California Proposition 8 Case Re-Opening Online Petition

[Seraph]

I am not trolling you. You just automatically throw out the term troll as soon as someone brings up a valid point that is counter to your own.

This is exactly what happens every time the gay rights issue comes up those people who are against gay rights just stop listening to reasoning and start saying "well I oppose it because it is what I feel and it is what god and the bible say."

Or they try to argue about semantics and definitions and crap like that which holds no water because our entire language is based on words having multiple meanings and context being important, and the idea that marriage as a legal term offends them shows that they lack the comprehension to see that it is being used in a different context which means it can have a different definition without invalidating the other one.

I am going to call you an idiot if you think that the most "common" definition of a word means anything. Just because one definition or use of a word is more common does not mean that definition is more correct than its other definitions.

If you read my posts, you would know I have no problem with gay rights. I am calling you a troll and an idiot for getting us on this tangent and apparently saying that legal clarification is a bad thing. If you aren't making that claim, I don't understand why you are fighting with me.

You are trying to piss over little details, when the general concept is the point I am trying to get across.



Edit: Hell, let's try a little social experiment. I'll just ask you a simple question. Screwing a really hot chick or hot guy is sacred! True or false?

[Demosthenes11]

fuck yes on 8 voters.
Fuck them.

Marriage outside a church is not a religious institution. When the government grants certain rights to those that are married, ALL people should have that opportunity. Civil Unions, though toted as separate but equal (which isn't even legal according to the supreme court), do not grant the same rights. I have a personal friends, who are both girls but love each other very much, and one is from Indonesia. She is not a citizen, and only going to school here. If they were a heterosexual couple and they get married, not only would they be able to get married, but she would also be able to be a US citizen. Gay couples do not have this same right.
The second the government stepped in and became the appointees of people that could ordain marriages, it stopped becoming a religious institution. Atheists can get married, and the church says they are going to hell in a hand basket. Why are you religious morons not pissed about them being able to marry?

I could go on and on and fucking on, but I'll shorten it for you:
The ONLY reason to not support gay marriage is because you do not like gays. Period, end of story. If you are a biggot, at least say so and don't try and cover it with a facade of loaded religious words and dogma.
Makes me fucking sick

[zoobernut]

I could say the same thing about you. You have labeled me a troll and that has allowed you to completely ignore valid counter arguments to what you have been posting because you want to ignore them.

I did not go on a tangent, and you did not read my last post at all otherwise you would realize that. Again your whole argument is based on definitions and context and meaning of words and implied meaning and making legal terms more specific. I was saying that just because you define a term one way does not invalidate all its other accepted uses and definitions or make them less important than the one you recognize.

If you are not trolling then why don't you address that instead of calling me a troll and ignoring any points I make. It makes you look like an idiot.

Edit: Beautifully put Demo you reiterated what I have been trying to say and what it really boils down to.

[Churchill]

You don't understand the difference between constitutional amendments and laws, do you.

You don't understand the difference between making redundant laws or unconstitutional laws, do you?

I would reference the Declaration of Independence, and the 9th Amendment.

Also, the Constitution is sacred.

[Tyche]

I'm lost, are we still arguing the definition of sacred?

Also, why is this so polarizing? Well, I guess I understand why for some, but why is it so polarizing to strait people? Maybe I'm just selfish, but I just really don't give a damn about this at all. I don't really know a single gay person irl though (open at least), and I'm not really religious, so maybe I just can't associate myself with the issue. It certainly puts you at an interesting angle for the debate though.

[Olo401]

It's still years away from SCOTUS, but it will eventually get there.

In this particular case it probably wouldn't, since it's an issue involving amending/revising the state's constitution and therefore SCOTUS has no jurisdiction. I do agree though that the overall issue of gay marriage will eventually create a case that goes federal all the way - most serious disputes in our society at some point require that kind of judicial review.

[Seraph]

Atheists can get married, and the church says they are going to hell in a hand basket. Why are you religious morons not pissed about them being able to marry?

Not necessarly true. At least in my religion, the lack of total acceptance of my belief structure doesn't verify damnation.

In fact, I am not even sure if a gay 'legal union' is even technically against my religion. I think it would totally depend on whether they consummated the union afterwards.

I'm not even sure if 'being gay' is against any religious faith. I think it depends on gay sexual intercourse, not the actual physical state of being a homosexual. But, even unmarried sex is often considered immoral for a man and a woman. Perhaps the 'fear' is more setting up the stage for 'morally acceptable gay sex'. I'm really not sure since like I said, I don't really have a problem with the government granting equal legal rights.



Edit: Zoober, I have been reading your posts, and I feel that generally we are on the same side of the issue here, but you just likes to try to rip apart my posts I guess. /shrug

[zoobernut]

For your little social experiment Seraph that you edited in above I am not sure the context of it.

I would not consider sex by itself something sacred. I do believe that it can become sacred when there are other things attached to it like sex with someone that you have an emotional investment with.

Also what was the point of the qualifier "hot" sex with someone is always sex regardless of what your opinion is of how they look. Though generally unless you are really drunk you tend to not have sex with people you are not sexually attracted to. (though that can be argued, and it has no relevance to the conversation.)

[Tristam]

Also, why is this so polarizing? Well, I guess I understand why for some, but why is it so polarizing to strait people?

Cuz the only person that knows the proper things to do with your penis is a dude in a black robe who read a book written hundereds of years ago, duh.

And yeah I think I'm lost too.

[Seraph]

For your little social experiment Seraph that you edited in above I am not sure the context of it.

I would not consider sex by itself something sacred. I do believe that it can become sacred when there are other things attached to it like sex with someone that you have an emotional investment with.

Also what was the point of the qualifier "hot" sex with someone is always sex regardless of what your opinion is of how they look. Though generally unless you are really drunk you tend to not have sex with people you are not sexually attracted to. (though that can be argued, and it has no relevance to the conversation.)

My point was to figure out exactly what you think 'sacred' means, since you choose to use the fifth listed defination of the word and ignored the first few. I felt it was a poor word choice for what you were using it for, nothing more. I would have went with 'honored', 'important', 'special', 'unique', 'respected', or something similiar that has absolutely no possible religious meaning.

Hard to talk about the seperation of church and state when people toss around possible religious descriptions for secular (no matter how important) documents and for legal contracts.

[zoobernut]

I do not ignore the first definitions of sacred again you do not take the time to understand what I post before you respond to it.

My point is that one definition of a word does not invalidate the other definitions. English like many languages are largely based on context and you cannot throw context out the window and expect everyone to understand what the hell you are talking about. Your idea of sacred as a religious term completely ignores context.

If you have any sort of basic understanding of how context works and how it relates to words with multiple definitions then it is not hard to understand how you can use these terms without any conflict of separation of church and state.

[Kerberoz]

I'm lost, are we still arguing the definition of sacred?

Also, why is this so polarizing? Well, I guess I understand why for some, but why is it so polarizing to strait people? Maybe I'm just selfish, but I just really don't give a damn about this at all. I don't really know a single gay person irl though (open at least), and I'm not really religious, so maybe I just can't associate myself with the issue. It certainly puts you at an interesting angle for the debate though.

You don't need to be involved in civil rights violations to be opposed to them... and a lot of us are anti-religion without really caring one way or the other about gays. Sexual preference is your own business and doesn't affect me.

[meson]

In this particular case it probably wouldn't, since it's an issue involving amending/revising the state's constitution and therefore SCOTUS has no jurisdiction. I do agree though that the overall issue of gay marriage will eventually create a case that goes federal all the way - most serious disputes in our society at some point require that kind of judicial review.

Correct, the question of prop8's validity cannot go to SCOTUS. What I meant and I think the other posters meant was the overall issue of gay marriage will eventually get there. I believe the ACLU and others are waiting for a more favorable court before they start the journey. I also think that the initial argument will be based on Article IV sec 1 of the US constitution and not necessarily on the 14th.

[Seraph]

I do not ignore the first definitions of sacred again you do not take the time to understand what I post before you respond to it.

My point is that one definition of a word does not invalidate the other definitions. English like many languages are largely based on context and you cannot throw context out the window and expect everyone to understand what the hell you are talking about. Your idea of sacred as a religious term completely ignores context.

If you have any sort of basic understanding of how context works and how it relates to words with multiple definitions then it is not hard to understand how you can use these terms without any conflict of separation of church and state.

I am not saying the other definations are not valid. Words can have multiple and complately valid meanings.

...But how are other people supposed to know which definition you are using without reading your mind? They can't, which is why it's a poor choice. This often brings undesired religious meaning into issues that should not be religious in nature. Let's say, for example, gay marriage.


Are you getting it yet? Technically correct poor word choice is still a poor word choice.

[Tyche]

It's only poor word usage when the subject (you) lacks an understanding of the object (the usage of the word). Wow, I reached in the way-back-machine to ENG105 for that.

Btw, this is easily the worst argument to grace BG.

[zoobernut]

Please explain to me how it matters what definition other people think you are using. Let's take gay marriage as an example. If gay marriage becomes legal then given the context the term is used in you should automatically realize it is in a legal sense, because again people can use it in a religious sense right now without anyone knowing or any legal battle. Where would confusion arise? If I say John and Jerry got married the other day it should be a no brainer that it is in a legal sense because churches would not be forced to recognize gay marriages.

Going with the same example say right now gay marriage is not legal. John and Jerry can go and get "married" and call themselves married and have a religious ceremony, if they find someone who is religious but not anti gay marriage which does exist, and this has no legal meaning but they can still use the term. How is this confusing? How is this poor choice of words? Saying it is a poor choice of words does imply that one definition holds more weight than others which is not true.

[Seraph]

It's only poor word usage when the subject (you) lacks an understanding of the object (the usage of the word). Wow, I reached in the way-back-machine to ENG105 for that.

Btw, this is easily the worst argument to grace BG.

That's a really bullshit line of reasoning. You should never assume people automatically understand the meaning in what you are saying. This is where confusion comes from. Why the hell do you think people ask questions?

And on topic, why do you think there is such a heated debate about this? Vague arrogance of those assuming that everyone understands their viewpoint, and should always agree with it.

[zoobernut]

Misunderstanding of terms used in a legal sense is the reason we have lawyers and pay them so much. Going to law school is like learning a second language called legal speak.

[Seraph]

Please explain to me how it matters what definition other people think you are using.

Because if you are trying to explain something to someone, and they don't properly understand it, you have fucking failed at explaining it.


Duh? Are you trying to be this dense?

[Elesirdur]

I'm not sure if this was answered earlier, but what is the majority amount required to make a constitutional amendment referendum in California pass? At least here in BC it's usually 60% or 2/3's majority in favour of the proposition to pass, a simple 50%+1 does not cut it.

I was very disappointed to read that Cali Prop 8 may pass and prevent same-sex marriage from continuing. I wasn't aware that there were that many religious fundies (Christian and otherwise) in Californaia who really enjoy denying people their basic social human rights based on their sexual orientation.