Suck it, haters. - Page 2

Originally Posted by BR

Bigots who are against gays and minorities.

Originally Posted by marvfox

I am for minorities and truthfully speaking I am for a man and a woman as a couple when they are married.To me this is not right when 2 men or women are married especially when children are involved. Psychologically this screws up the child's mind in my opinion.

Originally Posted by tonton

There are plenty of studies that show that this is wrong thinking.

Amendments and revisions
See also: California ballot proposition

The constitution of California distinguishes between constitutional amendments and revisions, the latter of which is considered to be a "substantial change to the entire constitution, rather than ... a less extensive change in one or more of its provisions".[17] Both require passage of a California ballot proposition by voters, but they differ in how they may be proposed. An amendment may be placed on the ballot by either a two-thirds vote in the California State Legislature or signatures equal to 8% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election, among the lowest thresholds for similar measures of any U.S. state.[18] As of 2008, this was 694,354 signatures[19] compared to an estimated 2007 population of 36,553,215.[20] Revisions originally required a constitutional convention but today may be passed with the approval of both two-thirds of the legislature and a majority of voters; while simplified since its beginnings, the revision process is considered more politically charged and difficult to successfully pass than an amendment.[21]

The exact distinction between an amendment and a revision has never been clear, as highlighted by Proposition 8 in 2008.[citation needed] Passed as an initiative amendment in response to the California Supreme Court's finding that same-sex marriage was allowed under the constitution, the proposition defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Opponents argued that Proposition 8 constituted a revision, and was thus beyond the scope of the initiative process. However, the California Supreme Court eventually ruled that it was in fact an amendment, and within the rights of the voters to add to the constitution.

Originally Posted by BR

we have a group of people who are treated as second class citizens.

Originally Posted by tonton

In terms of the law, this is completely untrue. We need a constitution and laws to clarify what rights we have. Without that we may have rights by moral standards, but those rights would not be enforceable in court.

Originally Posted by tonton

I see someone is in the second phase of the death of their ideology.

Originally Posted by tonton

There are plenty of studies that show that this is wrong thinking.

Originally Posted by sammi jo

Two words: that typify the "Christian Taliban" religious right's bigotry, duplicity, hypocrisy and bloodymindedness on the matter.

Then, consider that much of the bile against gay marriage/civil unions spews from the supposedly 'moral' (!) "Bible Belt". ... the region with generally the highest rates of divorce, child abuse/child sex offenders, domestic violence, etc...

Originally Posted by MJ1970

Hmmm. This seems like you're way over-thinking this. First of all most of that would become standardized right away. It would just be a standard part of getting "married." There wouldn't be much to it.

Exactly what rights do you feel need guaranteeing here?

Originally Posted by e1618978

Contacts can't help you with the estate tax marriage deduction, it only works for the rights and privileges that a couple give each other, not the rights and privileges that marriage gives you wrt the IRS or other parts of the government.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Bigot.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Tell me, tonton, what is my ideology?

Originally Posted by BR

Yes, promote the further expanding American aristocracy.

Originally Posted by tonton

Why is she a bigot? The statistics prove her assertion. For instance, a study was published quite recently that showed that 'red states' with more conservative sex education policies had a higher rate of teen pregnancy. There are studies that show that evangelicals have a higher divorce rate. The per capita molestation numbers are higher in more religious areas.

Is that bigotry?

Originally Posted by trumptman

Is it bigotry if studies show black IQ is as a group lower than other racial groups and you begin assigning conclusions based on those studies? What if the rate of illegitimacy, divorce, incarceration, etc are all higher for that community and I start assigning labels that "typify" that community?

The same answer applies to both criteria.

Originally Posted by tonton

There are plenty of studies that show that this is wrong thinking.

Originally Posted by tonton

You're confusing biological effects with behavioral effects. Calling blacks dumber than whites and making changes based on such assertions is bigotry. Calling conservative and religious policies counterproductive and making changes based on such an assertion is absolutely not.

Originally Posted by trumptman

I'm not confusing it. Multiple leftists on these forums have claimed conservatism IS biological. They've linked to studies on IQ and on the size of certain regions of the brain. In short, they contend that conservatives are born that way.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

<makes popcorn>

Originally Posted by tonton

Why is she a bigot? The statistics prove her assertion. For instance, a study was published quite recently that showed that 'red states' with more conservative sex education policies had a higher rate of teen pregnancy. There are studies that show that evangelicals have a higher divorce rate. The per capita molestation numbers are higher in more religious areas.

Is that bigotry?

Originally Posted by trumptman

Is it bigotry if studies show black IQ is as a group lower than other racial groups and you begin assigning conclusions based on those studies? What if the rate of illegitimacy, divorce, incarceration, etc are all higher for that community and I start assigning labels that "typify" that community?

The same answer applies to both criteria.

Originally Posted by sammi jo

You've been reading "The Bell Curve" again?

Debunked.

And another view

The three great strategies for obscuring an issue are to introduce irrelevancies, to arouse prejudice, and to excite ridicule.... ---Bergen Evans, The Natural History of Nonsense

Originally Posted by trumptman

The point isn't to argue about "The Bell Curve." The point is to show that the reasoning for bigotry is true no matter which group it is applied agaisnt and that is just as true for African-Americans as it is for conservatives.

"studies show black IQ is as a group lower than other racial groups"

Originally Posted by marvfox

If you have children and when they grow up to be adults would you want your son or daughter to not marry the same gender?

Originally Posted by trumptman

I'm not confusing it. Multiple leftists on these forums have claimed conservatism IS biological. They've linked to studies on IQ and on the size of certain regions of the brain. In short, they contend that conservatives are born that way.

Originally Posted by sammi jo

From which properly peer reviewed studies/papers did you quote, re. the above claim?

Originally Posted by tonton

Absofucking not if they are gay. If they are straight or if they are gay (which is how they are born, not raised), or even if they are bisexual, I want them to marry the one they love. Whomever they want, and society should embrace and celebrate their choice. That's what I want for everyone. Even my daughter.

If I knew my daughter were gay and she was going to marry a man (who presumably she didn't love) because that's what society wants her to do, I would tell her not to do it. I would be angry if she did, but it's her choice. But I wouldn't want it, no way.

That's the difference between bigoted and not bigoted.

Originally Posted by tonton

Absofucking not if they are gay. If they are straight or if they are gay (which is how they are born, not raised), or even if they are bisexual, I want them to marry the one they love.

Whomever they want, and society should embrace and celebrate their choice. That's what I want for everyone. Even my daughter.

If I knew my daughter were gay and she was going to marry a man (who presumably she didn't love) because that's what society wants her to do, I would tell her not to do it. I would be angry if she did, but it's her choice. But I wouldn't want it, no way.

That's the difference between bigoted and not bigoted.

Originally Posted by marvfox

Thank GOD my 3 sons married women not men! Sometimes their choice is mixed up and you have to try to straighten them out before disaster happens.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

First, no..society is not required to embrace them nor celebrate them.

Originally Posted by tonton

Of course society cann't be forced to embrace anything. But it would be much nicer if it did.

Originally Posted by marvfox

I do not know how old you are but I am 67 years old and when i was growing up society was not screwed up like now with children suing parents and having no respect at all today.Pretty pathetic indeed.We respected our teachers and police and people were more civil also.

Originally Posted by tonton

Of course society cann't be forced to embrace anything. But it would be much nicer if it did.

Originally Posted by sammi jo

The point you made...

... is the type of conclusion arrived at by the authors of "The Bell Curve", and widely debunked as pseudoscience.

From which properly peer reviewed studies/papers did you quote, re. the above claim?

Originally Posted by tonton

Conservatives are not born conservative. People with low IQ may end up being conservative but that's a choice that is not genetic.

Originally Posted by tonton

* Makes popcorn *

Originally Posted by trumptman

I'm not making the claim dork. I'm saying if I claim science as the basis of being a bigot, then is it okay to be a bigot? People like YOURSELF are making bigoted claims.

Here is what you said "the region with generally the highest rates of divorce, child abuse/child sex offenders, domestic violence, etc..."

Do you think that if we checked into certain ethnic enclaves that we wouldn't see high rates of lawbreaking, criminality or just low rates of educations, marriage and high rates of illegitimacy as examples?

Now if I use those to draw blanket conclusions about a group guess what that is called. BIGOTED. You did that with conservatives. I only mentioned another group to get your to see your bad reasoning applied somewhere else. It is bullshit reasoning and that was why I said, if I applied YOUR reason here, would you call it bullshit. You did and guess what, it is bullshit in the first domain as well.

Conservative is just a label. The studies said it was not a choice but a function of biology. I'm sorry but you can't get around it.

I'm sorry did you ever explain how you were busted flat out talkig out of your ass? Have you or anyone yet explained how it can be unconstitutional to amend your own constitution?

Originally Posted by SDW2001

No one is interested in that. Their position is right, and that's the end of it. They will support any development that aides their position, whether that development is right or wrong. Win at any cost.

Originally Posted by tonton

I'm sorry, but it's not the liberals who are insisting that it's not the court's duty to interpret the constitutionality of laws.

"Activist judges"? "Legislation by the courts"? Fucking ridiculous notions that our system isn't working exactly the way it was set up to work. Just because you don't like the outcome. That's what reeks of immoral position.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Agreed. However, isn't an activist court panel overturning (based on their own moral beliefs) a duly passed state Constitutional amendment forcing people to embrace something?