Prop 8 discussion....

[Kasserole]

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

[/quote]

Jeff, I think there have been a number of posts by democrats/liberals who have been willing to listen to both sides of the argument.  I have pointed out that I do not believe that most of the proponents of Proposition 8 are hateful.  So I do not think it is fair of you to make such hasty generalizations.  

Even though people in favor of Prop 8 might have religious justifications for supporting a law, I do not believe that is sufficient grounds for enacting discriminatory state laws.  I understand that a lot of people feel the way they do because of their religious beliefs, but I think that religious beliefs have moved people to do wrong things in the past.  It is because of this that I believe that no discriminatory law should be passed solely on the bases of religious justification.  I understand if the Mormon Church does not want to marry gay couples in their institutions, but I do not believe that religious belief should interfere with the civil institution of marriage offered by the state.

I think Non Parata's point was that you are doing exactly what you have been criticizing others for doing.  You have been accusing opponents of Prop 8 of rioting and committing acts of violence when in fact a great majority of opponents have been arguing against it in a very civil manner.  Just as I am sure all Proponents of Proposition 8 do not want to be associates with some extremist like behavior advocated by a subset of the group, it isn't fair to associate all opponents of proposition 8 with a few instances of unbecoming actions. 

[jeffislouie]

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 poo stirrer).

I couldn't have attended the rallies - I live in Chicago.
I didn't use "rhetoric designed to incite rather than explore", I used rhetoric I felt appropriate to illicit a response.  And it worked.  What I didn't expect is hateful assumptions regarding my feelings on the subject.
As for leaving me 'by the wayside', might I once again point out that I don't have a problem with gay marriage?
I do enjoy stirring the pot - perhaps because it forces people to stand up for their beliefs.  And perhaps it exposes people's weak-ass arguments while illustrating their own hatreds while pretending that they just want the hate to stop.  Like many who are passionate about this subject, I find your accusatory tone to be more indicative of the sort of person who only dislikes hatred when it is pointed at a target they like, while advocating hatred against those they disagree with.
I didn't attend the rallies - and by your own admission, you might have missed a few as well.  As I pointed out, SOME rallies were NOT peaceful.  Some folks stepped in front of microphones and declared that mormons were hate mongers ( a mighty hateful thing to say, if you ask me).  Some people had to be arrested and some crowds had to be dispersed by police.  My point wasn't to stop peaceful protest, but to encourage those who weren't so peaceful to stop hurting the cause.

Now - you can continue to pretend that I hate you, all gay people - whatever.  Or you can re-read my original post, take a step back, and realize I was encouraging a peaceful, different approach that I feel might actually accomplish something.

Calm the @#!* down.

[jeffislouie]

We can continue to pretend that all the gay marriage protests have been peaceful, loving and hug-filled, or we can face the reality:

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1598748/20081106/fall_out_boy.jhtml
"What began as a small protest of 1,000 swelled to more than 4,000 before the night was through. Protesters blocked traffic, and reports suggest that up to seven people were arrested for disturbing the peace. Aerial footage of the protest also seems to indicate that police used force against at least some of those who attended the rally. Other footage shows at least one marcher standing atop a police car. He was wrestled to the ground by police.

An additional group of about 500 protesters gathered outside CNN's Los Angeles bureau, where they were seen banging on the doors and walls and hoisting signs protesting the ban. In response to the rally, the Los Angeles Police Department issued a tactical alert, which called on all the department's officers, and some from surrounding precincts, to respond."

I did not imply that all protests were riots - you folks read into what I wrote.
We don't have to pretend that all the protests have been civil either.

http://www.lockergnome.com/griffin/2008/11/06/protestors-explode-over-prop-8-riots-turns-ugly/


So please.  I'd really prefer it if people stopped attacking me for presenting a viewpoint.  I do not hate gay people.  I do not oppose gay marriage.  I am interested in discussing what is going on, which is why I stirred the pot with a viewpoint that CLEARLY made people unnecessarily upset.

[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 poo stirrer).

I couldn't have attended the rallies - I live in Chicago.
I didn't use "rhetoric designed to incite rather than explore", I used rhetoric I felt appropriate to illicit a response.  And it worked.  What I didn't expect is hateful assumptions regarding my feelings on the subject.

Who is making hateful assumptions about you?  What might those hateful assumptions be?  Or is this your victim complex kicking in again?

As for leaving me 'by the wayside', might I once again point out that I don't have a problem with gay marriage?
I do enjoy stirring the pot - perhaps because it forces people to stand up for their beliefs. 

You might illicit more genuine discussion if you approached arguments from a position of trying to unearth truths and explore arguments rather than your current tone of snide condescension and argumentative boorishness.

Like many who are passionate about this subject, I find your accusatory tone to be more indicative of the sort of person who only dislikes hatred when it is pointed at a target they like, while advocating hatred against those they disagree with.

I think I've said it before, but I'll say it again: I don't find anything remotely wrong with not putting up with intolerance and bigotry.  Some people support Prop 8 from a place of outright bigotry.  I don't condone that.  Some people support Prop 8 due to religious beliefs.  That kind of intolerance is hard to argue with because religion is too much of a hot button issue.  However, I don't agree with decisions made for all based upon one's religion.  Some people support Prop 8 because they believe that gays should have a different entity like-marriage-but-not-called-marriage and to me, that's a modern day "separate, but equal," so that's a non-starter as well.  I don't advocate hatred towards these people, but I can certainly understand how one could hate the aforementioned types of people.  At the same time, as I alluded to (if not directly mentioned) in my last post, I don't think I need to convince everyone.  I'm about talking to those who are open to hearing multiple viewpoints which is obviously not you, despite your alleged pro-gay marriage claims.

I didn't attend the rallies - and by your own admission, you might have missed a few as well.  As I pointed out, SOME rallies were NOT peaceful.  Some folks stepped in front of microphones and declared that mormons were hate mongers ( a mighty hateful thing to say, if you ask me).  Some people had to be arrested and some crowds had to be dispersed by police.  My point wasn't to stop peaceful protest, but to encourage those who weren't so peaceful to stop hurting the cause.

Yeah, those unlawful protesters are totes reading LSD right now.  Good job in encouraging them to be on better behavior!  It's hard to control the actions of thousands of people, but at the same time, you can't genralize to the whole group based off a couple of people.  There have been things said at some of the rallies that I vehemently disagree with, but that doesn't mean that the groups' fundamental position of marriage rights for all is in any way undermined.

Now - you can continue to pretend that I hate you, all gay people - whatever.  Or you can re-read my original post, take a step back, and realize I was encouraging a peaceful, different approach that I feel might actually accomplish something.

Calm the @#!* down.

Those two paragraphs, together, are f-ing awesome.  If I needed any more proof as to what a hypocrite I believe you to be, look no further.  I don't care if you hate me or all gay people or the color pink or puppies and kittens.  I could re-read your OP several times over (and have done so already), and it doesn't change my initial commentary, nor any of my subsequent commentary.  As I said previously, your posts aren't designed to illicit thoughtful commentary.  You're in the business of flinging poo at walls and just seeing what sticks.  If your posts generally cause negative reactions, perhaps you should take a look at what you're seeing and fix the issues that cause people to view you as a total fucknut.  Or you can continue your rants.  Either/or.

Now for realsies, I'm done.

[! B L U E WAR R I O R..!]

bottom line accept "civil union" as "civil union"...disputing the language of "marriage" and "matrimony" is not like trying to change "used car" to "pre=owned car"....


it is more like trying to change "coming out of the closet" to "confirmation"....or "barmitsvah"...or to a lesser degree...baptism.

but good luck with that...



...liberals got many out to the polls for "change"...now live with what you asked for...or go back to the drawing board and try something more reasonable.


or think twice when someone says...


...you may not want what you ask for....

[Julie Fern]

numbnuts.

[jack24]

Do you have to be gay to be in a same-sex marriage?  Is there some burden to prove that you are a homosexual?  If not then same sex marriage applies to everyone, not just homosexuals.  Prop 8 says that "marriage" is between a man and a woman.  If you're gay, you can still get married.  Any man can marry any woman, any woman can marry any man.  That may be despicable to you, but there is no unequal discrimination.   
Sex: there are no special barriers to women that don't apply to men. (Men have to marry the opposite sex, women have to marry the opposite sex)
Race: People of all races can get married.
Sexual orientation:  People of all sexual orientations can get married.  If they don't want to, that's their choice.  They can do something else, like enter a civil union, live without a legal contract, or move to a place where more people accept same gender marriage.   
A major argument for proposition 8 is that traditional gender roles are good for society.  The jury deciding this issue should be the people.  The most effective strategy for advocates for same-gender marriage would be to convince the voters that either:
1: Gender Roles will not be effected by allowing gay marriage OR
2: Gender Roles are not important.
     

[whowantslogic]

Do you have to be gay to be in a same-sex marriage?  Is there some burden to prove that you are a homosexual?  If not then same sex marriage applies to everyone, not just homosexuals.  Prop 8 says that "marriage" is between a man and a woman.  If you're gay, you can still get married.  Any man can marry any woman, any woman can marry any man.  That may be despicable to you, but there is no unequal discrimination.   
Sex: there are no special barriers to women that don't apply to men. (Men have to marry the opposite sex, women have to marry the opposite sex)
Race: People of all races can get married.
Sexual orientation:  People of all sexual orientations can get married.  If they don't want to, that's their choice.  They can do something else, like enter a civil union, live without a legal contract, or move to a place where more people accept same gender marriage.   
A major argument for proposition 8 is that traditional gender roles are good for society.  The jury deciding this issue should be the people.  The most effective strategy for advocates for same-gender marriage would be to convince the voters that either:
1: Gender Roles will not be effected by allowing gay marriage OR
2: Gender Roles are not important.
     

Marriage is a fundamental right in California, on par with the free practice of religion.  The notion that you can outlaw same sex marriage and not violate equal protection for gays and lesbians (a suspect classification) is absurd. It would be like passing a law that makes it illegal to pray to Allah, and arguing that it doesn't violate the equal protection of Muslims because no one can pray to Him.

Also, we live in a CONSTITUTIONAL democracy, so this "voters are the ultimate arbiters of minority rights" is just crap.

[mugatu]

I was going to reply, but I was usurped.   

[jack24]

Do you have to be gay to be in a same-sex marriage?  Is there some burden to prove that you are a homosexual?  If not then same sex marriage applies to everyone, not just homosexuals.  Prop 8 says that "marriage" is between a man and a woman.  If you're gay, you can still get married.  Any man can marry any woman, any woman can marry any man.  That may be despicable to you, but there is no unequal discrimination.   
Sex: there are no special barriers to women that don't apply to men. (Men have to marry the opposite sex, women have to marry the opposite sex)
Race: People of all races can get married.
Sexual orientation:  People of all sexual orientations can get married.  If they don't want to, that's their choice.  They can do something else, like enter a civil union, live without a legal contract, or move to a place where more people accept same gender marriage.   
A major argument for proposition 8 is that traditional gender roles are good for society.  The jury deciding this issue should be the people.  The most effective strategy for advocates for same-gender marriage would be to convince the voters that either:
1: Gender Roles will not be effected by allowing gay marriage OR
2: Gender Roles are not important.
     

Marriage is a fundamental right in California, on par with the free practice of religion.  The notion that you can outlaw same sex marriage and not violate equal protection for gays and lesbians (a suspect classification) is absurd. It would be like passing a law that makes it illegal to pray to Allah, and arguing that it doesn't violate the equal protection of Muslims because no one can pray to Him.

Also, we live in a CONSTITUTIONAL democracy, so this "voters are the ultimate arbiters of minority rights" is just crap.

Since proposition 8 amends the California constitution to define marriage, I guess you're talking about the federal constitution? Feel free to find the section that guarantees legal marriage to anyone.
The free exercise of religion is a completely different topic with a much stronger constitutional foundation. 
Legal marriage is a legal and social contract.