Roseanne Bar says blacks who supported Prop 8 are bigots and ignorant.

[Rick]

Equal protection under law (amendments IX and XIV). Heteros are free to marry the consenting adult of their choice, homosexuals are not.

That's baloney - the EPC clause of the 14th amendment DIDN'T mention discrimination based on sexual orientation, likewise the 9th amendments has nothing to do with equal protection, and you provide no citations from the cal supreme court. You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Rick]

Race card? :lol:

Bigot: Big-ot
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Just go away already.

YOU'RE DOING IT NOW! :mrgreen: A RACE CARD PILED ON A RACE CARD! :lol:

 

[earthworm]

Atheists.

Well there. That was simple.

And wrong
Any group of people can be bigoted.. I'd say that those with more good education as less likely to be bigoted..

Who is Roseanne Barr ?
Who is Robert Redford ?
Just two people with opinions, they are no more knowledgeable nor smarter than you or I..
And for one to think that a man is bigoted if he feels that homosexuals should not marry........this is strange, if not wrong..

 

[Wessexman]

He was saying that bigot is a term used for racism.

I corrected him.

Your family is worth many times more than those you don't know, but I hardly see that as a proper example. Would you deny your gay brother/sister/cousin the right to marry as well? If so, wouldnt that family member now be inequal to other members of your family?

I'm mildy for gay marriage although I'd leave it to locally or regionally settled. I was simply arguing against a lot of the Jacobinesque reasoning going on that treats men as atoms, society as just the interaction of these rational atoms to be remade at the will of the individual reason of a centralised elite.

I was also arguing against the extreme univeralism and egalitarianism implied in some of the liberal arguments.

 

[Makedde]

Well calling them bigots and stupid really doesnt help their cause. They should know from the get go that all three monotheistic religions (Islam, Judaism, and Christianity) all consider homosexuality evil/sin/etc. So attacking their faith isnt going to work and shouldnt even be considered at all. What gay rights groups should start doing is show people how gay marriage affects no one in regards to their rights.

I tend to agree, however, these people need to be told that they cannot force their religious beliefs upon the rest of us.

How many of the people who voted in support of Prop 8 belonged to a church? I would guess more than half. I would also guess that most of those based their vote on their religious beliefs. This means that people believed that because their religion was against homosexuality, that was reason enough to deny marriage rights.

Now, there is a separation of church and state, is there not? Didn't Prop 8 violate this?

 

[Makedde]

In a constitutional democracy, they are not supposed to change on the whim of unelected judges, legislating from the bench and without a single scrap of valid constitutional justification. This is the kind of "change" characteristic of a banana republic.

So the people who voted in favour of Prop 8 had a constitutional reason and were justified in doing so? Please explain to me how it is even one bit fair for a group of religious fundies to inflict their moral views on the rest of society?

 

[emdash]

So the people who voted in favour of Prop 8 had a constitutional reason and were justified in doing so? Please explain to me how it is even one bit fair for a group of religious fundies to inflict their moral views on the rest of society?

please do not forget that a majority of californians voted yes, not just the religious fundeeez.

 

[emdash]

Now, there is a separation of church and state, is there not? Didn't Prop 8 violate this?

I think you misunderstand the idea of separation of church and state. it doesn't mean that people should forget that they are religious when they vote.

 

[Makedde]

please do not forget that a majority of californians voted yes, not just the religious fundeeez.

How many of those who voted were religious?

I think you misunderstand the idea of separation of church and state. it doesn't mean that people should forget that they are religious when they vote.

Marriage is a state issue. The state grants marriage licences. The church clearly interfered in state business.

 

[emdash]

How many of those who voted were religious?

do you really think over 50% of californians are religious fundamentalists?

Marriage is a state issue. The state grants marriage licences. The church clearly interfered in state business.

mmmmm, nope. unless by "the church" you mean "anyone with religious beliefs of any kind." it's not illegal for religious people to vote.

 

[Makedde]

do you really think over 50% of californians are religious fundamentalists?

How many of the 50% who voted in favour of Prop 8 were religious?

mmmmm, nope. unless by "the church" you mean "anyone with religious beliefs of any kind." it's not illegal for religious people to vote.

How much money did the Mormon church spend to ensure Prop 8 would be sucessful?

 

[American]

So the people who voted in favour of Prop 8 had a constitutional reason and were justified in doing so? Please explain to me how it is even one bit fair for a group of religious fundies to inflict their moral views on the rest of society?

Look at the use of words like "fundies", "inflict", and "rest of society". It happened in California, not the rest of society. The whole concept of fundies inflicting anything is childish and ridiculous. Then leave the state and go to another. You use politically charged words thinkin you will change minds? Not a change, because you are being derogatory.

 

[emdash]

How many of the 50% who voted in favour of Prop 8 were religious?

I don't know. probably a lot identify with some religion or another, like people who say they're catholic all their lives and go to mass twice a year.

How much money did the Mormon church spend to ensure Prop 8 would be sucessful?

$0, far as I know. individual mormons? millions.

 

[Doc Howl]

please do not forget that a majority of californians voted yes, not just the religious fundeeez.

Sure. Bigots come in many forms, not just religious whackjobs.

 

[Doc Howl]

Not a change, because you are being derogatory.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

It is very American to deride anyone who is out to take away anyone else's rights.

 

[Doc Howl]

Btw I'm not against gay marriage, just your dangerous line of argumentation. We should not remake society upon the whims of yours or some elites individual reason.

No, we should remake it based on the rule of law, and the equal application of that law.

 

[Wessexman]

No, we should remake it based on the rule of law, and the equal application of that law.

Law decided upon by your individual reason of course and abstractly leveling in some particular way you individually have felt is best based upon nothing but your own utopian scheming.

 

[Doc Howl]

Law decided upon by your individual reason of course and abstractly leveling in some particular way you individually have felt is best based upon nothing but your own utopian scheming.

No, law as interpreted by the judiciary, which is their constitutional function.

 

[Wessexman]

No, law as interpreted by the judiciary, which is their constitutional function.

To interpret not to make. Redefining marriage is not interpreting it is making, it is exactly what I was talking about; a centralised elite remaking society upon the whims of their own individual reason due to some zeal for centralised and abstract leveling.

That liberals support this means to their ends shows they have no come far since 9 Thermidor , their Committees of Public Safety are still dear to them it seems.

I would not trust my liberty to the private stock of reason of a few elitists.

 

[Hatuey]

To interpret not to make. Redefining marriage is not interpreting it is making, it is exactly what I was talking about; a centralised elite remaking society upon the whims of their own individual reason due to some zeal for centralised and abstract leveling.

That liberals support this means to their ends shows they have no come far since 9 Thermidor , their Committees of Public Safety are still dear to them it seems.

I would not trust my liberty to the private stock of reason of a few elitists.

Who defined it?

 

[Wessexman]

Who defined it?

I believe many liberals would like it redefined that way just off the authority of a judge.

 

[Hatuey]

I believe many liberals would like it redefined that way just off the authority of a judge.

You didn't answer my question. Who defined it? To 'redefine' something you have to have somebody 'define' it in the first place. I'd love to know who this person is because I've really been struggling with the notion that ANY group has a choke hold on the word marriage.

 

[Wessexman]

You didn't answer my question. Who defined it? To 'redefine' something you have to have somebody 'define' it in the first place. I'd love to know who this person is because I've really been struggling with the notion that ANY group has a choke hold on the word marriage.

Oh I didn't realise that is what you meant.

Western civilisation defined it for over a millenia and a half at least marriage has been between a man and a woman.

 

[Hatuey]

Oh I didn't realise that is what you meant.

Western civilisation defined it for over a millenia and a half at least marriage has been between a man and a woman.

Marriage has been between a man and a woman. Right. And marriage has also not been allowed between blacks and whites. And then marriage was not allowed between lower and higher classes. But then it was. And then marriage was prohibited between people of different religions. But then it was allowed to happen. Married women had almost no property rights. But then they started having those rights. It seems to me like the 'definition' of marriage has had MORE redefinitions then you're willing to admit. The silly act of 'liberals' are trying to redefine marriage is a smoke screen. Marriage has been through CONSTANT redefinition in Western society for 100s of years.

 

[Wessexman]

Marriage has been between a man and a woman. Right. And marriage has also not been allowed between blacks and whites. And then marriage was not allowed between lower and higher classes. But then it was. And then marriage was prohibited between people of different religions. But then it was allowed to happen. Married women had almost no property rights. But then they started having those rights. It seems to me like the 'definition' of marriage has had MORE redefinitions then you're willing to admit. The silly act of 'liberals' are trying to redefine marriage is a smoke screen. Marriage has been through CONSTANT redefinition in Western society for 100s of years.

So have many things it doesn't make rash redefinitions according to the power of a centralised elite a good thing. Also marriage has not usually barred blacks and whites from marrying.

But this still doesn't change the fact it is a redefinition nor how you are trying to redefine it. I agree it should be redefined but gradually, with caution and the backing of popular wishes not by some liberal Committee of Public Safety. You need to remember that means are important as welll as ends because so many liberals seem to forget this unfortunately.

The people don't want it to be redefined, accept this and try and gain their support rather than attempting to circumvent them by the ruling of some Enlightened despot.