So Gay marriage failed again...

[M. Angel]

AstroFemme

M. Angel

Asevenex

M. Angel

ZechsK

Actually she has made good points, and many pro-glbt people have made good points. But what is comes down to is that having a good point, or even a scientifically proven correct point doesn't mean people are going to accept it. People don't always try to justify their prejudices and don't need reason, so throwing reason at them isn't going to result in change.

To be honest the GLBT movement is where the black power movement was pre and mid - civil rights movement era. They need to get militant.

Except the civil rights movement was a direct violation to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Segregation being HUGE in this regard. Having marriage is a cause that I doubt few are willing to get "militant" over. This isn't to say that they aren't passionate, but they are so fractured in what they want in terms of two people being together that, until there is some sort of unifying force, the movement'll continue to fail.

My observations over the course of the debate so far.

The bold. They'll use this in their favor to allow marriage because its a violation of pursuit of happiness.

Well the question is do they need a union, called marriage, in order to find happiness. According to the gay pride culture, which has support from the LGBT, they don't need marriage. Long strings of casual sex seems to be working for them. This goes back to my fraction comment of the movement and why they probably won't be winning until they realize what it is that they as a group want.

Well the all the protests that I have participated in seems to indicate that they want equal rights to be married.

But at the same time I've heard people say that all they want are equal rights, without it having to be called marriage. I've also heard the argument that the term marriage should be removed from all legal documents and everything should just be a civil union. Then I hear reactionary people, like the one girl who exploded at me a couple of pages back calling me a gay hater, saying that it has to be marriage.

You see what I mean?

[Overexposure]

pulchritudinous soup

Overexposure

So certain people should be denied their right to vote because you don't like the way they vote?

Do gulags also sound like a good idea to you?

Do Christians even HAVE a majority in this country?

...Seriously? You're asking that?

Majority of the USA is either Protestant or Catholic.
78.4% believe in the "Christian" God.

Quote:

What you think is based on information that is wrong. Many people are un-religious (irreligious?) and oppose homosexual marriage. Many people are also religious and SUPPORT homosexual marriage.

Not according to statistics.

Quote:

Instead of blanket targeting your supporters as well as your detractors, you should be more cautious with who you blame. No sense driving away people who are sympathetic to you just so you can lash out at religion.

I'm pretty sure that you're statement, up above, is inadequate since every statistic proves that your claims are inaccurate. Try again, please.

I actually didn't know that. Shocking!

Am I reading your second link right?
Homosexuality should be encouraged - 50%
Discouraged - 40%

Are you just focused on the Christian part?
Even there it's not ridiculous, with the exception of the Mormons./JW's and Evangelical Protestant (Baptist?) groups. Not widely known for being huge amounts of people.

All told the protestants, the mormons and the JW's weigh in heavier on discouraging, but the Catholics weigh in more on encouraging, as do the Orthodox and the Greek Orthodox churches. There's even the "Other Christian" group solidly in there.

Did I miss something? It seems you've strengthened my point, that instead of targeting ALL religious people as being anti gay, she should be more selective and yet you told me it was inadequate?

Sooo... eh?

[Nicole Ekishou]

My problem is that it's effectively denying rights to legal citizens because of the circumstances of their birth(Homosexuality is not a choice, you're born that way. It's been scientifically proven to be a hormonal/pheromonal reaction). What many people don't think about are the legal rights granted to a person's spouse: Ranging from inheritances to simple visitation rights if you get hospitalized.

Why not grant those rights to them? And if they're the same as ones granted through marriage, why not call it as such?

[GunsmithKitten]

Quote:

So certain people should be denied their right to vote because you don't like the way they vote?

So you're okay if we revoked anti-segregation laws and reinstituted slavery? Neither issue was voted on, after all.

[TagraNar]

Nicole Ekishou

My problem is that it's effectively denying rights to legal citizens because of the circumstances of their birth(Homosexuality is not a choice, you're born that way. It's been scientifically proven to be a hormonal/pheromonal reaction).

I'd like a link to that report, please.

Quote:

What many people don't think about are the legal rights granted to a person's spouse: Ranging from inheritances to simple visitation rights if you get hospitalized.

Why not grant those rights to them? And if they're the same as ones granted through marriage, why not call it as such?

Religious objections. However faulty.

The problem, to address the OP, is time. These sorts of shifts take time. They are also aided by societal and political atmospheres in which the wheels can begin turning. I'd think that until we get past this deeply divided period, not much headway is going to be made on this issue. There are too many people who have been frightened of possible change to allow anything to change.

[M. Angel]

GunsmithKitten

Quote:

So certain people should be denied their right to vote because you don't like the way they vote?

So you're okay if we revoked anti-segregation laws and reinstituted slavery? Neither issue was voted on, after all.

Actually we went to a bloody war in which the side with the more troops, and as such more supporters, beat the south.

Anti-segregation laws would never have been in effect if there wasn't a fear to vote inflicted in the African Americans of the time. It was a tyranny of the minority in those states...

[GunsmithKitten]

Quote:

Actually we went to a bloody war in which the side with the more troops, and as such more supporters, beat the south.

That war wasn't about slavery. it was about state sovriegnty. Lincoln had no intention to free the slaves unless it was a way to stick it to the Confederacy's big cash cow. And it was.

Quote:

Anti-segregation laws would never have been in effect if there wasn't a fear to vote inflicted in the African Americans of the time. It was a tyranny of the minority in those states...

Blacks were the minority in the south, sir, unless you got some data that WHITES were in the minority in the south.

[Overexposure]

GunsmithKitten

Quote:

So certain people should be denied their right to vote because you don't like the way they vote?

So you're okay if we revoked anti-segregation laws and reinstituted slavery? Neither issue was voted on, after all.

Not at all, those are both gross violations of human rights. I'm on your side in this one Kitten, watch the gunshots.


Her post was saying that people who are religious, have no right to vote. I have no issue with the government stepping in and overruling the majority in cases of human rights. That's the point. To prevent the majority from abusing the minority. But to outright DENY someone the right to vote, simply because they are different than you? Because they disagree with you?

As far as I'm concerned our government has failed on this issue, because they have not stepped in and mandated that same sex unions should be entitled to all the same privileges of married couples.

I think keeping the names different will go a long way to appeasing the religious groups though. As long as the rights are the same.

[M. Angel]

TagraNar

Nicole Ekishou

My problem is that it's effectively denying rights to legal citizens because of the circumstances of their birth(Homosexuality is not a choice, you're born that way. It's been scientifically proven to be a hormonal/pheromonal reaction).

I'd like a link to that report, please.

Quote:

What many people don't think about are the legal rights granted to a person's spouse: Ranging from inheritances to simple visitation rights if you get hospitalized.

Why not grant those rights to them? And if they're the same as ones granted through marriage, why not call it as such?

Religious objections. However faulty.

The problem, to address the OP, is time. These sorts of shifts take time. They are also aided by societal and political atmospheres in which the wheels can begin turning. I'd think that until we get past this deeply divided period, not much headway is going to be made on this issue. There are too many people who have been frightened of possible change to allow anything to change.

Question for you, do you find that those at the top of the movement are doing the best that they could to get what is best for the majority of homosexuals? Please add in to your analysis the horrible job that they did in the court case after prop 8 passed.

[iGuitarded]

M. Angel

I'll bypass my initial reaction of what's new and pose my question for this debate.

What is wrong with the Gay marriage movement?

I mean, come on. They raise more money, they get more media attention, they take their cases all the way to the supreme court, and they still manage to screw themselves over. (No pun intended)

I'll come right out and say that I'm against gay marriage. I have my reasons. I voted for prop 8 and followed the whole controversy and still follow it today, but that's not what I want to know. From both sides I want the views of those who have an idea as to why a group with all the advantages on paper seem to repeatedly fail.

I'll say this again for those that I know will want to flame this thread:

-This is not a debate on whether Gay marriage should be accepted.

-This is not a discussion on whether homosexuality is or is not a moral/religious sin.

-This is not a screaming contest over my or anyone else who posts personal views on gay marriage.

I simply want your opinions on why an organization that repeatedly raises more money and seems to have the backing of the majority of the media outlets, can't seem to put together a strong movement/counter movement for what they stand for.

Case in point: The CA supreme court case on Prop 8 after the election.

The court gave a simple demand. Does the court have the power to overturn an amendment to the constitution and if so, what should it do about the previously legal marriages?

To those who watched all three hours of the preceding s, as I did, you don't need to be told how much of a mess the No on 8 people made of their case. They would contradict each other, get WAY off track, and not answer questions with clear answers. In their moment to shine they blew it.

Second Case in Point: Money

Here was a group in CA that raised, from the start, more money than the Yes on 8 group, yet when they lose they protest the Mormon church because their patrons gave money. The central problem is that they had more money from start to finish, yet they make this assumption.

Lets look to yesterday's election. In Maine the Pro Gay marriage people made around 4 million for their cause, against the about 2.5 million that the opposition had. That's nearly twice as much.

I'll admit that I haven't followed the Maine elections, but I assume that they were similar to the CA ones, just on a smaller scale. If I am wrong with this than feel free to correct me. So now I put the topic out to you all.

Why can't the "official" leaders of this movement take what they have and use it to the best of their abilities?

the media does not account for everyone. it is mainly a tool of the liberals. just because the media "accepts and promotes" it does not mean that it has a majority.

[iGuitarded]

GunsmithKitten

Quote:

Actually we went to a bloody war in which the side with the more troops, and as such more supporters, beat the south.

That war wasn't about slavery. it was about state sovriegnty. Lincoln had no intention to free the slaves unless it was a way to stick it to the Confederacy's big cash cow. And it was.

Quote:

Anti-segregation laws would never have been in effect if there wasn't a fear to vote inflicted in the African Americans of the time. It was a tyranny of the minority in those states...

Blacks were the minority in the south, sir, unless you got some data that WHITES were in the minority in the south.

....people need to actually read their history books...

[TagraNar]

M. Angel

Question for you, do you find that those at the top of the movement are doing the best that they could to get what is best for the majority of homosexuals? Please add in to your analysis the horrible job that they did in the court case after prop 8 passed.

To be blunt, I don't know the top members of the movement or how they handled prop 8. I don't see anybody who really sticks out in charismatic leader role, which might help the movement. And honestly, I wouldn't know what is best for homosexuals, or whether the leaders are doing their best for the movement. I just don't have the perspective to say, I guess.

[M. Angel]

GunsmithKitten

Quote:

Actually we went to a bloody war in which the side with the more troops, and as such more supporters, beat the south.

That war wasn't about slavery. it was about state sovriegnty. Lincoln had no intention to free the slaves unless it was a way to stick it to the Confederacy's big cash cow. And it was.

Quote:

Anti-segregation laws would never have been in effect if there wasn't a fear to vote inflicted in the African Americans of the time. It was a tyranny of the minority in those states...

Blacks were the minority in the south, sir, unless you got some data that WHITES were in the minority in the south.

True the war started off as an effort to preserve the union, however that changed over the course of the war. Lincoln saw the suffering that slavery inflicted and changed his views by the end of the war. In addition, the states that didn't have slavery stripped from them, slavery states not in the confederacy, voted to abolish slavery on their own.

I'd have to go searching for specific link, but it's no secret all the measures that the south went through, (grandfather clauses, literacy tests, one drop rules), to keep African Americans from voting. Many of those tests also knocked out southern white working class citizens, literacy tests, who would have sided with some of the African American choices.

[GunsmithKitten]

Quote:

Lincoln saw the suffering that slavery inflicted and changed his views by the end of the war.

Yeaaaaa, ummm, that's totally why, after the war, he prposed to FORCE EXILE all free slaves back to Africa.

...or as Honest Abe himself said...

Let not this proclamation be a statement that the negroe is in any equal to the white man

Quote:

I'd have to go searching for specific link, but it's no secret all the measures that the south went through, (grandfather clauses, literacy tests, one drop rules), to keep African Americans from voting. Many of those tests also knocked out southern white working class citizens, literacy tests, who would have sided with some of the African American choices.

Fair enough, but blacks were still not the majority. Whites were.

[M. Angel]

Overexposure

GunsmithKitten

Quote:

So certain people should be denied their right to vote because you don't like the way they vote?

So you're okay if we revoked anti-segregation laws and reinstituted slavery? Neither issue was voted on, after all.

Not at all, those are both gross violations of human rights. I'm on your side in this one Kitten, watch the gunshots.


Her post was saying that people who are religious, have no right to vote. I have no issue with the government stepping in and overruling the majority in cases of human rights. That's the point. To prevent the majority from abusing the minority. But to outright DENY someone the right to vote, simply because they are different than you? Because they disagree with you?

As far as I'm concerned our government has failed on this issue, because they have not stepped in and mandated that same sex unions should be entitled to all the same privileges of married couples.

I think keeping the names different will go a long way to appeasing the religious groups though. As long as the rights are the same.

I disagree with the government stepping in section, however, I agree with the last part. Names being different would carry the movement a HUGE way.