Laughing City

Do you agree with the ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?
Yes
66%
 66%  [ 14 ]
No
19%
 19%  [ 4 ]
I don't know
14%
 14%  [ 3 ]
Total Votes : 21

Author Message
starbucksgod
Vintage Newbie


There is nothing wrong with gay marriage if that is the decision the citizens of a state make. The problem is the majority of the citizens in California decided to define marriage as something between a man and a woman. It is not right for a judge to trample upon democracy because he wants to define marriage as he sees fit.

I would feel the same way if Prop 8 failed and some judge overturned it saying that marriage should be between a man and a woman only.

_________________
But I cannot discover any advantage except in honor, in glory, and in right action. Therefore I consider these goals to be primary and supreme over all others.
Cicero
Joined: 09 Jun 2005 | Posts: 3611 | Location: San Diego
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
cynlovescandy
Vintage Newbie


JBaker wrote:


That said, we should eliminate all federal marriage benefits in the first place (discrimination against single people), and then this wouldn't be an issue for anyone.


Laughing But, seriously.

_________________
You can't find love; you have to create it.
Flickr
Joined: 31 May 2004 | Posts: 2018 | Location: Sacramento, CA
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
JBaker
Vintage Newbie


cynlovescandy wrote:
JBaker wrote:


That said, we should eliminate all federal marriage benefits in the first place (discrimination against single people), and then this wouldn't be an issue for anyone.


Laughing But, seriously.
I know, I was being serious.
_________________
EvilSpace
Joined: 01 Mar 2005 | Posts: 2348 | Location: Plano, TX
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
wilsmith
Vintage Newbie


Democracy works. It's not always pretty, but it works. Give it time, and maybe it will work for you, or against you. Rush it and you will get your tail feathers handed to you.

Majority rules. Justice prevails.

_________________
yup, that's my name.

FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE:
4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB

Love Very Happy Smile Cool Neutral Confused Sad Embarassed Rolling Eyes Mad Evil or Very Mad
Wink = personal fave Mr. Green = Eisley fans should dig it
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9593 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mr pine
Vintage Newbie


i am interested to hear what some of you think about what Rick Warren said about gay marriage back when Prop 8 first came up.

Now I am not a Rick Warren fan at all. But he does know what he is talking about.

And I think he brings up a great point in regards to those who believe that being gay is something you are born with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIQEm2l2Cr8&feature=fvw


you only need to watch about 1:30 of it to get the gist of what he was saying.

_________________
Wil's excellent description of me.

wilsmith wrote:
You're the Anti-Censorship+Topless Twitpic Parodying+Youth Group Video Directing guy that's a champion for the 1st amendment, Videogames as Art, and unrepentant file sharing...

Instagram - Facebook - Twitter - YouTube
Joined: 09 Aug 2004 | Posts: 4826 | Location: illinois
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
DRMS_7888
Vintage Newbie


mr pine wrote:
i am interested to hear what some of you think about what Rick Warren said about gay marriage back when Prop 8 first came up.

Now I am not a Rick Warren fan at all. But he does know what he is talking about.

And I think he brings up a great point in regards to those who believe that being gay is something you are born with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIQEm2l2Cr8&feature=fvw


you only need to watch about 1:30 of it to get the gist of what he was saying.


I hate the Young Turks.

Sexual orientation isn't necessarily something you are 100% biologically born with, but it's something that develops without your consent. There's no matter of "believing" any more than you can "believe" the superficiality of skin color. You either know the facts or you don't.

Personally, I don't find his argument very compelling. By an angry person restraining themselves, they avoid damaging the lives of others. By Rick Warren not having crazy monkey sex with every woman he meets, he doesn't commit adultery and is still allowed to have his wife and his family.

By forcing gay individuals to repress their sexual orientation, they are forced into a life without love, family, and companionship. Of course it's "easy" for Rick to restrain, he has nothing to lose.

Regardless, this is and has always been a Civil Rights issue. Pushing a purely theocratic law into place with negative consequences to American citizens certainly won't persist.

_________________
EisleyForever wrote:
you're A-list in my heart!


MAKECOLDPLAYHISTORY
Joined: 20 Feb 2005 | Posts: 8868 | Location: Saturn, the Bringer of Old Age
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
Saellys
Vintage Newbie


I'm with the marriage abolitionists right now. When two kids at a daycare fight over a toy, I take the toy away. People on both sides of the argument are acting like two-year-olds over this. Let's get rid of it. The churches can "marry" whoever they want--it won't be recognized by the government so it doesn't matter.

In fact, I'm tempted to turn this into a movement, and I know just how to do it. Everyone who considers marriage a holy institution is probably continually embarrassed by the nation's high divorce rate (I sure would be). Let's make it worse. If you're married and you believe everyone should have equal rights, get a divorce. Drive that percentage up. Prove that marriage between a man and a woman is a completely meaningless social construct that does not deserve to be backed by a government entity.

I am only half kidding.

mr pine wrote:
and, if you look closely, minority groups (no matter if it is gays, females, Hispanics, etc) they do not want equal rights, they want preferential treatment.


And you would know, because you've done extensive research using multiple sources corroborating your conclusion. I'm sure you've found loads of websites out there representing gay, female, Hispanic, etc. advocacy organizations, and articles written by people who are members of these minority groups, which informed you that what they all actually want is preferential treatment. You certainly didn't get that information entirely from stories written by white conservatives.

Honestly, of all the ridiculous claims I've seen you make in various political and ethical debates here on LC, this has to be the most over-the-top caricature of an argument, and I'm amazed that no one else has bothered to call you out on it yet.

Just so you know, women make up 51% of the US population (and some of them are gay and/or Hispanic! Gosh!). Like all large groups of people, there is a vast spectrum of beliefs and politics among women. Some of us are chauvinists. Some of us are female supremacists. Most of us hang out somewhere in between. A lot of us are like me--feminists who believe in equal rights for all. Specifically that usually boils down to equal pay and access to contraceptives. There's also the issue of paid maternity and paternity leave. See that? Equal.

I'm a woman, and a feminist, and married, and bisexual, which puts me at least three up on most editorialists who get airtime to discuss these issues in the mainstream. Choose your sources carefully.

_________________
INTELLECT AND ROMANCE
OVER BRUTE FORCE AND CYNICISM

Smokemonster
Joined: 24 Sep 2003 | Posts: 14510 | Location: Alone on an airplane, fallin' asleep against the windowpane...
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
mr pine
Vintage Newbie


You're just now calling me out on that? I posted it months ago. Sure it was harder. But as a white straight male I can tell you a few things from experience,

I don't get the easy road to a job because of eeoc. I have to be well qualified and prove I am better than others.

I don't get a national white America ln month. Or a heterosexual pride parade.

I could not find a great low.cost student loan or scholarship to go to college because I was a middle class straight white boy


And don't get all huffy with me I am left handed I know what its like to be segregated against. Its a right handed world out there. And no one caters to me.

_________________
Wil's excellent description of me.

wilsmith wrote:
You're the Anti-Censorship+Topless Twitpic Parodying+Youth Group Video Directing guy that's a champion for the 1st amendment, Videogames as Art, and unrepentant file sharing...

Instagram - Facebook - Twitter - YouTube
Joined: 09 Aug 2004 | Posts: 4826 | Location: illinois
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
jdstories
Vintage Newbie


Hannah, no wonder you've always been one of my favorites.



Has the laughing city gone mad? I see threads like this and it really illustrates and exemplifies the lack of critical thinking skills in the world today. The scary thing is that anyone has access to everybody (thank you, internet), and people lacking critical thinking abilities can be easily swayed by half-thought-out pedagogy since they lack the capacity to see the holes in said teachings.

CUBSWINWORLDSERIES wrote:
The decision to redefine marriage should be left to the people, not a single district court judge. Expect a stay of the decision on Monday or Tuesday, pending the appeal to the 9th Circuit. And for the record, Judge Walker should have recused himself. I assume his being homosexual biased his opinion.


Really?? It has been said before, but you might want to check up on the history of civil right in these United States. Almost any time any progress has been made in civil rights it is because of the judiciary. Even when Congress has passed laws outlining the civil rights of minorities (which is a huge joke to me, because they are rights and shouldn't need to be legislated; goes to show what ridiculous animals we are), there has inevitably been countless state laws around the country trying to remove those rights. Guess who stepped in to strike down those state laws? The judiciary.

If Judge Walker's homosexuality may have influenced his decision then what is to keep another judge's heterosexuality from influencing their decision?


CUBSWINWORLDSERIES wrote:
Rolling Eyes No, I didn't say that. But thanks for playing.


Yeah, you did. That you don't realize it is a problem.


wilsmith wrote:
Marriage as an institution of the state challenges the sacred status of the institution by trumping the standards on which it's based.


Out of everything you've espoused on this thread I think this is the most relevant statement that is at the core of the greatest misconception surrounding this issue. Marriage as an institution of the state has nothing to do with marriage's status within any religious setting. It's true. The government is NOT trying to get any religious group to recognize gay marriages, and it is at that point I feel religious groups lose any reason to complain.

Now, here is where I really get my panties in a bunch, because there should be other ways to define marriage that I consider vastly more important than the gender of two involved. If you think marriage should be between a man and a woman and that is all then I think you're missing out. I, on the other hand, feel marriage should involve two people (of any orientation). I ALSO feel it should involve mutual commitment, affection, goals, ideals, sacrifice, respect, openness, and communication. I've known MANY hetero couples lacking many of these things and based on that I have more misgivings about those marriages than based on sexual preference. If you were to ask me would a marriage be more of a sacrament between a homosexual couple or between a heterosexual couple who lacked mutual respect, sacrifice and commitment, guess which one I'd pick. How about you?

Ran out of time for now...to be continued...

_________________
"Well, hopefully that's our job, to strap rockets onto everything." - Adam Savage, Mythbusters
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 | Posts: 3655 | Location: Waterloo, Tejas
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Saellys
Vintage Newbie


mr pine wrote:
You're just now calling me out on that? I posted it months ago.


I took pains to avoid this thread when it was originally posted. Yes, I am just now calling me out on that, hence my statement that I'm amazed no one called you out on it before. I mean, jeez--that little snippet of stupid was left unanswered for almost three weeks. I know I'm not the only snark shark on this forum, but I guess everyone else has been on vacation.

mr pine wrote:
Sure it was harder. But as a white straight male I can tell you a few things from experience,

I don't get the easy road to a job because of eeoc. I have to be well qualified and prove I am better than others.


Can you cite an instance in which someone less qualified than you was hired for a job you wanted because of equal opportunity-related quotas? If this hasn't happened to you, your point is moot. Everyone has to be well-qualified and prove that they're better than other candidates for jobs. That's why job interviews happen.

mr pine wrote:
I don't get a national white America ln month. Or a heterosexual pride parade.


You missed it.

mr pine wrote:
I could not find a great low.cost student loan or scholarship to go to college because I was a middle class straight white boy


Really? Did your college's financial aid office actually tell you that was the reason?

I realize that you probably didn't have the options for finding financial aid then that the Internet provides now, but even at the formerly-private liberal arts university I attended there were several on-site opportunities for scholarships, grants, and subsidized loans for people who distinguished themselves in various ways. I wasn't eligible for any of them because a) I was homeschooled, and b) I didn't make a habit of distinguishing myself, but the opportunities I saw were based on academic and extracurricular merit rather than ethnicity or sex or even economic background.

Now, there were also several scholarships and grants for people who were the first generation in their family to attend college, which I think is a very admirable thing. At least in my town, a family with no college education is statistically usually a member of a minority group. These scholarships are almost always applied to the first semester or first year, then renewable in later years based on academic performance. I can't discern how anyone is excluded in this situation.

mr pine wrote:
And don't get all huffy with me I am left handed I know what its like to be segregated against. Its a right handed world out there. And no one caters to me.


I think the way southpaws are ignored when it comes to every item that requires the use of hands is downright abhorrent. (My mom's left-handed, as it happens.) If I wasn't so concerned with trying to improve the social standing of my sex, I would absolutely campaign on your behalf.

Basically what I get from your reply is that your statements come entirely from conclusions you have drawn from your own experiences. Again, choose your sources wisely. As noted above, I'd be quite interested to know whether these perceived inequalities in your life can actually be ascribed to minorities getting opportunities denied to you, or whether that's just what you assumed when things didn't go your way.

_________________
INTELLECT AND ROMANCE
OVER BRUTE FORCE AND CYNICISM

Smokemonster
Joined: 24 Sep 2003 | Posts: 14510 | Location: Alone on an airplane, fallin' asleep against the windowpane...
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
CUBSWINWORLDSERIES
Vintage Newbie


If this is about due process and equal protection, why should the law stop at homosexual and heterosexual couples who wish to marry each other? For that matter, why do the couples have to be not close blood relatives? For that matter, should the polygamists be protected equally? If not, how do you not argue for equal protection under the law? Don't just excoriated me for making the argument, actually defend your position. If the state has no right to stop homosexuals from marrying, then how do they have the right to stop siblings or cousins or polygamy? Your argument is equal protection, defend your position. If you're going to make the incest causes birth defects argument, then what if one of them agrees to be sterilized as a condition of marriage? Without doing a google search for a canned response, make your argument. For the record, I am not advocating for the above. I am advocating for the state's right to say who can and who cannot be married under the law.
Joined: 17 Dec 2005 | Posts: 7524 | Location: Wisconsin
View user's profile Send private message
sebas
Golly, Poster


CUBSWINWORLDSERIES wrote:
If this is about due process and equal protection, why should the law stop at homosexual and heterosexual couples who wish to marry each other? For that matter, why do the couples have to be not close blood relatives? For that matter, should the polygamists be protected equally? If not, how do you not argue for equal protection under the law? Don't just excoriated me for making the argument, actually defend your position. If the state has no right to stop homosexuals from marrying, then how do they have the right to stop siblings or cousins or polygamy? Your argument is equal protection, defend your position. If you're going to make the incest causes birth defects argument, then what if one of them agrees to be sterilized as a condition of marriage? Without doing a google search for a canned response, make your argument. For the record, I am not advocating for the above. I am advocating for the state's right to say who can and who cannot be married under the law.


What do incest and polygamy have to do with homosexuality?


Mr. Fondsworth the Red Herring would like to have a word with you.

_________________
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated"

-Mahatma, Gandhi
Joined: 02 Apr 2008 | Posts: 643 | Location: Austin, TX
View user's profile Send private message
CUBSWINWORLDSERIES
Vintage Newbie


sebas wrote:
CUBSWINWORLDSERIES wrote:
If this is about due process and equal protection, why should the law stop at homosexual and heterosexual couples who wish to marry each other? For that matter, why do the couples have to be not close blood relatives? For that matter, should the polygamists be protected equally? If not, how do you not argue for equal protection under the law? Don't just excoriated me for making the argument, actually defend your position. If the state has no right to stop homosexuals from marrying, then how do they have the right to stop siblings or cousins or polygamy? Your argument is equal protection, defend your position. If you're going to make the incest causes birth defects argument, then what if one of them agrees to be sterilized as a condition of marriage? Without doing a google search for a canned response, make your argument. For the record, I am not advocating for the above. I am advocating for the state's right to say who can and who cannot be married under the law.


What do incest and polygamy have to do with homosexuality?


Mr. Fondsworth the Red Herring would like to have a word with you.


The argument that the people of California have no right to define marriage is being made under an equal protection argument. Read my statement and reply to it if it is a red herring fallacy. By calling it a red herring, you are saying that I did not address the original issue. I would say you did not address the issue with your reply.
Joined: 17 Dec 2005 | Posts: 7524 | Location: Wisconsin
View user's profile Send private message
sebas
Golly, Poster


CUBSWINWORLDSERIES wrote:

By calling it a red herring, you are saying that I did not address the original issue.


I'm saying you're asking somebody to defend homosexuality by defending incest and polygamy, thus a red herring.

_________________
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated"

-Mahatma, Gandhi
Joined: 02 Apr 2008 | Posts: 643 | Location: Austin, TX
View user's profile Send private message
wilsmith
Vintage Newbie


DRMS_7888 wrote:


Sexual orientation isn't necessarily something you are 100% biologically born with, but it's something that develops without your consent. There's no matter of "believing" any more than you can "believe" the superficiality of skin color. You either know the facts or you don't.


Just wanted to point out, I was totally unconscious of my race until it was pointed out that it (my pigmentation, hair type, national origin) mattered when i was a kid. I grew with a multi-racial group kids in a middle class suburban community. To me, and to my friends, race was superficial. Most people who know well recognize that to be truth because I, and many of my close friends who are black, as far as our proclivities and tastes are "atypical" or the stereotypes a of people have, and truth be told, a lot of the people who some would consider stereotypical, are conscious of it, and embrace stereotypes out of resentment for being caste that way, or as acquiescence to that casting in their lives and social conditions. Given the opportunity, race is Totally superficial as far as a person's character, disposition, taste, and ability, outside of tolerance to sun exposure.

You have people of varying colors and races the world-round that have totally discordant cultural traits, completely different ways of living, and ways of understanding themselves, that share "race" as a defining characteristic. The point of Civil Rights regarding race was that an injustice was perpetrated Historically based on the unfounded presumptions that people of a certain pigmentation, or geographic origin, were inherently inferior and fit to be enslaved. 3/5ths a person and all that jazz. It was an institutionalized, codified stance, with punitive consequences on anyone fitting their definition as Negro. It was Explicit and brutal. It was not ostracizing, or abuse, for deviant behavior. It was legally justified consequences for being born wrong.

Homosexuality has become a lifestyle in the eyes of some, which I have come to associate with the pursuit of all things vain, if I let my TV tell me so. I know that's not the reality, but I will still contend that Sexuality and emotional attachment/ Love are not the same thing. I know that Sodomy Laws or still on the books in some places, and that's the only place I would see there being a Civil Rights case directly related to Sexuality. As far as marriage, it USED TO BE the gateway to procreation, but meh, not so much anymore. Homosexuality doesn't lead to procreation, so that's not the issue. We are not denying homosexuals their opportunity to procreate the way Anti-Miscegenation laws did. Single people can be foster parents and adopt if they have the means and can provide a healthy environment for rearing children (i. e. stable, nurturing, safe).

So, seriously, what's the real issue here? Like I've contended before, if this is really about mutual benefits spouses receive, keep it real and admit it. If this is about a symbolic victory over oppressive religion, admit it. If it's both, hip hip hooray! I say, for the mutual benefits, operating under the logic of common law marriage, (7 years) go for it. But that's a civil thing, call it a civil thing. If it's a symbolic thing, the Government has NO Place pushing such an effort alone. It's unconstitutional for the issue to even be broached.

_________________
yup, that's my name.

FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE:
4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB

Love Very Happy Smile Cool Neutral Confused Sad Embarassed Rolling Eyes Mad Evil or Very Mad
Wink = personal fave Mr. Green = Eisley fans should dig it
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9593 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Post new topic   Reply to topic

Display posts from previous:   



You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT - 12 Hours
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB, coffee, and Eisley fans worldwide.
phpBB is © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group