A gay president, and the Irony of Prop 8.

[Gooberman]

LOS ANGELES, Nov. 6 -- Any notion that Tuesday's election represented a liberal juggernaut must overcome a detail from the voting booths of California: The same voters who turned out strongest for Barack Obama also drove a stake through the heart of same-sex marriage.

Seven in 10 African Americans who went to the polls voted yes on Proposition 8, the ballot measure overruling a state Supreme Court judgment that legalized same-sex marriage and brought 18,000 gay and lesbian couples to Golden State courthouses in the past six months.

Similar measures passed easily in Florida and Arizona. It was closer in California, but no ethnic group anywhere rejected the sanctioning of same-sex unions as emphatically as the state's black voters, according to exit polls. Fifty-three percent of Latinos also backed Proposition 8, overcoming the bare majority of white Californians who voted to let the court ruling stand.

Washington Post

By no measure do I equate the civil rights movement to the plight of gay rights in America. But there is a bit of irony here. Two steps forward and three steps back.

A hundred years ago few would of thought a Black man would become president. Even knowing this, I cannot see a path for a gay man ever becoming president in this Country. Am I making the same mistake as those 100 years ago?

.....and who knew white people were so damn tolerant. Go us.

[Jesus Freak]

.....and who knew white people were so damn tolerant. Go us.

Unfortunately, whites are tolerant on all the wrong things.

[shaktazuki]

.....and who knew white people were so damn tolerant. Go us.

Unfortunately, whites are tolerant on all the wrong things.

That, sad to say, is fact.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Am I making the same mistake as those 100 years ago?

That's easy. NO. You're making a whole new mistake. Unless checked, America is well on its way to making it possible for a homo to be elected to the White House, for the same reason that a man with radical socialist views and associations just breezed in--American public education, and more particularly the liberal groups influencing it. Whether the country will be around long enough or not, society is actively being steered in that direction.

[Dakatsu]

Because the queers are the biggest threat to the United States! Forget terrorism, or child rape, or gang fights, the QUEER BANDITOS ARE GOING TO RUIN AMERICA!

[shaktazuki]

Because the queers are the biggest threat to the United States!

Because there exists hate-speech, hate-crimes, and anti-discrimination laws which ultimately can be used to criminalize pure speech in the US, with particular regards to gays, this sarcasticly hyperbolic statement of yours is actually the truth.

The whole point of the gay marriage movement is to create a legal platform from which to criminalize religious expression - in particular, the public expression of Christianity - using these laws.

Now that marriage has been legally defined to be the union of opposite sexes, it is not a crime to deny that homosexuals are married, as it would be if homosexual marriage was legal; it also is not now a crime to teach that sexual conduct outside of marriage is a sin, since such a message is not aimed at gays specifically. That's how Prop 8 is in strict self-defense of the natural right to speak one's beliefs.

That's what was and is at stake. Whether you agree with the religious perspective, you should agree that one's right to hold and teach religious beliefs must be preserved at all costs. Those are, after all, the precise rights our Puritan and Pilgrim forefathers came to this continent to obtain, and the precise purpose behind the First Amendment.

And, if you agree that this fundamental right to believe what you want and speak your beliefs freely must be preserved at all costs, you should support prop. 8 type laws until all laws are eliminated which criminalize speech to any degree (barring direct and immediate threats which pose a clear and present danger to life, limb, or property).

If not, America is in a bad way indeed, and we will witness its end as the last bastion of freedom in the world.

[Gooberman]

I hope this keyboard imprint on my forehead wears off by morning.

[Gekko71]

I hope this keyboard imprint on my forehead wears off by morning.

Classic.

[Spidey]

Did anybody read the comments on that page Dak linked? You have to love ignorance, all hail the ignorant!

Democrats turn out in huge numbers and vote for Prop 8.…and still Republicans get the blame.

See “that’s” why I want to be a Democrat. I want to vote against gay rights, and then go home and snicker, because someone else will be blamed.

[Gooberman]

Sort of how this country wages war and protests it at the same time. I mean that must seriously ★■◆● with the heads of our enemies. There is a hilarious south park episode on that.

.....and you're not suppose to read comments on youtube.

[Dedman]

The whole point of the gay marriage movement is to create a legal platform from which to criminalize religious expression - in particular, the public expression of Christianity - using these laws.

That has got to be the funniest thing I have read in a long time.

[Testiculese]

Wow, shak, may I put in an order with your dealer? Your drugs are WAY BETTER than mine.

[Foil]

The whole point of the gay marriage movement is to create a legal platform from which to criminalize religious expression - in particular, the public expression of Christianity - using these laws.

That has got to be the funniest thing I have read in a long time.

It's actually rather scary... I know a few people who subscribe to that kind of thinking, where anything that doesn't follow a Christian belief must be a conspiracy or an outright attack.

I have former high-school classmates who still forward me emails with the same kind of stuff; they're good people, but they sometimes just blindly accept any crap that comes along purporting to "defend our faith". Fortunately most good Christians know better, but it's really frustrating when someone who claims to share my faith says something so ridiculous.

[shaktazuki]

The whole point of the gay marriage movement is to create a legal platform from which to criminalize religious expression - in particular, the public expression of Christianity - using these laws.

That has got to be the funniest thing I have read in a long time.

It's actually rather scary... I know a few people who subscribe to that kind of thinking, where anything that doesn't follow a Christian belief must be a conspiracy or an outright attack.

Not a single person has responded cogently. Is the above supposed to be a summary of my argument? From a purported Christian, no less?

For those whose reading comprehension skills exceed the second grade level, what I claim was in the works for the US has already happened in Canada: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66704

For further information: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78339

Peace out, bros. You don't have to agree - but in the name of intellectual honesty you should engage the actual argument instead of acting like mocking idiots.

[Sergeant Thorne]

The whole point of the gay marriage movement is to create a legal platform from which to criminalize religious expression - in particular, the public expression of Christianity - using these laws.

You're nuts.

You know you guys will believe whatever you hear, as long as it's got a certain ring to it. When was the last time any of you heard something outside of school and accepted it--without first verifying it--on the basis that it sounds right? You just have different ideas about what sounds right. There may be exceptions to this statement, but in my opinion and experience they are few and far between--few people are truly (and consistently) so objective.

Is this statement truly so implausible? Hasn't that been exactly the result of homosexual movements in nearby countries? Christian pastors get attacked legally for preaching that homosexuality is a sin. Homos already have most non-Christians in the bag, essentially, why should the only group that is legitimately and most decidedly (not to mention non-violently) against homosexuality not be a target, for them? Are you just naive, trusting everyone to be reasonable, or do you believe your homo friends fully represent the face and intent of the driving force behind the movement?

[Gooberman]

One of my favorite quotes that sits above my desk, is Mark Twains,

\"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, its time to pause and reflect,\"

Its never fun when you first poke fun at someone, and then a line forms behind you. For this most part, this is a place where diverse ideas are accepted, and I didn't mean to repel.

That being said, I've never met a gay person who much cared what Christians said or did. My experience interacting with the people is that this is an entirely one sided fight.

\"Let me do this\"
\"No.\"

[Foil]

shaktazuki, Thorne,

There is a huge difference between these two claims:

• A) Homosexual groups target Christians who are outspoken about the fact that our faith doesn't morally support that lifestyle.
• B) The fundamental driving force of the homosexual movement is an anti-Christian conspiracy.

I fully agree with A); it's clear that Christianity is targeted by such groups, for obvious reasons. And yes, they are sometimes backed by government legislation.

However, you are both claiming B), which is significantly different because it claims to somehow know the original motivation behind the movement. I'm sorry, but that's speculation more akin to conspiracy theory than anything else.

------------------

Are you just naive, trusting everyone to be reasonable, or do you believe your homo[sexual] friends fully represent the face and intent of the driving force behind the movement?

At least I've discussed the subject with some of them (including one former homosexual who is now a Christian), rather than assuming I know their intent.

[Bet51987]

Me trying to reply to Shaktazuki and Thorne.



Bettina

[Hostile]

former homosexual?.......

[Bet51987]

former homosexual?.......

What makes you think they are?

Bee

[Foil]

former homosexual?.......

To avoid diverting this into yet another tangent, I should probably clarify: I was referring to someone who used to live a homosexual lifestyle, has since converted to Christianity, and is now married (to someone of the opposite sex).

--------

Back on the current topic, my primary point was that shak and Thorne have ventured into the realm of speculation and conspiracy-ville when they claim to know "the real intent behind the movement".

[Bet51987]

former homosexual?.......

To avoid diverting this into yet another tangent, I should probably clarify: I was referring to someone who used to live a homosexual lifestyle, has since converted to Christianity, and is now married (to someone of the opposite sex).

--------

Back on the current topic, my primary point was that shak and Thorne have ventured into the realm of speculation and conspiracy-ville when they claim to know "the real intent behind the movement".

That can happen but I would bet, assuming he was a true homosexual, that he still has fantasies of being with the same sex which makes his marriage to the opposite sex a sham. James E. McGreevey is a perfect example. To change your orientation for religious reasons is ok, but not at the expense of his wife.

To be serious, shaktazuki, thorne, and those who think like that are, sorry to say, the real problem with America...not the people who are willing to accept a gay, lesbian, black, jew, etc, as my equal.

Bee

[shaktazuki]

That can happen but I would bet, assuming he was a true homosexual, that he still has fantasies of being with the same sex which makes his marriage to the opposite sex a sham.

Absence of evidence is no problem for this line of "logic."

To be serious, shaktazuki, thorne, and those who think like that are, sorry to say, the real problem with America...

As I said: you can disagree, but intellectual honesty mandates that you engage the arguments.

This apparently is the wrong crowd for that. Ad hominems are more your style. None of you has even accurately summarized the argument I posted, much less engaged it responsibly.

[Foil]

This apparently is the wrong crowd for that. Ad hominems are more your style.

Hm, was that just an ad hominem, itself?

---------

Shak,

I challenged your speculation about "the real intent/conspiracy behind the movement" and I'd like to know... do you have anything to support such an incredibly broad claim, or are you basing this on your assumption about the motivation for the anecdotal events you linked to before?

---------

Yet again:

* Saying that homosexual groups target Christianity is one thing (and vice-versa, no one in here is arguing otherwise).

* Making the broad claim that the motivation for the entire homosexual movement is an anti-Christian conspiracy (rather than a complex social movement) is quite another.

[shaktazuki]

This apparently is the wrong crowd for that. Ad hominems are more your style.

Hm, was that just an ad hominem, itself?

No; it was a conclusion based on the present evidence. Your comment, however, is an ad hominem.

Shak,

I challenged your speculation about "the real intent/conspiracy behind the movement" and I'd like to know... do you have anything to support such an incredibly broad claim, or are you basing this on your assumption about the motivation for the anecdotal events you linked to before?

Foil,

What evidence of motivations would you accept? Is there such a thing as "non-anecdotal" events to cite in support of a proposition?

Do you think the question of motivations is somehow central to my argument?

If so, how so?

If not, why not engage the central point?

[Foil]

No, but that was.

Ha.

Do you think this tangential point is somehow central to my argument? If so, how? If not, why not engage the central point?

Huh? From everything you've said, your central point is that the homosexual movement is some kind of anti-Christian conspiracy.

The rest isn't even a debate. "News Flash! There are Christian groups fighting homosexual rights, and there are homosexual groups fighting to stop Christians from preaching against them!"... Shak, no one here is arguing that.

What I'm taking exception to is your characterization of the entire movement as some kind of anti-Christian conspiracy, and you have yet to give any kind of evidence of something on that level.

[shaktazuki]

From everything you've said, your central point is that the homosexual movement is some kind of anti-Christian conspiracy.

There's no point to further discussion until and unless you demonstrate an ability to accurately summarize my argument in favor of Proposition 8.

[Foil]

Fine. Your argument was essentially this:

Prop 8 negates a conspiracy by the homosexual movement to criminalize free religious expression (specifically Christian objections to homosexuality).

Now, that argument is entirely based on the first part of that statement - the assumption that there is some anti-Christian or anti-religious conspiracy behind it all.

So, yet again... where do you get that assumption?

[Gooberman]

Ya Foil, interpret for us....because just quoting him directly is confusing the hell out of everyone!!

(damn you beat me)

...turns out I just can't resist throwing spit balls in this thread. I had such high hopes for myself .

[shaktazuki]

Fine. Your argument was essentially this:

Prop 8 negates a conspiracy by the homosexual movement to criminalize free religious expression (specifically Christian objections to homosexuality).

Very close! When you get it quite right, then we can talk.

[woodchip]

So tell me, would the main entrance to the white house be moved to the back door?

Hey, just figured a little humor needed.

[shaktazuki]

That certainly has succeeded!

[Jeff250]

Shak, since no one can seem to decipher what you \"really\" mean, odds are that the problem is with you and not with us. Perhaps you are new to posting at the DBB, but I've found it to be common to have to resummarize my point multiple times before people really get what I am saying. This is just because people cannot see inside my head. So quit playing games and try to restate your point emphasizing what you \"really\" mean, or else everyone will just have to assume you are wrong.

[shaktazuki]

Shak, since no one can seem to decipher what you "really" mean, odds are that the problem is with you and not with us.

Not so. As soon as Foil ceases attempting to cast a tertiary point as a necessary component to the main argument, he'll have succeeded in summarizing my argument - but the game is over then, since I'm correct (he admitted as much).

[Q]uit playing games and try to restate your point emphasizing what you "really" mean, or else everyone will just have to assume you are wrong.

I hope your grandmother, like mine, told you what assumptions do.

I'm not interested in repeating myself ad nauseam, be compelled to defend points not central to my argument, while the central argument is bypassed, and be called for references on minutiae, all the while being slandered.

[Spidey]

Welcome to the DBB…….

[Jeff250]

Shak, right or wrong, I'm just telling you the way that it is. Your style of discussion isn't conducive to understanding, and you are not effectively communicating your message, since no one gets what you are trying to say. You could try to blame it on everyone else for not understanding it, meanwhile everyone will still not get what you are trying to say. Or you could attempt to restate your point (a second time != ad nauseum). Welcome to the DBB, or even welcome to having discussions with people...

[Foil]

shaktazuki,

In your first post, you said:

The whole point of the gay marriage movement is to create a legal platform from which to criminalize religious expression - in particular, the public expression of Christianity - using these laws.

...and then after some discussion of the value of religious freedom, you concluded...

Prop 8 is in strict self-defense of the natural right to speak one's beliefs.

To me, the first section reads clearly as the basis for the conclusion in the second section.

However, now you seem to say it's a tangential point, rather than the basis of your argument.

-----------

The others here are right - if I'm indeed misunderstanding or misconstruing your argument, then just clarify it.

[shaktazuki]

shaktazuki,

In your first post, you said:

The whole point of the gay marriage movement is to create a legal platform from which to criminalize religious expression - in particular, the public expression of Christianity - using these laws.

...and then after some discussion of the value of religious freedom, you concluded...

Prop 8 is in strict self-defense of the natural right to speak one's beliefs.

To me, the first section reads clearly as the basis for the conclusion you came to, so I challenged that basis. However, now you seem to say it's a tangential point. Which is it?

It is, and always was, a tangential point. The motivations of any particular person, or percentage of persons in the homosexual movement is irrelevant to the argument for self-defense as the primary justification for Proposition 8. I don't need to prove the guy who is pointing a gun at my head intends to fire before I acquire the justified right to disarm him.

Let me repeat that, lest I am misunderstood: self-defense does not require proving your attacker has malicious motivations. Motivations of attackers are tangential to a claim of self-defense - nice to have but not necessary.

However, you cannot challenge the tangential point about motivation while simultaneously granting it.

"[T]here are homosexual groups fighting to stop Christians from preaching against them!" ... Shak, no one here is arguing that.

[Foil]

The motivations of any particular person, or percentage of persons in the homosexual movement is irrelevant to the argument for self-defense as the primary justification for Proposition 8.

If motivation is irrelevant, why did you make such a bold, broad statement claiming a universal anti-Christian motivation for the movement?

Also, even if the primary basis of your argument was defense of religious freedom, your statement that gay marriage is a conspiracy to attack religious freedom is still a crucial point in your logic.

However, you cannot challenge the tangential point about motivation while simultaneously granting it.

"[T]here are homosexual groups fighting to stop Christians from preaching against them!" ... Shak, no one here is arguing that.

Right, no one is arguing that there aren't homosexual groups fighting to stop Christians from preaching against them. It happens.

The issue is with your statement implying that such fights are the motive for the entire movement:

The whole point of the gay marriage movement is...

[shaktazuki]

[E]ven if the primary basis of your argument was defense of religious freedom, your statement that gay marriage is a conspiracy to attack religious freedom is still a crucial point in your logic.

I went to some lengths to show, in my previous post, that it was not a crucial point in my logic. It plays a rhetorical role. Engage my argument.