 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 03 Jan 09 - 10:11 PM The issue is nothing to do with churches or any of your precious, albeit bewildering, religions. The issue is LAW. In this country law and religion are separate matters. Under LAW a minority is denied privileges available to a majority purely on the basis of sexual orientation, according to the disputed Proposition. By fundamental principle this is an unconstitutional action, or effort. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 03 Jan 09 - 08:02 PM Jeri's post was right on the money. It's the comments of a few other people on this thread that's disgraceful. Yes, Ake, I fully understand the real issues here. Do you? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 03 Jan 09 - 04:04 PM My god!! No sane person cares! Do you really not understand what this discussion is about? I think you do know, but are reduced to making simplistic personal comments rather than address the real points raised by his discussion. I don't just mean you Don...jeri's post was disgraceful. At least Amos attempts to address the issues most of the time...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 03 Jan 09 - 02:54 PM If you are upset by Gay Pride parades, don't go to them. And if you are upset at the thought of someone humping with their pet camel, stop thinking about it. Or, deep down, does that really excite you a bit? I'm really suspicious of those who object the most strenuously to same-sex marriage, or who are concerned at all with what other people do in the privacy of their own homes. Why do you care? Look into a mirror and ask yourself, "Why do I care!??" Or would that be too frightening? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Joe Offer Date: 03 Jan 09 - 02:45 PM
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 03 Jan 09 - 12:22 PM Running out to the extremes to make an argument that is not applicable to the majority of same-sex people is pretty butt-ugly logic. I am sorry for your constant state of near-nausea, but you're gonna have to grow up some day. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Jeri Date: 03 Jan 09 - 09:12 AM I said I get the same feeling Ebbie. A little too much visualization of other people's sex lives. If all you (whoever 'you' is) can do is obsess on the sex act of people you don't know,..... Mart... I mean GfS said ......Ever seen a 'Gay Pride Parade'???????????? So THAT'S your problem--watching Gay Pride parades all the time. (You must have videos because they don't happen all that often.) We don't have them in my area, we have actual gay people who mostly don't act like horny drunk people during Mardi Gras. I can't imagine what they must be doing during those parades, but you might consider not going to so many if they upset you so, and not continuously replaying the videos. If your opinion comes solely from obsessing over a parade, well... the things I could say about that stupid Pink Panther, or Wile E. Coyote! Hmff! Sooner or later, the scorpion does what a scorpion must do This thread has jumped the shark and I'm out. (We need a term that means the same basic thing but is more appropriate to the internet.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Riginslinger Date: 03 Jan 09 - 08:02 AM If I'm covered by health insurance at work, I can add a spouse and children under my care. I can't include anyone else. Those are the options. In states with community property laws, if I own a house, my spouse owns the house as well. I can't exclude her/him, and I can't sell the house without her/his cooperation. Those rights only pertain to a spouse. I won't try to second guess homosexual goals, but the government is treating them differently than other citizens. That's unconstitutional. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 03 Jan 09 - 04:40 AM See, what some of you don't get, is that homosexuals can do just about anything they want to do, or mimic, or imitate any domestic living situation they want, with any of the rights afforded normal married couples. But, that is not what they want, nor is it the goal, of those exploiting their grievances, with all the ballyhooing about their rights being 'denied'!..and if it wasn't for the emotional immaturity that is inherent, in their nature, they'd be doing just that...and no one would hardly notice or care...Have you ever seen a 'hetero pride' parade, where functioning, married, hetero couples flaunt their sexuality????...especially in the manner the homos flaunt theirs??? Why do you think that is?? What is with the 'shock value' that goes along with the disgusting, and lewd behavior these people parade around in public?? Are you so naive to think this is a 'celebration' of their 'hip liberated' mentalities??? ..Come on, reach deep. Both myself, and Ake, along with a few others, see it and call it for what it really is....and neither of us have broached any 'religious' or spiritual moralization, on the matter. Why is it, that homosexuals feel such a need to have established religions change their beliefs, to accommodate their deviance??...So they can worship God better?????? Come on, get past your political, persuasions, and ask yourselves, 'Why?' Considering they can do, and in all practicality, do, do what they want, just what is it they want??? For those who go as far as getting trans gender operations, do any of you know the massive and intensive amount of counseling, and re-orientation that goes with it, before the final operation is performed????? You think its just a matter of preference??? Or elective surgery, done on a whim????!! or even done as cavalierly as liposuction or breast augmentation?? You think this is as lightweight as where someone wants to stick it, or be stuck by it??? You think because a guy or a woman decides to be the other sex, its just a matter of 'I think I'll do it this way, or that way'? Do you actually think men and women think and feel intuitively alike????? No, dear Mudcatters, this is far more of a derailment, than I think many of you have pondered...and its NOT just a political question or answer. To even think it is, is just a mixture of ignorance and arrogance, not to mention a lack of compassion, and understanding, of the psyche and emotional damages that accompany, those who have found it 'convenient' to disregard their own gender and traits...and now seek acceptance, in lieu of help!! Like I've said before, however anyone wants to slice it up, re-hash it, redefine it, or go through the motions of it, 'marriage' it will never be, and certainly not by the majority, of not only this country, but the rest of the world (or Heaven, if you will). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 03 Jan 09 - 03:11 AM A will and a trust, or living trust can be drawn up any way one wants to, Mr. Bright |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 03 Jan 09 - 02:51 AM You're spinning hard, girl, but I don't believe you're making the turn. You keepignoring the core fact: the status "M" has certain legal rights of inheritance, tax, and insurance rights that come with it. Those are the specific rights your policy denies people on the basis of their sexual orientation. To do so is unjust. Camels have nothing to do with it. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 03 Jan 09 - 01:44 AM Rig, anyone can name anyone else on a policy, if they want to pay for it, just not as a 'married' couple. Anyone can own anything they want as joint owners,..just put both names on the title. Never heard of a restaurant refusing to serve them....... However, (and the other hack jobs at PETA will back me on this one) they won't serve me and my camel...not even at the 'Tavern on the Village Green', in New York, no matter how much I tipped the Matre'D. Think I should sue???? I mean PETA thinks animals should have the same rights as humans, right???? My camel will make a wonderful spouse!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Riginslinger Date: 03 Jan 09 - 01:24 AM "Nobody here, or anywhere I know is 'denying' them their civil rights." They're being denied civil rights if they can't name a partner on a health insurance policy, or own community property, or any number of other benefits that are afforded married couples. If they could have those things, would that satisfy them, or would they continue to push to force churches to marry them in the same manner that minorities bring suits against motels for not renting rooms, or sue resaurants for not serving them. At that point, it seems to me, you would have two aspects of the constitution in conflict. The government involving itself in religion, as opposed to a public business refusing service for irrational reasons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 03 Jan 09 - 01:00 AM Amos, that is silly. I have the right to declare myself married to a camel..so what??? Somehow, you must have missed a few prior posts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 03 Jan 09 - 12:52 AM Nobody here, or anywhere I know is 'denying' them their civil rights. Really? They have the legal right to declare themselves married to a person of their choice and have it recognized under the law? Well, that's all right then. If not, whether you care to face it squarely or not, you are in fact denying them a civil right, because of their minority status. Are you saving up for dual-system drinking fountains too? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 03 Jan 09 - 12:10 AM Most of the rest of the world already does...sweetheart! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: fumblefingers Date: 02 Jan 09 - 11:57 PM Get the rest of the world to agree to and to put it into actual practice and maybe I'll take another look at it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 02 Jan 09 - 11:47 PM From: Jeri Date: 02 Jan 09 - 03:04 PM I get the same feeling Ebbie. A little too much visualization of other people's sex lives. If all you (whoever 'you' is) can do is obsess on the sex act of people you don't know,.....blah blah blah.... ......Ever seen a 'Gay Pride Parade'???????????? I am glad to see, though, that the bigger issue is finally being addressed. Ake's post is correct..as mine is, as well...and, The post I gave prior(Date: 30 Dec 08 - 04:50 AM) was straight from 'textbook'!...a post that the ideologues seem to just slough off, to spout some erroneous talking points from a lame political 'point', that is founded on completely uneducated nonsense!!!! Nobody here, or anywhere I know is 'denying' them their civil rights. They are, however not being deluded enough, though to call how they want to live 'Marriage', though...because its not, nor will ever be!
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 02 Jan 09 - 08:31 PM Not a homophobe, then, Ake. Just willing to rule them out roundly without a second thought from your circle of marital privilege? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 02 Jan 09 - 07:15 PM "Now you and Don both maintain that Guest and I are homophobic bigots because we don't share your views, I can't speak for Guest but by his/her other writing I would say we more or less agree on this subject. For myself, I would submit that I am less of a bigot and more of a libertarian than both of you put together" Shoe?...Fit?.....Bullshit!!.....:0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 02 Jan 09 - 05:59 PM Ake, I used the word "homophobe" not ncessarily in relation to you or anyone specific here, but if you want to put the shoe on and announce that it fits, that's your choice. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 02 Jan 09 - 04:47 PM There are many marriages that have no offspring; there are many offspring who have no marriages. Marriage is not a commitment to breed; it is a commitment to partner for life. Ake, I do apologize for spouting names, but this has gone roundy-round a few many times, and I think that the core issue is being ignored. You and GfS both seem to think that the civil rights accorded to marriage are about reproduction, although you have no qualms extending those civil rights to non-reproducing heterosexuals, or asexuals. This is just self-contradictory with other statements about your liberal nature. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 02 Jan 09 - 03:18 PM I'm sorry Amos....I don't usually name call and it was meant in fun, but this is quite a serious subject; not homosexuality (the rights and wrongs), but the way in which a minority can subvert the majority without them even realising what is going on. Now you and Don both maintain that Guest and I are homophobic bigots because we don't share your views, I can't speak for Guest but by his/her other writing I would say we more or less agree on this subject. For myself, I would submit that I am less of a bigot and more of a libertarian than both of you put together. If anyone wants to fuck their sister, their auntie,or another man, I say good luck to them let, them get on with it as long as the sister, auntie, or other man wants the same as they do. What they do in private is their business, but there is no bastard in the world going to tell me, Mudcat, or society at large, that their business is normal human behaviour and we must give up our long held traditional beliefs to accomodate it,or hand over very young children in a bizarre social experiment......Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Jeri Date: 02 Jan 09 - 03:04 PM I get the same feeling Ebbie. A little too much visualization of other people's sex lives. If all you (whoever 'you' is) can do is obsess on the sex act of people you don't know, YOU have a problem. I'm sure the heterosexual sex act disgusts many homosexuals, but they have the common decency to not go on about it in public. You fantasize about who squeaks or groans and where they like it. They don't stick it in your face so much as you stick your face in it, and that's more than a bit perverted. In any case, this thread has pretty much gone back to everybody's usual scripts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 02 Jan 09 - 02:51 PM GfS, from your previous posts, I infer that you are a counselor; I would NEVER infer it from your statements. I do believe that you are sick. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 02 Jan 09 - 02:44 PM From: Amos Date: 02 Jan 09 - 01:00 PM Ake: You are being a bit of an ass,.... How come when far left loons, when they can't answer a simple, logical question, based on fact, do they have to rely on name calling??..as if that resolves, or answers the question?? Ok, Then give a name to two people who proclaim publicly that they want to live together, and have children that they conceive themselves, and raise that family together. HINT: Its a name they use world over, from Samoa, to Tibet, Europe, Asia, China, Russi, Australia, South, and Central America, North America..and recognized globally. Then ask yourselves, is this the same situation that warrants the same name of two people who have an inability to do that, because of their sexual orientation. It's called 'Marriage'...and I KNOW, so you don't have to beat a dead horse, that not all couples who get married, don't do it, for the reason of having children..however, that IS the model, and families ARE the basic fabric of civilizations and societies. It is no wonder, why 'redefining' what that basic building block is, that some people, whether religious based, or not, see that eroding away of that foundation, see it as a threat to their nations, culture, or society...especially when they are so vehement, in their attacks! If they want a different sexual 'preference'..they don't have to advertise is and throw it in everyone's face!..In like manner, nobody, inquires on here as to their sexuality to deny them of any dialogues or rights! Do we have to know how your wives squeak, or how you groan, or where you like it????...I do-o-o-n't think so!! So, if they want to do what they do, the way they do, then call it whatever they want...but it is not 'Marriage' as known the world over, by every established society....any more than when a little girl dresses up in mommy's dresses and wears her high heels, makes her a woman or mother!!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 02 Jan 09 - 01:07 PM Marriage increases promiscuity? And spreads sexually transmitted diseases? Not on this planet. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 02 Jan 09 - 01:00 PM Ake: You are being a bit of an ass, by failing to differentiate between relationships which are genetically dangerous--such as inbred marriages--and those which have no genetic risk at all, such as lesbianism and homosexuality. You are also throwing persiflage by arguing about the health risks of homosexual promiscuity in an argument about the civil rights to marriage. If anything, marriage as a commitment reduces promiscuity. The core and key question in this cloud of stink is the matter of whether or not a civil status should be exclusive of some citizens who are capable of exercising it responsibly and enjoying its priveleges. You say this right should be exclusively limited to those who share your sexual persuasion. This, at bottom, is pure bigotry. The issue has nothing to do with public health, which is an independent variable. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Riginslinger Date: 02 Jan 09 - 12:40 PM Yeah, the beastiality proponents need to get their shit together. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 02 Jan 09 - 10:59 AM Amos and Don the dynamic duo......You always cite beastiality as the get out clause when folks question the "normality" of homosexuality. What about incest? I think that is a much better example. Do you think that two "human beings" who happen to be closely related should be deprived of the "right" to marry?.... and dont blabber on about health risks or I'll post the health statistics relating to homosexuality.........Your whole "liberal" PC stance is spurious and I suspect you both know it. The real difference is that the homosexuals have a strong and well organised pressure group in the media with much more clout than they deserve....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 01 Jan 09 - 11:41 PM Um . . . Guest from Bewilderment, how do you come up with that? The election of a candidate is a normal, legal, Constitutionally mandated process, and it does not violate anyone's civil rights. This is an appropriate process. Consider it "mob rule" if you want, but it is perfectly legal and ethical, and the way this country choses its leaders. It may not be smart (see 2000 and 2004 elections), but it is Constitutional. Voting to violate the civil rights of a minority is neither ethical, nor legal, nor Constitutional. It strikes me that you're grasping for a straw that has insufficient bouyancy to keep your argument afloat. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Riginslinger Date: 01 Jan 09 - 11:32 PM If they had all of the same rights, all the way down the line, but they decided to call if something other than marriage, I wonder if the gay community would buy that? Or is it just the fact that they want to call it "marriage?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 01 Jan 09 - 10:28 PM From: Amos Date: 01 Jan 09 - 09:17 PM I have no idea what I may have said to suggest that. I'm sorry ,Amos, the question belonged to Don Firth. "A good example of what can go wrong with "pure" democracy—majority rule—is a lynch mob." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 01 Jan 09 - 09:17 PM I have no idea what I may have said to suggest that. The election of a candidate to elective office is a normal function of democratic count. It does not endanger a minority in itself, except to disappoint them. Bush's election is a study in what happens when the democratic count then empowers someone determined to undermine the rights of citizens. The populus does not have the right, under the Constitution, to dirtectly vote away the civil rights of a minority--or of themselves. To change that would require a Constitutional Amendment, including ratification by the states. This means while it is not impossible, it is subject to a process that should give plenty of time for dialogue and reflection. As Franklin said, we have a republic IF we can keep it. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: gnu Date: 01 Jan 09 - 06:15 PM "are you suggesting..." again? "... that Obama was elected because of mob rule." I KNOW you didn't ask ME, but.... Not even close. The man earned it... over many years of hard work... amongst his peers in the fight to be considered for office. I think I had better TRY to leave it to you kids... once more... have fun. Once I get wound up... I cain't never stop... never stop.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 01 Jan 09 - 06:01 PM Amos, Are you suggesting that Obama was elected because of mob rule???? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: gnu Date: 01 Jan 09 - 02:12 PM Ake???? "Do you suggest..." "If not, then..." Oh my. That game can be played all day long and serve only to detract from logical debate. What I suggest is rather a simple arguement: Homos want to participate in civil union. Both are legal. Heteros have no right to deny homos participation in civil union. Debate that and leave the rest of the crazy crap out of it. I'll "suggest" one more thing about mob rule. We have government and legal systems that, among other things, protect the rights of individuals. These systems are based on decision making by experienced, knowledgible, intellignt... well, elected elders and those appointed by the elders. To ask Joe The Plumber to install your new electrical entrance panel is just stunned. Same deal with asking the general public to form appropriate legislation to deal with issues they have neither the knowledge nor the wisdom to address. That is just stunned. Now, if there WAS a vote to ban Gay Parades.... Have fun kids. gnightgnu. BTW... I am in Canuckistan. We don't allow mob rule here... yet??? We'll see after Jan 26 how it goes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 01 Jan 09 - 01:39 PM That's the shortest version of that joke I've ever seen or heard!! It usually meanders through several pages. If the folks you are talking about are minding their own business, Ake, why do they seem so anxious to reject other people who would like to be able to mind their own business in the same peace? What right do you--or they--claim to define the legal and civil state of union by choice and then assert it should not be available to a significant minority of citizens? If you and your friends want to defend certain kinds of marriage as blessed or not blessed by one or another priest, church, or spiritual being, feel free--that is a religious issue. It should have nothing to do with the legal and civil status of couple-hood. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 01 Jan 09 - 01:27 PM The knee-jerk reaction of the typical homophobe to the idea of same-sex marriage is to invoke the idea of someone wanting to marry his pet camel, warthog, or octopus. One wonders what other dark spiders grow in the dank recesses of their souls. . . . Scene – South Africa, early twentieth century. British soldier runs into the captain's tent. "Captain," he says excitedly, "Chumley is having sex with an ostrich!"Barbara and I are acquainted with few same-sex couples. In fact a nearby mainline church has married a number of same-sex couples. They're nice folks. In stable relationships. In fact, most of the same-sex marriages I've heard of are one helluvalot more stable than a lot of heterosexual marriages. And I don't see how their marriages, in any way, affects Barbara's and my marriage. Ake, why do you care what other people do in the privacy of their own homes? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 01 Jan 09 - 04:51 AM "The fact you seem to be avoiding is that the people you are talking about are human beings. You insist on dividing them out and painting them as something repulsive to you; that in itself is a repulsive thing to do!" That statement Amos, is the crux of your argument and is completely nonsensical. All minorities with different sexual orientations are "human beings" Do you suggest we include some of the catagories mentioned by "bubblyrat" above? If not, your statement is hypocritical as well as simplistic...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Riginslinger Date: 01 Jan 09 - 01:06 AM "And who exactly comprise the "mob" on this issue?" Mormon Tabernacle Choir |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 31 Dec 08 - 05:50 PM And who exactly comprise the "mob" on this issue? The people I know and live beside are certainly no mob, they are quiet folks who mind their own business, none of them are evangelical not even very staunch church goers yet they believe in the traditional definition of marriage and have a strong sense of injustice when their beliefs are attacked by a mob of so called "liberals". Every issue becomes politicised by the homosexual lobby,to oppose their agenda is to be branded right wing.....or worse, as can be seen on any thread which questions what is really happening to society. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 31 Dec 08 - 05:45 PM LOL! That is another slippery slope indeed, Good Gnus. Scientific analysis by the very best people as to who shall be qualified to participate and who not? Oh, my!! Oh, I know!! Let's impose a genetic screening!! Ban reproduction of life devoid of value!! Ooooo!!!! An enlightened Eugenic society, but this time, we can do it right!! With SCience!! (Sorry, I wasn't aiming my sarcasm at you. ) I am afraid the best we can hope for is having to haul the whole lot of us up hill with ourselves. We have met the enemy, and he-R-us! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: gnu Date: 31 Dec 08 - 05:08 PM Seriously... what if we had a vote that did the the same thing to the stunned? Denied them a basic right?... denied them the right to vote based on their lack of intelligence? Makes more sense than mob rule, don't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: gnu Date: 31 Dec 08 - 04:55 PM Don be da man! And, we need some good wo/men these days. Perhaps if we had a test for voter participation. Not necessarily knowledge of the issues... so many issues... I mean, who has time to keep oneself informed about the issues? Maybe it could be a simple test, like, say, be of average intelligence or above? And, that would then preclude religion from being a bias, too. Two dodos with one stone? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 31 Dec 08 - 04:46 PM Apparently, it can't be repeated often enough. The voters can vote for or against something a hundred times over if they want, but that doesn't make it right. Democracy? Yes, but a democracy with certain essential limitations. These limitations are there to protect such things as fundamental human rights and prevent "the Tyranny of the Majority." A good example of what can go wrong with "pure" democracy—majority rule—is a lynch mob. And wisely, we have laws against such things. So just because something got the majority of the votes, that doesn't make it right. Or wise. Or moral, in the widest sense of the word. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: gnu Date: 31 Dec 08 - 04:31 PM Oh, yeah. I forgot. Re majority rule. Ah, mob rule sucks, dude. Just because a majority of people who may not have the intellignce, the education, the experience, the wisdom... need I go on???... or any reasonable combination thereof, THINK they have the right to limit other peoples rights don't make it so. The right to swing one's arms freely in the air ends where the other fellow's nose begins. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: gnu Date: 31 Dec 08 - 04:16 PM Amos.... are you actually saying that ALL citizens are equal under the eyes of the law? Wow, dude. Concept! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 31 Dec 08 - 03:48 PM Amos, ..using the caps as I did was only done to highlight the changes to your text..sorry if you had the impression that I was yelling...I wasn't....... As to the other complete asshole using my name...Joe, can you check the IP address on that person, and inform 'it', that using one name per user, is the correct protocol here...and to that asshole in particular, if you have something to say, use your own name(once again). Will get back to you...I have somewhere to be right now... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 31 Dec 08 - 03:21 PM There's no need to yell, GtS. I understand you have a different point of view, one about which you feel very assertive. The "conceive and reproduce" aspect of marriage is often touted as the primary rationale behind formalizing civil coupling at all. But there are plenty of childless couples, whose marriages should not be annulled because they didn't obey the Pope and the Old Testament about multiplying. In this day and age of overpopulation, the ability to reproduce is hardly a major recommendation for honoring choices of partner. The fact is the entire movement against gay marriage is an invented issue, blown up out of all proportion in order to give the right wing an issue to boil up about. The core function of the marriage proposition is the choice of two individuals, an exercised freedom that is inherent in their nature as human beings, regardless of their color, creed, choice of sexual practice, or shape of plumbing. Any two humans deserve the complete untrammeled right to make such a decision with their lives and to have it acknowledged socially as a legal civil state. Or else, none do, and all legal propositions predicated on married versus unmarried states should be struck from the books forthwith. But this "separate and different" shtick does not work in civil codes of law. A A |
