Jump to content
TSM Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Dr. Tom

11 States ban gay marriage

Recommended Posts

Guest Loss
Heterosexual couples don't have special interests looking out for them.

Of course they do! Churches! Republicans! Pro-family groups! They're everywhere.

 

While 95-99% of homosexual couples would probably be sane, I'm sure there's a lunatic fringe that would insist on going to the most conservative churches they can find and insist that they do some kind of outrageous ceremony there, threatening to sue if their rights are abridged.

 

I would have no problem fully supporting a law protecting churches from lawsuits for refusing to marry a couple. This situation would obviously be wrong, and I definitely support protecting the church's right to choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest whitemilesdavis
If lawsuits could happen in such a situation, heterosexual couples might have already tried suing churches. It's just not plausible

 

Take no offense, but homosexuals as a community tend to be more militant than divorcees. I'm not saying that the masses of gay couples would go this route, but it wouldn't surprise me at all to see it happen.

 

Is there a way to ensure that the churches are protected in this? If so, I have no problem with gay marriage.

 

EDITED TO ADD: I missed your last post. I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Loss
Take no offense, but homosexuals as a community tend to be more militant than divorcees.

I vehemently disagree with that statement, as one of the major problems within the gay community is the self-repression that comes with actually being a taboo, and the fact that so few gays are fighting the good fight. I would venture to say 3% of gay marriages would go this route.

 

However, it's important to remember that resistance is created out of denial of rights, and if gays were allowed to get married, the militance would decrease over time. The majority of African Americans aren't the type who get in people's faces just begging for hints of discrimination, even if there will always be a few who do. They've mellowed as society has become more accepting. The same thing would happen here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest whitemilesdavis

I agree, and I'm sorry if that came out wrong. Divorcees really don't have much reason to be militant, because there isn't much discrimination against them. Any opressed group is gonna have it's few members who maybe take the activism a bit far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Take no offense, but homosexuals as a community tend to be more militant than divorcees.

I vehemently disagree with that statement, as one of the major problems within the gay community is the self-repression that comes with actually being a taboo, and the fact that so few gays are fighting the good fight. I would venture to say 3% of gay marriages would go this route.

 

However, it's important to remember that resistance is created out of denial of rights, and if gays were allowed to get married, the militance would decrease over time. The majority of African Americans aren't the type who get in people's faces just begging for hints of discrimination, even if there will always be a few who do. They've mellowed as society has become more accepting. The same thing would happen here.

Minorities of ALL kinds typically are sane... it's their leadership that are typically nuts.

 

 

The average black man in Baton Rouge tends to be sane but the de-facto leaders of the black special interest groups (Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, Charles Rangel, Julian Bond, Kwesi Mfune) scream "RAY-CISM~!" at the drop of a hat to get whatever they want.

 

 

If there was a gay leader who had widespread support within that community that DIDN'T compare the Religious Right's views to those of the Nazis, they would have more mainstream support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Loss
I agree, and I'm sorry if that came out wrong. Divorcees really don't have much reason to be militant, because there isn't much discrimination against them. Any opressed group is gonna have it's few members who maybe take the activism a bit far.

It didn't come out wrong. It was a valid point.

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Loss
If there was a gay leader who had widespread support that DIDN'T compare the Religious Right's views to those of the Nazis, they would have more support.

Absolutely. I think Andrew Sullivan has the best possible chance of appealing to the mainstream, but he's hated by most gay people, so sadly, that probably won't ever come to fruition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC
The only hope at this point is judges overruling all of the amendments. Of course, I strongly disagree that this should be a states rights issue, as no state does or should have the right to not acknowledge heterosexual marriage. This is not something voters should have any say over, considering that it only affects about 5-10% of the populace, if that.

The way your side is pursuing gay marriage is why it will never pass anywhere (when you cannot win in OR, you have a problem). Expecting courts to rule by fiat on your behalf is only going to turn the country against you.

-=Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Loss
The way your side is pursuing gay marriage is why it will never pass anywhere (when you cannot win in OR, you have a problem). Expecting courts to rule by fiat on your behalf is only going to turn the country against you.

-=Mike

Is it not possible that the judges are just ... interpreting the law? Do you honestly believe it's possible for a gay rights campaign to take place that would sway prejudice? Do you honestly believe that any amount of lobbying and talking to people and advertising will make people accept homosexuality? You seem to think the problem is in the method, but the problem is in the belief systems that have existed for centuries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't one of the main problems the fact that these amendments will not only stop gay marriage but be used to stop civil unions as well? I just don't see what's wrong with a civil union, but sadly the wording of these amendments will be used to make sure gay couples don't get any rights or privileges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC
The way your side is pursuing gay marriage is why it will never pass anywhere (when you cannot win in OR, you have a problem). Expecting courts to rule by fiat on your behalf is only going to turn the country against you.

        -=Mike

Is it not possible that the judges are just ... interpreting the law? Do you honestly believe it's possible for a gay rights campaign to take place that would sway prejudice?

No, they're clearly MAKING the law.

 

Why gay marriage proponents don't go, state-by-state, and attempt to actually CONVINCE voters that gay marriage is peachy is lost on me. It shows, at the bare minimum, an utter disregard for the political system and people, flat-out, don't like it.

Do you honestly believe that any amount of lobbying and talking to people and advertising will make people accept homosexuality?

Care to compare treatment of gays from 20 years ago to treatment of them today?

 

You absolutely can convince people --- but your side is too lazy and impatient to do the legwork.

 

Look at American conservatism. After Hoover, it was dead. Completely. You couldn't win as a conservative if your life depended on it (Eisenhower did not run as a conservative).

 

So, what did they do? They simply buckled down and started trying to convince people of their beliefs. The public came around on welfare. It'll eventually come around on Social Security. It came around on taxes.

You seem to think the problem is in the method, but the problem is in the belief systems that have existed for centuries.

People believed blacks were inferior for centuries. In about 30 years, that impression is all but gone.

-=Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Loss
Isn't one of the main problems the fact that these amendments will not only stop gay marriage but be used to stop civil unions as well? I just don't see what's wrong with a civil union, but sadly the wording of these amendments will be used to make sure gay couples don't get any rights or privileges.

My local marriage amendment website calls civil unions "counterfeit marriages" and think they would somehow downplay "real" marriages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC
Isn't one of the main problems the fact that these amendments will not only stop gay marriage but be used to stop civil unions as well? I just don't see what's wrong with a civil union, but sadly the wording of these amendments will be used to make sure gay couples don't get any rights or privileges.

My local marriage amendment website calls civil unions "counterfeit marriages" and think they would somehow downplay "real" marriages.

Then go out and argue otherwise. Don't sit here and gripe and moan and expect the courts to take the action that YOU should be taking.

 

You feel your rights are being repressed? Then YOU fight back.

 

Why should anybody fight for you when you are unwilling to fight for yourself.

-=Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest thebigjig
(Eisenhower did not run as a conservative).

Off topic here, but if Eisenhower didn't run as a conservative, what exactly DID he run on? He ran against Adlai Freakin Stevenson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC
(Eisenhower did not run as a conservative).

Off topic here, but if Eisenhower didn't run as a conservative, what exactly DID he run on? He ran against Adlai Freakin Stevenson

Eisenhower himself said he wasn't a conservative.

 

The first Republican to actually run as one was Goldwater.

-=Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest thebigjig
(Eisenhower did not run as a conservative).

Off topic here, but if Eisenhower didn't run as a conservative, what exactly DID he run on? He ran against Adlai Freakin Stevenson

Eisenhower himself said he wasn't a conservative.

 

The first Republican to actually run as one was Goldwater.

-=Mike

Oh okay, gotcha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Loss
Then go out and argue otherwise. Don't sit here and gripe and moan and expect the courts to take the action that YOU should be taking.

 

You feel your rights are being repressed? Then YOU fight back.

 

Why should anybody fight for you when you are unwilling to fight for yourself.

-=Mike

I plan on fighting back. I'm not asking anyone to fight for me. I don't see why there's even a fight at all. But, if you honestly feel that the fact that the courts have gotten involved is the reason people supported this amendment, you are incredibly naive. This issue could have been brought out of thin air and gotten the exact same reaction.

 

People aren't against the amendment because they're upset at the courts or because they're worried about the changes in tax brackets over time. People are against this amendment because they hate homosexuals and don't think they deserve equal rights. I think the fact that last night's election was decided on "moral values" proves that quite candidly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(Eisenhower did not run as a conservative).

Off topic here, but if Eisenhower didn't run as a conservative, what exactly DID he run on? He ran against Adlai Freakin Stevenson

Eisenhower himself said he wasn't a conservative.

 

The first Republican to actually run as one was Goldwater.

-=Mike

Coincidentally enough, the LBJ campaign against Goldwater was one of the dirtiest of the century, with accusations that electing Goldwater would mean Mutually Assured Destruction.

 

Anyone else seen the "daisy" ad by the LBJ campaign?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC
Then go out and argue otherwise. Don't sit here and gripe and moan and expect the courts to take the action that YOU should be taking.

 

You feel your rights are being repressed? Then YOU fight back.

 

Why should anybody fight for you when you are unwilling to fight for yourself.

                      -=Mike

I plan on fighting back. I'm not asking anyone to fight for me. I don't see why there's even a fight at all. But, if you honestly feel that the fact that the courts have gotten involved is the reason people supported this amendment, you are incredibly naive. This issue could have been brought out of thin air and gotten the exact same reaction.

 

People aren't against the amendment because they're upset at the courts or because they're worried about the changes in tax brackets over time. People are against this amendment because they hate homosexuals and don't think they deserve equal rights. I think the fact that last night's election was decided on "moral values" proves that quite candidly.

Loss, to assume that your side's tactics have not generated this backlash (OR is not close to being conservative) is silly.

 

Quite frankly, I don't CARE about gay marriage. Whatsoever. If it came up here, I'd be one of the very undecideds who could easily be swayed to your side...

 

...Provided your side would spend the three seconds needed to actually make a case. To just say "America is homophobic" is only going to turn moderates against you. You don't win an argument by attacking the people you need to convince.

-=Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC
(Eisenhower did not run as a conservative).

Off topic here, but if Eisenhower didn't run as a conservative, what exactly DID he run on? He ran against Adlai Freakin Stevenson

Eisenhower himself said he wasn't a conservative.

 

The first Republican to actually run as one was Goldwater.

-=Mike

Coincidentally enough, the LBJ campaign against Goldwater was one of the dirtiest of the century, with accusations that electing Goldwater would mean Mutually Assured Destruction.

 

Anyone else seen the "daisy" ad by the LBJ campaign?

An offensive --- yet unbelievably brilliant --- ad.

-=Mike

...Trivia: The ad was aired one time only...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The first Republican to actually run as one was Goldwater.

-=Mike

Yeah, and it wasn't until Reagan when the conservative movement really hit the big time. (And didn't it take a while for IKE to tell people what party he was going to affiliate himself with?)

 

Oh, and the Daisey ad is OK because a Democrat did it. Surprised Kerry didn't run such an ad -- Rather would have spooged himself...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Loss
Loss, to assume that your side's tactics have not generated this backlash (OR is not close to being conservative) is silly.

That's what started the issue. But I guarantee you, the same amendment could have been on the ballot with no history and gotten the same support. The backlash was from people who already made up their minds that they hated all gays. The mindset from anyone who had no problems with gays would logically be, "Good for them, they deserve it however they can get it."

 

Quite frankly, I don't CARE about gay marriage. Whatsoever. If it came up here, I'd be one of the very undecideds who could easily be swayed to your side...

 

Obviously, you do, since you're spending a lot of time talking to me about it.

 

...Provided your side would spend the three seconds needed to actually make a case. To just say "America is homophobic" is only going to turn moderates against you. You don't win an argument by attacking the people you need to convince.

           -=Mike

 

I want the conservatives to defend themselves. They won't. That has nothing to do with being smart politically. That's a personal want.

 

As for making a case, you are insane if you think I could convince you to vote against the amendment in one short conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC

No, I'm seeing a side --- including you --- who are incapable of making a case and are simply pouting because people expect you to do so.

 

You're asking people to change things. A REASON to do it is needed.

 

If your side won't --- and thus far, they have no provided one reason --- they'll never get their views.

 

Your side has tried the courts for a while. Tell me, how well is that working out for you?

-=Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, Loss. I don't know why so many people in this nation feel threatened by allowing people like you rights equal to theirs. We have such a long way to go.

 

I also believe it's generational. I think we'll see full acceptance of gay rights in our lifetime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Loss

In Massachusetts, it's working just fine. It'll happen in other states over time.

 

You want a reason? Here's a reason?

 

"Homosexuals are Americans, and all Americans deserve equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities. Homosexuals are just like heterosexuals -- we buy houses, we have families, we try to save money, we work hard in our careers. On another level, gays and lesbians are serving this country in the war in Iraq right now. Gays and lesbians are among the thousands seeing their jobs shipped overseas. Gays and lesbians lost their lives in the World Trade Center on September 11th.

 

What we want is a shared responsibility and freedom, and since we share in the challenges, we'd also like to share in the triumphs. This is why we're asking for you to vote against the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages. Regardless of your personal opinions on gay marriage, the amendment also disallows civil unions or domestic partnership benefits. Is that really fair?

 

Allowing gay marriage would open the door for couples to have hospital visitation, less expensive health insurance and a shared mortgage and rightful estate. It would also require us to pay the same taxes and have the same responsibilities, both to our communities and our nation at large, as married heterosexual couples.

 

We fully endorse any legal protection of churches that choose not to marry us. It's very important that this not become a states rights issue, because if one state refuses to acknowledge gay marriage and another state does, then we lose rights as we travel from state-to-state, and believe wholeheartedly that as taxpaying Americans, we have the right to live wherever we choose.

 

Thank you for your time."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Loss
I'm sorry, Loss. I don't know why so many people in this nation feel threatened by allowing people like you rights equal to theirs. We have such a long way to go.

 

I also believe it's generational. I think we'll see full acceptance of gay rights in our lifetime.

I hope so as well, and thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC
In Massachusetts, it's working just fine. It'll happen in other states over time.

 

You want a reason? Here's a reason?

 

"Homosexuals are Americans, and all Americans deserve equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities. Homosexuals are just like heterosexuals -- we buy houses, we have families, we try to save money, we work hard in our careers. On another level, gays and lesbians are serving this country in the war in Iraq right now. Gays and lesbians are among the thousands seeing their jobs shipped overseas. Gays and lesbians lost their lives in the World Trade Center on September 11th.

 

What we want is a shared responsibility and freedom, and since we share in the challenges, we'd also like to share in the triumphs. This is why we're asking for you to vote against the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages. Regardless of your personal opinions on gay marriage, the amendment also disallows civil unions or domestic partnership benefits. Is that really fair?

 

Allowing gay marriage would open the door for couples to have hospital visitation, less expensive health insurance and a shared mortgage and rightful estate. It would also require us to pay the same taxes and have the same responsibilities, both to our communities and our nation at large, as married heterosexual couples.

 

We fully endorse any legal protection of churches that choose not to marry us. It's very important that this not become a states rights issue, because if one state refuses to acknowledge gay marriage and another state does, then we lose rights as we travel from state-to-state, and believe wholeheartedly that as taxpaying Americans, we have the right to live wherever we choose.

 

Thank you for your time."

Go with that. It's a very solid argument. Stop bitching at the courts to do the work and get the assorted twats who have decided that celebrating such things as Newsom violating the law would be a great idea to argue this.

 

Make that case and stick with it and you'd likely end up winning in more than a few states. Not all of them, but in a nice number.

-=Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC
A lot of people base their views on homosexuality on (a)The Bible/Their Religious beliefs and (b)Their personal insecurities; yeah it's a fucking cake walk to talk people out of those.

People thought cutting back welfare would lead to massive starvation and were, thus, terrified of it.

 

Conservatives spent YEARS making the argument against it.

 

Worked out well.

-=Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×