Prop 8 discussion....

[Kasserole]

I am happy to hear that, but that is a common argument from the other side, so I felt I should address it once pointed out.  Thanks 

But that's why the "choice" argument can be a very valid one.  There's been significant research on this lately, and the world has gotten much closer to saying "born in", but nothing is definite.  And, then, the counter argument you posited doesn't count for much.  Your retort shifts the issue, and there is nearly universal agreement that humans are conscious actors and so are able to pick and choose their actions.  And sometimes, humans pick decisions for themselves even when they know there will be fall-out from the decision because they "want to." 

I have yet to see a legitimate argument saying that gay people are not born gay.  That premise needs as much justification as the premise that they are born gay. 

Also, people who say that homosexuals are not born homosexuals imply that they are deviants from what is "natural," but if we are naturally born heterosexuals, then that implies we are born with a sexual identity.  So who is to say what another person's sexual identity is?

A well nuanced position would not agree with the bolded.

Well then, if neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality is natural, and both are chosen, then the question still remains why the law should favor one over the other.

[mugatu]

And I don't mean to indicate the bigots' positions are well nuanced, either.

[jeffislouie]

5,419,478 to 4,908,887 is hardly a wide margin, particularly when over 2,700,000 mail-in and provisional ballots remain to be counted.

Regardless, you crack me up when you say poo like, "You CANNOT win people over to your position if you start by insulting them." Because, you know... you're a jerk. So it's ironic, see?

All flash and no sizzle.
Try harder.  Even more interesting, take a look at the county vote.
That tells a different story.

[jeffislouie]

Although the term marriage may have religious roots, it is now a state institution.  As a state institution, it should not discriminate against a subset of society because they were born different than the majority.  I believe hatred is a strong word.  I know of a lot of people who voted in favor of Prop 8, and I do not believe their actions were intentionally malicious.  I do, however, believe that supporting the proposition is discriminatory.  You cannot say that you believe gay people are your equal, yet their participation in the insitution of marriage somehow degrades the value of heterosexual marriages.  Although some people want to confer the same rights to homosexual couples without calling it marriage, the separate term implies a certain perception of superiority.  I see this problem very similar to the problem of segregation.  The feeling that two groups need to be separate to "protect" one group creates a "badge of inferiority" for the minority group.  Although a simple majority of voters voted in favor of the Proposition, it has been my opinion that the rights of the majority should be protected from the rash will of the majority.  That is the purpose of the constitution.  The California Supreme Court saw it that way, but the people of California felt it was necessary to change our Constitution to single out a minority group.  So when people get upset, they have some justification.  Furthermore, I do not think it is fair to use such generalizations.  There are so many opponents of Proposition 8 who are challenging the passage of the law in appropriate manners.  The end of slavery, segregation, and the fight for other civil rights have all met with opposition before their end goals were achieved.  Just because Prop 8 passed this time does not mean it will always pass. 

I'm not sure I agree to your opinion regarding 'superiority'.
There is a traditional view and a non-traditional view.  One is rooted in something like 5000 + years of history, tradition and faith, and one is not.  Superiority may be the wrong word.

I agree that bills like prop 8 won't always pass, nor do I necessarily believe they should.  What I do believe is that prop 8 passed this time and misbehaving while calling people who voted for it 'hate-filled' doesn't help any.

I don't think this is, to whatever majority out there voted for it, about superiority or even civil rights - I think this is about the religious significance of marriage.  The battle folks seem to be ignoring is that the organized religions all see homosexuality as sin, and therefore feel that legalizing homosexual weddings is going against god.

[jeffislouie]

You don't have to hate gay people in the sense you speak of, but one of the definitions of hate certainly fits those who voted for Prop 8.  The word can be used to describe prejudice or bigotry against a class of people.  I would certainly say that voting for "seperate, but equal" for a class of people can be described as prejudice and/or bigotry.  Also, way to go with pointing the finger and playing the political blame game again.  I thought you turned over a new leaf with this election?

In addition, I know you like to blame liberals, but would you consider Republicans liberal?  Are all Democrats liberals?  There are plenty of instances of Democrats who voted Yes on 8 and many Republicans who voted no. 

Are you trying to argue that it wasn't liberals who pushed for legal gay marriage?
I'm calling it like I see it.  It came from liberal values, not conservative ones.  It's about being able to acknowledge the good and not so good each side does, not just name calling.  Gavin Newsome is a liberal.  Or did he become a republican?  Ease up, I'm not using the term in a negative way - I tend to skew liberal on social issues, so I certainly don't mind it when someone says that something I say may be liberal - why do you get all testy when I use the word?

I've got a little news for those who think small thoughts like this:  get over it.  If you want to get married and are gay, you can accomplish far more by creating a new term that allows you to have the same rights as straight married couples without assaulting what is, essentially and historically, a religious concept.

If it's all about religion, why are some religions more important than others?  There are churches that will allow gays to marry.  Why does the Mormon or Catholic or any other church get to define what marriage is more than, say, the Unitarian Church?  Also, what about those of us who aren't gay but support the rights of gays to be able to marry?
[/quote]

It's not that SOME religions are more important than others.  It's that EVERY religion considers homosexuality to be a sin.  The religions tend to agree on this one.  Hence, there is little religious debate about the matter.  Let's not change the subject by deflecting it into how we define marriage when we are talking about gay marriage.

As a person with many gay friends (the guys call me their husband and the girls make fun of me for having a penis), I can tell you that even some of them are split on the issue. 

So what?  The issue is choice.  Just as has been said to straight people, if you don't want gay marriage, then shut the @#!* up and don't get one.

[/quote]

While I may agree with you on this one, you just hit on the main point of my post.  SOME straight people seem to care, and it's usually because of their faith based values.  Which is why a different term might work better - and be an easier issue to pass the vote.

Sure, they all want the same rights as straight couples, but every one of them understands two things that the radical homosexuals don't seem to:
1)  When you lose a vote on your issue, freaking out is harmful, not helpful
2)  The term 'marriage' is rooted in religious ideology and is, therefore, not likely the right path to take towards equal rights.

Wow, how insightful    People understand it's rooted in religious ideology, but it's no excuse because:
1. There are many things rooted in religious ideology that we don't find acceptable today.  Slavery is a part of the Bible, but we expressly forbid that today.  Mormons used to teach (don't know if they still do) that blacks are cursed with the mark of Cain with dark skin.  Today, they would (rightfully) be called racist.  Many religions subjugate women, but that's not something that is viewed as acceptable today.  I could continue, but I think you get the point. 

[/quote]

True, but only kinda-sorta.  For example, in the jewish faith, slavery was an agreement.  You were bound by rules and laws.  You had to provide for the slave, treat them well and with dignity, and they could only be a slave for 7 years, unless they opted to voluntarily remain in servitude.  MODERN slavery is decidedly ANTI-judeo-christian faith.  I get the point, but hardly think that this compares.  For example, if one believes in judeo-christian scripture, GOD says homosexuality is a sin, hence the issue.  Again, this is not my belief, but a fact you should be aware of.

Prop 8 passed by a wide margin. 

So what the majority believes = what is right?  I refer you to the antebellum South.  nft.
[/quote]

If you will allow me a moment of snark, Obama was elected President.  If you believe in Democracy, or better yet a representative republic, you MUST believe that the majority is correct.  Better to convince the majority to come over to your side than compare them to racists and slave owners, don't you think?

Malcolm X preached violence as a means for change and it failed.  Then he changed his mind and made some of the most fascinating explorations into race relations in the history of mankind.  And was killed for it.  By black people who disagreed with his new, more peaceful approach.  And history shows that it was Dr. Martin Luther King who was more responsible for civil rights advances.

Please stop showing your ignorance of the African American civil rights movement.  Malcolm X did NOT fail as an agent for change.  In fact, his teachings were instrumental in the founding of the Black Panthers, a group that did a tremendous amount of good for black communities (including, but not limited to sickle cell clinics, free breakfast programs that were the precursor to the Federal Free and Reduced meal program, free grocery programs, forcing the city of Oakland to install a traffic light so young black children would stop getting run over on the way to/from a particular school, etc).  What's more, he was not killed because he changed his mind.  And history does not show that Martin Luther King would have been as successful on his own.  That's nothing but pure speculation on your part.

[/quote]

Yeah, the black panthers were great.  About 25% of the time.  The rest of the time, they weren't so nice.  They did plenty of harm.  And the fact is that Malcolm X was killed after he began to renounce violence because even he saw the damage groups like the Black Panthers were doing to the civil rights movement.  By black people.  Who were involved with the very group that Malcolm X helped grow and later found repugnant to some degree.

The fact remains that state's [sic] still have a constitutional right to make their own decisions. 

The fact remains that the people still have the right to challenge Prop 8.  Are you arguing with the constitutionally established system of checks and balances?

[/quote]

Not at all.  But the tenor of the challenge has been negative and filled with hatred towards others.  As I stated earlier, behaving badly won't help change the law.  There are still plenty of far better ways to achieve change.



Also, I <3 the way your entire post addresses the LGBT community, but fails to consider there's (obviously) a wide swath of the California population that is 1) heterosexual and 2) doesn't agree with Prop 8.  I'll remember this post as I continue joining others interested in fighting for the civil rights of ALL people by protesting outside the Mormon temple on Overland and Santa Monica, in West Hollywood, and anywhere else.

Anyway, I don't know why I bothered since you're obviously just trying to stir the pot. 
[/quote]

So you are going to protest a few mormon churches that did nothing wrong.  That ought to win them over.  It will surely show them how wrong they are to believe in god and that their faith is hateful.

And yes, I am stirring the pot.  It is difficult to learn things if all we do is talk to people we always agree with.  This being a hot topic, I am curious to discuss it.
I do not hate gay people.
I do not oppose gay marriage.
I am merely making an observation.

[Jamie Stringer]

It's not that SOME religions are more important than others.  It's that EVERY religion considers homosexuality to be a sin.  The religions tend to agree on this one.  Hence, there is little religious debate about the matter.  Let's not change the subject by deflecting it into how we define marriage when we are talking about gay marriage.

I let myself get distracted with all the religious talk.  We shouldn't legislate based on religion.  To be honest, I wouldn't mind if the traditional way of marriage was scrapped...and I say this as a married woman.  I wouldn't mind a system like France where one must have a civil ceremony and then the religious one is optional.  It's kind of stupid to get hung up on terminology, but I think having different types of marriage is no better than separate but equal.

For example, if one believes in judeo-christian scripture, GOD says homosexuality is a sin, hence the issue.

*IF* is the big part.  Also, there are a lot of things that God says (because if you're a believer in Judeo-Christian scripture, the Bible is the word of God) that aren't acceptable today.  I don't have my Bible handy and don't want to get into the technicalities of it all, but I think you get the point.

If you will allow me a moment of snark, Obama was elected President.  If you believe in Democracy, or better yet a representative republic, you MUST believe that the majority is correct.  Better to convince the majority to come over to your side than compare them to racists and slave owners, don't you think?

I don't believe that the majority is always correct.  I think I just pointed to a time when the majority wasn't correct.  There are others, but that's an easier historical example.  While I do intend to convince as many of the majority as I know that they are wrong, I think it's important to root the discussion as one of civil rights, at least for the African American and Latino communities.  To that end, I don't think the comparison is far off.

So you are going to protest a few mormon churches that did nothing wrong.  That ought to win them over.  It will surely show them how wrong they are to believe in god and that their faith is hateful.

Well, to start, my family is Mormon.  I am a former Mormon.  The church absolutely DID do something wrong, namely encourage their members to actively campaign for Prop 8, including throwing fundraisers and donating huge amounts of money.  And I'm not just referring to churches in California, but in other states as well.  I don't think the anti-Prop 8 folks should concentrate exclusively on the Mormon church or even churches in general.  Note that my last post talked about ONE protest outside the temple, but there have been plenty others I intend to support. 


Anyway, have fun continuing this discussion with others.  I'm done.

[non parata est]

Jeffie Boy, you and your evil, scheming cohorts should really stop lynching, torturing, defaming, bankrupting, and murdering members of the homosexual community.  Such systematic and widespread violence from those who voted "Yes" on Prop 8 really doesn't help your position.

...or was that an unfair characterization?  Sorry, it's easier to tell when you do it.

[jeffislouie]

Jeffie Boy, you and your evil, scheming cohorts should really stop lynching, torturing, defaming, bankrupting, and murdering members of the homosexual community.  Such systematic and widespread violence from those who voted "Yes" on Prop 8 really doesn't help your position.

...or was that an unfair characterization?  Sorry, it's easier to tell when you do it.

I just love being called "jeffie boy" by disrespectful hate mongers like yourself.

I'm not sure what the hell your intended result was, but all it did was illustrate your unwillingness (or perhaps inability) to have a civil discussion.

At no point did I say that I supported Prop 8.  At no point did I say that I have a problem with gay marriage.  What I DID do was try to discuss the issue.  It's really too bad that folks like you seem more interested in distracting from the conversation than actually participating.

I never said there was widespread violence, or even widespread rioting.
There were several reports of unruly protests, arrests, and in some stories, small riots.
There was also plenty of coverage of gay community members trying to fight what they perceive to be hate with hate, as in "mormons are hate-mongers".
I am continually irritated by the very low level of discourse that seems to permeate these boards.  Around here, folks seem more interested in jerking each other off because they agree than <gasp> god forbid having a discussion without getting emotional and angry.
The point is:
Hatred isn't okay.  Not supporting gay marriage isn't hatred, especially when it is rooted in religious faith and belief.  BUT, calling people who oppose gay marriage names and publicly mocking their faith IS a PERFECT example of religious intolerance that so few care to acknowledge.  So deal with it.  When you try to associate people who ARE against gay marriage with people who lynched blacks in the south, you are guilty of your own brand of hate mongering.

So, if you would like to have a rational discussion, I urge you to approach my post for the substance contained, not your belief that I hate, am anti-gay, or advocate either way.  I don't oppose gay marriage, but I do understand why some do. 

I guess Obama is the only democrat talking about 'listening' to people who disagree with him.

The rest of you intend to continue berating anyone who's opinions or posts you take issue with.

[Jamie Stringer]

There were several reports of unruly protests, arrests, and in some stories, small riots.

Did you attend any of the rallies?  All of the rallies that I attended or have good friends that attended were very peaceful and moving.  Also, you might have seen a clip on the Today show of a pissed off motorist who got out of his car and punched a protester squarely in the face.  The protester was like half the guy's size.  If we're talking about people being unruly, clearly it cuts both ways.

Having a mature discussion about the issue is fine, but please don't inflate your sense of martyrdom anymore.  It's insulting.  You didn't post wanting to have honest discourse because if you did, you wouldn't have filled your original post with rhetoric designed to incite rather than explore.  You're nothing but a hype man -- the Flavor Flav of political discussion on LSD.

As someone told me last night, we can educate and spread the word to voters, but remember, you don't have to get every one.  We only need something like 1 in 10 or 1 in 20 voters.  I'll chalk it up to you being one of those I should leave by the wayside and continue discussion with those who are TRULY open to hearing another side (not claiming to be open, then being a *&^% stirrer).

[sheltron5000]

So a religious belief has to be over 5000 years old to be valid? I'm not understanding how you can make the primary argument that because marriage is a religious belief and all religions (in your rather blind view) say homosexuality is a sin. Many religions, MA referenced the Unitarian churches, do not have a problem with homosexual marriage. This position specifically invalidates those beliefs.

All of which is to say that ANY support of marriage by the sate is an endorsement of a specific religion or group of religions, as you described marriage. That of course violates even the most recent supreme court view of the separation of church and state.

Marriage is a law, states recognize a partnership between two people and grant them certain rights. If that were all it was, we wouldn't be having a debate. The problem is when specific groups of religious people get organized to put an ANTI-gay-marriage amendment on the ballot. These groups acted specifically to force the state of California to endorse their particular religious beliefs.

I won't argue with you though that marriage is not the appropriate place to look for equality. States shouldn't recognize ANY marriages, since marriage, as you said, is religious.

Here's the opposite point from your position: Should gay marriage advocates band together to get an ammendment on the ballot that removes all mention of marriage from the state constitution?