At least Prop 8 passed..

saveuplife · November 2008

digster wrote:

I must say, since when have we run the country according to the Webster's Dictionary rather than the Constitution? I agree with you wholeheartedly when you say that "it's not the government's place to define what a word means." But that's exactly what the Defense of Marriage Act does. That's what denying marriage to same-sex couples does; it defines the word and government is necessary to define it to exclude others. If we were serious about government getting out of the way of marriage we'd let states define it however they will and follow the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution that allows marriages to be respected everywhere. But you're not going to see that, because they feel that marriage should be between a "man and a woman." If you can show me where the framers made that clear, I'd be happy to abide, but it's not there. Also, as I'm sure you know, a hundred years ago and less marriage was 'defined' as being between a man and woman of the same race. That was how people defined it then; you're going to tell me that it was wise and just to follow that definition?

Why get government involved? Why the need for a Defense of Marriage act at all, if you think government should not be in the business of defining words for people?

Can a man marry a female animal? Can a 30 year old marry a four year old? Can a man marry six women? We could go on for days.

Laws need to be established, unforutnately. The bottom line is your argument is a losing one and is LOSING traction. Both political parties support civil unions, but don't support a new definition for the historical term... "marriage". They know it's a slippery slope and so do you. You are in the heavy minority in your viewpoint.

You are all also really reaching with the racist crap. Trying to make the African Americans civil rights issues equivalent to gays asking for the term "marriage" is really sick. The African American community would be very very upset by the BS comparison. It's a f'ing word and you aren't even gay.

Most gays I know don't give a shit. It's the political "left" that cares. The fact that you we have a left-of-center President that's not even on the left's side in regard's to the issue shows how out of touch far left and you are on in regards to this issue and your side is losing ground.

saveuplife · November 2008

digster wrote:

I don't really think three paragraphs qualifies as a book-long post but I'll keep it short this time.

Just going to reiterate, if you think government should be in the business of defining and redefining terms you should probably be first in line to call for the immediate removal of the Defense of Marriage Act, as that is exactly what it does.

And I think your last paragraph is just plain wrong. Same-sex couples feel they deserve the right to marry; they're not asking for it. As citizens, it's theirs to begin with. Your idea of 'force-feeding consent on the majority' is just untrue. Every gay couple I know wants the right because they want the right to be married in church and state. Everything else is bullshit.

I don't have time or the patience to respond to every post and read all of them. It gets old saying the same things as you'll find in this post.

I am not sponsoring the government defining terms,.... unless of course, people try to twist the historical definition. Which is what was happening... as you know. You would admit the historical definition was marriage as between a man and a woman... right? If no one tried to change that, there would be no need for the gov't to get involved.

You know what I think is funny... are you part of a same-sex couple???... is anyone here who's on your side part of one??? You are speaking for them as if you are one. You're not. So, stop. Not all same-sex couples care about the term "marriage". I know a few... they don't care as long as they are entitled to benefits... which civil unions allow.

Those who are pushing this are "pushing the majority to condone their behavior"... once again they won't get our approval. THey can do as they want, but we don't have to like it. We can keep going in circles, but you aren't going to win this argument. Trying to make me, or the majority in this case, condone something they don't agree with won't happen. So, I don't understand why you feel the need to continue.

Anon · November 2008

saveuplife wrote:

You know what I think is funny... are you part of a same-sex couple???... is anyone here who's on your side part of one??? You are speaking for them as if you are one. You're not.

The problem i see with this statement is that Prop 8 wasn't just reserved to be answered by same sex couples.

saveuplife · November 2008

Pj_Gurl wrote:

The problem i see with this statement is that Prop 8 wasn't just reserved to be answered by same sex couples.

Perhaps I wasn't clear or you didn't read it properly, but I was referring to a number of posters acting as though they know exactly what the gay community thinks. That's not possible if you aren't gay. So, it's tough to speak for someone or a community of people when you aren't one of them.

Anon · November 2008

saveuplife wrote:

Perhaps I wasn't clear or you didn't read it properly, but I was referring to a number of posters acting as though they know exactly what the gay community thinks. That's not possible if you aren't gay. So, it's tough to speak for someone or a community of people when you aren't one of them.

But it's ok to vote on behalf of them?
but ok, to steal your words, I don't have time or the patience to respond to every post and read all of them...

ps. Don't yell at me. The last comment was a joke

saveuplife · November 2008

Pj_Gurl wrote:

But it's ok to vote on behalf of them?
but ok, to steal your words, I don't have time or the patience to respond to every post and read all of them...

ps. Don't yell at me. The last comment was a joke

Don't worry, I'm not yelling right now... I have a beer and am watching bball, so I'm good.

As for your question: Whether we should apply the term marriage to same sex unions or not, affects homosexuals and heterosexuals. It affects heterosexuals by making their "marriage" equivalent to homosexual marriage. So, yes, I think it's OK to vote the issue if you aren't homosexual. But, I don't think it's OK to speak for them if you aren't one. I do think it's OK to listen to thier spokes-people though.

jeffbr · November 2008

saveuplife wrote:

Can a man marry a female animal? Can a 30 year old marry a four year old? Can a man marry six women? We could go on for days.
.

Now you're being silly. The conversation is about two consenting adults who are in a loving relationship simply wanting to formalize it so that they can receive all benefits they should be entitled to as citizens. Why does that scare you?

saveuplife · November 2008

jeffbr wrote:

Now you're being silly. The conversation is about two consenting adults who are in a loving relationship simply wanting to formalize it so that they can receive all benefits they should be entitled to as citizens. Why does that scare you?

First, I'm not being silly at all. Change the definition once,... who say it can't be changed again.

UGH. As I've mentioned, I am not scared at all. I think they can do as they please. I also think they should receive benefits. I just don't think the term marriage should be re-defined. Just like, my boy Obama believes.

chiquimonkey · November 2008

saveuplife wrote:

Can a man marry six women?

apparently some people who supported the passing of prop 8 think so.

You are all also really reaching with the racist crap. Trying to make the African Americans civil rights issues equivalent to gays asking for the term "marriage" is really sick. The African American community would be very very upset by the BS comparison. It's a f'ing word and you aren't even gay.

so you say later on that if you aren’t part of a same-sex union that you can’t speak to the defense of it. so by saying the above, are you black? do you have the right to say what’s BS or not in terms of people defending their rights to be treated like everyone else? this IS the current civil rights movement going on, right now. you don't have to be gay to understand that, just like white people understood and supported the black civil rights movement. it's not about color or orientation, it's about being an AMERICAN.

get with it.

saveuplife wrote:

Those who are pushing this are "pushing the majority to condone their behavior"... once again they won't get our approval. THey can do as they want, but we don't have to like it. We can keep going in circles, but you aren't going to win this argument. Trying to make me, or the majority in this case, condone something they don't agree with won't happen. So, I don't understand why you feel the need to continue.

just because you personally don’t approve or would never be in a same-sex relationship does not give you license to deprive rights to others. as has been said ad nauseum in this thread, the majority wasn't happy about having black people and women being treated equally....in the end, it's not about keeping a bunch of rascists or mysognists or hater happy, it's about doing what is right for all americans.

decides2dream · November 2008

chiquimonkey wrote:

just because you personally don’t approve or would never be in a same-sex relationship does not give you license to deprive rights to others. as has been said ad nauseum in this thread, the majority wasn't happy about having black people and women being treated equally....in the end, it's not about keeping a bunch of rascists or mysognists or haters happy, it's about doing what is right for all americans.

shush now chica, that's crazy talk!

our constitution is meant to guarantee such discrimination won't happen..too bad so many are busy being filled with hate or fear to recognize that their personal beliefs aren't *it*...but about the greater good and rights of all for true equality.

DixieN · November 2008

Time is not on proposition 8's side. A few years will pass, if need be, and then it will be overturned, just like laws against interracial marriages did.

digster · November 2008

saveuplife wrote:

Can a man marry a female animal? Can a 30 year old marry a four year old? Can a man marry six women? We could go on for days.

You're reaching here, and it's pretty clear, so I'm not sure how to respond to it. I should also warn you I've gone off the deep end again and made another long post.

saveuplife wrote:

Laws need to be established, unforutnately. The bottom line is your argument is a losing one and is LOSING traction. Both political parties support civil unions, but don't support a new definition for the historical term... "marriage". They know it's a slippery slope and so do you. You are in the heavy minority in your viewpoint.

You are all also really reaching with the racist crap. Trying to make the African Americans civil rights issues equivalent to gays asking for the term "marriage" is really sick. The African American community would be very very upset by the BS comparison. It's a f'ing word and you aren't even gay.

First of all, come on, man; you can save us the phony outrage. The reasons you give here don't make much sense to me. Whether or not I'm in the minority is, to my mind, relatively irrelevant. In this case, I feel the majority is wrong. That's why I'm part of the minority. It hasn't bothered me before; why would it now? So that doesn't mean much to me.

And then comes a kicker; "you aren't even gay." What the hell does THAT have to do with anything? I care about this issue because they are my fellow citizens and I believe they deserve the rights they are being deprived of. I should therefore only fight for the rights of young white males? I have no idea what point you're even trying to make here, but it sounds like a point I want nothing to do with.

saveuplife wrote:

Most gays I know don't give a shit. It's the political "left" that cares. The fact that you we have a left-of-center President that's not even on the left's side in regard's to the issue shows how out of touch far left and you are on in regards to this issue and your side is losing ground.

Thanks for letting us know on behalf of the homosexual community that it is the political left that cares about this issue and not the homosexual community. I'm glad that you've made it clear to us that although straight guys like me cannot and should not be speaking for the homosexual community, you are in the unique position to break that mold by speaking for them all when denouncing the calls for the legality of same-sex marriage as being a political ploy by the left and not a legitimate grievance. And I was worried you were being slightly hypocritical there.

I also think it's a pretty far-fetched notion for you to claim that my "side" (since I didn't even know I had a 'side') is "losing ground", considering no one even spoke about gay marriage twenty-five years ago. Now, it's a movement that suffers setbacks and progressions. In fifty years or less it'll be the law of the land, because that's the legislative and moral arc of this country; it gradually, in fits and starts, has extended its' rights to more and more members of society who were not considered 'protected' by those rights earlier. Gay marriage will be a reality, which is why I don't commit endless time and resources to fighting for it. It's going to happen; it's merely a question of when, because over time our laws and courts don't become more exclusionary with their rights. So you can say we're losing ground, but that's simply untrue. It's talked about now. Several states recognize gay marriages, which is several states more than twenty years ago.

Long story short, we've gone back and forth, and you still haven't shown me solid evidence that this is a right that should be denied. Whether you think it's a true comparison or not, marriage has been defined many different ways, and many of those ways have not been good. I think making the claim that we should stick to your accepted "definition" as the basis for enacting federal legislation to deny their rights is the weakest possible argument. Until you can show me in the Constitution where exactly it proves that I should not be treating them as any other citizen, I'll continue to believe that same-sex couples deserve every right afforded to any other citizen, including the right to marry. I think this will be a problem for your argument considering that discrimination, quite simply, doesn't exist in the construction of this country. You need a law to make something illegal, not to make it legal, and your 'definition' of marriage quite simply isn't good enough. The Constitution doesn't back you up on this one, and eventually the Constitution will win out. It will probably just take awhile.

cincybearcat · November 2008

saveuplife wrote:

First, I'm not being silly at all. Change the definition once,... who say it can't be changed again.

Yep, that is being silly. So nothing should change for fear of changing it agian to something you don't like? That certainly is very silly.

polaris · November 2008

saveuplife wrote:

I'm implying that the majorities belief system should have the ability to define a word. That's what I'm saying.

I'm not denying any rights. If they want those rights, you and I know how they can get them.... Civil Unions. Is that word so important to THEM that THEY would choose to not accept the same rights that married couples receive?

You simply don't care about him because he's not on your side of the issue. It's funny how that works.

my understanding is that the actual word "married" has a series of rights that are not available to civil unions such as parental responsibilites in the event of death - in either case, if the rights are EXACTLY the same then that's great however I still feel that your willingness to preserve your own definition of a word is excessive in it's impact ...

dude - how many times i gotta tell ya - i wouldn't have voted for obama ... so, your attempts at making this a political discussion is yet again a ploy to detract from the heart of the discussion ...

_ · November 2008

You know what's funny? The people in this thread who make assumptions about who is gay and who is not. That's absurd. How do any of you know who any of the rest of us like to fuck... or marry?

And then to say that we can't speak for gay people (note my use of the word "people," lest we forget that "gays" are actually people too) if we're not gay, but to continue on to speak for gay people and black people... that's nearly just as silly as pretending to know who I fuck.

Plus, even if we're not gay, don't we have the right to defend the rights of our gay children, parents, friends, etc.?

And it's irrelevant whether those who defend gay rights are in the minority... it's more important to be on the right side than on the side that's currently winning. (If this isn't true, I think all abortion debates should stop as well, since the majority of America is pro-choice.) I have confidence, though, that no matter how backwards some people still are about some social issues, justice will eventually prevail.

_ · November 2008

polaris wrote:

my understanding is that the actual word "married" has a series of rights that are not available to civil unions such as parental responsibilites in the event of death - in either case, if the rights are EXACTLY the same then that's great however I still feel that your willingness to preserve your own definition of a word is excessive in it's impact ...

dude - how many times i gotta tell ya - i wouldn't have voted for obama ... so, your attempts at making this a political discussion is yet again a ploy to detract from the heart of the discussion ...

Didn't Arkansas just pass a law that unmarried couples can't adopt? Or am I confused about that?

polaris · November 2008

scb wrote:

You know what's funny? The people in this thread who make assumptions about who is gay and who is not. That's absurd. How do any of you know who any of the rest of us like to fuck... or marry?

And then to say that we can't speak for gay people (note my use of the word "people," lest we forget that "gays" are actually people too) if we're not gay, but to continue on to speak for gay people and black people... that's nearly just as silly as pretending to know who I fuck.

Plus, even if we're not gay, don't we have the right to defend the rights of our gay children, parents, friends, etc.?

And it's irrelevant whether those who defend gay rights are in the minority... it's more important to be on the right side than on the side that's currently winning. (If this isn't true, I think all abortion debates should stop as well, since the majority of America is pro-choice.) I have confidence, though, that no matter how backwards some people still are about some social issues, justice will eventually prevail.

i'm here to stand beside those who believe in equality and human rights ...

and yes - arkansas voted to deny unmarried couples the ability to not only adopt but to foster children ...

meistereder · November 2008

saveuplife wrote:

You know we elect who elects. So, yes, absolutely.

You mean appoints?

Respectfully, I disagree 100%. I have a fair amount of education on legal decisions, the justices and how they have evolved over the years. The whole point of the life tenure is they don't have to pander to politics. Do they vote according to their ideology? Absolutely. But we do NOT have control over the supreme court by any stretch.

That said, Obama becoming president was huge to preserve the integrity of the court because McCain would have attempted to appoint (although it would have been difficult with the current senate) radical conservatives who would have tried to overturn Roe v. Wade and other established decisions. But try to understand the difference between a presidential appointment and the public somehow controlling the court. You are way off on that.

saveuplife · November 2008

digster wrote:

You're reaching here, and it's pretty clear, so I'm not sure how to respond to it. I should also warn you I've gone off the deep end again and made another long post..

How am I reaching. I really think it's funny how I responded to your linking this struggle with the African Americans struggle,... yet you and everyone else on here won't respond to my points. Please address them. How, if we change the historical definition once... can we not change it again to accomodate a man marrying an animal. Or a man marrying more than one female... or a man marrying someone underage. Unfortunately, the correct verbage does need to be established.

digster wrote:

First of all, come on, man; you can save us the phony outrage. The reasons you give here don't make much sense to me. Whether or not I'm in the minority is, to my mind, relatively irrelevant. In this case, I feel the majority is wrong. That's why I'm part of the minority. It hasn't bothered me before; why would it now? So that doesn't mean much to me. .

I'm simply saying it does matter if you are in the minority. Because the voters/legislature/judges will be who would have the power to overturn this. We, in some form, vote them in. That's why being in the minority matters in this particular case.

digster wrote:

And then comes a kicker; "you aren't even gay." What the hell does THAT have to do with anything? I care about this issue because they are my fellow citizens and I believe they deserve the rights they are being deprived of. I should therefore only fight for the rights of young white males? I have no idea what point you're even trying to make here, but it sounds like a point I want nothing to do with..

The fact that I addressed this point already... gets so old. You all say the same thing. "how dare you blah blah blah" and don't read what I said. YOU should't SPEAK for an entire community of people if you aren't even one of them. PLEASE RE-READ THAT SENTENCE. That's the point. In your posts, you've been saying "the gay community wants this"... I'm saying, no in fact you are wrong. Part of the gay community may want that. But, part don't care. That's just a fact. If you were gay, I'd respect you "speaking for" that community a lot more. That's all.

digster wrote:

Thanks for letting us know on behalf of the homosexual community that it is the political left that cares about this issue and not the homosexual community. I'm glad that you've made it clear to us that although straight guys like me cannot and should not be speaking for the homosexual community, you are in the unique position to break that mold by speaking for them all when denouncing the calls for the legality of same-sex marriage as being a political ploy by the left and not a legitimate grievance. And I was worried you were being slightly hypocritical there.

I didn't say that the homosexual community DOES NOT care. You continue to put words in my mouth, as you do for the gay community. I'm not doing anything of what you said. I said the Political Left is feuling this fire. And they are. That's all.

digster wrote:

I also think it's a pretty far-fetched notion for you to claim that my "side" (since I didn't even know I had a 'side') is "losing ground", considering no one even spoke about gay marriage twenty-five years ago. Now, it's a movement that suffers setbacks and progressions. In fifty years or less it'll be the law of the land, because that's the legislative and moral arc of this country; it gradually, in fits and starts, has extended its' rights to more and more members of society who were not considered 'protected' by those rights earlier. Gay marriage will be a reality, which is why I don't commit endless time and resources to fighting for it. It's going to happen; it's merely a question of when, because over time our laws and courts don't become more exclusionary with their rights. So you can say we're losing ground, but that's simply untrue. It's talked about now. Several states recognize gay marriages, which is several states more than twenty years ago..

You did lose ground. Look at the results of Prop 8 for proof.

digster wrote:

Long story short, we've gone back and forth, and you still haven't shown me solid evidence that this is a right that should be denied. Whether you think it's a true comparison or not, marriage has been defined many different ways, and many of those ways have not been good. I think making the claim that we should stick to your accepted "definition" as the basis for enacting federal legislation to deny their rights is the weakest possible argument. Until you can show me in the Constitution where exactly it proves that I should not be treating them as any other citizen, I'll continue to believe that same-sex couples deserve every right afforded to any other citizen, including the right to marry. I think this will be a problem for your argument considering that discrimination, quite simply, doesn't exist in the construction of this country. You need a law to make something illegal, not to make it legal, and your 'definition' of marriage quite simply isn't good enough. The Constitution doesn't back you up on this one, and eventually the Constitution will win out. It will probably just take awhile.

Long story short, I have shown you evidence that you are arguing over a word. A word that has had a historical definition. You claim repeatively (and I bet you will again in this very thread) that the government came in over the course of the past twenty years and defined it. I say, no, the government was forced to define it because there was a political movement which was attempting to alter the historical definition. It's a word. A word that means a lot to people who value the term. It's a word, that whether you like it or not has religious implications. It's a word. The government should not have to define words. But, they do have to in order to uphold the sanctity of the word in this case.

As we've gone over 1 billion times.... the benefits are on the table. The gay community can receive every single benefit that a heterosexual couple can receive through civil unions. The word is the issue. The desire is a national affirmation.... which won't happen.

Here's the issue in a nutshell....

Tolerance is not the same as Condonation. As I said, we as a country can certainly tolerate behavior that we don't agree with. We can also be fairminded and grant people who believe differently than us the same benefits. However, we as a people, do not have to cowtail our morals to appease a very small community regarding a word that we hold dear and has deep moral implications.

saveuplife · November 2008

meistereder wrote:

You mean appoints?

Respectfully, I disagree 100%. I have a fair amount of education on legal decisions, the justices and how they have evolved over the years. The whole point of the life tenure is they don't have to pander to politics. Do they vote according to their ideology? Absolutely. But we do NOT have control over the supreme court by any stretch.

That said, Obama becoming president was huge to preserve the integrity of the court because McCain would have attempted to appoint (although it would have been difficult with the current senate) radical conservatives who would have tried to overturn Roe v. Wade and other established decisions. But try to understand the difference between a presidential appointment and the public somehow controlling the court. You are way off on that.

You can disagree all you want and I could not care less about your education on the matter. We elect who appoints. In that manner, it's indisputable that we do have power over the judicial branch.

At least Prop 8 passed..

Comments

Categories