RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events The will of the people has no meaning in California, again

Its like reading adlers posts all over again.

I just saw a video on facebook where a guy calls marriage a freedom. Why can't you libtards call it that? Why not call it what it actually is?

it's not restricted, it's defined the way it always has been. as you admitted yourself, changing that definition comprises a rethink in one of the more basic underpinnings of human civilization. provide us with what you feel is some sort of incentive for overhauling western society and we might give it at least a momentary thought. give us a reason why we should change something so central to our way of life.

That's pretty broad. All laws are based on morality to one extent or another. I assume you were referring simply to things you consider victimless and not really every moral question or issue.

How is letting gays get married "overhauling western civilization"?

Ultimately "acitivist judges" were set in place by the founders to ensure that liberties and freedoms for the minorities were safeguarded against the will of the majority.

G-man will suddenly have options and be forced to answer long buried questions.

There's a big difference between reading about something online and watching a brief story on the national news and being inundated with it as a local story. I'm not saying people outside California were completely uninformed but:
1. Every day the local papers had several stories covering the minute details, and locally written op-ed pieces covering both sides.
2. The local news had pieces on the story every night.
3. It was discussed heavily at work and among friends.
Basically anyone outside California had to look for the story while being in California the story was everywhere. Also I physically witnessed the first ceremonies in 2004 and the protests in 2008. I was in the booth and spoke with friends who were in the booth.
Whereever you live, you become a slight expert on the local issues in the same way you become an expert on the local weather.

aren't you christian? what about love? isn't that the christian ideal? isn't marrying someone without love something of an affront to god? why would god let two people love each other if they weren't meant to be happy with that person?

there are people that are happy picking up hitchikers and carving them up ray. do you think god supports that too? youre a strange man.

Matter-eater Man argumentative User Fair Play!
7500+ posts 9 seconds ago Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: The will of the people has no meaning in California, again

he's reading that RIGHT now!

Is this another one of those times where you say something really stupid thinking it will confuse us?

I don't have enough wit to backtrack which gay is saying which, but isn't it the way things go that people have a better change of looking at things objectively if they are looking at things from the outside?

I mean, people who are part of something usually get their perspective skewed by the fact that they only get to see things from the inside.

If adler really believed what he was saying he could never comment on war, the president, people that don't smell or anything else he's never done or witnessed first hand.

But he could still comment on gay butt sex. So I think he wins this round.

what a fucking copout. are you really that dense?

and I thought we were supposed to keep our religious beliefs out of policy decisions - what happened to that?

heh. heh heh. inside.

but yes, that's correct.

If something happens god allowed it and it should be legal? Wow. That's probably the same logic that corrupt Priests use to molest little kids.

a lot of liberals - the ones that aren't atheists and at least claim adherence to Christianity - don't deal in actual in-depth theology. except liberation theology which is really marxism posing as theology. they're perfectly happy settling for a non-offensive, two inch deep, emotionalized feel-good Reader's Digest 'spirituality' that helps them feel better about themselves without risking upsetting the muslims.

Allowing same-sex marriage is no more of an overhaul of western society than repealing Prohibition was.

If you really wanna talk about the "underpinnings of human civilization," then I'll point out that same-sex marriages existed in Ancient Rome. It wasn't until Rome became Christian that same-sex marriage was expressly outlawed. So there's that.

As for a reason to allow same-sex marriage: All people should be treated equally under the law unless there is some good reason not to. And "because that's the way we've always done it" really isn't a good reason to marginalize anyone.


We can go with that, sure.

we're not in rome, therefore there's no need to do as the romans do. we're in the United States of America, and our legal codes recognize a very specific definition of marriage.



all people are treated equally under the law. all people, straight or gay, have access to marriage as our legal codes define it. anyone can marry any one consenting and unrelated adult of the opposite sex they like once they have obtained license to do so. who's being marginalized here? again, what sort of societal imperative is there for rewriting the rules? how will society as a whole benefit from legalizing gay "marriage"? I'm asking a serious question. it's called a social contract for a reason; it was arrived at through careful negotiation among the people and if anyone wants to change it, they need to negotiate (through the channels recognized by the letter of the law) to do so.

I don't get it. You said "underpinnings of human civilization," did you not? I responded to the idea that opposite-sex marriage is one of the underpinnings of human civilization. I'd say the laws of Ancient Rome fit a lot more neatly into the "underpinnings of human civilization" category than the laws of the United States.

And the legal codes of the USA do not recognize a very specific definition of marriage. Never have. Most states don't give licences right now, sure, but most had to recognize such marriages until fairly recently.


Anyone who wants to marry someone of the same sex.

There's a reason the other person has to be consenting. There's a reason the other person has to be unrelated. There's no reason why the other person has to be of the opposite sex.


The same societal imperative that allowed blacks and women to vote, I suppose.

Now a question for you: What if I can show you that society will benefit from allowing more marriages? What then?


What just happened in California was a negotiation through appropriate channels.

perkins is a lost cause. he tows the progressive line. he's like a huffinton post digest. no one has suggested gays shouldn't vote yet he drags out the same tired argument about women and blacks voting. you should be ashamed that someone as smart as yourself was dragged into that false argument.

do you think the laws that deny bigamists and incestuous marriages as oppressive also? of course not but then again you haven't been brainwashed into thinking its a civil rights issue.

for the record i dont care if gays are married by the state.

but i do know the next evolution of this movement. once a church declines the ceremony the churchs will be brought into legal action. that is what this is really all about. the day will come.

liberals claim they want a separation of church and state but in reality they want eradication of the church.

Black civil rights and women's suffrage were accepted by society because society was made to see that it is wrong to deny someone rights and privileges on the basis of something over which they have absolutely no control. you don't get to choose whether or not you're born black or a woman. I don't believe that's the case with gays; even if the science were conclusive (which is hardly the case) that individuals were born with a particular predisposition or alignment, that hardly equates to an irresistible compulsion to embrace the "lifestyle" or engage in certain patterns of behavior. I have a genetic predisposition to alcoholism and adhd, but I choose not to drink and I take the appropriate medication to address my particular adhd symptoms. an innate 'preference' (which is still far from proven fact) does not irrevocably bind an individual into a particular pattern of sexual behavior. therefore I refuse to equate the gay "civil rights" movement with those more legitimate movements.



I didn't say more marriages. what specific good will come of legitimizing gay "marriages" that wouldn't be achieved through, say, licensing gay civil unions? and I'm far from the only one who would expect a damn good reason to carve over a prominent facet of our way of life. examples taken from the decadence of failing empires near the bottom of their geopolitical trajectory are far from a ringing endorsement.



what just happened in california was a subversion of the democratic process by an activist judiciary. prop 8 was brought to referendum via petition in accordance with the statutes of california and was enacted via popular vote. if it were really so unconstitutional then one of the myriad of challenges to it prior to the election should have succeeded. instead the consensus of the people, which was given force of law through the electoral process, was struck down after the fact through the abuse of judicial power.

Could very well be. As I said before, slippery slope.



Well, not yet, anyway.

Yeesh! I almost gave up on finding this thread. It was buried under b tags.

Anywho.


Whoa! Hold on there! That's not why either was accepted. Not at all.

Also, neither was very largely accepted in their times. They took a while.


This is hard to argue. Not because your points are airtight, but because they're based on your own feelings.

In the end, the only response that would amount to much of anything would be to say, "I just don't see it that way." But that would just bring us to a standstill.

Truth is, I typed out a bunch of questions about your choice of words, but I don't think they nor the answers will get anyone anywhere.

(By the way, that's kinda why I quit the political debate business in the first place...but they pull me back in.)


I had to read that last sentence three times. Seriously, you drop kicked my brain. I didn't even recognize the word geopolitical.

Anyway, I only chose that example because you were talking about base of modern society (or something like that) and I wanted to show that same-sex marriages existed in such a context. There are other example from earlier in that empire's history, but that one carried a big name. Everything else I could find proved boring.

However, your question about the specific benefits is why I brought up civil rights and suffrage, despite the inevitable collective sigh. Neither came about because of their benefits to society at large. Not really. They happened because people judged the laws in place as unfair to one particular group.


A subversion? Really?

I don't mean to mince words, but words do have both meaning and punch, and a subversion it was not. I know you're not the only person to paint it this way, but let's be real. The judge didn't go into a back room somewhere and pay off some guy cloaked in shadows to get his way. There is a system in place in California and in America, and there is a reason for it. What happened during the 2000 wasn't a subversion. Neither was this.


That logic only works if you want it to. As it is, the case will surely move onward and upward.

It's not set up as a "given" because it's a right. It's set up that way because marriage, as a government institution, is designed to stabilize a growth in population. The purpose of giving marriage a relationship with the state is to pseudo-regulate the production of families. In that right, I wouldn't even call it a "privilege."

Homosexual couples require no regulation because they won't have any surprises.

What would you call it?


Homosexual couples have children.

As I already mentioned, it's a government institution. It's best not to refer to it as anything beyond that. Intuiting "rights" or "privilege" into something that acts more as a social program than anything else needlessly romanticizes it.



Where did I say they didn't? The point I made in bringing up a lack of surprises was that homosexual couples have all the time in the world to prepare for child-support prior to adoption or artificial insemination.