Decision on Prop 8 pending

[Birdjaguar]

Some how, I think if this was a thread on interracial marriage, and people were arguing for a ban, we wouldn't be expected to ignore the racist tone.

English is a rich language with lots of options. If you are unable to discuss gay marriage without name calling, then perhaps it is best to be silent.

 

[MobBoss]

Sorry, it's difficult to avoid calling people bigots when they are, even if they are in the majority, Mob.

No its not. Its called having restraint.

 

[useless]

No its not. Its called having restraint.

I must remind you that the same people that are against it include people such as the Westboro Baptist Church and other groups who aren't known for their tolerance. So if you accuse me and those against proposistion 8 of being unable to restrain ourselves, then i need only say that your side has consistantly shown it's own intolerance of homosexuals.

 

[civver_764]

I think it has about as much chance as zombie Reagan rising again to be elected in 2012. That is...about nil.

But do you like the idea?

 

[Birdjaguar]

I must remind you that the same people that are against it include people such as the Westboro Baptist Church and other groups who aren't known for their tolerance. So if you accuse me and those against proposistion 8 of being unable to restrain ourselves, then i need only say that your side has consistantly shown it's own intolerance of homosexuals.

The restraint he was talking about is in regards to name calling in posts, nothing more.

 

[Cutlass]

English is a rich language with lots of options. If you are unable to discuss gay marriage without name calling, then perhaps it is best to be silent.

It's not name calling. It's a technically accurate description.

 

[MobBoss]

I must remind you that the same people that are against it include people such as the Westboro Baptist Church and other groups who aren't known for their tolerance.

Seriously, are you really trying to link the WBC as anything like your average voter that voted for prop 8?

Rofl, thats so outrageous as to be laughable.

So if you accuse me and those against proposistion 8 of being unable to restrain ourselves, then i need only say that your side has consistantly shown it's own intolerance of homosexuals.

All I can say to that is that I am not on the side of the WBC. I think they are indeed a quite hateful organization that plagues the nation as a whole. And it really is unfair to try and even compare them with the average person who would support Prop 8.

 

[Birdjaguar]

It's not name calling. It's a technically accurate description.

In our OT setting it is provocative and fans the flames of incivility. It has been used sufficiently already to get the idea across.

 

[useless]

Seriously, are you really trying to link the WBC as anything like your average voter that voted for prop 8?

Rofl, thats so outrageous as to be laughable.



All I can say to that is that I am not on the side of the WBC. I think they are indeed a quite hateful organization that plagues the nation as a whole. And it really is unfair to try and even compare them with the average person who would support Prop 8.

Because those who believe homosexuals are evil scum, would never jump on the oppertunity to screw them over and deny them the same things they would want. The fact is, that those against Homosexual marriage have ALOT of right-wing, often homophobic backers, and it's not always blatent. I'm pretty sure the average person couldn't give a toss about whether two men or two women marry unless they have some issue with gay people.

 

[warpus]

This isnt a right/wrong issue. Its a 'how are we going to define marriage' issue. And in that particular case, the majority should indeed be able to decide how marriage is going to be defined. Even SCOTUS has said the states have the right to do this previously (if I am not mistaken).

Of course it's a right/wrong issue. It's a case of what rights which people should have, and as such it is something that can't be decided by majority rule.

You can define marriage to be whatever you like, without dragging the rest of us into your definition of it.

 

[MobBoss]

Because those who believe homosexuals are evil scum, would never jump on the oppertunity to screw them over and deny them the same things they would want.

That may be what the WBC wants, but its certainly not what I want, nor I would think, the vast majority that support things like prop 8.

The fact is, that those against Homosexual marriage have ALOT of right-wing, often homophobic backers, and it's not always blatent.

Prop 8 couldnt have passed without a lot of independent or even democrats voting for it as well. Remember, it was in California and thats not exactly a bastion of conservatism.

I'm pretty sure the average person couldn't give a toss about whether two men or two women marry unless they have some issue with gay people.

I'm pretty sure your're wrong, especially given all the flack about gay marriage for the last decade or so. I dont think people care about them having sex or being in a relationship...but once you want to make it government recognized as some kind of norm, thats where people are going to object.

 

[useless]

Strange, how you have no problem with heterosexual marriage being recognised by the government and enforcing such a thing.

 

[MobBoss]

Strange, how you have no problem with heterosexual marriage being recognised by the government and enforcing such a thing.

Because thats a sociatal norm that been the status quo since even way before the founding of our nation. It shouldnt seem strange to you at all give the history of the situation.

 

[useless]

Then why not go back and implement slavery? That was the societal norm back then? Why even bother advancing socially? Seriously, your making excuses against what is essentially treating homosexuals equally and like the normal people they are.

 

[downtown]

Good. Now I can stop feeling guilty. No hard feelings now, right Californians? Right?

 

[Cull]

Add me as anti-Prop 8 person.

 

[Mango Elephant]

I'm pretty sure your're wrong, especially given all the flack about gay marriage for the last decade or so. I dont think people care about them having sex or being in a relationship...but once you want to make it government recognized as some kind of norm, thats where people are going to object.

But why should people object? Denying marriage, a human right, to a rather large minority is cruel.

 

[classical_hero]

I don't agree that marriage is a right, but a privilege.

 

[Mango Elephant]

I don't agree that marriage is a right, but a privilege.

A privilage for being Heterosexual.

Thats being mean to Gays. 'Your straight brothers and sisters were very good so they get marriage, but since you fornicate with the same gender you can't marry! Straight power!'

Now, since marriage is a privilage, what reason do you have for give Heterosexuals marraige but not Homosexuals? The only reason I can think of is 'Straights are better than Gays', which I hope is not the case, because if it was that would be incredibly offensive.

 

[civ_king]

I don't agree that marriage is a right, but a privilege.

No, it's a religious ceremony