So Gay marriage failed again...

[M. Angel]

The Great Heat Miser

M. Angel

As I said, the above "horse crap" was a subsection of a secondary reason for my opposition. I care about the term on its religious grounds and, as that directly relates, its original meaning.

You should understand that, when you repeat yourself, I'm bound to repeat myself.

You don't care about original meaning. Not at all. This is nothing more than pure intellectual dishonesty.

Quote:

To my primary reason, it all depends on how you view the world. My view in no way keeps people from being together, living together, doing whatever they want in bed together, it merely restricts the use of the term marriage to referring to a man and a woman. One could argue the same thing you are on the death penalty, or abortion or any other issue that has two sides. In every instance there is a winner and a loser to an issue.

This view makes no sense. It literally assumes that the word itself is the problem, when it's not. It's not that gays aren't being allowed to call their bonds a marriage, it's that they're not being allowed those god damn bonds at all. Even if you call it something different, it's going to be the same damn bond, and it's going to cause the same damn problems, because the problem isn't with the word, it's with the word's meaning.

You're acting like calling my day a 'good' day or a 'fine' day will actually make a difference, despite the fact that they're practically the same thing.

Quote:

A group of people, regardless of the issue, will be put down.

I think you have the idea that 'putting down' and 'losing the argument' are one in the same. That idea has absolutely no grounding in reality.

If you have a man trying to buy a neighborhood so he can tear it down and build a super-mall, either one of two things will happen: The man will be able to do so, or the man won't be able to do so. If he is allowed to, hundreds of people are forced onto the streets to desperately search for a new home or to simply die on the streets. If he's not allowed to, he simply can't build the super-mall.

One side simply doesn't gain. The other loses practically everything they have.

Do you understand the difference? Yes, or no?

((I'll be going in order with these responses. And I'll number them per quote.))

1) I honestly don't care whether you believe me on the religious aspect of my beliefs and the meaning of the word marriage or not. You say I don't care, I say I do. It's not the main argument so I'm just going to move on.

2) I realize my slight fallacy here. As I am in CA, civil unions are granted the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual marriages. California Family code 297.5 establishes this. As such my statements are based around this. For prop 8 in California that's exactly what the issue was about, a name.

As regarding other states that may not have civil union benefits I'd advise going after the same system as CA with equal civil union status. It would be easier to pass. Though this is just my opinion.

3) I realize the difference.

However I find it ironic that you use a status quo argument as your example when the anti-gay marriage group are the ones trying to preserve the status quo. Furthermore, you describe a person that is acting against the interest and mindset of the majority of people, which is the exact same argument against gay marriage. When put to a vote of what the majority would want, they would obviously want to keep their homes.

You also say that the losing side, pro gay marriage, is going to lose everything that they have, if we draw the example over to this issue, when that is clearly not the case. The main reason being that proponents have nothing to lose in their situation. They're the ones trying to evoke change.

[M. Angel]

Torrent_Of_Octane

So OP, you dont address people that dont directly ask you a question? I'm curious to see what your opinion is regarding my view.

Well I agreed with you earlier when you had responded to my question on the political role for the pro gay marriage movement, but which view are you referring to?

[GunsmithKitten]

Quote:

As I am in CA, civil unions are granted the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual marriages.

Fraid they're not. I can point to at least 25 rights granted to married couples that civil unions are nto granted.

[Malee]

M. Angel

((To everyone, I had to eat, but now that I'm back I'll get to anyone who quoted me/asked me a question.))

As to the above, I must call casuistry on your argument. (Essentially I'm saying that it's bullshit. Love the word "casuistry"! Anyway-) Whether she was or wasn't a lesbian isn't even the point. NO mother, or father for that matter, should ever abandon their family unless there is a clear abuse present and no, being in a married relationship with a man that you chose to be in when you're a lesbian doesn't fly as abuse. If she got married, then that's a commitment. Period.

I'm a guy, therefore I'm programmed to want to have sex with every girl that I see. Does this make it acceptable in any way, shape or form? Hell no. Would it be right for me to abandon my spouse and (theoretical) children to go and do whatever the hell I want because of the way I'm programmed? No. How about blaming the victims, AKA the family that I'm leaving, for repressing my urge to screw every woman that I meet? No, I don't think so.

To try and pull this casuistry and make the mother the victim while at the same time blaming the family that SHE abandoned is the highest form of insult and disgrace that you could have performed. And I have to say shame on you for posting that.


And now that is out of the way I'm going to calm down and respond to the others that are waiting on me.

That is an interesting argument you have there. How did you manage to compare repressed homosexuality to the desire to have sex because you are a guy? Honestly... I want to know how these two seem to go hand in hand.

[M. Angel]

GunsmithKitten

Quote:

Good evening, Octane. I'd just like to say that I disapprove of people calling you a troll instead of using logic to debate your positions.

Maybe when he threatens to kill your girlfriend and tells you in public how you can whip him all you like just as long as you allow him to eat your poo you'll understand why some of us feel the way we do about him.

I didn't say that you couldn't call him a troll, just follow it up with a logical rebuttal to his points. I haven't been in the ED since the last election, so I don't know who has done what to whom in that time. As such I'd like to keep whatever is said in my topic within the basis of logic.

@Octane: That being said, I don't want to see any trollish activity from you or anyone in my thread. You're posts have fit within my non-troll boundaries so far and as such I make no judgments against you, but in the interest of being fair I'm putting this out there to both sides.

Now off to actually reply to people.

[Torrent_Of_Octane]

M. Angel

Torrent_Of_Octane

So OP, you dont address people that dont directly ask you a question? I'm curious to see what your opinion is regarding my view.

Well I agreed with you earlier when you had responded to my question on the political role for the pro gay marriage movement, but which view are you referring to?

Well, nothing specific. Just the guys I was having the long debate with that refuse to stop giving anecdote as "facts" left and I feel i'm just on the cliff hanging.

Eh, I guess I'll check back on gaia tomorrow.

[M. Angel]

Malee

M. Angel

((To everyone, I had to eat, but now that I'm back I'll get to anyone who quoted me/asked me a question.))

As to the above, I must call casuistry on your argument. (Essentially I'm saying that it's bullshit. Love the word "casuistry"! Anyway-) Whether she was or wasn't a lesbian isn't even the point. NO mother, or father for that matter, should ever abandon their family unless there is a clear abuse present and no, being in a married relationship with a man that you chose to be in when you're a lesbian doesn't fly as abuse. If she got married, then that's a commitment. Period.

I'm a guy, therefore I'm programmed to want to have sex with every girl that I see. Does this make it acceptable in any way, shape or form? Hell no. Would it be right for me to abandon my spouse and (theoretical) children to go and do whatever the hell I want because of the way I'm programmed? No. How about blaming the victims, AKA the family that I'm leaving, for repressing my urge to screw every woman that I meet? No, I don't think so.

To try and pull this casuistry and make the mother the victim while at the same time blaming the family that SHE abandoned is the highest form of insult and disgrace that you could have performed. And I have to say shame on you for posting that.


And now that is out of the way I'm going to calm down and respond to the others that are waiting on me.

That is an interesting argument you have there. How did you manage to compare repressed homosexuality to the desire to have sex because you are a guy? Honestly... I want to know how these two seem to go hand in hand.

Due to the moderator status I'll give the heads up that I will get to this reply, but there are earlier ones that I promised to get to first.

[Jay_Flores]

I can't really say why they keep failing. I mean, I have theories. Close-minded, over-religious, and bitter people that don't want them experiences the "joys" of marriage.

I can't really understand it. I mean, I used to be homophobic. I mean, seriously homophobic. Any gesture of homosexuality not only scared me, but made me angry. Even lesbians. Which, as a stereotype of being a guy, I'm supposed to enjoy. It just upset me. I was raised strictly Christian and was told it was wrong and you could be condemned to hell for such things.

Of course, once I actually started thinking for myself, I have nothing against gay people. Except for overly-gay men, but that's for their behavior, not because they're gay. Just the lisp and hand flick, I just wanna beat 'em with soggy bread. And lesbians that hate men. I mean, if you have a valid reason other than men only think with their p***s, then I'll probably agree with you. A lot of the time, I dislike my own gender. But not because we have testosterone and an over-active sex drive.

I think I got waaay off topic. My point is, the masses are probably just being close-minded.

[M. Angel]

Xeno Incognito

M. Angel

I'll just number these by quote to make it easier.

1) I'm not referring to the concept, I'm referring to the term, marriage. I believe that most people are when they bring up that argument, if they aren't then I weep for them. As to religions that will marry homosexuals they are few in comparative to the whole.

2)Well there are always small exceptions, but as a whole the majority usually comes out on top.

Now when you say minorities, I'd like you to specify your meaning. I normally use the term as above with minority opinions. I don't know if you're referring to political minorities, racial minorities, religious minorities, or all of the above. If all the above, and as such the minority opinion as per my definition, then I have to say that's just the way it is. The majority opinion always rules in a democratic society.

3)Well, as mentioned in the OP, here is a group that has the money, airwaves, manpower, everything that it needs for a good campaign. Yet they fail. Under circumstances where little information is available, I'd agree that fear played a factor, however, the CA court case after prop 8 passed, which anyone can access the footage, clearly showed the incompetence of the movement. They tripped over themselves, couldn't stay on topic, didn't answer the questions presented to them, it was a mess. This is where I've been, following the case bit by bit as it unfolds.

1. I still need proof that it is a religious term, but in order to prove that you'd need define which specific religions state it as such. And by doing so, you've invalidated the point because, again, there are religions that will marry same-sex couples. It doesn't matter how few there are.

2. I'm sorry, but you're wrong. And yes, I'm referring to majority opinion. Are you aware of what type of government America runs with? We are not a direct democracy. We're a representative republic. Meaning, we elect representatives to act in what they believe is the best interest of the constituents. The average American is either apathetic or an ignorant dumbass. And the representatives do not always follow the majority opinion. They usually just vote with whichever side hired the best lobbyists.

My point is that you're grossly misinformed if you think the political system is as simple as you say it is. We can make exceptions without it harming the delicate fabric of the majority, especially in this case, where changing the definition of marriage would be harming NOBODY.

3. And had you seen the extremely deceitful ad campaigns put out by Yes on 8? They fed the public lies by telling them that voting for gay marriage would force schools to teach children homosexuality (which wouldn't be negative in any way even if it was true), that by changing the definition gay marriage "threaten" their families (which are s**t-all to begin with if you need another person's relationship to define yours).

It worked because they appealed to their target audience: ignorant, easily influenced, irrational TV-watchers who take Fox News as gospel truth.

1) As I said in the other post. Religion is my secondary reasoning, one that I won't change and would rather not go into. You can call it a win for you if you like, but I'm dropping the subject regardless.

2)We are a representative republic, however, since the marriage debate resides as a state issue direct democracy is often the deciding factor, as seen in CA and other states. The point of our system, is that the majority of people decide what they want. For there to be a change to the system in the form of exceptions (regardless of whether they're harmful or not) goes against the system and, as such, its principals.

(And to anyone wanting to mention that slavery would still be around under the above system, think again. We had the civil war in which the north won mainly due to it's excess of troops. Those same troops believed in freeing those in slavery. Not that I expect this argument to be brought up by you, Xeno, but I've seen it pop up from others.)

3)I'll be the first to agree that a majority of the Yes on 8 ads were embarrassing to the cause to say the least, however this doesn't make up for the No on 8's utter failure to run a successful campaign when they had all the benefits one could ask for, and even got a second chance to speak before the supreme court of CA, which they royally botched up. Seriously, go and watch it. I know high schoolers who could have put together better arguments than what seemed to be haphazardly thrown together at the last minute. Hell, I could have done a better job convincing the judges and I'm against the movement. It was at that point, (seeing the footage) that the movement in CA lost my respect. now I don't know what happened in Maine, but I'll speak for my own state.

[Xeno Incognito]

M. Angel

2)We are a representative republic, however, since the marriage debate resides as a state issue direct democracy is often the deciding factor, as seen in CA and other states. The point of our system, is that the majority of people decide what they want. For there to be a change to the system in the form of exceptions (regardless of whether they're harmful or not) goes against the system and, as such, its principals.

(And to anyone wanting to mention that slavery would still be around under the above system, think again. We had the civil war in which the north won mainly due to it's excess of troops. Those same troops believed in freeing those in slavery. Not that I expect this argument to be brought up by you, Xeno, but I've seen it pop up from others.)

3)I'll be the first to agree that a majority of the Yes on 8 ads were embarrassing to the cause to say the least, however this doesn't make up for the No on 8's utter failure to run a successful campaign when they had all the benefits one could ask for, and even got a second chance to speak before the supreme court of CA, which they royally botched up. Seriously, go and watch it. I know high schoolers who could have put together better arguments than what seemed to be haphazardly thrown together at the last minute. Hell, I could have done a better job convincing the judges and I'm against the movement. It was at that point, (seeing the footage) that the movement in CA lost my respect. now I don't know what happened in Maine, but I'll speak for my own state.

2. I believe "majority rules" is a stupid system to follow in the case of a non-violent social matter such as this and I'll fight it until we win. There was only a 3% majority on Prop 8. Also, an appeal to tradition is poor reasoning for preserving the current definition for marriage.

3. I believe awareness, education and social advocacy will help erase this problem the next time around. Also, No on 8's shoddy work is inexcusable, but you have to admit, the cards were already stacked against them.

[M. Angel]

Xeno Incognito

M. Angel

Xeno Incognito

I can sympathize with your struggles but you need to put this into perspective:

Your mother was a repressed homosexual. Society, her upbringing, your stepfather, maybe even you- they, even unconsciously, pressured her to stay in the closet. So much so that she went against every natural instinct in her body and married a man.

If it wasn't for the anti-gay camp and heteronormative society directing her life, she would have been a happy, loved lesbian woman.

Being a lesbian wasn't your mother's "dream". It's not a vacation you take when you turn 50. It's not something you do for fun. The fact is, she was and always will be a lesbian (or maybe bisexual). She didn't just turn. She just was.

Your family's lack of support? Your internalized hate? You've just made it that much harder for her. You don't need to like it. You don't need to like her partners. You don't even have to agree with her decision.

But you still need to LOVE her. Because she is your mother, the one who raised you and gave you life. She is still the same person she was before she came out.

That being said, you need to realize that her repression is the fault of people like you and who think like you.

((To everyone, I had to eat, but now that I'm back I'll get to anyone who quoted me/asked me a question.))

As to the above, I must call casuistry on your argument. (Essentially I'm saying that it's bullshit. Love the word "casuistry"! Anyway-) Whether she was or wasn't a lesbian isn't even the point. NO mother, or father for that matter, should ever abandon their family unless there is a clear abuse present and no, being in a married relationship with a man that you chose to be in when you're a lesbian doesn't fly as abuse. If she got married, then that's a commitment. Period.

I'm a guy, therefore I'm programmed to want to have sex with every girl that I see. Does this make it acceptable in any way, shape or form? Hell no. Would it be right for me to abandon my spouse and (theoretical) children to go and do whatever the hell I want because of the way I'm programmed? No. How about blaming the victims, AKA the family that I'm leaving, for repressing my urge to screw every woman that I meet? No, I don't think so.

To try and pull this casuistry and make the mother the victim while at the same time blaming the family that SHE abandoned is the highest form of insult and disgrace that you could have performed. And I have to say shame on you for posting that.


And now that is out of the way I'm going to calm down and respond to the others that are waiting on me.

Did I at any point state that I agreed with her abandonment of her family? She is a bad parent and wife because she is a bad parent and wife, and because she chose to come out AFTER having a family. She is a bad parent and wife because she put people who were close to her in pain and ruining what they thought was a happy family. She is NOT a bad person because all homosexuals are bad people and deadbeats. I only addressed his post because he is using his resentment of his mother as a justification to hate ALL homosexuals who want to have legally recognized partnerships, and that affects ME and my community and all of my future relationships.

Also, I'm not blaming it on him. I blame it on people who think like him. People who use irrational matters to justify their hate.

I'm putting this forewarning here because I don't want you to think I'm doing this to just be an a**, but I'm underlining all the points from your first post to show where it appears, (intentionally or not), that you were agreeing with the abandonment. (Note: you did add in a justification of the final line in the most recent post (above) but from reading it the first time it honestly sounded like you were putting the blame on him when combined with the statement in the first underlined section. )

To the majority of your statements I have to agree with you. One horrible person doesn't equivocate the total being horrible. However, I fully understand his reasoning of why he disagrees with homosexuals in general. We are all examples of the ideas that we represent, his mother left with using homosexuality as the primary reason at a young age. His isn't a common situation, but it isn't unique either. His ideas were based upon the actions of one, and that action isn't widely frowned upon by the homosexual community, at least from what is put out. This may indeed be unfair, but I can see why it happened and why you disagree with it.

[M. Angel]

GunsmithKitten

Quote:

As I am in CA, civil unions are granted the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual marriages.

Fraid they're not. I can point to at least 25 rights granted to married couples that civil unions are nto granted.

Still waiting on that list...

[HelloNoora]

AstroFemme

Methcalarjalope

AstroFemme

It makes me sad that Christians are so adamant about denying rights to people based on religious beliefs. Reminds me of the same thing that happened during the legalization of interracial marriages.

There is not enough direct correlation between Christianity and the 31 states rejecting gay marriage.

yes, add in Mormons too.

I do not prefer those Mormons. I deny emphatically that they are Christians on theological grounds; they are neo-Arians.

[M. Angel]

Malee

M. Angel

((To everyone, I had to eat, but now that I'm back I'll get to anyone who quoted me/asked me a question.))

As to the above, I must call casuistry on your argument. (Essentially I'm saying that it's bullshit. Love the word "casuistry"! Anyway-) Whether she was or wasn't a lesbian isn't even the point. NO mother, or father for that matter, should ever abandon their family unless there is a clear abuse present and no, being in a married relationship with a man that you chose to be in when you're a lesbian doesn't fly as abuse. If she got married, then that's a commitment. Period.

I'm a guy, therefore I'm programmed to want to have sex with every girl that I see. Does this make it acceptable in any way, shape or form? Hell no. Would it be right for me to abandon my spouse and (theoretical) children to go and do whatever the hell I want because of the way I'm programmed? No. How about blaming the victims, AKA the family that I'm leaving, for repressing my urge to screw every woman that I meet? No, I don't think so.

To try and pull this casuistry and make the mother the victim while at the same time blaming the family that SHE abandoned is the highest form of insult and disgrace that you could have performed. And I have to say shame on you for posting that.


And now that is out of the way I'm going to calm down and respond to the others that are waiting on me.

That is an interesting argument you have there. How did you manage to compare repressed homosexuality to the desire to have sex because you are a guy? Honestly... I want to know how these two seem to go hand in hand.

Well I have several reasons to compare:

First: Inborn Tendencies
Although I have known several women who claim to be strait, who switch to gay, who switch back to strait, I'm willing to but aside my doubts that all people who claim to be homosexuals are indeed born with it for this argument.

It is the general belief that homosexuality is something that people are born with. It is also known that the urge to reproduce is present in males. Both these things are inborn, both these things are sexual in nature. I say sexual in nature due to the main factor of homosexuality, that one is sexually attracted to a member of the same gender.

This is a clear distinction from love, which any person can feel towards any other human. There are many people, both men and women, that I as a heterosexual male can say that I love, however I am not sexually attracted to the men that I love, hence heterosexual. These factors are put in at birth.

Second: Repression

Just as one might repress their homosexuality in order to fit into specific social situations, a guy must do the same with his heterosexual urges to reproduce. Lets take marriage as the social institution. Here is a social institution that seems to be completely counter to the passing on of genes. Staying with one woman and not having sex with a large variety to increase the gene mixing. At the same time that a guy must repress his sexual urges, one repressing their homosexuality faces the same situation, being in a circumstance that goes against the way that they were born.

Neither of these is a legitimate reason to break your commitment to a marriage, hence my earlier rant. We are not beings that simply go after the urges that we are born with, we are one of, if not the, only species that can go against our inborn urges.

If you'd like more clarification on anything, then just say so.

((I stumbled on this correlation during a discussion on the "gay lifestyle" of going out and having sex every other night after picking up someone at a bar. (As told to me by people who did this.) I disapprove of the "player" lifestyle in heterosexuals, so why should any difference be given to homosexuals who do the exact same thing?))

[M. Angel]

Xeno Incognito

M. Angel

2)We are a representative republic, however, since the marriage debate resides as a state issue direct democracy is often the deciding factor, as seen in CA and other states. The point of our system, is that the majority of people decide what they want. For there to be a change to the system in the form of exceptions (regardless of whether they're harmful or not) goes against the system and, as such, its principals.

(And to anyone wanting to mention that slavery would still be around under the above system, think again. We had the civil war in which the north won mainly due to it's excess of troops. Those same troops believed in freeing those in slavery. Not that I expect this argument to be brought up by you, Xeno, but I've seen it pop up from others.)

3)I'll be the first to agree that a majority of the Yes on 8 ads were embarrassing to the cause to say the least, however this doesn't make up for the No on 8's utter failure to run a successful campaign when they had all the benefits one could ask for, and even got a second chance to speak before the supreme court of CA, which they royally botched up. Seriously, go and watch it. I know high schoolers who could have put together better arguments than what seemed to be haphazardly thrown together at the last minute. Hell, I could have done a better job convincing the judges and I'm against the movement. It was at that point, (seeing the footage) that the movement in CA lost my respect. now I don't know what happened in Maine, but I'll speak for my own state.

2. I believe "majority rules" is a stupid system to follow in the case of a non-violent social matter such as this and I'll fight it until we win. There was only a 3% majority on Prop 8. Also, an appeal to tradition is poor reasoning for preserving the current definition for marriage.

3. I believe awareness, education and social advocacy will help erase this problem the next time around. Also, No on 8's shoddy work is inexcusable, but you have to admit, the cards were already stacked against them.

2)The only way that majority rules works, however, is if it's applied to all situations. Whether or not it is "stupid" is irrelevant. It's simple mathematics, the resolution that helps the most people is best. Life isn't fair, we all can't get what we want, but if the majority of people get what they want then the best outcome is achieved.

You say that you'll fight until you win, well I commend you on that. The only way you'll get real change, however, is if you have a majority opinion on your side to begin with. The social backing is key in this debate, especially since trying to convince a people that homosexual marriage is the equivalent to slavery and segregation is a tough to impossible sell.

3)As mentioned above, education and informed voters are indeed what is needed, whether they agree at the end of the day would be a slightly different story. However, I don't see the cards stacked against the No on 8 people. They had more money from start to finish, more manpower, more backers, the media outlets, the actors sector, several central hubs within the state to issue orders from, time, political backers... the list goes on, and it would be simple to write off the loss as fear mongering or underhanded tactics be the yes on 8 people, except for the fact that the whole world, via the internet release of the court case, was able to see how incompetent the no on 8 people were in their organization and handling of themselves.