Jump to content

California voters approve gay-marriage ban


bodybag
 Share

Recommended Posts

VeganJoe, question: there's gay marriage in Quebec, where I live; do you seriously think it bothered me a single time? I hear about it in the news sometimes, otherwise I wouldn't even know. Explain to me in what way it could disturb my life, or how gay marriages occuring in California, in Quebec, in Japan, or on another planet, could disturb your life.

 

Explain. Once and for all.

I don't get you're point. I don't really care what other people do in their private lives either. So what's your piont. You calling me a hater, again?

 

Look read some of the things that I've posted, do some search on the internet about both sides of the argument.

 

I don't see why your clueless at this point, and need for me to explain anything. Go out their search around. If your open minded enough you will see the answers to your questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Then Joe, please explain the whole issue to us. Answer our direct questions. Explain your side of the story intelligently.

I'm not on trial here. I don't have to do or say anything I don't choose to, especially to anyone who true talent is slinging biased insults. My intellegence is not the issue here. Read up on it watch the video listen to what is beeing said read the post that present the problem.

Ok, so you can't support your statements. Noted. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone involved is saying that a particular church has to marry anyone.

This has already been done. I hope you read up on it more and discover for yourself that is's just not as simple as people would have you believe.

 

Well to be up front, while I want to keep a cool head and not stoop to name-calling, I am an activist and have marched for gay rights. So I'm not coming into this unbiased or unfamiliar with the topic. But, per your post, I did some googling.

 

In the articles I found, there seems to be one lawsuit that the opponents of gay marraige are focusing on, in which a lesbian couple in New jersey sued a Methodist church for refusing to let them hold a civil union ceremony at a park the church ran. The church was not being asked to perform the ceremony, and the park was registered as a non-profit entity and received state funds.

 

In any case, these new amendments were not worded in such a way that they merely protected churches. They were worded to deny legal marriage status to gay couples. That's the only "freedom" I can see that's under attack in this recent round of legislation - the freedom of gays to have the legal rights that come with state-recognized marriage.

Well you're an activist. get out there and write the laws that prtectct the rights of both sides, while allowing gay marraige.

That's not the only case. Keep searching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Bishop of your church will marry us or we'll take you to court and sue you.

This never happened. Please provide a source. And please make sure the source indicates that a gay couple wanted to force a bishop, specifically, to perform a marriage, that the bishop refused, and that the gay couple filed suit.

 

Nobody here is falling for your straw man, Joe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you're an activist. get out there and write the laws that prtectct the rights of both sides, while allowing gay marraige.

 

I'm an activist, not a legislator.

 

That's not the only case. Keep searching.

 

Apart from the above-mentioned lesbian couple seeking to hold a ceremony in a park, I found 1.) articles on county clerks being sued for refusing to perform legal ceremonies (employed by the state, not the church.) 2.) lawsuits challenging state laws denying gay couple the ability to be married. 3.) An incident in which 11 state lawmakers in Pennsylvania sued a gay couple for publicly challenging a gay-marriage ban, and 4.) the only incident other than the NJ park suit in which a church has been sued, an Episcopal priest was removed from his post by the church authorities, supposedly because he opposed their practice of ordaining gay ministers. So he sued the church to be allowed back in.

 

If you have knowledge of some other cases, please share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VeganJoe, question: there's gay marriage in Quebec, where I live; do you seriously think it bothered me a single time? I hear about it in the news sometimes, otherwise I wouldn't even know. Explain to me in what way it could disturb my life, or how gay marriages occuring in California, in Quebec, in Japan, or on another planet, could disturb your life.

 

Explain. Once and for all.

I don't get you're point. I don't really care what other people do in their private lives either. So what's your piont. You calling me a hater, again?

 

Look read some of the things that I've posted, do some search on the internet about both sides of the argument.

 

I don't see why your clueless at this point, and need for me to explain anything. Go out their search around. If your open minded enough you will see the answers to your questions.

I called you a hater?? No, I told you gay marriages don't bother me. And I asked you why it bothers you. Of course, again, you didn't answer, and you ask me what's my "piont", and you just said : search, and you went on selfdefense mode, calling me a hater by saying that I called you a hater, which I didn't say. How visiting your links and searching through the world wide web would tell me what your opinion is?

 

So, again, I ask you: tell us what's the problem, for you, not me. What difference does it make in your life, the gay marriages? Tell us, what would you tell to your daughter if she announced you she wants to marry another woman. Will you avoid to answer another time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calling someone who believes in denying other people equal rights based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc... IS racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.... Scapegoating undocumented workers or immigrants for a countries problems is xenophobia. That isn't name calling. If something smells like sewage, I'll call it for what it is.

 

Two people who've posted on this thread when "called out" about their ISMS in the past, have responded by saying some of my best friends are (fill in the blank). Those individuals wonder why they are called -IST or -phobic. If the shoe fits wear it. You dug your own grave by putting your foot in your mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vegan Joe clearly does not understand the constitution, or understand what the separation of church and state means. This law would not have forced churches to do anything, they are private religious institutions and are allowed to operate as they see fit under their own religious guidelines. This law was about civil marriages, the right for same sex couples to get married under the law under a civic binding contract. You do realize no one actually gets married in a church right? They get married in a court house, the church stuff is just for show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calling someone who believes in denying other people equal rights based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc... IS racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.... Scapegoating undocumented workers or immigrants for a countries problems is xenophobia. That isn't name calling. If something smells like sewage, I'll call it for what it is.

So according to your formular 7 out of 10 Black voters who voted Yes on 8 ARE racist, sexist, homophobic, etc....

 

Most Calif. blacks backed proposition 8

53 percent of Latinos also supported the gay-marriage ban

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27584685

Edited by Vegan Joe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the United States, it is illegal to discriminate. It would have been illegal for a Mormon adoption agency to refuse to adopt kids out to black couples based on their color alone. (In Mormonism, for a long time, blacks held lower status and were unable to occupy the priesthood.) Discrimination is discrimination, and it is illegal in the US. But more importantly, and something you failed to refer to in your insinuation (note I didn't say explanation, you don't explain, you just point to disjointed websites) a large part of why Catholic Charities of Massachusetts decided to stop their adoption business is because their largest funder said it would quit supporting them if they kept discriminating against gays. Perhaps you should do your own homework, Joe, and get the whole story straight.

 

And again Joe, you have provided us with a total non sequitor. (That's latin for "it doesn't follow" and is used to refer to arguments that divert from the point at hand.)

 

Back to what you were on about before:

The Bishop of your church will marry us or we'll take you to court and sue you.

This never happened. Please provide a source. And please make sure the source indicates that a gay couple wanted to force a bishop, specifically, to perform a marriage, that the bishop refused, and that the gay couple filed suit.

 

Nobody here is falling for your straw man, Joe.

 

This question is still on the table Joe.

We're all waiting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the United States, it is illegal to discriminate. It would have been illegal for a Mormon adoption agency to refuse to adopt kids out to black couples based on their color alone. (In Mormonism, for a long time, blacks held lower status and were unable to occupy the priesthood.) Discrimination is discrimination, and it is illegal in the US.

The point of your history lesson is? Never mind I don't want to know

 

But more importantly, and something you failed to refer to in your insinuation (note I didn't say explanation, you don't explain, you just point to disjointed websites)

And again Joe, you have provided us with a total non sequitor. (That's latin for "it doesn't follow" and is used to refer to arguments that divert from the point at hand.)

I will answer I as choose and see fit. I don't answer to you or anyone else here. If you don't like it, I suggest you leave this discussion.

 

a large part of why Catholic Charities of Massachusetts decided to stop their adoption business is because their largest funder said it would quit supporting them if they kept discriminating against gays. Perhaps you should do your own homework, Joe, and get the whole story straight.

What ever reason you might use to dismiss it. The bottom line is that pressure from gay couples to have a church do something that goes against their belief led them to close their doors.

 

 

 

 

Back to what you were on about before:
The Bishop of your church will marry us or we'll take you to court and sue you.

If you go back and read what I wrote you will see I.E. typed before that statement,

Tell me honestly.

Do you think this will never happen?

This never happened. Please provide a source. And please make sure the source indicates that a gay couple wanted to force a bishop, specifically, to perform a marriage, that the bishop refused, and that the gay couple filed suit.

Nobody here is falling for your straw man, Joe.

 

This question is still on the table Joe.

We're all waiting.

There is no straw man. Take off your blinders.

Edited by Vegan Joe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the Left for you - if you dare to have your own opinion, challenge their argument and don't share their agenda and 'victim group' nonsense mentality - some have to resort to slander: you're an ist, you're a phobe, you're a hater.

 

Stupid ignorant posts. That's the right for you.

 

 

The only smart thing to do here is to just ignore Vegan Joe from now on. Honestly, he is not intrested in having a serious discussion and arguing with him won't help anyone. He just wants to be featured in Guiness book of world records for using the word "bigot" most times.

If we stop responding to his statements and stop reading his posts he will "dissapear". Ignorance is bliss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so what even if it was true that some gays sue some other people? As if it wasn't like that in USA since many years : everybody prosecute everybody for any reasons. A person vs another, a person vs the state, the state vs a person, a person vs a company, and vice-versa, et cetera...

 

Mr. Joe, can you explain to us why you always feel the need to point a particular group of people who do things, while this behavior spreads to the population in general, people from all ethnicities, sex orientations, etc. You talk about crimes perpetrated by illegal immigrants, instead of criminality by the entire population (and whites, CEO's, governements steal way more money than poor illegal immigrants); gays that sue others about marriage, instead of talking about all the people who sue others for cases related to marriage. I'm sure there's many heteros who sued someone about a marriage, way more than 1 or 0 gays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so what even if it was true that some gays sue some other people? As if it wasn't like that in USA since many years : everybody prosecute everybody for any reasons. A person vs another, a person vs the state, the state vs a person, a person vs a company, and vice-versa, et cetera...
You're not listening.

 

 

Mr. Joe, can you explain to us why you always feel the need to point a particular group of people who do things, while this behavior spreads to the population in general, people from all ethnicities, sex orientations, etc. You talk about crimes perpetrated by illegal immigrants, instead of criminality by the entire population (and whites, CEO's, governements steal way more money than poor illegal immigrants); gays that sue others about marriage, instead of talking about all the people who sue others for cases related to marriage. I'm sure there's many heteros who sued someone about a marriage, way more than 1 or 0 gays.

Specificity my good man, Specificity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scapegoating undocumented workers or immigrants for a countries problems is xenophobia.
I said it was one problem. Do you know the meaning of "using the race card" because you are using it.

Name calling is your debate style? or can you see past you own biases. Your going to sit here and try to dismiss a problem that millions of Americans want fixed, by pretending I am the only one who feels this way. and then turn around and try to label me one of your hateful names to solve the problem, or pretend that it doesn't exist. Go call someone else some names, and leave me alone, if you don't want to engage in intelligent debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/

Do your own home work.

And see if you are really looking for the truth, or you are just being bigoted.

The church has the right to stop the adoptions. I disagree with it and think they're being petty, but it's their choice. Of course, it also doesn't have much to do with anything we've asked you so far. This is a dick move the church made on its own. It wasn't forced or coerced by the gay marriage supporters. If anything, it was forced by their funding.

Edited by blabbate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to what you were on about before:
The Bishop of your church will marry us or we'll take you to court and sue you.

If you go back and read what I wrote you will see I.E. typed before that statement,

Tell me honestly.

Do you think this will never happen?

Ah, wonderful! So you admit that it was a straw man. It hasn't happened, isn't likely to happen, and is intended only to bias the discussion. At least we're making progress.

 

So far you've told us that the anti-gay marriage voters were afraid of events that would only occur in their own fevered brains. If you have any realistic fearmongering, please share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/

Do your own home work.

And see if you are really looking for the truth, or you are just being bigoted.

The church has the right to stop the adoptions. I disagree with it and think they're being petty, but it's their choice. Of course, it also doesn't have much to do with anything we've asked you so far. This is a dick move the church made on its own. It wasn't forced or coerced by the gay marriage supporters. If anything, it was forced by their funding.

They were being force to do something that went against their belief. Your turning a blind eye to something you asked me for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, wonderful! So you admit that it was a straw man. .

You missread it you made it a straw man, now you wish it away

 

 

It hasn't happened, isn't likely to happen, .
My, MY, My, your actually going to sit there and tell me that this will never happen.

 

 

and is intended only to bias the discussion. At least we're making progress.
Why is it when you don't understand something you resort to calling people names?

 

 

So far you've told us that the anti-gay marriage voters were afraid of events that would only occur in their own fevered brains. .
You're in denial. You should study up on human nature.

 

 

If you have any realistic fearmongering, please share.
Once again when you don't understand and you can't refute a claim you revert to name calling.

Can you ever get past this flaw of yours?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The church has the right to stop the adoptions. I disagree with it and think they're being petty, but it's their choice. Of course, it also doesn't have much to do with anything we've asked you so far. This is a dick move the church made on its own. It wasn't forced or coerced by the gay marriage supporters. If anything, it was forced by their funding.

They were being force to do something that went against their belief. Your turning a blind eye to something you asked me for.

I can certainly see your perspective, but it's more complicated than that. If it were as simple as "the gay marriage law forced the church to either adopt to same-sex couples or to stop adoptions, so they chose to stop," then yes, it would clearly be a case where gay marriage forced them to choose between the law and their beliefs.

 

But that's not the case. First of all, the gay marriage ruling didn't change anything. The church has been forced to adopt to same-sex couples since 1993's gay anti-discrimination act. They did not apply for an exemption at that time and continued their services, including adoptions to same-sex couples. Catholic Charities stated at that time that they made an accommodation for the greater good, abiding by the law so that they could continue to fulfill the state contract.

 

Which brings me to the next point, that their adoption services were publicly funded. If they're going to use state funds, they have to abide by the law. However, that's not the only option. LDS still runs opposite-sex only adoptions in Massachusetts using private funds and nobody is trying to stop them.

 

So yes, a law from which the church did not request an exemption preceding gay marriage by more than a decade forced them to choose between their beliefs and public funding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It hasn't happened, isn't likely to happen, .
My, MY, My, your actually going to sit there and tell me that this will never happen.

Well, no, I'm not going to tell you that. And thankfully that's not what I wrote. I said it's not likely. And even if it did happen, it would be immediately dismissed. There's no threat there. It's absolutely pointless to bring up.

 

and is intended only to bias the discussion. At least we're making progress.
Why is it when you don't understand something you resort to calling people names?

Huh? What name did I call you? If I used one, you neglected to quote it.

 

If you have any realistic fearmongering, please share.
Once again when you don't understand and you can't refute a claim you revert to name calling.

Can you ever get past this flaw of yours?

There's no claim to refute. You mentioned people suing bishops to make them marry gay couples, then admitted it hasn't happened. And you are a fearmonger. You're using the fear of gay people being married by churches to try to sway opinions. That's exactly what fearmongering is. I have no problem calling you names when you so clearly represent them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share




×
×
  • Create New...