Debunking the Cali Prop 8 voter myth

chiquimonkey

know1 wrote:

No - I'm saying they can marry someone of the opposite sex just like anyone else can. They have that right.

(I don't really think that way, just pointing out there is more gray area here than some people admit).

why would a gay person want to marry someone of the opposite sex? i'm straight and if my only option for marriage was to marry a woman, i wouldn't find that much of a right lol

know1

chiquimonkey wrote:

why would a gay person want to marry someone of the opposite sex? i'm straight and if my only option for marriage was to marry a woman, i wouldn't find that much of a right lol

All I'm saying is they already have the same rights. What they're really asking for are additional rights for everyone.

(and the only reason I'm even arguing this side is not because I oppose gay marriage but rather because I don't agree with either side and the only people in this thread seem to be on the pro-gay-marriage side)

chiquimonkey

know1 wrote:

All I'm saying is they already have the same rights. What they're really asking for are additional rights for everyone.

(and the only reason I'm even arguing this side is not because I oppose gay marriage but rather because I don't agree with either side and the only people in this thread seem to be on the pro-gay-marriage side)

how is that the same right if they can't marry who they want? it's only additional in the sense that they want to be treated like everybody else.

i'm pro-american, meaning i think everybody should be treated equally. the whole thing involved with the word "marriage", its legal/religious definition, that's a whole other story. it boils down to legal discrimination. so either you're for or against it, really. i guess i'm still not seeing how it's confusing

decides2dream

know1 wrote:

All I'm saying is they already have the same rights. What they're really asking for are additional rights for everyone.

(and the only reason I'm even arguing this side is not because I oppose gay marriage but rather because I don't agree with either side and the only people in this thread seem to be on the pro-gay-marriage side)

so what DO yiu agree with?
simply the abolition of marriage as a legal entity and have civil unions for all?
than great....but right now, that's not where we are at.



btw - YOU may consider it granting 'additional' rights, but many of us see it for what it is: allowing gays the same rights as us all - to marry the consenting adult whom we love and choose. gender should not even be an issue/consideration....just like it should not be an issue in any legal rights, along with color of skin, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

mammasan

know1 wrote:

No - I'm saying they can marry someone of the opposite sex just like anyone else can. They have that right.

(I don't really think that way, just pointing out there is more gray area here than some people admit).

Hell if that is the case then why not go back to banning interracial marriages. I'm they can still get married to someone of the same race.

know1

mammasan wrote:

Hell if that is the case then why not go back to banning interracial marriages. I'm they can still get married to someone of the same race.

Races are all mixed. People are all mixed. Everyone of us is of mixed race.

chiquimonkey

decides2dream wrote:

so what DO yiu agree with?

i'm curious about the answer to this too.

know1

I agree with the government allowing adults to designate one other person the same rights and responsibilities as generally happens in marriages and otherwise not recognize things called "marriages".

After that, people can call themselves married, hitched, unionized, etc. to whomever or whatever they want based upon any ceremony, pledge, etc. they want.

mammasan

know1 wrote:

Races are all mixed. People are all mixed. Everyone of us is of mixed race.

My point is prior to the 1960's states where using their ability to issue marriage licenses as a means of banning interracial couples. That practice was ending because it was discriminatory. No one was preventing these people from getting married. They could still obtain a marriage license from their state just as long as their spouse was of the same race. So the logic that no one is discriminating against same sex couples simply because they have the ability to get married to someone of the opposite sex is flawed.

Bu2

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/dintofinley/2008/11/blaming-blacks.php

From my buddy DF, a reader/blogger at Josh Marshall's TPM.

jimed14

Bu2 wrote:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/dintofinley/2008/11/blaming-blacks.php

From my buddy DF, a reader/blogger at Josh Marshall's TPM.

I'm glad it's getting out ...

Seeing folks like Bill O'Reilly proclaim, many times, that blacks are the ones that did this disgusts me.

just when I was starting to think he was, ok ... he pulls a douche move like this.

decides2dream

know1 wrote:

I agree with the government allowing adults to designate one other person the same rights and responsibilities as generally happens in marriages and otherwise not recognize things called "marriages".

After that, people can call themselves married, hitched, unionized, etc. to whomever or whatever they want based upon any ceremony, pledge, etc. they want.

well that clarifies your pov, although you've said as much earlier. however, appreciate you being specific.


thing is though, such a system does NOT exist at the present moment, so when you say you are for neither 'side'...it just seems like, well then....what's the point? sure, if someone wants to start a movement to abolish legal marriage and just create some sort of legal recognition of a union with all the rights and responsibilities by another name....great! however, NO one is doing that right now....doesn't seem many care to atm.....so for right NOW, we do have these 'two sides' of the issue...and it is clear:

- against same-sex legal marriage
- allow same-sex legal marriage.


that's IT. the only choices on the table right now.


we can 'argue' the issue is it based on discrimination, not allowing homosexuals to marry based on their sexual orientation, thus an equal rights issue.....people using their personal religious views to dictate to others what they can/can't do based on their own, private criteria....or whatever arguement one may come up with in favor of being against same sex marriage that i cannot come up with. point is, there are 2 choices: allow it, or don't....and what rationale for either pov.




however.....sorry for turning this thread into another discussion of same-sex marriage, when really it was focused on the demographics of WHO voted for prop 8 and the apparent misinformation of such that has been provided.

know1

decides2dream wrote:

well that clarifies your pov, although you've said as much earlier. however, appreciate you being specific.


thing is though, such a system does NOT exist at the present moment, so when you say you are for neither 'side'...it just seems like, well then....what's the point? sure, if someone wants to start a movement to abolish legal marriage and just create some sort of legal recognition of a union with all the rights and responsibilities by another name....great! however, NO one is doing that right now....doesn't seem many care to atm.....so for right NOW, we do have these 'two sides' of the issue...and it is clear:

- against same-sex legal marriage
- allow same-sex legal marriage.


that's IT. the only choices on the table right now.

So why aren't the people who are interested in this issue putting that proposal on the table? It seems pretty obvious that pushing for government sponsored gay marriage just isn't going to happen based on the popular votes that keep turning it down or blocking it proactively.

LaterDays

It's just a matter of time. Prop 8 passed by, what, 4 or 5%? Twenty years ago, it would've passed by at least 10 to 15%. Forty years ago, by a helluva lot more than that. 80 years ago, I bet it would have been approved by nearly 100%. The tides are shifting and the trend is clear. Not that that's a reason to quit fighting, obviously... I'm just saying, the progressives may not have won this time, but the fact that it was even close means that, in all likelihood, in the next decade the religious right will have lost their majority on the issue. Let them continue trying to swim upstream against the current of progression... on this, evolution, stem cell research, etc. In a few decades the gay marriage debate will be as moot as the interracial marriage one is today.

dignin

I think part of government involvement in marriage is so that brother and sister dont get married.... because last time i checked that usually doesnt turn out well (children)....property rights and rights over children. So no gov involvement might not be the best solution. But as others have said im sure it will happen, in time. Gays and lesbians have been getting hitched up here in Canada for a long while, with no problems...its a non issue now.

know1

yield6 wrote:

I think part of government involvement in marriage is so that brother and sister dont get married.... because last time i checked that usually doesnt turn out well (children)....property rights and rights over children. So no gov involvement might not be the best solution. But as others have said im sure it will happen, in time. Gays and lesbians have been getting hitched up here in Canada for a long while, with no problems...its a non issue now.

Brother and sister could still hook up if they want to regardless of whether the government says they can't get married.

Dirtie_Frank

sponger wrote:

I agree that it's definitely a myth that needs debunking. Great post.

BTW, here's a list of businesses and individuals who helped fund prop 8.

Why would anyone make this list public? SO if you are against what people think they can harass you at your work/home. That will not help your cause or any cause in the future.

I am not sure where I stand on gay marriage. I see the point people should be able to marry whoever they want to. This might sound silly but I also can see people using this as a scam. Hey bro lets get married for a tax break and better health care then when we do find our wife we can divorce. But then again I guess it can happen now with a man and woman too.

Whatever let them be misserable like the rest of us and get married