Voting Californians

by Myndaen

Back to The Real World.

Desitrus2008-09-19 20:58:20
QUOTE(Myndaen @ Sep 19 2008, 12:44 PM) 559674
Agreeing to Deschain's point, and taking it one step further... ----->Is it still "traditional" to be a white man who wants black slaves, and own them as property? Is it traditional to not want them to vote so that my republican candidate can win? Is it traditional to not want them to be able to sit in the same part of the bus that I do?

Aren't those all "traditional" mentalities?

What about the traditions established before those traditions? Shouldn't all of us americans be practicing native american ideals? Shouldn't the majority of you Europeans be practicing Roman traditions?

Don't you think there's a reason that traditionalists are ALWAYS being superseded by progressives?


You were saying? You specifically drag owning slaves into this like it has any value. Controlling politics and segregation? It's not even physical discrimination.

People use Nazis to draw attention in due to widespread understanding of the Holocaust. Quibbling over semantics afterwords is the usual scrambling tactic after someone blows a hole in it. Fact of the matter is, you wouldn't even use that example in this day's world if they hadn't slaughtered people. Why aren't you naming the countries where castes still exist, servants, etc? Because you don't bloody know them because they didn't have a damn Holocaust, that's why you never mention NAZIS.

It's not Idealistic, Idealistic is thinking that people who crush schools with creationism are going to relent on the word Marriage. The legislation involved in getting those rights to same-sex couples could be through and passed by the time you get that stone to bleed.
Diamondais2008-09-19 21:00:15
QUOTE(Eventru @ Sep 19 2008, 04:55 PM) 559739
In place, however, there are no longer 'coloured' bathrooms, 'coloured' movie theatres, 'coloured' playgrounds or schools, instead there are 'civil union's, which are just as good. The ruling by the California Supreme Court, as I remember it (having read it extensively at the time of its publication, though it's been a few months and things have been a bit hectic for me to remember in precise detail!), was not so much gays should have 'marriage', but that gays and straights should be equal - that is to say, no segregation based upon race, religion OR sexual orientation. A fantastic idea, and I heartily applause it (opposite of my family, who are firm believers that allowing homosexuals to have any form of union will ruin the economy via tax breaks/exemptions, etcetera etcetera, already afforded to heterosexuals).

Not to dispute the right or wrong of this statement, I still firmly believe there shouldn't be a separation between "coloured" and "white", but some movement happened in Toronto in the past year or so that has called for, and created, "coloured" schools in some way of trying to encourage students of these backgrounds to do better in school by offering programs that reflect their wants, desires and needs as African Canadians.

Good idea to encourage programs for certain groups, but not such a great idea to exclude other groups from it.

Sorry for the hijack, but we were bringing that stuff up to help arguments on why there should be change.
Daganev2008-09-19 21:01:54
QUOTE(Noola @ Sep 19 2008, 12:24 PM) 559719
I'm sure there are lots of people who come at it from the place you're describing Daganev. I really do. However, I also am sure there's lots of people who ARE bigots, who are intolerant, who are phobic. Lots of those people use the same argument as folks like you, who are genuinely only concerned that 'tradition' is recognized, because they know that argument sounds more reasonable, logical and is more influential than the ranting and raving about obscenity and hellfire.


So because some gangs wear sports gear for the L.A. Raiders, we should ban anyone wearing L.A. Raiders clothing???

I'm sure there are biggots and intollerant people, and there are criminals, and there are greedy wallstreat people, and there are people in the media who get high off of distorting information. But those arn't the arguments being made in the courts, nor are they the arguments being made to the genera public. (atleast not in California, where the issue is up for vote)
Noola2008-09-19 21:05:23
QUOTE(daganev @ Sep 19 2008, 04:01 PM) 559744
So because some gangs wear sports gear for the L.A. Raiders, we should ban anyone wearing L.A. Raiders clothing???

I'm sure there are biggots and intollerant people, and there are criminals, and there are greedy wallstreat people, and there are people in the media who get high off of distorting information. But those arn't the arguments being made in the courts, nor are they the arguments being made to the genera public. (atleast not in California, where the issue is up for vote)



laugh.gif

What's that got to do with anything? I said that your statement of 'people who' should've been 'not all people who' to be more accurate. Which is a totally reasonable statement. You're being as silly as someone saying that all traditionalists are Nazis again. tongue.gif
Desitrus2008-09-19 21:05:31
QUOTE(diamondais @ Sep 19 2008, 04:00 PM) 559743
Not to dispute the right or wrong of this statement, I still firmly believe there shouldn't be a separation between "coloured" and "white", but some movement happened in Toronto in the past year or so that has called for, and created, "coloured" schools in some way of trying to encourage students of these backgrounds to do better in school by offering programs that reflect their wants, desires and needs as African Canadians.

Good idea to encourage programs for certain groups, but not such a great idea to exclude other groups from it.

Sorry for the hijack, but we were bringing that stuff up to help arguments on why there should be change.


Reverse discrimination is fairly amazing, albeit not as widespread as plain discrimination.
Myndaen2008-09-19 21:06:09
QUOTE(Desitrus @ Sep 19 2008, 01:58 PM) 559741
You were saying? You specifically drag owning slaves into this like it has any value. Controlling politics and segregation? It's not even physical discrimination.

People use Nazis to draw attention in due to widespread understanding of the Holocaust. Quibbling over semantics afterwords is the usual scrambling tactic after someone blows a hole in it. Fact of the matter is, you wouldn't even use that example in this day's world if they hadn't slaughtered people. Why aren't you naming the countries where castes still exist, servants, etc? Because you don't bloody know them because they didn't have a damn Holocaust, that's why you never mention NAZIS.

It's not Idealistic, Idealistic is thinking that people who crush schools with creationism are going to relent on the word Marriage. The legislation involved in getting those rights to same-sex couples could be through and passed by the time you get that stone to bleed.


So... If I try to explain what my original point is, that's arguing semantics and therefore is "quibbling"? Right then. Once again, your unabashed hatred for me shows plain. content.gif

Your worldliness and legislative experience in knowing how long it will take to get civil unions versus marriage is, as ever, awe-inspiring. Next time I talk to Geoff Kors, I'll make sure that they look into hiring you as a lobbyist.
Unknown2008-09-19 21:07:42
QUOTE(Desitrus @ Sep 19 2008, 05:05 PM) 559748
Reverse discrimination is fairly amazing, albeit not as widespread as plain discrimination.


There's really no such thing as reverse discrimination. There's just discrimination.

And is anyone else very confused as to what Dag and Desitrus are talking about anymore? o_O
Daganev2008-09-19 21:08:31
QUOTE(Eventru @ Sep 19 2008, 01:55 PM) 559739
That said, I'm not too concerned for Californians - last time I checked, the state was still standing and working in some comparable fashion to what they were a year ago. It appears that, contrary to popular belief, gay marriage has NOT


Funny you should say that... unemployment in California has been going up since that court decision. And there were 4 major earthquakes above a 6.0 on the day the LHC opened up. Not that there is a connection or anything.

Also, as I remember it, the Supreme Court said that the constitution of California forbids discrimination based on sex, not sexual orientation.

Meaning, laws that single out one sex or another are illegal. So, the fact that it says that the "wife" must be a female, is illegal. (or something similar)
Myndaen2008-09-19 21:09:27
QUOTE(Deschain @ Sep 19 2008, 02:07 PM) 559750
And is anyone else very confused as to what Dag and Desitrus are talking about anymore? o_O


Daganev has yet to answer my serious question about how traditions relate to my ability to marry, and Desitrus is saying, "I hate Myndaen, therefore everything he says must be argued with."

tongue.gif
Daganev2008-09-19 21:10:53
QUOTE(Myndaen @ Sep 19 2008, 02:06 PM) 559749
So... If I try to explain what my original point is, that's arguing semantics and therefore is "quibbling"? Right then. Once again, your unabashed hatred for me shows plain. content.gif

Your worldliness and legislative experience in knowing how long it will take to get civil unions versus marriage is, as ever, awe-inspiring. Next time I talk to Geoff Kors, I'll make sure that they look into hiring you as a lobbyist.


Umm, Civil Unions which give the same rights as marraige -allready exist- in California... One does not need to be an expert or a prophet to know that it was quicker to get that working, than it was to change the definition of marriage.
Daganev2008-09-19 21:14:28
QUOTE(Myndaen @ Sep 19 2008, 02:09 PM) 559752
Daganev has yet to answer my serious question about how traditions relate to my ability to marry, and Desitrus is saying, "I hate Myndaen, therefore everything he says must be argued with."

tongue.gif


That was a serious question????

Sorry.

Look up the definition of marriage in the dictionary. Then explain to me how two men having a commited relationship with eachother is called marriage. Please tell me how that situation works with the denition of Husband and Wife as well.
Unknown2008-09-19 21:15:02
QUOTE(daganev @ Sep 19 2008, 05:14 PM) 559754
That was a serious question????

Sorry.

Look up the definition of marriage in the dictionary. Then explain to me how two men having a commited relationship with eachother is called marriage. Please tell me how that situation works with the denition of Husband and Wife as well.


He's asking how that affects -you- personally in any way.
Desitrus2008-09-19 21:16:32
QUOTE(Myndaen @ Sep 19 2008, 04:06 PM) 559749
So... If I try to explain what my original point is, that's arguing semantics and therefore is "quibbling"? Right then. Once again, your unabashed hatred for me shows plain. content.gif

Your worldliness and legislative experience in knowing how long it will take to get civil unions versus marriage is, as ever, awe-inspiring. Next time I talk to Geoff Kors, I'll make sure that they look into hiring you as a lobbyist.


You didn't even have a retort on point, congratulations to me I guess on another point driven over the fence by the bat of logical fallacy exposure.

Quibbling is going back and saying "I may have said Nazis, but I totally didn't mean killing people, I meant Nazi footwear." Points:

1. You brought up Nazis and Slavery.

2. You do not refute such, instead you decide to go back and say you didn't mean X part of Nazis or slavery, just Y.

3. You don't offer us any examples of not caring about second class citizens based on preference, race, or even gender in the world, obviously because if you mention that the pygmies of eastern Australia no one will go "ZOMG PYGMIES" rather than "ZOMG NAZIS R BAD I KNOW DAT".

4. You attempt to use the fact that I have personal distaste for you as an out, rather than answering any of the points raised, peppered with light remarks regarding someone you met through a family connection.

5. Knowing how long a political process takes is just a matter of being involved in current affairs and knowing senators who put bills in motion. Heavily supported bills aren't even instant, you learn that in grade school.

6. Game, Set, Match. Or would you like to go for the Daily Double and maybe throw in some Middle East war action? Vietnam? How about Tiananmen Square? Nothing like some dead students to really bring home the same-sex marriage debate.

Eventru actually has the right of it. Dissolving or converting all marital units into Civil Unions would be the absolute best for both the Government and the people involved. Then the religious side has absolutely no ground to stand on. Just because the process to implement it seems "easier" to give marriage away, doesn't mean in reality that the process involved in getting to that point is easier.
Daganev2008-09-19 21:16:47
QUOTE(Noola @ Sep 19 2008, 02:05 PM) 559747
laugh.gif

What's that got to do with anything? I said that your statement of 'people who' should've been 'not all people who' to be more accurate. Which is a totally reasonable statement. You're being as silly as someone saying that all traditionalists are Nazis again. tongue.gif



Ok, I missunderstood. Your point seemed to have shifted from the top of your paragraph to the bottom then. I thought your bottom statements were being supported by the top statements.

However, I would like to see the publicly made arguments in the courts which suggest that any of those people are arguing from a place of intollerance or biggotry or homophobia.
Catarin2008-09-19 21:24:25
QUOTE(Desitrus @ Sep 19 2008, 02:58 PM) 559741
It's not Idealistic, Idealistic is thinking that people who crush schools with creationism are going to relent on the word Marriage. The legislation involved in getting those rights to same-sex couples could be through and passed by the time you get that stone to bleed.


I agree it's idealistic and probably not all that helpful for short term gains for homosexuals. But it is also likely necessary. The end result may be half measures that are not really equal but better than nothing but without homosexuals demanding everything that should rightfully be theirs as citizens of the USA would there even be talk of or opportunity for compromise?

If you start with the bar low and you only get met halfway, well, you get a lot less than if you start with the bar high. Gay rights activists are in the right. They are fighting for basic civil rights and equality. That gives them the advantage in the fight regardless of the bigotry (yes it is bigotry and I am sorry to those who wish to believe they do not fit that qualification) arrayed against them. Americans, for the most part on an individual level, have no real interest in denying rights to other Americans. Freedom for all and all that rhetoric is a major point of pride for Americans.

So framing the battle in terms of basic equality is a good strategic move in the long run because if this battle is won and it is ackowledged by the government at least that all citizens should be treated equally (again..honestly how many times do we have to do this?) then the long social battle begins. And the battle is about equality, not about the word. Civil unions or marriages as long as the term is the same whether heterosexual or homosexual.

MLK said: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. "

45 years later the nation still struggles with that but the argument is not whether such a concept is right or wrong. The moral victory was won when it was accepted that yes, this is how it SHOULD be. In the gay rights battle, the argument still rages as to whether gays SHOULD have equal rights.

So as much as it frustrates me that this is the line drawn in the sand, I can understand the reasoning behind the battle and why the stand is taken here. Civil unions grants the same thing in theory but it still says in essence "Homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals"




Daganev2008-09-19 21:24:46
QUOTE(Deschain @ Sep 19 2008, 02:15 PM) 559755
He's asking how that affects -you- personally in any way.


When did he ask that, and why does it matter??

It would have mattered to me in college when I was short on cash, and could have used the extra $200 a month I get for checking off "married" on the tax form. I was serisouly hoping for a while that I could get "married" to my college roomate and simplfy things for us.

Then there would have been the laws in La Jolla against having people from 4 different families living in the same house (basically, an anti frat rule), and we could have gotten married to eachother and easily had 8 people living in the frat house with only 4 "families"

but maybe thats not what you meant?
Noola2008-09-19 21:26:03
QUOTE(daganev @ Sep 19 2008, 04:16 PM) 559757
Ok, I missunderstood. Your point seemed to have shifted from the top of your paragraph to the bottom then. I thought your bottom statements were being supported by the top statements.

However, I would like to see the publicly made arguments in the courts which suggest that any of those people are arguing from a place of intollerance or biggotry or homophobia.



Nah, I was making two different points in my post. smile.gif
Daganev2008-09-19 21:27:20
QUOTE(Catarin @ Sep 19 2008, 02:24 PM) 559760
So as much as it frustrates me that this is the line drawn in the sand, I can understand the reasoning behind the battle and why the stand is taken here. Civil unions grants the same thing in theory but it still says in essence "Homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals"


BS

And read my above comment for why I say that.

edit: And by the way, two of my friends (male and female) did actually get civily married during college to get a house with 4 other people for just that purpose.
Catarin2008-09-19 21:31:04
QUOTE(daganev @ Sep 19 2008, 03:27 PM) 559763
BS

And read my above comment for why I say that.


I believe you're wrong. But I also believe you have the right to think whatever you like and it is a waste of time to argue with you so I'm not going to.
Desitrus2008-09-19 21:32:39
QUOTE(Catarin @ Sep 19 2008, 04:24 PM) 559760
I agree it's idealistic and probably not all that helpful for short term gains for homosexuals. But it is also likely necessary. The end result may be half measures that are not really equal but better than nothing but without homosexuals demanding everything that should rightfully be theirs as citizens of the USA would there even be talk of or opportunity for compromise?

If you start with the bar low and you only get met halfway, well, you get a lot less than if you start with the bar high. Gay rights activists are in the right. They are fighting for basic civil rights and equality. That gives them the advantage in the fight regardless of the bigotry (yes it is bigotry and I am sorry to those who wish to believe they do not fit that qualification) arrayed against them. Americans, for the most part on an individual level, have no real interest in denying rights to other Americans. Freedom for all and all that rhetoric is a major point of pride for Americans.

So framing the battle in terms of basic equality is a good strategic move in the long run because if this battle is won and it is ackowledged by the government at least that all citizens should be treated equally (again..honestly how many times do we have to do this?) then the long social battle begins. And the battle is about equality, not about the word. Civil unions or marriages as long as the term is the same whether heterosexual or homosexual.

MLK said: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. "

45 years later the nation still struggles with that but the argument is not whether such a concept is right or wrong. The moral victory was won when it was accepted that yes, this is how it SHOULD be. In the gay rights battle, the argument still rages as to whether gays SHOULD have equal rights.

So as much as it frustrates me that this is the line drawn in the sand, I can understand the reasoning behind the battle and why the stand is taken here. Civil unions grants the same thing in theory but it still says in essence "Homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals"


All of the above is true, I've never refuted that. However, as I said earlier, even barring Civil Unions, the lobbyists aren't willing to accept gradual changes. MLK didn't say "It happens all at once or it doesn't happen at all." People are still being screwed over by the lack of legal reinforcement behind same-sex unions, and no one is actually just working on patching that up so that the moral war can be fought without innocent casualties of a stronger negative column.

As I said though, Eventru has the right of it. Get rid of the term Marriage in legality and convert everyone to Civil Unions. Religious people can't really complain as a separation of Church and State is preserved and so is the term Marriage. That's not even "separate but equal", it's just equal.