World of Pageantry

World of Pageantry

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Are you voting?
Poll ended at Wed Nov 05, 2008 3:07 am
Yes 70%  70%  [ 26 ]
No 16%  16%  [ 6 ]
Under 18 13%  13%  [ 5 ]
Total votes : 37
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:52 am 
Offline
Support Staff
Support Staff
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 6:46 am
Posts: 7936
Location: West Allis, WI
Ryan H. Turner wrote:
A slippery slope is what they 8 is--today, gay marriage is ok, tomorrow, you can't teach gay marriage is wrong in church because it's "against the law".

Please show me ANY precedent where the government has restricted what can or cannot be said in a place of worship. The would be a violation of the separation of church and state, and a violation of Freedom of Religion. Getting the CHURCH to recognize gay marriage and getting the GOVERNMENT to recognize it are two completely different things, and I'm only concerned with the latter. I would be perfectly fine with churches stating "we will not marry gays" so long as the government recognizes it.

And the secular argument was garbage, full of double-standards and unreferenced claims. If you're going to use a fertility or "benefit to society" argument as a reason for preventing gay marriage, then those same standards MUST apply to straight marriage. Saying "oh, we aren't going to fertility test straight couples because it's too expensive, but gays can't marry because they can't reproduce" is EXTREMELY prejudicial.

Lastly, the article's author makes it sound as though the only purpose of marriage is to benefit the government. Funny, I thought the idea was for the government to serve the people, not vice versa.

Regardless, all U.S. citizens deserve the SAME rights under the law (and for the millionth time, domestic partnership does not fulfill this). Either remove any and all governmental benefits from marriage or make any and all governmental benefits available in the exact same form to any and all legal U.S. citizens. Anything else is biased.

I feel neither the government (state/local or federal) nor the church has any right to limit/regulate activities between consenting adults that harm no third party.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 12:42 pm 
Offline
Drum Major
Drum Major
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 12:38 am
Posts: 2858
Location: Los Angeles
After the elections, I identify most with a libertarian ideology.

I think at least 90% of our problems would be solved if the government wasn't in our lives so much. Whatever people do in their own homes and whom ever you come into contracts with should not be the government's business as long as you do not hurt the rights of others

I'm rather surprised prop 8 passed. one of the most conservative forums I visit (a gun forum), prop 8 polls there looked like it was going to lose

_________________
WHS '05, UCSB '10
WOP OT Round 1 Picture Battle Champion!
WOP OT Mafia Game II: First ever mafia champions
http://officeofstrategicinfluence.com/spam/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 1:00 pm 
Offline
Drum Major
Drum Major
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 2412
Location: Jerusalem, Israel
Geeze Kevin and Jimmy, it's not like they passed a law against sodomy. Prop 8 didn't regulate what "two consenting adults do in their bedroom." They're still quite free to do what they want in private. The only thing Prop 8 affected was public life. Even there domestic partnership provides an equivalent to marriage.

Oh, one more thing. Kevin, you've been claiming for the entire election cycle that there's a fundamental difference between marriage and domestic partnership other than the term. I'm aware of the procedural differences. I'm also aware of the federal differences (which Prop 8 couldn't affect in any way). None of those are fundamental. Care to share what differences you're referring too?

_________________
It's 5:00... do you know where your ancestors came from?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 1:26 pm 
Offline
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 9:13 pm
Posts: 311
Quote:
Geeze Kevin and Jimmy, it's not like they passed a law against sodomy. Prop 8 didn't regulate what "two consenting adults do in their bedroom." They're still quite free to do what they want in private. The only thing Prop 8 affected was public life. Even there domestic partnership provides an equivalent to marriage.


WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!!!!!!!!!!

ARE YOU SAYING THAT BECAUSE I AM GAY I AM ONLY "FREE" TO DO WHAT I WANT IN PRIVATE? I AM A HUMAN BEING! I HAVE FEELINGS, I BLEED AND I EVEN PUT MY PANTS ON ONE LEG AT A TIME LIKE THE REST OF HUMANITY! SO WHY SHOULD I NOT BE ABLE TO DO WHAT STRAIGHT PEOPLE DO?

IM SORRY. THIS TO ME SOUNDS LIKE A QUOTE IN A BOOK I READ ONCE. MAYBE YOU'VE READ IT TO...ANIMAL FARM...I BELIEVE IT WENT LIKE THIS..."ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THEN OTHERS"
IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE YOU ARE FOR DISCRIMINATION. LIKE YOU'RE SAYING ITS OK TO BE GAY, JUST AS LONG AS I DONT KNOW ABOUT IT OR SEE IT. WELL YOU KNOW WHAT...IF YOU DONT LIKE GAY MARRIAGE. I SUGGEST YOU DONT MARRY A PERSON OF THE SAME SEX! AND IF YOU DONT LIKE GAY PEOPLE...BLAME STRAIGHT PEOPLE, THEY'RE THE ONES WHO KEEP HAVING GAY BABIES!

OK...IM DONE . FOR NOW!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 3:00 pm 
totherescue wrote:
WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!!!!!!!!!!
...
SO WHY SHOULD I NOT BE ABLE TO DO WHAT STRAIGHT PEOPLE DO?


You can do what straight people do. Wait, what are we talking about?


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 3:19 pm 
Offline
Rookie
Rookie
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 11:20 am
Posts: 293
Location: Sacramento, CA
One of the differences is that there are other countries and other states where same-sex marriage is recognized. Domestic partnership, however many benefits that gets you in CA, does NOT get you recognition should you move to one of those states or countries. So you have to love logic that says: Sure we'll give you state's rights, but we WON'T give you marriage, which would allow you to move away and be recognized by Connecticut, Massachusetts, Canada, etc...

So the Repubs effectively force gays to stay in CA. Hope you like us.

_________________
~twinmomma


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 3:22 pm 
Offline
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 5:22 pm
Posts: 329
Ok so I (as a card carring member of the G.O.P) voted NO on 8. Though I am disheartned it passed, a colluage of mine brought up a an intresting point. A point that SFGATE points out here

Quote:
On May 15, the state Supreme Court cleared the way for same-sex marriage. The court voted 4-3 to overturn Prop. 22 and the same-sex marriage ban, ruling that the state Constitution provided a right to marry that extends to same-sex couples. The three dissenting justices argued that it was up to the voters or the Legislature, not the court, to permit same-sex marriage, a view quickly taken up by opponents of the ruling.

"Four judges ignored 4 million voters and imposed same-sex marriage on California," Prop. 8 supporters said in a TV ad. "It's no longer about tolerance. Acceptance of gay marriage is now mandatory."

It was an argument that continued all the way to election day.
But with same-sex marriage legal in California, opponents of Prop. 8 could run a totally different campaign from the type that had lost virtually every election over the issue across the nation.
Rather than arguing for same-sex marriage, opponents took the moral high ground atop the Supreme Court decision and argued that a vote for Prop. 8 was a vote for discrimination. They got another bit of help when state Attorney General Jerry Brown ordered the Prop. 8 ballot language changed to say that it "eliminates the rights of same-sex couples to marry."

Prop. 8 backers charged that politics, not legal rectitude, was behind Brown's decision. They went to court, but lost.

That allowed Prop. 8 opponents, worried that many voters were not enamored with the idea of same-sex marriage, to run a TV campaign that almost never mentioned gays or lesbians or showed them in an ad. Instead, the ads charged that Prop. 8 supporters wanted to take away rights from a single, unnamed group of people, which opponents said was not fair.


Why not just come all out with it? I know what prop 8 was about and so did many others but to just says it is Unfair and wrong... WHAT IS unfair and wrong? IMO you cannot run a campaign of obscurity. If people do not know what they are voting for, what impact it has along with all the facts there of your mission will fail every time.

_________________
Calvin D. Carr
Director of Music -Pixley Middle School & Pixley Elementary
http://www.pixley.k12.ca.us


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 3:49 pm 
Offline
Grand PooBah
Grand PooBah

Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2002 4:24 pm
Posts: 3159
Location: Brea, California
Well Kevin--I understand exactly what you're saying, I'm just relating to you the "fear". It may not be rational, but fear rarely is.

_________________
Ryan H. Turner
http://vkdm8687.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 3:52 pm 
Offline
Support Staff
Support Staff
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 6:46 am
Posts: 7936
Location: West Allis, WI
mkosbie wrote:
Geeze Kevin and Jimmy, it's not like they passed a law against sodomy. Prop 8 didn't regulate what "two consenting adults do in their bedroom."

Which is not what I said. Don't change my words around.


mkosbie wrote:
They're still quite free to do what they want in private. The only thing Prop 8 affected was public life.

Which is my issue. Who are YOU to tell me what I can and can't do, or how to live my life? I am an American citizen (just like you) and deserve the exact same rights (not "similar" rights or "equivalent" rights). Period, the end.


mkosbie wrote:
Oh, one more thing. Kevin, you've been claiming for the entire election cycle that there's a fundamental difference between marriage and domestic partnership other than the term. I'm aware of the procedural differences. I'm also aware of the federal differences (which Prop 8 couldn't affect in any way). None of those are fundamental. Care to share what differences you're referring too?

You're going to have to clarify your inference, since I don't quite follow you. I think you mistake this issue as an argument solely over tangible effects when it's also an argument over (as you say) fundamental concepts and perception. But I'll attempt to make a couple points.

(1) The federal differences won't be changed until there is enough support to change them at the state level. The LONG-term goal is to get a nation-wide acceptance of gay marriage; but you can't get there in one leap.

(2) In the 1950s, you would have two drinking fountains. They were the same make, same model, and issued the same water from the same pipes. Yet blacks could drink from one and not from the other. Just because the same "product" is being given, the exclusionary nature of the set up is offensive. I wouldn't care if "domestic partnerships" gave each and every single procedural right that marriage does: I would still object to the implicitly prejudicial manner in which a group of American citizens were segregated away from the rest.

(3) Hypothetical scenario: Group A has Right X. Group B is given Right Y, which is 99.9% the same as Right X. To get Right X, Group A has to fill out one form and submit it to the government. To get Right Y, Group B has to spend two extra weeks and fill out eight forms for the government. This is wrong.

That's all I can muster right now. I'm sick and my head feels like it's stuffed with cotton, so I'm not at my sharpest. I will defer the last to points to Austin Cline...

Austin Cline wrote:
Civil marriages, established and regulated by secular laws in a pluralistic society, cannot be restricted by how some religions conceive of marriage from within the theological boundaries of their faith. Marriage between members of different religions cannot be legally proscribed simply because some churches consider it sacrilege. Marriage between members of different races cannot be legally proscribed simply because some groups regard miscegenation as contrary to God’s will. So why should marriage between members of the same sex be any different?

Austin Cline wrote:
Political equality requires human equality - when one group of citizens is treated as inferior on a basic human level, then it's impossible for them to be truly equal on a political level. Democracy, which is based upon political equality, thus cannot fully exist then citizens are denied full human equality. That's what happens when women, gays, or others are forced to hide or deny themselves.

It may not be immediately obvious, but when women are denied the ability to reveal themselves publicly in ways that are readily accorded to men, they are also being denied the same respect and equality that is being accorded to men. This was the case when women were denied the ability to wear pants or even shorts; it’s currently the case in Muslim societies where women are forced to cover up in extreme ways.

When women’s bodies are treated as unequal, then it’s impossible to treat women themselves as equal — the relationship between the person and their body is simply too strong to pretend otherwise. When women are unable to move freely through public spaces in the same ways that men are able to do so, then their basic equality is being denied — even when the restrictions are implemented on the premise of “protecting” women. If women were truly equal, they wouldn’t be treated as though they needed constant protection not afforded to men. Equality and respect don’t mean anything if they don’t include treating people like adults.

These days, however, we do make that demand of gays and lesbians — that is, when we even go so far as to protect their consensual acts in private. Yet it seems wrong to think that society will collapse if gays and lesbians openly announce their sexuality, or even hold hands on the street in ways now acceptable among heterosexuals. One even knows places in which these things happen, and yet personal liberty has not altogether vanished. One might think that, as with female trousers, so here: what genuine democracy requires is that all citizens should be able to demonstrate their full and equal humanity.

Gays aren’t forced to cover their bodies in ways expected of heterosexuals, but they are expected to conceal and/or deny aspects of their lives which heterosexuals are able to reveal as a matter of course: their basic sexual orientation and what that means. Heterosexuals have the freedom to hold hands, hug, kiss, and engage in other expressions of intimacy without a second thought; gays, however, are often denied this liberty and can be accused of “forcing” themselves on other for engaging in such basic actions.

By denying gays to act in ways that are routinely accepted from heterosexuals, and by insisting that gays “conceal” themselves when in public, the basic equality of gays as human beings is being denied. This is incompatible with a truly democratic system where the human equality of all citizens is a prerequisite for the functioning of civic, political equality. Then again, perhaps that’s part of the point behind insisting that gays, women, and others conceal themselves in various ways.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 3:58 pm 
Offline
Support Staff
Support Staff
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 8:25 pm
Posts: 361
Location: corona
Hey remember when black people couldn't drink out of the same fountains as white people?

you can drink, as long as it's not at my fountain.
you can ride the bus, as long as it's in the back.

same difference.

marriage should be marriage. There is no necessity for calling it anything else except to point out your diminishung it's importance or validity to same sex couples.

I have tried to debate this in a civil matter but honestly, you make me sick.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:04 pm 
Offline
Support Staff
Support Staff
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 6:46 am
Posts: 7936
Location: West Allis, WI
Something I typed up in 2004, after the election of George W.P.E. Bush:

Effective, heeded representation will happen naturally in those bodies comprised of sensitive, compassionate, and honorable members with discerning judgment who care about the needs of all people. There are not likely to be such bodies. Therefore mechanisms are necessary to prevent 51% of people from controlling 100% of the decisions in a democracy simply by having majority rule that allows them to win every vote without having ever to take into account the needs of the 49%. When those needs are intolerably and unreasonably ignored and thwarted, there is a tyranny of the majority.

"It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure." -- James Madison, "Federalist Paper #51"

"In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from the acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents." -- James Madison, October 17, 1788 letter to Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:06 pm 
Offline
Support Staff
Support Staff
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 6:46 am
Posts: 7936
Location: West Allis, WI
Addendum: let me get this straight... the state of California just gave rights to chickens but removed rights from some human beings.

Niiiice. :td:


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:38 pm 
Offline
Drum Major
Drum Major
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 2:23 am
Posts: 2342
Location: Home
Hostrauser wrote:
Addendum: let me get this straight... the state of California just gave rights to chickens but removed rights from some human beings.

Niiiice. :td:


By rule, those who voted for BOTH prop 2 and 8 are not human. They want to stoop down to the level of animals and connect with their feelings while completely disregarding those of their own race and species. They are the people who should be locked in the cages with the chickens, because like the chickens they don't understand humanity. They believe we've been treating animals inhumanely (which by the way is politically correct because chickens aren't human) yet they go out and vote for the sake of something not human (god) for inhumanity brought upon gays. Either these people are extremely unstable or are instead religious chickens who had voting booths in their cramped cages.

If you, the reader, were one of these people and were offended by this message, this doesn't even come close to making up for what you've done to many humans in California and are threatening to do to millions of others throughout the country. I bet your god is smiling proudly right now!

_________________
"I haven't slept for ten days......because that would be too long." - Mitch Hedberg


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:39 pm 
Offline
Drum Major
Drum Major
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 2412
Location: Jerusalem, Israel
Hostrauser wrote:
Addendum: let me get this straight... the state of California just gave rights to chickens but removed rights from some human beings.

Niiiice. :td:

Don't blame me. I voted against Prop 2.

PS - I'll respond to the other stuff later, got to run now.

_________________
It's 5:00... do you know where your ancestors came from?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:19 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 11:41 pm
Posts: 1646
Location: Upland, CA
Nope!

The voters of California have chosen to drive certain animal based agribusinesses out of the state or out of business. If given the choice of investing millions to update their operations and increasing their overhead costs or moving out of state to someplace cheaper to operate that also wants their business, can you guess what they will chose? Be prepared to pay more for some food comodities. Starting in 2015 California stores will be selling eggs from out-of-state and veal will disapear from the supermarket shelves. New Mexico and Texas based agriculture will grow even larger as they are already getting the dairy farms that are being pushed out of California. California's loss (which will be hundreds of millions in revenues) is their gain. :roll:

There has been a concerted effort to rid California of all these dirty agriculture businesses that use up all the states precious water supplies. The people behind this move don't seem to understand that if they succeed there will be no food in the stores, unless you like buying all your food from South America. In other word, forget ever eating any fresh produce again.

The voters of California also choose to protect the sanctity of the family. I don't see it as a vote against homosexual partnerships, but instead protecting what is seen as traditional role of the family. The institution of "marriage" was designed to be a man/women relationship with the idea of procreation and raising a family. If we want a similar institution for same sex unions, then lets create one that is more idealy suited for those circumstances. Call this new institution what ever you want, except the term "marriage" is already taken. I believe the voters would pass this idea overwhelmingly!

I seems to me that those that do not want to honor the will of the people don't really want to live in a democracy. The voters have spoken many times only to have their will overturned on some small technicality.

_________________
Dave Schaafsma
Pageantry Webmaster


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
  http://www.worldofpageantry.com Copyright © 1996 - 2006 Email:  admin@worldofpageantry.com  

Site design and maintenance by Dave Schaafsma at Dave's Web Dynamics