I keep asking but you stiill haven't answered, so I'll try one more time to talk to you as a rational adult.
Why would you post a link that you expect people to read, but then go out of your way to prevent the link from actually being a hyperlink? Why go out of your way to annoy people that are already annoyed with you, especially when you are trying to convert them to agree with your anti-civil rights agenda?
If you can't copy and paste, then don't read it. I already know that I'm not going to convert anyone on this forum. You're pissed that your precious attempt to re-define marriage has flopped in most states, and it's very likely to flop in California. So, you nit pick my posts as some juvenile means of getting back at me for being correct when I said that the majority do not support gay marriage.
I was right, and you were wrong. If you don't like my posts, don't read them, it's no skin off of my a$$ one way or the other.
So, you nit pick my posts as some juvenile means of getting back at me
How hard is it to paste a link without putting extraneous punctuation marks around it? That's all solipsism is asking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfella
I was right, and you were wrong.
I'm not sure anyone ever disputed that the majority in America appear not to like the idea of gay marriage.
What was heavily disputed was your stance on homosexuality in general and you failed to provide any logical basis for the assertions that homosexuality is immoral and bad for society. You will never be able to provide a sound argument because your position is not founded on an application of critical thinking and logical reasoning, but upon your irrational fear of homosexuality.
How hard is it to paste a link without putting extraneous punctuation marks around it? That's all solipsism is asking.
I'm not sure anyone ever disputed that the majority in America appear not to like the idea of gay marriage.
What was heavily disputed was your stance on homosexuality in general and you failed to provide any logical basis for the assertions that homosexuality is immoral and bad for society. You will never be able to provide a sound argument because your position is not founded on an application of critical thinking and logical reasoning, but upon your irrational fear of homosexuality.
Wrong again, you should have used disgust in place of irrational fear. You don't get to define my opinion, about which I am the World's foremost authority. I said earlier that I knew I wasn't going to convert anyone, but the gays are not setting the standards for this society, and that was my desire to begin with. The tail is not going to wag the dog here.
The entire concept of human rights is to protect the rights of the minority. To make sure those that do not conform to the majority ststus or opinion are treated equally to those that do conform. That is what human rights is all about. You can deny it all you want, but the fact that two loving, consenting adults of opposite gender can marry, and two loving, consenting adults of same gender cannot, is discriminatory.
Like I said, this amendment will be repealed as the old farts die off (and apparently as African Americans become more educated).
Earlier in this thread someone said you were a 'bigot' if in essence you did not support Prop 8.
[...]
Or is it just democratic liberals talking out of both sides of their mouth. Again...
Racial bigotry and sexual orientation bigotry are not a package deal. You can be okay with black president but not okay with homosexuals having rights.
Anecdotally, I would say that less educated, lower class culture is much more open to a black president than they are with homosexuality.
Racial bigotry and sexual orientation bigotry are not a package deal. You can be okay with black president but not okay with homosexuals having rights.
Anecdotally, I would say that less educated, lower class culture is much more open to a black president than they are with homosexuality.
Actually there was a pretty lengthy article about how minorities are more against gay marriage than whites. Especially, statistically speaking, hispanics due to the higher % of Catholics. So, essentially, had BO not mobilized the minority vote in CA prop 8 might very well have failed... I wouldn't go into saying less educated or lower class because I think that's a fairly discriminatory view.
Indeed. But it's nowhere near to the margin by which you were suggesting earlier. Certainly it's closer to 50:50 than 75:35.
One thing that we never really got to the bottom of is whether or not being "married" confers couples with more rights under law than a "civil union". It came to my attention that Arizona does allow for the civil union of homosexual couples and that presumably confers certain rights to said couples. There was a previous proposed amendment in 2006 that attempted to ban even the civil unions but that proposal was defeated.
This suggests that the people have a problem with the religious institution of marriage being effectively re-defined by the state. I don't have a problem with homosexuals being banned from a given church's "marriage" by said church as long as there exists a "civil union" option that confers exactly the same rights under law. However, now we have the situation where the definition of the religious institution of marriage is on the State's Constitution and completely out of the hands of the Church. It should be the Church's prerogative to define the religious institution of marriage, but that right has now been taken away from them. It should be the State's prerogative to confer legal rights and if it chooses to recognise couples' relationships under law it should do so regardless of sexual orientation.
I have a couple of questions:
How many states allow for the "civil union" of homosexual couples?
Do those unions confer upon couples equal rights under law as married couples?
I think with the passage of this new law, they have set the stage for a constitutional legal fight. The government is now in the awkward position of legal responsibility for a religious practice, which makes for an unholy mixture of church and state.
At any rate, I foresee new legal challenges which may make all unions purely legal unions, which is as it should be. "Marriage" will eventually become a non-legally binding ceremony.
You wouldn't agree, that statistically speaking, people that make less money tend to be less educated than those who make more money?
I haven't seen any data to support that honestly. Give me something and I'll gladly eat my pie
FWIW I think it's much more about locale and religion than it is about less educated and poor (living in Texas I see plenty of intelligent, well paid people who oppose it, I actually saw the same thing in Ohio too...)
I think with the passage of this new law, they have set the stage for a constitutional legal fight. The government is now in the awkward position of legal responsibility for a religious practice, which makes for an unholy mixture of church and state.
At any rate, I foresee new legal challenges which may make all unions purely legal unions, which is as it should be. "Marriage" will eventually become a non-legally binding ceremony.
Hear! Hear!
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000
I haven't seen any data to support that honestly. Give me something and I'll gladly eat my pie
FWIW I think it's much more about locale and religion than it is about less educated and poor (living in Texas I see plenty of intelligent, well paid people who oppose it, I actually saw the same thing in Ohio too...)
I think that is only one part of the situation. The other part would be religion, and perhaps some machismo (for lack of a better word) that may lead some to that that being for gay rights would in turn mean you are gay, of which we've seen on this forum. We've even seen some post on this forum that gay marriage would somehow mean that children would be allowed to be raped and you can marry your toaster.
You wouldn't agree, that statistically speaking, people that make less money tend to be less educated than those who make more money?
It's a fact that many better educated people are elitist liberals. It's also a fact that this is still a center right country, bolstered by the fact that gay marriage propositions failed, even in ultra liberal states like California. If McCain had been a true conservative, and played to his base, instead of reaching out to the Democrats, he would have won. Reagan did not compromise with his adversaries, he defeated them, which is a lesson lost on McCain.
Your remarks put put you square into the liberal elitist camp.
I was right, and you were wrong. If you don't like my posts, don't read them, it's no skin off of my a$$ one way or the other.
Unlike in a game of 'tag', America is supposed to use the Constitution as our guide, and 'minority' groups, including homosexuals are supposed to be protected from the tyranny of the majority. Legal challenges will be filed, and I think these anti-gay marriage laws will be overturned. "The will of the people" has often been at odds with the words and intent of the Constitution.
I think with the passage of this new law, they have set the stage for a constitutional legal fight. The government is now in the awkward position of legal responsibility for a religious practice, which makes for an unholy mixture of church and state.
At any rate, I foresee new legal challenges which may make all unions purely legal unions, which is as it should be. "Marriage" will eventually become a non-legally binding ceremony.
Actually, it's not a legally binding ceremony unless the person doing it has been given the authority by the state to do it...
Your remarks put put you square into the liberal elitist camp.
If feeling that gays and blacks and women should have the rights as white heterosexual males, then I am definitely liberal.
As for elitist, I can't think of anything more elitist than telling trying to disallow the rights to others because you disagree with who they choose to love. I bet you were against Loving v. Virginia back in 1967 and probably wish that schools were still segregated.
I think that is only one part of the situation. The other part would be religion, and perhaps some machismo (for lack of a better word) that may lead some to that that being for gay rights would in turn mean you are gay, of which we've seen on this forum. We've even seen some post on this forum that gay marriage would somehow mean that children would be allowed to be raped and you can marry your toaster.
I don't know if there's as much machismo as this forum would lead you to believe. I mean, I think we all know that this is about the last place in the world you should go if you're wanting a realistic sampling of the US population! haha. There are certainly crazies on both sides and most of the time you can't even say anything to make them become more realistic. Besides, I wouldn't want to marry a toaster - they are usually crummy (pun intended )
Besides, I wouldn't want to marry a toaster - they are usually crummy (pun intended )
The toaster thing I just throw out there, but there allusions to marrying inanimate objects was stated. The raping of children being synonymous with gay marriage was definitely stated by a couple people.
Comments
I keep asking but you stiill haven't answered, so I'll try one more time to talk to you as a rational adult.
Why would you post a link that you expect people to read, but then go out of your way to prevent the link from actually being a hyperlink? Why go out of your way to annoy people that are already annoyed with you, especially when you are trying to convert them to agree with your anti-civil rights agenda?
If you can't copy and paste, then don't read it. I already know that I'm not going to convert anyone on this forum. You're pissed that your precious attempt to re-define marriage has flopped in most states, and it's very likely to flop in California. So, you nit pick my posts as some juvenile means of getting back at me for being correct when I said that the majority do not support gay marriage.
I was right, and you were wrong. If you don't like my posts, don't read them, it's no skin off of my a$$ one way or the other.
So, you nit pick my posts as some juvenile means of getting back at me
How hard is it to paste a link without putting extraneous punctuation marks around it? That's all solipsism is asking.
I was right, and you were wrong.
I'm not sure anyone ever disputed that the majority in America appear not to like the idea of gay marriage.
What was heavily disputed was your stance on homosexuality in general and you failed to provide any logical basis for the assertions that homosexuality is immoral and bad for society. You will never be able to provide a sound argument because your position is not founded on an application of critical thinking and logical reasoning, but upon your irrational fear of homosexuality.
How hard is it to paste a link without putting extraneous punctuation marks around it? That's all solipsism is asking.
I'm not sure anyone ever disputed that the majority in America appear not to like the idea of gay marriage.
What was heavily disputed was your stance on homosexuality in general and you failed to provide any logical basis for the assertions that homosexuality is immoral and bad for society. You will never be able to provide a sound argument because your position is not founded on an application of critical thinking and logical reasoning, but upon your irrational fear of homosexuality.
Wrong again, you should have used disgust in place of irrational fear. You don't get to define my opinion, about which I am the World's foremost authority. I said earlier that I knew I wasn't going to convert anyone, but the gays are not setting the standards for this society, and that was my desire to begin with. The tail is not going to wag the dog here.
Like I said, this amendment will be repealed as the old farts die off (and apparently as African Americans become more educated).
Does that mean that California, the home of 'fruits and nuts', so I hear, is now the land of BIGOTED fruits and nuts??
Candidate Votes %
Barack Obama
6,172,303 61.2%
John McCain
3,730,119 37.0%
Alan Keyes
29,728 0.3%
Cynthia McKinney
27,855 0.2%
Bob Barr
49,957 0.5%
Ralph Nader
79,037 0.8%
http://vote.sos.ca.gov/pres/index.html
I mean Obama won it hands down... so the Radical Conservative Republicans can't be to blame...
Or is it just democratic liberals talking out of both sides of their mouth. Again...
Earlier in this thread someone said you were a 'bigot' if in essence you did not support Prop 8.
[...]
Or is it just democratic liberals talking out of both sides of their mouth. Again...
Racial bigotry and sexual orientation bigotry are not a package deal. You can be okay with black president but not okay with homosexuals having rights.
Anecdotally, I would say that less educated, lower class culture is much more open to a black president than they are with homosexuality.
Racial bigotry and sexual orientation bigotry are not a package deal. You can be okay with black president but not okay with homosexuals having rights.
Anecdotally, I would say that less educated, lower class culture is much more open to a black president than they are with homosexuality.
Actually there was a pretty lengthy article about how minorities are more against gay marriage than whites. Especially, statistically speaking, hispanics due to the higher % of Catholics. So, essentially, had BO not mobilized the minority vote in CA prop 8 might very well have failed... I wouldn't go into saying less educated or lower class because I think that's a fairly discriminatory view.
Speaking of class
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xd_zkMEgkI
hehe
Actually there was a pretty lengthy article about how minorities are more against gay marriage than whites.
I wouldn't go into saying less educated or lower class because I think that's a fairly discriminatory view.
Saying it's due to one's racial heritage is less discriminatory than referring to ones economic class?
You must have many children then.
Or few lusts.
Saying it's due to one's racial heritage is less discriminatory than referring to ones economic class?
I said statistically speaking
I said statistically speaking
You wouldn't agree, that statistically speaking, people that make less money tend to be less educated than those who make more money?
Indeed. But it's nowhere near to the margin by which you were suggesting earlier. Certainly it's closer to 50:50 than 75:35.
One thing that we never really got to the bottom of is whether or not being "married" confers couples with more rights under law than a "civil union". It came to my attention that Arizona does allow for the civil union of homosexual couples and that presumably confers certain rights to said couples. There was a previous proposed amendment in 2006 that attempted to ban even the civil unions but that proposal was defeated.
This suggests that the people have a problem with the religious institution of marriage being effectively re-defined by the state. I don't have a problem with homosexuals being banned from a given church's "marriage" by said church as long as there exists a "civil union" option that confers exactly the same rights under law. However, now we have the situation where the definition of the religious institution of marriage is on the State's Constitution and completely out of the hands of the Church. It should be the Church's prerogative to define the religious institution of marriage, but that right has now been taken away from them. It should be the State's prerogative to confer legal rights and if it chooses to recognise couples' relationships under law it should do so regardless of sexual orientation.
I have a couple of questions:
How many states allow for the "civil union" of homosexual couples?
Do those unions confer upon couples equal rights under law as married couples?
I think with the passage of this new law, they have set the stage for a constitutional legal fight. The government is now in the awkward position of legal responsibility for a religious practice, which makes for an unholy mixture of church and state.
At any rate, I foresee new legal challenges which may make all unions purely legal unions, which is as it should be. "Marriage" will eventually become a non-legally binding ceremony.
You wouldn't agree, that statistically speaking, people that make less money tend to be less educated than those who make more money?
I haven't seen any data to support that honestly. Give me something and I'll gladly eat my pie
FWIW I think it's much more about locale and religion than it is about less educated and poor (living in Texas I see plenty of intelligent, well paid people who oppose it, I actually saw the same thing in Ohio too...)
I think with the passage of this new law, they have set the stage for a constitutional legal fight. The government is now in the awkward position of legal responsibility for a religious practice, which makes for an unholy mixture of church and state.
At any rate, I foresee new legal challenges which may make all unions purely legal unions, which is as it should be. "Marriage" will eventually become a non-legally binding ceremony.
Hear! Hear!
I haven't seen any data to support that honestly. Give me something and I'll gladly eat my pie
FWIW I think it's much more about locale and religion than it is about less educated and poor (living in Texas I see plenty of intelligent, well paid people who oppose it, I actually saw the same thing in Ohio too...)
I think that is only one part of the situation. The other part would be religion, and perhaps some machismo (for lack of a better word) that may lead some to that that being for gay rights would in turn mean you are gay, of which we've seen on this forum. We've even seen some post on this forum that gay marriage would somehow mean that children would be allowed to be raped and you can marry your toaster.
You wouldn't agree, that statistically speaking, people that make less money tend to be less educated than those who make more money?
It's a fact that many better educated people are elitist liberals. It's also a fact that this is still a center right country, bolstered by the fact that gay marriage propositions failed, even in ultra liberal states like California. If McCain had been a true conservative, and played to his base, instead of reaching out to the Democrats, he would have won. Reagan did not compromise with his adversaries, he defeated them, which is a lesson lost on McCain.
Your remarks put put you square into the liberal elitist camp.
I was right, and you were wrong. If you don't like my posts, don't read them, it's no skin off of my a$$ one way or the other.
Unlike in a game of 'tag', America is supposed to use the Constitution as our guide, and 'minority' groups, including homosexuals are supposed to be protected from the tyranny of the majority. Legal challenges will be filed, and I think these anti-gay marriage laws will be overturned. "The will of the people" has often been at odds with the words and intent of the Constitution.
I think with the passage of this new law, they have set the stage for a constitutional legal fight. The government is now in the awkward position of legal responsibility for a religious practice, which makes for an unholy mixture of church and state.
At any rate, I foresee new legal challenges which may make all unions purely legal unions, which is as it should be. "Marriage" will eventually become a non-legally binding ceremony.
Actually, it's not a legally binding ceremony unless the person doing it has been given the authority by the state to do it...
Your remarks put put you square into the liberal elitist camp.
If feeling that gays and blacks and women should have the rights as white heterosexual males, then I am definitely liberal.
As for elitist, I can't think of anything more elitist than telling trying to disallow the rights to others because you disagree with who they choose to love. I bet you were against Loving v. Virginia back in 1967 and probably wish that schools were still segregated.
I think that is only one part of the situation. The other part would be religion, and perhaps some machismo (for lack of a better word) that may lead some to that that being for gay rights would in turn mean you are gay, of which we've seen on this forum. We've even seen some post on this forum that gay marriage would somehow mean that children would be allowed to be raped and you can marry your toaster.
I don't know if there's as much machismo as this forum would lead you to believe. I mean, I think we all know that this is about the last place in the world you should go if you're wanting a realistic sampling of the US population! haha. There are certainly crazies on both sides and most of the time you can't even say anything to make them become more realistic. Besides, I wouldn't want to marry a toaster - they are usually crummy (pun intended
Besides, I wouldn't want to marry a toaster - they are usually crummy (pun intended
The toaster thing I just throw out there, but there allusions to marrying inanimate objects was stated. The raping of children being synonymous with gay marriage was definitely stated by a couple people.