Gay Marriage Vote Passes in DC City Council

@Diest TKO,

How would you know ? You didnt read it . You spent your time imagining what I said and how to dress up your argument so no one would think badly of you.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

Quote:
No big surprises in the first D.C. Council vote on legalizing same-sex marriage: the Council today voted 11-2 to approve the "Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009," with Marion Barry (D-Ward 8) and Yvette Alexander (D-Ward 7) the only dissenters.

The historic legislation still needs to pass a second vote in the Council in the next month, at which point it will be sent to D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty for his signature. Fenty has promised he will sign the bill.

More: http://dcist.com/2009/12/same-sex_marriage_passes_dc_council.php

I can literally hear the disco music coming from Dupont Circle.

T
K
O

Now, if you could just get a bill like this to pass a vote of the citizens, you'd have something. I suppose, though, that you can keep finding lots of creative ways to get these things through without the approval of the people.

1 Reply

I believe there are a few thoughts that are not being addressed.

How does one assert one's right to the pursuit of happiness, if one does not care for the company of homosexuals, without being called a bigot? Should one be labelled a bigot, just because one does not like, and has every right not to like, certain groups (naturally without acting out one's distaste for a group)? In effect, not to be called a bigot, must we be like ants in an anthill, giving no regard to the group differences between us? I do believe more than a few homosexuals might show a propensity to being good conversationalists. So, if one does not enjoy a good conversation, how does one avoid the label of bigot?

Also, for those folks that follow their respective religious teachings, and believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, does anyone care (on the pro-gay marriage side of the argument) that these heterosexuals, married within a certain faith, could feel that the institution of marriage has been cheapened if gay marriage is a reality? Sort of like when some Hollywood types have serial heterosexual marriages. I would believe that many conservative types believe those serial marriages are cheapening the institution of marriage, and if asked to vote on the authenticity of those marriages would not vote positively. So, whether it is Hollywood, or gays, there are just some conservative folks that have parameters on what a marriage is.

And, just because homosexuality has been taken off the DSM-IV does not mean that homosexuality is suddenly different. The DSM-IV could have been mislabelling homosexuality, but that does not mean it is just an alternative lifestyle, or just normal behavior. Considering the human species would cease to exist if EVERYONE was homosexual, normal might be a wrong definition. Sort of like society can continue to exist with some people having migraines, but if everyone had migraines daily, then society would become something much less efficient, I believe. Yet, arguing whether having migraines is "normal" is more in the realm of a red-herring. Migraines is a bad example, since migraines hurt. Hey, being homosexual in a society that has a good degree of homophobia can hurt too. Maybe it was not such a bad example?

It is really, I believe, society's job to define what is normal. However, how ethical is it to call names to those that subscribe to the current societal homophobic mores of today's society? That could be thought of as negative campaigning.

2 Replies

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

Also, for those folks that follow their respective religious teachings, and believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, does anyone care (on the pro-gay marriage side of the argument) that these heterosexuals, married within a certain faith, could feel that the institution of marriage has been cheapened if gay marriage is a reality? Sort of like when some Hollywood types have serial heterosexual marriages. I would believe that many conservative types believe those serial marriages are cheapening the institution of marriage, and if asked to vote on the authenticity of those marriages would not vote positively. So, whether it is Hollywood, or gays, there are just some conservative folks that have parameters on what a marriage is.

lot's of plain old folk get married multiple times too, a good number of them probably also believe themselves to be "of the faithful", kind of a weak argument

i don't see why gays want to be associated with a procedure that is as archaic and obviously broken as marriage anyway, come up with something new and better, let the trad marriage losers revel in their busted ceremony

of course why anyone wants to get married in the first place is beyond me

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

Now, if you could just get a bill like this to pass a vote of the citizens, you'd have something. I suppose, though, that you can keep finding lots of creative ways to get these things through without the approval of the people.

I'd like to hear what kinds of things in a state you think should be sent to a vote, and which things should not. It seems that on matters of granting equal rights, this notion is absurd. A majority is not supposed to be able to vote in laws to oppress a minority, which is exactly what the opposition has been doing in the USA.

Do you think that letting interracial couples marry should have been a public vote?

If it had at the time, would it have passed?

T
K
O

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

Do you think that letting interracial couples marry should have been a public vote?

If it had at the time, would it have passed?

i'm not sure it would pass today

0 Replies

@Foofie,

I hate your ideas, but I'm relieved you are talking in plain terms that others are too afraid to admit.

Foofie wrote:

How does one assert one's right to the pursuit of happiness, if one does not care for the company of homosexuals, without being called a bigot? Should one be labelled a bigot, just because one does not like, and has every right not to like, certain groups (naturally without acting out one's distaste for a group)?

Writing laws to subjugate and oppress homosexuals is acting out in distaste for a group.

Foofie wrote:

In effect, not to be called a bigot, must we be like ants in an anthill, giving no regard to the group differences between us?

Social acknowledgment of differences can take place without placing laws in effect that bar one group from access to an institution which is granted rights, and privileges.

Foofie wrote:

I do believe more than a few homosexuals might show a propensity to being good conversationalists. So, if one does not enjoy a good conversation, how does one avoid the label of bigot?

If you are truly confident in your superiority to another person, why would the term "bigot" bother you?

Foofie wrote:

Also, for those folks that follow their respective religious teachings, and believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, does anyone care (on the pro-gay marriage side of the argument) that these heterosexuals, married within a certain faith, could feel that the institution of marriage has been cheapened if gay marriage is a reality?

People are entitled to their opinion, but opinions only have a limited value. Let's put this in perspective. We are talking about one group of people that enjoys a privilege, declaring that their status would be demoted by granting another group equal marriage rights.

If they feel their marriage is cheapened, I'm inclined to say they perhaps are the ones that are undeserving of the privilege. If with all the same privileges as they had before, they somehow love their husband/wife less or think less of their marriage, they are the ones devaluing the institution.

Foofie wrote:

Sort of like when some Hollywood types have serial heterosexual marriages. I would believe that many conservative types believe those serial marriages are cheapening the institution of marriage, and if asked to vote on the authenticity of those marriages would not vote positively.

And if their marriage was voted on, or had to be approved of by a group who may have different values? Conservatives need to understand the limits of their importance.

Foofie wrote:

So, whether it is Hollywood, or gays, there are just some conservative folks that have parameters on what a marriage is.

I imagine land owners felt the same way about the value of voting when the right was extended to non-land owners. Again, when the right was extended to women.

I'm not exactly pleased that stupid people vote, but I'm not so important that I think that I can take people's right to vote away if I don't approve of their intellect.

Foofie wrote:

And, just because homosexuality has been taken off the DSM-IV does not mean that homosexuality is suddenly different. The DSM-IV could have been mislabelling homosexuality, but that does not mean it is just an alternative lifestyle, or just normal behavior. Considering the human species would cease to exist if EVERYONE was homosexual, normal might be a wrong definition.

Just because it was once in the DSM-IV, doesn't mean that it ever belonged in there in the first place.

Your musings on normality is irrelevant. One does not have to be "normal" to get married or to have equal rights.

Foofie wrote:

Sort of like society can continue to exist with some people having migraines, but if everyone had migraines daily, then society would become something much less efficient, I believe. Yet, arguing whether having migraines is "normal" is more in the realm of a red-herring. Migraines is a bad example, since migraines hurt. Hey, being homosexual in a society that has a good degree of homophobia can hurt too. Maybe it was not such a bad example?

You introduce a terrible metaphor and then tell me the rebuttal I haven't made is a red-herring. The whole introduction and comparisson of homosexuality to migranes is a red-herring.

Foofie wrote:

It is really, I believe, society's job to define what is normal.

And then what? Distribute rights as they relate to a score of normality?

This is a terrible idea. It is nothing more than a masturbatory rant of entitlement.

Society has a job to define what is harmful. This is why laws say what is illegal, not what is legal. I.e. - We don't need a law to tell us was which hand we hold our spoon with. We need laws to address violence, theft, etc.

Foofie wrote:

However, how ethical is it to call names to those that subscribe to the current societal homophobic mores of today's society?

It is not ethically challenged to address a person by a title that is defined by their ACTIONS.

If a person understands the definition of the word "bigot," and demonstrates bigotry in their opinions/actions, what do they expect. The word sticks when the actions match.

Foofie wrote:

That could be thought of as negative campaigning.

T
K
Or honest campaigning.

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

Writing laws to subjugate and oppress homosexuals is acting out in distaste for a group.

If you cant see what is inherently wrong with that emotional statement, then you are a bigot.

Quote:

If you are truly confident in your superiority to another person, why would the term "bigot" bother you?

Excellent point. It doesnt bother you that you are a bigot, why should it bother any body else ?

Quote:

We are talking about one group of people that enjoys a privilege, ...

A privilege now ? I thought it was a right ? Or did I convince you it wasnt but you are too sacred/scared to admit when you are wrong ?

Quote:

Conservatives need to understand the limits of their importance.

The politically correct need to understand the limits of their importance.

Quote:

The whole introduction and comparisson of homosexuality to migranes is a red-herring.

Only in your opinion. A migraine is a symptom. Manufactured homosexuality is a symptom. There are underlying problems that cause symptoms.

Quote:

It is nothing more than a masturbatory rant of entitlement.

OK, we all know you are a joker, now try to be serious...

Quote:

I'm not exactly pleased that stupid people vote, but I'm not so important that I think that I can take people's right to vote away if I don't approve of their intellect.

That should be your signature. You think anyone who disagrees with you is stupid, but you are so important that you cant admit a good point anywhere from anyone else unless they agree with you. No doubt your approval of their intellect is based on your own formidable intellect ? Do you know what the word bigot means, because cycloptichorn doesnt and I know you dont know what politically correct means.

Quote:

Just because it was once in the DSM-IV, doesn't mean that it ever belonged in there in the first place.

Born homosexuals are just like you and me. Probably more like me, because they have a depth of understanding and an egalitarian nature that you lack. There is nothing wrong with them. Pyschiatrists loudly trumpeted they could cure homosexuality without distinguishing between born and manufactured homosexuals. You cant cure born homosexuals because they are normal, there is nothing to cure. Having chosen born homosexuals they failed. To hide their failure, they then declared all homosexuality is normal. Manufactured homosexuals, and there are many causes that produce an illness where homosexuality is a symptom, need help but bigots like you put that further into the future. Sometimes a symptom should be treated where it interfers with a functioning life and a level of promiscuity that results in homosexuals wearing tampons in their arse because their anal sphincter muscles are screwed is such a level. In general though, most manufactured homosexuals are not in need of symptom treatment. One day when we get around to treating more urgent mental health care problems we may get around to manufactured homosexuals and the problem behind the symptom, but that seems unlikely. I remain a staunch supporter of full equality under law for all homosexuals, despite your bigoted imaginings. This can be done quickly and easily if they drop the demand to call it marriage. If they think they are a man and a woman embarking on a journey to have children, then they are struggling against reality. This is also an excellent opportunity to sort out the laws governing the whole area of relationships that fall short of marriage, including defactos and taxes. By just giving marriage to homosexuals we may lose a considerable push for change.

Quote:

And then what? Distribute rights as they relate to a score of normality?

Yes. If you are in prison, you have lost rights. If you do not register to vote, you can not vote..etc..need I go on ?

Quote:

If a person understands the definition of the word "bigot," and demonstrates bigotry in their opinions/actions, what do they expect. The word sticks when the actions match.

Then you should admit to being bigoted against any opinion not like yours.

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

I think the one argument that has merit, in my opinion, for gay marriage is that rights should not be withheld for a specific group. But, it is possible that marriage, be it for heteros, or gay, is not a right. Perhaps, an argument could be made that a normally mentally functioning person should not be allowed to marry an "idiot"? If that is, or would be, so, then an argument might ensue as to whether gays have any rights being withheld, based on the definition of normal for marriageable purposes. This may really be a state's rights issue.

If gays were more open in the early 1800's, then we might have been able to say the Civil War was fought to free the gays, or whether the western territories, upon receiving statehood, came into the Union as pro-gay, or straight. This analogy might lead one to another analogy, in that while there are not laws in most (or all??) states against gay sex, the prohibition of marriage for gays could then be likened to a sort of Jim Crow era for emancipated gays?

But, as far as anyone claiming that gay is normal in society, we just have to look at the current military criteria. Gays get ushered out of the military if they are found out to be gay. That does not correlate with society thinking gay is normal. Perhaps, in some future time, but are we not talking about today?

1 Reply

@Ionus,

I've been more than patient with your trolling on this matter. I don't suffer fools gladly, and I'm bored with your semantics.

Have a nice day.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Quote:

...the prohibition of marriage for gays could then be likened to a sort of Jim Crow era for emancipated gays?

Yes, I believe this is exactly the situation we find ourselves in. With things like civil unions, we've began creating parallel institutions. The idea of separate but equal... well not quite equal.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Thank You. You have a nice day too.

0 Replies

That was embarrassing to read. It sounds like a commercial. Have you ever set up a fake argument ?

DTKO - So if you ring now you get two for the price of one.
Foofie - two for the price of one ? And free steak knives ?
DTKO - yes, but only if you act now....
Foofie - I'm sold !

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Now, if you could just get a bill like this to pass a vote of the citizens, you'd have something. I suppose, though, that you can keep finding lots of creative ways to get these things through without the approval of the people.

I'd like to hear what kinds of things in a state you think should be sent to a vote, and which things should not. It seems that on matters of granting equal rights, this notion is absurd. A majority is not supposed to be able to vote in laws to oppress a minority, which is exactly what the opposition has been doing in the USA.

Do you think that letting interracial couples marry should have been a public vote?

If it had at the time, would it have passed?

T
K
O

Sorry, I believe in democracy. I think that the citizens have the right to determine their own government, as opposed to you who want to have every vote you disagree with invalidated by a liberal judge, and every law you agree with passed in a backroom by committee. You cannot ram every law you want down the throats of an unwilling public by playing the race card. References to race relations cannot be a blanket justification for suspension of democracy.

3 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Uh huh. Ram a law down your throat eh? This law that would be rammed down your throat, what would it make you do?

T
K
Oppressing homosexuals and then using democracy as a defense is laughable.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

I think that the citizens have the right to determine their own government, as opposed to you who want to have every vote you disagree with invalidated by a liberal judge, and every law you agree with passed in a backroom by committee.

Citizens have a right to determine their own government, but not to determine what Equality is. Citizens do not have the right to pass laws which are in contradiction with the Constitution or previous laws.

The real problem for your side, is that it has been conservative judges who are allowing Gay marriage to happen, not liberal ones; because denying rights to gays is inconsistent with Equality, and you know it.

Courts ruling on the legality of items is not a 'suspension of democracy.' The courts are an EQUAL part of our government to the other sections, not a subordinate one; you have a basic misunderstanding of how government works in the US, brought about by your disagreement with how sections of it have made social decisions. Intellectually poor choice on your part.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Good point. The Iowa judges were very conservative.

I just don't understand what standard we are supposed to use here. People like Brandon say we should vote on this, but why this and not everything? A state will pass lots of laws etc, but then the second it's time to fulfill a promise by our government, we are supposed to vote on whether or not we want it?

T
K
O

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

A state will pass lots of laws etc, but then the second it's time to fulfill a promise by our government, we are supposed to vote on whether or not we want it?

Nah, only on items having to do with minorities and fags, because that's how people who are afraid of them seek to protect themselves.

Never fails to amaze me, how much the macho-posturing on the right-wing is a cover of cowardice and fear.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

if it really all should be based on popular vote, we should bring a vote to strike the ban on slavery. it probably wouldn't pass, but i bet it would get a lot of support. we should also vote on whether women should drive or not. i'd vote no. (sorry mom).

democracy is a great idea, but in practice, it's not so perfect. the problem is that people with inferior understandings or ethics have just as much say. there are far more under-educated than not. if it were up to a popular vote, scientific progress in this country would be dismantled with a quickness. we would be back in the dark ages.

2 Replies

@sstainba,

Quote:

democracy is a great idea, but in practice, it's not so perfect

I agree, but the whole reason for democracy is that if we dont involve people in the decision making, politicians will pad their own nest and their will be blood in the streets.

1 Reply

Gay Marriage Vote Passes in DC City Council

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know