 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 06 Aug 10 - 10:07 AM Your notion that this issue is about promoiting homnosexuality is really off the wall Ake. It's a real simple straightforward thing: a minority has their civil rights abused; the courts seek to correct the abuse. Got it? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,TIA Date: 06 Aug 10 - 10:05 AM Akenaton is correct; an analogy between race and sexual orientation is flawed. A better one is between right vs. left handedness and sexual orientation. Thus, I suppose that left handedness can be opposed on many reasonable grounds. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: John P Date: 06 Aug 10 - 09:46 AM Akenaton, please describe in great detail how denying civil rights to gay people based on their membership in a group not of their choosing is any different than denying civil rights to black people based on their membership in a group not of their choosing. Please back up every assertion you make with facts, including scientific studies that have been peer-reviewed and published in mainstream journals. Did it ever occur to you that denying rights to a group of people is the best way possible to insult the name of Dr. King? You seem to be eager to impose your sexual values on other people, without any reason for doing so. As you say, fuckin' grow up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: mousethief Date: 06 Aug 10 - 04:06 AM "Promotion" of homosexuality? "Don't delay, kiddies, call now. Operators are standing by. You to can become a homosexual." Puh-leeze. Even if "most" homosexuals don't want to marry (I'd like to see the sources of your statistics), why shouldn't the ones that DO want to, be prohibited? Maybe "most" heterosexuals don't want to marry either. That shouldn't matter either. (A good selection of them don't seem to want to stay married.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 06 Aug 10 - 03:16 AM Sorry, that should read...racial discrimination can be defended on no reasonable grounds. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 06 Aug 10 - 03:11 AM Doesn't this just prove what a sham "democracy" we have. and to those who try to equate this issue with racism....Fuckin' grow up. You insult the name of Dr King and all who stood against racism. The promotion of homosexuality, which is basically what this issue is about (very few homosexuals want monogamy or "marriage" according to the available figures)...can be opposed on many reasonable grounds.....racial discrimination can be opposed on none! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: KB in Iowa Date: 05 Aug 10 - 04:30 PM While there was never a huge outcry here when same-sex marriage was legalized it seems to be a non-issue now. There are some heated political races here this election cycle but I have not seen a single reference to the issue. Maybe that will come later. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Joe Offer Date: 05 Aug 10 - 02:57 PM Well, I hope the decision sticks. It just doesn't seem right for California, of all places, to prohibit homosexual marriage. If it makes it through Supreme Court review, I think gay marriage will soon be considered "normal" in California. People get used to things quickly, once they find out they have nothing to fear. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 05 Aug 10 - 01:18 PM Blankenhorn's testimony constitutes inadmissible opinion testimony that should be given essentially no weight," Walker writes. (Judge Walker) "Here are the relevant facts Walker finds: 1. Marriage is and has been a civil matter, subject to religious intervention only when requested by the intervenors. 2. California, like every other state, doesn't require that couples wanting to marry be able to procreate. 3. Marriage as an institution has changed overtime; women were given equal status; interracial marriage was formally legalized; no-fault divorce made it easier to dissolve marriages. 4. California has eliminated marital obligations based on gender. 5. Same-sex love and intimacy "are well-documented in human history." 6. Sexual orientation is a fundamental characteristic of a human being. 7. Prop 8 proponents' "assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence." 8. There is no evidence that sexual orientation is chosen, nor than it can be changed. 9. California has no interest in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in its population. 10. "Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital union." 11. "Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals." 12. "Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States. The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships." 13. "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages." Remember, these are the FACTS that Walker has determined from the testimony and evidence. These facts will serve as the grounding for the legal arguments yet to come..." Marc Ambinder, politics editor of The Atlantic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 Aug 10 - 11:14 AM What ever side 'won', both sides said they'll appeal. So no big deal, either way. Also, the judge put a restrainer on the decision, so nothing goes into effect...for now. And, as it turns out, the judge claims to be a homosexual. This should be rather interesting, the next court arguments, in the appeals! No value judgments here, just thought I'd update you. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: John P Date: 05 Aug 10 - 10:07 AM Guest David E, please read any basic text book on how our government works before typing your opinions. The majority only gets to make decisions when those decisions don't come into conflict with the Constitution. I find it interesting that so many anti-gay folks also claim to be Constitutional strict constructionists. "If it's not in the Constitution it shouldn't be in our laws" seems to be their main point. Just try asking them where the Constitution says gay folks can't get marrried . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: mousethief Date: 05 Aug 10 - 01:09 AM Homosexual marriage? The people said "no." Too bad. Integration of schools? The people said "no." Too bad. Blacks in the military? The people said "no." Too bad. An end to Jim Crow? The people said "no." Too bad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 05 Aug 10 - 12:44 AM I believe I've mentioned this a couple of times on this thread. Majority rule a totally good thing? One graphic example of an unregulated democracy is a lynch mob. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 04 Aug 10 - 11:46 PM Marriage Is a Constitutional Right Published: August 4, 2010 (NYT Editorial Excerpt) Until Wednesday, the thousands of same-sex couples who have married did so because a state judge or Legislature allowed them to. The nation's most fundamental guarantees of freedom, set out in the Constitution, were not part of the equation. That has changed with the historic decision by a federal judge in California, Vaughn Walker, that said his state's ban on same-sex marriage violated the 14th Amendment's rights to equal protection and due process of law. The decision, though an instant landmark in American legal history, is more than that. It also is a stirring and eloquently reasoned denunciation of all forms of irrational discrimination, the latest link in a chain of pathbreaking decisions that permitted interracial marriages and decriminalized gay sex between consenting adults. As the case heads toward appeals at the circuit level and probably the Supreme Court, Judge Walker's opinion will provide a firm legal foundation that will be difficult for appellate judges to assail. The case was brought by two gay couples who said California's Proposition 8, which passed in 2008 with 52 percent of the vote, discriminated against them by prohibiting same-sex marriage and relegating them to domestic partnerships. The judge easily dismissed the idea that discrimination is permissible if a majority of voters approve it; the referendum's outcome was 'irrelevant,' he said, quoting a 1943 case, because 'fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote.' He then dismantled, brick by crumbling brick, the weak case made by supporters of Proposition 8 and laid out the facts presented in testimony. The two witnesses called by the supporters (the state having bowed out of the case) had no credibility, he said, and presented no evidence that same-sex marriage harmed society or the institution of marriage. Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in their ability to form successful marital unions and raise children, he said. Though procreation is not a necessary goal of marriage, children of same-sex couples will benefit from the stability provided by marriage, as will the state and society. Domestic partnerships confer a second-class status. The discrimination inherent in that second-class status is harmful to gay men and lesbians. These findings of fact will be highly significant as the case winds its way through years of appeals. One of Judge Walker's strongest points was that traditional notions of marriage can no longer be used to justify discrimination, just as gender roles in opposite-sex marriage have changed dramatically over the decades. All marriages are now unions of equals, he wrote, and there is no reason to restrict that equality to straight couples. The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage 'exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage,' he wrote. 'That time has passed.' ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 04 Aug 10 - 11:40 PM Republican mayor of San Diego "thrilled" by Prop. 8 ruling August 4, 2010 | 7:15 pm The Republican mayor of San Diego, who defied elements in his party by declaring in 2007 that he supports same-sex marriage, said he is "absolutely thrilled" by the court ruling striking down Proposition 8, the voter-approved measure that banned same-sex marriages. "I think Judge Walker did a great job of listening to the arguments and making the right decision," said Mayor Jerry Sanders, just minutes before attending a celebratory rally at San Diego's Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transsexual Community Center. Sanders said he would like San Diego County to resume issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples but he understands the need to wait until litigation is complete, probably with a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. As a candidate for mayor in 2005, Sanders, a former police chief, said he opposed gay marriage. When the City Council in fall 2007 passed a measure supporting a lawsuit favoring gay-marriage rights, Sanders was expected to veto it. But in a tearful news conference, Sanders said that out of respect for his lesbian daughter and gay members of his staff, he could not veto the measure and could not support the idea that same-sex relationships are less worthy of respect than those between straight couples. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 04 Aug 10 - 08:14 PM Fortunately the majority did not agree with your perspective, David. A loud and obnoxious minority tried to block health care and a similar one tried to block the rights of privat eindividuals to marry as they pleased. On Iraq, I am inclined to agree with you. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,David E. Date: 04 Aug 10 - 07:21 PM Invade Iraq? The people said "no." Too bad. Obamacare? The people said "no." Too bad. Homosexual marriage? The people said "no." Too bad. Government of the people, by the people? Less and less. David E. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 04 Aug 10 - 05:56 PM Good. Maybe we can now take a solid step forward. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 04 Aug 10 - 05:30 PM California Gay Marriage Ban Overturned A federal judge Wednesday struck down a California ban on same-sex marriages as unconstitutional, according to reports. The ruling by Judge Vaughn R. Walker of Federal District Court in San Francisco represents an important victory for gay rights advocates in a case that many believe may end up eventually going to the United States Supreme Court. Read More: http://www.nytimes.com?emc=na |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 09 Jul 10 - 09:09 AM (NECN) -A Boston judge has issued a landmark ruling on gay marriage, one that has caught the eye of the Department of Justice. Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that they federal gay marriage ban, known as the Defense of Marriage Act, was unconstitutional because it interfered with the rights of a state to define marriage. Plaintiffs argued that the law led to the denial of benefits like Medicaid for same-sex couples. Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley argued for the plaintiffs in court. She called the ruling a civil rights victory, but gay marriage opponents disagreed. The Justice Department is currently considering an appeal of the ruling. One of the plaintiffs in the case, Dean Hara, was married to the late Congressman Gerry Studds of Massachusetts, the first openly gay person elected to Congress. Studds died in 2006. As part of the suit, the plaintiffs successfully argued that they had been denied a range of important benefits. Hara was a guest on NECN Morning, and discussed the case. "I was excited -- it's another milestone," Hara said. "I see it as another step forward toward equal rights for all people in this country." The changes stemming from this ruling go into effect immediately, but are not retroactive. It only applies to Massachusetts, but could set a national precedent. "As a widower, I've been denied the same kind of protections that any other widower or any other family is afforded by the federal government," Hara said. "In my instance, it is Social Security, pension, health benefits and the like. But for all the other plaintiffs, it is very many things that affect families on a daily basis." Hara said the timing of the ruling fits in well for the cause of equal rights. "It's quite appropriate that this decision came the week of the Fourth of July holiday, when we celebrate the values of this country. I think that Judge Tauro's decision really reaffirms the values of this country and the importance of family." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: mousethief Date: 01 Jul 10 - 09:05 PM Just when you think homophobia couldn't get any worse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 01 Jul 10 - 08:33 PM (PhysOrg.com) -- "This is the first we know in the history of medicine that clinicians are actively trying to prevent homosexuality," says Alice Dreger, professor of clinical medical humanities and bioethics at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. Dreger and collaborator Ellen Feder, associate professor and acting chair of philosophy and religion at American University, have brought to national attention the first systematic approach to prenatally preventing homosexuality and bisexuality. The "treatment" is targeted at one particular population of girls, but the researchers involved in the work say their findings may have implications beyond this population. The girls and women in question have congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), a serious endocrine disruption that sometimes results in ambiguous genitalia. Their endocrine problem will require medical management from birth onward. Research has shown that females born with CAH have increased rates of tomboyism and lesbianism. The prenatal treatment at issue, however, does not treat or prevent the CAH. Most clinicians who use prenatal dexamethasone for CAH seek to prevent the development of ambiguous genitalia. But the New York-based group of clinical researchers whose work is traced by Dreger and Feder suggest that prenatal dexamethasone can also be used in this population to prevent the "abnormality" of homosexuality, as well as the "abnormal" interest these girls tend to have in traditionally masculine careers and hobbies. Dreger and Feder's paper on the topic appears in the Bioethics Forum of the Hastings Center and can be read at http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioethicsforum/Post.aspx?id=4754&blogid=140 . A new consensus from seven major medical organizations (including the American Academy of Pediatrics) will be published in August indicating that this use of prenatal dexamethasone is experimental and not to be treated as standard of care. This comes in the wake of Dreger and Feder leading an investigation showing that the chief proponent of this off-label use, pediatric endocrinologist Maria New, treated hundreds of women with this experimental drug without proper research ethics oversight. Time magazine related that aspect of the story: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1996453,00.html . The FDA and the Office of Human Research Protections are now investigating these formal complaints. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Leadfingers Date: 01 Apr 10 - 09:07 AM 2300 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 31 Mar 10 - 12:00 PM 2300!....Jeez! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 21 Feb 10 - 04:02 PM Gosh, I can't find that post...refresh my memory....my father was NOT ever a homosexual....let me see if that post is even there...or show me. (or someone used my name)..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 18 Dec 09 - 04:35 PM SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The biggest U.S. gay rights battle next year is brewing in a California federal court as raucous fights over same-sex marriage in state legislatures and at state ballot boxes subside. U.S. In part, 2010 will reflect a growing move by same-sex marriage advocates to building support for their civil rights cause outside of the election process. The federal challenge to California's ban may be the only conflict in clear sight after a mixed 2009 that saw Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire legalize gay marriage and Washington, D.C., vote for legalization, while there were setbacks in other states that had been expected to follow. "The focus is very much on this one case," said Andy Pugno, a California lawyer who successfully defended California's ban in the state supreme court and is helping in the federal defense as well. New York state legislators failed to back gay marriage and a New Jersey effort has hit snags and has a few weeks to act before a new governor who opposes such gay unions takes office. Maine voters rejected same-sex marriage by a thin margin similar to the California 2008 ban, which is being contested in the San Francisco federal court. "We believed that this is something that needs to be vindicated at the federal constitutional level, and I think that that is reinforced by what's happened in Maine and what did not happen, for example in New Jersey, and what did not happen in New York," said David Boies, one of the lead lawyers in the federal case. Massachusetts legalized gay marriage in 2004 and California had a summer of legalization in 2008 before voters banned it. Trial is set to start January 11 in San Francisco. Boies and co-lead Ted Olson argue that marriage is a U.S. constitutional right too fundamental to limit and that gays and lesbians are a discriminated group that deserve special court protection. Opposing attorney Charles Cooper says restricting marriage to a man and a woman reflects a reasonable government position that heterosexual couples are best for families. It is not a question of hate, and gays and lesbians have plenty of political power, making special court protection unnecessary.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 08 Nov 09 - 11:23 PM 31 to 0...yeah, what does that stupid majority know??????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 08 Nov 09 - 10:28 PM You are enshrouded in a cloud of delusion, pal. Having a bunch of far right activists prop up an idea with money does not make it a winning idea. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 08 Nov 09 - 07:40 PM The silent majority have spoken ....Prop 8, 31......."liberals" 0 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 14 Oct 09 - 11:00 PM Reporting from San Francisco - A federal judge refused Wednesday to dismiss a constitutional challenge to Proposition 8, ruling that a trial was required to resolve legal and factual disputes over the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, ruling after nearly two hours of argument in San Francisco, rejected arguments by Proposition 8 proponents that precedent and tradition clearly showed last November's ballot measure was permissible under the U.S. Constitution. Walker's decision means the case will proceed to trial as scheduled in January, unless appeals delay it. The California Supreme Court ruled in May that Proposition 8, passed by 52.3% of voters, did not violate the state Constitution. The suit before Walker says the measure violates the federal Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process. During the hearing, Charles Cooper, representing the Proposition 8 campaign, argued that marriage historically has been reserved for unions between a man and a woman because only opposite-sex couples can procreate "naturally." Walker, however, noted that not all married couples can procreate. "Just last month," Walker said, "I performed a wedding in which the groom was 95 and the bride was 83. I did not demand that they prove they would engage in procreation." Proposition 8 backers also argued that precedent required Walker to uphold the measure as constitutional. They cited a 1972 case involving a Minnesota law that limited marriage to unions between a man and a woman. The Minnesota Supreme Court had rejected an equal protection challenge of that law, and the U.S. Supreme Court, without issuing a full-blown opinion, declined to hear an appeal. "We can't put much stock in that case, can we?" Walker told the lawyers. He described the case as "old," "very limited" and "not a considered decision of the Supreme Court." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 11 Oct 09 - 02:33 PM Update. Twenty-three year old Isaiah Kalebu has been arrested and charged with the murder of one South Park Seattle woman and the attempted murder of her partner. He tortured and repeatedly raped the two women before he tried to kill them both. Kalebu has a history of mental illness and repeated run-ins with the police. He as plead "not guilty," but the evidence, as I understand it, is overwhelming and the prosecutor has asked for the death penalty. Kalebu has also been accused of setting a house fire in which his aunt died after she urged him to join a mental health program. And he also threatened to kill his mother for making the same suggestion. Apparently he had been arrested a number of times, but had to be released because of failure of the complainants to follow through and press charges (I think there's a lesson there!). Whether the gender orientation of the two women was a factor in the brutal assault has not been determined so far. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 11 Oct 09 - 11:20 AM "Tonight, President Obama told LGBT Americans that his commitment to ending discrimination in the military, in the workplace and for loving couples and their families is 'unwavering.' He made it crystal clear that he is our strongest ally in this fight, that he understands and, in fact, encourages our activism and our voice even when we're impatient with the pace of change. But these remarks weren't just for us, they were directed to all Americans who share his dream and ours of a country where "no one is denied their basic rights, in which all of us are free to live and love as we see fit." "And we heard unequivocally about the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell: 'I am working with the Pentagon, its leadership and members of the House and Senate to end this policy. I will end Don't Ask, Don't Tell. That is my commitment to you.' "Finally, we heard something quite remarkable from the President: 'You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.' "This was a historic night when we felt the full embrace and commitment of the President of the United States. It's simply unprecedented."... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 17 Sep 09 - 11:19 AM Dang, ma'a'm, thank you for posting that. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: frogprince Date: 17 Sep 09 - 10:36 AM Kat, HE'S WONDERFUL!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: katlaughing Date: 17 Sep 09 - 09:57 AM Listen to THIS 86 year old gentleman/veteran. Makes me proud to be an American. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: jeddy Date: 23 Jul 09 - 03:32 PM you all know where i stand on this subject and i can't think of any different ways of saying the same things. why am i posting?.. i just wanted to ask don to keep us informed if anything else comes to light about this possible hate crime? i would be grateful. take care all jade x x x x x |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 23 Jul 09 - 02:39 PM Re: The break-in, assault, and murder in Seattle's South Park neighborhood. The Seattle Police, so far, are being non-committal about whether or not they consider it to be a hate crime, but a number of the neighbors say they are sure it was. Among other things, according to news reports, nothing was stolen, so……? Motive? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 23 Jul 09 - 12:15 PM Yes OK Amos, I wasn't addressing you on the race issue, I don't think you've ever mentioned it. As I've said before, we know one anothers position very well, I respect yours and you appear to understand mine, I don't think we are going to change our views after all this time. I'm just in from work and if get time later I'll have another look at your posts.....Peace!....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 23 Jul 09 - 10:27 AM Ake: Cool off, there, sirrah! I did not equate "this" with a race issue. I point out that your argument about "retrogressing the rules of the game" is sieve-like, that's all, and offered several parallels to illustrate thepoint. Specifically, they illustrate "rules of the game" born from dominance without merit. Your argument is not a race issue, but it IS a plea for the continuation of a system of injustice through dominance. And I notice, although my last had several questions in it, you did not answer them. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 23 Jul 09 - 03:08 AM Oh I see! we're back to equating this with the race issue, you really must be pissed off when you sling in all these obstructions. As gnu implies, if my stance is so stupid and untenable, why have you invested so much of your time trying to refute it! All the questions you ask have already been answered further up the thread and I have no intention of either responding to someone who thinks me a "pervert" or constantly repeating things. Latest research on memory loss suggests strong coffee three times a day. The posts on the Seattle murder are indeed disgraceful, on reading the various links it seems the police believe it to be "random", committed by a young homeless black man.....even if it had been a hate crime, there are murders committed by lunatics against all sorts of people all over the world every day. It doesn't mean that all black men are murderers, or that people who disagree with homosexual marriage encourage murder......fucking grow up! Political correctness ensures that even in a murder investigation more obscure terminology has to be used in the official description!...the world has certainly gone mad! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 22 Jul 09 - 06:42 PM The rules of the game ? Well, did the purchase and sale of Africans, very well-established as the rule of the game, give the lie to the pretense of dignity and nobility and enlightenment that was pretended to by the dominant white clans? How about the discrimination and harassment of the Clans by the redcoats? Well within the rules of the game, no? Dominance always brings with it a cheap set of rules established by agreement supported by force, as Matthew Shephard found to his dismay. It is much, much harder to evolve rules cleaving to justice and equality, because one has to overcome the crusty inertia and blackguard hostilities of individuated, small-minded people more interested in the status quo. Perhaps you mean that heterosexuality is the "rule of the game"? Do you consider human homosexuality to be a recent development? The earliest civilizations we know about were rife with it. Or do you believe that dominating the culture is a form of progress on the part of heterosexuals, a step into a better civilization, which the odball minority will just have to suffer with, because it is just naturally better? God-given, even? Say, how DO you justify this notion of "the rules of the game", anyway? I am not quite getting it. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 22 Jul 09 - 05:41 PM Science has discovered the missing link between primitive apes and civilized humans. It's us. We still have a way to go. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: John P Date: 22 Jul 09 - 05:35 PM Getting back to justice, to be "appropriate" the rights granted to any behavioural minority group, should not be seen to have a retrograde effect on others, as in allowing one minority the right to redefine the rules of the game. OMG! A definitive statement from Akenaton! Will wonders never cease? He's totally incorrect, of course, but at least he's saying something real. Here's what's wrong: Justice is never inappropriate. Gays are not a "behavioural" minority, and it wouldn't matter if they were, since religious folks (a real behavioral minority) are specifically granted the same rights as everyone else, and it's also illegal to discriminate against them. There is no evidence for and no sense in the statement that gay marriage will have any retrograde effect on others. How would that manifest? The reason we have a Constitution in this country, and whatever it is that the UK has that's similar, is so that the rights of minorities are not trampled. Redefining the rules would be changing the Constitution to allow discrimination against minorities. Marriage has been redefined many times throughout history, and means different things in different places. There is a pressing legal and societal need for gay marriage now, and allowing gays to get married is less of a redefinition than our government telling two people who want to become a legal unit that they can't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: gnu Date: 22 Jul 09 - 05:29 PM "Full-fleged people"... 2278 posts... gosh... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: John P Date: 22 Jul 09 - 05:09 PM Actually, it doesn't make any difference if Akenaton hates gays or not, since the conclusion he reaches through non-hatred is exactly the same as the position of people who do hate gays. Akenaton, Here's another question for you to refuse to answer: I know you don't like being called a bigot, and have said several times that you are not bigoted. Can you explain how supporting legal discrimination against gay people is not a bigoted stance? I mean, really, if it's not bigotry, what is it? Bigotry is the only word I can think of right now that covers the territory. Also, do you know that giving equal rights to black people and to women was one of the biggest things that stopped violence against them? The lynching of black folks pretty much stopped with the passage of civil rights laws, and domestic violence against women wasn't taken seriously by the police until we declared women to be full-fledged people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 22 Jul 09 - 07:42 AM ""The last few posts are disgraceful...(on re-reading, I include you in that Amos), the accusations made against Little Hawk and myself, have no basis in reason!"" Since you seem incapable of actually answering the questions posed by others, this is probably a forlorn hope, but let's give it a try anyway. You are very keen to defend Little Hawk from a number of contributors, who are less than impressed with his nonsense, and I rather suspect that you are doing so to distract attention from the untenable nature of your own stance. So would you like to tell us what, in your opinion, has been his contribution to discussion of the topic of this thread? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: jeddy Date: 22 Jul 09 - 05:39 AM ake, i do hope you know i was including myself in what i was saying in my last post? i have been known to be inflamitory and knee jerk in my reactions. just wanted to let you know that i am as fallible as anyone, probably more so. please don't take it personally??? right back to sleep fo me!! sweet dreams all jade x x x x |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 22 Jul 09 - 02:47 AM Amos....Thank you, I know you are aware that I have no hatred towards homosexuals. That particular scourge has no place in this discussion in my opinion and anyone introducing it to bolster the argument for homosexual "marriage" is simply being obstructive. The people who commit hate crimes against any minority group should be dealt with severely by the courts. We will unfortunately always have deranged people in our society. I thought Mr peekstok had sunk as low as it was possible to in his accusations and insinuations....apparently I was wrong. Getting back to justice, to be "appropriate" the rights granted to any behavioural minority group, should not be seen to have a retrograde effect on others, as in allowing one minority the right to redefine the rules of the game. The last few posts are disgraceful...(on re-reading, I include you in that Amos), the accusations made against Little Hawk and myself, have no basis in reason! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 21 Jul 09 - 07:04 PM Well, Ake, seems like hatred and discrimination don't make for societal perfection after all, do they. Hmmmmm. I know it is not hatred, as you have yourself made clear several times, that drives your attitude, but, ya know, sometimes we have to honor the consequences of our attitudes as well as their precedents. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 21 Jul 09 - 04:59 PM My God, John, that gave me a bit of a start! Seattle Times article. Barbara and I know two women who are getting married this coming weekend. Neighbors. Nice ladies, and they've been living together for several years now. For a moment, I was afraid it might have been them (because they did announce their marriage, but only to their friends and relatives), but—not so. They share an apartment in a secured building. Still, I hope this puts them on their guard. Don Firth |
