Aaarg! Prop. 8 (vent)

[Stella_Omega]

Egoservitium, we almost all of us keep JBJ on ignore. In all the time he's been here, he's never been more than an incoherent all-purpose hater.

One answer to any of his posts keeps him posting for weeks, convinced that everyone else reads his posts as well.

 

[Weird Harold]

That's exactly why it puzzles me that all of these larger business owners got involved with supporting prop 8. I can understand religious organizations like the Mormons or Knights of Columbus, but, everyone from Disney to private dentists are on that financial support list. If they lost ten customers, it's not worth it from a business standpoint.

If they save more on insurance premiums than they lose to customer boycots, it's worth supporting a ban.

Disney is a puzzlement because they were one of the first to offer company benefits to "domestic partners" so it's got to be a financial motive that will cost them more than they are already volunatarily committed to as company policy -- which has to mean insurance rates and/or taxes.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

STELLA STOP IT!

No one really buys your bullshit about keeping me on ignore. You and Sarah know more about my posts than I do.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by OhMissScarlett
That's exactly why it puzzles me that all of these larger business owners got involved with supporting prop 8. I can understand religious organizations like the Mormons or Knights of Columbus, but, everyone from Disney to private dentists are on that financial support list. If they lost ten customers, it's not worth it from a business standpoint.

If they save more on insurance premiums than they lose to customer boycots, it's worth supporting a ban.

Disney is a puzzlement because they were one of the first to offer company benefits to "domestic partners" so it's got to be a financial motive that will cost them more than they are already volunatarily committed to as company policy -- which has to mean insurance rates and/or taxes.

I am puzzled about Disney also. They are one of the most gay-friendly among large corporations. Fundie churches assail them because of this. They celebrate "gay day" or something like that at Disneyland. The domestic partners that Harold mentioned include gay couples, so they would not save anything on insuance premiums.

Possibly some exec took it upon himself or herself to make a contribution that is contrary to coporate policy. They may have donated to both sides.

 

[Sandy_Fox]

I did a google search for "gay rally violence" "gay marriage violence" "gay rights violence" and came up with... zilch.
I did find this;


And an astonishing (not astonishing) amount of bloggers pointing to this one single incident to "prove" gays are violent.

I had the honor of attending the march in San Diego with several of my prior troops. I don't know about the other 10,999 people who marched in San Diego, but I saw nothing but orderly straight, gay and lesbian people who believe in equality.

What I found very moving was the number of retired military servicemen and women that attended. They, who have put their lives on the line to protect freedom, take "liberty and justice for all" damn seriously.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

BOX

I'm surprised you cant figure it out.

There are lots more families with kiddies than faggots with partners. Follow the money.

Disney is losing its ass here in Florida. Well, when times were good they didnt care about families, now times are bad and they need families with kiddies more than Gays.

 

[Guest]

I had the honor of attending the march in San Diego with several of my prior troops. I don't know about the other 10,999 people who marched in San Diego, but I saw nothing but orderly straight, gay and lesbian people who believe in equality.

What I found very moving was the number of retired military servicemen and women that attended. They, who have put their lives on the line to protect freedom, take "liberty and justice for all" damn seriously.

That's lovely.

And damned appropriate, isn't it?

 

[egoservitium]

EGO

While not a Christian or Jew, I subscribe to the Judeo-Christian world-view. NOT the views of monkey-fucking spear chuckers, or snake worshipping cannibals, or Marxist peasants, or ancestor-loving gooks. I play for the Christian-Jews and sometimes I root for the lions.

Consequently, I think Gays should be content that we dont hang them and cremate them at concentration camps.

Egoservitium, we almost all of us keep JBJ on ignore. In all the time he's been here, he's never been more than an incoherent all-purpose hater.

One answer to any of his posts keeps him posting for weeks, convinced that everyone else reads his posts as well.

All purpose hater is right. Broken. Emotionally stunted. So insecure that he will lash out in any direction in an effort to make himself feel superior to *someone*, *anyone*. Sad really. There are a few of them still out there. I want a zoo full of them so that I can take my kid there and say, "Look honey, haters. Aren't they pathetic?"

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I think its kind of depressing that religious people can't express their beliefs on a practical level without it running into conflict with the temperment of others--on occasion.

This PROP8 thing is just one of those occasions.

Its just sad.

 

[fieryjen]

All purpose hater is right. Broken. Emotionally stunted. So insecure that he will lash out in any direction in an effort to make himself feel superior to *someone*, *anyone*. Sad really. There are a few of them still out there. I want a zoo full of them so that I can take my kid there and say, "Look honey, haters. Aren't they pathetic?"

That's why we keep asking everyone not to quote him. Many of us have him on ignore as not to have to read what he posts. If you quote him, that kind of defeats the purpose.

 

[Guest]

I think its kind of depressing that religious people can't express their beliefs on a practical level without it running into conflict with the temperment of others--on occasion.

This PROP8 thing is just one of those occasions.

Its just sad.

Expressing their own beliefs is one thing.

Forcing others to conform to those beliefs is another.

And I know you'll argue this to the nth degree, Joe. In fact, I almost didn't post because of your inevitable response.

But inequality under the law is inequality, whatever your religion may be.

And that's what is sad.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I think its kind of depressing that religious people can't express their beliefs on a practical level without it running into conflict with the temperment of others--on occasion.

This PROP8 thing is just one of those occasions.

Its just sad.

hey, they can certainly express their beliefs in a practical way -- they can express their belief by not marrying someone of the same sex. They can express their belief by not officiating gay marriages within their own churches.

That's about as far as it goes.

 

[Weird Harold]

The domestic partners that Harold mentioned include gay couples, so they would not save anything on insuance premiums.

It's more likely that their insurance providers told themt hat if Prop 8 didn't pass that everyone's insurance rates would have to go up to make up the additonal automatic coverages.

Insurance companies are about the only opponents who have a semi-legitimate argument against same-sex marraiges redefining the tradtional interpretation of "spouse" because it will cost them a lot of money -- which they will then pass on to their customers at the most pessimistic estimates of their additional costs; which in turn gives them a sword to dangle over corporations to encourage corporate opposition.

 

[Vermilion]

Go get 'em, 3!

I can't imagine anyone in the entertainment business or the arts being such an ass! I've never seen any research explaining why there are so many gays in the arts but anyone who doesn't see it must be a candidate for a white cane! Whadda jerk . . .

I heard an interesting article about why so many in the performing arts (and spies, oddly enough) were gay. One theroy that was propounded, which I can get behind, is that people who are gay spend their early years *acting*, pretending to be wht they're not, ignoring their natural insitincts and being someone else. One wonders if, as sexuality becomes less of an issue in society in general, this predisposition to become 'actors' of some kind will fade away somewhat...

x
V

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Expressing their own beliefs is one thing.

Forcing others to conform to those beliefs is another.

I don't think anyone's denying that they're not two things. Or, did I miss something earlier in the thread (I confess I hadn't read the whole thing)?

And I know you'll argue this to the nth degree, Joe. In fact, I almost didn't post because of your inevitable response.

But inequality under the law is inequality, whatever your religion may be.

And that's what is sad.

I think that's sad, too. But far from the only thing that is. That's not an unfair thing to think, is it?

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

It's more likely that their insurance providers told themt hat if Prop 8 didn't pass that everyone's insurance rates would have to go up to make up the additonal automatic coverages.

Insurance companies are about the only opponents who have a semi-legitimate argument against same-sex marraiges redefining the tradtional interpretation of "spouse" because it will cost them a lot of money -- which they will then pass on to their customers at the most pessimistic estimates of their additional costs; which in turn gives them a sword to dangle over corporations to encourage corporate opposition.

Possibly probate lawyers too. If one half of a gay domestic partnership dies and leaves a will leaving property to their partner, relatives of the deceased might try to fight it. If the gay deceased is married to that partner, the other relatives have little or no case. This leaves less money available for the lawyers they would have hired.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

hey, they can certainly express their beliefs in a practical way -- they can express their belief by not marrying someone of the same sex. They can express their belief by not officiating gay marriages within their own churches.

That's about as far as it goes.

I think we mean different things by "practical"--I'm working from the idea that an essential belief for them isn't merely that they shouldn't participate in homosexuality (themselves) for divine mandate, but that /people/ shouldn't regardless of their subscription to that brand of belief. Given that, the only practical way for them to express their belief that isn't compromised from the beginning is to deny that as a possibility for anyone at every available term (given that it doesn't conflict with other mandates--so, no violent prevention of homosexality or murder of them, but peaceful legal ebbings would be fine).

Make sense?

 

[3113]

Possibly probate lawyers too. If one half of a gay domestic partnership dies and leaves a will leaving property to their partner, relatives of the deceased might try to fight it. If the gay deceased is married to that partner, the other relatives have little or no case. This leaves less money available for the lawyers they would have hired.

On the other hand, wouldn't lawyers be in favor of more married couples who need a good lawyer when they get divorced and such? And I honestly don't think probate lawyers ever had to worry about being put out of business by anything. There's always someone wants to contest the will....

 

[DeeZire]

...the only practical way for them to express their belief that isn't compromised from the beginning is to deny that as a possibility for anyone at every available term...

Joe - If your logic was valid, women would still not be allowed to vote, and segregation in the South would still be legal, since both of these restrictions were supported by Biblical teachings.

 

[southerntierguy]

Elected legislators?

Does The People get to decide on every law? No. Why not? Because The People can't make informed and rational desicions on every political issue. They can't devote the time, nor have they the resources to see if they are missing perspectives, and get them, before making their desicion.

There are people whose job it is to do that for you. They're called representatives, state senators, and shit like that. You elect them for it. There's a reason we have them. Because open forum democracy, the deliberative and participatory kind that was practiced in ancient Greece back in the days, and that referendums are an echo of, just doesn't work well in a too big society. It didn't even work in Athens after a while.

So why was this particular issue up for a referendum?

Because a resourceful special interrest group, (this time a minority with a religious agenda) knew that there was no way in hell they'd get such blatantly discriminatory legislation past a state legislative body. But if they got it to The People, they didn't have to win resonable arguments. And so, they bypassed the common way of making desicions in a representative democracy.

They could then spin deceptive propaganda to the lowest common denominator. Which they did - their campaign was ridden with unrational, emotional arguments, deliberate FUD and outright lies. Which affected enough of the stupid percentage of The People to tip the issue to a majority in their favor.

The infinite sensibility of The People is a myth. The People is the sum of all memes and disinformation, and has no checks and balances. That's why modern democracies have representative democracy instead. Of course, the same misinformation makes the rounds every time new representatives is to be elected (pailin' aroun wif turrurusts...). But then we have different branches and lots of oversight to see that it takes a lot of elected idiots to drive an issue straight to hell. With a referendum, the checks and balances are bypassed.

Referendums are the tools of those who rely on memes and disinformation, because they don't have reason on their side.

Whether or not prop. 8 was rightfully decided, this whole argument is a bunch of horse manure.

The idea that a group of representatives are MORE capable and MORE likely to make a decision that is good for the populace ... well, if you believe that, nothing the government did would EVER be wrong now, would it?

Legislators don't vote on legislation based on whether it is good law. They vote on legislation that keeps them in power, it's that plain and simple.

And that's why there are laws that allow for referendums. Because sometimes the will of the people is frustrated by the will of the monetarily gifted.

The fact is, the issue was widely debated, and both sides had a chance to get their views across ... both sides had plenty of money to pour into the campaign.

Modern democracies have representative democracy, true enough ... but that's because it's too slow and unwieldy to do otherwise, not because representative democracy is a "better" system. The checks and balances are in place largely because it ISN'T a better system.

.
.

Now, as a person from afar who doesn't know all the details of what happened in the race, and would like a "rational" discussion as to why this failed, other than just venom filled rant (which I acknowledge was the point of this thread) ...

I was surprised to see this pass in California. My best guess is this, from what I understand about California ... in California same-sex relationships are already guaranteed pretty much the same rights as straight relationships (I could be off there ... I would like to know what the differences are), and I suspect that the anti-prop-8 people failed to make a convincing argument that there were sufficient extra rights that would go to same-sex couples that should be protected.

I could be way off on this ... I really don't know what the status of laws in California are for same-sex couples. It's just my impression.

Whether or not this should have passed, I am just trying to get a grasp as to why it didn't, other than the emotional response (they pandered to the basest levels of the populace). Saying someone lied in their ads doesn't mean anything unless they are reaching society in a way that will help win voters to their side. I am trying to see what the message was, and I suspect it was (1) gays won't get any "real" rights granted to them if this passes, other than the right to call themselves married, because such rights are already conferred based on state law, and (2) if they are only seeking a change to the name of the relationship, in order to receive official recognition, then the question is should society consider whether those are the same thing.

To be honest, until a few days before the election, I knew nothing about the Prop. 8 vote in California. And since the vote, I've not heard anyone discuss the vote rationally as to why tactics for the anti- side might have led to a failure; all I've heard is finger pointing. Which is fine and all, but that never leads to changes in tactics.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Joe - If your logic was valid...

...huh?

 

[Liar]

I think we mean different things by "practical"--I'm working from the idea that an essential belief for them isn't merely that they shouldn't participate in homosexuality (themselves) for divine mandate, but that /people/ shouldn't regardless of their subscription to that brand of belief. Given that, the only practical way for them to express their belief that isn't compromised from the beginning is to deny that as a possibility for anyone at every available term (given that it doesn't conflict with other mandates--so, no violent prevention of homosexality or murder of them, but peaceful legal ebbings would be fine).

Make sense?

An essential belief for me isn't merely that I shouldn't participate in Christianity, but that /people/ shouldn't, regardless of ther demographics or other factors. Given that, the only practical way for me to express my belief that isn't compromised from the beginning is to deny that as a possibility for anyone at every available term (given that it doesn't conflict with other mandates--so, no violent prevention of Christianity or murder of them, but peaceful legal ebbings would be fine).

Make sense?

Or would a proposition to ban Christian marriages be somehow wrong, where a proposition to ban homosexual marriages, isnit?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

An essential belief for me isn't merely that I shouldn't participate in Christianity, but that /people/ shouldn't, regardless of ther demographics or other factors. Given that, the only practical way for me to express my belief that isn't compromised from the beginning is to deny that as a possibility for anyone at every available term (given that it doesn't conflict with other mandates--so, no violent prevention of Christianity or murder of them, but peaceful legal ebbings would be fine).

Make sense?

Everything except the reason for the belief--which may or many not mean that it is essentially mutable (and /that/ would make huge differences in what is a reasonable way to go about practicing it); and whether there are reasons for it that are also buttressing other reasons for other beliefs (which may or may not mean that killing Christians would be a better way to go about preventing Christianity).

So, it makes mostly sense--but not entirely. Fill in those two gaps for me and I think I can see how it fits.

Or would a proposition to ban Christian marriages be somehow wrong, where a proposition to ban homosexual marriages, isnit?

Would it be wrong, by itself? Thats a normative judgement, so that
s a tough one. Would it be wrong-by-our-general-notions-of-a-free-people? Yes. Probably.

The rest of the question is phrased a little odd. Are you meaning to ask if one is right and one is wrong?

 

[Stella_Omega]

I think we mean different things by "practical"--I'm working from the idea that an essential belief for them isn't merely that they shouldn't participate in homosexuality (themselves) for divine mandate, but that /people/ shouldn't regardless of their subscription to that brand of belief. Given that, the only practical way for them to express their belief that isn't compromised from the beginning is to deny that as a possibility for anyone at every available term (given that it doesn't conflict with other mandates--so, no violent prevention of homosexality or murder of them, but peaceful legal ebbings would be fine).

Make sense?

Oh, yeah, I knew what you meant by "practical."

And your casual correlation of homosexuality and murder is disgustingly telling.

Luckily, this country is secular, and prevents any particular religion from enforcing its beliefs in a "practical" way.

But mostly, Joe, I wonder why you think it's depressing" that this can't happen.

 

[Liar]

The fact is, the issue was widely debated, and both sides had a chance to get their views across ... both sides had plenty of money to pour into the campaign.

The issue was widely campaigned. Two sides trying to outshout one another is not helpful for informed desicion making. (The same is true for choosing representatives though, so eh, you're right that it's by no means a perfect system.)

If you want informed desicion making for The People, here's what you do.

1. Forbid campaigning.

2. Bring both sides to the table with a non-partisan editor and moderator.

3. Ask each side to write down (for instance) five arguments for their case in an as neutral way as possible.

4. Let them switch papers, and write a counter-argument to each of the other side's arguments.

5. Let each side review the other side's replies, to see if there are any objection to choice of words or other rhetorics in the phrasing of things. At this point, the editor can alspo step in to make sure the language is easy t parse, direct and to the point. Negotiate about this until there's consensus about the document.

6. Send out the document to The People.

7. Squash any and all organized attempts to sway public opnion about the issue until election day, under threat of death.

8. Let The People vote.