quote:This is just to say that while it's sometimes popular to speak as if homosexual discrimination were an American phenomonenon, it ain't-it's a human problem.
Yeah. Just look at the schism in the Anglican Church between the Westerners and the Africans about ordination of gay ministers and the same-sex marriage issue.
And don't even get me started on the Middle East.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Karl Rove came on and bascially said that the gay banning amendments were used as a ploy to get people out to vote.
*nod*
I think the national ammendment ploy is what put them over the top in this election, and what helped them strengthen their hold on congress. I had hoped it would blow up in their faces, but it didn't. . . .
For what it's worth, this year's elections have pushed me away from the "center." (The irony is that I don't think I have moved at all. I think the republicans have.) I have been a registered independent for the last fourteen years, but I intend to join the democratic party now.
Based on my morals and values, this election as a whole is one of the more shameful parts of our history, certainly for the last twenty or thirty years. I'm not saying that to be argumentative. I know there are Hatrackers who see it otherwise and I respect your intellect and count you among my friends. It just means we have different beliefs and priorities, and interpret what we see differently.
(((Telp))) (((Other hatrackers hurt by Decision 2004)))
Telp, that straight but not narrow pin sounds really cool. Do you happen to know how I can get one?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The majority of the country is moderate. To capture that middle, the Democrats moved to the middle and the Republicans moved farther right. The idea is that the Republicans will go so far right that people will stop voting for them, but that hasn't happened yet.
So, it isn't surprising that your independent, nuetral stance has become Democratic. They've moved to where you are, but are labeled as being far left.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
That's how I perceive it, and yet, we have these elections . . .
I think the republicans were wildly successful in mobilizing people who feel that the democrat agenda is an immoral one.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
We can slam the Republican party on this, and justly so, but we have to remember the other side of the token, too.
In Clinton's run for office, he pandered heavily for the Gay vote. Once in office, the pandering filtered out and what came through was the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" directive to the Armed Forces, something very, very short of what he had promised the Gay Community.
Hopefully, on the Republican side this time (and I want to do some comparison between presidential votes vs. the ammendment votes in those states), they will be just as ineffective in getting these motions past the Supreme Court. I believe, in the end, these tigers will be as toothless as Clinton's were.
Least, that's what I hope.
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Do the supporters of gay marriage feel that most of the country would support gay marriage, and that it is just various political powers preventing the true will of the people from being expressed?
Or, if most of the country does not support gay marriage, are the supporters of gay marriage suggesting that the government needs to legalize it, despite the majority's will, for the sake of advancing civil liberties?
If your opinion is the former, over 75% of the nation supports traditional marriage in poll after poll.
If your opinion is the latter, then I guess we get into an argument between the will of the majority and the will of the minority.
Still, shouldn't this be put to the people? The beginning of a marriage amendment wouldn't prevent gay marriage right away. It would first put it to the congress and then the states. I can't speak for congress, but the amendment would pass by a huge margin among the people.
So the question is, should a handful of judges in each state slowly overturn laws that the large majority of the people support? Should one judge in Louisiana be permitted to overturn a gay marriage ban that the people of that state voted for?
Right now I am not addressing the morality or immorality of the practice, I am addressing where we draw the line in ignoring the will of the people?
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, all of this advocacy here is at least partially aimed at trying to change people's minds in order to get a majority to agree to allow gay civil marriage. So it's not a question of thwarting the will of the majority - it's an attempt to change the majority.
Second, judges overruling some pretty obviously unconstitutional laws, whether passed by the legislature or by the voters directly, is nothing new. It is countermajoritarian. Note that these amendments didn't just prevent some judge from deciding there's a right to gay marriage in the state constitution. Rather, they banned the legislatures from acting on a lot of proposals short of gay marriage. They did so with inadequate understanding of the scope of their decision.
posted
Which is why amendments also go through both houses of congress, not just the people.
I guess what I am asking is that if the rigorous process of passing an amendment is still not sufficient to ensure that the proposed law is constitutional, what process will be sufficient?
Our founders intended an amendment to be very difficult to pass. They assumed that if it did pass, it must be a worthy law.
So why not let the law be put to the test through the amendment process? Has anyone considered that if it does not pass the process, once it is started, that would be a strong statement in support of pro-gay marriage people.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess what I am asking is that if the rigorous process of passing an amendment is still not sufficient to ensure that the proposed law is constitutional, what process will be sufficient?
A constitutional amendment makes anything constitutional. It doesn't make it right, though, and it doesn't make it consistent with the values and ideals which inform our Constitution.
Plus, state amendments aren't nearly so hard to get. And citizens do not vote directly on federal amendments.
If an anti-gay-marriage amendment passes, then the ocuntry will have definitively spoken on the subject. And the country will be a much unkinder place.
quote:If your opinion is the former, over 75% of the nation supports traditional marriage in poll after poll.
If your opinion is the latter, then I guess we get into an argument between the will of the majority and the will of the minority.
Well... a good question. And a grey area.
But I can say this... most of the nation was agaist black folk until the government forced them to see them as equals.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The scariest thing in this election was a what happened here.
Karl Rove used the Evangelical Christian Churches to make sure his candidates gained power and that he gained power.
He used the newest media phenomenon, the News Like You Want To Hear It, where conservatives listen to conservative stations, and liberals listen to liberal stations and no debate or research is allowed that crosses those lines.
So in Telp's state people listened to their conservative stations that said "Go Vote Against This Attack On Marriage. Go Vote Against the Activist Judges."
They never heard the problems of this law, how it is too broad and open to driving companies out of the state.
They never heard the dangers of what they are voting for.
If this could happen here, what other law could be passed where the fine print could mean untold pork or untold dangers?
Could we see a future where our Democracy is killed by an enslaved press. Where we vote, as our favorite personality tells us to, for laws that will enslave us?
quote: The Farm Salvation Act of 2010?
Whereas fewer people are willing to work in the agricultural fields, a special system of entitlements will be created so that all those who work for the Agricultural industry will be fed, housed, and well kept for the duration of their lives. Further, their descendants will recieve equal compensation as they continue to work in this neccessary and time honored career.
Compensation, paid for by the Agricultural companies that use their services, and at the sole discretion of the owners of the land where the workers are settled, shall be considered generous and include food and lodging for all such employees.
The duties will be those assigned by the companies involved to insure a steady and ample supply of foodstuff to the country and its efforts to spread peace and Democracy world wide.
Those designated by the state to partake of this work shall be people unemployed for over two years, paroled convicts of the courts choosing, the homeless, those seeking mental treatment or drug rehabilitation and those that the goverment deems undesirable.
To further encourage the growth of the agricultural market, farms using these special employees will be free from EPA, OSHA and other restrictive bearuocratic requirements.
Religous institutions will be mandatory on all such farms, allowing and encouraging those so employed the fundamental religous opportunities they deserve. While the State does not sponsor or support any specific church, we recognize the costs involved in supporting a multiple number of religious observances. It is within the rights of the companyies involved to set up thier specific churches and encourage full participation by all involved.
The voters are told this act will revolutionize and revitalize the sagging farm industry, plus it will reduce the need for illegal immigrants. It will offer work programs and lower unemployment while ensuring steady food supplies. It also encourages the religion of the workers.
Anyone who reads it carefully also sees it sets up a permanent Serfdom controlled completely by corporate interests.
Yet if run by the Karl Rove method it would pass, as this No Gay Left Behind bill did.
That is what is scariest about this whole mess.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icky, you weren't supposed to mention that! I think the HSLC had the libeler snuffed, anyway.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I honestly think there is a slim majority, or very large minority of citizens in this country that would recognize some sort of legal contract for same sex couples. I think those that just want to integrate same sex relationships into the existing marriage code are a smallish minority (~20%?? Just my guess).
Incidentally, I'm skeptical of the "traditional marriage" polls. Depending on how it was asked, I could easily say I support traditional marriage, heck, I plan to belong in one by this time next year! However, I believe legally, that same-sex coupls can and ought to be recognized so that they get the same tangible legal rights that heterosexual marriages receive under the law. I do NOT think any church has to accept these legal constructs, but they can if they desire.
Personally, of your two options, I'd say that this is a civil rights issue, and in that case, there is no question apout the wills of the majority/minoirty. Civil rights are constitutionally protected, by and large, specifically for the protection of the minority, not to protect the majority from a minority. I think everyone here can agree that homosexuals are a minority group (as a descriptive class, not under any/all legal statutes), and the amendments are being proposed to protect the majority from a minority.
That's my take.
--- Ic, get in line, buster. I've had my applicationto be Dag's minion in for several weeks.
Bok, I posted the duties of a Dag-minion but never saw a response:
quote:So far the only duty for Dag-minions I can think of is to steadfastly maintain that Bruce Campbell is the awesome, and that Ash is far superior to Jack Burton as a hero when monsters are on the loose.
I'm sure more will occur to me as my plans for world domination coalesce.
posted
Maybe gays should pair up with lesbians, when I was a kid that logic always seemed obvious to me.
A gay couple marries a lesbian couple and nobody knows what goes on behind closed doors. Everybody gets to be married, everybody is happy!
Well not really, because the Bean Counter is back!
I personally feel that the much of this comes from the sloppy science that is much touted in the media that being gay is not a choice, as if the brain does not wire itself based on how you use it. (behavior)
Bad science leading to false sympathy/empathy.
Really the gay movement is simply people who want to act in the fashion they choose and despite general moral standards, and be cheered for it and rewarded.
The sad reality is that all the people who want the gays to have something are saying "poor dears" and feeling very good in a condecending fashion. I feel that if being gay is so great it should be able to stand without my assistance.
Just try saying that same thing to a black dude....that they choose to be black or that because they are black they are inferior.
You freaking idiot... homosexuality is BIOLOGICAL. We've known that for a decade. It is a basic life function...like breathing or hunger.
I can screw a million women and it would not make me straight. Being straigh/bi/gay/transgendered is BIOLOGICAL.
Hello.. Hello McFly! *tap tap tap* Get it through your skull.
Or look at it this way if you are so straight...try having sex with a dude and see how much you like it.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait, don't tell me. You *also* have an undergrad degree in biology, right BC?
Stay the course, Telp. You know you're right and you'll win out in the end. Hunger is, as they say, the best sauce Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I too have held my tongue long enough... You are just being offensive in an inconstructive manner. You can't even properly explain to me HOW being gay is so immoral and destructive. You attitude towards gays is destructive. It's a disease. Can't you see that?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: They never heard the problems of this law, how it is too broad and open to driving companies out of the state.
They never heard the dangers of what they are voting for.
In our state they mailed out this little booklet to everyone that stated the issues on the ballot complete with pro and anti arguments as well as rebuttals to both. It showed me that the people in charge care about trying to educate people on the issues and helping them make an informed, balanced decision. Very well done. Do other states do this?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Telp, reign in your tone. It's your opinion that Homosexuality is "biological". I could claim that God exists is a fact, but that doesn't make it so.
I understand your vested interest in trying to push your beliefs because they affect you directly.
But don't denigrate another poster by calling them names.
Maybe I have no right to say such, but lowering the tone of the thread with that post a couple up didn't help anything at all.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The last few posts make me sick. I may not agree with BC, but the responding last few posts show more intollerance and hatred than any of his thus far.
For perspective, replace everything you have said about BC and put Telp's name or your own in it's place.
posted
Telp, I understand what you are saying. I feel for you. It is your Life, but marriage is also about MY life, my beliefs, what I will teach my children, what my children will learn in public schools, etc. etc.
There are definately strong feelings that I respect on both sides.
BC, your response could have taken the high road or the low road, and you chose unwisely. Trust me, I should know. I've chosen unwisely before as well.
If you have opinions, then state them as opinions, phrase them as such, and try to be as gentile about people who believe the exact opposite of it.
But me asking that is hypocritical. I'm as guilty as you, but know I've been wrong.
I think once you get to "name calling" you hit rock bottom of "pointless posting".
Let's raise it back up a notch.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
*Growl* How the hell is having sex with a guy if you are a guy dangerous? I really do need to quit this. Seriously. Because if I don't I will say things that are so rude. I try very hard to be polite, but this issue is making me completely crazy.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aw, Chad. You were looking so good in the comparison. Have you been following all the threads BC has posted in lately? I have. Troll, pure and simple. Talks about his philosophy background, but gets easily shot down by other knowledgable posters. Talks about the supremacy of math, but admits to not being very good at it, and fails to show numbers backing up his positions. Now he's an expert in genetics. Apparently, if there is not an organ for something, or it cannot lead to reproduction, it doesn't exist. And he has been absolutely vile in multiple threads--my favorite moment being his suggestion that Sara is a useless academic (and having the gall to accuse her of fallaciously arguing from authority when she only mentioned her qualification in reply to his own attempt to argue from the on high authority of someone with an Undergraduate Minor in Philosophy!).
I try not to waste time arguing with trolls. I'm not talking in this post to BC, but to you, Chad, because you show evidence of not being a troll. And I'm not calling BC a troll because of his politics. There are plenty of conservatives who voted for Bush and believe homosexuality is imoral who have been able to post with more respect for their opposition, and, in most cases, compassion, than Bean Counter has shown.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
((Telp)) Not only do you have my sympathy for the amendments, but also for the existance of people who are willing to say things from behind a keyboard that they would never consider saying to someone's face. At least I hope they wouldn't.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Their prejudices make me feel hurt and disillusioned. And, no matter how many facts are presented to turn their arguments into dust.... *should give up and retire*
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bean Counter, You deliberately set up to hurt Telp. Leaving aside how this is both a pretty petty thing to do and is arguably against the terms of service for this site, there is, for you, I think a bigger issue.
I'm assuming your a christian. Deliberately hurting someone is a violation of the most important commandment of Christianity. It's bad enough to do so in a moment of weakness, and to repent afterwards, but you seem to be willfully and almost gleefully doing so. Such behavior, even under provocation, grieves the being you consider your savior, but it's so much worse when who you are as a person is itself a sin. If you think that it is ok and even admirable to hurt people, your problem goes far beyond your behavior. Your very personality is in violation of the greatest of Christian commandments.
If you think your religion enjoins you to hurt, hate, or in any other way treat another person with anything other than true neighborly love, you have a very twisted understanding of Christ's message.
quote: You deliberately set up to hurt Telp. Leaving aside how this is both a pretty petty thing to do and is arguably against the terms of service for this site, there is, for you, I think a bigger issue.
Not at all. He posted I replied. If you do not like to dance, stay off the floor. I wrestled for 16 yrs and never set out to hurt a soul, enjoyed every match, got hurt some, hurt some others, it is incedental to the greater cause of honing ones impeccability.
quote: I'm assuming your a christian. Deliberately hurting someone is a violation of the most important commandment of Christianity. It's bad enough to do so in a moment of weakness, and to repent afterwards, but you seem to be willfully and almost gleefully doing so. Such behavior grieves the being you consider your savior, but it's so much worse when who you are as a person is itself a sin. If you think that it is ok and even admirable to hurt people, your problem goes far beyond your behavior. Your very personality is in violation of the greatest of Christian commandments.
"
quote:
you can forgive a man and still kill him, you can love him and still do what needs doing..."
John Shannow [/QUOTE]
Is a father a sinner for spanking an errant child?
quote: If you think your religion enjoins you to hurt, hate, or in any other way treat another person with anything other than true neighborly love, you have a very twisted understanding of Christ's message.
I have only the pure love of Jesus in my heart! He says hello, and "Sorry I could not talk to you myself I was creating a totally superfulous pain sensation in a group of creatures on another world to inspire them through eons of agony to create medicine! I'll talk to you later!"
quote: Is a father a sinner for spanking an errant child?
I guess a father isn't a sinner for spanking his errant child, but if he takes joy in the action of spanking, then yes, it's wrong. Do you think it is up to you to judge Telp and other homosexuals? And is it alright to take joy from the punishment?
You're displaying a BLATANT disregard for other people's feelings. You deliberately hurt them, and you seem to take joy from that. This can not be tolerated in any community, much less this one. I've got to ask, would you say those things to a person in real life? If not, why do you say them here? Are the people here less real to you? Don't you realize that they are real people with real feelings? Or is it just that you're not afraid of repercussions? Whatever it is, I'd like you to stop. Not because I disagree with you(I do), but because you're deliberately hurting someone who is a valued member of our community.
Show some respect for other people.
quote: It is too bad that the guy with AIDS is going to die because he cannot get married...
What? What does this have to do with anything? AIDS? You do realize that it's not just homosexuals who get AIDS, right?
And I'd like to repeat something Dag said:
quote: You know what, Bean Counter? It's possible to hold a policy position that has negative effects on people you hold to be a friend and not be an utter insensitive little pissant about those effects.
If you're going to support such a position, you are morally obligated to have taken the negative effects into account. Showing an ounce of compassion for the very real, very personal effects of your chosen policies would go a long way to convincing people that you've actually considered the fact that real people are injured by your position.
posted
I used to live in Montana. A few years ago, there was some terrorism in Billings against Jews. I remember that some windows were shot out and bricks were thrown. In fact, the conductor of the local symphony, Uri Barnea, woke up one night to the sound of shattering glass in his daughter's bedroom. In response, the Billings Gazette printed out a full page picture of a menorah. Almost everyone in town had one of those things taped to their window that year.
I guess what I'm saying here is that I now, for the very first time, wish that this forum allowed avatars, so I could put up a rainbow flag in protest of the hateful remarks that have been made in this thread.
(((Telperion the Silver)))
P.S. A statement of opinion is one that can be neither proven or disproven. A statement like "Homosexuality is a choice" is not an opinion. Calling it an opinion doesn't make it so. What it is is an incorrect fact.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I do is far crueler then you think! I do not set out to hurt feeling, I just do not give them my attention.
A persons feelings are thier own, I not only believe this in theory I live it. Of course I would say the same thing in any company. It is a good way to sort your associates.
You sought out some moral high ground of deep feeling and compassion as if pain is not a universal truth. It is the teacher. It is silly for you to pretend to know the will of God, I tried to demonstrate that to you by pretending I did, but you missed it.
Gleefully beating your kids may be wrong, but simulated glee could be an added deterant to future behavior. One must control the emotions one has, display the ones one chooses and eat the plate in front of you.
It can be done, so my words seek the ones who can actually do it. The Jury of my Peers.
Temp actually saw past it, then you got lost in the words... so sad
quote:If you have opinions, then state them as opinions, phrase them as such, and try to be as gentile about people who believe the exact opposite of it.
But me asking that is hypocritical. I'm as guilty as you, but know I've been wrong.
I think once you get to "name calling" you hit rock bottom of "pointless posting".
Let's raise it back up a notch.
Chad, this part is so cool. Thanks.
Telp, I love reading about the effect you've had on so many here. It sounds like you were responsible to changing a few votes out there. Hang on to that, brother. (((Telp)))
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Icky, you weren't supposed to mention that! I think the HSLC had the libeler snuffed, anyway.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
