Agreed. Thanks for that post Story. You too Hawk. I am finding it hard to see another ammendment being added repealing prop 8 so soon after this one passed, but that doesn’t make it impossible.
The part where people keep addressing posts to me and I continue to have every right to respond to them on this public message board, the part where I’m not a troll or doing anything that even resembles trolling just by being in dissent, and the part where you think I should give a shit about you ordering me around.
It is asinine – and intellectually dishonest – to assign that “claim” to others when the only one making it is you. What’s that word for misconstruing other people’s positions and setting up a fallacious point for the sole purpose of disputing that point? Hayperson?
You also should try reading the conversation in which you are participating. Once again, here is the post from jayjay which began this line of discussion:
He claimed there is no disconnect. I explained where I see the disconnect. Since then, several others have echoed his view that there is no disconnect. If you think I’m misinterpreting these claims or wrong in my view, please explain why. If you think I’m doing it on purpose, then there’s no point in engaging me about it. Obviously I am not just making it up that people think there’s no disconnect – that is the dominant position in this thread.
I missed this before. This is the fucking Pit. If you want a party where everybody agrees, you’re in the wrong forum. I am also in pain about this, and it’s pretty fucking outrageous for you to imply that because I maintain that it is a compromise for someone who is pro-equal-rights to vote for someone who can’t reconcile his support for them with his belief that Jesus doesn’t share that support, I must not care. Are you claiming it is not a compromise, or that the people who keep yelling at me about how it was a necessary compromise are lying?
Ah yes, the “I couldn’t vote for him because nobody would vote for him” circular ‘viability’ argument again. But regardless, I never said it wasn’t the best or only option, and repeatedly suggested it may very well be, though how what you describe is not a compromise I have no idea. You know he thinks Jesus doesn’t want us to have equal rights. Unless you’re completely on board with a politician thinking that (regardless of what promises he makes), to vote for one is to compromise. I didn’t say “and therefore you’re all evil”. I didn’t say “and therefore you’re responsible for prop 8”. I said there’s a disconnect between making that choice and then disavowing all knowledge and savaging others who chose a different part of the same candidate’s claims to focus on. Of course prop 8 is dead wrong, and the people who voted for it are wrong. But a lot of them sailed in on your ship, so for folks to act like they’re shocked, shocked to find bigots in this establishment is silly.
As I grow older, I seem to have a better understanding of what those 3 words actually mean and treat everyone with those 3 words on my mind. Also, the greatest commandment (Love of God) and the second (Love of Neighbor) also gives me a sense of direction.. Lastly, I had just seen The Laramie Project last month on the 10th anniversary of Matthew Sheppard’s death.
Having said that, I went against the herd, and voted no on 8. I might not have done this (and I don’t really recall either) 10 or 20 years ago, but now I feel more human in doing so…and dare I say, righteous.
I’m truly sorry that we’re in the minority…but give it time, it will happen eventually.
Personally, I think everyone has this issue exactly backwards.
The way to go about this isn’t to let state government, or any government, sanction gay marriage. It’s to stop letting government sanction straight marriages.
No, no, hear me out.
It’s not the government’s purview to extend or withhold its “blessing” (for lack of a better word) over what is essentially a religious matter. The sensible thing, in my opinion, would be to consider the spiritual/religious aspects and the legal aspects of marriage separately. In other words, civil unions for EVERYONE, gay or straight, would be all the government offered. You would then have a separate MARRIAGE ceremony performed by the church of your choice.
A given religion might refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples, but other religions would be happy to do it. Either way, it wouldn’t matter because marriage would have no legal implications - it would be a religious sacrament, nothing more.
Serious question: Have you received a blow to the head in the last 24 hours? This sort of agressive stupidity is really unlike you.
What’s up with this?
Proposition 8 foes refuse to concede
Is this realistic? I’m having trouble keeping up.
Yes, but did you vote for Obama or McCain? Because apparently if you did, you’re still just some quisling asshole like the rest of us.
Amend “would then have a separate MARRIAGE ceremony” to “could then have…” and you’ve got yourself a deal. From me at least. 
When same-sex marriage and/or civil unions were under discussion in NZ this was exactly the approach I though the govt. should take; get out of the marriage business altogether and limit themselves to the purely legal/contractual aspects of powers of attorney, property division, child support, etc. Get out of the religious aspects completely. (And we don’t even have a formal separation of church and State).
For what little it’s worth: my deepest sympathies on Prop 8. I sincerely hope this is resolved, and soon.
Ooh, zing! :rolleyes:
Correct. YOU see the disconnect. Only you. Now you want to make statements as to what other people are “claiming” regarding a disconnect that only YOU assert exists. There is not a single other person here (at least who has posted) who accepts your premise that a disconnect or compromise exists in this context in the first place. Just you. You keep wanting to leap ahead to arguing about how to interpret this “compromise” when your base premise – that a compromise even exists in the first place – is both faulty and universally rejected.
And of course you’re doing it on purpose, because you’re not an idiot being controlled by malignant forces. So far as we know.
You really are that stupid, huh?
To quote Buzz Lightyear, you are a sad, strange little man, and you have my pity.
I can’t say I’m not surprised, because I am. Florida, I expected. California? No.
Bummer.
Wow. I’d only seen the first of those. Number two seems so very dishearteningly disgusting to me…
(Actually, number three is pretty disgusting too, with that dark-images-and-scary-announcer-tone cliche going for it. Hell, all three are offputting. [Well, clearly not to others…])
I don’t actually know what the public school curriculum rules are, and they are, of course, always subject to change, but what the hell is the big deal over kids being taught that same-sex marriages are legally recognized in some places in the world, given that that is, in fact, the truth of the matter? What is the potential danger here, such that we should so fervently shield them from this mundane piece of trivia?
Afraid so. People or churches can throw money at “propaganda” but in the end, it’s the voters themselves. I’m not happy right now.
Aargh, and the end of this ad.
All the “think of the children” handbasket-Cassandraism makes me sick. I guess I should just consider myself lucky that I somehow managed to avoid seeing most of these ads when they actually aired…
Wait a minute-according to the above link, she donated to the campaign FOR Prop 8. 
Thanks, although, in case it’s not clear, I’m just a concerned straight Californian, and thus not personally affected in the way I believe Hostile Dialect could potentially be. But as you note, it sucks for all of us, to lose that ability to be really proud of our state…
So your complaint is that I continue to hold my opinion even when people disagree? Do you actually have the ability to articulate a response to my points which demonstrates how I’m wrong, or is shrieking about how nobody agrees with me your best argument? Did you miss the posts where people DID in fact agree that voting for an imperfect candidate will always be necessary? What do you call it when you make a decision to accept certain flaws because the benefits outweigh them, if not compromise? Do you recall that I quoted that because you first accused me of completely making up anyone claiming there was a disconnect, by the way?
If you pity me, then perhaps you could deign to make an attempt at explaining why what you quoted is stupid? Do you often go around insulting the people you pity, by the way?