Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Overturning of Gay Marriage Ban in CA

Overturning of Gay Marriage Ban in CA (Page 3)
Thread Tools
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2010, 07:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Sensitive about what? The guy is gay, but can't admit it largely because his entire family would probably never speak to him again. (Note: my speculation on the reasons - the family thing would be true.) Is that what you mean by "social stigma?"
Most cultures have formed some distaste for homosexuality. This distaste has taken the form of stigma and permeates all sects of society, having nothing to do with a Christian heritage or views on Creation/evolution. First of all, it is entirely that person's decision what of their private lives they'd like to announce to their family and the world, not yours. Secondly, regardless of what you've speculated, there's no reason to suggest that the family's short-term reaction and long-term reaction will remain the same. Thirdly, getting this wrong can be destructive and harmful by placing individuals directly in the path of a social stigma you know exists. I then corrected myself; whether you're correct or not, it is their decision when they're ready to face what may or may not become of expressing their sexual orientation, not yours. I found the manner in which you chest pounded your gay-dar success rate bizarre, that's all.

And I didn't "caricature" homosexuals. Again and again, you keep adding onto my words in order to argue. I said "these gays were feminine"; I didn't say "all gays are feminine."
I'm just amazed at how perfectly you've developed your characters for this online argument. All these gay guys you know have either come out of the closet or not and greg knew all of their sexual proclivities before they chose to communicate them. Amazingly, they all clearly identified with a "feminine mindset" from the time they were 3 or 4 - girls clothes, preferred to associate with girls rather than guys, preferred what we'd call "girl's activities" rather than do what other boys did, yadda yadda yadda. After all, a child who prefers to run around naked as most do before their parents insist on clothing them, must be closet exhibitionists right? Then, there's the families of the gay guys, of course from (make sure all the buzzwords are represented here) Strong conservative (check), protestant (check), evangelical (check), Creation-museum (check), Christian (check) types. Again, never mind the fact that your caricatures of gays are not representative of the whole nor are your caricatures of those who might find homosexuality complicated or distasteful. i.e. you've contributed nothing meaningful to this discussion other than your own stereotypes.

As for the "ignorant Christian" bit: well? You've got people who base their stance on what's written in the Old Testament and by Paul, I suppose. It's not like they've ever deliberately interacted with a gay person in any meaningful way. They don't have friends who are gay. It's not like they'd ever have one in their church, that's for sure. So what does that make them, then - well-informed about teh gays?
Conversely, based on your caricature of the "gay gene", it is likewise apparent to me that you've not availed yourself of too many gays either. Perhaps you were sheltered by your evangelical upbringing, who knows?

I won't speculate, all I asked is that you be very careful when chest pounding the sexual orientation of other people. It's none of your business and certainly not the business of this forum. See, if I were to speculate based on what I know of one's personality; I'd say the chances of you putting names to faces for this argument would be much greater in person, with a friend, over coffee... or chocolate milk and graham crackers as it were.

As usual, you're not addressing the argument. Instead you're doing the same old "look over there! Let's argue about that instead!" bit. Blah blah blah.
I addressed your argument as head on as is possible greg. My response just didn't fit in the neat little box you were hoping to argue with. Get a blog.
ebuddy
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2010, 07:46 AM
 
You're doing it again:

1. I didn't "chest-pound my gaydar success rate." I said that I'd "called them all 10 years ago." So had most of the people who knew them well; it wasn't some heroic feat on anyone's part. These guys were/are obviously gay men; you don't think it was telling that their heterosexual "relationships" all quickly ended up in an asexual BFF relationship? To paraphrase, the horse was lead to water, but it soon became clear that it had no interest in drinking.

2. You say "All these gay guys you know have either come out of the closet or not...." That is a complete misnomer. How would I know whether an otherwise straight-acting gay man is gay, unless he tells me? I've met gay men that I wouldn't've have been able to otherwise tell were gay. In my experience this is a rarity, but how would one know?

3. Thanks for the preaching on how to be sensitive to teh gays. I'm 99% sure your opinions about gay people - they should have civil unions not marriage, their lifestyle choice is immoral, they can't get to Heaven, they still exhibit the "choice" whether to come out as gay, their non-genetic homosexuality - stem from close, personal, and fulfilling relationships that you share with homosexuals.

4. Keep arguing about whether this means siblings will be able to marry. No, really. That's the best "head-on-as-possible" way to address the issue.



greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2010, 09:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
You're doing it again:

1. I didn't "chest-pound my gaydar success rate." I said that I'd "called them all 10 years ago." So had most of the people who knew them well; it wasn't some heroic feat on anyone's part. These guys were/are obviously gay men; you don't think it was telling that their heterosexual "relationships" all quickly ended up in an asexual BFF relationship? To paraphrase, the horse was lead to water, but it soon became clear that it had no interest in drinking.
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton
I'd called them all by about 10 years ago. One remains a holdout - but he'll come out, mark my words.
It seemed you were gloating about your ability to "call them" and marked one as a hold-out citing an unrelenting degree of confidence and a big grin. It struck me as bizarre and sophomoric, that's all.

2. You say "All these gay guys you know have either come out of the closet or not...." That is a complete misnomer. How would I know whether an otherwise straight-acting gay man is gay, unless he tells me? I've met gay men that I wouldn't've have been able to otherwise tell were gay. In my experience this is a rarity, but how would one know?
You knew. You called them all remember? You're claiming that another one is yet to come out, but mark your words; they will. Of course, they all played with girls clothes because that's what gays do right? I mean, it was clear in each and every one of their cases because they didn't "act straight". What can I say greg, we're at an impasse. I simply don't buy what you're sellin' here.

3. Thanks for the preaching on how to be sensitive to teh gays. I'm 99% sure your opinions about gay people - they should have civil unions not marriage, their lifestyle choice is immoral, they can't get to Heaven, they still exhibit the "choice" whether to come out as gay, their non-genetic homosexuality - stem from close, personal, and fulfilling relationships that you share with homosexuals.
Tell me you didn't just say "teh gays". C'mon man.

1. ALL should have civil unions. You're too emotionally invested here for whatever reason.
2. I never claimed their lifestyle was a choice. I'm always amazed at what people choose however, so... this could be subject to someone else's anecdotes for all I care. I'm heterosexual and while I could choose to live as a gay with a gay man, I choose not to. I suspect homosexuals are of the same mindset.
3. Their lifestyle choice is a byproduct of homosexuality. My lifestyle choice is a byproduct of heterosexuality.
4. I am not the arbiter of names in the Book of Life greg. I do not make judgements on who goes to heaven and hell. I've been taught that the wage of one sin is death and that we are all sinners. I would no more claim a gay is going to hell by virtue of their lifestyle than I would you or I.

4. Keep arguing about whether this means siblings will be able to marry. No, really. That's the best "head-on-as-possible" way to address the issue.
I've had no problems discussing this issue with reasonable posters who disagree with me greg. My points about siblings were directed at other posters, regarding other arguments.

Read the thread paying particular attention to our exchanges, locate those items you failed to address, and respond if you'd like. Who knows, I might be more open to accepting your charge that I've evaded your points. As it stands now, you've not really demonstrated that you're mature enough to maintain a conversation here, but I'm nothing if not fair and optimistic.
ebuddy
     
mrtew
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2010, 09:21 PM
 
Too bad this thread which should be celebrating the fact that America finally has equal marriage right has degenerated into arguing over who is most knowledgeable when it comes to generalizing about 30 million of it's citizens.

I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2010, 10:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by mrtew View Post
Too bad this thread which should be celebrating the fact that America finally has equal marriage right has degenerated into arguing over who is most knowledgeable when it comes to generalizing about 30 million of it's citizens.
although I couldn't help, but notice that you've not encouraged others who've essentially been saying that you can't generalize 30 million people. Anecdotes are used to draw a picture, but it is by definition a minor narrative.

As long as there is disagreement, there will be tempered celebration. I think it's a shame that marriage has been a Federal issue to begin with. America has not only had States allowing gay marriage for some time, but provisions such as those already in existence in California affording gays and lesbians equal protection under the law. It is a political football that will only serve to drive a wedge between people.

I remain cautiously optimistic however. Once this gets a Supreme Court hearing, perhaps we'll all be reminded of how much a marriage is worth fighting for.
ebuddy
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2010, 10:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
America has not only had States allowing gay marriage for some time....
Yes, May 17, 2004, is such a long time ago.

, but provisions such as those already in existence in California affording gays and lesbians equal protection under the law.
You need a dose of reality if you think that's really true.

It is a political football that will only serve to drive a wedge between people.
The only people driving a wedge are the ones who, for some inexplicable reason, feel that their marriages are threatened because a gay married couple lives next door. The gullible are always easy to hook with outright lies, clothed in emotional rhetoric.

I remain cautiously optimistic however. Once this gets a Supreme Court hearing, perhaps we'll all be reminded of how much a marriage is worth fighting for.
Do you have to fight to "protect" your marriage? If it means any less to you because your neighbors are gay and married, I would suggest that the problem is with you, and not them.
     
dcmacdaddy  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2010, 10:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
SNIP
3. Their lifestyle choice is a byproduct of homosexuality. My lifestyle choice is a byproduct of heterosexuality.
I am curious, in your mind what "lifestyle choice[s]" are a "byproduct of homosexuality" and what "lifestyle choice[s]" are a "byproduct of heterosexuality"? A simple list of these various choices will suffice.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2010, 11:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
I am curious, in your mind what "lifestyle choice[s]" are a "byproduct of homosexuality" and what "lifestyle choice[s]" are a "byproduct of heterosexuality"? A simple list of these various choices will suffice.
One that doesn't grossly generalize would be quite impressive.

Homosexuals are just as diverse a bunch as anybody else.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2010, 11:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
Yes, May 17, 2004, is such a long time ago.
6 years? It's better than 4 or 3 or 2 right? Did I say "a long time ago" or are you too emotionally involved in this issue to discuss it in an honest way?

You need a dose of reality if you think that's really true.
I'm willing to read anything you've got suggesting otherwise.

The only people driving a wedge are the ones who, for some inexplicable reason, feel that their marriages are threatened because a gay married couple lives next door. The gullible are always easy to hook with outright lies, clothed in emotional rhetoric.
The gullible would also include anyone who truly believes the only concern with the manner in which this is being handled is the "threat" of married gays living next door.

Do you have to fight to "protect" your marriage? If it means any less to you because your neighbors are gay and married, I would suggest that the problem is with you, and not them.
Why did you put the word "protect" in quotes as if I had used it? Again, all I ask is that you try to have an honest discussion. If you'd rather not talk about it, please just say so.

Let me be clear; I hope this issue serves to remind everyone how much marriage is worth fighting for. I don't mean the definition of it, I mean the execution of it. I've long-maintained that heterosexuals have been the ones squandering the opportunity while claiming its exceptionalism.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2010, 11:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
I am curious, in your mind what "lifestyle choice[s]" are a "byproduct of homosexuality" and what "lifestyle choice[s]" are a "byproduct of heterosexuality"? A simple list of these various choices will suffice.
Originally Posted by besson3c
One that doesn't grossly generalize would be quite impressive.

Homosexuals are just as diverse a bunch as anybody else.
You both missed the context and subsequently, the spirit of my response. I was responding to greg using greg's words; "lifestyle choice". I repeated the exact same sentence with "heterosexuality" to imply there is no difference between the two other than their sexual orientation. i.e. that would include whatever "lifestyle choices" he's referring to as the inconsequential argument in his statement.

BTW, did you guys miss point #2? Not unlike mrtew, I'm a little curious why y'all are addressing me?
( Last edited by ebuddy; Aug 9, 2010 at 11:34 PM. )
ebuddy
     
mrtew
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2010, 11:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The gullible would also include anyone who truly believes the only concern with the manner in which this is being handled is the "threat" of married gays living next door. ...

Let me be clear; I hope this issue serves to remind everyone how much marriage is worth fighting for. I don't mean the definition of it, I mean the execution of it. I've long-maintained that heterosexuals have been the ones squandering the opportunity while claiming its exceptionalism.
"the manner in which this is being handled"??? What do you mean by that. Are you implying that when a bunch of religious freaks raise untold millions of dollars to scare most all the states into changing their constitutions to eliminate the principal of equal treatment under law to keep gays in their place as second class citizens that the proper way to handle it is to keep having vote after vote where 52% of the vote can slap them back down again? I think not. I remember learning in 8th grade that the function of the constitution and the bill of rights and the 14th amendment is to protect minorities from that kind of crap even if conservatives who LOVE the constitution and the founding fathers' principals of freedom and equality don't. If you want to work it out in the states please remember that all the states with equal marriage were forced into into it by constitutional court cases, not by winning the hearts and minds of the voters and that interracial marriage laws had to be wiped out by the federal supreme court against the will of the good God fearing people too. Or am I reading you all wrong... what is the "manner this should be handled".

And you're not being clear at all in the other part I quoted. What do you mean? That straight people should stop cheating on eachother and stop getting divorces or is it something more profound?

I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2010, 12:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
6 years? It's better than 4 or 3 or 2 right? Did I say "a long time ago" or are you too emotionally involved in this issue to discuss it in an honest way?
You know perfectly well what you meant; "some time now" certainly implies more than six years, in a historical context. A rather disingenuous reply, IMO.


I'm willing to read anything you've got suggesting otherwise.
You also know, or should, that despite protections in place for certain legal rights for gay couples, the practice and enforcement of those protections is often another matter entirely.


The gullible would also include anyone who truly believes the only concern with the manner in which this is being handled is the "threat" of married gays living next door.
I never said it was the only concern, but it is in fact a major concern, and it has nothing to do with gays physically living next door. It's the perceived threat of allowing gays to marry, and the gullible being guided by their emotions, and not reasoning, when they are told that the state of marriage is threatened when homosexuals ask for the same right.


Why did you put the word "protect" in quotes as if I had used it? Again, all I ask is that you try to have an honest discussion. If you'd rather not talk about it, please just say so.

Let me be clear; I hope this issue serves to remind everyone how much marriage is worth fighting for. I don't mean the definition of it, I mean the execution of it. I've long-maintained that heterosexuals have been the ones squandering the opportunity while claiming its exceptionalism.
You are using a lot of double-talk and disingenuousness, attempting to paint others as dishonest, when it is in fact you who is being so. How people execute their marriage has nothing to do with how another couple/couples execute their own, and you know that (and if you don't, shame on you). Things only bother us that we let bother us, and gay marriage is an excellent example of that. A relatively few fear-mongers hook people on emotional rhetoric, telling them that the sanctity of their marriage is at stake if we allow homosexuals to marry, which is patently absurd, as the marriage covenant's importance amounts to whatever level a couple chooses to make it, exclusive of what others, such as homosexuals, choose to make of their own. Every time this discussion comes up here (or anywhere else for that matter), there are always those who spend innumerable words trying to make the issue bigger than it needs to be (including yourself, who had to make sure that it was stated that I'm too personally involved to be objective, when of course you're not). As has also been stated numerous times, here and elsewhere, gay marriage will happen, and further generations will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about, while many go to their graves not even beginning to comprehend how futile and wasted their efforts were, for something that never affected them in any event. History is full of stories of issues which were the beginning of the end of someone's perceived security, and it is always recognized, in retrospect, that a lot of foolish effort was wasted. This issue isn't any different.
     
dcmacdaddy  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2010, 12:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
I am curious, in your mind what "lifestyle choice[s]" are a "byproduct of homosexuality" and what "lifestyle choice[s]" are a "byproduct of heterosexuality"? A simple list of these various choices will suffice.

Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
One that doesn't grossly generalize would be quite impressive.

Homosexuals are just as diverse a bunch as anybody else.
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You both missed the context and subsequently, the spirit of my response. I was responding to greg using greg's words; "lifestyle choice". I repeated the exact same sentence with "heterosexuality" to imply there is no difference between the two other than their sexual orientation. i.e. that would include whatever "lifestyle choices" he's referring to as the inconsequential argument in his statement.

BTW, did you guys miss point #2? Not unlike mrtew, I'm a little curious why y'all are addressing me?
Why am I addressing you? I am arguing for the sake of arguing like I always do. I care far more about the debate than I do about the conclusion. Besides, on this matter, I stated my conclusion back in the very first post. Anyway . . .


You made an assertion that didn't seem clear to me so I questioned you on it. It would have been much easier to make your point if your reply to point #3 was "there is no difference between the two [lifestyles] other than their sexual orientation".

Thanks for the clarification.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2010, 05:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
You know perfectly well what you meant; "some time now" certainly implies more than six years, in a historical context. A rather disingenuous reply, IMO.
omg, whatever floats your boat man.

You also know, or should, that despite protections in place for certain legal rights for gay couples, the practice and enforcement of those protections is often another matter entirely.
So you have nothing to refute the point. That's what I thought. Thanks for admitting it.

I never said it was the only concern, but it is in fact a major concern, and it has nothing to do with gays physically living next door. It's the perceived threat of allowing gays to marry, and the gullible being guided by their emotions, and not reasoning, when they are told that the state of marriage is threatened when homosexuals ask for the same right.
It's amazing that you can know it all, yet know nothing all at the same time. There are many arguing about how this has been occurring, but you'll only address the arguments you can put in neat little boxes so you can argue caricatures and strawmen. Typical.

You are using a lot of double-talk and disingenuousness, attempting to paint others as dishonest, when it is in fact you who is being so. How people execute their marriage has nothing to do with how another couple/couples execute their own, and you know that (and if you don't, shame on you). Things only bother us that we let bother us, and gay marriage is an excellent example of that. A relatively few fear-mongers hook people on emotional rhetoric, telling them that the sanctity of their marriage is at stake if we allow homosexuals to marry, which is patently absurd, as the marriage covenant's importance amounts to whatever level a couple chooses to make it, exclusive of what others, such as homosexuals, choose to make of their own. Every time this discussion comes up here (or anywhere else for that matter), there are always those who spend innumerable words trying to make the issue bigger than it needs to be (including yourself, who had to make sure that it was stated that I'm too personally involved to be objective, when of course you're not). As has also been stated numerous times, here and elsewhere, gay marriage will happen, and further generations will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about, while many go to their graves not even beginning to comprehend how futile and wasted their efforts were, for something that never affected them in any event. History is full of stories of issues which were the beginning of the end of someone's perceived security, and it is always recognized, in retrospect, that a lot of foolish effort was wasted. This issue isn't any different.
Is it really this difficult for people to discuss this issue honestly? I'm guessin' not. ATTACK! What are you attacking? I don't know. Did I mention ATTACK?!?!?
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2010, 05:43 AM
 
So long as everyone got their rants in. This thread is ready.
ebuddy
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2010, 06:46 AM
 
Since my use of "lifestyle choice" was in a sentence in which I was clearly projecting for the sake of argument, it's rather amusing for you to agree with the term, then later backtrack and claim that I should be the one to "blame" for its appearance. What next, I should be castigated for saying their homosexuality isn't genetic?

Originally Posted by ebuddy
I'm heterosexual and while I could choose to live as a gay with a gay man, I choose not to.
Love it, great argument
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2010, 06:51 AM
 
ATTACK!!! Show me your mad face -
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2010, 06:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Since my use of "lifestyle choice" was in a sentence in which I was clearly projecting for the sake of argument...
So you were projecting for the sake of argument? Gee, I've not seen that before. And you're giving me kudos for a great argument.

Nice.

it's rather amusing for you to agree with the term, then later backtrack and claim that I should be the one to "blame" for its appearance. What next, I should be castigated for saying their homosexuality isn't genetic?
I didn't accept your premise any more than having included myself in the statement. That point from the point made just above it should've been patently clear to anyone paying attention. The problem is, too many are projecting for the sake of argument. It makes having a discussion around here all, but impossible.

Love it, great argument
Thanks. If you thought that was good, you should've read the rest of the statement.
ebuddy
     
mrtew
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2010, 07:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
...further generations will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about, while many go to their graves not even beginning to comprehend how futile and wasted their efforts were, for something that never affected them in any event. History is full of stories of issues which were the beginning of the end of someone's perceived security, and it is always recognized, in retrospect, that a lot of foolish effort was wasted. This issue isn't any different.
This probably is also partially true of the people who 'want' same-sex marriage. What they really want is equality and that's mostly what the issue is about. I have an anecdote to prove it too. When I first moved to Canada I went to a huge birthday dinner with my partner composed entirely of 25 other 'long-term' male couples who applauded our story of leaving the U.S. to freely love and marry in a more open minded country. The bizarre thing is that none of them had married and none really had plans to! I compare it to the gays in the military issue. 99% of gays don't want to join the military and maybe most don't even want to marry; they just don't want to be told they can't. They just want equality. The horrifying thing about this realization is the converse; that the opponents of equal marriage probably don't care that much if gays get married or join the army, they just don't want them treated as equals any more than anyone wants to be told they are the equal of someone they've always considered to be an abomination or a freak or a perv. Hopefully marriage and military service are the last fights between gays and straights and after these issues are put to bed we can all just get along.

I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
     
Oisín
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2010, 07:03 AM
 
Hopefully marriage and military service are the last fights between gays and straights and after these issues are put to bed we can all just get along.
Reported for unwarranted optimism. Though not really, of course.

Such behaviour is highly inappropriate and severely frowned upon here in the PWL, you know.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2010, 08:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Thanks. If you thought that was good, you should've read the rest of the statement.
Ooooo, a clarification! Well let's take a look then:

Originally Posted by ebuddy
I'm heterosexual and while I could choose to live as a gay with a gay man, I choose not to. I suspect homosexuals are of the same mindset.
(Emphasis added.)

So here, you see, is the interesting part. You suspect homosexuals are of the same mindset. Well, in fact, that's what most of the debate is about, isn't it? "Choice?" The freedom to "choose to live as a gay man?"

The simple fact is: for much of modern history, it wasn't a "choice." It still isn't a "choice" in many places which still retain bigoted attitudes, although I think those places are slowly disappearing in North America.

You've hit the nail on the head. Everyone can "choose" to live as a straight individual. But if you were gay, making the "choice" to publicly be so meant (and means in some cases) a life of ridicule, discrimination and even hate. To not make that "choice" meant a life of lying to everyone around you and having to put up with disgusting vagina all the time.*

So when you get on that high horse and pontificate that if you can "choose" to live as a straight man, homosexuals can probably just "choose" to live as a gay person too - it's a complete reacharound.

greg

*Gay men: they crazy
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2010, 08:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
omg, whatever floats your boat man.


So you have nothing to refute the point. That's what I thought. Thanks for admitting it.


It's amazing that you can know it all, yet know nothing all at the same time. There are many arguing about how this has been occurring, but you'll only address the arguments you can put in neat little boxes so you can argue caricatures and strawmen. Typical.



Is it really this difficult for people to discuss this issue honestly? I'm guessin' not. ATTACK! What are you attacking? I don't know. Did I mention ATTACK?!?!?
Speaking of projecting.........
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2010, 12:01 PM
 
seems like our buddy really doesn't want gays to be married...

he's fighting for his marriage!!!!!!
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2010, 12:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The gullible would also include anyone who truly believes the only concern with the manner in which this is being handled is the "threat" of married gays living next door.
What are the other concerns?
     
dcmacdaddy  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2010, 01:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
What are the other concerns?
Good point. ebuddy, what other societal concerns* are there about gays getting married?
*Societal concerns that are so important as to necessitate states discriminating against homosexuals to prevent them from getting married.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2010, 01:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
Good point. ebuddy, what other societal concerns* are there about gays getting married?
*Societal concerns that are so important as to necessitate states discriminating against homosexuals to prevent them from getting married.
That's not what I'm asking. He talked about a "concern with the manner in which this is being handled". Its those other concerns I'm looking for. I'm not exactly clear on what "manner" he's referring to, but I figure the concerns might reveal that.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2010, 02:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
You've hit the nail on the head. Everyone can "choose" to live as a straight individual. But if you were gay, making the "choice" to publicly be so meant (and means in some cases) a life of ridicule, discrimination and even hate. To not make that "choice" meant a life of lying to everyone around you and having to put up with disgusting vagina all the time.*
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2010, 02:02 PM
 
Because this image never gets old for me:


"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2010, 11:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
What are the other concerns?
I had a problem with running to the Federal government for DOMA in the first place, but it was State's rights that were argued in Massachusetts for example that allowed for same-sex marriage. The notion that one man can subvert the will of over 7 million people makes me pause for a sec. While it's not a battle I chose to fight, I don't like it. Just as I didn't like running to the Federal government for DOMA, I'm not much for running to Federal judges whenever the ballot box doesn't say what we want or to legislate someone else's moral code. What I do know is that whatever it was the Federal government was hoping to achieve by encouraging a "preferred condition" from the beginning of its involvement in matrimony, it's not working. Time to start anew with civil unions for any two people that commit to having one.

People talk about "threats" and homophobia and bigotry and enter religious slander here, but what they're missing is that most aren't religious at all nor do most people have the energy to express homophobia and bigotry. Most people are sociable enough that they'll overlook just about anything to associate with other people. Folks simply haven't elevated homosexuality to the degree that same-sex proponents have. Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Asians, men, women... they just aren't as ready to equate Prop 8 with Jim Crow or this ruling with Women's suffrage. I understand the view that a committed bond between man and woman as father and mother is the ideal, the standard, and at its level-best; the preferred condition. Others have certainly entered matrimony, but the ideal was conceived of child rearing. As crazy as it might sound, it's one of the few issues of real solidarity between parties and people. Many feel that much of this has been overblown and divisive; more political than progressive. While I believe I have sound arguments against all of these, I can understand their sentiment. California had already made provisions of equal protection for gays and lesbians, but what is sought (as expressed well by mrtew above) is validation. OldManMac was quick to say that the "equal protection" measure in the California code was essentially a joke because of its lack of enforcement for example, but he offers no reason why allowing same-sex marriage will magically produce validity in society. I have no problem with gays feeling validated and I hope people will view the demand for same-sex marriage as a reminder of the value of marriage, instilling greater validity among all married couples.

Ultimately, I'd rather the Federal government was less involved and I see them as more involved at present.
** waits for the emotional response with something akin to Jim Crow or Women's suffrage, abortion, or allowing anti-gay, pro-Creationism prayers in class. Not you Dakar**
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2010, 11:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Ooooo, a clarification! Well let's take a look then:

(Emphasis added.)

So here, you see, is the interesting part. You suspect homosexuals are of the same mindset. Well, in fact, that's what most of the debate is about, isn't it? "Choice?" The freedom to "choose to live as a gay man?"

The simple fact is: for much of modern history, it wasn't a "choice." It still isn't a "choice" in many places which still retain bigoted attitudes, although I think those places are slowly disappearing in North America.

You've hit the nail on the head. Everyone can "choose" to live as a straight individual. But if you were gay, making the "choice" to publicly be so meant (and means in some cases) a life of ridicule, discrimination and even hate. To not make that "choice" meant a life of lying to everyone around you and having to put up with disgusting vagina all the time.*

So when you get on that high horse and pontificate that if you can "choose" to live as a straight man, homosexuals can probably just "choose" to live as a gay person too - it's a complete reacharound.

greg

*Gay men: they crazy
At least you didn't say teh crazy. Exactly how is gay marriage going to magically cure all the societal ills you've spewed above? Besides, I don't know where you're hangin' out, but I don't know any gays wallowing in the misery of victimization. They are championed at my employer, considered for affirmative action, and get along very well with others. A great deal of resources, training, and material are used to bolster and maintain respect for diversity, in some cases with specific regard to homosexuals. They talk and party and are as open as anyone else in the workplace. There are a whole bunch of reasons to dislike people and create an exclusionary environment.

For example, you might hate people who simply don't equate Prop 8 with Jim Crow and this latest ruling with Women's suffrage.
ebuddy
     
mrtew
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2010, 12:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The notion that one man can subvert the will of over 7 million people makes me pause for a sec.
Even assuming that you don't agree that democracy means protecting the rights of the majority honouring the will of the majority, I still have to say something about this horrible math being spewed repeatedly. It wasn't one man subverting the will of over 7 million people. It was the will of one man and just under 7 million people subverting the will of over 7 million people, right??? That sounds more fair and balanced and accurate to me. How about to you? And California has about 40 million people so I don't feel as comfortable with 17% of the population of the state voting away the constitutional rights of 10% of the people over the wishes of 16% of the population as you do. In fact I don't think that 90% of the population can legally vote away 10% of the population's constitutional rights but I bet they could get away with it with people like you around. And it wasn't just any one magical old man subverting a close vote over constitutional rights, it was a federal judge originally appointed by Reagan to do his job to uphold the constitution. Why do you diminish the constitution and the balance of the three branches of govt at every turn just because you don't like gay people getting equal rights?

I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2010, 07:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by mrtew View Post
Even assuming that you don't agree that democracy means protecting the rights of the majority honouring the will of the majority, I still have to say something about this horrible math being spewed repeatedly. It wasn't one man subverting the will of over 7 million people. It was the will of one man and just under 7 million people subverting the will of over 7 million people, right??? That sounds more fair and balanced and accurate to me. How about to you?
Okay, you could say one man subverted the will of over 1.4 million people then. That was the difference in the vote and that's how the voting system works. We have this knack for running to the Federal courts whenever the ballot box doesn't say what we want, but folks have an accompanying amnesia that conveniently forgets how Federal involvement was the problem to begin with.

And California has about 40 million people so I don't feel as comfortable with 17% of the population of the state voting away the constitutional rights of 10% of the people over the wishes of 16% of the population as you do.
With math like this it is apparent that gays in California would've done well with a "get out the gay vote". I have no doubt that had the vote for Prop 8 gone the other way and California wanted to grant same-sex marriages in spite of the Defense of Marriage Act, you'd have been championing State's rights.

In fact I don't think that 90% of the population can legally vote away 10% of the population's constitutional rights but I bet they could get away with it with people like you around.
People like me who have been arguing for civil unions for years? Do tell. What constitutional right are you talking about? Instead of individual rights, you're now championing the oft-cited Constitutional principle of couples' rights? I can't wait to hear it. Any other Constitutional principles you'd like to champion? I'm all ears.

And it wasn't just any one magical old man subverting a close vote over constitutional rights, it was a federal judge originally appointed by Reagan to do his job to uphold the constitution. Why do you diminish the constitution and the balance of the three branches of govt at every turn just because you don't like gay people getting equal rights?
The fact that this man was a Reagan nominee and a Bush appointment is no more relevant than the fact that he's gay. You might know there is disagreement on the Constitution and the "balance of the three branches of govt" in light of the power of the electorate; without any "not liking" going on. I suspect this is why "marriage" is now a right and "equal protection of various marriages" was just recently found in the Constitution. It's buried somewhere under freedom of speech I'm sure.

Lose the red herrings, they don't become you.
ebuddy
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2010, 08:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Besides, I don't know where you're hangin' out, but I don't know any gays wallowing in the misery of victimization.
Yeah totally, come to think of it I know a bunch of non-Caucasians and they're not wallowing either - affirmative action, the whole bit.

These sort of claims must be a total sham.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2010, 10:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
OldManMac was quick to say that the "equal protection" measure in the California code was essentially a joke because of its lack of enforcement for example, but he offers no reason why allowing same-sex marriage will magically produce validity in society.
It has nothing to do with validity in society. It has (and it really is a simple concept, despite all the superfluous verbiage being thrown about, in an attempt to obfuscate the issue) to do with two adult people who decide that they want to spend their lives together legally, enjoying all of the same legal benefits as heterosexual couples. Civil Unions are not the same, for a number of reasons, one of the most important being that many private and public institutions still erect a barrier to homosexual couples, despite there being some measure of supposed protection.

"Society" doesn't have to validate something that doesn't affect it (another concept that conveniently gets overlooked). Gays getting married is not going to result in a rush of males who aren't homosexual suddenly deciding to get married. It's not going to result in children being converted to homosexuality! The problem, of course, is that the ignorant believe that it will, and they're being goaded by even more ignorant people (like NOM), who can't effectively debate an issue on logical grounds, thus using emotionalism (which is often used by those who are afraid of change), which is indeed a very powerful stimulus, but not one which in the end holds any water.


Ultimately, I'd rather the Federal government was less involved and I see them as more involved at present.
We are a mobile society, and have been for quite some time. This isn't the 1700s any more where people stayed in their own little communities, and shunned outsiders who were different. The world really has changed since then. The same protections should be afforded to all U. S. citizens, and not be stripped away simply because they choose to relocate, for any reason whatsoever.
( Last edited by OldManMac; Aug 11, 2010 at 10:16 AM. )
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2010, 10:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
It has nothing to do with validity in society. It has (and it really is a simple concept, despite all the superfluous verbiage being thrown about, in an attempt to obfuscate the issue) to do with two adult people who decide that they want to spend their lives together legally, enjoying all of the same legal benefits as heterosexual couples.
They have legal recourse for not obeying the law as it stands today. As I understand it, gays in California can live together legally. When you're talking about "benefits", you're talking about something the government should not be involved in. Rights however, are another matter. They should enjoy all the same property rights, visitation, insurance, etc... and in my State these are all provisions made available to same-sex couples.

Civil Unions are not the same, for a number of reasons, one of the most important being that many private and public institutions still erect a barrier to homosexual couples, despite there being some measure of supposed protection.
When a business, employer, or entity is in non-compliance with the law, they are in non-compliance with the law. If they have a problem acknowledging family code or civil unions now, there's nothing to suggest they'll have no problems acknowledging marriage. This is no panacea for equal treatment.

"Society" doesn't have to validate something that doesn't affect it (another concept that conveniently gets overlooked). Gays getting married is not going to result in a rush of males who aren't homosexual suddenly deciding to get married. It's not going to result in children being converted to homosexuality! The problem, of course, is that the ignorant believe that it will, and they're being goaded by even more ignorant people (like NOM), who can't effectively debate an issue on logical grounds, thus using emotionalism (which is often used by those who are afraid of change), which is indeed a very powerful stimulus, but not one which in the end holds any water.
You're wrong. I'm telling you as long as you maintain this line of reasoning regardless of what people are telling you, you are not interested in progress for homosexuals. Period. This is just mule-headed chest-pounding with someone who should be in general agreement with you.

We are a mobile society, and have been for quite some time. This isn't the 1700s any more where people stayed in their own little communities, and shunned outsiders who were different. The world really has changed since then. The same protections should be afforded to all U. S. citizens, and not be stripped away simply because they choose to relocate, for any reason whatsoever.
I agree, the same protections should be afforded all US citizens. I don't think anyone in this thread has said otherwise.
ebuddy
     
mrtew
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2010, 10:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Okay, you could say one man subverted the will of over 1.4 million people then. That was the difference in the vote and that's how the voting system works. We have this knack for running to the Federal courts whenever the ballot box doesn't say what we want, but folks have an accompanying amnesia that conveniently forgets how Federal involvement was the problem to begin with.
I'd say that we run to the federal courts when the states violate the constitution. What other cases are you thinking of where people run to the federal court for nothing but state disappointment?


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
With math like this it is apparent that gays in California would've done well with a "get out the gay vote". I have no doubt that had the vote for Prop 8 gone the other way and California wanted to grant same-sex marriages in spite of the Defense of Marriage Act, you'd have been championing State's rights.
What does the Defence of Marriage Act say that would stop CA from granting equal marriage rights? You're a pretty clueless guy for all your talking. And of course I'd argue in favour of honouring any government's decision that gave me equal rights!!! You think I'm pro-federal court or something??? I'm pro-equality.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
People like me who have been arguing for civil unions for years? Do tell. What constitutional right are you talking about? Instead of individual rights, you're now championing the oft-cited Constitutional principle of couples' rights? I can't wait to hear it. Any other Constitutional principles you'd like to champion? I'm all ears.
I'm talking about the 14th amendment's guarantee of equal treatment under law, what are you talking about? You're starting to lost me completely with your slippery doubletalk. If you think civil unions are enough then let's just let straight people have civil unions and gays can have marriage.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The fact that this man was a Reagan nominee and a Bush appointment is no more relevant than the fact that he's gay. You might know there is disagreement on the Constitution and the "balance of the three branches of govt" in light of the power of the electorate; without any "not liking" going on. I suspect this is why "marriage" is now a right and "equal protection of various marriages" was just recently found in the Constitution. It's buried somewhere under freedom of speech I'm sure.
No it's buried under equal treatment under law by the government. Every state and federal court that has ruled on marriage has always made the same finding. That's why all those state constitutions were changed. To specifically say that gays are not equal. That marriage is a right only for straight people. You want to turn it into a state v fed debate. I don't care about that at all. Any part of the govt that wants to stick up for equal rights has my support. Anyone willing to tear them down apparently has yours. If anyone ever wants to take away your constitutional rights however I will defend yours.

I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2010, 10:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
These sort of claims must be a total sham.
Not all claims, just yours. I mean... IMO.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2010, 12:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by mrtew View Post
I'd say that we run to the federal courts when the states violate the constitution. What other cases are you thinking of where people run to the federal court for nothing but state disappointment?
You might know there's disagreement on what does and does not violate the constitution. Immigration law and border enforcement for one.

What does the Defence of Marriage Act say that would stop CA from granting equal marriage rights? You're a pretty clueless guy for all your talking. And of course I'd argue in favour of honouring any government's decision that gave me equal rights!!! You think I'm pro-federal court or something??? I'm pro-equality.
Equal marriage rights? Ahh yes, of course ... then the insults. The irony is missed on you I'm sure.

Under DOMA, no state needs to treat as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state. Per section 2 of DOMA, marriage is defined as a legal union between one man and one woman.

Massachusett's argued state's rights in its first-ever challenge to DOMA;
The suit filed by state Attorney General Martha Coakley says the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 violates the US Constitution by interfering with the state’s right to define the marital status of residents. The suit also says the law forces the state to discriminate against same-sex married couples - on certain health benefits and burial rights - or risk losing federal funding.

I'm talking about the 14th amendment's guarantee of equal treatment under law, what are you talking about?
I'm talking about life, liberty, and property. I'm talking about due process, the Bill of Rights which apply to all the States through the privileges and immunities clause in the 14th amendment, and I'm talking about equal protection. You're talking about equal treatment. Equal treatment of what and how? Under due process in accordance with the laws of that State; in this case California? Bzzt. In accordance with Federal law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman? Bzzt! Tell me, when's the last time you heard of someone appealing to State law to have a right dissolved? It's no wonder you haven't a clue what I'm talking about. I hope the lack of time you've spent reading my posts is not indicative of the time you've spent becoming informed enough to tell me I haven't a clue.

You're starting to lost me completely with your slippery doubletalk. If you think civil unions are enough then let's just let straight people have civil unions and gays can have marriage.
I not only think civil unions are enough, I think it is the preferred language of a Federal provision that cannot effectively grant or take away personal relationships to begin with.

So... let me see if I understand your argument here though;

Why don't I undo 200,000 years of cultural universal? Do I really have to go through all that to support state's rights? egadz.

No it's buried under equal treatment under law by the government. Every state and federal court that has ruled on marriage has always made the same finding. That's why all those state constitutions were changed. To specifically say that gays are not equal. That marriage is a right only for straight people. You want to turn it into a state v fed debate. I don't care about that at all.
I know you don't. I say this thing goes 5-4 in the SCOTUS for upholding Prop 8. Show me your face.

ebuddy
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2010, 12:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You might know there's disagreement on what does and does not violate the constitution. Immigration law and border enforcement for one.


Equal marriage rights? Ahh yes, of course ... then the insults. The irony is missed on you I'm sure.

Under DOMA, no state needs to treat as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state. Per section 2 of DOMA, marriage is defined as a legal union between one man and one woman.

Massachusett's argued state's rights in its first-ever challenge to DOMA;
The suit filed by state Attorney General Martha Coakley says the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 violates the US Constitution by interfering with the state’s right to define the marital status of residents. The suit also says the law forces the state to discriminate against same-sex married couples - on certain health benefits and burial rights - or risk losing federal funding.


I'm talking about life, liberty, and property. I'm talking about due process, the Bill of Rights which apply to all the States through the privileges and immunities clause in the 14th amendment, and I'm talking about equal protection. You're talking about equal treatment. Equal treatment of what and how? Under due process in accordance with the laws of that State; in this case California? Bzzt. In accordance with Federal law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman? Bzzt! Tell me, when's the last time you heard of someone appealing to State law to have a right dissolved? It's no wonder you haven't a clue what I'm talking about. I hope the lack of time you've spent reading my posts is not indicative of the time you've spent becoming informed enough to tell me I haven't a clue.


I not only think civil unions are enough, I think it is the preferred language of a Federal provision that cannot effectively grant or take away personal relationships to begin with.

So... let me see if I understand your argument here though;

Why don't I undo 200,000 years of cultural universal? Do I really have to go through all that to support state's rights? egadz.


I know you don't. I say this thing goes 5-4 in the SCOTUS for upholding Prop 8. Show me your face.

Wow. He argues for what is unarguably the best solution for all: Equal treatment for gays and straights under the law with civil unions, and he's still told he's clueless. Its a good thing we have ebuddy to wipe the floor with the woefully hypocritical... otherwise I might have to step in his place.

Back to the regularly scheduled debate.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2010, 02:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post


I know you don't. I say this thing goes 5-4 in the SCOTUS for upholding Prop 8. Show me your face.

I bet ebuddy supports anti-miscegention laws too.

I say thing goes 6-3 in the SCOTUS ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, just as anti-miscegenation laws was ruled unconstitutional by a 9-0 vote.

3 voting in favor of Prop 8 would be the 3 conservative activist judges.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2010, 07:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You're wrong. I'm telling you as long as you maintain this line of reasoning regardless of what people are telling you, you are not interested in progress for homosexuals. Period. This is just mule-headed chest-pounding with someone who should be in general agreement with you.
I am not wrong, and it is exactly an irrational fear of the different that drives this issue, just as irrational fear of the different drives every major issue when it comes to individual rights. I suppose you're now going to tell me that the NOM attack ads, where they point out their fear of their children being exposed to homosexuality, don't exist. You should be ashamed of yourself for pretending there is some more noble cause, based on reasoning, that needs to be argued here, if that's where you're heading with your silly "chest-pounding" statement. Most people have an extraordinarily hard time adapting to change (history clearly shows that), yet the world is still spinning quite handily without their attempt to take us back to those good old (but mythical) "family values" days.

This issue is about fear, and you can take that to the bank.
     
mrtew
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2010, 07:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You might know there's disagreement on what does and does not violate the constitution.
The court rulings on this issue are unanimous. And the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment is absolute, not subject to due process. Nor is it subordinate to the power of the states, as it was written specifically to disallow the states' practices of unequal treatment.

I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2010, 07:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
I bet ebuddy supports anti-miscegention laws too.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2010, 07:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by mrtew View Post
The court rulings on this issue are unanimous. And the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment is absolute, not subject to due process. Nor is it subordinate to the power of the states, as it was written specifically to disallow the states' practices of unequal treatment.
Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1055

Court rulings on this issue are not unanimous. It has nothing to do with unequal treatment and everything to do with equal access to the judicial process for grievances. Again, you're confusing "protection" with "treatment". It is a clause to ensure the Bill of Rights cannot be subverted by the several states.
ebuddy
     
dcmacdaddy  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2010, 10:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I'm talking about life, liberty, and property. I'm talking about due process, the Bill of Rights which apply to all the States through the privileges and immunities clause in the 14th amendment, and I'm talking about equal protection. You're talking about equal treatment. Equal treatment of what and how?
Umm, ebuddy . . . Your attempts at semantic subterfuge are beneath you.

Equal protection IS equal treatment. Treating all citizens equally in the eyes of the law serves to ensure that all citizens are equally protected by the Constitution.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
dcmacdaddy  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2010, 10:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I not only think civil unions are enough, I think it is the preferred language of a Federal provision that cannot effectively grant or take away personal relationships to begin with.
We're not talking about the federal government granting or taking away "personal relationships". We're talking about the federal government granting legal recognition of relationships. If the government is going to recognize opposite-sex unions it should also recognize same-sex unions to ensure all citizens are treated equally in the eyes of the law.

Whether this legal recognition is called civil union or marriage is irrelevant to me. Personally, I think the government should grant civil unions and leave marriages to the church/temple/mosque. Practically, I think the government should stick with the terminology of marriage as it is already used in the law and just extend the definition of the term to include same-sex relationships.
( Last edited by dcmacdaddy; Aug 12, 2010 at 10:55 AM. )
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2010, 11:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I had a problem with running to the Federal government for DOMA in the first place, but it was State's rights that were argued in Massachusetts for example that allowed for same-sex marriage. The notion that one man can subvert the will of over 7 million people makes me pause for a sec. While it's not a battle I chose to fight, I don't like it.
Isn't that how the system is set-up to work? Checks & Balances? If you do something unconstitutional, someone needs to be there to call you on it. Isn't what happened tyranny of the majority?

You know what I don't understand – constitutional amendments that don't require a supermajority. I think it's preposterous to change your constitution without clear-cut support.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Just as I didn't like running to the Federal government for DOMA, I'm not much for running to Federal judges whenever the ballot box doesn't say what we want or to legislate someone else's moral code. What I do know is that whatever it was the Federal government was hoping to achieve by encouraging a "preferred condition" from the beginning of its involvement in matrimony, it's not working.
In what is sense matrimony not working?

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Time to start anew with civil unions for any two people that commit to having one.
And I'll point out with the rest of the rational people that this entirely fair, if not better.

That said, here is the problem: No one (at least so few that I haven't heard of it) is actively pushing to replace marriage with civil unions. In the end I think most people are hypocrites in this regard. You want to "save" marriage? Then beat the pro same-sex advocates to the punch and have all marriages made into civil unions. It's not going to happen. Honestly, they had their chance. This must have been seen coming nationally with the passage of DOMA, but no one decided to do the right thing and instead decided to be obstructionist. Now they get their just reward.

(and as I've pointed out before, what about the terminology for civil unions? I imagine in the end the vernacular will remain married [rather than unionized], which means the victory, if it were to occur, would most likely be one of principle, rather than reality)


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
People talk about "threats" and homophobia and bigotry and enter religious slander here, but what they're missing is that most aren't religious at all nor do most people have the energy to express homophobia and bigotry. Most people are sociable enough that they'll overlook just about anything to associate with other people. Folks simply haven't elevated homosexuality to the degree that same-sex proponents have. Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Asians, men, women... they just aren't as ready to equate Prop 8 with Jim Crow or this ruling with Women's suffrage.
Maybe not as ground-breaking, but there are some definite parallels as far as separate-but-equal are concerned. And the majority of the rationale seems to be based either on sentiment, tradition, or verbal semantics.

Still, the amount of resistance is so mind-blowing. By making this such a big deal, people are making this into Jim Crow and Women's Suffrage.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I understand the view that a committed bond between man and woman as father and mother is the ideal, the standard, and at its level-best; the preferred condition. Others have certainly entered matrimony, but the ideal was conceived of child rearing. As crazy as it might sound, it's one of the few issues of real solidarity between parties and people. Many feel that much of this has been overblown and divisive; more political than progressive. While I believe I have sound arguments against all of these, I can understand their sentiment.
I think that's historically debatable, but I don't want to enter that debate. I suppose culturally, that's accurate to a degree.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
California had already made provisions of equal protection for gays and lesbians, but what is sought (as expressed well by mrtew above) is validation. OldManMac was quick to say that the "equal protection" measure in the California code was essentially a joke because of its lack of enforcement for example, but he offers no reason why allowing same-sex marriage will magically produce validity in society. I have no problem with gays feeling validated and I hope people will view the demand for same-sex marriage as a reminder of the value of marriage, instilling greater validity among all married couples.
I don't see how this has anything to do with validity. Maybe for the insecure (on either side), but otherwise this just about being able to do what everyone else can.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2010, 07:51 PM
 
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2010, 08:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Isn't that how the system is set-up to work? Checks & Balances? If you do something unconstitutional, someone needs to be there to call you on it. Isn't what happened tyranny of the majority?
Checks and balances typically refers to the representation on the HIll, not a Federal check against a State regarding matters for which it has no jurisdiction. Tyranny of the majority? Not any more than any other ballot initiative that doesn't involve a constitutional right. That's how voting works. The majority wins.

In what is sense matrimony not working?
  • The perceived "importance" of marriage in trying to legitimize an illegitimate relationship.
  • The divorce rate
  • antiquated legislation around property, income distribution, and child visitation.
  • Clogging the judicial system with divorce
... to name a few. I think it's time we ask ourselves what exactly we're encouraging here.

And I'll point out with the rest of the rational people that this entirely fair, if not better.

That said, here is the problem: No one (at least so few that I haven't heard of it) is actively pushing to replace marriage with civil unions. In the end I think most people are hypocrites in this regard. You want to "save" marriage? Then beat the pro same-sex advocates to the punch and have all marriages made into civil unions. It's not going to happen. Honestly, they had their chance. This must have been seen coming nationally with the passage of DOMA, but no one decided to do the right thing and instead decided to be obstructionist. Now they get their just reward.

(and as I've pointed out before, what about the terminology for civil unions? I imagine in the end the vernacular will remain married [rather than unionized], which means the victory, if it were to occur, would most likely be one of principle, rather than reality)
I agree with all the above. Defending "marriage" is not something that can be done at the Federal level or even the State level for that matter. It starts with the family, upbringing, discernment, not making impulse decisions as if you're picking out a toothbrush, etc..., but these are all the difficulties around societal ills that people have a tendency to try mitigating with Federal legislation. Folks want to talk about the sanctity of marriage, but they've not been good stewards of their own. It's all just silly IMO.

Maybe not as ground-breaking, but there are some definite parallels as far as separate-but-equal are concerned. And the majority of the rationale seems to be based either on sentiment, tradition, or verbal semantics.
That's because they tiptoe around the issue for fear of being called homophobic, intolerant, hateful, bigoted, etc..., but what they need to understand is that it doesn't matter how they frame their view. If it is not in absolute lock-step with same-sex marriage proponents as evidenced in this thread, you will be viewed as homophobic, intolerant, hateful, bigoted, etc...

The fact of the matter is that most are not able to equate sexual orientation with race and gender and most believe that a marriage between a mother and father at its level-best is the preferred condition. This is the condition they seek to protect. This is the condition they're willing to support with their tax dollars and their vote. When gays talk of being denied rights, they're not talking about the right not to be sold on an auction block, or vote, or own property, or sit and eat where they want, drink where they want, be employed, etc... They're generally talking about wanting to get married. IMO, they need to spend more time highlighting the actual constitutional rights they're being denied in some states such as the right to share property, estates, insurance, visitation should their loved one become ill, etc...

Still, the amount of resistance is so mind-blowing. By making this such a big deal, people are making this into Jim Crow and Women's Suffrage.
IMO this has more to do with how proponents have framed the debate. I think they marginalize the plights of blacks and women in this country by doing so.

I don't see how this has anything to do with validity. Maybe for the insecure (on either side), but otherwise this just about being able to do what everyone else can.
"Validity" in this sense was meant to address OldManMac's point that too many do not acknowledge the laws that had been drafted to provide equal protection for gays. My point was that there's little to suggest they'd acknowledge "marriage" and to dovetail off your point; I think you're correct when you say a victory would be more in principle than in practice.
ebuddy
     
mrtew
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2010, 08:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
... When gays talk of being denied rights, they're not talking about the right not to be sold on an auction block, or vote, or own property, or sit and eat where they want, drink where they want, be employed, etc... They're generally talking about wanting to get married. IMO, they need to spend more time highlighting the actual constitutional rights they're being denied in some states such as the right to share property, estates, insurance, visitation should their loved one become ill, etc...
OK I'll highlight the right I'm being denied in EVERY state because of this issue. I fell in love with someone from another country who had to leave the US after a few years when his visa ran out. We went to lawyer after lawyer looking for any way we could stay together. They said if we were a straight couple we could get married and there'd be no problem but since we don't have equal rights in the United States our only option was to move to another country where they have already entered the 21st century. It took 18 months of separation and thousands of dollars not to mention having to leave my home and country which is supposed to be the best in the world but we now truly do have equality and a life together. This is probably just an 'argument' to you because you don't know us, but to me it's a life-changing experience that altered the way I think of people and my country and the world and the BS I was taught in civics class. And I can tell you that changing the law really DOES change people's minds and very fast. It's amazing how nobody here even blinks at two legally married men and this is the heart of the small-town midwest, not downtown Toronto or Vancouver. And anyway, why should Americans have to 'hightlight' and whine about each benefit and right we are being denied since we can't get married just because you're not comfortable giving us your "level-best" blessing as equal citizens? Thank God those days are almost over!

I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:50 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,