Prop 8?

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Only a few people in the thread want to deny someone else's rights, Hawkeye.

We deny individuals constantly, tens of millions of Americans do not have health care, many tens of millions don't have a reasonable wage and some not even a job, hundreds of thousands are rotting in jail as their families made to suffer for doing nothing that hurts others... for instance doing dope or engaging in unapproved sexual practices.

How is this relevant? We are talking about laws that are in place currently to deny a person rights? Healthcare, while troubling is legal and available.

hawkeye10 wrote:

Your argument fails. You need to explain why gays should not continue to be deny, and convince others.

Simple: They are American citizens and deserve the same rights and privileges that other american citizens have. Done.

hawkeye10 wrote:

If you want to argue that all individuals should be able to do what ever they want then that is another kettle of fish, to which the counter arguments are many.

Gays don't want to do whatever they want, they want to do what you and I do. They want the rights we enjoy.

hawkeye10 wrote:

Gays however can not attach their star to the presumption of full individual rights when full individual rights do not exist, probably should not exist, and when there is no sign that this right ever will exist.

Red herring served in a bed of straw served with a appeal to the extremes sauce. They aren't asking for the attachment of every individual right. We aren't talking about anarchy. We are talking about gays not having their marriages recognized by the state and yet yours or mine is.

T
K
O

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

I believe hawkeye doesn't understand the meaning of "equal rights under the law."

Gays do not want more or less laws than everybody else; just equal rights.

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

How is this relevant? We are talking about laws that are in place currently to deny a person rights? Healthcare, while troubling is legal and available

If I have the legal right to something that I have no practical ability to obtain then the difference between the two situations is rhetoric only. The reality is the same. You want to pretend that we live in an egalitarian society thus when anyone can show that they are being treated differently then they have a grievance that must be addressed. We live in a dawarnistic society in which lip service only is paid to equality and fairness. A great number of people, most on the right, think that this is the best way for society to operate, so there is no reason to expect that this is going to change. When gay rights people plead "this is not fair how we are being treated" the correct response is "join the club, and why should we address your complaint before all others??"

Quote:

Gays don't want to do whatever they want, they want to do what you and I do. They want the rights we enjoy

DITTO

Quote:

Red herring served in a bed of straw served with a appeal to the extremes sauce. They aren't asking for the attachment of every individual right. We aren't talking about anarchy. We are talking about gays not having their marriages recognized by the state and yet yours or mine is

The argument for not recognizing their relationship is potentially perfectly reasonable. In fact in the past it has been considered reasonable to criminalize and regard as a psychological problem homosexual behaviour. You start from the conclusion that you think must be reached and then argue backwards, the reasonable rational approach would be to take in all of the facts and arguments and then reach a conclusion. You dismissal of any possibility that the result of investigation and reason could be any different that what you claim you have decided shows that you are pushing a dogma, that you are not interested in debate or learning.

Quote:

Simple: They are American citizens and deserve the same rights and privileges that other american citizens have. Done

You are free to argue that gay love should be equal hetro love, but is is clearly not the same activity . It has never been the same, they don't often act out the husband and wife roles. the sex is not the same, and the reproductive method is not the same. For these and other reasons hetro and homo love have never been treated the same, treating them the same would be an aberration of all of human history. This is like the difference between tobacco and pot, I certainly think that we should have the right to smoke both, that they should be treated equally, but only a blind idiot would try to argue that they are the same, or quietly tolerate that argument.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

I believe hawkeye doesn't understand the meaning of "equal rights under the law."

Gays do not want more or less laws than everybody else; just equal rights.

we make the law, we can change the law, we can argue the law, we can disagree about law that is already on the books. We are not Borg, we don't need to assimilate your conception of equal rights under the law.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

treating them the same would be an aberration of all of human history.

And a serious perversion of every last tenet of Darwinism. Catchers don't come on heat for a start.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
How is this relevant? We are talking about laws that are in place currently to deny a person rights? Healthcare, while troubling is legal and available

If I have the legal right to something that I have no practical ability to obtain then the difference between the two situations is rhetoric only. The reality is the same. You want to pretend that we live in an egalitarian society thus when anyone can show that they are being treated differently then they have a grievance that must be addressed.

This is false. In one case a solution is unknown, in the other the solution is forbidden. We are working to find a way to get everyone health care, we are forbidding gays from marrying. Your analogy is a far miss.

hawkeye10 wrote:

We live in a dawarnistic society in which lip service only is paid to equality and fairness.

You're offering a lot of lip service...

I'm not saying our society is fair and equal, I'm saying I'm trying to make it closer to fair and equal.

hawkeye10 wrote:

A great number of people, most on the right, think that this is the best way for society to operate, so there is no reason to expect that this is going to change. When gay rights people plead "this is not fair how we are being treated" the correct response is "join the club, and why should we address your complaint before all others??"

What is the correct response? Are you kidding me? Here it is: "Gay Marriage doesn't stand in the way of any of those things." Done.

Your sense of justice is cowardly. We can't work to give gays rights if we can still find a way to complain about the inequity in our lives. Newsflash! Gays are contributors to our society too! They care about education, health care, national security, drug problems, crime, taxes and even the ******* super bowl. They are asked to show up and support all the things you want to be more fair in your life, but you won't show up for them. Cowardly.

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Red herring served in a bed of straw served with a appeal to the extremes sauce. They aren't asking for the attachment of every individual right. We aren't talking about anarchy. We are talking about gays not having their marriages recognized by the state and yet yours or mine is

The argument for not recognizing their relationship is potentially perfectly reasonable.

"potentially?"

What the hell does that mean? If you've got a reasonable argument, do it. I've been waiting for ages to hear one.

hawkeye10 wrote:

In fact in the past it has been considered reasonable to criminalize and regard as a psychological problem homosexual behaviour. You start from the conclusion that you think must be reached and then argue backwards, the reasonable rational approach would be to take in all of the facts and arguments and then reach a conclusion. You dismissal of any possibility that the result of investigation and reason could be any different that what you claim you have decided shows that you are pushing a dogma, that you are not interested in debate or learning.

So because it was once considered wrong, it should be considered wrong, even though it's not considered wrong. You're the captain of the ideas team aren't you?

Worst
Logic
Ever.

We aren't starting at the conclusion and working backwards you are. Numerous people have laid out logical and reasonable arguments for leading up to granting gays equal rights. Time and time again in this thread, several posters have laid out a clear path.

The anti-gay-rights group has been mute on their motive, the threat, the evidence, or logic.

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Simple: They are American citizens and deserve the same rights and privileges that other american citizens have. Done

You are free to argue that gay love should be equal hetro love, but is is clearly not the same activity . It has never been the same, they don't often act out the husband and wife roles. the sex is not the same, and the reproductive method is not the same. For these and other reasons hetro and homo love have never been treated the same, treating them the same would be an aberration of all of human history. This is like the difference between tobacco and pot, I certainly think that we should have the right to smoke both, that they should be treated equally, but only a blind idiot would try to argue that they are the same, or quietly tolerate that argument.

with all your big talk, look at your words. This is rhetoric.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

The ideal would be that all American citizens be treated equally. Even our Constitution states that "all men are created equal." We are talking about "legal rights," not economic rights, although many forms of social services provided by our governments (national, state and local) equates to economic rights - such as public schools, community hospitals, social security, SSI and police/fire protection. Until that time, we as a country has a long ways to go to meet the ideals of our Constitution and Bill of Rights on which our country should be based.

Quote:

* Ninth Amendment " Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

hawkeye wrote:

Quote:

You are free to argue that gay love should be equal hetero love, but is is clearly not the same activity . It has never been the same, they don't often act out the husband and wife roles. the sex is not the same, and the reproductive method is not the same. For these and other reasons hetero and homo love have never been treated the same, treating them the same would be an aberration of all of human history.

You equate love and reproduction of the human species as if they are one and the same; they are not. There are many kinds of love that isn't limited to reproductive sex. There are many heterosexual couples who by choice will never bear children; that's their choice. Are you going to force all heterosexual marriages/sex to produce children? How?

Do you know what a hypocrite is?

When are you going to deny heterosexual couples the right to marry if they plan not to have children?

It's only an aberration to people like you who are bigoted homophobes. What difference does it make to you what others do in the privacy of their bedrooms?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

The ideal would be that all American citizens be treated equally. Even our Constitution states that "all men are created equal

Treating all people equally would be supremely stupid, all behaviour is not equal. Society must be able to encourage behaviour that is beneficial, and discourage that which is not. Human survival depends upon this taking place.

The statement that all men are created equal is a theological position, it not not true in the material plane. Once the sperm meets the egg genetic differences in that being from all other beings has already taken place, the destiny of the individual has already been partly written.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

When are you going to deny heterosexual couples the right to marry if they plan not to have children?

As I understand it ci. a Catholic priest wouldn't marry a couple who made a public announcement to that effect. Maybe if he worked a parish which necessitated he wear threadbare clothes there might be some fuzzy edges.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Under the laws of the land. You try to find any excuse that doesn't even relate to what our Constitution says. Who ever opined everybody behaved equally? We are not robots. We have laws to control criminal behavior - that should apply equally to all citizens.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

We have laws to control criminal behavior - that should apply equally to all citizens.

And likewise we have tax law and marriage laws to control behaviour. These laws apply to all and benefit those whom we want to advantage, just as we have criminal law that applies to all and takes from those whom we want to see disadvantaged. The whole ******* thing is a choice, it is all about our sensibilities and what we want to see happen around us, no matter how much you egocentric wonks want to pretend that it is about logic and human rights. I am fine with that, up to the point where you blowhards demand that I agree with your choices, your proclivities, and start calling me and ignorant bigot when I refuse to be beat into submission by your attempts at dominance.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Society must be able to encourage behaviour that is beneficial, and discourage that which is not. Human survival depends upon this taking place.

Perhaps you think this statement helps your argument. It doesn't.

Your attempt to label homosexuals as not beneficial is based on the idea of breeding. If then you were to apply the SAME logic the octomom (actual mother of 14?), then she has a behavior which is very beneficial to society. Not only is it not beneficial to society, it's a burden on it's resources. Do you know how crowded our schools are? Do you know how much government support will now go to her household that could have gone to several households?

In your race to try and marginalize the homosexual's lifestyle as: not beneficial to society, you forgot that your argument would then have to defend lots of other things that are legal but in no way beneficial and even some acts that are counter productive to society.

Human survival is not at risk by homosexuals getting married. This is by far the stupidest claim you've made. Think otherwise? Then how?

The nature of the statement of men being created equal has but one purpose in this conversation. It is a principle we decided on long ago and put in our documents. If you don't think it should be there, fine. But you can't want it back later when it benefits you. Besides, the statement is not in regards to genetics but rather the rights and privileges the government provides.

You miss. Again.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

Human survival is not at risk by homosexuals getting married. This is by far the stupidest claim you've made. Think otherwise? Then how?

I never said that, I was saying that society always maintains the right and must maintain the ability to reward and punish behaviour as necessary. If the majority is going to treat gays unequal then the majority must have a very good reason for doing so. I am not sure that there is such a good reason, which is why I am still undecided on the question. What I object to is your assertion that there could not possible be just cause, so we can avoid the question. I further object to your claim that societies do not have the right to self determination, that individualism MUST be allowed to flower fully. That is horseshit, rampant individualism is but one of many possible options for societal organization. America was founded upon the general goal of maximum personal freedom, however America is a democracy and we are as always free to alter course as the need strikes.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Reward and punish behavior that doesn't harm anybody else and is private?

Do you wish to police all bedrooms? You are mentally sick!

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Exactly who is asking for a reward? The punishment part has been decided by the USSC -- it was not a reward and it affected heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. It's still a primarily Biblical battle:

From SF Gate:

Prop. 8 opponents take their case to Fresno

Joe Garofoli, Chronicle Staff Writer

Sunday, May 31, 2009

(05-31) 04:00 PDT Selma, Fresno County -- On a dusty patch of ground near Super Dave's Car Wash here in California's raisin capital, the next phase of the same-sex marriage movement began Saturday with a morning march - led by a Fresno lesbian mother carrying Harvey Milk's old bullhorn.

"You have got to reach into those communities that struggle to understand us," organizer Robin McGehee exhorted the people gathered there shortly before 8 a.m. for the 14 1/2-mile march to Fresno City Hall for an event called Meet in the Middle for Equality.

Those who marched say any road to a possible November 2010 ballot referendum legalizing same-sex marriage must go through California's conservative Bible Belt. They kicked off the drive with 3,000 people attending Saturday's march in the belt's geographic center, aiming to sway those who supported Proposition 8 by sharing personal stories, one on one, with friends and neighbors, just as Milk would have advised.

It will be challenging. Folks like Lew Ceja will be hard to sway.

Sitting a few blocks away from City Hall at a motorcycle club-sponsored street party, listening to a band play a Lynyrd Skynyrd song, the 66-year-old who lives in Hanford (Kings County) was asked what it would take for him to vote to legalize same-sex marriage.

He thrust forward the cross hanging around his neck. Nothing could.

"It's God's law," said Ceja, a retired law enforcement officer, who wore his motorcycle club's leather vest despite the 92-degree heat. He's the chaplain for his club, which co-sponsored RevFest in downtown Fresno; in the valley, even the motorcycle clubs are religious. He said he didn't have anything against gays. Didn't mind them marching through town. But he couldn't vote to legalize same-sex marriage.

Neither could Dick Echaniz. "Hey, my daughter's gay," the 50-year-old Fowler (Fresno County) resident said, as he admired a motorcycle for sale. If she were to get married, he'd attend. And he'd always love her. That's why he was unsure about how to vote for Prop. 8 until he got into the voting booth. Ultimately, he said, "I got to back my church, man. I couldn't vote against my pastor."

Could any campaign work here?

"You're campaigning against the Bible," said his nephew T.J. Echaniz. "And you're not going to win that battle here."

Same-sex-marriage supporters weren't harassed or bothered Saturday along their route, and there weren't counter-demonstrations of any size. The stray drag queens who milled about the crowd Saturday were anomalies; most of the crowd was dressed for the weather, sporting nothing louder than the homemade T-shirt worn by 24-year-old Kate Perry: "Central Valley Grown Queer." Even a bit of Hollywood showed up. Straight "Will & Grace" star Eric McCormack spoke briefly and Oscar winner Charlize Theron put in an appearance.

Supporters of Prop. 8 plan a response to the rally with their own gathering here tonight. Standing in the Middle for Marriage will celebrate last week's California Supreme Court decision to uphold the voter-approved initiative.

The effort at claiming the "middle" is all about seizing the minds of the undecided voters in the Central Valley. People like Layne Soares hope to help.

Soares served in the Army for three years until she was honorably discharged in the mid-1990s. She walked the march in her uniform, looking like she stepped out of a recruitment poster. Though the 35-year-old has been out to friends and family for years, she told some of her co-workers just a few days ago - before she spoke at the rally, the first time she's spoken publicly about that part of her life. In the valley, telling people you're gay is not something you do until you have to.

"I'm a firm believer in people getting to know me as a person first before I talk about that," she said. "There is more to me than that.

"There's this mind-set here that gay people are just weird," she said. "That's what we have to work to change here."

That reticence to go public is why many said Saturday that they were marching for a gay friend or family member who was reluctant to go public. Surrounded by like-minded souls - and escorted by law enforcement vehicles - Chris Lynn felt comfortable enough to wrap himself in a rainbow flag Saturday on the march. But he would never hold hands with his boyfriend after he got out of the car to go see a movie in some parts of Fresno.

"Oh, no," said Lynn, a 21-year-old Reedley College student. "You never know what might happen to your car while you were gone."

Still, Cleve Jones, a Milk associate, said, "Harvey would have loved this because he said the single most important thing you can do is come out." Jones brought the bullhorn Milk used to rally supporters during the Coors beer boycott.

This is Jones' fourth visit to Fresno in recent months, as he and many other longtime activists believe that the Central Valley is "the front lines" of this fight.

"Not the Castro or West Hollywood," he said. "To put a 'No on 8' sign in your window in San Francisco isn't a big deal. In Fresno, it is."

0 Replies

The test of courage comes when we are in the minority. The test of tolerance comes when we are in the majority.
- Ralph W. Sockman

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Human survival is not at risk by homosexuals getting married. This is by far the stupidest claim you've made. Think otherwise? Then how?

I never said that, I was saying that society always maintains the right and must maintain the ability to reward and punish behaviour as necessary.

I accept your retraction then. What is nessisary about denying gays marriage rights? What is the imperitive? Specifically, with details.

hawkeye10 wrote:

If the majority is going to treat gays unequal then the majority must have a very good reason for doing so.

Ha. No. The majority does not have to have a good reason. This is like saying that the people of Salem had a very good reason to burn people they thought were witches, and since they were the majority then some sort of rational consesus must have been reached.

If the majority MUST (<-- your choice of words) have a good reason, what is it? What is this phantom threat gays pose?

hawkeye10 wrote:

I am not sure that there is such a good reason, which is why I am still undecided on the question.

Yet when you define the idea that if there was either a reason or not you'd be decided, and yet there is no reason and you remain "undecided." I suspect you aren't trying to hard. Trying to use rational thinking would make a very clear choice. You've defined what would need to be present for society to prohibit it, and yet you can't present any threat. You know the answer. but won't say it. It's cognitive dissonance.

hawkeye10 wrote:

What I object to is your assertion that there could not possible be just cause, so we can avoid the question.

Aviod nothing. I'm asking that exact question everytime I post in this thread! What is it? What is the threat? We don't deal in some "just cause" that might make itself known someday theoretically maybe sorta later I think so just wait a bit. We deal in reality and in no way has this become a threat.

Provide a threat or admit there is none.

hawkeye10 wrote:

I further object to your claim that societies do not have the right to self determination, that individualism MUST be allowed to flower fully. That is horseshit, rampant individualism is but one of many possible options for societal organization.

Agian, we aren't talking about anarchy. we aren't talking about giving people new rights, we're expanding VERY old rights to a group of people who has had those rights denied to them.

You're this and that about rampant individualism is a red herring when talking about equality.

hawkeye10 wrote:

America was founded upon the general goal of maximum personal freedom, however America is a democracy and we are as always free to alter course as the need strikes.

What is the "need" (<-- Your choice of words)? But I repeat myself.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

hawkeye seems to have put himself into a corner, but he'd rather struggle than admit he's been wrong. Staying on the fence must be "fun" for him.

0 Replies

Cicerone Imposter, imbecilic as usual, wrote:

cicerone imposter (Post 3664322)
Quote:
The ideal would be that all American citizens be treated equally. Even our Constitution states that "all men are created equal"

Yes, all men ARE created equal but that does not mean that the equality would remain. If that were so, then no man could earn or achieve or invest more than another. We cannot be equal and free simultaneously. Free means we are able to develop the skills we learn and are born with.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know