Ancient Domains Of Mystery, forum overview / General / Yea, California!
| Online users ( Unknown) |
| Application object not working properly at the moment, no clue who is online... * Numbers in parentheses are the number of minutes since the user last loaded a page. Logged-in users time out after 40 minutes (unless they manually log out), lurkers and anonymous posters after 20. |
This thread is 3 pages long.
| Go to page 1 2 3 |
|
gut Registered user Painted this one too. Last page view: 4900 days, 14 hours, 35 minutes and 32 seconds ago. |
> A survery of the general public would likely > result in more balanced reports, Reports count somewhat less than votes. It takes all of five minutes to vote, yet how many do that? I do vote in every election, State, local, and federal, I'm not asking about views, but how many others here, vote in every election? You? Opinions don't count, votes do. Especially when it just takes five minutes, and people still won't do it. If you think that a constitutional ban of gay marriage, would be enough of a spark to actually get people registered... you have another think coming : ) They just plaing won't. > I disagree that forcing the matter against > other people's wills would be a bad thing - Then you will have no right to complain, when it is done to you. Remember how drastically political opinions can change in a few decades. The thought that extreme situations are impossible NOW, is just silly. We are essentially the same beings that we used to be (all the way) back a few decades ago. Or a few centuries ago, for that matter. > the only way equality has been gained before > has been through forcing the issue down peoples Not so. If well over 50% of a nation is against something, it will likely not succede. The people trying to do the forcefeeding... most often wind up choked. If you check through the history books, those in power, seldom forced equality down anyone's throat, it is usually horrible things, that have to be forced. > not just leaving it on the backburner and hoping > it'll get better at some point. I like the old saying of, 'when you don't know what to do, do something'. Hopefully though, one doesn't do something, that will wind up as a hinderance to them. My theory, is that the most effective strategy, is to avoid scenes that would fuel (fund) the opposition, like gay weddings in churches, that sort of thing. While at the same time, using your own finances to bribe poloticians. That strategy worked well enough for America's money-lenders. They recently over-turned laws regarding bankruptcy, that had stood for countless decades. No one seemed to notice, or care : ( If they had made a big deal about it, things may have worked differently for them. Talking in every public place they could find, about how good the laws were going to be for them. Talking about how if others didn't like it, they could just come to 'accept' it in time. The opposition would have been well funded indeed. Put me in the 'fool filter', where I belong! |
||
|
Caladriel Registered user ReGiStErEd UsEr Last page view: 4700 days, 6 hours, 40 minutes and 16 seconds ago. |
I hope everybody realizes I was joking about tthe genetics degree. gut: I'm not sure if you disapprove of marriages between same-sex couples or of the method by which same-sex couples have gained this right in California and Massachussetts. Massachussets still allows marriages between samee-sex couples, so I guess that of the number of people willing to fight, over 50% are in support. We will see in December if California's demographics have changed since 2000. If the "Limit on Marriage" amendment fails, I guess it means over 50% of those willing to weigh in support the rights of same-sex couples. California is particularly interesting in that the legislature has twice passed laws granting marriage to same-sex couples. Of course, the legislature is only representative of the electorate; the legislature is not the electorate, itself. [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/28/2008 at 12:22 (GMT -5) by Caladriel] |
||
|
gut Registered user Painted this one too. Last page view: 4900 days, 14 hours, 35 minutes and 32 seconds ago. |
> gut: I'm not sure if you disapprove of marriages I know you are not sure... you don't read my posts : ) I could strip out the carriage returns, plus quoted text, and probably make most of them fit into ~30 lines, but I won't : ) I WILL try to make this one fit though, as it's not SO hard to cut and paste from a text editor : ) > or of the method by which same-sex couples have gained this right I don't think I have stated that I'm 'against' forcing laws down anyone's throat. I HAVE stated, that ANYONE who IS OK with making laws that way, has NO right to complain, when it is done back to them. : ( I have also stated that I hate constitution fiddling, which this will lead to. > Massachussets still allows marriages between samee-sex couples This is where I WOULD type something long, to compare +50% of two states to -50% in the other [SARCASTIC] few [/SARCASTIC] states that sit in between them. I won't though, because you wouldn't read it : ( Put me in the 'fool filter', where I belong! |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4242 days, 12 hours, 18 minutes and 36 seconds ago. |
Caladriel: >> gut: I'm not sure if you disapprove of marriages I'm not sure whether to reveal it or not, since gut seems to like playing with this fact. But basically he's been playing devil's advocate with most of his points, debating how other groups feel rather than giving his own stance (which seems to be that he doesn't mind gay marriages, but doesn't want to upset anyone by enforcing them). Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." |
||
|
gut Registered user Painted this one too. Last page view: 4900 days, 14 hours, 35 minutes and 32 seconds ago. |
> rather than giving his own stance From one of my earlier posts: Marraige has two parts: Legal, and religious. The legal side of gay marriage, I have no problem with. It's just the religious side of it that makes me feel a bit awkward. If a religion says not to do something, then people do that very thing, in the NAME of that religion, you can seehow that would bother some other members. THE LEGAL SIDE, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH I have referenced that sentence again in one of my later posts, which also wasn't read. Put me in the 'fool filter', where I belong! [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/25/2008 at 04:22 (GMT -5) by gut] |
||
|
Silfir Registered user Writer of Overly Long Guides Last page view: 4071 days, 13 hours and 46 seconds ago. |
I think we can all agree that whether gay people can get married in church is a religious question, and would have to be discussed in a religious debate. That's where we'd have to get some more religious people in here so we can have a nice flame war like the one about Creationism last year :) Gay people getting married in the legal sense is fine with me and most people that don't mix religious zeal and their political convictions. The ones who can't - who don't realize that maybe, just maybe, it's wrong to expect other people to adhere to the religious standards they live by - are the problem. People constantly speak up about injustice, but how many get heard? Success really only comes when a majority is achieved. The justifiedness of the institution of marriage existing in itself - same-sex or not - is something one would have to discuss, since so many people nowadays live with each other without being married, and the number of divorces is in the process of skyrocketing, and for many marriages have ceased to have any meaning beyond taxation or health care benefits. That's something for another thread. Not that I'm encouraging anyone :) You drop the golden ball. You kick the golden ball. It slides to the west. Suddenly Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, appears! "That's not how you play Quidditch! are you even listening?" Which direction? (123456789) 4 Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, is hit by a bolt of acid! Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, is annihilated. You hear the ecstatic cries of a large crowd! [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/26/2008 at 05:30 (GMT -5) by Silfir] |
||
|
Caladriel Registered user ReGiStErEd UsEr Last page view: 4700 days, 6 hours, 40 minutes and 16 seconds ago. |
gut: Cool. Clear and succinct . . . although there IS an over use of CAPITALS . . . ;-P I think that your argument about what people can complain about is flawed. I agree that, if somebody is happy that the checks and balances in our gov't are being used to protect the rights of same-sex couples, then s/he shouldn't complain about the existence of those checks and balances. However, if those checks and balances are used to squash the rights of same-sex couples, I see no logical reason why people should not complain about the use of those checks and balances. Marriage laws are only affective within a state, so the electorates of those 2 pro states are not affecting the 26 anti states. The remaining 22 neutrals can choose on their own. (If somebody takes a case to SCotUS, this will change) I don't quite get your religous issue. Are you saying that somewhere, 2 women have been married by a priest in the name of Catholicism or some such? How can you get married in the name of a religion? |
||
|
Caladriel Registered user ReGiStErEd UsEr Last page view: 4700 days, 6 hours, 40 minutes and 16 seconds ago. |
silfir: Ah, the good old days. [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/26/2008 at 10:33 (GMT -5) by Caladriel] |
||
|
gut Registered user Painted this one too. Last page view: 4900 days, 14 hours, 35 minutes and 32 seconds ago. |
> IS an over use of CAPITALS . . . ;-P Capitals = Frustration. I have to say things 3 times. People refuse to read > 20 lines of what I write, yet still ask me questions, that I have already answered. Please, either read my posts completely, or put me in the 'fool filter' where I belong : ) > I agree that, if somebody is happy that the checks and balances in > our gov't are being used to protect the rights of same-sex couples, > then s/he shouldn't complain about the existence of those checks and = If someone is 'for' the same things I am, laws can be 'cool'. > However, if those checks and balances are used to squash the rights > of same-sex couples, I see no logical reason why people should not > complain about the use of those checks and balances. = If someone is 'against' what I am 'for', then laws aren't so 'cool'. Laws are there for everyone to use, and everyone does have a right to complain. It's still a free country. > your argument about what people can complain about is flawed My point was that people tend to favor 'forcing', when they see it going their way, but hate having it done back to them. Example: >> I disagree that forcing the matter against >> other people's wills would be a bad thing - The trick, is to fight the tempting lure of 'forcing', even when it looks like it will get you what you want. Takes a lot of Wi to do that, but it's worth it. The alternative can be a horrible mess. Think about it, WHO actually does hold the most power in the US. How would you feel, if THEY really had the concept that "forcing is 'OK', if it gets you what you want". No minority could vote, women would have the same rights they had in the 20's, and we would not be having this thread about gay marriage laws. > (If somebody takes a case to SCotUS, this will change) Indeed. I had already said that. My comparison was 2 to 26. If you think the other 22, will now lean more toward the 2, you are mistaken. > I don't quite get your religous issue. That doesn't surprise me. You don't read all of my posts. Please stop asking me questions. Put me in the 'fool filter', where I belong! |
||
|
gut Registered user Painted this one too. Last page view: 4900 days, 14 hours, 35 minutes and 32 seconds ago. |
Why is double, and tripple posting, superior to saying what you want in one post. Put me in the 'fool filter', where I belong! |
||
|
Silfir Registered user Writer of Overly Long Guides Last page view: 4071 days, 13 hours and 46 seconds ago. |
Caladriel: "I agree that, if somebody is happy that the checks and balances in our gov't are being used to protect the rights of same-sex couples, then s/he shouldn't complain about the existence of those checks and balances." What? Why? The two issues are entirely different. Even if I'm in favour of a certain football team, I can, should and will complain about a gruelingly unfair referee decision in favour of my team, because I don't think everything's fine and well as long as my team wins - fairness is an extremely important element of sports for me. I agree with gut: We can't say with good conscience it's okay to force anyone to "see the light and renounce their heathen, same-sex-marriage-opposing ways". What we can and should do is tell them "You shall not be allowed to oppress others because of your personal religious beliefs that they do not share." You drop the golden ball. You kick the golden ball. It slides to the west. Suddenly Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, appears! "That's not how you play Quidditch! are you even listening?" Which direction? (123456789) 4 Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, is hit by a bolt of acid! Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, is annihilated. You hear the ecstatic cries of a large crowd! [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/27/2008 at 07:34 (GMT -5) by Silfir] |
||
|
Caladriel Registered user ReGiStErEd UsEr Last page view: 4700 days, 6 hours, 40 minutes and 16 seconds ago. |
gut and silfir: I think you guys missed my point (rather, I probably expressed my point poorly) gut said that if we support a Supreme Court decision in our favor, we have no right to complain when a Supreme Court decision goes against us. Using silfir's analogy: If you endorse the call, when off-sides was called in your favor, you have no right to complain when an off-sides call is called against you. I think this reasoning is flawed. If you think the ref's call against you was incorrect, then you have every right to complain. The closest I can come to saying "You have no right to complain" is that you shouldn't complain about the existence of the off-sides rule. If you endorse an exercise of our nation's checks and balances (A Supreme Court ruling a law is unconstitutional) then you certainly have the right to complain about a future exercise of that check or balance, if you feel it was done improperly (I would complain if the Supreme Court upheld or struck down a law based on religous principles) The closest I can come to a "You have no right" statement is that it makes no sense to complain about the existence of that check or balance (the Supreme Court's ability to strike down a law) [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/28/2008 at 12:06 (GMT -5) by Caladriel] |
||
|
Silfir Registered user Writer of Overly Long Guides Last page view: 4071 days, 13 hours and 46 seconds ago. |
... I'm lost. What are we arguing about? You drop the golden ball. You kick the golden ball. It slides to the west. Suddenly Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, appears! "That's not how you play Quidditch! are you even listening?" Which direction? (123456789) 4 Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, is hit by a bolt of acid! Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, is annihilated. You hear the ecstatic cries of a large crowd! |
||
|
Maelstrom Registered user The Knight of the Black Rose Last page view: 3120 days, 7 hours, 47 minutes and 48 seconds ago. |
Ah, the invevitable end to all homosexual-related debates; everybody is argueing about something else. It's a subject every message board has to go through once and it's best if it's just once ;) A pessimist sees a dark tunnel. An optimist sees a light at the end of that tunnel. A realist sees a train. And the train driver sees three idiots on the tracks. |
||
|
gut Registered user Painted this one too. Last page view: 4900 days, 14 hours, 35 minutes and 32 seconds ago. |
> gut said that "if we support a Supreme Court decision in our favor, we have no right to complain when a Supreme Court decision goes against us." ! Would you please stop attributing to me, words I do not type. Please! That's what *I* use the '>' for, to make sure I'm not putting words into anyone's mouth. Allow me to (try to) clarify my thoughts. Step 1. Side 'A' has the power to make a highly controversial law. They know this will irritate over 50% of their country, but decide to go ahead with it anyway. "The other side is 'bad', and they just don't understand anything. So it's OK, really." Step 2. Side 'B' is irritated, and they make a good pitch for support. Side 'A' sees a drop in support. "Who wants to support a side that shoves things down other people's (state's) throats?!" Side 'B' finally gathers the 66% support needed, to royally screw my constitution. Step 3. Now side 'A' is now MUCH worse off than they were, before the whole mess started. They want things to 'just go back to the way they were'. They try to gather support, but 66% is incredibly hard to come by, concerning something so controversial. In the 'court of public opinion' side 'A' will be seen as having no right to complain. Put me in the 'fool filter', where I belong! |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4242 days, 12 hours, 18 minutes and 36 seconds ago. |
That 66% will never happen. Not even the 50% would ever happen. You really do have a poor view of your countrymen, gut ;) Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." |
||
|
gut Registered user Painted this one too. Last page view: 4900 days, 14 hours, 35 minutes and 32 seconds ago. |
Allow me to (properly) quote something that Caladriel posted. > We will see in December if California's demographics have > changed since 2000. If the "Limit on Marriage" amendment > fails, I guess it means over 50% of those willing to weigh > in support the rights of same-sex couples. California is > particularly interesting in that the legislature has twice > passed laws granting marriage to same-sex couples. I have little to no interest in Cali politics, so I will take her word. My interpretation of the above is this: "Cali may be the most liberal state in the union, and not even they can get a stable +50% majority on this!" What do you think that means for states like Kansas? Remember, how the US gets their congressional votes. Each state gets two, just for being a state (senate). THEN each state gets additional votes based on population (house). This means that 'smaller' states actually have (collectively) MORE say in federal decisions, than the larger states. Many think this explains why the US has had more 'conservative' presidents, than liberals. When was the last non-'southern' US president, period? Put me in the 'fool filter', where I belong! |
||
|
Caladriel Registered user ReGiStErEd UsEr Last page view: 4700 days, 6 hours, 40 minutes and 16 seconds ago. |
silfir: Well, I had been hoping that we would discuss same-sex couples, but we seem to have become bogged down in a talmudic discussion of legal procedure, reactionary mind-sets and mob mentality in the U.S. maelstrom: That's half the fun. We've had these discussion before (but not for a few years. :-( ) gut: There would be those who would feel same-sex couples have no right to complain under your scenario. However, those same people pretty much feel that same-sex couples have no right to complain now, so I do not see a difference. Additionally, if your scenario were to come about (which I doubt) they would not be much worse (let alone MUCH worse ;-P ) than they were at step 0. They didn't have the rights before and they don't have the rights now. [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/29/2008 at 11:34 (GMT -5) by Caladriel] |
||
|
gut Registered user Painted this one too. Last page view: 4900 days, 14 hours, 35 minutes and 32 seconds ago. |
The mindset of 'I don't think things could get worse', is exactly how things get worse. You don't think 'MUCH worse' is a possibility? Political mindsets can change drastically over the course of a few decades. Want a proof? Look at the US (and other country's) mindset, from fifty years ago? Look at how many country's still outlaw homosexuality. I have no ability to see into the future, but just because momentum swings favorably for a while, is no guarantee of how it swings later. Caution and courtesy should be shown by all (but especially wise for those with much less power), to prevent radicals from gaining support. > hoping that we would discuss same-sex couples What's to discuss? They want to marry, but most states say 'no'. The issue isn't about gay couples, it's about the law. Put me in the 'fool filter', where I belong! |
||
|
Caladriel Registered user ReGiStErEd UsEr Last page view: 4700 days, 6 hours, 40 minutes and 16 seconds ago. |
gut: If it were just about the law, there wouldn't be much complaint. After all, everything that occurred was covered by the law. The issue is more about how people feel about same-sex couples getting married. This has lead to these laws (and the overturning thereof). That is what I was hoping we would discuss. maul briefly raised issues with same-sex couples getting married, but has since not posted. [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/29/2008 at 19:52 (GMT -5) by Caladriel] |
||
|
urgerefam Unregistered user |
Hi everyone i am new to this. Just thought that i would say hello to everyone! dont really know what else to say. so bye |
||
|
Mi Hai Loo Registered user Demented kobold Last page view: 5382 days, 20 hours, 31 minutes and 14 seconds ago. |
Abomination. |
||
|
Maelstrom Registered user The Knight of the Black Rose Last page view: 3120 days, 7 hours, 47 minutes and 48 seconds ago. |
Is an adversary of the Hulk. Anything else to say? A pessimist sees a dark tunnel. An optimist sees a light at the end of that tunnel. A realist sees a train. And the train driver sees three idiots on the tracks. |
| Go to page 1 2 3 |