incyr and resk have asked me to share my feelings about Proposition 8 in California. My quick response was that I have mixed feelings and am on the fence. They asked for more
( Read more... )
Re: hateful rantvortechNovember 12 2008, 21:10:39 UTC
>Well what are they protesting then? They want the government to overturn the law because they feel it's unconstitutional. I personally think they'll get their way. That's the protesting I'm referring to. They may also hope that their protesting will change minds. So if the gov't doesn't repeal it, and they manage at some point to get another vote, it'll go the other way. Protesting is a right. That's why the police (are to) allow it, as long as it's civil.
They are protesting because they feel powerless and trod upon and in America we hold the idea of being heard as the natural response and something with inherent worth - especially in times like these. Protesting will not (should not) alter a judicial challenge. It may (will not) change minds or opinions. It may (could) rouse some people from apathy or non-voting.
>>Your view of a nihilistic electorate
>How is it nihilistic? It's precisely what people keep saying about how it's not a true democracy - majority doesn't always rule, because minority rights have to be protected, if it's a matter of inalienable civil human rights. How does one determine if it's a human right or not? There's been plenty of debates in the past about the nature of the constitution and the role of various levels of governmen. I'm only echoing what I've learned from said debates, not being American myself. People have a right to vote however they see fit. Government has a right to decide what is or isn't a matter on what the people may vote to decide. In so many words. Right now, Prop 8 was a matter of popular vote. Those opposed feel it's not a matter of popular vote but of basic human rights. So change either needs to happen to override the popular vote, or swing voters need to change their vote. That is, in the most basic sense, how the system works, no?
That is one way the system can work. It is not the most moral, or most fair, or most efficient way. In fact, it's about the worst systemic way. It's like ejecting out of a plane before you land because "you have a parachute, and that's why it's there, right?"
>>Trying to do wrong, but being prevented has the same inherent moral value as doing wrong
>Sure, it's a matter of dwelling on sin, rather than turning from it. Agreed. But everyone knows that banning gay marriage won't stop gay sex. That's not the issue. It's about promoting a certain moral. Most likely, there will be some gays (of the not-so-certain) who may reconsider their position. Their position of wanting to be married, or their position on who they love? In a way, I agree with the former - I don't know why marriage is so important to them if it's the dominion of hateful bigots and religious theocrats.
>I'm sure vice versa as well. Huh? A lack of gay marriage (which has existed for centuries) will cause people to decide they now want gays to marry? Or it will turn people gay? Well, maybe if they already had been in a straight marr[OBVIOUSBOT DESTROY JOKE!]
>The point is, like those few individuals who raise their hands 'against' a motion among a room full of 'those in favour', when asked to vote, they can't in good conscience lie, and they choose not to be apathetic. Then for the same reason, they can't believe that their action has no effect and no moral value (if so, then, why was it important how they voted?)
Re: hateful rantthebruce0November 12 2008, 21:35:53 UTC
They are protesting because they feel powerless and trod upon and in America ....
That's certain not the purpose I felt from the protests. I hear repeatedly that they want Prop 8 repealed because it's unconstitutional. Even so, by your description, if they are protesting to change minds for another vote, then all power to them. Once again I support their rightto protest for change. I also support every person's right to vote however they see fit, under the assumption that the government has already deemed said item as valid and constituional for the poopular vote.
It is not the most moral ambiguous and debatable. or most fair variable depending on who you ask or most efficient way well it's been around for over 200 years. You'd think someone would have fund a way to optimize the governmental system by now, right? Maybe not. *shrug* If you don't like it, change it, offer a better solution, bite the bullet, or really the only other option is to go elsewhere.
I don't know why marriage is so important to them if it's the dominion of hateful bigots and religious theocrats
Stereotyping an entire set of people, that's fair and balanced. Not everyone against gay marriage is religious, theocratic, or hateful. Anyway, I agree - why do they want to be blessed by God, by a God who detests non-heterosexual unions? If they want to fight for equal legal rights, all power to them. That's closer to what Caspian's debating; the financial aspects and benfits and whatnot.
- I'm sure vice versa as well. Huh?
I mean in that because of the protest, some may alter their opinion and support the right of gays.
they can't believe that their action has no effect and no moral value of course
(if so, then, why was it important how they voted?) Because it's about integrity in one's beliefs, standing up for what you believe in, not giving in just because it's difficult, not lying to yourself, not misrepresenting yourself, (insert additional positive motivational self-confidence cliches). Why would you encourage someone to vote against their better judgement, against their ethics and morals? That's the whole point of this campaign to get out there and freaking vote!! Don't be apathetic, but stand up for your principles, make your voice heard. It doesn't say "only if no one thinks you're wrong".
Re: hateful rantvortechNovember 12 2008, 22:14:45 UTC
>>I don't know why marriage is so important to them if it's the dominion of hateful bigots and religious theocrats >Stereotyping an entire set of people, that's fair and balanced.
I never claimed to be Balanced; I'm aiming for right.
>Not everyone against gay marriage is religious, theocratic, or hateful.
Re: hateful rantthebruce0November 12 2008, 22:38:56 UTC
- religious, theocratic, or hateful what else is there?
People who want to promote a marriages only as means for maintaining and increasing the population. People who simply see it as 'unnatural' Extremists who may only feel this is a slippery slope to allowing ridiculous marital unions as to animals or cartoon characters.
You ask if I can show you examples of these people? I ask - can you prove that everyone is "religious, theocratic, or hateful" You're making an unfounded blanket accusation. I'm making an unfounded assumption. You say yu're right. I say I'm right. Now we're balanced.
Calling people hateful bigots because they value their 'dominion of marriage' is just as bad.
Re: hateful rantvortechNovember 12 2008, 23:46:45 UTC
I have heard reasons for voting for these bans on gay marriage (both from actual voters explaining their vote and from analysts explaining the votes of others). So far all of the reasons fall under two categories. I suppose I am making an assumption in so far as I have called someone who says hateful things, makes hateful statements and makes decisions based on hate, is hateful. I suppose it could all be a façade, but that's a risk I am comfortable with. Ditto religious theocrats.
Also, we will notice that I did not say it is filled only with those people, but rather I said it is the dominion of those people - meaning they lord over and control it - and by necessity they do as we have seen on Nov 4th. But this is because I choose my words carefully and naturally phrase things in the way that is as hard to disprove as possible by habit.
I am, as ever, open to being disproved, so let's look at the alternative reasons you provided:
>People who want to promote a marriages only as means for maintaining and increasing the population.
OK. Well, I have never heard anyone say this who was not partnering it with Catholic or other religious doctrine as they do against birth control and prophylactics, but I suppose that is not logically required. We will grant the moot and say such people exist.
So then, these people are either lying, and they have another reason, or they are stupid. Why stupid? Marriage is not a requirement for procreation. Gay people will do precisely the same amount of procreation whether they are in a marriage or not. I don't see how gay people marrying will depress the procreation rate of hetero spouses. Also the population has not seemed to be affected in any country with gay marriage. Finally, as mentioned before, fewer adoptions will happen, and because adoption improves the chances of the youth to reach an age of procreation, this will lower procreation (including from marriages of adopted people).
So, does it escape my set of two reasons? I don't think so. it's so ridiculous I don;t think people are advancing it as a legitimate sociological concern, but rather because they hold discriminatory beliefs about gays. To define the purpose of marriage as procreation is to say that it should be a certain way. Is that different than saying it's for procreation and therefore not allowed for people with genetic defects? Would we not say that was bigoted? Why then does the amendment not also invalidate marriages of infertile people?
But they could just have a stupid reason. That is true. If they really do believe this it's so ridiculous it falls into the third category I discuss below. (Take heart, I said third reason, your victory is assured!) Ultimately, I guess I don't believe a rational person could have such a stupid reason and must be lying - call me an optimist. Flatly, they are lying, or they are not giving a reason to oppose gay marriage. They may as well say they oppose it because they do not like rain.
>People who simply see it as 'unnatural'
Right, Bigots. I suspect you will find this harsh, or unbalanced, but these people hold discriminatory beliefs based of mistaken "facts". Science provides no evidence that it is unnatural (the reasonable default presumption for anything) but also provides evidence that it is natural. If they base their "natural" declaration not on science, but on cultural mores, they are merely regressive bigots. If they base it on neither of those things, but on religious texts, well, category two awaits.
>Extremists who may only feel this is a slippery slope to allowing ridiculous marital unions as to animals or cartoon characters.
Touché. I forgot what a friend of mine calls "The crazy third" who do things irrationally and fervently hold ridiculous beliefs. They are assumed to always be there and their ubiquity caused me to forget them. You may add them to my original statement and I still would not know why you would be eager to be part of their club.
Re: hateful rantthebruce0November 12 2008, 23:57:09 UTC
I never said those reasons were good or valid, only that there may easily exist (and I'm 100% certain they do) people who oppose it for non-religious/hateful/theocratic reasons (and "I don't think so" isn't a sufficient rebuttle anyway)
They are protesting because they feel powerless and trod upon and in America we hold the idea of being heard as the natural response and something with inherent worth - especially in times like these. Protesting will not (should not) alter a judicial challenge. It may (will not) change minds or opinions. It may (could) rouse some people from apathy or non-voting.
>>Your view of a nihilistic electorate
>How is it nihilistic? It's precisely what people keep saying about how it's not a true democracy - majority doesn't always rule, because minority rights have to be protected, if it's a matter of inalienable civil human rights. How does one determine if it's a human right or not? There's been plenty of debates in the past about the nature of the constitution and the role of various levels of governmen. I'm only echoing what I've learned from said debates, not being American myself. People have a right to vote however they see fit. Government has a right to decide what is or isn't a matter on what the people may vote to decide. In so many words. Right now, Prop 8 was a matter of popular vote. Those opposed feel it's not a matter of popular vote but of basic human rights. So change either needs to happen to override the popular vote, or swing voters need to change their vote. That is, in the most basic sense, how the system works, no?
That is one way the system can work. It is not the most moral, or most fair, or most efficient way. In fact, it's about the worst systemic way. It's like ejecting out of a plane before you land because "you have a parachute, and that's why it's there, right?"
>>Trying to do wrong, but being prevented has the same inherent moral value as doing wrong
>Sure, it's a matter of dwelling on sin, rather than turning from it. Agreed. But everyone knows that banning gay marriage won't stop gay sex. That's not the issue. It's about promoting a certain moral. Most likely, there will be some gays (of the not-so-certain) who may reconsider their position.
Their position of wanting to be married, or their position on who they love? In a way, I agree with the former - I don't know why marriage is so important to them if it's the dominion of hateful bigots and religious theocrats.
>I'm sure vice versa as well.
Huh? A lack of gay marriage (which has existed for centuries) will cause people to decide they now want gays to marry? Or it will turn people gay? Well, maybe if they already had been in a straight marr[OBVIOUSBOT DESTROY JOKE!]
>The point is, like those few individuals who raise their hands 'against' a motion among a room full of 'those in favour', when asked to vote, they can't in good conscience lie, and they choose not to be apathetic.
Then for the same reason, they can't believe that their action has no effect and no moral value (if so, then, why was it important how they voted?)
Reply
That's certain not the purpose I felt from the protests. I hear repeatedly that they want Prop 8 repealed because it's unconstitutional.
Even so, by your description, if they are protesting to change minds for another vote, then all power to them. Once again I support their rightto protest for change. I also support every person's right to vote however they see fit, under the assumption that the government has already deemed said item as valid and constituional for the poopular vote.
It is not the most moral
ambiguous and debatable.
or most fair
variable depending on who you ask
or most efficient way
well it's been around for over 200 years. You'd think someone would have fund a way to optimize the governmental system by now, right? Maybe not. *shrug*
If you don't like it, change it, offer a better solution, bite the bullet, or really the only other option is to go elsewhere.
I don't know why marriage is so important to them if it's the dominion of hateful bigots and religious theocrats
Stereotyping an entire set of people, that's fair and balanced.
Not everyone against gay marriage is religious, theocratic, or hateful.
Anyway, I agree - why do they want to be blessed by God, by a God who detests non-heterosexual unions? If they want to fight for equal legal rights, all power to them. That's closer to what Caspian's debating; the financial aspects and benfits and whatnot.
- I'm sure vice versa as well.
Huh?
I mean in that because of the protest, some may alter their opinion and support the right of gays.
they can't believe that their action has no effect and no moral value
of course
(if so, then, why was it important how they voted?)
Because it's about integrity in one's beliefs, standing up for what you believe in, not giving in just because it's difficult, not lying to yourself, not misrepresenting yourself, (insert additional positive motivational self-confidence cliches). Why would you encourage someone to vote against their better judgement, against their ethics and morals? That's the whole point of this campaign to get out there and freaking vote!! Don't be apathetic, but stand up for your principles, make your voice heard. It doesn't say "only if no one thinks you're wrong".
Reply
>Stereotyping an entire set of people, that's fair and balanced.
I never claimed to be Balanced; I'm aiming for right.
>Not everyone against gay marriage is religious, theocratic, or hateful.
OK, I'll bite: what else is there?
Reply
what else is there?
People who want to promote a marriages only as means for maintaining and increasing the population.
People who simply see it as 'unnatural'
Extremists who may only feel this is a slippery slope to allowing ridiculous marital unions as to animals or cartoon characters.
You ask if I can show you examples of these people? I ask - can you prove that everyone is "religious, theocratic, or hateful"
You're making an unfounded blanket accusation.
I'm making an unfounded assumption.
You say yu're right. I say I'm right.
Now we're balanced.
Calling people hateful bigots because they value their 'dominion of marriage' is just as bad.
Reply
Also, we will notice that I did not say it is filled only with those people, but rather I said it is the dominion of those people - meaning they lord over and control it - and by necessity they do as we have seen on Nov 4th. But this is because I choose my words carefully and naturally phrase things in the way that is as hard to disprove as possible by habit.
I am, as ever, open to being disproved, so let's look at the alternative reasons you provided:
>People who want to promote a marriages only as means for maintaining and increasing the population.
OK. Well, I have never heard anyone say this who was not partnering it with Catholic or other religious doctrine as they do against birth control and prophylactics, but I suppose that is not logically required. We will grant the moot and say such people exist.
So then, these people are either lying, and they have another reason, or they are stupid. Why stupid? Marriage is not a requirement for procreation. Gay people will do precisely the same amount of procreation whether they are in a marriage or not. I don't see how gay people marrying will depress the procreation rate of hetero spouses. Also the population has not seemed to be affected in any country with gay marriage. Finally, as mentioned before, fewer adoptions will happen, and because adoption improves the chances of the youth to reach an age of procreation, this will lower procreation (including from marriages of adopted people).
So, does it escape my set of two reasons? I don't think so. it's so ridiculous I don;t think people are advancing it as a legitimate sociological concern, but rather because they hold discriminatory beliefs about gays. To define the purpose of marriage as procreation is to say that it should be a certain way. Is that different than saying it's for procreation and therefore not allowed for people with genetic defects? Would we not say that was bigoted? Why then does the amendment not also invalidate marriages of infertile people?
But they could just have a stupid reason. That is true. If they really do believe this it's so ridiculous it falls into the third category I discuss below. (Take heart, I said third reason, your victory is assured!) Ultimately, I guess I don't believe a rational person could have such a stupid reason and must be lying - call me an optimist. Flatly, they are lying, or they are not giving a reason to oppose gay marriage. They may as well say they oppose it because they do not like rain.
>People who simply see it as 'unnatural'
Right, Bigots. I suspect you will find this harsh, or unbalanced, but these people hold discriminatory beliefs based of mistaken "facts". Science provides no evidence that it is unnatural (the reasonable default presumption for anything) but also provides evidence that it is natural. If they base their "natural" declaration not on science, but on cultural mores, they are merely regressive bigots. If they base it on neither of those things, but on religious texts, well, category two awaits.
>Extremists who may only feel this is a slippery slope to allowing ridiculous marital unions as to animals or cartoon characters.
Touché. I forgot what a friend of mine calls "The crazy third" who do things irrationally and fervently hold ridiculous beliefs. They are assumed to always be there and their ubiquity caused me to forget them. You may add them to my original statement and I still would not know why you would be eager to be part of their club.
Reply
Ok now I'm done. I'm nodding off.
Reply
Leave a comment