Why California’s Proposition 8 Would Make Jesus Weep (1 Viewer)

[StrikeS2k]

For me 8 was not the hotbutton issue because it just seems so intuitively obvious to vote No. This is why I want to know the true logic and reasoning driving the Yes on 8 campaign. I have not seen one shred of intellectual honesty coming from that campaign since day one.

I don't live in CA so obviously I didn't vote on this issue nor was I subject to the campaigning by the yes on 8 people. I have no reason to doubt that they were as disgusting as you have repeatedly asserted. However, that doesn't mean the people voting had the same feelings. If I remember right this is the 2nd time this issue has come up in CA and the 2nd time banning gay marriage won. I was in CA the first time it went through and I don't remember the campaign being that disgusting. So, considering it's passed twice, I have to wonder if maybe this isn't just the will of the people and not just because of the efforts of the Yes on 8 people. And, maybe one of the reasons the Yes on 8 people were so strong in their voice was BECAUSE this is the 2nd time they've had to go through this. That would bother me as well if I were pushing an initiative.

 

[Ripley]

StrikeS2k is like a bad politician. You have to hand it to him, he keeps to his talking points (BUT TIM CALLED ME A BIGOT!!) while completely ignoring every valid question and argument that is posed to him. Don't listen to questions, don't listen to arguments that completely obliterate your point, just keep hammering that talking point Strike.

So what if Tim called voters for Prop 8 bigots (even though he didn't), he'd have been right. There is no valid reason for voting against gay marriage. Everyone knows this already. It's ok to admit it.

 

[Michael Brown]

How the hell would "indifference" cause someone to vote yes on 8?

That's called denial, not indifference.

And this is why I haven't gotten in to posting reasons someone might vote for this that have nothing to do with bigotry. Because the standard response is "that's not true. The person is a bigot ANYWAYS." And this is why I don't respond to Tim's posts either. What's the point? Some people won't acknowledge an opposing viewpoint when they have set in their mind that their is only one reason someone would have that viewpoint.

It's because you can't, and it's as simple as that. That's why you're refusing to engage. We're all sitting here waiting for some logic...

No you're not. I could put the most logical reasoning in the world on a silver platter in front of you and I'd still get "that's not logical". Please.

Ok, how about this. Let's say I'm undecided on the issue. Convince me. If it is in fact the most logical reasoning in the world, I'd like to hear a good argument.But why do I get the feeling you'll avoid the question again?

 

[StrikeS2k]

How the hell would "indifference" cause someone to vote yes on 8?

That's called denial, not indifference.

And this is why I haven't gotten in to posting reasons someone might vote for this that have nothing to do with bigotry. Because the standard response is "that's not true. The person is a bigot ANYWAYS." And this is why I don't respond to Tim's posts either. What's the point? Some people won't acknowledge an opposing viewpoint when they have set in their mind that their is only one reason someone would have that viewpoint.

It's because you can't, and it's as simple as that. That's why you're refusing to engage. We're all sitting here waiting for some logic...

No you're not. I could put the most logical reasoning in the world on a silver platter in front of you and I'd still get "that's not logical". Please.

Ok, how about this. Let's say I'm undecided on the issue. Convince me. If it is in fact the most logical reasoning in the world, I'd like to hear a good argument.But why do I get the feeling you'll avoid the question again?

I've never argued for or against prop. 8 so I'm not avoiding anything. All I've said is that it's wrong to label everyone who did vote for it a bigot. And I have provided a perfectly valid reason someone might have voted for it - indifference. I'm not trying to convince you to vote for prop. 8. It's already passed. That would be a waste of time.

 

[Disco Stu]

I do have to laugh at your assertion that it's ok to call people bigots who clearly aren't bigots.

Clearly.

 

[fluorescent walkway]

What is the evidence that they're not bigots? Because enough of them voted for a bigoted law?

 

[StrikeS2k]

I do have to laugh at your assertion that it's ok to call people bigots who clearly aren't bigots.

Clearly.

Yes clearly. He's calling people who don't care bigots. That's about as opposite to bigot as you can get. CLEARLY.

 

[The Z Machine]

FWIW, as sad as it is to see the strong strain of bigotry that remains in our nation's blood - even during such a momentous election - it is comforting to see the march of history merely delayed and not deterred.As I understand it, the exit poll data had younger generations STRONGLY in support of equality and freedom, and not blinded by their anachronistic notions of bigoted discrimination. Much like we all have grandparents that even to this day can not let go of their issues with inter racial marriage, OUR generation WILL be those grandparents whom are such great loving people, yet confound our grandchildren when they learn that so many of us are far less openminded than they are - and far more willing to hold onto bigotry rather than embrace equality.

True. But there will be another 15-20 years of discrimination and bigotry written in the California Constitution until that time comes. That's a true tragedy.

 

[fluorescent walkway]

I do have to laugh at your assertion that it's ok to call people bigots who clearly aren't bigots.

Clearly.

Yes clearly. He's calling people who don't care bigots. That's about as opposite to bigot as you can get. CLEARLY.

Okay, so now we have two reasons:1) Bigotry2) Indifference to bigotry

 

[StrikeS2k]

I do have to laugh at your assertion that it's ok to call people bigots who clearly aren't bigots.

Clearly.

Yes clearly. He's calling people who don't care bigots. That's about as opposite to bigot as you can get. CLEARLY.

Okay, so now we have two reasons:1) Bigotry2) Indifference to bigotry

Yup. There may even be more

 

[The Z Machine]

Furthermore, it's a pretty terrible oversight that the CA Constitution can be amended by a simple majority in a referendum. That's not a good way to run a representative democracy IMO. Direct action has it's place, as does the need for amendments, but a simple majority sets the bar REALLY low IMO. It's a pure tyranny of the majority situation where minority rights are trampled upon.

I think it's fine for bond measures and other issues that don't affect the Constitution to be decided by a simple majority, but not an amendment that cannot be challenged in the courts. That seems silly.

Californians get a lot of things right, but they got this one wrong.

 

[Disco Stu]

I do have to laugh at your assertion that it's ok to call people bigots who clearly aren't bigots.

Clearly.

Yes clearly. He's calling people who don't care bigots. That's about as opposite to bigot as you can get. CLEARLY.

No, I'm pretty sure he never called your indifferent group bigots.

 

[Gr00vus]

The people who vote based on indifference don't meet the definition of a bigot...If we don't even agree on what a bigot is there isn't any way we can have an intelligent discussion about whether people's votes represent bigotry can we?

I don't think there was any disagreement with what a bigot is, the definition you posted is accurate. There does seem to be a disagreement about what vote means however. For the purposes of this thread I take it to mean this:

vote1. a formal expression of opinion or choice, either positive or negative, made by an individual or body of individuals.

Acting through indifference, or having a lack of an opinion or choice, would not be voting at all. So indifference is not a reason someone voted (or in any way stated a preference) against allowing gay marriage.So, again, can you tell me why not wanting to allow gay people to marry isn't bigotry?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

How the hell would "indifference" cause someone to vote yes on 8? What are they "indifferent" to?

That's called denial, not indifference.

Walls...walls of cement, brick, and wire - and walls that could not be seen or touched - invisble walls built by prejudice, fear, hate, and what is worse, indifference. Walls that blocked our minds and rendered us insensitive to the pain inflicted on others.

..the walls of a people who took freedom for granted and in doing so lost it.

:

:

:

We had also discovered that there was a definite method...He attacked only one group at a time....He attacked each as a minority group. And with ingenuity and slyness of the primitive, he apparently sensed human behavior patterns and exploited them. He counted on the apathy of the individual, who would react only if he himself were endangered.

LinkI cut and pasted this from an old thread so I'm not sure if the link still works, but generally people vote for status quo unless the change will benefit them. While California has had Gay Marriage for about 6 months, voters simply didn't care enough about the plight of others to vote in favor of accepting this change, They wanted to keep the status quo.

ETA: Like I stated previously, it isn't bigotry but it isn't really a reason to be proud of either.

This is an interesting and reasonable premise. My question is if the existing law does not hurt anyone then the principles of status quo above don't seem to support the vehemence of the Yes on 8 people who were arguing for change and the voters responded to that argument and voted for change.

I am not disagreeing with you that the root behind every vote against Gay Marriage is either prejudice and/or hatred and/or bigotry (Hiltgunt's word). Where I disagree is that the 52% of the population that voted against this were all bigots. They just didn't care enough about gays to intellectually challenge the "vehemence of the Yes on 8 people" because it didn't matter to them. So if allowing Gay Marriage might mean putting nice pastors in jail because they dared preach against gay marriage or refused to marry someone or some other argument that might ring true on the surface to a voter then they voted for the measure. They were certainly used by the bigots, but their sin is not caring enough about people to see it or care.

 

[Disco Stu]

Pretty much, not allowing someone the same rights as you because they're different from you in some way - seems to be a pretty clear expression of bigotry.

So again, can you tell me why not allowing gay people to marry isn't bigotry?

I will get to your 2nd question in a minute. One thing at a time. Based upon your first comment then, do you agree with me then that Tim is being disingenuous when he says he doesn't mean everyone?

I wasn't really interested in Tim's opinion. You can see at the point I engaged you, Tim's comments had completely dropped out of the thread. If you can point me to what you're talking about maybe I'd have an opinion, but really I'm more interested in this idea of yours that there's no bigotry involved in wanting deny marriage to gay people.

Well, someone else just posted a perfectly valid reason people might have voted for this amendment, that had nothing to do with bigotry. Or are you saying indifference is bigotry?

I disagree that people who voted on this are indifferent, pretty much by definition. If you're indifferent, you don't bother to vote at all.So that diversion aside, back to the original question. Can you tell me why not wanting to allow gay people to marry isn't bigotry?

There were 40 things to vote on yesterday. Don't you think someone could care about other things on the ballot such as, oh, who the next President is going to be but care a bit less about certain other things on the ballot? I voted for everything offered on the ballot even though I didn't care about some of them. I guess I'm weird that way.

So your argument is that there are some people who voted for banning gay marriage randomly, and therefore they aren't bigots? O.k. let's accept that for the moment. At best it means that those people have no motivation or reason for their vote, in fact they're doing nothing more than putting black ink in a bubble, the result of which is meaningless to them. In that case I don't think you can say they voted "for" or "against" anything. They can't have been said to have displayed any opinion on the subject. So this kind of activity, whatever you want to call it, isn't under discussion here. We're talking about people who actually, consciously voted against allowing gay marriage. Why do you keep trying to change the subject?So that diversion aside, back to the original question. Can you tell me why not wanting to allow gay people to marry isn't bigotry?

The answer to this question is "no", right?Or is there still a double secret reason StrikeS2k has yet to reveal?

 

[StrikeS2k]

The people who vote based on indifference don't meet the definition of a bigot...If we don't even agree on what a bigot is there isn't any way we can have an intelligent discussion about whether people's votes represent bigotry can we?

I don't think there was any disagreement with what a bigot is, the definition you posted is accurate. There does seem to be a disagreement about what vote means however. For the purposes of this thread I take it to mean this:

vote1. a formal expression of opinion or choice, either positive or negative, made by an individual or body of individuals.

Acting through indifference, or having a lack of an opinion or choice, would not be voting at all. So indifference is not a reason someone voted (or in any way stated a preference) against allowing gay marriage.So, again, can you tell me why not wanting to allow gay people to marry isn't bigotry?

Why is it? Is any affirmative action that negatively impacts a particular group automatically bigotry?

 

[dparker713]

I can come up with a logical reason to oppose gay marriage.

Population growth is a large contributor to economic growth which is vital to the longterm prospects of a nation. Gay people essentially take themselves out of the procreation cycle without a significant expenditure of money on artifical means of procreation which require a much higher amount of resources than a natural birth. Further, a permissive society encourages future generations to explore and live lifestyles that could increase this burden on society. In an extremely wealthy society, this is a luxury we can currently afford, but there is no guarentee our society will remain wealthy, especially since a large percentage of our population growth is attributable to immigration.

Im sure I could come up with more if I tried.

Oh and btw, for anyone claiming this is a violation of the 14th Amendment, its not given the current jurisprudence. And all laws treat people differently. Equal Protection doesnt require all people to be treated equally, just that certain means of classification are generally prohibited. But even still, we dont allow certain Native Americans to practice certain religious practices, we tax the rich more than the poor, we dont let the blind drive, we dont let felons vote, etc.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I can come up with a logical reason to oppose gay marriage. Population growth is a large contributor to economic growth which is vital to the longterm prospects of a nation. Gay people essentially take themselves out of the procreation cycle without a significant expenditure of money on artifical means of procreation which require a much higher amount of resources than a natural birth. Further, a permissive society encourages future generations to explore and live lifestyles that could increase this burden on society. In an extremely wealthy society, this is a luxury we can currently afford, but there is no guarentee our society will remain wealthy, especially since a large percentage of our population growth is attributable to immigration. Im sure I could come up with more if I tried. Oh and btw, for anyone claiming this is a violation of the 14th Amendment, its not given the current jurisprudence. And all laws treat people differently. Equal Protection doesnt allow for all people to be treated equally, just that certainly means of classification are generally prohibited. But even still, we dont allow certain Native Americans to practice certain religious practices, we tax the rich more than the poor, we dont let the blind drive, we dont let felons vote, etc.

You, sir, are a bigot!!!!

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I do have to laugh at your assertion that it's ok to call people bigots who clearly aren't bigots.

Clearly.

Yes clearly. He's calling people who don't care bigots. That's about as opposite to bigot as you can get. CLEARLY.

Okay, so now we have two reasons:1) Bigotry2) Indifference to bigotry

Which is the more damnable of the two?

 

[Reg Lllama of Brixton]

I can come up with a logical reason to oppose gay marriage. Population growth is a large contributor to economic growth which is vital to the longterm prospects of a nation. Gay people essentially take themselves out of the procreation cycle without a significant expenditure of money on artifical means of procreation which require a much higher amount of resources than a natural birth. Further, a permissive society encourages future generations to explore and live lifestyles that could increase this burden on society. In an extremely wealthy society, this is a luxury we can currently afford, but there is no guarentee our society will remain wealthy, especially since a large percentage of our population growth is attributable to immigration.

Uhhh gay people don't breed other gay people. It just kind of happens. And using your logic hetero couples that do not or cannot have children shouldn't be allowed to marry either.

 

[EYLive]

For me 8 was not the hotbutton issue because it just seems so intuitively obvious to vote No. This is why I want to know the true logic and reasoning driving the Yes on 8 campaign. I have not seen one shred of intellectual honesty coming from that campaign since day one.

Maybe that's because this isn't an intellectual issue. Love, Marriage, Homosexuality... not really topics usually discussed based on pure intellect. It would seem that you are in the minority in that you would intuitively vote no. I would imagine that it's human nature/inituition (initially at least) to shy away from the support of gay rights.But also, I can't think of any TV or radio ads that oppose Prop 8, use the word "gay", "lesbian" or "homosexual". Instead they focus on what will or won't be taught in schools (pro-Prop 8 ads do this too), when school curriculum is obviously not the issue at hand. Why are they so careful to avoid those key terms unless they too are practicing some form of intellectual dishonestly of their own?In a liberal state like CA, I would think they would let out a rally cry to all liberals, homosexuals and their sympathisers and try to make a stand and a statement that way. Not tip-toeing around the subject.

 

[Gr00vus]

The people who vote based on indifference don't meet the definition of a bigot...If we don't even agree on what a bigot is there isn't any way we can have an intelligent discussion about whether people's votes represent bigotry can we?

I don't think there was any disagreement with what a bigot is, the definition you posted is accurate. There does seem to be a disagreement about what vote means however. For the purposes of this thread I take it to mean this:

vote1. a formal expression of opinion or choice, either positive or negative, made by an individual or body of individuals.

Acting through indifference, or having a lack of an opinion or choice, would not be voting at all. So indifference is not a reason someone voted (or in any way stated a preference) against allowing gay marriage.So, again, can you tell me why not wanting to allow gay people to marry isn't bigotry?

Why is it? Is any affirmative action that negatively impacts a particular group automatically bigotry?

Disallowing gay marriage, without disallowing marriage for all others, denies the rights shared by all other people to gays, based solely on the basis of them being gay (intolerance of their gayness). That is a clear expression of bigotry.

 

[tdoss]

For me 8 was not the hotbutton issue because it just seems so intuitively obvious to vote No. This is why I want to know the true logic and reasoning driving the Yes on 8 campaign. I have not seen one shred of intellectual honesty coming from that campaign since day one.

I don't live in CA so obviously I didn't vote on this issue nor was I subject to the campaigning by the yes on 8 people. I have no reason to doubt that they were as disgusting as you have repeatedly asserted. However, that doesn't mean the people voting had the same feelings. If I remember right this is the 2nd time this issue has come up in CA and the 2nd time banning gay marriage won. I was in CA the first time it went through and I don't remember the campaign being that disgusting. So, considering it's passed twice, I have to wonder if maybe this isn't just the will of the people and not just because of the efforts of the Yes on 8 people. And, maybe one of the reasons the Yes on 8 people were so strong in their voice was BECAUSE this is the 2nd time they've had to go through this. That would bother me as well if I were pushing an initiative.

My county overwhelmingly voted Yes.The street corners were crowded with "No" supporters every day. I finally saw 3 guys standing on an opposite corner the other day...with "Yes on Prop 8" signs.From my viewpoint...I didn't see any of the "disgusting" campaigning. I saw commercials for both sides...and both were pretty level headed. If you were a visitor to my area...you would've thought the vote was going to be an overwhelming "No" because of all of the picketers...but it turned out to be the opposite.

 

[Koya]

FWIW, as sad as it is to see the strong strain of bigotry that remains in our nation's blood - even during such a momentous election - it is comforting to see the march of history merely delayed and not deterred.As I understand it, the exit poll data had younger generations STRONGLY in support of equality and freedom, and not blinded by their anachronistic notions of bigoted discrimination. Much like we all have grandparents that even to this day can not let go of their issues with inter racial marriage, OUR generation WILL be those grandparents whom are such great loving people, yet confound our grandchildren when they learn that so many of us are far less openminded than they are - and far more willing to hold onto bigotry rather than embrace equality.

True. But there will be another 15-20 years of discrimination and bigotry written in the California Constitution until that time comes. That's a true tragedy.

I don't disagree. It took former slaves a hundred years to even have the law on their side, not to speak of additional societal hurdles.Of course, it doesnt help when those who espouse bigoted views will not even cop to that reality - and my guess is many of those same people will, 20 years down the road, conveniently forget their bigoted views and actions today.Then again, we might still have this thread floating out there somewhere, to remind us in 20 years how far we (have) come. Look, I've been through this "bigot" dance before on this board. Its hard for people to face reality. Of course, sadly it is harder for them to accept equality. As I stated before, cowardice trumps humanity. But this is a long march, and we have come a long way... and those who hold onto their notions based upon bigotry and/or hate will indeed be left in the dust.It is simply unfortunate that for their cowardice, others must suffer. Must live without freedom and equality. That things these bigots take for granted in their own life are not afforded to others, and obviously, the former does not much care.Not yet, at least.

 

[Ripley]

I can come up with a logical reason to oppose gay marriage. Population growth is a large contributor to economic growth which is vital to the longterm prospects of a nation. Gay people essentially take themselves out of the procreation cycle without a significant expenditure of money on artifical means of procreation which require a much higher amount of resources than a natural birth. Further, a permissive society encourages future generations to explore and live lifestyles that could increase this burden on society. In an extremely wealthy society, this is a luxury we can currently afford, but there is no guarentee our society will remain wealthy, especially since a large percentage of our population growth is attributable to immigration. Im sure I could come up with more if I tried. Oh and btw, for anyone claiming this is a violation of the 14th Amendment, its not given the current jurisprudence. And all laws treat people differently. Equal Protection doesnt allow for all people to be treated equally, just that certainly means of classification are generally prohibited. But even still, we dont allow certain Native Americans to practice certain religious practices, we tax the rich more than the poor, we dont let the blind drive, we dont let felons vote, etc.

this is a joke right? Look at some mathematical progressions of population growth sometime... Population growth needs to be curtailed if anything. In no way does it need to be encouraged. I guarantee you that 100 years from now (give or take a lot) we as a country (if we are still around) will need to have some sort of population control in place. There is simply a limit to how much food this planet can produce and how much space it has. We are going to hit that limit eventually. (and it won't be as far off as you think)

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I can come up with a logical reason to oppose gay marriage. Population growth is a large contributor to economic growth which is vital to the longterm prospects of a nation. Gay people essentially take themselves out of the procreation cycle without a significant expenditure of money on artifical means of procreation which require a much higher amount of resources than a natural birth. Further, a permissive society encourages future generations to explore and live lifestyles that could increase this burden on society. In an extremely wealthy society, this is a luxury we can currently afford, but there is no guarentee our society will remain wealthy, especially since a large percentage of our population growth is attributable to immigration.

Gay's are better educated and have higher paying jobs than the population at large. In addition the extra expense required to have children means that the children are truly wanted, welcomed additions to households that can financially support the children. I see no logical reason to put up barriers to these behaviors that benefit society. In fact these are things that society should be encouraging.

Im sure I could come up with more if I tried.

Keep trying....

Oh and btw, for anyone claiming this is a violation of the 14th Amendment, its not given the current jurisprudence. And all laws treat people differently. Equal Protection doesnt allow for all people to be treated equally, just that certainly means of classification are generally prohibited. But even still, we dont allow certain Native Americans to practice certain religious practices, we tax the rich more than the poor, we dont let the blind drive, we dont let felons vote, etc.

Keep trying....

 

[The Jerminator]

How the hell would "indifference" cause someone to vote yes on 8? What are they "indifferent" to?

That's called denial, not indifference.

Walls...walls of cement, brick, and wire - and walls that could not be seen or touched - invisble walls built by prejudice, fear, hate, and what is worse, indifference. Walls that blocked our minds and rendered us insensitive to the pain inflicted on others.

..the walls of a people who took freedom for granted and in doing so lost it.

:

:

:

We had also discovered that there was a definite method...He attacked only one group at a time....He attacked each as a minority group. And with ingenuity and slyness of the primitive, he apparently sensed human behavior patterns and exploited them. He counted on the apathy of the individual, who would react only if he himself were endangered.

LinkI cut and pasted this from an old thread so I'm not sure if the link still works, but generally people vote for status quo unless the change will benefit them. While California has had Gay Marriage for about 6 months, voters simply didn't care enough about the plight of others to vote in favor of accepting this change, They wanted to keep the status quo.

ETA: Like I stated previously, it isn't bigotry but it isn't really a reason to be proud of either.

This is an interesting and reasonable premise. My question is if the existing law does not hurt anyone then the principles of status quo above don't seem to support the vehemence of the Yes on 8 people who were arguing for change and the voters responded to that argument and voted for change.

I am not disagreeing with you that the root behind every vote against Gay Marriage is either prejudice and/or hatred and/or bigotry (Hiltgunt's word). Where I disagree is that the 52% of the population that voted against this were all bigots. They just didn't care enough about gays to intellectually challenge the "vehemence of the Yes on 8 people" because it didn't matter to them. So if allowing Gay Marriage might mean putting nice pastors in jail because they dared preach against gay marriage or refused to marry someone or some other argument that might ring true on the surface to a voter then they voted for the measure. They were certainly used by the bigots, but their sin is not caring enough about people to see it or care.

Bigotry>>>Ignorance HOORAY!!!

 

[StrikeS2k]

Disallowing gay marriage, without disallowing marriage for all others, denies the rights shared by all other people to gays, based solely on the basis of them being gay (intolerance of their gayness). That is a clear expression of bigotry.

Who's being intolerant of their gayness? Did someone attack them? Cause if it's about the marriage thing I believe they still have civil unions in CA which afford all the same State rights as being married. Maybe someone indifferent might just consider that sufficient? I wouldn't call that intolerant.

 

[FatMax]

I can come up with a logical reason to oppose gay marriage. Population growth is a large contributor to economic growth which is vital to the longterm prospects of a nation. Gay people essentially take themselves out of the procreation cycle without a significant expenditure of money on artifical means of procreation which require a much higher amount of resources than a natural birth. Further, a permissive society encourages future generations to explore and live lifestyles that could increase this burden on society. In an extremely wealthy society, this is a luxury we can currently afford, but there is no guarentee our society will remain wealthy, especially since a large percentage of our population growth is attributable to immigration.

OK, so what does this have to do with marriage? Sounds like if your assertions were true (they're not), we'd be better off outlawing homosexuality altogether.

 

[Reg Lllama of Brixton]

I can come up with a logical reason to oppose gay marriage. Population growth is a large contributor to economic growth which is vital to the longterm prospects of a nation. Gay people essentially take themselves out of the procreation cycle without a significant expenditure of money on artifical means of procreation which require a much higher amount of resources than a natural birth. Further, a permissive society encourages future generations to explore and live lifestyles that could increase this burden on society. In an extremely wealthy society, this is a luxury we can currently afford, but there is no guarentee our society will remain wealthy, especially since a large percentage of our population growth is attributable to immigration. Im sure I could come up with more if I tried. Oh and btw, for anyone claiming this is a violation of the 14th Amendment, its not given the current jurisprudence. And all laws treat people differently. Equal Protection doesnt allow for all people to be treated equally, just that certainly means of classification are generally prohibited. But even still, we dont allow certain Native Americans to practice certain religious practices, we tax the rich more than the poor, we dont let the blind drive, we dont let felons vote, etc.

this is a joke right? Look at some mathematical progressions of population growth sometime... Population growth needs to be curtailed if anything. In no way does it need to be encouraged. I guarantee you that 100 years from now (give or take a lot) we as a country (if we are still around) will need to have some sort of population control in place. There is simply a limit to how much food this planet can produce and how much space it has. We are going to hit that limit eventually. (and it won't be as far off as you think)

Allowing gay marriage will encourage people to be gay and not have children.=Obama getting elected will encourage people to be black.

 

[dparker713]

I can come up with a logical reason to oppose gay marriage. Population growth is a large contributor to economic growth which is vital to the longterm prospects of a nation. Gay people essentially take themselves out of the procreation cycle without a significant expenditure of money on artifical means of procreation which require a much higher amount of resources than a natural birth. Further, a permissive society encourages future generations to explore and live lifestyles that could increase this burden on society. In an extremely wealthy society, this is a luxury we can currently afford, but there is no guarentee our society will remain wealthy, especially since a large percentage of our population growth is attributable to immigration.

Uhhh gay people don't breed other gay people. It just kind of happens. And using your logic hetero couples that do not or cannot have children shouldn't be allowed to marry either.

My argument has nothing to do with genetics, it has to do with allocation of resources in a society. Hetero couples have a possiblity (generally very high) to reproduce absent medicial assistance, homosexual couples can not reproduce without a third person and generally medical assistance. Allowing only fertile couples to marry would require testing of all couples prior to marriage which may or may not be cost effective. Since society confers very real monetary benefits to married couples, in large part to encourage the union to foster children, evaluating which couple would actually procreate would seem fairly logical if cost effective. Though since you mentioned genetics, the gay community has essentially fought vigorously to assert that nature and not nurture are responsible for their preference and as such it can not be unlearned or changed. If that is the case, is it beneficial to society to encourage and/or allow such genes to be passed on to future generations? Alternatively, if these genes are a desireable mutation, should we encourage their spread to the entire society? Or is there some optimum balance between the two traits for our society?

 

[FatMax]

Allowing gay marriage will encourage people to be gay and not have children.=Obama getting elected will encourage people to be black.

No, no, you got it all wrong. Banning gay marriage will discourage people from being gay. I expect all those dirty sodomites to switch sides any day now.

 

[Gr00vus]

Disallowing gay marriage, without disallowing marriage for all others, denies the rights shared by all other people to gays, based solely on the basis of them being gay (intolerance of their gayness). That is a clear expression of bigotry.

Who's being intolerant of their gayness? Did someone attack them? Cause if it's about the marriage thing I believe they still have civil unions in CA which afford all the same State rights as being married. Maybe someone indifferent might just consider that sufficient? I wouldn't call that intolerant.

They may have civil unions, but they do not have the right to get married, which other groups do have. They are being denied that right solely on the basis of being gay, which is clearly intolerance and an exhibition of bigotry.If you disagree, again, for the millionth time you need to identify a reason other than bigotry explaining why someone would want to deny gay people the same right to marry that all other humans have in the state.

 

[FatMax]

If you disagree, again, for the millionth time you need to identify a reason other than bigotry explaining why someone would want to deny gay people the same right to marry that all other humans have in the state.

If he had a good reason, he would have posted it by now. He doesn't.

 

[StrikeS2k]

If you disagree, again, for the millionth time you need to identify a reason other than bigotry explaining why someone would want to deny gay people the same right to marry that all other humans have in the state.

If he had a good reason, he would have posted it by now. He doesn't.

Hell, I've never even said I was for the ban. However, suggesting that by default anyone who voted for it is a bigot is idiotic. And suggesting that someone who voted for it out of indifference is a bigot is even more idiotic. So I'm going to bow out of this discussion before I say something worthy of a time out. This issue certainly isn't worth it.

 

[Gr00vus]

If you disagree, again, for the millionth time you need to identify a reason other than bigotry explaining why someone would want to deny gay people the same right to marry that all other humans have in the state.

If he had a good reason, he would have posted it by now. He doesn't.

I know that, you know that, but I don't think he knows that. It's an interesting exercise in exploring the extent to which people will go to avoid admitting that they may be engaging in some behavior they recognize as undesirable. It's also an exercise in attempting to understand how such a reprehensible measure could pass.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I do have to laugh at your assertion that it's ok to call people bigots who clearly aren't bigots.

Clearly.

Yes clearly. He's calling people who don't care bigots. That's about as opposite to bigot as you can get. CLEARLY.

No, I'm pretty sure he never called your indifferent group bigots.

If he didn't before he surely has now.

 

[Ripley]

I can come up with a logical reason to oppose gay marriage. Population growth is a large contributor to economic growth which is vital to the longterm prospects of a nation. Gay people essentially take themselves out of the procreation cycle without a significant expenditure of money on artifical means of procreation which require a much higher amount of resources than a natural birth. Further, a permissive society encourages future generations to explore and live lifestyles that could increase this burden on society. In an extremely wealthy society, this is a luxury we can currently afford, but there is no guarentee our society will remain wealthy, especially since a large percentage of our population growth is attributable to immigration.

Uhhh gay people don't breed other gay people. It just kind of happens. And using your logic hetero couples that do not or cannot have children shouldn't be allowed to marry either.

My argument has nothing to do with genetics, it has to do with allocation of resources in a society. Hetero couples have a possiblity (generally very high) to reproduce absent medicial assistance, homosexual couples can not reproduce without a third person and generally medical assistance. Allowing only fertile couples to marry would require testing of all couples prior to marriage which may or may not be cost effective. Since society confers very real monetary benefits to married couples, in large part to encourage the union to foster children, evaluating which couple would actually procreate would seem fairly logical if cost effective. Though since you mentioned genetics, the gay community has essentially fought vigorously to assert that nature and not nurture are responsible for their preference and as such it can not be unlearned or changed. If that is the case, is it beneficial to society to encourage and/or allow such genes to be passed on to future generations? Alternatively, if these genes are a desireable mutation, should we encourage their spread to the entire society? Or is there some optimum balance between the two traits for our society?

What are you trying to say here? Banning gay marriage will cause gay people to get married to the opposite sex and have children? Also see my previous post. We do not need to be promoting procreation. We have more than enough of that going on already. Also, on your second point... how are these gay people supposed to pass on their genes?

 

[dparker713]

I can come up with a logical reason to oppose gay marriage. Population growth is a large contributor to economic growth which is vital to the longterm prospects of a nation. Gay people essentially take themselves out of the procreation cycle without a significant expenditure of money on artifical means of procreation which require a much higher amount of resources than a natural birth. Further, a permissive society encourages future generations to explore and live lifestyles that could increase this burden on society. In an extremely wealthy society, this is a luxury we can currently afford, but there is no guarentee our society will remain wealthy, especially since a large percentage of our population growth is attributable to immigration.

OK, so what does this have to do with marriage? Sounds like if your assertions were true (they're not), we'd be better off outlawing homosexuality altogether.

Marriage has very real economic benefits conferred to the couple. While not necessarily a zero sum, the benefits conferred often have costs offset in other ways or subsidized by the rest of the population. Frankly, this is all pretty moot in CA as below are the only differences between a civil union and a marriage in the state, and all are exceedingly minor. This Prop and this case were all about a label.

First, although the domestic partnership provisions require that both partners have a common residence at the time a domestic partnership is established (§ 297, subd. (b) (1)), there is no similar requirement for marriage. Second, although the domestic partnership legislation requires that both persons be at least 18 years of age when the partnership is established (§ 297, subd. (b)(4)), the marriage statutes permit a person under the age of 18 to marry with the consent of a parent or guardian or a court order. (§§ 302, 303.) Third, to establish a domestic partnership, the two persons desiring to become domestic partners must complete and file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the Secretary of State, who registers the declaration in a statewide registry for such partnerships (§ 298.5, subds. (a), (b)); to marry, a couple must obtain a marriage license and certificate of registry of marriage from the county clerk, have the marriage solemnized by an authorized individual, and return the marriage license and certificate of registry to the county recorder of the county in which the license was issued, who keeps a copy of the certificate of registry of marriage and transmits the original certificate to the State Registrar of Vital Statistics. (§§ 306, 359; Health & Saf. Code, §§ 102285, 102330, 102355.) Fourth, although the marriage statutes establish a procedure under which an unmarried man and unmarried woman who have been residing together as husband and wife may enter into a “confidential marriage” in which the marriage certificate and date of the marriage are not made available to the public (§ 500 et seq.), the domestic partnership law contains no similar provisions for “confidential domestic partnership.” Fifth, although both the domestic partnership and marriage statutes provide a procedure for summary dissolution of the domestic partnership or marriage under the same limited circumstances, a summary dissolution of a domestic partnership is initiated by the partners’ joint filing of a Notice of Termination of Domestic Partnership with the Secretary of State and may become effective without any court action, whereas a summary dissolution of a marriage is initiated by the spouses’ joint filing of a petition in superior court and becomes effective only upon entry of a court judgment; in both instances, the dissolution does not take effect for at least six months from the date dissolution is sought, and during that period either party may terminate the summary dissolution. (§§ 299, subds. (a)-©, 2400 et seq.) Sixth, although a proceeding to dissolve a domestic partnership may be filed in superior court “even if neither domestic partner is a resident of, or maintains a domicile in, the state at the time the proceedings are filed” (§ 299, subd. (d)), a judgment of dissolution of marriage may not be obtained unless one of the parties has been a resident of California for six months and a resident of the county in which the proceeding is filed for three months prior to the filing of the petition for dissolution. (§ 2320.) Seventh, in order to protect the federal tax-qualified status of the CalPERS (California Public Employees’ Retirement System) long-term care insurance program (see Sen. Com. on Appropriations, fiscal summary of Assem. Bill No. 205 (2003-2004 Reg. Sess.) as amended Aug. 21, 2003; 26 U.S.C. § 7702B(f)(2)©), the domestic partnership statute provides that “nothing in this section applies to modify eligibility for [such] long-term care plans” (§ 297.5, subd. (g)), which means that although such a plan may provide coverage for a state employee’s spouse, it may not provide coverage for an employee’s domestic partner; this same disparity, however, would exist even if same-sex couples were permitted to marry under California law, because for federal law purposes the nonemployee partner would not be considered a spouse. (See 1 U.S.C. § 7.) Eighth, an additional difference stems from the provisions of California Constitution, article XIII, section 3, subdivisions (o) and (p), granting a $1,000 property tax exemption to an “unmarried spouse of a deceased veteran” who owns property valued at less than $10,000; however, as the Legislative Analyst explained when this constitutional provision last was amended in 1988 (see Ballot Pamp., Gen. Elec. (Nov. 8, 1988) analysis by Legis. Analyst of Prop. 93, p. 60), few persons claim this exemption, because a homeowner may not claim both this exemption and the more generous homeowner’s exemption on the same property (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 205.5, subd. (f)), and the homeowner’s exemption is available to both married persons and domestic partners. (See § 297.5, subd. (a).) Ninth, one appellate decision has held that the putative spouse doctrine (codified in § 2251) does not apply to an asserted putative domestic partner. (Velez v. Smith (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1172-1174.)

 

[Gr00vus]

suggesting that by default anyone who voted for it is a bigot is idiotic.

So, again, can you tell me why not wanting to allow gay people to marry isn't bigotry?

 

[dparker713]

I can come up with a logical reason to oppose gay marriage. Population growth is a large contributor to economic growth which is vital to the longterm prospects of a nation. Gay people essentially take themselves out of the procreation cycle without a significant expenditure of money on artifical means of procreation which require a much higher amount of resources than a natural birth. Further, a permissive society encourages future generations to explore and live lifestyles that could increase this burden on society. In an extremely wealthy society, this is a luxury we can currently afford, but there is no guarentee our society will remain wealthy, especially since a large percentage of our population growth is attributable to immigration.

Uhhh gay people don't breed other gay people. It just kind of happens. And using your logic hetero couples that do not or cannot have children shouldn't be allowed to marry either.

My argument has nothing to do with genetics, it has to do with allocation of resources in a society. Hetero couples have a possiblity (generally very high) to reproduce absent medicial assistance, homosexual couples can not reproduce without a third person and generally medical assistance. Allowing only fertile couples to marry would require testing of all couples prior to marriage which may or may not be cost effective. Since society confers very real monetary benefits to married couples, in large part to encourage the union to foster children, evaluating which couple would actually procreate would seem fairly logical if cost effective. Though since you mentioned genetics, the gay community has essentially fought vigorously to assert that nature and not nurture are responsible for their preference and as such it can not be unlearned or changed. If that is the case, is it beneficial to society to encourage and/or allow such genes to be passed on to future generations? Alternatively, if these genes are a desireable mutation, should we encourage their spread to the entire society? Or is there some optimum balance between the two traits for our society?

What are you trying to say here? Banning gay marriage will cause gay people to get married to the opposite sex and have children? Also see my previous post. We do not need to be promoting procreation. We have more than enough of that going on already. Also, on your second point... how are these gay people supposed to pass on their genes?

My argument has to do with the country, not the globe, and there are options beyond this planet for places to inhabit, even inside the solar system. And its not about getting gay people to marry and have children, its to use resources to encourage more children by heterosexual couples - either through more exclusive or greater benefits.Artificial insemination, surrogates, and sperm donation all allow for a gay person to pass on genetic material.

 

[timschochet]

Wow. Sorry I've been gone, and missed all the fun. Gr00vus, this will be weird, but I'm going to defend Strike here (who has spent all this time attacking me) and suggest that there are reasons to have voted for this decision that I would not define as bigoted: Specifically, I know many people, some of them close friends of mine and relatives, who have no problem whatsoever with gay people, but however who believe that marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman. The fact that they believe this usually as a result of religion does not mean, as some have stated, that they seek to give us a theocracy. And it does not make them bigots, IMO, simply wrong and misguided.

I agree with Strike that it is wrong to label all those who voted against Prop 8 as bigots. I simply disagree with him that I ever did this.

 

[FatMax]

Specifically, I know many people, some of them close friends of mine and relatives, who have no problem whatsoever with gay people, but however who believe that marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman.

Exploring the 'why' here is critical. And you might not like the answer because it only leads to one place.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Wow. Sorry I've been gone, and missed all the fun. Gr00vus, this will be weird, but I'm going to defend Strike here (who has spent all this time attacking me) and suggest that there are reasons to have voted for this decision that I would not define as bigoted: Specifically, I know many people, some of them close friends of mine and relatives, who have no problem whatsoever with gay people, but however who believe that marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman. The fact that they believe this usually as a result of religion does not mean, as some have stated, that they seek to give us a theocracy. And it does not make them bigots, IMO, simply wrong and misguided. I agree with Strike that it is wrong to label all those who voted against Prop 8 as bigots. I simply disagree with him that I ever did this.

You still haven't answered my question. This is the third time I'm asking - What did you mean when you said the bigots won?

 

[Koya]

Wow. Sorry I've been gone, and missed all the fun. Gr00vus, this will be weird, but I'm going to defend Strike here (who has spent all this time attacking me) and suggest that there are reasons to have voted for this decision that I would not define as bigoted: Specifically, I know many people, some of them close friends of mine and relatives, who have no problem whatsoever with gay people, but however who believe that marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman. The fact that they believe this usually as a result of religion does not mean, as some have stated, that they seek to give us a theocracy. And it does not make them bigots, IMO, simply wrong and misguided. I agree with Strike that it is wrong to label all those who voted against Prop 8 as bigots. I simply disagree with him that I ever did this.

Let me get this right Tim - if someone says that it is ok for you to marry whom you love/are attracted to - but only if they are of the opposite gender - that is not bigotry?Just because you are a bigot doesnt mean you are a bad person. It is a personal fault. We all have them and to be honest, we ALL have bigotry within us because it is an innate part of being human - one that we are evolving past imo, but that takes a lot of time. That said, if you discriminate in this way, you are acting in a bigoted manner. Just no way around it, no matter how much it may hurt someone's feelings to be called a bigot.Heck, if you are an admitted racist, it would seem that they would be proud to be called a bigot. if they didnt like the monicker, maybe they shouldnt be racist.much the same way, if you choose to act in a bigoted manner by denying others the ability to marry whom they choose, then either accept this part of you as bigoted, or recognize that the truth hurts and take steps to change it.

 

[Koya]

Furthermore, it's a pretty terrible oversight that the CA Constitution can be amended by a simple majority in a referendum. That's not a good way to run a representative democracy IMO. Direct action has it's place, as does the need for amendments, but a simple majority sets the bar REALLY low IMO. It's a pure tyranny of the majority situation where minority rights are trampled upon.I think it's fine for bond measures and other issues that don't affect the Constitution to be decided by a simple majority, but not an amendment that cannot be challenged in the courts. That seems silly.Californians get a lot of things right, but they got this one wrong.

I would absolutely agree here... terribly system of law as it actually undermines the long term chances for democracy's survival. That is WHY we HAVE a representative democracy and not a direct one.Heck, if we could amend our constitution like this, forget a black president, Obama may still not be allowed to VOTE in many cases. Of course, I am sure that all those people who would vote against the rights of equality for blacks would be in an uproar if we dared call them bigots.

 

[Disco Stu]

You still haven't answered my question. This is the third time I'm asking

 

[timschochet]

Wow. Sorry I've been gone, and missed all the fun. Gr00vus, this will be weird, but I'm going to defend Strike here (who has spent all this time attacking me) and suggest that there are reasons to have voted for this decision that I would not define as bigoted: Specifically, I know many people, some of them close friends of mine and relatives, who have no problem whatsoever with gay people, but however who believe that marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman. The fact that they believe this usually as a result of religion does not mean, as some have stated, that they seek to give us a theocracy. And it does not make them bigots, IMO, simply wrong and misguided. I agree with Strike that it is wrong to label all those who voted against Prop 8 as bigots. I simply disagree with him that I ever did this.

You still haven't answered my question. This is the third time I'm asking - What did you mean when you said the bigots won?

Bigotry won last night because the bigots got the result they wanted. I have answered this several times. You, on the other hand, not only refuse to accept my explanation, but accused me of name calling on several different issues. We disagree that I did so on this issue, but since you claimed it was a pattern with me, I asked you to name one other issue that I did the same thing on. I'm still asking.

 

[Chaka]

How the hell would "indifference" cause someone to vote yes on 8?

That's called denial, not indifference.

And this is why I haven't gotten in to posting reasons someone might vote for this that have nothing to do with bigotry. Because the standard response is "that's not true. The person is a bigot ANYWAYS." And this is why I don't respond to Tim's posts either. What's the point? Some people won't acknowledge an opposing viewpoint when they have set in their mind that their is only one reason someone would have that viewpoint.

It's because you can't, and it's as simple as that. That's why you're refusing to engage. We're all sitting here waiting for some logic...

No you're not. I could put the most logical reasoning in the world on a silver platter in front of you and I'd still get "that's not logical". Please.

Ok, how about this. Let's say I'm undecided on the issue. Convince me. If it is in fact the most logical reasoning in the world, I'd like to hear a good argument.But why do I get the feeling you'll avoid the question again?

I've never argued for or against prop. 8 so I'm not avoiding anything. All I've said is that it's wrong to label everyone who did vote for it a bigot. And I have provided a perfectly valid reason someone might have voted for it - indifference. I'm not trying to convince you to vote for prop. 8. It's already passed. That would be a waste of time.

What percentage of the 5,324,131 people who voted yes on 8 (99.1% of precincts reporting) would you say voted Yes on 8 due to indifference?

 

[StrikeS2k]

Wow. Sorry I've been gone, and missed all the fun. Gr00vus, this will be weird, but I'm going to defend Strike here (who has spent all this time attacking me) and suggest that there are reasons to have voted for this decision that I would not define as bigoted: Specifically, I know many people, some of them close friends of mine and relatives, who have no problem whatsoever with gay people, but however who believe that marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman. The fact that they believe this usually as a result of religion does not mean, as some have stated, that they seek to give us a theocracy. And it does not make them bigots, IMO, simply wrong and misguided. I agree with Strike that it is wrong to label all those who voted against Prop 8 as bigots. I simply disagree with him that I ever did this.

You still haven't answered my question. This is the third time I'm asking - What did you mean when you said the bigots won?

Bigotry won last night because the bigots got the result they wanted. I have answered this several times. You, on the other hand, not only refuse to accept my explanation, but accused me of name calling on several different issues. We disagree that I did so on this issue, but since you claimed it was a pattern with me, I asked you to name one other issue that I did the same thing on. I'm still asking.

Oh, well I guess the bigots win EVERY time then huh? Cause there are bigots on the winning side of every issue voted on in an election. I'll bet there were some bigots even on the No side of prop. 8 believe it or not!!! Yeah, I'm sure that's what you meant.....Another issue you've resorted to name calling on is illegal immigration.