California gay marriage ban gaining steam

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: California gay marriage ban gaining steam

Post by Darth Wong »

Terralthra wrote:Quite frankly, I disagree.
I don't give a shit if you disagree, you little asswipe. Your entire argument is based upon "connotations", and that just isn't enough. You are declaring that an idea is the exclusive province of religion just because it has religious "connotations"; that is a huge non sequitur, and your personal opinion to the contrary is irrelevant. You made up false claims about marriage and tried to disavow responsibility for your blatant dishonesty by saying that you conceded when backed up against the wall, which does NOT in any way exonerate you of the charge of lying in the first place. Then you resorted to this fallback "connotation = exclusivity" bullshit, which is the mother of all non sequiturs.

You have no argument at all, fucktard. You're only clinging to your position because you're a goddamned broken-record idiot who refuses to admit error. Since when the fuck do "connotations" have force in law, asshole? Because that's what you're saying they should have. Leaving aside the fact that you're simply DEAD WRONG about all of those eastern Asian countries having the same connotations that Americans do. And now you've gone straight into looney-bin territory, by saying that basically any subject of religious tradition or even religiously derived words should be the exclusive province of religion forever.

Should we get rid of government holidays now, since "holiday" is a modern form of "holy day"? Jesus fuck, you're a goddamned imbecile.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Plekhanov
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3991
Joined: 2004-04-01 11:09pm
Location: Mercia

Re: California gay marriage ban gaining steam

Post by Plekhanov »

Terralthra wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Terralthra wrote:An explicit religious requirement is not necessary for a concept to have religious connotations.
But it is required to support your bullshit claim that marriage is exclusively tied to religion. If all you need is "connotations", then what doesn't have religious connotations? Birth, death, passage into adulthood, and even holidays and agricultural harvests all have religious "connotations" in history, you fucking moron. What you need in order to support your bullshit argument is proof that marriage was exclusively religious in nature, not just "connotations".
Quite frankly, I disagree. To harken back to a much earlier discussion, if two thirds of the people in a particular culture thought wearing a hoodie carried a connotation of being a gangster, and the other third did not, it would still be inappropriate to wear one to work, and the government having a 'Wear a hoodie to work day' would not change that.
What a pathetic analogy, how the fuck is civil marriage supposed to be like a state sponsored hoodie rehabilitation project? Civil marriage isn’t state sponsored social engineering to try and change the meaning of marriage it’s simply a continuation of how things have always been. You are the one attempting to force a change in the meaning of marriage with your retarded proposal based upon your own special brand of anti-reasoning.
I'm not saying the state shouldn't regulate and license marriage/civil unions, only that it if the primary facet the state has an interest in is the contractual side, then using a term that refers specifically to the contractual side wouldn't be a terrible idea.
Unless of course changing the term is completely unnecessary which it is and would needlessly exclude much/most (depending on your country) of the population from an institution they value in which case it would be a truly appalling idea.
Darth Wong wrote:Precisely. Unfortunately, you don't realize that this works AGAINST your bullshit argument, which falls apart unless there is a religious REQUIREMENT.
Again, I respectfully disagree with this. To me, this is analogous than the government mandating the use of gender neutral terminology on forms. Only a few people have to care about it for it to be a valid concern.
On what possible grounds do you ‘respectfully disagree’? Are you really so fucking stupid that you don’t understand the difference between something which by definition must be religious and something which some people think has some religious aspects?
Lusankya wrote:.... so all of these things may carry religious implications, but only marriage needs to have it's name changed? Why? So Homophobic pricks can be happy?
Respectfully, the state doesn't call naming christening (despite that some people would claim the terms are synonymous). The other statements of religious connotation are wrapped up in conditionals regarding majority opinions, which I do not have evidence about.
Christening doesn’t just have ‘religious connotations’ it is a religious term and is in fact an entirely religious ceremony. In the UK registering the birth and name of a child is a completely separate thing from Christening which is the name some denominations of Christianity give to their naming ceremony which has no legal status.
Lusankya wrote:So why make an exception for marriage?
Yes, that's my question. The state does not use terminology which a significant portion of the population feels has religious connotation for other things, why should it with marriage?
The term ‘christening’ obviously has a specific religious origin and is exclusively religious, marriage does not, how can you not understand this?
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: California gay marriage ban gaining steam

Post by Darth Wong »

Actually, they "christen" ships when they launch them. With a bottle of wine. No religious officials are expected to be present at this ceremony, and I doubt anyone seriously believes that the launching of a yacht is a particularly spiritual or religious experience. Some people also like to say that they "christen" a new house by having sex in it.

It's an English word. Words change over time, and their original purpose becomes lost. That's part of the nature of language, and it is not the business of government to declare in law that certain words must always remain the exclusive province of religion.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Terralthra
Requiescat in Pace
Posts: 4741
Joined: 2007-10-05 09:55pm
Location: San Francisco, California, United States

Re: California gay marriage ban gaining steam

Post by Terralthra »

Darth Wong wrote:I don't give a shit if you disagree, you little asswipe. Your entire argument is based upon "connotations", and that just isn't enough. You are declaring that an idea is the exclusive province of religion just because it has religious "connotations"; that is a huge non sequitur, and your personal opinion to the contrary is irrelevant. You made up false claims about marriage and tried to disavow responsibility for your blatant dishonesty by saying that you conceded when backed up against the wall, which does NOT in any way exonerate you of the charge of lying in the first place. Then you resorted to this fallback "connotation = exclusivity" bullshit, which is the mother of all non sequiturs.

You have no argument at all, fucktard. You're only clinging to your position because you're a goddamned broken-record idiot who refuses to admit error. Since when the fuck do "connotations" have force in law, asshole? Because that's what you're saying they should have. Leaving aside the fact that you're simply DEAD WRONG about all of those eastern Asian countries having the same connotations that Americans do. And now you've gone straight into looney-bin territory, by saying that basically any subject of religious tradition or even religiously derived words should be the exclusive province of religion forever.

Should we get rid of government holidays now, since "holiday" is a modern form of "holy day"? Jesus fuck, you're a goddamned imbecile.
Please point out where I said that marriage should be exclusively religious. The only place I even implied that, I explicitly conceded that I had misphrased, and rephrased it so that that implication of exclusivity was removed. I said that the government shouldn't be telling anyone that they are or are not married, only that they have a secular contractual relationship recognized by the state - ie, a civil union, and that whether a particular couple thinks they are married is up to them, and if they want to involve a religious faction in that decision, that's up to them too.
SirNitram wrote: I'm just wondering how the homophobe will react when someone brings up the fact that, under English Common Law(Applicable in several parts of the US and other countries), common law marriage is basically a 'Oh, yea, they're probably married, I mean, devoted, lived together, aren't married to others.' check and then a nod. Not even bloody paperwork is required for a Common Law Marriage.

Explain how 'Living together and acting like married partners' carries any religious connotations. It is accepted as legal marriage in several countries, eleven US states, and the D.C.
For not the first time, I have never claimed that marriage is exclusively religious. Never. Not once.

Also, homophobe? WTF? How do you even justify calling me homophobic? Did you have a dream in which I said homophobic things? You must have, because I certainly haven't said any here.
User avatar
General Zod
Never Shuts Up
Posts: 29211
Joined: 2003-11-18 03:08pm
Location: The Clearance Rack
Contact:

Re: California gay marriage ban gaining steam

Post by General Zod »

Terralthra wrote: Please point out where I said that marriage should be exclusively religious. The only place I even implied that, I explicitly conceded that I had misphrased, and rephrased it so that that implication of exclusivity was removed. I said that the government shouldn't be telling anyone that they are or are not married, only that they have a secular contractual relationship recognized by the state - ie, a civil union, and that whether a particular couple thinks they are married is up to them, and if they want to involve a religious faction in that decision, that's up to them too.
You're contradicting yourself. If marriage isn't religious (hint: It isn't), then who gives a shit whether the government calls it marriage instead of a secular contractual relationship?
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: California gay marriage ban gaining steam

Post by Darth Wong »

Terralthra wrote:Please point out where I said that marriage should be exclusively religious. The only place I even implied that, I explicitly conceded that I had misphrased, and rephrased it so that that implication of exclusivity was removed. I said that the government shouldn't be telling anyone that they are or are not married, only that they have a secular contractual relationship recognized by the state - ie, a civil union, and that whether a particular couple thinks they are married is up to them, and if they want to involve a religious faction in that decision, that's up to them too.
And why the fuck should government not use the word "marriage" if you don't think it's exclusive to religion, then? What is your justification for making the word "marriage" off-limits if you backpedal on the religious exclusivity, which is the entire basis of your fucking argument so far? All of your goddamned posts have revolved around religion, and you have the gall to claim that you have not been trying to claim religious ownership of the word "marriage"?
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Terralthra
Requiescat in Pace
Posts: 4741
Joined: 2007-10-05 09:55pm
Location: San Francisco, California, United States

Re: California gay marriage ban gaining steam

Post by Terralthra »

General Zod wrote:You're contradicting yourself. If marriage isn't religious (hint: It isn't), then who gives a shit whether the government calls it marriage instead of a secular contractual relationship?
Darth Wong wrote: And why the fuck should government not use the word "marriage" if you don't think it's exclusive to religion, then? What is your justification for making the word "marriage" off-limits if you backpedal on the religious exclusivity, which is the entire basis of your fucking argument so far? All of your goddamned posts have revolved around religion, and you have the gall to claim that you have not been trying to claim religious ownership of the word "marriage"?
:banghead: Marriage isn't exclusively religious. Quite a few people think of it as religious, quite a few others don't.

As for who gives a shit what the government calls it, um, a lot of the people in this thread sure seem to, as well as a bunch of religious bigots who keep voting yes on various ballot measures banning gay marriage. 11 states had them on the ballot in 2004, and they all passed, even in Oregon, a fairly liberal state. source. Opinion polls show that given the choice between government either allowing gay marriage, allowing civil unions but not marriage, or not having any legal union, opinion is split roughly evenly between the three: 32% marriage, 33% civil union, 29% nothing. source, scroll down a bit.

That's one third of the electorate that only cares about the name government uses for it. They're almost certainly all 'moderate' religious bigots (since there aren't really any non-religious reasons to oppose gay marriage), but that doesn't change the point that clearly some people give a shit about the name, and probably because of religious reasons, absent any logical reason to care about it.

If GLBT advocacy groups want to prove the bible-thumpers wrong and claim the meaning of the word doesn't have any religious connotations, fine. I have no problem with that. I just don't think the legislature, judicial system, and ballot initiatives are really the right place to have a fight over whether marriage is religious or not. Clearly, there are a lot of people who think each way. It is a civil rights issue, so what's wrong with just referring to it with a phrase that is explicitly secular, instead of fighting over the connotations of a word? It is a separate but equal issue, so what's wrong with the government applying that secular phrase to it in all cases, and simply stepping out of the "is it religious?" argument entirely? Because that's what all the repeated court cases, propositions, and legislation are really about: a bunch of secular people saying marriage isn't religious, and a bunch of religious people saying it is. I really doubt that the secular side (who have a much better case) are going to convince the religious people they're wrong, no matter how obvious it is.

All I am suggesting is taking the argument out of governmental hands. As long as everyone gets the same treatment from government, isn't that the point?
User avatar
General Zod
Never Shuts Up
Posts: 29211
Joined: 2003-11-18 03:08pm
Location: The Clearance Rack
Contact:

Re: California gay marriage ban gaining steam

Post by General Zod »

Terralthra wrote:
:banghead: Marriage isn't exclusively religious. Quite a few people think of it as religious, quite a few others don't.
It doesn't matter if you're claiming exclusivity or not, it's the fact that it's being claimed as religious at all. (Appeals to popularity are not arguments, by the way).
As for who gives a shit what the government calls it, um, a lot of the people in this thread sure seem to, as well as a bunch of religious bigots who keep voting yes on various ballot measures banning gay marriage. 11 states had them on the ballot in 2004, and they all passed, even in Oregon, a fairly liberal state. source. Opinion polls show that given the choice between government either allowing gay marriage, allowing civil unions but not marriage, or not having any legal union, opinion is split roughly evenly between the three: 32% marriage, 33% civil union, 29% nothing. source, scroll down a bit.
You're the one who said the government shouldn't define it, don't start backpedaling now.

If GLBT advocacy groups want to prove the bible-thumpers wrong and claim the meaning of the word doesn't have any religious connotations, fine. I have no problem with that. I just don't think the legislature, judicial system, and ballot initiatives are really the right place to have a fight over whether marriage is religious or not.
Why the fuck not? Where else are they going to fight it?

Clearly, there are a lot of people who think each way. It is a civil rights issue, so what's wrong with just referring to it with a phrase that is explicitly secular, instead of fighting over the connotations of a word? It is a separate but equal issue, so what's wrong with the government applying that secular phrase to it in all cases, and simply stepping out of the "is it religious?" argument entirely? Because that's what all the repeated court cases, propositions, and legislation are really about: a bunch of secular people saying marriage isn't religious, and a bunch of religious people saying it is. I really doubt that the secular side (who have a much better case) are going to convince the religious people they're wrong, no matter how obvious it is.
"Separate but equal" bullshit. Why don't you explain why marriage is significantly different enough from "civil union" in practice (ignoring benefits here) to warrant being its own special term when historical practices suggest that it is, in fact, not at all?
All I am suggesting is taking the argument out of governmental hands. As long as everyone gets the same treatment from government, isn't that the point?
As long as you insist on using different terms for the same thing, it is not equal treatment.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
User avatar
Terralthra
Requiescat in Pace
Posts: 4741
Joined: 2007-10-05 09:55pm
Location: San Francisco, California, United States

Re: California gay marriage ban gaining steam

Post by Terralthra »

General Zod wrote:
Terralthra wrote:
:banghead: Marriage isn't exclusively religious. Quite a few people think of it as religious, quite a few others don't.
It doesn't matter if you're claiming exclusivity or not, it's the fact that it's being claimed as religious at all. (Appeals to popularity are not arguments, by the way).
Please explain to me how you would go about discussing the connotations of a concept or word besides going by what people think the connotations are? That's what connotations are: what people associate with a word or idea.
General Zod wrote:
As for who gives a shit what the government calls it, um, a lot of the people in this thread sure seem to, as well as a bunch of religious bigots who keep voting yes on various ballot measures banning gay marriage. 11 states had them on the ballot in 2004, and they all passed, even in Oregon, a fairly liberal state. source. Opinion polls show that given the choice between government either allowing gay marriage, allowing civil unions but not marriage, or not having any legal union, opinion is split roughly evenly between the three: 32% marriage, 33% civil union, 29% nothing. source, scroll down a bit.
You're the one who said the government shouldn't define it, don't start backpedaling now.
You asked who gave a shit what government called it. I was answering you.
General Zod wrote:
If GLBT advocacy groups want to prove the bible-thumpers wrong and claim the meaning of the word doesn't have any religious connotations, fine. I have no problem with that. I just don't think the legislature, judicial system, and ballot initiatives are really the right place to have a fight over whether marriage is religious or not.
Why the fuck not? Where else are they going to fight it?
The point of the establishment clause was to keep government out of religion. The Lemon test, which is current precedent for deciding unconstitutionality based on the establishment clause, has a prong specifically for whether something represents "excessive entanglement" with religion, and another that states that governmental action must not either advance OR inhibit religion. I'm having trouble seeing how deciding which group of people are right about whether marriage is religious doesn't fail one or both of those prongs.
General Zod wrote:
Clearly, there are a lot of people who think each way. It is a civil rights issue, so what's wrong with just referring to it with a phrase that is explicitly secular, instead of fighting over the connotations of a word? It is a separate but equal issue, so what's wrong with the government applying that secular phrase to it in all cases, and simply stepping out of the "is it religious?" argument entirely? Because that's what all the repeated court cases, propositions, and legislation are really about: a bunch of secular people saying marriage isn't religious, and a bunch of religious people saying it is. I really doubt that the secular side (who have a much better case) are going to convince the religious people they're wrong, no matter how obvious it is.
"Separate but equal" bullshit. Why don't you explain why marriage is significantly different enough from "civil union" in practice (ignoring benefits here) to warrant being its own special term when historical practices suggest that it is, in fact, not at all?
All I am suggesting is taking the argument out of governmental hands. As long as everyone gets the same treatment from government, isn't that the point?
As long as you insist on using different terms for the same thing, it is not equal treatment.
I am, in fact, proposing that the government using the same term for all cases. That is the exact opposite of insisting on using different terms for the same thing.
User avatar
General Zod
Never Shuts Up
Posts: 29211
Joined: 2003-11-18 03:08pm
Location: The Clearance Rack
Contact:

Re: California gay marriage ban gaining steam

Post by General Zod »

Terralthra wrote:
Please explain to me how you would go about discussing the connotations of a concept or word besides going by what people think the connotations are? That's what connotations are: what people associate with a word or idea.
You're not getting it. It doesn't matter what people associate it with, the fact is that marriage has a perfectly valid secular definition already that doesn't require religious bullshit attached to it.
You asked who gave a shit what government called it. I was answering you.
That was the sound of my point flying over your head.
The point of the establishment clause was to keep government out of religion. The Lemon test, which is current precedent for deciding unconstitutionality based on the establishment clause, has a prong specifically for whether something represents "excessive entanglement" with religion, and another that states that governmental action must not either advance OR inhibit religion. I'm having trouble seeing how deciding which group of people are right about whether marriage is religious doesn't fail one or both of those prongs.
Red herring. We have perfectly valid non religious definitions for marriage already. Unless you can bother explaining what the difference between it and a civil union is, then frankly you have no point.
I am, in fact, proposing that the government using the same term for all cases. That is the exact opposite of insisting on using different terms for the same thing.
You're proposing using a different term than what we have when there's absolutely no justifiable reason for it except to keep the bigots happy.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: California gay marriage ban gaining steam

Post by Darth Wong »

Terralthra wrote:
General Zod wrote:You're contradicting yourself. If marriage isn't religious (hint: It isn't), then who gives a shit whether the government calls it marriage instead of a secular contractual relationship?
Darth Wong wrote: And why the fuck should government not use the word "marriage" if you don't think it's exclusive to religion, then? What is your justification for making the word "marriage" off-limits if you backpedal on the religious exclusivity, which is the entire basis of your fucking argument so far? All of your goddamned posts have revolved around religion, and you have the gall to claim that you have not been trying to claim religious ownership of the word "marriage"?
:banghead: Marriage isn't exclusively religious. Quite a few people think of it as religious, quite a few others don't.
If marriage isn't exclusively religious, then there's no reason not to let the government use the term, fuckhead. What part of this do you not understand?
As for who gives a shit what the government calls it, um, a lot of the people in this thread sure seem to, as well as a bunch of religious bigots who keep voting yes on various ballot measures banning gay marriage.
Yes, and your reasoning seems to be "the bigots want it, so let's give it to them."
That's one third of the electorate that only cares about the name government uses for it.
Perhaps you flunked grade-school math, but one third is not a majority.
All I am suggesting is taking the argument out of governmental hands. As long as everyone gets the same treatment from government, isn't that the point?
No, you are suggesting that we concede to religious types that the secular world has no business using the word "marriage": a manifestly false claim which is disproven by huge amounts of legal precedent indicating that religious officiating has been unnecessary even in western society, since before any of us were born.

Do you understand that you are talking about a rollback? It's not enough to say that some religious folk think marriage belongs to them; if religious folk think marriage belongs to them and secular folk think otherwise, the job of government is to accomodate both points of view, not one at the expense of the other. Let both sides use their own definition of marriage for themselves. Unfortunately, you insist that we roll over and give the bigots what they want; it's not enough for them to use their own definition for themselves; they want to force it on everyone. And you don't even want to admit that you are conceding religious exclusivity to the word "marriage" in the process, or that you were a fucking liar before when you claimed that all eastern cultures do their marriages in religious temples. You called that a mistake; it was not. It was a bald-faced lie, setting the tone for your conduct throughout this debate.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Pint0 Xtreme
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2430
Joined: 2004-12-14 01:40am
Location: The City of Angels
Contact:

Re: California gay marriage ban gaining steam

Post by Pint0 Xtreme »

The NO on Prop 8 campaign just released its own counter-ad.
Image
User avatar
CmdrWilkens
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9093
Joined: 2002-07-06 01:24am
Location: Land of the Crabcake
Contact:

Re: California gay marriage ban gaining steam

Post by CmdrWilkens »

SirNitram wrote:I'm just wondering how the homophobe will react when someone brings up the fact that, under English Common Law(Applicable in several parts of the US and other countries), common law marriage is basically a 'Oh, yea, they're probably married, I mean, devoted, lived together, aren't married to others.' check and then a nod. Not even bloody paperwork is required for a Common Law Marriage.

Explain how 'Living together and acting like married partners' carries any religious connotations. It is accepted as legal marriage in several countries, eleven US states, and the D.C.
Its also a loophole that the fundies are trying to close. Maryland had common law marriages (live together 7 years and then just go tell the clerk of the court you are married and it is so) up until the Ehrlich administration when that got shut down.
Image
SDNet World Nation: Wilkonia
Armourer of the WARWOLVES
ASVS Vet's Association (Class of 2000)
Former C.S. Strowbridge Gold Ego Award Winner
MEMBER of the Anti-PETA Anti-Facist LEAGUE

"I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. "
-Kingdom of Heaven
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Re: California gay marriage ban gaining steam

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

Kodiak wrote:
Here are some things I do believe after reading through this thread and re-evaluating some previous beliefs I have held:

1. All people have a right to equal treatment under the law.
2. Civil Unions do NOT provide equal standing, namely that they only extend to state borders (I did not comprehend this previously, my fault entirely)
3. A "Yes" vote on prop 8 would perpetuate an inequality which flies in the face of what I believe to be God's will that we love and respect one another.
4. I have no right, whether in the minority or majority, to presume that my personal beliefs on morality based on personal experience should be applied to any group with any force of the law against their will.
5. I realize now that my previous stance on Prop 8 was bigoted, but motivated by religious beliefs and not any personal hatred. I'm not homophobic, nor do I have secret fantasies about a cock being anywhere near my ass that isn't my own (let's be honest, a man's cock is close to his own ass and there's no way around that)
6. If you want to help a person understand your position, screaming and raging does little good. Illustrating your OWN side of the argument and helping those ignorant of anything but the talking points presented to them understand the full ramifications of a bill is far better (Thanks AD).
7. A no vote on Prop 8 puts me and my Mormon friends one step closer to getting our polygamy back 8)

Thanks to all of you who presented well thought out arguments and helped me understand this issue fully. To those of you who just ranted and raved and didn't contribute anything helpful, fuck off :)
I have to admit that I was wrong, then. I only did that because I simply assumed that, as always, you wouldn't change your beliefs, because nobody changes their beliefs on their internet, as AD noted, so there was nothing to do but gain some momentary salacious pleasure from flaming the fuck out of you. Well, I was wrong. Though I'm not sure I still entirely believe this happened. It might be more plausible for me to assume a ghost just shot me full of LSD before this page finished loading.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
Kanastrous
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6464
Joined: 2007-09-14 11:46pm
Location: SoCal

Re: California gay marriage ban gaining steam

Post by Kanastrous »

The Connecticut State Supreme Court just overturned that state's ban on same-sex marriage.

I don't know if that has any particular implications for the topic at hand, or not.
I find myself endlessly fascinated by your career - Stark, in a fit of Nerd-Validation, November 3, 2011
User avatar
The Yosemite Bear
Mostly Harmless Nutcase (Requiescat in Pace)
Posts: 35211
Joined: 2002-07-21 02:38am
Location: Dave's Not Here Man

Re: California gay marriage ban gaining steam

Post by The Yosemite Bear »

no because california still thinks they can create state laws that superceed federal laws.

makes me want to march zombie sherman through LA, Frisco and what not.
Image

The scariest folk song lyrics are "My Boy Grew up to be just like me" from cats in the cradle by Harry Chapin
User avatar
RedImperator
Roosevelt Republican
Posts: 16465
Joined: 2002-07-11 07:59pm
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Re: California gay marriage ban gaining steam

Post by RedImperator »

The Yosemite Bear wrote:no because california still thinks they can create state laws that superceed federal laws.

makes me want to march zombie sherman through LA, Frisco and what not.
Why would you want to march zombie Sherman through the parts of California that are going to vote "no" on Prop. 8 by overwhelming majorities?
Image
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963
X-Ray Blues
User avatar
CaptainChewbacca
Browncoat Wookiee
Posts: 15746
Joined: 2003-05-06 02:36am
Location: Deep beneath Boatmurdered.

Re: California gay marriage ban gaining steam

Post by CaptainChewbacca »

RedImperator wrote:
The Yosemite Bear wrote:no because california still thinks they can create state laws that superceed federal laws.

makes me want to march zombie sherman through LA, Frisco and what not.
Why would you want to march zombie Sherman through the parts of California that are going to vote "no" on Prop. 8 by overwhelming majorities?
Because the places that will vote yes are mostly open country with lots of guns.
Stuart: The only problem is, I'm losing track of which universe I'm in.
You kinda look like Jesus. With a lightsaber.- Peregrin Toker
ImageImage
User avatar
RedImperator
Roosevelt Republican
Posts: 16465
Joined: 2002-07-11 07:59pm
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Re: California gay marriage ban gaining steam

Post by RedImperator »

CaptainChewbacca wrote:
RedImperator wrote:
The Yosemite Bear wrote:no because california still thinks they can create state laws that superceed federal laws.

makes me want to march zombie sherman through LA, Frisco and what not.
Why would you want to march zombie Sherman through the parts of California that are going to vote "no" on Prop. 8 by overwhelming majorities?
Because the places that will vote yes are mostly open country with lots of guns.
Fat lot of good that did Joe Johnston.
Image
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963
X-Ray Blues
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Re: California gay marriage ban gaining steam

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

RedImperator wrote:
CaptainChewbacca wrote:
Because the places that will vote yes are mostly open country with lots of guns.
Fat lot of good that did Joe Johnston.
*giggles* Oh jesus fucking christ that deserves to be FUQed.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
User avatar
CaptainChewbacca
Browncoat Wookiee
Posts: 15746
Joined: 2003-05-06 02:36am
Location: Deep beneath Boatmurdered.

Re: California gay marriage ban gaining steam

Post by CaptainChewbacca »

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
RedImperator wrote:
CaptainChewbacca wrote:
Because the places that will vote yes are mostly open country with lots of guns.
Fat lot of good that did Joe Johnston.
*giggles* Oh jesus fucking christ that deserves to be FUQed.
I don't get the reference.
Stuart: The only problem is, I'm losing track of which universe I'm in.
You kinda look like Jesus. With a lightsaber.- Peregrin Toker
ImageImage
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: California gay marriage ban gaining steam

Post by Darth Wong »

CaptainChewbacca wrote:I don't get the reference.
I believe Joe Johnston was a Confederate general.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
RedImperator
Roosevelt Republican
Posts: 16465
Joined: 2002-07-11 07:59pm
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Re: California gay marriage ban gaining steam

Post by RedImperator »

CaptainChewbacca wrote:I don't get the reference.
Joe Johnston was the Confederate general who failed to stop Sherman from breaking out of Tennessee and approaching Atlanta. He had a lot more damn guns than whatever half-assed redneck militia they could gin up to protect Bakersfield, and was fighting on better defensive ground. Jefferson Davis finally fired him and replaced him with John Bell Hood, who promptly got his ass kicked trying to break Sherman's line. Hood eventually had to abandon Atlanta to avoid getting encircled, and the March to the Sea was on.

Anyway, though, this is now officially off topic. If we want to continue, I could split this section and kick it to OT.
Image
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963
X-Ray Blues
User avatar
Alyrium Denryle
Minister of Sin
Posts: 22224
Joined: 2002-07-11 08:34pm
Location: The Deep Desert
Contact:

Re: California gay marriage ban gaining steam

Post by Alyrium Denryle »

Darth Wong wrote:
CaptainChewbacca wrote:I don't get the reference.
I believe Joe Johnston was a Confederate general.
Well that was his first mistake right there...
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences


There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.

Factio republicanum delenda est
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Re: California gay marriage ban gaining steam

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

Darth Wong wrote:
CaptainChewbacca wrote:I don't get the reference.
I believe Joe Johnston was a Confederate general.
Who was consistently outmanoeuvred by Sherman, with (case in point) the terrain he was defending being the heavily-armed southland, where all of the old men and boys with guns simply got butchered in the face of Sherman's Army of the West.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
Post Reply