This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
How is someone voting on a proposition that ammends the constitution to be more in line with their beliefs "being stupid"?It's more of a right wing power grab.If that's why people were voting yes on Prop 8, they were being stupid. That may have been Ray's point.It had everything to do with peoples vote on Prop 8 though. That was my point.The legal definition of marriage, which is what Prop 8 was about, has nothing to do with God whatsoever.
I don't know if it was in this thread or not, but one of the recent threads had the argument that religious folks would be soon rounded up and thrown in jail for their vocalize their beliefs under hate speech laws.
How about ignorant of the appropriate role of government?How is someone voting on a proposition that ammends the constitution to be more in line with their beliefs "being stupid"?It's more of a right wing power grab.If that's why people were voting yes on Prop 8, they were being stupid. That may have been Ray's point.It had everything to do with peoples vote on Prop 8 though. That was my point.The legal definition of marriage, which is what Prop 8 was about, has nothing to do with God whatsoever.
And for gay marriage supporters, they will be further barking up the wrong tree by going this route.
He is right though. Bigotry did win. Do you dispute this?And there is a difference between calling a person a bigot and saying that a general atmosphere of bigotry was supported by the passing of this thing. He repeatedly explained this and yet you keep accusing him of the same thing without any response to this valid argument.
Yes I dispute it. If I didn't I wouldn't have made the post I did. You all are making the assertion that it's somehow a bigoted environment that caused this to fail. There is no evidence of this. There are certainly some bigots in the crowd that voted against it. So what. That doesn't mean bigotry was the reason it failed. Some blacks voted against McCain because he's white but I'm not claiming racism is the reason Obama won.
Serious question - why do you think people voted for this ban on gay marriage?
I don't think you can say there was one reason several million people voted a certain way. Do you think there was one reason Obama won last night?
Can you think of one reason to vote yes on a gay marriage ban that would not qualify is a being inherently bigoted?
Yes.
Why do I think people voted for a ban on gay marriage?Because those people think it's wrong is the best I can come up with. I don't think there's anything wrong with it, so I have a hard time understanding a viewpoint that does. But I also have a hard time seeing how it can't be bigoted to some extent, as the basis for thinking it is wrong seems to revolve around thinking there's something wrong with being gay. That's bigotry.
I'm listening. I can't.
Ok, I'll be a little more serious. Are you suggesting that all of those people who voted for this are bigots?
So your stance is that all those who voted for this have some bigotry in them?
You've been asked, but have yet to provide a single reason for voting in favor of a ban on gay marriage. Do you have one and what is (are) they?
I'll ask you the same thing. Is it your stance that all of those who voted for this are bigots? Why won't anyone answer this? Hmmm.....
Primarily they voted to support it based on a campaign of outright lies, slander and preying upon the misguided fears of parents.
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?
No, most were indifferent. Not much less damnable.
I think everyone has some bigotry in them. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar too.I think that a dislike for homosexuality is the root cause behind the results. This dislike was fueled by the Yes on 8 Campaign which didn't even bother to offer an actual valid argument in favor of the Prop. but instead fed the public a campaign of incomplete information and outright lies in an attempt to frighten voters into believing that Prop 8 somehow threatened their children, their religious rights and their marriages.
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 to deny marriage to gay people.
Ok, let me go out on a limb here and say YES. There are a lot of bigots in this world. Unfortunately in CA they outnumber the rest of us (for bigotry on this particular issue).What's wrong with calling a lot of people bigots? Is that so scary and crazy? It seems to me it's reality right now. I do think you can be bigoted in certain beliefs but still be a good person, if that's what you're afraid of.
Who cares, people vote how they want.
Well, every reason I've gotten from those that voted Yes on this proposition is rooted in the belief that homosexuality is wrong and is something that should be treated differently. Until I hear of a reason that doesn't have that underlying its rationale, then I'll say yes.Now, why won't you answer the question that has been posed to you now by three different posters? Hmmm...
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?
Indifference. Is that bigotry? And that's not even my answer lol. So there are at least two valid responses.
How the hell would "indifference" cause someone to vote yes on 8? What are they "indifferent" to?That's called denial, not indifference.
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'll bite anyway. I believe that people who voted for this fall into at least one of these 3 categories:1) Bigots2) Believe it is appropriate for the U.S. to become a theocracy3) Voted based on gut reaction and/or groupthink rather than careful analysis and introspection My guess is that #3 is a lot higher than I'd care to acknowledge at this point, #2 is a small percentage of people I disagree vehemently with, and #1 is probably a significant portion of the population.
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?
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.
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.
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...
Ok, I guess that's your logic. I guess I'm cynical here in calling this reasoning BS.
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.
Actually no it's not. I haven't even said how I'd vote on this issue. None of that is the point. And indifference isn't even the reason I would have used. Someone else was nice enough to offer that one up. It's still a valid reason though. But look at the passion with which people are defending the stance that the ONLY possible reason someone would vote for this is bigotry. Exactly like Tim. At least most of you acknowledge your tunnel vision. Tim pretends he doesn't have it, which is much worse.
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.
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?
This whole thread is about a ballot proposition, not about whether allowing gay people to marry is or isn't bigotry. And I didn't even get in to this thread to discuss that issue. I just wanted to point out that Tim loves to generalize and call people names that don't agree with him. If you want to believe there are a bunch of bigots against gay marriage you're welcome to do so. I have no desire to change your mind. Eventually Gay Marriage will happen, regardless. It's just a matter of time.
I think it is unfair to label everyone who voted yes on 8 as bigots. While I believe many of them simply don't like gay people (even if they don't admit this fact to themselves) I think it was the tactics used by the Yes on 8 people that frightened the common voter, who never reads legislation and relies on sound bytes for their opinions, into thinking a No on 8 vote would lead to a loss of their religious rights, indoctrination of their children into homosexuality and a dissolution of their marriages. All lies but effective lies in whipping up the mouth breathing masses into a frenzy.
If there is no other reason for voting against allowing gay marriage than bigotry, calling people who do so bigots is not name calling - it's an accurate statement of fact. So in order to think your position correct, that Tim is simply some sort of narrow minded slanderer as evidenced by what he's posted in this thread, there would have to be reasons for consciously voting against allowing gay marriage other than bigotry. Without being able to expose these alternative reasons, I'm not as willing to buy into your observation about Tim. I assume that by posting your observation on a message board for other people to read, you were somewhat interested in other people considering or perhaps even agreeing with your observation, in which case I'd expect you'd be interested in supporting your statement. Or maybe you were just randomly posting, like your indifferent voter?
I will be happy to consider a response based upon logic and reason. A PM would be appreciated (nothing in PM would be posted in the thread).
You'd be wrong. I directed the post to Tim. I thought about PM'ing him but chose this medium instead. I do have to laugh at your assertion that it's ok to call people bigots who clearly aren't bigots. Wow. I think I already posted it once but it never ceases to amaze me how many people will say "no, the person is a bigot anyways". There are other reasons that have nothing to do with bigotry people might have for voting for this. How many would I need to post to make you happy? Or are they all subject being bigots anyways?
The Presidential election was a foregone conclusion in California.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.
Why did you choose this medium instead of a private message if you didn't want other people to know what you thought?
Back to square one.Can you tell me why not wanting to allow gay people to marry isn't bigotry?
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 don't care if anyone knows what I said to Tim. You said I did it for other people's input. that's not true.I'll have to terminate this discussion with you. The people who vote based on indifference don't meet the definition of a bigot:
big·ot Listen to the pronunciation of bigotPronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\ Function: noun Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigotDate: 1660: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
