Proposition 8- Allowing gay marriage in Califorina

Started by Ushgarak17 pages
Originally posted by Devil King
But it isn't going to just happen as a matter of course. It isn't the social version of trickle down economics. It has to be fought for and it has to be accepted, not just tolerated because there's a law. All those examples you mention didn't occur because there was a flash of understanding or an epiphany. It happened because it was fought for by the gay people in those countries. So that cultural acceptance BigRed mentioned happens when actions like Prop 8 are defeated and the rights of people are upheld. These groups spent 25 million dollars to revoke those rights, and nearly as much was spent to defend them. That's a lot of hate to fight, irrational hate and resentment. It may be one law in one state in one country across one ocean from you, but it's my home. It's the home of a lot of other gay people. I think the fact that you live in a place that, as a country, has made efforts to recognize the relationships of homosexuals may explain the perspective. However, I do disagree that equality will win simply because it's the most logical end result. We're talking about a country where it took hundreds of years to get rid of slavery. Logic doesn't always come quickly to us.

I'll be frank- I don't really agree. Yes, people always have to fight for their own corner. But homosexuals were always doing that- did yoy think change happened simply because they nagged enough? That people got bored of them complaining?

No, I think the change is down to social shift over time as the ideas of tolerance and equality get increasingly widespread. It is in that environment that rights are attained; the fight for rights didn't change at all, society's preparedness to listen did. Obviously people must still keep fighting for such rights, I am not saying their efforts are trivial. But the story of equality is a broad one.

Right now, many still think that a position of giving Civil Unions wothout the term marriage is indeed equal. In time, that position will look foolish to everyone as people realise how much people who thought that way misunderstood the construct, the social power of a word like 'marriage' and how if you don't give the word, you are still excluding and still effectively discriminating. The shift continues. However, it must be said, once you have all the same rights as a marriage but not the name- well, obviously that's still an issue, but in the end it's still a great advance and a much smaller issue than it could have been. As you mention my country, what we have here right now is a situation where gay couples can get unions that have the same legal force of marriage, all the same tax breaks and what-not, the benefits, the same kind of ceremony performed by the same registrars that do normal marriage... but not actually yet using the term marriage. And you know what? I don't think that's worth yelling about- because after a while of things being like that, no-one will see the distinction any more, and it being called marriage will just drop into place. It is already inevitable.

So I do think equality will inevitability win, yes- no matter how much hate, despite the issues you raise.

I would assume that the civil rights movements (be it for gender, race or sexual orientation) do significantally speed up the process or raise consciousness about the issue. I don't think society changes fast without an awareness, maybe constant, about the issue of ignorance.

I guess it can also be a negative influence in some ways.

I do agree though about the issue of marriage being less important afterr a while of having civil unions. Everyone would be used to it by then, and denying that little word, would indeed be seen as foolish.

Well I see their spreading of awareness as just part of a wider social change, to be honest. I do think it is societies that change themselve,s not (relatively) small groups leading them by the nose. These groups do have a significant impact, yes, and certainly on particular flashpoints, events, dates when these things happen etdc. But when looked at as a broad sweep of history, it really does become about society as a whole- well, at this point, western society, anyway.

In the end, despite the efforts of Stonewall and what-not, which might have affected the odd vote diretly, the avdance in gay rights in the UK was entitely down to the changing social structure of the members of the House of Commons. That's really how these thinggs end uo working.

Anyway, I don't want to argue sociology too much with everyone. My firm belief remains that things are, overall, extremely positive for gay rights, and I think they will continue to improve as a matter of certainity.

I find it quite crappy that Prop. 8 Passed.

Sad, really, that even a liberal state like California didn't smack that stupid prop. down. I still don't understand how two buttlovers, who can view each other's medical records, affects me in any way.

Originally posted by Devil King
You want to define marriage by something you look up and repost from a website, but aren't willing to accept that particular website changes it's definitions based on long-held definitions while also including more modern uses of a word.

Bottom line: you have a definition of marriage but ignore that the links you post to define it are much more willing to adapt to reality than your perspective ever will.

Didn't deny there are multiple definitions, but when I posted the definitions I did:

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
What I'm pointing out is that a strict man-woman view is very real and not designed to be homophobic.

...read my posts...
That being said, I do not personally believe in the definition that includes two men or two women.

You too think that you have a definition for marriage that works simply because it's all-inclusive and makes everyone happy. That's biased, even arrogant, since you perceive yourself to be so altruistic with respect to the gay community, and more thought is given to definition changes if they do need to occur.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I find it quite crappy that Prop. 8 Passed.

Sad, really, that even a liberal state like California didn't smack that stupid prop. down. I still don't understand how two buttlovers, who can view each other's medical records, affects me in any way.


it doesnt effect you, which is the biggest problem. i think california had the best chance of not letting this prop pass, and it still didnt... 😠

Originally posted by k1Lla441
it doesnt effect you, which is the biggest problem. i think california had the best chance of not letting this prop pass, and it still didnt... 😠

"affect"

Well...it also doesn't "effect" him, but you know.

EDIT: This may have been confusing...

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
Didn't deny there are multiple definitions, but when I posted the definitions I did:

By that I mean what I did was the following; my quote right below it.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I believe that the state has no right to dictate whether or not people can engage in marriage...so I am in favour of them having the right to marry.

However, as a Catholic I do not recognise the marriage as valid anymore than I recognise Islam as truth...but I do not try and limit the right of Muslims to practice therefore I wouldn't restrict the right of gay people to marry...

Good answer.

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
Didn't deny there are multiple definitions, but when I posted the definitions I did:

...read my posts...

You don't deny that there are multiple definitions, but you do think it must be defined as only 1 man and 1 woman. Trust me, I read your posts.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
did you think change happened simply because they nagged enough? That people got bored of them complaining?

No, I didn't think that. Which is why I disagreed with you when you said prop 8 was no big deal in the over all scheme of things and that change would come and to just be patient. Which is why when you said equality would win out eventually, I pointed out that it wouldn't just happen, that it would have to be fought for.

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
I know there is more than one definition, but with the basic framework of the word relying on the earliest idea that it is between a man and a woman does not accommodate for two men or two women. I know definitions grow and change but there has to be a limit (not for all, but for most words). But that is how I view it. I know you disagree

View it that way if you want, but you're wrong.

Almost got hurt at a prop 8 protest in West LA, man... The things people will do to be heard.

So why did it get banned? I mean it's California we're talking about, not Alabama.

We have too many catholic Mexicans.

Originally posted by NonSensi-Klown
We have too many catholic Mexicans.

QFT

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So why did it get banned? I mean it's California we're talking about, not Alabama.

The religious groups* spent a lot of money and REALLY made an effort to get their flock to vote on it.

There's also the factor that many a person simply has disgust/disdain for homosexuals, even if they'll openly state "but I have gay friends."

*Wonder what they could have accomplished with that money and all that effort if they applied it to something useful.

Originally posted by Robtard
The religious groups* spent a lot of money and REALLY made an effort to get their flock to vote on it.

There's also the factor that many a person simply has disgust/disdain for homosexuals, even if they'll openly state "but I have gay friends."

*Wonder what they could have accomplished with that money and all that effort if they applied it to something useful.

See I never would've guessed that Bible Thumpers had a large enough presence in CA for that to matter. With places like San Fransisco and Berkley, I'd of thought that it would get legalized with minimal competition.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So why did it get banned? I mean it's California we're talking about, not Alabama.

I think it was because many minority voters went to vote for Obama and had more conservative social views.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
See I never would've guessed that Bible Thumpers had a large enough presence in CA for that to matter. With places like San Fransisco and Berkley, I'd of thought that it would get legalized with minimal competition.

CA is very large outside of SF and COB and there are plenty of thumpers out and about.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I think it was because many minority voters went to vote for Obama and had more conservative social views.

You say "conservative social views", I say:

Originally posted by Robtard

There's also the factor that many a person simply has disgust/disdain for homosexuals, even if they'll openly state "but I have gay friends."

Tomato, tomato