• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

California Proposition 8

Bob Magness said:
So while I think most of us can agree that a President Obama will be a much better friend to the gay community than a President McCain, the fact that Obama was on the ticket probably lead to Prop 8 not being passed.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. Don't forget, Obama is against gay marriage as well.
 
Axiom_Blade said:
Perhaps. Don't forget, Obama is against gay marriage as well.
Click to expand...

I haven't, and good point. He went out of his way to mention gays in his victory speech and that probably annoyed more people than made happy so I have hope. In my opinion, federally recognized civil unions would be a bigger victory for the gay community than legalized marriage in a couple states and I could invision Obama signing such a law whereas McCane would likely "leave it up to the States."

Of course the strong possibility that I am being overly optimistic remains.
 
Ok, as far as the Black turnout on passing Prop 8 no surprise there. While religion in the Black community is a cause it's much more than that. The reasons range from "it makes baby jebus cry" to "sissies are weak" and "It's icky".

For those who may not know, there is a sub culture in the Black community called "down low". Members of this subculture simply refuse to admit they are gay/bi. Oh they'll have sex with a guy, maybe even mostly guys, but it just happens... Since "it just happens" no condoms allowed. See, if you bring condoms to a guy's night out, that means you wanted to have sex with a guy and thus you're gay/bi, and of course due to your "thug" attitude, you must have sex with many women too. If you're married (to a woman of course) that's a bonus. (If you've seen that in a TV show, they weren't joking)

It's so bad that one of my best friends, a guy I've known since I was 3, was so shaken up by the thought of telling me he was gay that I thought he had killed someone and was trying to ask me to help him dispose of the body. It may sound funny but it wasn't.

(NOTE: What I'm about to say may be too much info for some about me. Just a warning.)


As far as the perversions, my fiancee and I have been swingers since we met. At one of our favorite sites it amazed me at how many people planned to vote against Prop 8 because "It was morally wrong."
 
About the comparison to Apartheid, that is perfectly valid. You see during the apartheid years Homosexual marriage was banned. (In fact I wouldn't be surprised if Homosexual sex was banned as well).
 
Redtail said:
For those who may not know, there is a sub culture in the Black community called "down low". Members of this subculture simply refuse to admit they are gay/bi. Oh they'll have sex with a guy, maybe even mostly guys, but it just happens... Since "it just happens" no condoms allowed. See, if you bring condoms to a guy's night out, that means you wanted to have sex with a guy and thus you're gay/bi, and of course due to your "thug" attitude, you must have sex with many women too. If you're married (to a woman of course) that's a bonus. (If you've seen that in a TV show, they weren't joking)
Click to expand...

But Redtail, how much of a impact do you think that particular subculture had on the vote? Do you think the people that are concerned about maintaining a "thug" attitude are members of the voting community? I'm clueless as to how prevelent that sub-culture is. The only time I had ever heard of it was on an episode of CSI or NYPD Blue.
 
kallsop said:
As I've said before, how hard can it be in California to find some judges to overturn the wishes of the people? I'd put money on it.
Click to expand...

It's part of a judge's job description to overturn the wishes of the people when the wishes of the people are against the law. We don't allow mob rule here in the U.S. whenever possible.

Would you like to deal with the substance of the lawsuit instead of just snidely dismissing it with your little truisms?
 
joobz said:
By your argument, it would be acceptable for society to make any arbitrary law.
Click to expand...

I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about the issue of gay marriage. When Michigan had one of those "ban gay marriage" ballot propositions, I voted against it.

However, some of the arguments I hear in support of gay marriage really make me cringe. Chief among those are the variations on saying that our limitation of marriage to one man and one woman is somehow "abitrary".

Really, I think that the concepts of "man" and "woman" are pretty meaningful distinctions, and the interactions between one of each of those is pretty significant. I am told that it could even affect your taxes in numerous ways. I'm not talking just about tax breaks for engaging in those interactions, either. Someone once told me that it could even somehow change the number of dependents you can claim. I haven't had time to look it up yet, but I think he may have been right.

Whether one thinks it is a good idea to regulate, recognize, or reward such interactions is a subject for debate, but it's hardly "arbitrary".
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I was serious. Perversions such as homosexuality, bestiality, pedophilia, incest, and such, are not equivalent to a proper and normal marriage between a man and a woman, and I am solidly opposed to society being forced to pretend that they are. So, it seems are enough of my fellow Americans to get laws passed in three states to this effect this last election.
Click to expand...
Never mind that homosexuality is a naturally occurring aspect of animal life and hardly a "perversion," since you ignored my earlier post, I'll try a different approach.

How do you feel about atheists?
 
Meadmaker said:
...the interactions between one of each of those is pretty significant. I am told that it could even affect your taxes in numerous ways. I'm not talking just about tax breaks for engaging in those interactions, either. Someone once told me that it could even somehow change the number of dependents you can claim.
Click to expand...

Leaving aside the complex questions of gender identity, let's just deal with this heteroexceptionalism.

I am single now, but when I was in a committed relationship, I found the interactions pretty significant, too. It would have been nice to have tax benefits and other socially given privileges available to help add more stability to our commitment. We might have even been willing to help share that stability with some children lost in the social services network.

So thanks for pretending that hetero relationships are somehow more "special". But it ain't necessarily so.
 
Meadmaker said:
I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about the issue of gay marriage. When Michigan had one of those "ban gay marriage" ballot propositions, I voted against it.

However, some of the arguments I hear in support of gay marriage really make me cringe. Chief among those are the variations on saying that our limitation of marriage to one man and one woman is somehow "abitrary".
Click to expand...

It isn't arbitary?
Then explain the non arbitrary reason for why marriage is defined as being between only a man and a woman.

Meadmaker said:
Really, I think that the concepts of "man" and "woman" are pretty meaningful distinctions, and the interactions between one of each of those is pretty significant. I am told that it could even affect your taxes in numerous ways. I'm not talking just about tax breaks for engaging in those interactions, either. Someone once told me that it could even somehow change the number of dependents you can claim. I haven't had time to look it up yet, but I think he may have been right.

Whether one thinks it is a good idea to regulate, recognize, or reward such interactions is a subject for debate, but it's hardly "arbitrary".
Click to expand...

You are affirming the consequent here. Definition of marriage isn't arbitrary because marriage imposes special rights to those who are married.
 
Last edited:
kallsop said:
As I've said before, how hard can it be in California to find some judges to overturn the wishes of the people? I'd put money on it.
Click to expand...
True, but the argument in the petition seems a bit weak:

The petition charges that Proposition 8 is invalid because the initiative process was improperly used in an attempt to undo the constitution's core commitment to equality for everyone by eliminating a fundamental right from just one group - lesbian and gay Californians.

Although it can be argued that the right to marry same sex is a fundamental right, that would if so be a fundamental right that only existed for a year or two, since some CA municipalities began granting same sex marriage licenses.

That's a factual matter, and quite different than saying that these people have always been denied these rights (until the last year or two).

Ex. For a while, medical marihuana was allowed, then the feds stopped it. Does that brief period of existence of that right raise it to the "fundamental right" level?


boloboffin said:
It's part of a judge's job description to overturn the wishes of the people when the wishes of the people are against the law. ....
Click to expand...
Outcomes often depend on which judge is picked.
 
Last edited:
If only these people took half the time spent on fighting gay marriage and devoted it to actual problems, such as divorce or spousal abuse.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
... On the other hand, any legitimate government derives its authority entirely from the will and consent of those who are governed thereby. A government that entirely rejects the clearly expressed will of the people does so without legitimate authority.
Click to expand...


Jefferson also had some beliefs on the role of legitimate Government as well. It is one that not only prohibits individuals in society from infringing on the liberty of other individuals, but also restrains itself from diminishing individual liberty.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I was serious. Perversions such as homosexuality, bestiality, pedophilia, incest, and such, are not equivalent to a proper and normal marriage between a man and a woman, and I am solidly opposed to society being forced to pretend that they are. So, it seems are enough of my fellow Americans to get laws passed in three states to this effect this last election.
Click to expand...

Right, enough americans to enforce a tyranny upon your fellow citizens. Just as responsible ferret owners were criminalized by their fellow citizens due to a proposition that should never have been added to the ballot, we see the "tyranny of democracy" at work once again - depriving citizens of basic rights because 50%+1 think the way they live should be the way everybody else lives.

In your mind Bob, is there anything 50%+1 shouldn't be able to do? What if there were enough signatures to start up a ballot initiative to completely legalize the sale of crack cocaine? Or to be even more far-fetched - what if 50%+1 put up a proposition that lowered the age of consent to 10 years old?

Would Jefferson consider a court decision striking down such a proposition "dangerous"? Or would he see the proposition itself as "dangerous"?

Your quote of Jefferson really is distraction - and it does nothing to address the fundamental separation of powers in a democratic system. You as an American should be very familiar with checks and balances and the fact that there are three branches of government, one of them being the judiciary - which is, by design distanced somewhat from the "will of the people", since even the framers knew that sometimes democracy could descend into mob rule, and that tryanny could come from a despotic King as much as it could come from "the people". Hence checks and balances and the separation of powers.

Bob Blaylock said:
On the other hand, any legitimate government derives its authority entirely from the will and consent of those who are governed thereby. A government that entirely rejects the clearly expressed will of the people does so without legitimate authority.
Click to expand...

The first part is true, and the second is false. Many people understand how a judiciary operates and like checks and balances and the separation of powers. The judiciary is legitimate authority - unless you're proposing that it be abolished?

If a government rejects the will of the people through simple fiat, or executive order - thats one thing. If a judge determines through an open and public process of legal scrutiny that this or that piece of legislation is unconstitutional - even if that legislation is a product of the 'will of the people' - it is by definition "legitimate", since a judge is constitutionally and legally empowered to make such decisions.

Seems to me you think there should only be two branches of government - and maybe three as long as the judiciary is a carbon copy of the latest polling data and deciding cases according to your personal value system (a corrupted value system I might add - grouping homosexuality in with "beastiality" is a clear sign of corrupted values).
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
... Although it can be argued that the right to marry same sex is a fundamental right, that would if so be a fundamental right that only existed for a year or two, since some CA municipalities began granting same sex marriage licenses.

That's a factual matter, and quite different than saying that these people have always been denied these rights (until the last year or two).

Ex. For a while, medical marihuana was allowed, then the feds stopped it. Does that brief period of existence of that right raise it to the "fundamental right" level?
Click to expand...


Your argument is convoluted at best, and ignores that we all have natural rights. To refer to Jefferson again, he believed that Government can't create a right; it can only violate rights. He believed, as well as the other Founders, that we have natural rights. The right to marry and the right to choose who we marry are fundamental rights. They exist with or without Government. Jefferson believed that individuals have an innate sense of the natural rights of others. To suggest that it takes a Government to give me rights is absurd when you look at the beliefs of the Founders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom