort to you), their proportionate numbers dwindle with each passing year...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
