Prop 8 Losers In Denial

[RockX]

Well, the Prop 8 losers had their big national sissy hissy fit on Saturday and of course the LA Times covered it.

http://tinyurl.com/5lt5hu


"It's invigorating and exciting to see us unite as a people," Christine Pease, 39, said as she handed out stickers with a yellow equal sign to demonstrators outside City Hall.

Do you think you might have wanted to do that before the election instead of after you lost.


Gays and blacks

A running theme during the Los Angeles demonstration was the role of African Americans in the passage of the anti-gay-marriage measure. An exit poll showed that black voters favored the proposition by a ratio of more than 2 to 1.

Again and again, speakers asked the crowd not to blame the black community. "We did not lose the fight because of African Americans," said Lorri L. Jean, 51, chief executive of the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center.

Referring to black civil rights leaders, she said, "They have taught us, supported us and stood with us." The crowd cheered.




Blacks voted in favor of it 2 to 1, and the gays say don't blame them. Guess its so much easier to blame those 2% of Californians who are Mormon's for their loss at the polls.

 

[evince]

It will go down in flames and the country and state will be better off for it.

Conservatives will never be able to have their fantasy of taking us back to the phoney 50s.

 

[cawacko]

It will go down in flames and the country and state will be better off for it.

Conservatives will never be able to have their fantasy of taking us back to the phoney 50s.

Go ahead and try to blame it on conservatives but look at the margin of Obama's victory in California. This was regular folk and many Obama voters who voted against Prop 8. The airwaves in California were flooded with anti Prop 8 ads before the election. But as the article said above those who are passionate about it should have hit the streets before the election.

 

[uscitizen]

flooded the airwaves. Yes we as a group do tend to do what the vidiot tube tells us to do.

 

[evince]

Go ahead and try to blame it on conservatives but look at the margin of Obama's victory in California. This was regular folk and many Obama voters who voted against Prop 8. The airwaves in California were flooded with anti Prop 8 ads before the election. But as the article said above those who are passionate about it should have hit the streets before the election.

Who put it on the ballot?

Who promotes this shit as a "saving of marriage"?


Once people KNOW gay people they like then they abandon this stupid idea and realise its just prejudice to keep people from being able to tie their live to whomever they want without the state stepping in and saying "no your relationship is unacceptable to the government".

 

[Damocles]

Who put it on the ballot?

Who promotes this shit as a "saving of marriage"?


Once people KNOW gay people they like then they abandon this stupid idea and realise its just prejudice to keep people from being able to tie their live to whomever they want without the state stepping in and saying "no your relationship is unacceptable to the government".

The reality is, it was not "conservatives" who voted for this in California. Once you get that idea through your head you may be able to start introducing gay people to the people who actually did vote against it and test your theory out.

 

[cawacko]

Who put it on the ballot?

Who promotes this shit as a "saving of marriage"?


Once people KNOW gay people they like then they abandon this stupid idea and realise its just prejudice to keep people from being able to tie their live to whomever they want without the state stepping in and saying "no your relationship is unacceptable to the government".

Once again go talk to the black and hispanic communities and tell them how prejudice they are. White people voted for Prop 8 the most based on straight numbers but as a group a majority of blacks and hispanics voted for Prop 8.

 

[evince]

Once again go talk to the black and hispanic communities and tell them how prejudice they are. White people voted for Prop 8 the most based on straight numbers but as a group a majority of blacks and hispanics voted for Prop 8.

Heres the part you dont get.

That is exactly what is going to happen.

These communities (because of religion and social pressure) have not faced up to the homosexual memebers of their own communities. You will see more gay people of color step forward and tell their communities that they are out and proud and that it is no different to hate on them that it is to hate on any minority group.

This is going to change and then the conservatives ( say like the Morman Church) who spend vast amounts of money to back these types of laws will see their money wasted instead of seeing it work.

Gay, of color and proud.

Its coiming to a city near you.

 

[cawacko]

Heres the part you dont get.

That is exactly what is going to happen.

These communities (because of religion and social pressure) have not faced up to the homosexual memebers of their own communities. You will see more gay people of color step forward and tell their communities that they are out and proud and that it is no different to hate on them that it is to hate on any minority group.

This is going to change and then the conservatives ( say like the Morman Church) who spend vast amounts of money to back these types of laws will see their money wasted instead of seeing it work.

Gay, of color and proud.

Its coiming to a city near you.

I'm from San Francisco. It's not coming here its been here.

 

[Damocles]

Heres the part you dont get.

That is exactly what is going to happen.

These communities (because of religion and social pressure) have not faced up to the homosexual memebers of their own communities. You will see more gay people of color step forward and tell their communities that they are out and proud and that it is no different to hate on them that it is to hate on any minority group.

This is going to change and then the conservatives ( say like the Morman Church) who spend vast amounts of money to back these types of laws will see their money wasted instead of seeing it work.

Gay, of color and proud.

Its coiming to a city near you.

IMO, other than adding to the economy, the money was wasted to begin with.

 

[evince]

I'm from San Francisco. It's not coming here its been here.

And once its everywhere SF will just be another city.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Desh, has it ever dawned on your clueless little pinhead, if you guys can't pass "gay marriage" in California, it's probably not going to pass in the heartland? I think we are at like 30+ ballot initiatives across the country to do this, and they have all failed.

You keep wanting to blame this on "ignorant bigots" ...the bible-toting rednecks... conservatives... religious nuts... but the statistical data in California, shows it's largely opposed by blacks and hispanics, most of whom voted for Obama. But... oh no, you can't throw minorities under the bus... you need to steal the thunder from their cause, to use for your own!

 

[Cancel3]

Desh, has it ever dawned on your clueless little pinhead, if you guys can't pass "gay marriage" in California, it's probably not going to pass in the heartland? I think we are at like 30+ ballot initiatives across the country to do this, and they have all failed.

You keep wanting to blame this on "ignorant bigots" ...the bible-toting rednecks... conservatives... religious nuts... but the statistical data in California, shows it's largely opposed by blacks and hispanics, most of whom voted for Obama. But... oh no, you can't throw minorities under the bus... you need to steal the thunder from their cause, to use for your own!

And who backed the other 29 ballot iniatives? CA was odd because it WASN'T conservatives who pressed for this nonsense.

And CT is still marrying gays. So is MA.

The rest of the states will do so within our lifetimes, Dixie. Its just amatter of time.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

And who backed the other 29 ballot iniatives? CA was odd because it WASN'T conservatives who pressed for this nonsense.

And CT is still marrying gays. So is MA.

The rest of the states will do so within our lifetimes, Dixie. Its just amatter of time.

Doesn't really matter who "backed" or "opposed" anything, it matters how the people resoundingly voted. Which, by the way, did not happen in CT and MA.

You can call it 'nonsense' all you like, the vast majority completely disagree with you on this issue. I can tell you this, if the 'rest of the states' push gay marriage through judicial fiat as they have in CT and MA, you will eventually see a constitutional amendment passed, to settle the issue once and for all.

As I have articulated in other threads, my position is a "moderate" view, which would allow gay couples to obtain civil unions and every right of traditional married couples. I think this is anything BUT an 'extremist' solution, but I will tell you, I am getting really tired of being called an 'extremist bigot' who 'hates gays' and all the other 'knuckle-dragging' pejoratives being hurled my way... really tired of it!

 

[Cancel3]

Doesn't really matter who "backed" or "opposed" anything, it matters how the people resoundingly voted. Which, by the way, did not happen in CT and MA.

You can call it 'nonsense' all you like, the vast majority completely disagree with you on this issue. I can tell you this, if the 'rest of the states' push gay marriage through judicial fiat as they have in CT and MA, you will eventually see a constitutional amendment passed, to settle the issue once and for all.

As I have articulated in other threads, my position is a "moderate" view, which would allow gay couples to obtain civil unions and every right of traditional married couples. I think this is anything BUT an 'extremist' solution, but I will tell you, I am getting really tired of being called an 'extremist bigot' who 'hates gays' and all the other 'knuckle-dragging' pejoratives being hurled my way... really tired of it!

Consideringhow often you call people "pinheads", I would get used to being called names if I were you.

Ifyou look at the way gays were treated just 30 or 40 years ago, you will see that society is becoming more and more accepting of the idea of homosexuality.

Think about what the reaction would have been to Brokeback Mountain in the 60s or 70s.

The change will come. But try for the constitutional amendment. Its defeat would be a wakeup call for a lot of people.




And while we are on the subject, if your plan went thru, and Civil Unions became the only wany the government was involved, let me ask a couple of questions.

1) Religious marriages would have to be accompanied by a Civil Union in order to get the government benefits, is that correct?

2) Since the government would not be involved in marriages, if a particular religion decided to perform gay marriages, they would be allowed? (The Civil Union would still be needed to gain gov't benefits)

 

[cawacko]

And once its everywhere SF will just be another city.

Have you ever been to San Francisco? It will never be 'just another city'.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Consideringhow often you call people "pinheads", I would get used to being called names if I were you.

It doesn't really bother me to be called names, but it does tend to effect how I personally feel about those who call me names with no basis. In other words, you can call me "racist" because you judge me by an avatar and not my character, and I can deal with that... no problem! But don't call me a 'religious wacko' because I support traditional marriage. The term "pinhead" is used to describe a certain type of person whom I often find disagreement with, but not always. I have disagreed with many people who are not pinheads, and I have been in agreement with some pinheads on some issues.

Ifyou look at the way gays were treated just 30 or 40 years ago, you will see that society is becoming more and more accepting of the idea of homosexuality.

See here is where I think you have a fundamental disconnect. I don't think the issue of 'gay marriage' has a damn thing to do with acceptance of homosexuality, and you obviously do. Is it 'bigotry' that causes you to think like that? I mean, I realize there are a certain percentage of people who 'don't want them queers gettin together' and that's why they oppose gay marriage, but I think the vast majority of people who oppose it, are speaking more to the protection of traditional values in society. I think you tend to really offend people by calling them 'homophobes' when they aren't. Yet, as a liberal, you think this is an effective way to 'guilt' them into accepting your views.

Think about what the reaction would have been to Brokeback Mountain in the 60s or 70s.

Probably the same as it was to The Graduate, Carnal Knowledge, Bob, Carol, Ted, and Alice... any number of other socially challenging plots coming from Hollywood over the years.

The change will come. But try for the constitutional amendment. Its defeat would be a wakeup call for a lot of people.

The change of how marriage is defined, is not coming. It continues to be soundly rejected by the people. The radical right-wing religious wacko president Clinton, signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law, which prevented a serious movement to push for a Constitutional amendment, otherwise, we would now be ratifying it.

And while we are on the subject, if your plan went thru, and Civil Unions became the only wany the government was involved, let me ask a couple of questions.

1) Religious marriages would have to be accompanied by a Civil Union in order to get the government benefits, is that correct?

2) Since the government would not be involved in marriages, if a particular religion decided to perform gay marriages, they would be allowed? (The Civil Union would still be needed to gain gov't benefits)

1) yes 2) yes
ooooo... I am such a rightwing religious wacko extremist, aren't I?

 

[Cancel3]

"Probably the same as it was to The Graduate, Carnal Knowledge, Bob, Carol, Ted, and Alice... any number of other socially challenging plots coming from Hollywood over the years. "

And as controversial as those were, imagine if there had been gay sex involved. Yes, the times have changed, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

And there was a time, not so long ago, that none of these changes would have been accepted by society.

Now they are. The same will be true of gay marriage.


And the traditional marriage will not change. There will be additional people allowed to take part in the ritual, but for those who are not gay, their marriage will be uneffected.


So your solution would allow Civil Unions to get the gov't benefits, for any two consenting adults.

And your solution would also allow any church that chose to do so, to marry gays.

That doesn't sound so different than a gay marriage to me. After all, there are plenty of churches that would marry gays today if it were legal.

 

[midcan5]

This is changing as most young people today know gays and thus the alienation that some feel is gone. When we grew up it was a unknown or taboo subject. Soon gays will have equal rights under the constitution to marry, soon may take time but time has a way of moving on.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

"Probably the same as it was to The Graduate, Carnal Knowledge, Bob, Carol, Ted, and Alice... any number of other socially challenging plots coming from Hollywood over the years. "

And as controversial as those were, imagine if there had been gay sex involved. Yes, the times have changed, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

And there was a time, not so long ago, that none of these changes would have been accepted by society.

Now they are. The same will be true of gay marriage.

I think "Gay Marriage" is destined for the same fate as the 70's ERA. Yes, times are changing, they always have and always will. Marriage is a religious institution and a social institution which has been understood for 500 years, to be the union of one man and one woman. It is the foundation of "family" in America, and I don't think Americans are ready to give that up.

And the traditional marriage will not change. There will be additional people allowed to take part in the ritual, but for those who are not gay, their marriage will be uneffected.

Please stop making this irrelevant point. No one I know of, has EVER argued that "gay marriage" would effect traditional marriages. That is not the point, and the more you try to incorporate it as a valid point to counter, the more ignorant and foolish you seem to be.

So your solution would allow Civil Unions to get the gov't benefits, for any two consenting adults.

YES! ...I know it is a shocker, isn't it? I mean, being that I am such a 'religious reactionary extremist right wing bigoted homophobe who hates gays!' You'd think my position would be different, wouldn't you?

And your solution would also allow any church that chose to do so, to marry gays.

If they wanted to, sure... Freedom of Religion!

That doesn't sound so different than a gay marriage to me. After all, there are plenty of churches that would marry gays today if it were legal.

Good! Then we can drop this whole "Gay Marriage" silliness, and work toward a comprehensive and benign Civil Unions initiative, which would get the government out of the 'marriage' business and not redefine 'marriage' to include sexual behavior or preferences! I'm glad we agree!!