So Gay marriage failed again...

[Overexposure]

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.

I don't know about the forced exile part, but I do know that Lincoln didn't give a damn about slavery.

He cared about the Union. If freeing the slaves would save the Union, he would do it. If leaving them enslaved would have saved the Union he would have done that.
Wiki!

[M. Angel]

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.

That was during the initial proclamation of freedom to slaves in the south. The reason Lincoln made it in the beginning was to get the British off his back. Turning the issue to slavery kept Britain out of siding for the confederates because they were leading the anti-slavery charge at the time.

Lets also remember that Lincoln was forced with the odd situation, when viewed in his time, the freedmen were indeed free, but considering that they had previously been property, did their freedom make them citizens of the state that they were enslaved in, or of the US at all?

We know how that story ends.

Okay, whites may have held a majority, but not all whites were people who hated African Americans or would have voted for segregation. Also, they certainly weren't the majority in every district. That alone would have enabled them to have people in congress and change would have had the chance to happen on its own. However, the minorities in various districts kept down African Americans and those who sympathized with them. My point being that if you added up all the people that were segregated or sympathized, then it would be pretty close if not the majority.

[GunsmithKitten]

Quote:

Okay, whites may have held a majority, but not all whites were people who hated African Americans or would have voted for segregation. Also, they certainly weren't the majority in every district.

Do you have relatives that were in the south at that time? I highly encourage you to talk to them if you think that the prevalent attitude wasn't pro-segregation as a majority.

Quote:

However, the minorities in various districts kept down African Americans and those who sympathized with them. My point being that if you added up all the people that were segregated or sympathized, then it would be pretty close if not the majority.

Not in the south. My blood on both mother and father goes all the way back to the founding of the country as native Virginians, Texans, and Kentuckians. I have to wonder what lens you're looking at this through.

[pulchritudinous soup]

Overexposure

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?

The vast majority of the US population are Protestant. Catholic being the second.

Approximately 39.5% of Protestant's tolerate homosexuality.
On the other hand, 48% believes that homosexuality should not be tolerated.

Protestant's make up 50% of the US population.

Catholics are more lenient; they lower the "intolerance of homosexuality" percentage by quite a bit. They make up 23%.

The third is the Mormon's. Unlike the Catholics, they do not accept homosexuality. They 1.7% of the population.

"Other religions" are under 5%. Knowing that, let's review our statistics:

[TH= Tolerates Homosexuality]
[NF= Not in Favour (of homosexuality)]

Non-Religious: 16%
- Approx. 74% TH.
- 17% NF.

Protestant: 50%
- Approx. 39% TH.
- 48% NF.

Catholic: 23%
- Approx. 58% TH.
- 30% NF.

Mormon: 1.7%
- Approx. 24% TH.
- 68% NF.

OK, let's add up percentages of non-religious VS. religious:

Final:

Non-Religious: 16% [74% in favour]
Religious: 84% [51% in favour]

I did not calculate the "amount of" in the "final" since I'm not great at mathematics. The percentages are off to an extent.

The majority of "religious people within the United States" are protestant and since they uphold the largest amount and their beliefs are, generally, against tolerance of homosexuality--They affect the outcome. Catholics do hold a good percentage, I agree. Should we target religion as the only factor to anti-homosexuality? No. Is religion a huge factor against homosexuality? Yes.

However, this remains: Non-religious people are, generally, more tolerant of homosexuality. We can both agree, yeah?

[M. Angel]

GunsmithKitten

Quote:

Okay, whites may have held a majority, but not all whites were people who hated African Americans or would have voted for segregation. Also, they certainly weren't the majority in every district.

Do you have relatives that were in the south at that time? I highly encourage you to talk to them if you think that the prevalent attitude wasn't pro-segregation as a majority.

Quote:

However, the minorities in various districts kept down African Americans and those who sympathized with them. My point being that if you added up all the people that were segregated or sympathized, then it would be pretty close if not the majority.

Not in the south. My blood on both mother and father goes all the way back to the founding of the country as native Virginians, Texans, and Kentuckians. I have to wonder what lens you're looking at this through.

Hmm, perhaps the demographics changed too much over the years for my argument to be relative as time went on, but at the start of the civil war the south had a population of 9 million people, 4 million people and 5 million slaves.

I also know that some districts were overwhelmingly African American, but through all the voting restrictions they weren't represented as they were supposed to be.

[Overexposure]

pulchritudinous soup

Overexposure

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?

The vast majority of the US population are Protestant. Catholic being the second.

Approximately 39.5% of Protestant's tolerate homosexuality.
On the other hand, 48% believes that homosexuality should not be tolerated.

Protestant's make up 50% of the US population.

Catholics are more lenient; they lower the "intolerance of homosexuality" percentage by quite a bit. They make up 23%.

The third is the Mormon's. Unlike the Catholics, they do not accept homosexuality. They 1.7% of the population.

"Other religions" are under 5%. Knowing that, let's review our statistics:

[TH= Tolerates Homosexuality]
[NF= Not in Favour (of homosexuality)]

Non-Religious: 16%
- Approx. 74% TH.
- 17% NF.

Protestant: 50%
- Approx. 39% TH.
- 48% NF.

Catholic: 23%
- Approx. 58% TH.
- 30% NF.

Mormon: 1.7%
- Approx. 24% TH.
- 68% NF.

OK, let's add up percentages of non-religious VS. religious:

Final:

Non-Religious: 16% [74% in favour]
Religious: 84% [51% in favour]

I did not calculate the "amount of" in the "final" since I'm not great at mathematics. The percentages are off to an extent.

The majority of "religious people within the United States" are protestant and since they uphold the largest amount and their beliefs are, generally, against tolerance of homosexuality--They affect the outcome. Catholics do hold a good percentage, I agree. Should we target religion as the only factor to anti-homosexuality? No. Is religion a huge factor against homosexuality? Yes.

However, this remains: Non-religious people are, generally, more tolerant of homosexuality. We can both agree, yeah?

That I can agree with.

Your numbers do still show that 51% of 84% (42.xx% of the majority) is tolerant of homosexuality. That's a huge amount of supporters to spit on. Those + the 12% or so is 54% in favor. Unless your numbers are off quite a bit, I'd not be turning people away because they believe in a god.

My point was more her blanket statement. I'm religious and for gay marriage. I'm certainly not alone in that. I'd be far less inclined to be helpful to the attempts to get gay marriage recognized if I was spit on just because I believed in God. And most people seem to be more on the fence about the issue and more likely to go against gay marriage based on how they're received.

[GunsmithKitten]

Quote:

Hmm, perhaps the demographics changed too much over the years for my argument to be relative as time went on, but at the start of the civil war the south had a population of 9 million people, 4 million people and 5 million slaves.

Source for those numbers?

Quote:

I also know that some districts were overwhelmingly African American, but through all the voting restrictions they weren't represented as they were supposed to be

These were small pockets of the majority, yes, but this idea that de-segregation was the MAJORITY opinion of the south doesn't even begin to hold water.

[Torrent_Of_Octane]

M. Angel

Torrent_Of_Octane

Kaosgirl

Torrent_Of_Octane

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.

And what exactly is wrong with being close minded and holding an opinion? One that they adhere to.

What's wrong with calling that opinion what it is?

I hate you. xp

Got you there Octane. rofl

I'm not perfect.

[M. Angel]

GunsmithKitten

Quote:

Hmm, perhaps the demographics changed too much over the years for my argument to be relative as time went on, but at the start of the civil war the south had a population of 9 million people, 4 million people and 5 million slaves.

Source for those numbers?

Quote:

I also know that some districts were overwhelmingly African American, but through all the voting restrictions they weren't represented as they were supposed to be

These were small pockets of the majority, yes, but this idea that de-segregation was the MAJORITY opinion of the south doesn't even begin to hold water.

Source: Numbers Just Below the Map

Note the numbers are pre civil war and what I biased my earlier comments on.

I also realize that the only states that actually had a higher slave to free count are Mississippi and South Carolina. So I must concede on my assumption earlier as incorrect.

[Kaosgirl]

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.

I honestly couldn't say. Being in Canada, I get the info a bit filtered.

I would say, though, that they face a tough opponent. The Catholics and Protestants have been spreading lies and fighting propoganda wars against each other since... well, as long as the Church has had competitors. That's centuries of experience, turned against a "common foe" and backed by the inertia of the Almighty Status Quo.

And then the nature of the proposition itself, where "No" means yes to same-sex marriage. I want to make a joke about the Quebec Soveriegnty Referendum there, but it probably wouldn't be funny.

It's honestly a bit of a miracle that the vote was as close as it was.

[ZechsK]

M. Angel

ZechsK

pulchritudinous soup

GunsmithKitten

Quote:

Quitters never win Gunsmith.

But if I already never win, there's no problem in quitting. 0-31 is not a good record.

Quote:

You should stay, if only to infuriate Octane

Screw it. The populance wants to agree with him, I'm lookin for the exit. I don't believe in hanging around where I'm not wanted.

Perhaps you're doing something wrong? Are your arguments based around the same technique? If so, that's a problem. You should not expect to change opinions if you're not willing to reconsider your own arguments and make adjustments to be more logically appealing. If you can successfully twist around Octane's ideology, and continue to throw in psychological and sociological facts while he's still trying to find support for an opposition; you've basically won. If anyone tries to dodge a question that you impose, then you've clearly outsmarted them. Those who wish to continue their advocation with the opponent even if you point out how they could not answer something that you put forth with clear and respectable information, then they're not worth it.

I still do not believe that you have created arguments with solid sources that reinforce your opinion even throughout the amount of time that you put into many "gay rights' arguments".

Prove that your arguments have changed throughout time. If you cannot, then do not blame society for siding with Octane. His perspective is, generally, popular--I will not disagree. But, to give up and blame popularity only proves that he, Octane, was right from the beginning. If you're not willing to fight and go against the odds, then why are you fighting?

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.

Gays have plenty of legal rights, but those rights are often violated with no recourse. They are subjected to taunting and ridicule in public, can be fired from their jobs, won't be allowed to adopt, and a whole host of other things that create a very antagonistic society towards them.

And just like blacks during that era it's REALLY HARD to get any justice for a myriad of reasons. e.g. we all know that the real reason they got fired or declined by the adoption agency is because they were gay but the official reason given was something else so how do you go about proving it in Court?

When blacks complained about this problem we get told that we are pulling the race card, and that we have equal rights, but rights on paper =/= rights in practice by society and thats why the black power movement didn't just end the second blacks got some rights via legislation.

I don't see a very big difference to tell the truth.

[Nicole Ekishou]

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.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1129091/?tool=pmcentrez

This was the one foremost in my mind. Wikipedia has more on the subject, plus more links to others.

[NoblesseOblige00]

The main stumbling block is that most people are not particularly interested in the 'gay rights' issue, and the section of the community thatare vehemently against gay marriage make more noise than the gay lobby, and are a fraction larger in numbers enough to effect the outcome.

Link it to the economy or taxes or global warming, something everyday people actually need to bother giving a damn about, the average voter is not concerned about an issue affecting a tiny minority of people because either way it won't affect anything really.

I'm for same sex marriage, but I wouldn't really be affected if it was legalized as opposed to it remaining illegal, the bearing on my life or the day to day workings of the nation would be barely perceptible, magnify this to encompass the voter base in any given state and the picture of it being less than the hottest topic among those who are neutral or have less than strongly held views either way becomes clear.

[Torrent_Of_Octane]

NoblesseOblige00

The main stumbling block is that most people are not particularly interested in the 'gay rights' issue, and the section of the community thatare vehemently against gay marriage make more noise than the gay lobby, and are a fraction larger in numbers enough to effect the outcome.

Link it to the economy or taxes or global warming, something everyday people actually need to bother giving a damn about, the average voter is not concerned about an issue affecting a tiny minority of people because either way it won't affect anything really.

I'm for same sex marriage, but I wouldn't really be affected if it was legalized as opposed to it remaining illegal, the bearing on my life or the day to day workings of the nation would be barely perceptible, magnify this to encompass the voter base in any given state and the picture of it being less than the hottest topic among those who are neutral or have less than strongly held views either way becomes clear.

Even if they might not actively participate in either side, when given the option on a ballot, they still will vote. They might not be there to vote for or against gay rights, but they are at the ballot and still given the opportunity to vote in gay marriage or whatever the issue is, they will naturally lean one way or another. Thats the case with prop 8. People were out there to vote for the president, but prop 8 was in the same ballot, so people vote for it as well.

It seems more are against gays than for.

[Temba]

Torrent_Of_Octane

NoblesseOblige00

The main stumbling block is that most people are not particularly interested in the 'gay rights' issue, and the section of the community thatare vehemently against gay marriage make more noise than the gay lobby, and are a fraction larger in numbers enough to effect the outcome.

Link it to the economy or taxes or global warming, something everyday people actually need to bother giving a damn about, the average voter is not concerned about an issue affecting a tiny minority of people because either way it won't affect anything really.

I'm for same sex marriage, but I wouldn't really be affected if it was legalized as opposed to it remaining illegal, the bearing on my life or the day to day workings of the nation would be barely perceptible, magnify this to encompass the voter base in any given state and the picture of it being less than the hottest topic among those who are neutral or have less than strongly held views either way becomes clear.

Even if they might not actively participate in either side, when given the option on a ballot, they still will vote. They might not be there to vote for or against gay rights, but they are at the ballot and still given the opportunity to vote in gay marriage or whatever the issue is, they will naturally lean one way or another. Thats the case with prop 8. People were out there to vote for the president, but prop 8 was in the same ballot, so people vote for it as well.

It seems more are against gays than for.

Actually the vote for Prop 8 is badly flawed and the true numbers were not shown, the flaw is that many of the people who voted YES for prop 8 thought they were voting in favour of gay marriage, they in fact mistakenly voted against, others had no Idea what Prop 8 meant and voted yes because they thought it was the right thing to do.

because most people are not well educated about this issue, they can not make an educated vote.

If people were properly educated in the issues of prop 8 and it's meaning, we would have same sex marriage in CA.