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

[Konotay]

Making law is not the role of judges, it is the role of the legislative branches. This is wrong way to pass this law and IMHO is not what our founding fathers envisioned about the role of the judicial branch.

What law did this judge create?What exactly would you like judges to do when a law (created by the legislature) is unconstitutional? Ignore whatever personal feelings you may have about prop 8.

 

[Konotay]

Yeah, the sooner we can get away from logical, legal analysis and back to bigotry, stereotyping and demagougery, the better.

link

... the majority of Americans who think marriage is a union of husband and wife are not motivated by irrational hatred and bigotry, but a love for the truth about marriage. We are seeing bad behavior from followers, because the leaders of this movement are consistently pushing a message that delegitimizes opposition, wrongly equates support for marriage with hatred and bigotry, and encourage ordinary pro-gay-marriage activists to act as if only one side has the right to be heard.

Q: What do you most wish people knew about the whole Prop 8 fight?

A: Gay marriage has consequences. The goal of this movement is to use the law to reshape the culture so that disagreement with their views on sex and marriage gets stigmatized and repressed like bigotry. Children will be taught, whether parents like it or not, that traditional faith communities’ views on marriage are based on hatred and bigotry. In the new America they are attempting to build, core civil rights will be sacrificed for imaginary ones that will then be used to exclude most religious people and institutions from the public square. We are already seeing the beginnings of this great purge in the academy, and it will march from there through professional licensing and institutions in ways that will affect a great many people.

The "truth" that is mentioned is certainly subjective, given that homosexual couples certainly believe their relationships deserve to be treated as valid as heterosexual couples (who's marital sanctity has not been so threatened by quick-y Vegas sham-marriages and divorce to warrant trying to outlaw them). The claim of a rational argument is pretty weak and fallacious.The second point is wildly off base. The goal is equal treatment. Reshaping prop-8 proponents as the victim is not unusual for that crowd, however. Nobody wants to exclude religious points from public debate, but I do think it's pretty funny that since the debate points brought have failed so miserably to make any kind of statement that the argument is being twisted in that manner. If that side had any rational basis of argument that resounded as truth, as claimed here, the wouldn't be so embarrassed by their position is so easily associated with bigotry.

To recap: Just because you can't debate the argument doesn't mean people are trying to stop you from debating.

deserve to be treated as valid as heterosexual couplesI obviously see it differently. I see civil unions as just as valid as marriage. I also see that when 2 or more people enter into a long term relationship there needs to be established laws, or contracts, protecting those involved.

So we need to have rules that are fair to homosexuals: benefits, inheritance, government sanctioning, hospital rights.....

But a homosexual relationship is different than a heterosexual relationship. By calling it a different name isn't discrimination. The biggest difference is children. Heterosexuals create children and we need laws that protect them. So give homosexuals a contract that protects them and legitimizes the relationship. But also call a completely different kind of relationship something different, especially for something as important to society as how our children are raised.

Reshaping prop-8 proponents as the victim Those that defend traditional marriage are often called bigots. When children come home from school which tells them that tradition marriage advocates are bigots and should be shunned, it warps our children's view what marriage is and any value associated with it.

 

[the moops]

Making law is not the role of judges, it is the role of the legislative branches. This is wrong way to pass this law and IMHO is not what our founding fathers envisioned about the role of the judicial branch.

What law did this judge create?What exactly would you like judges to do when a law (created by the legislature) is unconstitutional? Ignore whatever personal feelings you may have about prop 8.

Good luck

 

[Mario Kart]

I obviously see it differently. I see civil unions as just as valid as marriage. I also see that when 2 or more people enter into a long term relationship there needs to be established laws, or contracts, protecting those involved.

So we need to have rules that are fair to homosexuals: benefits, inheritance, government sanctioning, hospital rights.....

But a homosexual relationship is different than a heterosexual relationship. By calling it a different name isn't discrimination. The biggest difference is children. Heterosexuals create children and we need laws that protect them. So give homosexuals a contract that protects them and legitimizes the relationship. But also call a completely different kind of relationship something different, especially for something as important to society as how our children are raised.

Reshaping prop-8 proponents as the victim Those that defend traditional marriage are often called bigots. When children come home from school which tells them that tradition marriage advocates are bigots and should be shunned, it warps our children's view what marriage is and any value associated with it.

I respect your ideals and such but how is one relationship "different" from another? They are relationships all the same which should be granted the same rights as each other. You, stating "we need laws that protect them" are advocating more government intrusion into the lives of private citizens all in the name of not allowing the term "marriage" to be used. Sorry, but do you see how dumb that is?

 

[tonydead]

deserve to be treated as valid as heterosexual couples

I obviously see it differently. I see civil unions as just as valid as marriage. I also see that when 2 or more people enter into a long term relationship there needs to be established laws, or contracts, protecting those involved.

So we need to have rules that are fair to homosexuals: benefits, inheritance, government sanctioning, hospital rights.....

But a homosexual relationship is different than a heterosexual relationship. By calling it a different name isn't discrimination. The biggest difference is children. Heterosexuals create children and we need laws that protect them. So give homosexuals a contract that protects them and legitimizes the relationship. But also call a completely different kind of relationship something different, especially for something as important to society as how our children are raised.

Reshaping prop-8 proponents as the victim Those that defend traditional marriage are often called bigots. When children come home from school which tells them that tradition marriage advocates are bigots and should be shunned, it warps our children's view what marriage is and any value associated with it.

I tried to stay out of this thread, but, these comments are just ridiculous.2 mature adults are perfectly capable of having a relationship without "protection" from it.

Have you ever heard of adoption or sperm donors?

 

[ScottyFargo]

A lot of the anti-gay marriage arguments start out with a rational basis but can't hold up under their own weight.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

For example,

Rowe vs Wade: Isn't the right to life in the constitution.

Yes. The government can't kill you without a good reason. That's pretty much irrelevant to Roe v. Wade, though, since the litigants never alleged that the government was killing anybody.

This goes to the core about judicial activism. That laws are created out of whole cloth.

Can you give an example of a law created by judges out of whole cloth?

Once these laws are made there is no checks and balances over the court by the legislative and presidential branches (a constitutional amendment standard is so high that it isn't a realistic check and balance.)

Once what laws are made?

And checks and balances were important to our founding fathers. Our country was not designed to be ruled by judges. Rather those make laws are there by the consent of the voters. Because judges are not voted in and in many cases have life time appointments this completely abrogates the "consent of the governed" principle that our Representative Republic is based on.

Our government is based on the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't say "legislatures can do anything they want." The powers of government are limited. When elected legislators do something unconstitutional, unelected judges are supposed to stop it. And as it turns out, elected legislators do unconstitutional stuff all the time! Judges don't block them nearly enough.

Making law is not the role of judges, it is the role of the legislative branches.

If you're going to keep repeating this, you really should give an example of law made by a judge.

 

[jon_mx]

deserve to be treated as valid as heterosexual couples

I obviously see it differently. I see civil unions as just as valid as marriage. I also see that when 2 or more people enter into a long term relationship there needs to be established laws, or contracts, protecting those involved.

So we need to have rules that are fair to homosexuals: benefits, inheritance, government sanctioning, hospital rights.....

But a homosexual relationship is different than a heterosexual relationship. By calling it a different name isn't discrimination. The biggest difference is children. Heterosexuals create children and we need laws that protect them. So give homosexuals a contract that protects them and legitimizes the relationship. But also call a completely different kind of relationship something different, especially for something as important to society as how our children are raised.

Reshaping prop-8 proponents as the victim Those that defend traditional marriage are often called bigots. When children come home from school which tells them that tradition marriage advocates are bigots and should be shunned, it warps our children's view what marriage is and any value associated with it.

I tried to stay out of this thread, but, these comments are just ridiculous.2 mature adults are perfectly capable of having a relationship without "protection" from it.

Have you ever heard of adoption or sperm donors?

Nothing ridiculous about the comments. It is the over the top emotionally-charged rhetoric from gay marriage supporters that is ridiculous. Many people just view marriage as a man and a woman. No one wants to take away two people enjoying each's company and sharing property, but it is simply not a marriage. To me it is like the color green insisting it is blue and wanting everyone to call it blue. It is green.

 

[huthut]

deserve to be treated as valid as heterosexual couples

I obviously see it differently. I see civil unions as just as valid as marriage. I also see that when 2 or more people enter into a long term relationship there needs to be established laws, or contracts, protecting those involved.

So we need to have rules that are fair to homosexuals: benefits, inheritance, government sanctioning, hospital rights.....

But a homosexual relationship is different than a heterosexual relationship. By calling it a different name isn't discrimination. The biggest difference is children. Heterosexuals create children and we need laws that protect them. So give homosexuals a contract that protects them and legitimizes the relationship. But also call a completely different kind of relationship something different, especially for something as important to society as how our children are raised.

Reshaping prop-8 proponents as the victim Those that defend traditional marriage are often called bigots. When children come home from school which tells them that tradition marriage advocates are bigots and should be shunned, it warps our children's view what marriage is and any value associated with it.

But heterosexual marriage does not have reproduction as a requirement to get married. Two 80 year olds could get married, sterile people can get married, people who don't want children can get married. What laws are needed to protect heterosexuals because they create children? That does not even make sense. Schools don't need to teach kids to call people bigots because they want to deny the rights of minorities, it is pretty much the definition of the word.

 

[jon_mx]

But heterosexual marriage does not have reproduction as a requirement to get married. Two 80 year olds could get married, sterile people can get married, people who don't want children can get married. What laws are needed to protect heterosexuals because they create children? That does not even make sense. Schools don't need to teach kids to call people bigots because they want to deny the rights of minorities, it is pretty much the definition of the word.

Abraham and Sarah down?

 

[ScottyFargo]

deserve to be treated as valid as heterosexual couples

I obviously see it differently. I see civil unions as just as valid as marriage. I also see that when 2 or more people enter into a long term relationship there needs to be established laws, or contracts, protecting those involved.

So we need to have rules that are fair to homosexuals: benefits, inheritance, government sanctioning, hospital rights.....

But a homosexual relationship is different than a heterosexual relationship. By calling it a different name isn't discrimination. The biggest difference is children. Heterosexuals create children and we need laws that protect them. So give homosexuals a contract that protects them and legitimizes the relationship. But also call a completely different kind of relationship something different, especially for something as important to society as how our children are raised.

Reshaping prop-8 proponents as the victim Those that defend traditional marriage are often called bigots. When children come home from school which tells them that tradition marriage advocates are bigots and should be shunned, it warps our children's view what marriage is and any value associated with it.

I tried to stay out of this thread, but, these comments are just ridiculous.2 mature adults are perfectly capable of having a relationship without "protection" from it.

Have you ever heard of adoption or sperm donors?

Nothing ridiculous about the comments. It is the over the top emotionally-charged rhetoric from gay marriage supporters that is ridiculous. Many people just view marriage as a man and a woman. No one wants to take away two people enjoying each's company and sharing property, but it is simply not a marriage. To me it is like the color green insisting it is blue and wanting everyone to call it blue. It is green.

It's the opposite of emotionally charged to ask for a rational argument against homosexual marriage, and the reactions when the substandard arguments (as your appeal to the popular "most people view marriage as..." is, or the appeal to antiquity "marriage has always been between a man and woman" are under closer scrutiny) is where I see more emotion coming from. Just as the questions posed earlier, not liking how these arguments are countered, prop 8 proponents claim persecution and being painted as bigots. That's simply not the case. Come up with something that actually makes sense and then you don't have to worry about your argument boiling down to "gay sex is icky and I don't like it," which is pretty much all the case is left with right now.ETA: The reasons those arguments fail are because saying what is more popular or what has been since time immemorial does not answer why homosexual marriage should not be protected by the constitution (or why it might be morally wrong, outside of politics.)

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Many people just view marriage as a man and a woman. No one wants to take away two people enjoying each's company and sharing property, but it is simply not a marriage. To me it is like the color green insisting it is blue and wanting everyone to call it blue. It is green.

This argument is unpersuasive to me, among other reasons, because people don't talk like state statutes. When two gay guys get married, everyone in the neighborhood will refer to it as a marriage even if the state officially calls it a domestic partnership. A search for "gay marriage" turns up about a zillion hits on Google — it's not like the phrase would suddenly cease to exist if the judge had ruled to uphold Prop 8. Gay marriage, in everyday speech, is marriage. The law's got nothing to do with it.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

But heterosexual marriage does not have reproduction as a requirement to get married. Two 80 year olds could get married, sterile people can get married, people who don't want children can get married. What laws are needed to protect heterosexuals because they create children? That does not even make sense. Schools don't need to teach kids to call people bigots because they want to deny the rights of minorities, it is pretty much the definition of the word.

Abraham and Sarah down?

Exactly. That's what I don't get about the whole "two gay guys can't impregnate each other" argument. Uh ... miracles down??? Who are we to tell God the limits of his magic?

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Issues like this make it much clearer why we fail to get anything substantive accomplished as a nation. Rather than resolving this issue rationally and in a logical way, we get bogged down in the minutiae.

This is a clear cut case. There is no compelling argument not to have same sex marriages. This issue is crystal clear. Now consider issues that are are more debatable and it seems obvious that people are more beholden to their ideology than they are in the desire to solve problems or consider evidence and arguments

In a rational way.

At least these litmus test issues demonstrate who is willing to be reasonable and who wants to cling to bad arguments and dogma.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

But heterosexual marriage does not have reproduction as a requirement to get married. Two 80 year olds could get married, sterile people can get married, people who don't want children can get married. What laws are needed to protect heterosexuals because they create children? That does not even make sense. Schools don't need to teach kids to call people bigots because they want to deny the rights of minorities, it is pretty much the definition of the word.

Abraham and Sarah down?

This basically compels a reader to burst out laughing at you.

 

[badmojo1006]

But heterosexual marriage does not have reproduction as a requirement to get married. Two 80 year olds could get married, sterile people can get married, people who don't want children can get married. What laws are needed to protect heterosexuals because they create children? That does not even make sense. Schools don't need to teach kids to call people bigots because they want to deny the rights of minorities, it is pretty much the definition of the word.

Abraham and Sarah down?

You are kidding right?

 

[jon_mx]

But heterosexual marriage does not have reproduction as a requirement to get married. Two 80 year olds could get married, sterile people can get married, people who don't want children can get married. What laws are needed to protect heterosexuals because they create children? That does not even make sense. Schools don't need to teach kids to call people bigots because they want to deny the rights of minorities, it is pretty much the definition of the word.

Abraham and Sarah down?

This basically compels a reader to burst out laughing at you.

It was actually kind of clever and even a bit funny. I don't get all the hate around here. It is like the thing to do.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

But heterosexual marriage does not have reproduction as a requirement to get married. Two 80 year olds could get married, sterile people can get married, people who don't want children can get married. What laws are needed to protect heterosexuals because they create children? That does not even make sense. Schools don't need to teach kids to call people bigots because they want to deny the rights of minorities, it is pretty much the definition of the word.

Abraham and Sarah down?

Yes.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

But heterosexual marriage does not have reproduction as a requirement to get married. Two 80 year olds could get married, sterile people can get married, people who don't want children can get married. What laws are needed to protect heterosexuals because they create children? That does not even make sense. Schools don't need to teach kids to call people bigots because they want to deny the rights of minorities, it is pretty much the definition of the word.

Abraham and Sarah down?

This basically compels a reader to burst out laughing at you.

It was actually kind of clever and even a bit funny. I don't get all the hate around here. It is like the thing to do.

When you're position is this indefensible, there's no way to tell.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

... I don't get all the hate around here. It is like the thing to do.

So why do you social conservative continue the hate?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I don't believe those who voted for proposition 8 were motivated by hate and bigotry.

Sure the vast majority were simply ignorant and indifferent. Much better.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Damn.

I know.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Damn.

I know.

I apologize if you felt I was unfairly singling you out for ridicule. We both know that error isn't even a threat for the 10 dumbest things posts in this page of this thread. If anything, be flattered that I bothered to give you feedback ahead of some of the mouth-breathers in here who are beyond repair.

It's pretty bad. I'll have Chase scrub the logs.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

I'll have Chase scrub the logs.

Poor Chase. Always having to "scrub the log".

 

[jon_mx]

... I don't get all the hate around here. It is like the thing to do.

So why do you social conservatives continue the hate?

Funny how people define hate. I happen to believe that marriage by definition is a man and a woman. Actually, nothing different than what Obama has stated numerous times, and some people here consider it hate. It is just what the word means, it has for centuries. Nothing hateful about it. Now the hate directed at me is hate. I can say anything and it gets attacked as stupid. A guy asks for advice on a good set of instructional Tennis tapes, I link him up. Some idiot comes along and calls the post dumb, not realizing it was exactly what the poster asked for. Choke today goes loony over a post he thinks I made. I tell him I did not make it. Instead of apologizing, he goes off on some other post I did make. It is just stupid crazy. It doesn't matter what I post, people go off on it, and it is almost entirely because some people here view social conservatives as Nazis. Well, it is not me behaving like a freakin Nazi.

 

[tonydead]

... I don't get all the hate around here. It is like the thing to do.

So why do you social conservatives continue the hate?

Funny how people define hate. I happen to believe that marriage by definition is a man and a woman. Actually, nothing different than what Obama has stated numerous times, and some people here consider it hate. It is just what the word means, it has for centuries. Nothing hateful about it. Now the hate directed at me is hate. I can say anything and it gets attacked as stupid. A guy asks for advice on a good set of instructional Tennis tapes, I link him up. Some idiot comes along and calls the post dumb, not realizing it was exactly what the poster asked for. Choke today goes loony over a post he thinks I made. I tell him I did not make it. Instead of apologizing, he goes off on some other post I did make. It is just stupid crazy. It doesn't matter what I post, people go off on it, and it is almost entirely because some people here view social conservatives as Nazis. Well, it is not me behaving like a freakin Nazi.

.If everyone is calling you out did it ever occur to you to take a good look in the mirror. Most of the things that come through your keyboard are delusional. Stupid and crazy are just the beginning of a log list of adjectives.

 

[jon_mx]

... I don't get all the hate around here. It is like the thing to do.

So why do you social conservatives continue the hate?

Funny how people define hate. I happen to believe that marriage by definition is a man and a woman. Actually, nothing different than what Obama has stated numerous times, and some people here consider it hate. It is just what the word means, it has for centuries. Nothing hateful about it. Now the hate directed at me is hate. I can say anything and it gets attacked as stupid. A guy asks for advice on a good set of instructional Tennis tapes, I link him up. Some idiot comes along and calls the post dumb, not realizing it was exactly what the poster asked for. Choke today goes loony over a post he thinks I made. I tell him I did not make it. Instead of apologizing, he goes off on some other post I did make. It is just stupid crazy. It doesn't matter what I post, people go off on it, and it is almost entirely because some people here view social conservatives as Nazis. Well, it is not me behaving like a freakin Nazi.

.If everyone is calling you out did it ever occur to you to take a good look in the mirror. Most of the things that come through your keyboard are delusional. Stupid and crazy are just the beginning of a log list of adjectives.

Not everyone, just not so bright leftist who can't otherwise debate without getting personal.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Not everyone, just not so bright leftist who can't otherwise debate without getting personal.

I guess it does require a certain abstract, impersonal thinking to value word definitions more than people. And it is more than just this issue.

 

[tonydead]

.If everyone is calling you out did it ever occur to you to take a good look in the mirror. Most of the things that come through your keyboard are delusional. Stupid and crazy are just the beginning of a log list of adjectives.

Not everyone, just not so bright leftist who can't otherwise debate without getting personal.

Just a piece of advise my friend. Take it or leave it. You identified the problem.

 

[jon_mx]

Not everyone, just not so bright leftist who can't otherwise debate without getting personal.

I guess it does require a certain abstract, impersonal thinking to value word definitions more than people. And it is more than just this issue.

Nice hyperbole. You don't seem to value Muslim women who live under oppressive rules. Instead you are hung up on some piece of paper which should have nothing to do with happiness. Who cares that young Muslim girls are getting offed by their fathers for dating Mexicans.

 

[tonydead]

Not everyone, just not so bright leftist who can't otherwise debate without getting personal.

I guess it does require a certain abstract, impersonal thinking to value word definitions more than people. And it is more than just this issue.

Nice hyperbole. You don't seem to value Muslim women who live under oppressive rules. Instead you are hung up on some piece of paper which should have nothing to do with happiness. Who cares that young Muslim girls are getting offed by their fathers for dating Mexicans.

Did you forget to consider that young Muslim women wouldn't be treated this way if it wasn't for religion?

 

[jon_mx]

Not everyone, just not so bright leftist who can't otherwise debate without getting personal.

I guess it does require a certain abstract, impersonal thinking to value word definitions more than people. And it is more than just this issue.

Nice hyperbole. You don't seem to value Muslim women who live under oppressive rules. Instead you are hung up on some piece of paper which should have nothing to do with happiness. Who cares that young Muslim girls are getting offed by their fathers for dating Mexicans.

Did you forget to consider that young Muslim women wouldn't be treated this way if it wasn't for religion?

Plenty of non-religious types abuse women and children. This is not inheriently a religious thing, but in this case is isolated to certain sects. Unfortunately, many of those sects control countries. Evil people use religion to manipulate people. Evil people use government to abuse people. That does not make religion and government evil. It is the people who are behind them. But thanks for display more of the bigotry that seems quite common here against religion. You are doing your side a big favor.

 

[jon_mx]

Not everyone, just not so bright leftist who can't otherwise debate without getting personal.

I guess it does require a certain abstract, impersonal thinking to value word definitions more than people. And it is more than just this issue.

Nice hyperbole. You don't seem to value Muslim women who live under oppressive rules. Instead you are hung up on some piece of paper which should have nothing to do with happiness. Who cares that young Muslim girls are getting offed by their fathers for dating Mexicans.

Did you forget to consider that young Muslim women wouldn't be treated this way if it wasn't for religion?

Awesome post.

Yeah, if you are a bigot. Casting all religious people as evil seems to be an MO for some around here.

 

[Cassius]

Making law is not the role of judges, it is the role of the legislative branches. This is wrong way to pass this law and IMHO is not what our founding fathers envisioned about the role of the judicial branch.

Are you serious? This is an example of exactly how the legislative and judicial branches are supposed to operate.

 

[tonydead]

Nice hyperbole. You don't seem to value Muslim women who live under oppressive rules. Instead you are hung up on some piece of paper which should have nothing to do with happiness. Who cares that young Muslim girls are getting offed by their fathers for dating Mexicans.

Did you forget to consider that young Muslim women wouldn't be treated this way if it wasn't for religion?

Plenty of non-religious types abuse women and children. This is not inheriently a religious thing, but in this case is isolated to certain sects. Unfortunately, many of those sects control countries. Evil people use religion to manipulate people. Evil people use government to abuse people. That does not make religion and government evil. It is the people who are behind them. But thanks for display more of the bigotry that seems quite common here against religion. You are doing your side a big favor.

Then why did you single out Muslims? And start a post specifically about Muslim honor killings if it's all random and doesn't have anything to do with religion? It appears you are trying to have your cake (singling our Muslims) and eating it too (it's not religion's fault).Exhibit A for post #1080.

 

[tonydead]

Awesome post.

Yeah, if you are a bigot. Casting all religious people as evil seems to be an MO for some around here.

Seriously. Stop and think, read the two posts above. What about "Did you forget to consider that young Muslim women wouldn't be treated this way if it wasn't for religion?" casts all religious people at evil? It was your assertion, not mine.

 

[jon_mx]

Awesome post.

Yeah, if you are a bigot. Casting all religious people as evil seems to be an MO for some around here.

Seriously. Stop and think, read the two posts above. What about "Did you forget to consider that young Muslim women wouldn't be treated this way if it wasn't for religion?" casts all religious people at evil? It was your assertion, not mine.

You are blaming the abuse on religion. It has little to do with religion. This has to do with the pride of men. Religion is not the cause, it is a tool. Typical liberal mindset like blaming guns for killing and not the people who use them. So no, religion is not the reason women are treated this way. Religion is not the root of all evil

 

[timschochet]

I don't think jon_mx's position on honor killings has any bearing on his position on this issue. I actually think he has a good point here. Far too many liberals are eager to call any social conservative who defines marriage as between a man and a woman as a bigot. But why do they reserve that claim for conservatives? Why aren't they calling President Obama, who holds the same position, a bigot? For that matter, why did the opponents of Prop. 8 pretend to ignore the vast majority of African-Americans in California who voted for the proposition?

I think jon_mx is wrong in his position on this issue, as wrong as he can be. But he is not either a hypocrite nor is he a bigot, anymore than Obama is.

 

[jon_mx]

Nice hyperbole. You don't seem to value Muslim women who live under oppressive rules. Instead you are hung up on some piece of paper which should have nothing to do with happiness. Who cares that young Muslim girls are getting offed by their fathers for dating Mexicans.

Did you forget to consider that young Muslim women wouldn't be treated this way if it wasn't for religion?

Plenty of non-religious types abuse women and children. This is not inheriently a religious thing, but in this case is isolated to certain sects. Unfortunately, many of those sects control countries. Evil people use religion to manipulate people. Evil people use government to abuse people. That does not make religion and government evil. It is the people who are behind them. But thanks for display more of the bigotry that seems quite common here against religion. You are doing your side a big favor.

Then why did you single out Muslims? And start a post specifically about Muslim honor killings if it's all random and doesn't have anything to do with religion? It appears you are trying to have your cake (singling our Muslims) and eating it too (it's not religion's fault).Exhibit A for post #1080.

If it were David Koresh, I would single out his cult. This just happens to be an abuse that is happening in Muslim countries and is spreading here. Most Muslims are against it, but they need to be vocal and actively denounce it. It is really not part of their religion, but an abuse of their religion.

 

[tonydead]

Awesome post.

Yeah, if you are a bigot. Casting all religious people as evil seems to be an MO for some around here.

Seriously. Stop and think, read the two posts above. What about "Did you forget to consider that young Muslim women wouldn't be treated this way if it wasn't for religion?" casts all religious people at evil? It was your assertion, not mine.

You are blaming the abuse on religion. It has little to do with religion. This has to do with the pride of men. Religion is not the cause, it is a tool. Typical liberal mindset like blaming guns for killing and not the people who use them. So no, religion is not the reason women are treated this way. Religion is not the root of all evil

Then why did you single out Muslims? And start a post specifically about Muslim honor killings if it's all random and doesn't have anything to do with religion? It appears you are trying to have your cake (singling our Muslims) and eating it too (it's not religion's fault).

 

[tonydead]

I don't think jon_mx's position on honor killings has any bearing on his position on this issue. I actually think he has a good point here. Far too many liberals are eager to call any social conservative who defines marriage as between a man and a woman as a bigot. But why do they reserve that claim for conservatives? Why aren't they calling President Obama, who holds the same position, a bigot? For that matter, why did the opponents of Prop. 8 pretend to ignore the vast majority of African-Americans in California who voted for the proposition? I think jon_mx is wrong in his position on this issue, as wrong as he can be. But he is not either a hypocrite nor is he a bigot, anymore than Obama is.

Obama is a bigot.jon_mx used the words bigot and hypocrite, not me.Happy?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Not everyone, just not so bright leftist who can't otherwise debate without getting personal.

I guess it does require a certain abstract, impersonal thinking to value word definitions more than people. And it is more than just this issue.

Nice hyperbole. You don't seem to value Muslim women who live under oppressive rules. Instead you are hung up on some piece of paper which should have nothing to do with happiness. Who cares that young Muslim girls are getting offed by their fathers for dating Mexicans.

Don't remember advocating these positions????

 

[jon_mx]

Awesome post.

Yeah, if you are a bigot. Casting all religious people as evil seems to be an MO for some around here.

Seriously. Stop and think, read the two posts above. What about "Did you forget to consider that young Muslim women wouldn't be treated this way if it wasn't for religion?" casts all religious people at evil? It was your assertion, not mine.

You are blaming the abuse on religion. It has little to do with religion. This has to do with the pride of men. Religion is not the cause, it is a tool. Typical liberal mindset like blaming guns for killing and not the people who use them. So no, religion is not the reason women are treated this way. Religion is not the root of all evil

Then why did you single out Muslims? And start a post specifically about Muslim honor killings if it's all random and doesn't have anything to do with religion? It appears you are trying to have your cake (singling our Muslims) and eating it too (it's not religion's fault).

see post above this. If it was a Christian polygamy story, I would single out the Christian sect that is abusing their beliefs. Honor killings seem to be a Muslim thing.

 

[tonydead]

see post above this. If it was a Christian polygamy story, I would single out the Christian sect that is abusing their beliefs. Honor killings seem to be a Muslim thing.

And both Muslim and Christian sect seem to be a religious thing. It's a lot more effective to attack the ring leader than it is the drug pushers.

 

[timschochet]

I don't think jon_mx's position on honor killings has any bearing on his position on this issue. I actually think he has a good point here. Far too many liberals are eager to call any social conservative who defines marriage as between a man and a woman as a bigot. But why do they reserve that claim for conservatives? Why aren't they calling President Obama, who holds the same position, a bigot? For that matter, why did the opponents of Prop. 8 pretend to ignore the vast majority of African-Americans in California who voted for the proposition? I think jon_mx is wrong in his position on this issue, as wrong as he can be. But he is not either a hypocrite nor is he a bigot, anymore than Obama is.

Obama is a bigot.Happy?

Not really, no. I don't think that there is a useful definition of bigot that would include all those who believe marriage should be restricted to being between a man and a woman. jon_mx used the words bigot and hypocrite, not me.

 

[tonydead]

I don't think jon_mx's position on honor killings has any bearing on his position on this issue. I actually think he has a good point here. Far too many liberals are eager to call any social conservative who defines marriage as between a man and a woman as a bigot. But why do they reserve that claim for conservatives? Why aren't they calling President Obama, who holds the same position, a bigot? For that matter, why did the opponents of Prop. 8 pretend to ignore the vast majority of African-Americans in California who voted for the proposition?

I think jon_mx is wrong in his position on this issue, as wrong as he can be. But he is not either a hypocrite nor is he a bigot, anymore than Obama is.

Obama is a bigot.Not really, no. I don't think that there is a useful definition of bigot that would include all those who believe marriage should be restricted to being between a man and a woman.

jon_mx used the words bigot and hypocrite, not me.

Happy?

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

 

[dparker713]

Can you give an example of a law created by judges out of whole cloth?

Murder, Rape, Larceny, Robbery, Trespass to Land, Trespass to Chattels, Conversion, Nuisance, False Imprisonmen, Intential Infliction of Emotional Distress, Defamation, Invasion of Privacy, Intential Misrepresentation, Neglicence, Strict Liability, Product Liability. Thats just a very small list.

 

[jon_mx]

see post above this. If it was a Christian polygamy story, I would single out the Christian sect that is abusing their beliefs. Honor killings seem to be a Muslim thing.

And both Muslim and Christian sect seem to be a religious thing. It's a lot more effective to attack the ring leader than it is the drug pushers.

Raising it up to the level of religion is the hyperbole part. As I stated before, billions of people have been abused by governments. So would you make the statement that without government these abuses would not have occurred? Yes, when religion and/or governments get too powerful, people will abuse that power. It is does not follow that if we eliminated government or religion that all those problems will go away. Evil people are ultimately responsible.

 

[tonydead]

see post above this. If it was a Christian polygamy story, I would single out the Christian sect that is abusing their beliefs. Honor killings seem to be a Muslim thing.

And both Muslim and Christian sect seem to be a religious thing. It's a lot more effective to attack the ring leader than it is the drug pushers.

 

[dparker713]

Issues like this make it much clearer why we fail to get anything substantive accomplished as a nation. Rather than resolving this issue rationally and in a logical way, we get bogged down in the minutiae.

This is a clear cut case. There is no compelling argument not to have same sex marriages. This issue is crystal clear. Now consider issues that are are more debatable and it seems obvious that people are more beholden to their ideology than they are in the desire to solve problems or consider evidence and arguments

In a rational way.

At least these litmus test issues demonstrate who is willing to be reasonable and who wants to cling to bad arguments and dogma.

You have this backwards. There needs to be a an argument made in favor of gay marriage.