The W
Views: 101372882
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
17.12.14 1717
The W - Current Events & Politics - Prop 8 The Musical
This thread has 9 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.12
Pages: 1 2 3 Next
(277 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (44 total)
General Zod
Italian








Since: 1.10.05
From: Mesa, Arizona

Since last post: 894 days
Last activity: 83 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.89
I don't know where this should go so please move it if this is the wrong forum.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones




I know you're a feminist and I think that's adorable, but this is grown-up time and I'm the man.
Promote this thread!
MisterHenderson
Boerewors








Since: 3.5.06
From: New York

Since last post: 1886 days
Last activity: 1804 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.66
That is just stupid.

I can't figure out why I'm considered hateful, if I don't support gay's rights to be married. What's wrong with civil unions? Why isn't that enough?

Also, the people of California voted FOR Prop 8. Why are the opponents of it trying to get it overturned? Isn't that why it was put to a vote?

Does that mean I can get a group together to overturn Obama's election? O.K. That might be a bit dramatic of an example, but it's the same in theory, isn't it?



I had just bent down to tighten my nuts, and there was a double yellow line, see? And next thing I knew, there was policeman behind me. He put a sticker on my helmet and tried to clamp me.
Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 507 days
Last activity: 467 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.66
From wikipedia:


    Conversely, advocates of same-sex marriage contend that anything less than full marriage rights extended to same-sex partners is analogous to the "separate but equal" racial laws of the Jim Crow era.
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 45 days
Last activity: 3 days
AIM:  
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.16
    Originally posted by MisterHenderson
    That is just stupid.

    I can't figure out why I'm considered hateful, if I don't support gay's rights to be married. What's wrong with civil unions? Why isn't that enough?

    Also, the people of California voted FOR Prop 8. Why are the opponents of it trying to get it overturned? Isn't that why it was put to a vote?

    Does that mean I can get a group together to overturn Obama's election? O.K. That might be a bit dramatic of an example, but it's the same in theory, isn't it?

The overturn movement is based on the idea that curtailing of basic civil rights is not able to be done via a simple electoral majority according to CA law.





2007 W-League Fantasy Football champion!
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 16 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.47
I don't think it is hateful if you don't understand that civil unions aren't the same and don't grant the same rights.

I think it is hateful if people know they are different, and think that the gays "should be happy with what they get" and "don't deserve to call it marriage".

I think that if this country is going to make a policy that certain people can create a process whereby they gain rights and privileges, that this process shouldn't be limited by race, gender, handicapped status, age, criminal record, etc.

This should be true for jobs, federal programs, welfare, marriage, everything. We don't need to discriminate against people in America.

America needs to embrace all people, regardless of color, creed, or affiliation. We are the land of the free, home of the brave. We aren't the land of the white, Christian majority (who must fight against anything that goes against this).




Sign up for Folding@Home and join our team. PM me for details.

Ignorance is bliss for you, hell for me.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 3 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.77
    Originally posted by Guru Zim
    I think that if this country is going to make a policy that certain people can create a process whereby they gain rights and privileges, that this process shouldn't be limited by race, gender, handicapped status, age, criminal record, etc.
Wow, how long have you wanted convicted felons to be able to vote?



Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 16 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.47
You do know that's not the law in all states, right?

http://felonvoting.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=286

I feel that people should be able to participate in representative government, even "bad" people.

(edited by Guru Zim on 5.12.08 1639)



Sign up for Folding@Home and join our team. PM me for details.

Ignorance is bliss for you, hell for me.
MisterHenderson
Boerewors








Since: 3.5.06
From: New York

Since last post: 1886 days
Last activity: 1804 days
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.66
I guess I'm a hateful person then. I do think they should be happy with civil unions.

Here's something else. I don't think gays should marry, and I'm not interested in hearing why they should. So why can't I say this, but it's OK for others to poke fun at Christianity for not supporting gay marriage.

Seems to be a double standard here.



I had just bent down to tighten my nuts, and there was a double yellow line, see? And next thing I knew, there was policeman behind me. He put a sticker on my helmet and tried to clamp me.
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.45
Might as well beat a dead horse. Even though hetero couples obtain a marriage license and we say they are married, it really is just a civil union. Churches of whatever stripe perform marriages. When Mrs. Dr. Dirt and I got our license (complete with blood test for "VD") as far as the state of Ohio was concerned, we were married and then we had the marriage ceremony in the church and were married in the "sight of God." The state should be in the civil union business and treat every couple the same. Leave religion out of it.

What was abhorrent in CA is that they were voting to put discrimination in a constitution.

You can be against gay marriage, you don't have to listen to them. That is your right. But the rights of the minority must be protected against the tyranny of the majority. And the minority must respect the majority.

And please don't throw screwball examples like protecting the rights of pedophiles to diddle kids or whatever, you know what I mean.

(edited by DrDirt on 6.12.08 2021)


Perception is reality
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 127 days
Last activity: 127 days
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.33
    Originally posted by MisterHenderson
    Here's something else. I don't think gays should marry, and I'm not interested in hearing why they should. So why can't I say this, but it's OK for others to poke fun at Christianity for not supporting gay marriage.


Because allowing gays to get married does not deny anybody anything, while denying gays the ability to get married does? I can't understand how someone could need this fundamental difference spelled out.

Telling gays, "you can get married" is in absolutely no way comparable to telling churches, "you have no right to force people to live their lives the way you want them to." Insulting or being disgusted by gays is not even comparable because, again, two men or two women having sex has absolutely no bearing on you whatsoever. The churches' positions do, as public policy is being formed as a result of it.
StingArmy
Andouille








Since: 3.5.03
From: Georgia bred, you can tell by my Hawk jersey

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 16 hours
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.61
    Originally posted by MisterHenderson
    I guess I'm a hateful person then. I do think they should be happy with civil unions.

    Here's something else. I don't think gays should marry, and I'm not interested in hearing why they should. So why can't I say this, but it's OK for others to poke fun at Christianity for not supporting gay marriage.

First of all, you can say just about any ridiculous thing you want. Nobody's gonna stop you. They may make fun of you or protest against you, but they can't stop you (see: Amendment, First). But saying it and trying to vote it into law are two different things.

Now, some hypotheticals. Hi, my name is Crow: James Crow. It's the year 1940 and I, like many people, don't think blacks should have the same rights whites have. What if I get a proposition on the ballot that allows blacks only (technically and factually inferior) civil unions and not state-recognized marriages? Is that okay? Because if it is, hoo-boy!, I'm gonna make sure my state's constitution is gonna look just how me and the rest of the Crow clan want it to look.

Or let's say it's the year 2340 and whites now comprise less than 40% of this country's population. What if I'm a member of a religion that doesn't think whites should marry? And what if I get a proposition on the ballot that would ban white marriages and my fellow religious people and I vote the proposition into state law? You have a problem with white people not having the right to get married anymore?

Please, please, PLEASE help me understand what you are thinking. Because as far as I can tell, you would be okay with both of those hypothetical situations.

- StingArmy

(edited by StingArmy on 7.12.08 0008)
MisterHenderson
Boerewors








Since: 3.5.06
From: New York

Since last post: 1886 days
Last activity: 1804 days
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.25
What I am thinking...is that I am morally against homosexuality and their wanting to get married.

I know in this day and age morality means nothing. I mean, look at Bill Clinton. The guy was an immoral skell and history wants to remember him as one of the greatest Presidents. It's the old saying "Caeser's law is greater than God's law."

Also, the Church is NOT forcing anyone to live a certain way. The Church has taken a stance "We oppose same-sex marriage". It is NOT the Church's position to force ANYONE to live a certain way, and they aren't. Lawmakers that share the same beliefs are the one's who put the idea to a vote, and guess what...more people were for Prop 8 than against. It's that simple.



(edited by MisterHenderson on 7.12.08 0035)
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 3 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.81
Does anyone have an argument that doesn't equate sexual identity with race?



El Nastio
Andouille








Since: 14.1.02
From: Ottawa Ontario, by way of Walkerton

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 8 hours
ICQ:  
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.80
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    And please don't throw screwball examples like protecting the rights of pedophiles to diddle kids or whatever, you know what I mean.


I don't know what you mean, please elaberate. I'm serious, please elaberate.



You know, I really don't know what to put here. Close your eyes and thank of something funny!
MisterHenderson
Boerewors








Since: 3.5.06
From: New York

Since last post: 1886 days
Last activity: 1804 days
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.33
In the spirit of wanting to avoid fights with other members (which may be too late), I will say that I DO understand the argument for, I just don't support it.

I know that in this day and age, not supporting an idea, just because it goes against your beliefs is seen as stupid. Especially if a valid argument is presented.

But this is how I feel, I can't change it. I tried to be nonchalant about it...didn't work. I tried to be selfish and say "As long as it doesn't affect me personally, why should I care". Couldn't make that one work either.

Now, the topic of this thread was about a video that was making light of something serious. Truth be told, in this instance, I doth protest too much. In a vacuum this would be an overreaction on my part. But it isn't...not for me.

Too many stories about angry members of the gay community physically and verbally attacking supporters of Prop 8. Churches being vandalized. I dunno if this was the final straw for me, or maybe I was in a mood to begin with.

Ultimately, if a similar bill is ever put to a vote in my home state of NY, I will support it. If it doesn't get passed I will learn to live with it.



I'm Free!
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 16 hours
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.05
I think the church and state should be separate in this matter, like what DrDirt said.

I support equal rights for LBGT people. I personally know, Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay, and Transgendered people (it's hard to keep my pronouns straight when you've known someone for 18 years as Jeff and now they're Jenn).

Having said that, it is wrong to force religions who only recognize M/F couples in marriage to marry other people who violate that religion. If there is a religion/church that will marry LBGT couples, let them do marriages. I don't think it's right for the state to but in and tell the churches "Now, you must marry them even though it violates some of your rules/regs/whatever" just as it's not right for the churches to try to spread their beliefs, some of which seem 400 years outdated and discriminatory, into state laws.

To me, a civil union is just as equal enough as a "marriage" because the only difference in my eyes is that one is church approved and the other is not. As long as a civil union lets my wife have all the benefits that a church wedding, I'll be happy.

All my friends know that I don't want to get "married" because I'm not religious and I've had a couple of long-term relationships where "marriage" was talked about and she was happy with a church wedding. The word "marriage" has too much of a religious connotation for my tastes. It brings up images of churches, organ music, His and Hers seating, and the priest doing the ceremony.

For me, "separate but equal" seems fine to me because the church and state will never jive on this subject. The state needs to stop this form of discrimination and quit force their will on a group that wants to be left alone with their traditions. Martin Luther nailed a note on a door and started his own church because he was fed up with the way it was being run. Maybe history will repeat itself and a LBGT person will start their own all-inclusive judaeo-christian church.

If it can be accepted the Mormons can believe that God led Jews to America 600 years before the birth of Jesus, maybe a LBGT person will start a church where it will be accepted that there is yet ANOTHER book as part of the bible where God decreed that EVERYONE is equal and that the gender of someone or whom they chose to have consensual adult sex with has no being on the content of their character or being.







-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year --

"...Oh, the band is out on the field!! He's gonna go into the end zone! He's gone into the end zone!!
-- Joe Starkey -- November 20, 1982 -- The Play --
StingArmy
Andouille








Since: 3.5.03
From: Georgia bred, you can tell by my Hawk jersey

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 16 hours
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.61
    Originally posted by Zeruel
    Having said that, it is wrong to force religions who only recognize M/F couples in marriage to marry other people who violate that religion.

    ...

    To me, a civil union is just as equal enough as a "marriage" because the only difference in my eyes is that one is church approved and the other is not. As long as a civil union lets my wife have all the benefits that a church wedding, I'll be happy.

I could be mistaken here, but I'm pretty sure that no one is trying to force any church to marry gay couples. Spiritual or religious marriage is theoretically distinct from legal marriage. The term "marriage" may have religious connotations to you but it is a legal term of art. A couple can get "married" without the involvement of any religious organization or house of worship, so therefore nobody is forcing any religion to marry anybody.

And you say the only difference between civil unions and marriages in your eyes is church approval, but in reality there are practical and legal distinctions between civil unions/domestic partnerships and marriages. That's the whole point of this battle.
    Originally posted by MisterHenderson
    Too many stories about angry members of the gay community physically and verbally attacking supporters of Prop 8.

It goes both way, my friend. It doesn't make it right in the slightest, but violent supporters of anti-gay sentiment FAR outnumber violent supporters of gay rights. And the former existed far before Prop 8 was even a twinkle in some lawmaker's eye.
    Originally posted by CRZ
    Does anyone have an argument that doesn't equate sexual identity with race?

Do YOU have an argument for why that comparison isn't valid? And while you're at it, can you think of any other situation in legal history where there was turmoil over "seperate but equal" institutions?

- StingArmy
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 127 days
Last activity: 127 days
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.33
    Originally posted by MisterHenderson
    What I am thinking...is that I am morally against homosexuality and their wanting to get married.


... and it's just as ridiculous as if a gay man decided men and women getting married was immoral, and he had to do whatever he could from preventing it from happening.


    I know in this day and age morality means nothing. I mean, look at Bill Clinton. The guy was an immoral skell and history wants to remember him as one of the greatest Presidents.


You mean, Bill Clinton did not live his life the way you live yours. It's really great that you think all people should have to subscribe to your definition of "moral" and "immoral." Thankfully for the rest of us, you are 100 percent wrong which is exactly why all people will have the same right to get married eventually, just like Plessy vs Ferguson was eventually overturned.


    Also, the Church is NOT forcing anyone to live a certain way. The Church has taken a stance "We oppose same-sex marriage". It is NOT the Church's position to force ANYONE to live a certain way, and they aren't. Lawmakers that share the same beliefs are the one's who put the idea to a vote, and guess what...more people were for Prop 8 than against. It's that simple.


You mean, "lawmakers who share the same beliefs and are told by their church that if they don't legislate accordingly, they will be sinning are the ones who put the idea to a vote."

Also, Proposition 8 in California had nothing to do with lawmakers.

    Originally posted by CRZ
    Does anyone have an argument that doesn't equate sexual identity with race?


I'm not sure where "equate" comes from, but as long as we're saying gays are entitled to "separate but equal" rights, the comparison to America's racist history is pretty much the only relevant comparison.
Jellofiend
Weisswurst








Since: 4.5.04
From: Oxford, Ohio

Since last post: 942 days
Last activity: 942 days
#19 Posted on
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    I'm not sure where "equate" comes from, but as long as we're saying gays are entitled to "separate but equal" rights, the comparison to America's racist history is pretty much the only relevant comparison.


Maybe the Drew Carey Show has steered me wrong, but aren't divorcees prohibited from marrying (or at least having their marriages recognized) by the Catholic Church. That seems to be somewhat relevant to the religious/civil marriage divide.

EDIT: Way to format, Jellofiend, you dumb-ass.

(edited by Jellofiend on 7.12.08 0511)
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 127 days
Last activity: 127 days
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.33

    Maybe the Drew Carey Show has steered me wrong, but aren't divorcees prohibited from marrying (or at least having their marriages recognized) by the Catholic Church. That seems to be somewhat relevant to the religious/civil marriage divide.


Maybe by the church, but who cares? The church can pass what over stupid bullshit it wants. That's not the same as the government passing a law.
Pages: 1 2 3 Next
Thread rated: 5.12
Pages: 1 2 3 Next
Thread ahead: Illinois Governor held in inquiry into fill Obama's Senate seat
Next thread: Hey Canadians!
Previous thread: Canned Juice
(277 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Because stupidity shows no racial prejudice? While I agree that there are certain judges that are idiots, the second part of this quote is ridiculous. Come on Grimis, you're better than that, no?
The W - Current Events & Politics - Prop 8 The MusicalRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.14 seconds.