|
On May 30 2009 09:57 JWD wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 09:51 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:48 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 09:43 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:41 micronesia wrote:On May 30 2009 09:39 Aegraen wrote: Anyways, anti-prop 8 supporters are oppressive. Vandalizing property, threatening peoples lives, assault and battery, runs the gamut. Reminds me of the gestapo. Calling up businesses and threatening them with violence, etc. This is all documented immensely, and if you want me to link for you, I'll gladly do that. I think any major issue has tons of this shit and you are just cherry picking anyway. Wrong. Prop 8 supporters never did any of this. http://vimeo.com/2053489lol I stand corrected, do you have any more incidents? No one should condone any of this behavior. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/10/29/state/n064853D35.DTLhttp://vodpod.com/watch/1218422-skinhead-ordered-to-stand-trial-for-anti-gay-yes-on-8-hate-crime-span-classsourcetowleroadspanhttp://www.independent.com/news/2008/dec/18/anti-gay-graffiti-scrawled-clearview-home/http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2008/11/syracuse_police_identify_shoot.htmlCome to think of it, because all anti-gay hate crime perpetrators would probably vote Yes on 8, I think your position that Proposition 8's opponents are more "like the Gestapo" looks even sillier. And wait, you're saying that a majority of Prop 8 opponents used violent tactics? Um...please don't generalize anecdotal evidence.
That's the best you have? The first two are the same story, the fourth has no merit because the police have no idea why it happened, so because the mother said it was because he was gay then it was? So, you gave me two. Of course that behavior is horrendous, and one is a skin-head.
I think i'll link you some in a bit. Runs the gamut from pro gay marching into churches and disrupting services to harassing and threatening businesses and persons.
|
There is no way to debate with someone who chooses what to respond to.
|
On May 30 2009 10:05 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 09:57 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 09:51 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:48 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 09:43 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:41 micronesia wrote:On May 30 2009 09:39 Aegraen wrote: Anyways, anti-prop 8 supporters are oppressive. Vandalizing property, threatening peoples lives, assault and battery, runs the gamut. Reminds me of the gestapo. Calling up businesses and threatening them with violence, etc. This is all documented immensely, and if you want me to link for you, I'll gladly do that. I think any major issue has tons of this shit and you are just cherry picking anyway. Wrong. Prop 8 supporters never did any of this. http://vimeo.com/2053489lol I stand corrected, do you have any more incidents? No one should condone any of this behavior. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/10/29/state/n064853D35.DTLhttp://vodpod.com/watch/1218422-skinhead-ordered-to-stand-trial-for-anti-gay-yes-on-8-hate-crime-span-classsourcetowleroadspanhttp://www.independent.com/news/2008/dec/18/anti-gay-graffiti-scrawled-clearview-home/http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2008/11/syracuse_police_identify_shoot.htmlCome to think of it, because all anti-gay hate crime perpetrators would probably vote Yes on 8, I think your position that Proposition 8's opponents are more "like the Gestapo" looks even sillier. And wait, you're saying that a majority of Prop 8 opponents used violent tactics? Um...please don't generalize anecdotal evidence. That's the best you have? The first two are the same story, the fourth has no merit because the police have no idea why it happened, so because the mother said it was because he was gay then it was? So, you gave me two. Of course that behavior is horrendous, and one is a skin-head. I think i'll link you some in a bit. Runs the gamut from pro gay marching into churches and disrupting services to harassing and threatening businesses and persons.
let me post thisf or u again cuz it seems you have missed it:
+ Show Spoiler +In January 2009, the American Psychological Association (APA) released three separate studies that described the psychological distress associated with anti same-sex marriage amendments. One study using national survey responses of LGBTI individuals found that those who live in states that have passed marriage amendments experienced increased psychological stress not due to other pre-existing conditions but as “a direct result of the negative images and messages associated with the ballot campaign and the passage of the amendment.” Furthermore, participants reported feeling “alienated from their community, fearful they would lose their children, and concerned they would become victims of anti-gay violence.” These studies also reported that this harm extends to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (LGBTI) family members and straight allies who experience a form of “secondary minority stress.” Finally, “although many participants displayed resiliency and effective coping with this stress, some experienced strong negative consequences to their mental and physical health.”
Marriage Equality USA, through a series of town halls held across California and a national on-line survey of over 3,100 respondents, collected community input regarding the homophobia and other harm experienced through initiative campaigns, like Proposition 8, and received personal stories that mirror these APA findings. In our report “Prop 8 Hurt My Family – Ask Me How,” we collected almost 1,200 individual experiences which illustrate how:
LGBTI people experience increased verbal abuse, homophobia, physical harm and other discrimination associated with or resulting from the Prop 8 campaign; Children of same-sex couples express fear due to direct exposure to homophobia and hate and concerns that the passage of Prop 8 means they could be taken from their families and targeted for further violence; LGBTI youth and their supporters experience increased bullying at schools as Prop 8’s passage fosters a supportive environment for homophobic acts of physical and emotional violence; Straight allies experience the impact of homophobia firsthand and express shock and fear for their LGBTI family members and friends and the danger they may experience if they were perceived as gay or an ally; Families are torn apart as relatives divide on Prop 8; and Communities are destroyed from the aftermath of abusive behavior towards them during local street demonstrations, neighborhood divisions, and the impact of “knowing your neighbor” voted against your family.
|
The court did the responsible thing (which is amazing considering the California judiciary). That being said, I'm quite conflicted. The will of the people and the rule of law were upheld. I happen to think, however, that in this case, their will is pretty retarded.
|
On May 30 2009 10:00 koOl wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 09:58 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:56 koOl wrote:On May 30 2009 09:55 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:50 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 09:47 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:43 Archerofaiur wrote:On May 30 2009 09:39 Aegraen wrote:
Marriage as always been only between a man and a woman throughout all of history. If I can provide you an example will you admit your definition is wrong? On May 30 2009 09:39 Aegraen wrote: Anyways, anti-prop 8 supporters are oppressive. Vandalizing property, threatening peoples lives, assault and battery, runs the gamut. Reminds me of the gestapo. Calling up businesses and threatening them with violence, etc. This is all documented immensely, and if you want me to link for you, I'll gladly do that. Remember when those black people were being oppressive and doing all those things. Good thing we didnt cave and give them equal rights. Otherwise everyone would want them. I addressed this, gay couples have the same benefits as married couples. ...except being able to marry. So you want to force the churches to do something that is a sin in their religion? What happened to freedom of religion? churches would NOT be forced to perform same sex marriages...that is purely propaganda What do you think marriage is? Do you know who marries couples? I'm sorry, but going to the local judicial services and getting your 'paper' is not marriage. Sure, you get your state derived benefits, that is associated with marriage and civil unions, but then you just want that called marriage, and not a civil union? your point being?? that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that churches wouldnt be forced to perform same sex marriages, ones that choose to do it could
My point being is the arguement for gay marriage isn't one of 'rights' or 'benefits' anymore, because those who are gay have the same 'rights' and 'benefits' as straight couples. Now, they want to impose their views of marriage onto religion and the churches. It's quite obvious. Stop obfuscating the real issue at hand. 80% of this country are christians. You want to force these 80% to essentially change the definition of marriage for what purpose? Of course the purpose is to make this behavior 'socially' recognized as normal and acceptable even though it goes against nature.
I have no problem with gays having the same state derived benefits. I do have problems when you force others to adapt your views through governmental action, when there is no rights being infringed upon. I'd recommend looking up the Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, and the US Constitution, and show me where, marriage is a right.
|
On May 30 2009 09:57 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 09:54 Diomedes wrote: Wait, Aegraen is calling those who want to lift bans on gay marriage oppressive like the gestapo? WTF? I thought he meant the other way around?
WTF
Ban me if he isn't a troll. Nope, not at all. I'm calling those who employ coercive, violent, and strongarm tactics as comparable to exactly what the Gestapo did. The majority of anti prop 8, supported these, and employed these tactics once they lost, and even beforehand.
What a retarded analogy, the contexts are so different it's not even funny. People against prop 8 who act in outrage do so because they want equal rights, not because they think they are the master race.
You're one to talk by the way, this is probably the most manipulative argument I have ever seen:
On May 30 2009 09:39 Aegraen wrote: Anyways, anti-prop 8 supporters are oppressive. Vandalizing property, threatening peoples lives, assault and battery, runs the gamut. Reminds me of the gestapo. Calling up businesses and threatening them with violence, etc. This is all documented immensely, and if you want me to link for you, I'll gladly do that.
Ad hominem, stereotyping, hasty generalization, scare tactics, in the current context I'd call your methods as detestable as the prop 8 supporters who resort to violent acts.
Not to mention you openly support torture, you comparing someone with the gestapo is incredibly ironic.
-
About the equal rights which you seem to think are already in place: Why are people protesting? Please explain how this is possible when according to you there is no issue apparently. My take on this is that not allowing gays to marry is a discrimination based on sexuality. You can come up with a compromis that gives the same benefits, but it's like having to wear the star of david (you started these lame ww2 analogies), you're still reminded painfully every day for being different. If it's the same why call it different? It's painfully obvious that the reason for this is to maintain some kind of gap to support your feelings of superiority. Either allow gays to marry or don't, but don't make up some bullshit compromis and pretend it isn't discrimination, I'm pretty sure that's not simply for the majority to decide.
Since you seem to love branding people: If this debate was years ago I'm you'd be arguing for racial segregation. As usual I'd like to suggest to you that maybe there is such a thing called human progress.
|
On May 30 2009 10:05 travis wrote: There is no way to debate with someone who chooses what to respond to.
Who isnt addressing your point? If you want put (respond please) at the end of points you want addressed.
|
United States12607 Posts
On May 30 2009 10:09 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 10:05 travis wrote: There is no way to debate with someone who chooses what to respond to. Who isnt addressing your point? If you want put (respond please) at the end of points you want addressed. I think he has to be referring to Aegraen, the guy is completely ignoring all the posts where we tell him he has his facts totally wrong.
|
Yah he does that in like every thread.
|
On May 30 2009 10:03 Diomedes wrote: Aegraen is posting offensive stereotype nonsense, in the bluntest most unconvincing manners, in almost every thread.
So surely you are wrong. Main problem is his intentions. I suspect he is some enbittered far left wing 'liberal' trying to make 'his opponents' look bad.
Try again, I'm a libertarian/conservative.
|
On May 30 2009 10:09 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 10:00 koOl wrote:On May 30 2009 09:58 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:56 koOl wrote:On May 30 2009 09:55 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:50 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 09:47 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:43 Archerofaiur wrote:On May 30 2009 09:39 Aegraen wrote:
Marriage as always been only between a man and a woman throughout all of history. If I can provide you an example will you admit your definition is wrong? On May 30 2009 09:39 Aegraen wrote: Anyways, anti-prop 8 supporters are oppressive. Vandalizing property, threatening peoples lives, assault and battery, runs the gamut. Reminds me of the gestapo. Calling up businesses and threatening them with violence, etc. This is all documented immensely, and if you want me to link for you, I'll gladly do that. Remember when those black people were being oppressive and doing all those things. Good thing we didnt cave and give them equal rights. Otherwise everyone would want them. I addressed this, gay couples have the same benefits as married couples. ...except being able to marry. So you want to force the churches to do something that is a sin in their religion? What happened to freedom of religion? churches would NOT be forced to perform same sex marriages...that is purely propaganda What do you think marriage is? Do you know who marries couples? I'm sorry, but going to the local judicial services and getting your 'paper' is not marriage. Sure, you get your state derived benefits, that is associated with marriage and civil unions, but then you just want that called marriage, and not a civil union? your point being?? that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that churches wouldnt be forced to perform same sex marriages, ones that choose to do it could My point being is the arguement for gay marriage isn't one of 'rights' or 'benefits' anymore, because those who are gay have the same 'rights' and 'benefits' as straight couples.
You really need to stop with that argument because it is entirely false and has been shown to be such multiple times.
|
United States12607 Posts
On May 30 2009 10:05 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 09:57 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 09:51 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:48 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 09:43 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:41 micronesia wrote:On May 30 2009 09:39 Aegraen wrote: Anyways, anti-prop 8 supporters are oppressive. Vandalizing property, threatening peoples lives, assault and battery, runs the gamut. Reminds me of the gestapo. Calling up businesses and threatening them with violence, etc. This is all documented immensely, and if you want me to link for you, I'll gladly do that. I think any major issue has tons of this shit and you are just cherry picking anyway. Wrong. Prop 8 supporters never did any of this. http://vimeo.com/2053489lol I stand corrected, do you have any more incidents? No one should condone any of this behavior. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/10/29/state/n064853D35.DTLhttp://vodpod.com/watch/1218422-skinhead-ordered-to-stand-trial-for-anti-gay-yes-on-8-hate-crime-span-classsourcetowleroadspanhttp://www.independent.com/news/2008/dec/18/anti-gay-graffiti-scrawled-clearview-home/http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2008/11/syracuse_police_identify_shoot.htmlCome to think of it, because all anti-gay hate crime perpetrators would probably vote Yes on 8, I think your position that Proposition 8's opponents are more "like the Gestapo" looks even sillier. And wait, you're saying that a majority of Prop 8 opponents used violent tactics? Um...please don't generalize anecdotal evidence. That's the best you have? The first two are the same story, the fourth has no merit because the police have no idea why it happened, so because the mother said it was because he was gay then it was? So, you gave me two. Of course that behavior is horrendous, and one is a skin-head. I spent two minutes on this (literally googling "proposition 8 supporter violence") because I don't think it's really relevant to the core issue here (gay marriage). I merely wanted to address your request for more incidents.
Let's get off this nonsense about which camp is more violent - you can stop threatening to pull out your links to examples of anti-Prop 8 violence like it's some sort of game-ending ultimate weapon in this debate. Instead, I'd like to see you address some of the more obvious faults in your reasoning which have been pointed out on earlier pages.
|
On May 30 2009 10:09 Frits wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 09:57 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:54 Diomedes wrote: Wait, Aegraen is calling those who want to lift bans on gay marriage oppressive like the gestapo? WTF? I thought he meant the other way around?
WTF
Ban me if he isn't a troll. Nope, not at all. I'm calling those who employ coercive, violent, and strongarm tactics as comparable to exactly what the Gestapo did. The majority of anti prop 8, supported these, and employed these tactics once they lost, and even beforehand. What a retarded analogy, the contexts are so different it's not even funny. People against prop 8 who act in outrage do so because they want equal rights, not because they think they are the master race. You're one to talk by the way, this is probably the most manipulative argument I have ever seen: Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 09:39 Aegraen wrote: Anyways, anti-prop 8 supporters are oppressive. Vandalizing property, threatening peoples lives, assault and battery, runs the gamut. Reminds me of the gestapo. Calling up businesses and threatening them with violence, etc. This is all documented immensely, and if you want me to link for you, I'll gladly do that. Ad hominem, stereotyping, hasty generalization, scare tactics, in the current context I'd call your methods as detestable as the prop 8 supporters who resort to violent acts. Not to mention you openly support torture, you comparing someone with the gestapo is incredibly ironic.
http://michellemalkin.com/?s=proposition 8 mob
There are at least 20+ incidents, across a variety of spectrum. Read at your behest.
|
United States12607 Posts
On May 30 2009 10:12 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 10:03 Diomedes wrote: Aegraen is posting offensive stereotype nonsense, in the bluntest most unconvincing manners, in almost every thread.
So surely you are wrong. Main problem is his intentions. I suspect he is some enbittered far left wing 'liberal' trying to make 'his opponents' look bad. Try again, I'm a libertarian/conservative. hmmm...a libertarian who thinks it's the government's business to prevent certain citizens from getting married? Really?
|
Aegraen there were hundred of incidents of black violence during the civil rights movements. Your trying to place the sin of the individual upon the issue. Im sorry but you cant do that. Its a tactic people use when they dont have any better points to make.
On May 30 2009 10:17 JWD wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 10:12 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 10:03 Diomedes wrote: Aegraen is posting offensive stereotype nonsense, in the bluntest most unconvincing manners, in almost every thread.
So surely you are wrong. Main problem is his intentions. I suspect he is some enbittered far left wing 'liberal' trying to make 'his opponents' look bad. Try again, I'm a libertarian/conservative. hmmm...a libertarian who thinks it's the government's business to prevent certain citizens from getting married? Really?
Lol great point.
|
On May 30 2009 10:12 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 10:03 Diomedes wrote: Aegraen is posting offensive stereotype nonsense, in the bluntest most unconvincing manners, in almost every thread.
So surely you are wrong. Main problem is his intentions. I suspect he is some enbittered far left wing 'liberal' trying to make 'his opponents' look bad. Try again, I'm a libertarian/conservative.
You call yourself that but your attitude and viewpoints are completely counter to libertarian/conservative ideals.
|
United States12607 Posts
On May 30 2009 10:16 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 10:09 Frits wrote:On May 30 2009 09:57 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:54 Diomedes wrote: Wait, Aegraen is calling those who want to lift bans on gay marriage oppressive like the gestapo? WTF? I thought he meant the other way around?
WTF
Ban me if he isn't a troll. Nope, not at all. I'm calling those who employ coercive, violent, and strongarm tactics as comparable to exactly what the Gestapo did. The majority of anti prop 8, supported these, and employed these tactics once they lost, and even beforehand. What a retarded analogy, the contexts are so different it's not even funny. People against prop 8 who act in outrage do so because they want equal rights, not because they think they are the master race. You're one to talk by the way, this is probably the most manipulative argument I have ever seen: On May 30 2009 09:39 Aegraen wrote: Anyways, anti-prop 8 supporters are oppressive. Vandalizing property, threatening peoples lives, assault and battery, runs the gamut. Reminds me of the gestapo. Calling up businesses and threatening them with violence, etc. This is all documented immensely, and if you want me to link for you, I'll gladly do that. Ad hominem, stereotyping, hasty generalization, scare tactics, in the current context I'd call your methods as detestable as the prop 8 supporters who resort to violent acts. Not to mention you openly support torture, you comparing someone with the gestapo is incredibly ironic. http://michellemalkin.com/?s=proposition 8 mobThere are at least 20+ incidents, across a variety of spectrum. Read at your behest. This is great, but it has nothing to do with whether gay marriage should be legalized. Get off it.
|
On May 30 2009 10:04 Idle wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 09:59 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:57 Idle wrote:On May 30 2009 09:55 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:50 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 09:47 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:43 Archerofaiur wrote:On May 30 2009 09:39 Aegraen wrote:
Marriage as always been only between a man and a woman throughout all of history. If I can provide you an example will you admit your definition is wrong? On May 30 2009 09:39 Aegraen wrote: Anyways, anti-prop 8 supporters are oppressive. Vandalizing property, threatening peoples lives, assault and battery, runs the gamut. Reminds me of the gestapo. Calling up businesses and threatening them with violence, etc. This is all documented immensely, and if you want me to link for you, I'll gladly do that. Remember when those black people were being oppressive and doing all those things. Good thing we didnt cave and give them equal rights. Otherwise everyone would want them. I addressed this, gay couples have the same benefits as married couples. ...except being able to marry. So you want to force the churches to do something that is a sin in their religion? What happened to freedom of religion? Nobody wants the churches to do anything. The issue is that the government is the one refusing to grant marriages, and the government shouldn't get to exclude people. The government grants the same benefits to gay couples as it does to straight couples. Try again. No, actually it doesn't. You keep stating this but its completely false. Only 8 states grant civil unions or domestic partnerships which similar rights to marriage, and 5 more grant some of the same rights. Since this thread is specifically on prop 8 in california, domestic partnership differs in the following ways: # Couples seeking domestic partnership must already share a residence, married couples may be married without living together. # Couples seeking domestic partnership must be 18 or older, minors can be married before the age of 18 with the consent of their parents. # California permits married couples the option of confidential marriage, there is no equivalent institution for domestic partnerships. In confidential marriages, no witnesses are required and the marriage license is not a matter of public record. # Married partners of state employees are eligible for the CalPERS long-term care insurance plan, domestic partners are not. # There is, at least according to one appellate ruling, no equivalent of the Putative Spouse Doctrine for domestic partnerships.
The only benefit there, that isn't the same is CalPERS. Fight for that, not to change the definition of marriage.
|
On May 30 2009 10:18 Idle wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 10:12 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 10:03 Diomedes wrote: Aegraen is posting offensive stereotype nonsense, in the bluntest most unconvincing manners, in almost every thread.
So surely you are wrong. Main problem is his intentions. I suspect he is some enbittered far left wing 'liberal' trying to make 'his opponents' look bad. Try again, I'm a libertarian/conservative. You call yourself that but your attitude and viewpoints are completely counter to libertarian/conservative ideals.
No, they are not.
|
On May 30 2009 10:17 JWD wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 10:12 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 10:03 Diomedes wrote: Aegraen is posting offensive stereotype nonsense, in the bluntest most unconvincing manners, in almost every thread.
So surely you are wrong. Main problem is his intentions. I suspect he is some enbittered far left wing 'liberal' trying to make 'his opponents' look bad. Try again, I'm a libertarian/conservative. hmmm...a libertarian who thinks it's the government's business to prevent certain citizens from getting married? Really?
Yes, I am opposed to them getting married. I am not opposed to civil unions and the granting of same benefits. How again, is that against libertarianism? Personally, I'm perfectly ok, with the abolishment of state derived benefits for all parties whether its marriage or civil unions.
|
|
|
|