[CollinG3G4]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

Whatever you may think about whether gay marriage or even just being gay is valid--this leaves an individuals' personal choices up to him or her--and not up to some groups arbitrary religious beliefs.
[/url]

Ha! Wasn't the ban on gay marriage a result of the majority of votes against it?

[TheWOAT]

well, in November all of this could be for not, if a referendum to ammend the Constitution to define marriage gets on the ballot and passes. Either way, even though I define marraige as a union between a man and woman, I dont object to gay marraige, its not really my business. Good luck to teh gays.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

This court decision has no impact outside of California, so if you're not saying Republicans are going to win CA, then what you've said makes even less sense.

lol

That was worthless and inane but what else could one expect from someone of your caliber.

So I suppose Goodridge had no impact on the national debate about gay marriage that was stirred up in that election cycle?
If you say so...

We'll seehow it plays out in the fall. As I stated the fervor that year was not brought about by the candidates. It was activism that forced the conversation into living rooms and then to the polling booths.

But whatever. If your memory of how things went down that year are foggy then only a medical specialist can address a mental deficiency of that sort. No one here can be of help to convince you otherwise.
ABC News: Was Same-Sex Marriage Partly to Blame for Kerry Loss?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

lol

I can almost see the drool.

I'll try to walk through this very slowly for you.

Why did conservatives get out to vote on gay marriage in states around the US in 2004? Hint: people get out to vote for things actually on the ballot.

Where are there similar reasons for conservatives to get out to vote on gay marriage in 2008? Hint: It's the state that we're discussing in this thread, and not the other states that you're fantasizing about.

But yeah, African-Americans are going to vote for McCain over Obama in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania because in California, the governor, the legislature, and the courts support gay marriage in their own state.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

I don't care what 55% of Americans think. 55% of Americans are idiots (not necessarily the same ones who oppose gay marriage, but I'm sure there's a big overlap). Actually, way more than 55% of Americans are idiots.

That's very narrow minded and elitist of you. That attitude is one of the major things wrong with the left-wingers in this country.

A lot of Americans would support a lot of things that are against their own best interests, mostly because they've been tricked into it by someone or something.

Yeah, like government financed healthcare…

I'm not opposed to gay marriage at all, I'm pretty neutral I think, but I fail to see how allowing gay marriage is in MY best interest as a hetero man.

I do not care what the majority of people think.

- G.W. Bush, Washington D.C. 2003.

The issue is a moral one, and banning same-sex marriage makes absolutely no sense on moral grounds.

You sure you wanna go there? Legislating based upon purely moral basis? Isn't this something that the right and their religious lobbyist supporters have been blasted over for years? One CAN make a quantifiable health/medical based argument why for example sodomy shouldn't be legal as well. To hell with what the people think, right?

It doesn't help anyone to ban it, it only hurts people.

I guess that depends upon your definition of "hurt". I have yet to see a better argument than "cuz it ain't fair".

I don't think it's fair that even though my sister is unable to bear children, I STILL cannot legally marry her. It would hurt no one.
Yeah um, I'm really not into my sister. Just to be clear.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

That's very narrow minded and elitist of you. That attitude is one of the major things wrong with the left-wingers in this country.

Please, this is a really dumb generalization. You could say that all of the cold anti-welfare sort of Republicans who think that people who are not financially successful are lazy are elitist. You could call your evangelicals elitist, or any number of celebrities.

You know what? There is nothing wrong with being elitist. Why would we not want elite people in our society? Humility is a good thing, and I think this is really the driving force behind your half-baked point here, but being elite is something to be proud of.

The bothersome part of the whole elitist label to me is that it sort of implies that we dumb down intellectualism so that we cater towards the lowest common denominator some more. Of course, there are legitimate elitist/snobbery labels, but when this country's educational system is faring poorly globally and idiocy seems to be growing in numbers and influence each passing day, I say that we encourage more intellectual elitism, and not less.

Is this statement elitist? Maybe, I don't really care. Just as many Republicans say that people on welfare get a damn job and stop being lazy, I say that idiots get a brain and start using their head. Sue me.

Yeah, like government financed healthcare…

We should be talking about this as well as any number of other options since what we have does not work, no? In order to talk about this in a productive manner, we need to actually inform ourselves and dispense with the knee-jerk reactions. I'm a Canadian living in America, and I don't know how many times people have demonstrated their lack of understanding of a public health care system to me - be it something negative or something positive.


Are you really a reverand, or is your signature supposed to be humorous? Just wondering...

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Please, this is a really dumb generalization.

A generalization yes, but not so dumb. At their best the left wingers treat the average American as if they were children that need taking care of.

You could say that all of the cold anti-welfare sort of Republicans who think that people who are not financially successful are lazy are elitist.

Yes you could. It would be a generalization that has some truth to it IMO.

You could call your evangelicals elitist, or any number of celebrities.

They're not MY evangelicals and yes, they are pretty elitist IMO.

You know what? There is nothing wrong with being elitist. Why would we not want elite people in our society?

It's not being "elite", it's the snobbery and condescension of those who THINK that they are better than others. You say that there is nothing wrong with tearing down other people? Being "smarter" than another person does not mean you are better than them.

being elite is something to be proud of.

Being elitist has never done anyone any good ever. It's just another way to feed your own ego and look down on other people.

The bothersome part of the whole elitist label to me is that it sort of implies that we dumb down intellectualism so that we cater towards the lowest common denominator some more.

You mean like making it harder and harder to achieve financial success while simultaneously using the excessive taxation of those who actually achieve that success to subsidize those who haven't? THAT kind of dumbing down?

Of course, there are legitimate elitist/snobbery labels, but when this country's educational system is faring poorly globally and idiocy seems to be growing in numbers and influence each passing day, I say that we encourage more intellectual elitism, and not less.

I agree that our education system sucks. I have children, I know. Maybe I am not using "elitism" the way you are but to re-iterate, it's one thing to be intelligent and well educated but it's another to tear down those who aren't. It does no one any good a all.

Is this statement elitist? Maybe, I don't really care. Just as many Republicans say that people on welfare get a damn job and stop being lazy, I say that idiots get a brain and start using their head. Sue me.

What's with the hostility?

If it is, as you say, the education system that is screwing things up then is it their fault for being idiots? When you say things like that you aren't trying to help or solve problems. You are just being a jerk.

We should be talking about this as well as any number of other options since what we have does not work, no?

Yes.

In order to talk about this in a productive manner, we need to actually inform ourselves and dispense with the knee-jerk reactions.

Yes.

I'm a Canadian living in America, and I don't know how many times people have demonstrated their lack of understanding of a public health care system to me - be it something negative or something positive.

I agree and at times I have done exactly that. At the same time there are those from other countries who don't understand this topic from the American point of view. They either refuse to acknowledge the serious problems with OUR SCREWED UP government or respect the American cultural differences that cause us to resist such schemes as government healthcare.

Are you really a reverand, or is your signature supposed to be humorous? Just wondering...

Yes on both counts. I gotta love a church that allows me to be an atheist, Taoist minister. Need me to perform a marriage?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

A generalization yes, but not so dumb. At their best the left wingers treat the average American as if they were children that need taking care of.

This is also a generalization.

All governments treat us like children, including the one we have now. I think what you are referring to here is the left's approach to building social safety nets?

It's not being "elite", it's the snobbery and condescension of those who THINK that they are better than others. You say that there is nothing wrong with tearing down other people? Being "smarter" than another person does not mean you are better than them.

It sounds like we are talking about different things. It is possible to be elitist without tearing down others. To be elitist implies to me either intellectual eliteness, social class (i.e. wealth) eliteness, or being exceptional in some area (e.g. athletics, arts, etc.) If you are one of these things, you have nothing to apologize for, and it is far from a given that you'd be tearing down others.

I think what you really are driving at is snobbery and condescension, I'm merely disputing your rant against elitism, as per my definition.

You mean like making it harder and harder to achieve financial success while simultaneously using the excessive taxation of those who actually achieve that success to subsidize those who haven't? THAT kind of dumbing down?

You could turn the tables on this and rail against predatory big companies that exploit those that haven't achieved financial success. As with many things, there is always a balance, and it is both foolish and inaccurate to rail against one end of this spectrum without acknowledging the other.

If it is, as you say, the education system that is screwing things up then is it their fault for being idiots? When you say things like that you aren't trying to help or solve problems. You are just being a jerk.

It's not just our educational system as in the schools and teachers, it's our entire culture of ignorance and not valuing education.

I agree and at times I have done exactly that. At the same time there are those from other countries who don't understand this topic from the American point of view. They either refuse to acknowledge the serious problems with OUR SCREWED UP government or respect the American cultural differences that cause us to resist such schemes as government healthcare.

Well then, diatribes against government run health care without really bringing up much of a point and just pressing buttons doesn't really invite productive discourse here, does it?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think what you really are driving at is snobbery and condescension, I'm merely disputing your rant against elitism, as per my definition.

There's no point in arguing semantics. We are using the word differently but you still defend the snobbery and high-horsery of people like Luca and you expressed the same in your post.

It's not just our educational system as in the schools and teachers, it's our entire culture of ignorance and not valuing education.

I sort of agree but this gets into a realm that I don't think I want go too deeply into in this thread.

Well then, diatribes against government run health care without really bringing up much of a point and just pressing buttons doesn't really invite productive discourse here, does it?

I was merely trying to hold the mirror for him.

[besson3c]

I was not addressing Luca's post, I was making my own. I've heard enough card carrying Republicans go off on diatribes on being elitist (as per my definition) for my post to feel worthwhile.

[Ganesha]

Go back in time and look up the anti-miscegenation laws. You get almost the same arguments against miscegenation as you do against gay marriage. This should at once tell you bans on gays marrying is wrong.

The argument used by the Supreme Court to strike down anti-miscegenation laws across the nation was that, marriage is fundamental human right, and as such anti-miscegenation laws violated the Equal Protection, as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment. Unless we want to redefine marriage as something other than a fundamental human right, then gay marriage is legal.

[peeb]

Exactly - people who are trying to deny minorities the same rights that everyone else has are on the wrong side of history. This is exactly the same battle and arguments that they lost in the civil right movement.

[OldManMac]

Even the California Chief Justice agrees with that view, and he's been a moderate all his life. He realizes that discrimination is wrong, no matter what the circumstances.

California chief justice says same-sex marriage ruling was one of his toughest - Los Angeles Times

[peeb]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

At the same time there are those from other countries who don't understand this topic from the American point of view.

Your argument that US citizens are uniquely ill-informed and prejudiced is just insulting. The suggestion that the reason the US cannot achieve a rational healthcare system is to do with the considered choice of its citizens is one of the most ridiculously condescending things I've heard. You insult Americans when you say this sort of thing. Hell, you insult their dogs.

[Zeeb]

The momentum is building. New York State will now recognize gay marriage from other states and countries where they are legal

New York to recognize gay marriages - CNN.com

[Captain Obvious]

and with that come the ballots in November with local referendums dooming the democrats in purple states...... Let me know if it was worth losing a second straight ellection over this issue

Idiotic democrats are throwing every advantage they had away over nothing

[Eug]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Even the California Chief Justice agrees with that view, and he's been a moderate all his life. He realizes that discrimination is wrong, no matter what the circumstances.

California chief justice says same-sex marriage ruling was one of his toughest - Los Angeles Times

I guess it's all a matter of perspective. It would have been quite an easy decision for me (assuming it was reasonably justifiable legally, which it obviously is considering the ruling), and I also note that the majority of Californians support it too.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

and with that come the ballots in November with local referendums dooming the democrats in purple states...... Let me know if it was worth losing a second straight ellection over this issue

Idiotic democrats are throwing every advantage they had away over nothing

Sure. Civil rights are a critical issue. If you think equal rights are 'nothing' you might want to re-think what the point of the Republic is.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

and with that come the ballots in November with local referendums dooming the democrats in purple states...... Let me know if it was worth losing a second straight ellection over this issue

Idiotic democrats are throwing every advantage they had away over nothing

So by this logic all movement on civil rights issues should cease in election years because it could effect the outcome of the election? I think you're overestimating the effect gay issues have on elections. There were plenty of reasons why the Democrats lost the past few elections and only one of those reasons was because of gay rights issues.

Besides, it seems you think a Republican win in November is an absolute certainty despite all the issues that *Republicans* will need to overcome, like support for an unpopular war, high inflation, etc.

[peeb]

You're also assuming that Republicans are all anti-civil rights. By your logic we'd still have slavery.

[TheWOAT]

I got invited to a wedding between two ladies the other day... part of me thinks it will be lame since most of the lame moments in weddings were soemthing only a bride would have wanted or asked for (insignificant details, band choice, song list, first dance, choice of DJ, choice of food). Add it up its a lame party with bad music, bad food, bad dancing, and corny staged moments that make other women say "Ah how sweet". I suspect it will be like a bridal shower on steroids.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

Besides, it seems you think a Republican win in November is an absolute certainty despite all the issues that *Republicans* will need to overcome, like support for an unpopular war, high inflation, etc.

Like I said, this was the Democrats election to lose. And they are throwing it away. You are right with all that baggage the GOP candidate should be leaps and bounds behind the DNC's. Yet, he isn't. Nor will he be because you people keep botching up every advantage you had going for you. The DNC has allowed it to be a competitive race in a year where they should have run away with the office.

And the general public doesn't really tow the line that this falls within their previous definition of "civil rights" they see it as "gay rights" so trying to dress this issue up in a pretty dress for them won't help them accept it more easily. Any referendum won't have the language drafted to it mentions civil rights. It will be a straight out, "do you support gay marriage." And as you work towards the center and south of the coasts the number of people who will say "no" gets bigger than 50%

This doesn't need to be a runaway issue, it just has to draw out the small percentage of people who wouldn't have otherwise shown up to vote that day. Two of three points hurts you people in plurality elections. There's none of that proportional feel-good nonsense Democrats go by in their primaries.

[peeb]

In the end, people get the government they deserve. If the US is not ready for civil rights, perhaps it deserves to have its economy sent down the tubes and 9 more years of pointless war.