Prop 8 Supporters Threatened

[Dmac77]

This (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/business/08stream.html?_r=1&ref=technology) is just going to far IMO. People are entitled to their beliefs, and they shouldn't be threatened and harassed because of them.

Don

[Ugg]

Anyone who plays politics, especially dirty politics like the Mormon church did, should expect to pay the price. Politics is a dirty business.

[Dmac77]

Anyone who plays politics, especially dirty politics like the Mormon church did, should expect to pay the price. Politics is a dirty business.

So in your opinion it's okay for these people to be harassed, and for their addresses to be listed online, so people can threaten them?

Don

[Rodimus Prime]

I think it is wrong to do any act like what these people are getting done to them and they should be left well enough alone. It is a clearly going against what the intent of the law was about showing where donors come from.

This to me is an example of harassment and the owners of the site should be prosecuted. I also feel google should step in and shut it down. At the very least it can cut off the access to google maps.

Now any one who does any harassment to these people need to have the book thrown at them and have the maximum punishment by law. They need to have an example set.

It high time minorities stop getting away with stuff because they are the minority. People scream when these things are done to the minority

The crime being done to these people (supporters of prop 8) are nothing less than hate crimes and need to be treated as such.

[Dmac77]

I think it is wrong to do any act like what these people are getting done to them and they should be left well enough alone. It is a clearly going against what the intent of the law was about showing where donors come from.

This to me is an example of harassment and the owners of the site should be prosecuted. I also feel google should step in and shut it down. At the very least it can cut off the access to google maps.

Now any one who does any harassment to these people need to have the book thrown at them and have the maximum punishment by law. They need to have an example set.

It high time minorities stop getting away with stuff because they are the minority. People scream when these things are done to the minority

The crime being done to these people (supporters of prop 8) are nothing less than hate crimes and need to be treated as such.

You took the words right out of my mouth, and I'm gay.

Don

[yg17]

I say what goes around comes around. Karma's a bitch. 2 wrongs don't make a right, but I can't have much sympathy for a group who worked to take away someone else's civil rights.

[Rodimus Prime]

You took the words right out of my mouth, and I'm gay.

Don

I do not exect much support here. A lot of people here have no problem with hate crimes be put against the majority yet scream bloody murder when it is against the minority.

in the example here it is the gays that are the minority.

My personal view is there is no excuse for ANY hate crime and all hate crimes should be treated harshly and swiftly and here I see it as nothing less than hate crimes.

Hate crimes should and do have very harsh punishments.

I would like to point out that I do not support prop 8 nor agree with the people who do politically. I just feel very strongly about the harassment and I though the state should of kept hte supporters private because this BS would happen. The laws need to be rewritten maybe expectantly banning them from being published on the web and clearly stated using any of that information to attach some one has some insanely huge fine and punishment.

[FreeState]

This (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/business/08stream.html?_r=1&ref=technology) is just going to far IMO. People are entitled to their beliefs, and they shouldn't be threatened and harassed because of them.

Don

This is very sloppy journalism. The website listed had nothing to do with the acts and letters. The white powder was sent in Nov. The website was not even live then. This whole article is based on a press release from the Prop 8 supporters and fails to point out many of the facts.

[yg17]

This is very sloppy journalism. The website listed had nothing to do with the acts and letters. The white powder was sent in Nov. The website was not even live then. This whole article is based on a press release from the Prop 8 supporters and fails to point out many of the facts.


Not to mention that website is merely going off of what is considered public data.

Political campaign contributions are public record. I'm not sure exactly how it is with ballot initiatives, but with candidates, if you donate more than, I think it's $250, during an election cycle, the candidate must submit that to the FEC who would in turn make that public record for the world to see. I was a bit short of $250 in donations to the Obama campagin, but if I donated at least that amount, I would be in the FEC's searchable database and anyone who typed in my name would see my address, my employer and how much I contributed.

[EricNau]

I also feel google should step in and shut it down. At the very least it can cut off the access to google maps.
It is not Google's obligation nor duty to take such action; doing so would undermine their place as an objective internet search engine.

Do you want neutral results, or do you want a search engine that provides biased results based on what the company finds favorable?

[leekohler]

You took the words right out of my mouth, and I'm gay.

Don

Don- do you have any idea what people like me and others who came before have endured so that you would feel comfortable coming out at your age? Do you even have a clue? People have died so that this society could get to that point. People have lost their jobs and their families. I've received death threats and been threatened repeatedly with physical violence because I spoke out. Do you think that when I called the police in rural Ohio to report these things that they gave a crap? You have no idea what others have been through so that you could be comfortable with yourself at such an early age.

Freedom of speech does not come free. You pay a price for your opinions. If someone is going to fight to take away others' rights, there will be a backlash, and people should understand that. Now, while I don't agree with death threats and such, BOYCOTTS ARE ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE. We absolutely have a right to know which businesses support or oppose us and buy or not buy products accordingly. Why in the hell would I buy something from a company that supported this? WHY? Why would you?

I just feel very strongly about the harassment and I though the state should of kept hte supporters private because this BS would happen. The laws need to be rewritten maybe expectantly banning them from being published on the web and clearly stated using any of that information to attach some one has some insanely huge fine and punishment.

Absolutely f***in NO! If you're going to throw money at something to take away the rights of your fellow citizens, then you should have the balls to stand up and say so. Actions have consequences.

[Dmac77]

Don- do you have any idea what people like me and others who came before have endured so that you would feel comfortable coming out at your age? Do you even have a clue? People have died so that this society could get to that point. People have lost their jobs and their families. I've received death threats and been threatened repeatedly with physical violence because I spoke out. Do you think that when I called the police in rural Ohio to report these things that they gave a crap? You have no idea what others have been through so that you could be comfortable with yourself at such an early age.

Freedom of speech does not come free. You pay a price for your opinions. If someone is going to fight to take away others' rights, there will be a backlash, and people should understand that. Now, while I don't agree with death threats and such, BOYCOTTS ARE ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE. We absolutely have a right to know which businesses support or oppose us and buy or not buy products accordingly. Why in the hell would I buy something from a company that supported this? WHY? Why would you?



Absolutely f***in NO! If you're going to throw money at something to take away the rights of your fellow citizens, then you should have the balls to stand up and say so. Actions have consequences.

I would buy something from one of those companies if I liked the product.

My main point is that this website, could cause harm to come to people. And thats the last thing that I want. How would it look, if someone went on that site, found someone's address, and then went to their house and started a fire? It would make gays, and supporters of gay rights look bad. These people are entitled to their views, and they shouldn't have their addresses plastered on the internet for all to see. It would be like someone putting my address on the internet, because I contributed $25 to McCain's campaign (which I did). People have a right to their privacy. I'm not trying to defend their views, but they are entitled to them.

Don

[leekohler]

I would buy something from one of those companies if I liked the product.

Then you shoot yourself in the foot.

My main point is that this website, could cause harm to come to people. And thats the last thing that I want. How would it look, if someone went on that site, found someone's address, and then went to their house and started a fire? It would make gays, and supporters of gay rights look bad. These people are entitled to their views, and they shouldn't have their addresses plastered on the internet for all to see. It would be like someone putting my address on the internet, because I contributed $25 to McCain's campaign (which I did). People have a right to their privacy. I'm not trying to defend their views, but they are entitled to them.

Don

Don- you cannot control what others do. But we have a damn good reputation for being a peaceful movement. I wouldn't worry about gay people doing such things.

As for privacy, your vote is private. But when you contribute to a campaign monetarily, that is and should be public record for many reasons. That is for everyone's protection.

[mogzieee]

Forgive me, as I do not live in California... or even America infact... but this sort of things happen all the time in the UK:

Some donors to groups supporting the measure have received death threats and envelopes containing a powdery white substance, and their businesses have been boycotted.

Animal testing, fox hunting, euthanasia... all getting so messy like this and the government usually doesn't give a sh_t... not wanting to get involved, just eventually voting with the majority, not actually what's right.

[Dmac77]

Then you shoot yourself in the foot.



Don- you cannot control what others do. We have a damn good reputation for being a peaceful movement. I wouldn't worry about gay people doing such things.

As for privacy, your vote is private. But when you contribute to a campaign monetarily, that is and should be public record for many reasons. That is for everyone's protection.

For the most part that's true, but there are always a few rogues. There is no need for this website to exist, and you have to admit that this could cause some problems.

Don

[leekohler]

For the most part that's true, but there are always a few rogues. There is no need for this website to exist, and you have to admit that this could cause some problems.

Don

As I said before- free speech isn't free. In other words, if you say something that is unpopular, there can be repercussions. I've experienced that. Since this is a free country, we need to accept this fact. Not everything we say is protected from consequences.

[yg17]

I would buy something from one of those companies if I liked the product.

My main point is that this website, could cause harm to come to people. And thats the last thing that I want. How would it look, if someone went on that site, found someone's address, and then went to their house and started a fire? It would make gays, and supporters of gay rights look bad. These people are entitled to their views, and they shouldn't have their addresses plastered on the internet for all to see. It would be like someone putting my address on the internet, because I contributed $25 to McCain's campaign (which I did). People have a right to their privacy. I'm not trying to defend their views, but they are entitled to them.

Don

It's public information! Like I said earlier, if you donated more than $250 to the McCain campaign, your address would be plastered on the internet for all to see. Those are the rules and regulations of the Federal Election Commission. This website is completely legal and are doing nothing wrong. If you want that changed, go tell the FEC. Good luck with that.

[és:]

People are entitled to their beliefs

Are they? Ironic, giving what prop 8 is all about.

[mactastic]

Obviously I'm not supporting death threats or mailing white powder to people. Those tactics are quite simply abhorrent.

However, it is hardly a secret that if you choose to engage in your right of free speech, that people will take notice of you. They may even take legitimate actions against you, such as a boycott or protest. Such is life.

Free speech does not mean speech free of consequences.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Obviously I'm not supporting death threats or mailing white powder to people. Those tactics are quite simply abhorrent.

However, it is hardly a secret that if you choose to engage in your right of free speech, that people will take notice of you. They may even take legitimate actions against you, such as a boycott or protest. Such is life.

Free speech does not mean speech free of consequences.

I was going to say the same thing.

Death threats are something that should be dealt with, but other than that, I see no problem with ostracizing those who are opposed to civil liberties.

[Gelfin]

Facts on the ground are, this alleged harassment isn't happening in any measurable quantity. There were very few such incidents even during the campaign. Given the sick propaganda every Californian was receiving every day at the time, I'm actually surprised how few.

It was a little funny to watch national news in the weeks following. You'd have thought the state was in anarchy. I wondered what California they were reporting on, because it certainly wasn't this one. After the election, opponents turned immediately to legal challenges and peaceful demonstration.

Essentially, Prop 8 supporters have been continuing their propaganda campaign after the election. They see this as an opportunity to maximize nationwide anti-gay sentiment by feeding lazy journalists stories that suggest Ordinary Decent People are being assaulted in the streets by Those Awful, Awful Homosexuals. Only it just isn't happening. Good thing it hasn't occurred to them they can scratch an "H" in their own cheeks and it looks the same backwards or forwards.

As far as a boycott, though, I have had this discussion IRL as well, and to me asking whether it's "appropriate" or "acceptable" to boycott businesses is the wrong approach. It's more like, if I had found the name of a friend or family member on that list, we'd have a problem, one that would very likely result in severed contact between myself and that person. Boycotting a business is the same principle. The question is not whether it's kosher for me to take some positive action (as subtly implied by "a boycott"), it's why in the world I should force myself to continue any interaction with people whom I cannot respect. What twisted notion of "fairness" would require that?

[CalBoy]

It is a clearly going against what the intent of the law was about showing where donors come from.

Actually, that was the entire point behind California's disclosure law.


This to me is an example of harassment and the owners of the site should be prosecuted.
Why? They haven't done anything criminal or even negligent. Would you sue the phone company because their phonebook allowed a stalker to follow someone around?

I also feel google should step in and shut it down. At the very least it can cut off the access to google maps.

Again, why? Google Maps isn't being used illegally or in some way that subverts the intent of the law. It is, in fact, taking the law's purpose to its highest possible level of execution.


Now any one who does any harassment to these people need to have the book thrown at them and have the maximum punishment by law.

Indeed. If you break the law by harming someone or their possessions, then you should be treated like any other criminal (and if you're caught, you will be).

It high time minorities stop getting away with stuff because they are the minority. People scream when these things are done to the minority

I don't really understand this statement. What exactly do minorities "get away with?" And, while we're at it, which minorities? Racial ones? Blacks and hispanics are more likely to be in prison relative to whites, so they certainly aren't "getting away" any more than white people are.

If we're talking about gay people, they have a history of being fairly law abiding, so what exactly are they "getting away" with?

The crime being done to these people (supporters of prop 8) are nothing less than hate crimes and need to be treated as such.

No, they are not hate crimes. A hate crime is dependent on the victim having a trait that others despise for no other reason than previous prejudice. In this case, someone who commits a crime against a Prop 8 supporter is committing a traditional crime complete with means, opportunity, and motive.

For the most part that's true, but there are always a few rogues. There is no need for this website to exist, and you have to admit that this could cause some problems.

We might say the same about the local phonebook or Facebook, or any other type of publication that puts people's information into the public domain.

This website (and the others like it) make it possible for gay people and their supporters to know who exactly took their rights away, and consequently stop supporting them economically.

In the case of individuals who donated, it can be a useful tool for canvassing in future campaigns on the issue.

This is very sloppy journalism. The website listed had nothing to do with the acts and letters. The white powder was sent in Nov. The website was not even live then. This whole article is based on a press release from the Prop 8 supporters and fails to point out many of the facts.

Indeed it is. There have been relatively few incidents of violence in regards to Prop 8 in California. This "article" (and I use that term loosely) is really painting a one-sided picture.

Edit: And everything that Gelfin wrote above. :p

[plinden]

A couple of weeks ago friends of ours, a same-sex married couple, had their house and car egged, with special attention paid to the anti-Prop 8 sticker on their car.

This wasn't in the heat of the campaign, rather more than two months later.

Egging may seem harmless, but it's pure harassment, just because they are a gay couple living together, and was directly related to Prop 8.

[Gelfin]

A couple of weeks ago friends of ours, a same-sex married couple, had their house and car egged, with special attention paid to the anti-Prop 8 sticker on their car.

This wasn't in the heat of the campaign, rather more than two months later.

Egging may seem harmless, but it's pure harassment, just because they are a gay couple living together, and was directly related to Prop 8.

Problem is, from a media standpoint, that's a "Dog Bites Man" story. I should be clear, I in no way meant to imply that the traditional harassment of gay people by straight bigots isn't alive and well, but merely that reports suggesting an epidemic of the inverse are beyond exaggerated.

[Queso]

As I understand it this is publicly available information. All the website does is collate it in one place. The website does not control what people do with that information, so why shoot the messenger?

I agree with Lee. Boycotts yes, harassment no. If someone thinks you should have less rights than they do, you should be aware who they are so you don't fund their "lifestyle".

[Rodimus Prime]

What I been saying is left do the flip side of the coin. What if all the people who donated money to stop prop 8 was posted on the internet like this. OMG this place would be raising so much hell about it.

THe original intent of the law was so the media had access to it but more so statitions had access to it and could see how the locations broke down. It was never intended to be plastered on the internet like this. The law was in place before techology. This is more example of where technology is ahead of the laws.

I see problems with this and I also would support states and the government stepping in to protect people rights here. This to me is going to hurt the process.

It keeps me from wanting to donated money to a cause like this because some ******* will post the information on the net and I get harassed.

I used minority because in this case gays and leisbains are in the minority and the minorities over all in you name it get away with stuff the majority of people would get burnned at the stake for.

The death threats white power and so on are hate crimes nothing more nothing less and they should be treated as such. This site is clearly meant to harassment of people. Why else would it make it so easy to figure out the exact location of where people lived. This is the reason why they wanted to keep the names from going public.

Now I would be less inclined to complain if some one make the exact site like this for people who where against prop 8.

Like it or not the people voted.

[Rodimus Prime]

A couple of weeks ago friends of ours, a same-sex married couple, had their house and car egged, with special attention paid to the anti-Prop 8 sticker on their car.

This wasn't in the heat of the campaign, rather more than two months later.

Egging may seem harmless, but it's pure harassment, just because they are a gay couple living together, and was directly related to Prop 8.

see I view that as a hate crime and should be treated as such. I do not care what side you are on. This is going to cause more problems.

I do think google should step in. All they have to do is state they do not support a site that makes it easy for people to get harassed.

[Rt&Dzine]

For years there have been Websites where you can look up political contributions. The map format is new to me. I just randomly clicked on a bunch of the markers and saw donations from $200 to $450,000.

Obviously death threats are illegal and wrong.
Harassment is wrong (in my opinion).
Boycott is valid (in my opinion).

The question is: Do we want political contributions to become non-public information?

EDIT: Whoa ... I just saw one for $30. I thought it had to be over $100 to be public?

[Rodimus Prime]

For years there have been Websites where you can look up political contributions. The map format is new to me. I just randomly clicked on a bunch of the markers and saw donations from $200 to $450,000.

Obviously death threats are illegal and wrong.
Harassment is wrong (in my opinion).
Boycott is valid (in my opinion).

The question is: Do we want political contributions to become non-public information?

I think it could still be public but limit how it is used. Like instead each person much request it themselves and not be able to post it on the web. This it is still public but it is much more difficult to get.

[leekohler]

What I been saying is left do the flip side of the coin. What if all the people who donated money to stop prop 8 was posted on the internet like this. OMG this place would be raising so much hell about it.

THe original intent of the law was so the media had access to it but more so statitions had access to it and could see how the locations broke down. It was never intended to be plastered on the internet like this. The law was in place before techology. This is more example of where technology is ahead of the laws.

I see problems with this and I also would support states and the government stepping in to protect people rights here. This to me is going to hurt the process.

It keeps me from wanting to donated money to a cause like this because some ******* will post the information on the net and I get harassed.

I used minority because in this case gays and leisbains are in the minority and the minorities over all in you name it get away with stuff the majority of people would get burnned at the stake for.

The death threats white power and so on are hate crimes nothing more nothing less and they should be treated as such. This site is clearly meant to harassment of people. Why else would it make it so easy to figure out the exact location of where people lived. This is the reason why they wanted to keep the names from going public.

Now I would be less inclined to complain if some one make the exact site like this for people who where against prop 8.

Like it or not the people voted.

Free speech is NOT free from consequences! You want to live in a free country Rodimus, or don't you?

We're not talking about how people voted, we're talking about campaign contributions! And the law was made so the PUBLIC would have access to the information, not just the media.

And next time someone decides to vote to take away your rights, you let me know how you react. Seriously. :rolleyes: You seem to think that it's OK to vote away rights.

[it5five]

I see problems with this and I also would support states and the government stepping in to protect people rights here. This to me is going to hurt the process.



But you have no problem with other people's rights being stripped away?

It keeps me from wanting to donated money to a cause like this because some ******* will post the information on the net and I get harassed.

Good. Keep your bigotry to yourself and out of the law.

EDIT: I would have no problem with this happening to supporters of equality. That way I'd know which businesses are deserving of my money.

[Rodimus Prime]

Free speech is NOT free from consequences! You want to live in a free country Rodimus, or don't you?

We're not talking about how people voted, we're talking about campaign contributions! And the law was made so the PUBLIC would have access to the information, not just the media.

And next time someone decides to vote to take away your rights, you let me know how you react. Seriously. :rolleyes: You seem to think that it's OK to vote away rights.


Then answer this question. How would you feel if the flip side of this coin was done. All the people Anti Prop 8 supporters were plastered on the net like this.

[mactastic]

As I understand it this is publicly available information. All the website does is collate it in one place. The website does not control what people do with that information, so why shoot the messenger?

I agree with Lee. Boycotts yes, harassment no. If someone thinks you should have less rights than they do, you should be aware who they are so you don't fund their "lifestyle".
Don't forget their "agenda" also...

What I been saying is left do the flip side of the coin. What if all the people who donated money to stop prop 8 was posted on the internet like this. OMG this place would be raising so much hell about it.
No, people here would be raising hell about those taking illegal actions based on the list.

THe original intent of the law was so the media had access to it but more so statitions had access to it and could see how the locations broke down. It was never intended to be plastered on the internet like this. The law was in place before techology. This is more example of where technology is ahead of the laws.
Then perhaps you should contact your representatives, and seek a change in the law. As it is, this information is entirely legal to both collect and distribute in this fashion.

I see problems with this and I also would support states and the government stepping in to protect people rights here. This to me is going to hurt the process.
What should the feds do? What do you mean by "step in"? Prosecuting people for actions that are not illegal? That seems rather un-American.

It keeps me from wanting to donated money to a cause like this because some ******* will post the information on the net and I get harassed.
Well, there have been an awful lot of Quakers, peace activists, Islamic groups, etc. that have been kept from wanting to donate to or get involved with various groups because their information might get put in a government file with who-knows-what result. Not an excuse, just sayin'.

If you don't like the law, work to change it. But free speech doesn't mean free of consequences.

I used minority because in this case gays and leisbains are in the minority and the minorities over all in you name it get away with stuff the majority of people would get burnned at the stake for.
Yeah, the gays totally get away with all kinds of stuff -- like getting married for instance -- that breeders are literally burned at the stake for. In fact, I think I see a breeder pyre from my window now...

The death threats white power and so on are hate crimes nothing more nothing less and they should be treated as such. This site is clearly meant to harassment of people. Why else would it make it so easy to figure out the exact location of where people lived. This is the reason why they wanted to keep the names from going public.
IIRC, much of this legislation was pushed to it's limits by anti-abortion folks intent on maintaining websites with "publicly available" information regarding home addresses, photos of the physician and their family -- everything except the ballistics tables to calculate bullet drop. Perhaps if those folks hadn't fought so hard for their rights, we wouldn't be in this situation right now...

Now I would be less inclined to complain if some one make the exact site like this for people who where against prop 8.
Of course you wouldn't.

Like it or not the people voted. "We won"?

[Rodimus Prime]

But you have no problem with other people's rights being stripped away?



Good. Keep your bigotry to yourself and out of the law.

Hmm some one does not know my political stance but I see you are a supporter of hate crimes. You clearly have no problem with people getting death threats. You support hate crimes.

Just pointing out how you are twisting my words. But this should show my stance on where the problem is.

This is going to keep people out of the process in the long run.

[Rodimus Prime]

Of course you wouldn't.

"We won"?

I should of point by the other side on that wide site with a simple click should be able to see the anti prop 8 as well as those pro prop 8. But seeing as only once side of the group is posted there the intent of the site is clearly there to harassment not.

Why do the owners not have the balls to come out and state who they are. They have no problems putting others in the line of danger but are afraid to put themselves on the line.

[it5five]

Hmm some one does not know my political stance but I see you are a supporter of hate crimes. You clearly have no problem with people getting death threats. You support hate crimes.

Just pointing out how you are twisting my words. But this should show my stance on where the problem is.

This is going to keep people out of the process in the long run.


Where did I say I supported illegal activity?

This online database/map is not illegal. If someone uses the information to carry out an illegal action (such as mailing a poisonous substance), then they are wrong to do so and should be punished. But merely listing the information isn't, and shouldn't be, a crime.

But hey, the more bigots are left out of important law-making, the better.

[Queso]

What I been saying is left do the flip side of the coin. What if all the people who donated money to stop prop 8 was posted on the internet like this. OMG this place would be raising so much hell about it.
Why would it matter? Those that gave to stop prop 8 have nothing to hide, and to be honest neither do those that gave in support of it. If they believe in the issue to give money to the campaign they obviously have the courage of their convictions. They ought to have been fully aware that those contributions will be in the public domain. If they aren't and are now all worried about it then it's about time they wizened up and read the law.

This story is just another one of those "look at us poor persecuted religious conservatives" tales. That got old a long time ago.

[leekohler]

Then answer this question. How would you feel if the flip side of this coin was done. All the people Anti Prop 8 supporters were plastered on the net like this.

Dude- do you not read anybody's posts? I've been there, man. It's the price you pay to live in a free society. And of course, I'd be fine with Anti Prop 8 supporters being put all over the web. ABSOLUTELY. And you know what? We wouldn't complain about it. We know the price of free speech- we've paid it repeatedly.

These people are wimps, plain and simple, and obviously don't want to live in a free country as is obvious from their contributions.

[Rodimus Prime]

Where did I say I supported illegal activity?

This online database/map is not illegal. If someone uses the information to carry out an illegal action (such as mailing a poisonous substance), then they are wrong to do so and should be punished. But merely listing the information isn't, and shouldn't be, a crime.

But hey, the more bigots are left out of important law-making, the better.

Then why does this database only supply one side. Why not the other side?

I see it in the long run hurting everyone. It going to effect gays and leibains or supports of that because they know the same will happen to them.

I see it keeping everyone out of the process because of fear of revenge in any campain. You name it.

I thinking long term here not about bigots.

But your post also clearly an example how you missed the point of my post. I stated from your post you support harassment. Some how I do not see how you are not seeing that this database is set up only for that.

Please tell me why the other side is not up on there.

[Rt&Dzine]

Then answer this question. How would you feel if the flip side of this coin was done. All the people Anti Prop 8 supporters were plastered on the net like this.

The anti Prop 8 supporters are proud of their position

Please tell me why the other side is not up on there.

The moral majority, etc., has done similar targeting.

[Rodimus Prime]

I will say while the site is one thing. ANY harrassment (lost of job, threating letters ect.) should be treated as a hate crime.

Boycotting is one thing but illeage act cause by this web site should be treated as a hate crime.

Same goes for other crimes regarding the other side (the egging of the car posted earlier) should be treated that why. Make the punishment sever and harsh to set an example to prevent things from getting out of hand.

That is my problem with this site. While technically not against the law the intent is there so any illegal actions done that can be traced back those people need to be treated as hate crimes.

I have a problem with hate crimes and my biggest problem right now is both sides are doing actions that I thick of as hate crimes.

[leekohler]

I will say while the site is one thing. ANY harrassment (lost of job, threating letters ect.) should be treated as a hate crime.

Boycotting is one thing but illeage act cause by this web site should be treated as a hate crime.

Same goes for other crimes regarding the other side (the egging of the car posted earlier) should be treated that why. Make the punishment sever and harsh to set an example to prevent things from getting out of hand.

That is my problem with this site. While technically not against the law the intent is there so any illegal actions done that can be traced back those people need to be treated as hate crimes.

I have a problem with hate crimes and my biggest problem right now is both sides are doing actions that I thick of as hate crimes.

Nothing is caused by the website! My God, would you get off that? This is public info that they chose to publish so as to organize boycotts and such. It's fair to do so! It's as American as apple pie.

If there are any illegal acts as a result of such knowledge, those should be treated as individual acts, not some group conspiracy. WTF happened to the people of the US to make them so damn wimpy and scared all the time? Stand up for yourself if you think you have the right to take away rights from others. But don't sit there and cry when people get p***ed at you. I don't have patience for that kind of s***.

[Queso]

Please tell me why the other side is not up on there.
The person that owns that website has no responsibility to be impartial. If it bothers you that much, how about you stop wasting time complaining about this supposed omission and do your own mashup to fill the gap?

[Rodimus Prime]

Nothing is caused by the website! My God, would you get off that? This is public info that they chose to publish so as to organize boycotts and such. It's fair to do so! It's as American as apple pie.

If there are any illegal acts as a result of such knowledge, those should be treated as individual acts, not some group conspiracy. WTF happened to the people of the US to make them so damn wimpy and scared all the time? Stand up for yourself if you think you have the right to take away rights from others. But don't sit there and cry when people get p***ed at you. I don't have patience for that kind of s***.

Why does the owners of the site come out and say who they are.

I can see one use of this site but I see many uses of it being abused. If it was just for business remove the names that do not link to a business. But that is not the case.

The individual acts need to be treated as a hate crime.

[leekohler]

Why does the owners of the site come out and say who they are.

I can see one use of this site but I see many uses of it being abused. If it was just for business remove the names that do not link to a business. But that is not the case.

The individual acts need to be treated as a hate crime.

Why wouldn't individual acts be prosecuted? Who here has said they shouldn't be?

[Rodimus Prime]

Why wouldn't individual acts be prosecuted? Who here has said they shouldn't be?

No but I feel those act should be treated as hate crimes.

This site claims boycotts. If that is true remove all the names that do not related to a business on them. They are just an individual.

or just public a list of the businesses.

Why should near the exact address of where the person be shown?
They claim one thing but lets face it. It is set up for harassment because the information is put in such a way that that is the easiest used for it.

People on both sides of the issue are doing things that are not acceptable and low.

In the long run things being used like this will cause more people to stay out of the processes.

I can see the anti prop 8 people who do not want it to be widely known they are against it not wanting to give money.

[Gelfin]

Mwahaha. THE FOOLS! Thanks to the Google Maps mashup, my evil plan to not invite any neighborhood jackasses to my barbecue is nearly complete! Now I just need cocktail weenies. EVIL cocktail weenies.

[leekohler]

No but I feel those act should be treated as hate crimes.

This site claims boycotts. If that is true remove all the names that do not related to a business on them. They are just an individual.

or just public a list of the businesses.

Why should near the exact address of where the person be shown?
They claim one thing but lets face it. It is set up for harassment because the information is put in such a way that that is the easiest used for it.

People on both sides of the issue are doing things that are not acceptable and low.

In the long run things being used like this will cause more people to stay out of the processes.

I can see the anti prop 8 people who do not want it to be widely known they are against it not wanting to give money.

WHAT???!!! So now you know the reason the site exists? :rolleyes:

Look- this is a FREE COUNTRY. This is the risk you take in order to live in a free country. If you don't have the guts to handle the potential consequences of your actions, then you shouldn't involve yourself and you should stay out of the process. Sorry- this site is legal, and so is their use of this information. End of story. Prop 8 supporters threw down, and we're throwing back. You still haven't told what me you would do on the same situation. I want to know what you would do if someone were trying to take away your right to marry, Rodimus. Would you just sit back and go- Oh well? REALLY?

[Rodimus Prime]

WHAT???!!! So now you know the reason the site exists? :rolleyes:

Look- this is a FREE COUNTRY. This is the risk you take in order to live in a free country. If you don't have the guts to handle the potential consequences of your actions, then you shouldn't involve yourself and you should stay out of the process. Sorry- this site is legal, and so is their use of this information. End of story. Prop 8 supporters threw down, and we're throwing back.

And any illegal action should be treated as hate crime and have the maximum punishment by law.

I just pointed out your arguments saying this site was for organizing boycotts which is clearly BS.

You have dance around not saying this is not meant for harassment. While the site and information is levelly. lets be honest here and cut to the chase. This site is meant to do harassment.

I do not agree with how it is being done.

You say free speech but the owners of the site do not have the guts to state who they are. They are hiding who they are.

[CalBoy]

What I been saying is left do the flip side of the coin. What if all the people who donated money to stop prop 8 was posted on the internet like this. OMG this place would be raising so much hell about it.

That already happened, and it happened before the election was over. The Yes on 8 campaign sent letters to businesses/individuals who had donated to the "No" side and warned that they would make them "public" if they didn't give an equal amount to the Yes side.


THe original intent of the law was so the media had access to it but more so statitions had access to it and could see how the locations broke down.

No, the point of the law is to give people access to public records. Donating to a campaign is a public action because you are participating in a public event.

The law does not, nor has it ever, given the media any special considerations in regards to public information. This is no different.

It was never intended to be plastered on the internet like this.

The internet is merely a new medium. One might say that movies were never "meant" to be seen online, or that shopping was never "meant" to be done via the internet if we take your claim seriously.
The law was in place before techology. This is more example of where technology is ahead of the laws.

Technology only reduces the barriers of time and space. The law is still functioning as it was intended to. Your warrantless assertion concerning this law's intent are no good here.


I see problems with this and I also would support states and the government stepping in to protect people rights here.

It's called police services. If someone feels they are being threatened, they can go through the appropriate channels. No one deserves special treatment because of their political stance.

It keeps me from wanting to donated money to a cause like this because some ******* will post the information on the net and I get harassed.

To be frank, that risk was always there before. The only difference now is that you can be found faster. If you truly believe in the cause, you will donate regardless of the risk to your public image. If you are a fair weather supporter, then something like this will make you think twice before committing to the harm of others.

I used minority because in this case gays and leisbains are in the minority and the minorities over all in you name it get away with stuff the majority of people would get burnned at the stake for.

First off, this sentence made very little sense. Please rephrase it to be more precise.

Secondly, I asked you to quantify your ramblings. Which minorities in which circumstances, and which majorities in which circumstances.

This site is clearly meant to harassment of people.

No, it's clearly meant to let people have easier access to public information.

Unless of course you're willing to say that the White Pages online version is clearly meant to be a tool for serial killers.

Why else would it make it so easy to figure out the exact location of where people lived.
There can be other uses for knowing where people live. One of the reasons the No on 8 side failed was due to poor canvassing. Knowing where opponents and moderates live can be a very useful way to reach out and change minds one at a time.

What's more, for all this cry over possible harassment, we haven't actually seen it yet. If harassment is such a large concern, you'd think it would have at least happened a few times.

This is the reason why they wanted to keep the names from going public.

The reason they wanted the names to remain secret is because the Yes on 8 supporters are spineless. They don't want to "out" themselves as bigots and fear boycotts from the gay community and its supporters. They'd also like to see things return to a pre-May 15th status quo, which isn't going to happen. A whole subset of California's population has undergone an enormous shift in status from 2nd class citizen to full citizen, and back to 2nd class again in a matter of 6 months. That kind of tumult isn't going to go away quickly, and those who made it happen are going to have to reap what they sow.

Like it or not the people voted.

That's an issue for a whole different thread, but the point of this one is not about who voted, but rather who contributed.
Then answer this question. How would you feel if the flip side of this coin was done. All the people Anti Prop 8 supporters were plastered on the net like this.

Like I posted previously in this post, it already did happen. The only real difference is that the Yes on 8 people are not proud of their stance on the issue.

[leekohler]

And any illegal action should be treated as hate crime and have the maximum punishment by law.

I just pointed out your arguments saying this site was for organizing boycotts which is clearly BS.

You have dance around not saying this is not meant for harassment. While the site and information is levelly. lets be honest here and cut to the chase. This site is meant to do harassment.

I do not agree with how it is being done.

You say free speech but the owners of the site do not have the guts to state who they are. They are hiding who they are.

It is NOT clear! Unless you can read minds, you cannot make that claim. My god! Listen to yourself!

[yg17]

And any illegal action should be treated as hate crime and have the maximum punishment by law.

I just pointed out your arguments saying this site was for organizing boycotts which is clearly BS.

You have dance around not saying this is not meant for harassment. While the site and information is levelly. lets be honest here and cut to the chase. This site is meant to do harassment.

I do not agree with how it is being done.

You say free speech but the owners of the site do not have the guts to state who they are. They are hiding who they are.


What about phone books? Why are people listed? If I'm calling my friends and family, I probably already have their phone number and have no need to look it up. In fact, I personally can't think of a reason for me to need to look up a person in a phone book except to pick a random person, or people who might be of a certain ethnicity or nationality based on their name and harass them. So, are phone books only around for harassment and committing hate crimes? Where's your outrage?

[Iscariot]

It always seems odd to me that people would be shocked by an intolerance of intolerance. If you are intending to spend money to encourage the curtailing of basic human rights, then the last thing you should be able to do is do it in secret.

[leekohler]

It always seems odd to me that people would be shocked by an intolerance of intolerance. If you are intending to spend money to encourage the curtailing of basic human rights, then the last thing you should be able to do is do it in secret.

Couldn't have said it better myself. If people are going to try to take others' rights away, the very least they can do is face them when they do it.

[Gelfin]

Couldn't have said it better myself. If people are going to try to take others' rights away, the very least they can do is face them when they do it.

Well, there's also a strong traditionalist argument to be made there. I mean, white sheets aren't just a fashion statement, you know.

[Oneness]

I say what goes around comes around. Karma's a bitch. 2 wrongs don't make a right, but I can't have much sympathy for a group who worked to take away someone else's civil rights.

Then you really don't deserve any civil rights.

[mactastic]

I should of point by the other side on that wide site with a simple click should be able to see the anti prop 8 as well as those pro prop 8. But seeing as only once side of the group is posted there the intent of the site is clearly there to harassment not.

Why do the owners not have the balls to come out and state who they are. They have no problems putting others in the line of danger but are afraid to put themselves on the line.
The owners do not have to make themselves known. Why are you insisting on changing laws to suit your political viewpoint? It is entirely legal to report political donations. It is entirely legal to remain anonymous while doing so.

Then why does this database only supply one side. Why not the other side?If you don't like the fact that this site chose only to display the supporters of Prop. 8, exercise your rights, and post the no-on-8 names rather than just sitting here complaining about how no one has.

I will say while the site is one thing. ANY harrassment (lost of job, threating letters ect.) should be treated as a hate crime.
This is exactly why I don't like hate crime legislation to begin with, but this is ridiculous. The idea that existing hate crime law covers this kind of thing is ludicrous.

I have a problem with hate crimes and my biggest problem right now is both sides are doing actions that I thick of as hate crimes.
Your definition of a hate crime is ridiculously broad.

[Rodimus Prime]

My problem comes lets say some one beat the crap out of Gay for anti prop 8. They would press charges under hate crime.

Flip that around and have some one beat the crap out of some one for supporting prop 8. The best they get is assulted. The Hate crime carries much more wieght.



Lastly I do love how everyone things I support prop 8. No where have I stated I do. Heck I have stated I DO NOT support it. I stated my problem with how this information is put out there put out by some one gutless.

Just though I point that out to everyone.

[és:]

My problem comes lets say some one beat the crap out of Gay for anti prop 8. They would press charges under hate crime.

Flip that around and have some one beat the crap out of some one for supporting prop 8. The best they get is assulted. The Hate crime carries much more wieght.


You do see the difference though, don't you? You see why one is a hate crime and the other isn't?

[Rodimus Prime]

You do see the difference though, don't you? You see why one is a hate crime and the other isn't?

I see it as no different. You get people attacking conservative for not support them.

But it is not fair to begin with the minority is getting away with a lot more than the majority.

In the end the attack just happens to be because of prop 8. Either being for it or against it. Yet one gets call a hate crime and the other gets a slap on the wrist comparatively.

[Prof.]

Whoa! Some ppl donated 25k+! That's a lot of money/hate.

Excuse me while i write down their names. :D

HOLY HELL! someone donated 200k!

[EricNau]

My problem comes lets say some one beat the crap out of Gay for anti prop 8. They would press charges under hate crime.
Federally, that would NOT be recognized as a hate crime.

And there's a huge difference. One crime is motivated based on the victim's sexual orientation, and the other is based on a campaigning issue.

Your comparison isn't legitimate. Leave sexual orientation out of this issue; it makes no difference if a straight opponent or a straight supporter of Prop 8 were to be attacked - the case would be treated exactly the same.

[NT1440]

I see it as no different. You get people attacking conservative for not support them.

But it is not fair to begin with the minority is getting away with a lot more than the majority.

In the end the attack just happens to be because of prop 8. Either being for it or against it. Yet one gets call a hate crime and the other gets a slap on the wrist comparatively.

If it fits the legal definition of a hate crime, then it is prosecuted as one. That simple.

[és:]

I see it as no different.

It doesn't really matter how you or I see it. It is different.

Yet one gets call a hate crime and the other gets a slap on the wrist comparatively.

Are you suggesting that this is the case in two identical crimes?

[yg17]

I personally think a hate crime is a crime committed against anyone solely for being something they don't choose to be. You don't choose to be black, or Hispanic, or gay, etc, so any crime against you because you're one of those is a hate crime. You choose to be a bigot, and any crime against you is not a hate crime. It's not right, but it's not a hate crime.

[CalBoy]

My problem comes lets say some one beat the crap out of Gay for anti prop 8. They would press charges under hate crime.

No, not necessarily.

If the person was assaulted and battered for something they couldn't control, then you would be right. The anti Prop 8 person could very well be straight (as 3 of my friends were on the Saturday marches in November) or gay.

Flip that around and have some one beat the crap out of some one for supporting prop 8. The best they get is assulted. The Hate crime carries much more wieght.

Again, not necessarily. The nature of the crime, how it was carried out, etc, all matter. You want to affix this unequal condition to a hypothetical case, but reality doesn't support your assertions no matter how hard you try.



But it is not fair to begin with the minority is getting away with a lot more than the majority.

I've asked this question for the third time now: get away with what? Please quantify something any minority has "gotten away" with compared to a majority.

Don't provide hypothetical examples of how you imagine the world works, but a link to a story about a specific incident.

In the end the attack just happens to be because of prop 8. Either being for it or against it. Yet one gets call a hate crime and the other gets a slap on the wrist comparatively.

No, that's not how hate crimes are legislated, enforced, or prosecuted. Learn a thing or two about the law before throwing out nonsense and hoping that it sticks.

[DiamondMac]

More reason I am just not someone who ever wants to get involved with a heavy-hitting political argument

I couldn't imagine dealing with either side in this debate

[leekohler]

More reason I am just not someone who ever wants to get involved with a heavy-hitting political argument

I couldn't imagine dealing with either side in this debate

One side feels it's OK to vote away other people's rights, the other does not. I don't understand what's so difficult to deal with. If you can't see the difference between those who've taken rights away from others and those they hate, then yes, you shouldn't get involved.

[DiamondMac]

One side feels it's OK to vote away other people's rights, the other does not. I don't understand what's so difficult to deal with. If you can't see the difference between those who've taken rights away from others and those they hate, then yes, you shouldn't get involved.

I meant in terms of the after-match that both sides give in terms of grief for the others supporters

[iObama]

Absolutely f***in NO! If you're going to throw money at something to take away the rights of your fellow citizens, then you should have the balls to stand up and say so. Actions have consequences.

On that note, I am throwing out my support for anyone who decides to commit near-terrorist acts on all No on 8 supporters. If you're going to throw money at changing marriage for everyone else because you can't handle the phrase "civil union," then you should have the balls to stand up and say so. Actions have consequences.

So No on 8 hate crimes? I'm for 'em :rolleyes:

[leekohler]

I meant in terms of the after-match that both sides give in terms of grief for the others supporters

Oh well. That's the way the cookie crumbles in these situations. I could give a rat's a** how the other side "feels". They obviously don't give a crap about us, now do they? I say boycott them out of business. Let them know what it's like for a change. They think we don't deserve equal rights, well they don't deserve our money, or our friends' money either. If they wanted us to do business with them, they should have thought about that before.

On that note, I am throwing out my support for anyone who decides to commit near-terrorist acts on all No on 8 supporters. If you're going to throw money at changing marriage for everyone else because you can't handle the phrase "civil union," then you should have the balls to stand up and say so. Actions have consequences.

So No on 8 hate crimes? I'm for 'em :rolleyes:

WTF are you talking about? I never said I was for violence. But I sure as hell am for boycotts. Take your faux righteous indignation somewhere else. :rolleyes: Now we're terr'rists too! Jesus Christ. Yep -them homos sure is scary! And who is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex again?

BTW- we have stood up and said so. And you know absolutely NOTHING about consequences. :mad:

[NT1440]

On that note, I am throwing out my support for anyone who decides to commit near-terrorist acts on all No on 8 supporters. If you're going to throw money at changing marriage for everyone else because you can't handle the phrase "civil union," then you should have the balls to stand up and say so. Actions have consequences.

So No on 8 hate crimes? I'm for 'em :rolleyes:

Yup, thats the problem right there, not that we have essentially voted gays as 2nd rate citizens, noooo its the term:rolleyes:

[iObama]

I've been there, man. It's the price you pay to live in a free society.

Get over yourself. Quit talking about how it's a free society and "the price you've paid" when if someone supports Prop 8, you b**ch them out and call them oppressive and hateful.

The majority of Prop 8 supporters don't hate gay people. If I could've voted, I would've voted Yes on 8 because I don't support the redefinition of the term marriage. The word "marriage" is not meant for gay couples, in the same way cat is not a word to describe dog. It's not out of hate, it's out of semantics.

(Don't argue that your side isn't, because it is. In California, civil unions grant the same rights as marriage legally for gay couples, but people still complain about it not being called "marriage".

[NT1440]

Get over yourself. Quit talking about how it's a free society and "the price you've paid" when if someone supports Prop 8, you b**ch them out and call them oppressive and hateful.

The majority of Prop 8 supporters don't hate gay people. If I could've voted, I would've voted Yes on 8 because I don't support the redefinition of the term marriage. The word "marriage" is not meant for gay couples, in the same way cat is not a word to describe dog. It's not out of hate, it's out of semantics.

(Don't argue that your side isn't, because it is. In California, civil unions grant the same rights as marriage legally for gay couples, but people still complain about it not being called "marriage".

Discrimination is discrimination any way you try to phrase it. Don't tell the opressees to get over themselves.

[iObama]

Discrimination is discrimination any way you try to phrase it. Don't tell the opressees to get over themselves.

It's not discrimination. It's semantics.

It's not oppression either. When civil unions are removed - at least in California anyways - THEN tell me it's oppression. Until then - in California, at least - they have all the same rights.

[NT1440]

It's not discrimination. It's semantics.

It's not oppression either. When civil unions are removed - at least in California anyways - THEN tell me it's oppression. Until then - in California, at least - they have all the same rights.
"seperate but equal" was deemed discrimination according to the law.

[leekohler]

Get over yourself. Quit talking about how it's a free society and "the price you've paid" when if someone supports Prop 8, you b**ch them out and call them oppressive and hateful.

The majority of Prop 8 supporters don't hate gay people. If I could've voted, I would've voted Yes on 8 because I don't support the redefinition of the term marriage. The word "marriage" is not meant for gay couples, in the same way cat is not a word to describe dog. It's not out of hate, it's out of semantics.

(Don't argue that your side isn't, because it is. In California, civil unions grant the same rights as marriage legally for gay couples, but people still complain about it not being called "marriage".

You're damn right it is. You get over YOURSELF. What are you so afraid of? And who the ******* are you to say who "marriage" is meant for? Who died and made you President? Call it all the same in the eyes of the government and I don't give a s*** what you call it. But the term is going to be the same for everyone. And no- the rights aren't the same at all. You like to pretend they are, but they aren't. Look at any form you fill out for anything. When they ask your status, it's "married" or "single". There isn't one for "civil unioned". We're automatically denied all sorts of thing because of that right there. Separate is not equal. Stop acting like it is.

Again- I don't care what the name is, as long as it's the same for everybody.

[iObama]

Quit talking about how it's a free society and "the price you've paid" when if someone supports Prop 8, you b**ch them out and call them oppressive and hateful.

Exhibit A:

You're damn right it is. You get over YOURSELF. What are you so afraid of? And who the ******* are you to say who "marriage" is meant for? Who died and made you President? Call it all the same in the eyes of the government and I don't give a s*** what you call it. But the term is going to be the same for everyone. And no- the rights aren't the same at all. You like to pretend they are, but they aren't. Look at any form you fill out for anything. When they ask your status, it's "married" or "single". There isn't one for "civil unioned". We're automatically denied all sorts of thing because of that right there. Separate is not equal. Stop acting like it is.

Again- I don't care what the name is, as long as it's the same for everybody.

[leekohler]

Exhibit A:

That made no sense at all. Why don't you address my points? I called no one "oppressive" or "hateful" in that post. Address the points I made. I even said I was OK with "civil unions" as long as the term applies to everyone legally. But you don't like that either, do you?

[NT1440]

Exhibit A:

Way to prove....nothing. Your argument was flawed from the beginning, providing "evidence" for it just makes it more asinine.

[Gelfin]

If you're going to throw money at changing marriage for everyone else

Say, while you're in the neighborhood, why don't you explain how marriage for "everyone else" was different prior to last November?

Your wife, I presume she was required by law to grow a penis? How relieved you both must have been.

How, exactly, did Proposition 8 benefit you?

[leekohler]

Say, while you're in the neighborhood, why don't you explain how marriage for "everyone else" was different prior to last November?

Your wife, I presume she was required by law to grow a penis? How relieved you both must have been.

How, exactly, did Proposition 8 benefit you?

Post and run, man. Post and run. :rolleyes: Typical.

[ZiggyPastorius]

Too bad the "sanctity of marriage" is all ******** made up by modern American evangelicals and religious whackjobs. And I use that as nicely as I can. Marriage was originally not a sacred bond between a man and a woman, it was an arrangement made by parents, usually to get land or whatever. Romantic was not required, nor was it even encouraged. Hardly sacred if you asked me. Most of the ancient marriages were polygynist, since women essentially had no rights and were basically property. The fact that in our modern society, people still aren't allowed to have the same benefits as someone else simply because they're gay is ridiculous. So, call it semantics or whatever, but the fact is, you're saying it's all right to discriminate just because gay people have something similar, and that's hardly fair.

[Iscariot]

That made no sense at all. Why don't you address my points? I called no one "oppressive" or "hateful" in that post. Address the points I made. I even said I was OK with "civil unions" as long as the term applies to everyone legally. But you don't like that either, do you?

Then you're a bigger man than I.

Semantics, iObama? Really? Which, then, do you prefer, oppressive bigot or hateful chauvinist? I'll let you pick because I'm feeling generous like that. I'm curious as to what you think gives you the right to determine where the line is drawn between homosexuals and the rest of society. Is it out of a slavish devotion to an increasingly marginalized set of dogmatic scriptures, or do you just enjoy feeling like you're superior to a different segment of society? Or are you scared about some unusual feelings you might be feeling for the man washing his car in the hot sun with his shirt off? Because I guarantee you that you don't have a good reason for your intolerance, and I can assure you that the day is coming that you won't be able to simply vote away rights that make you uncomfortable.

Instead of playing some ridiculous semantic game and beating around the proverbial bush, why don't you at least have the honesty and the guts to come out and be honest about the discrimination you support? Because if you think anyone is going to be fooled by a limp-wristed statement about "I don't like you having my word, gosh boy howdy" then you really have an overinflated opinion of how clever you are. Wouldn't you rather be merely unscrupulous and petty instead of unscrupulous, petty and woefully dishonest? It would bring the whole argument up a notch.

[DakotaGuy]

So if gay marriage is legal doesn't that just mean more money for divorce lawyers? (this is supposed to be a joke so don't go all bonkers on me)

[NT1440]

Then you're a bigger man than I.

Semantics, iObama? Really? Which, then, do you prefer, oppressive bigot or hateful chauvinist? I'll let you pick because I'm feeling generous like that. I'm curious as to what you think gives you the right to determine where the line is drawn between homosexuals and the rest of society. Is it out of a slavish devotion to an increasingly marginalized set of dogmatic scriptures, or do you just enjoy feeling like you're superior to a different segment of society? Or are you scared about some unusual feelings you might be feeling for the man washing his car in the hot sun with his shirt off? Because I guarantee you that you don't have a good reason for your intolerance, and I can assure you that the day is coming that you won't be able to simply vote away rights that make you uncomfortable.

Instead of playing some ridiculous semantic game and beating around the proverbial bush, why don't you at least have the honesty and the guts to come out and be honest about the discrimination you support? Because if you think anyone is going to be fooled by a limp-wristed statement about "I don't like you having my word, gosh boy howdy" then you really have an overinflated opinion of how clever you are. Wouldn't you rather be merely unscrupulous and petty instead of unscrupulous, petty and woefully dishonest? It would bring the whole argument up a notch.

Whoa! what a scorcher!

Kudos

[leekohler]

Then you're a bigger man than I.

Semantics, iObama? Really? Which, then, do you prefer, oppressive bigot or hateful chauvinist? I'll let you pick because I'm feeling generous like that. I'm curious as to what you think gives you the right to determine where the line is drawn between homosexuals and the rest of society. Is it out of a slavish devotion to an increasingly marginalized set of dogmatic scriptures, or do you just enjoy feeling like you're superior to a different segment of society? Or are you scared about some unusual feelings you might be feeling for the man washing his car in the hot sun with his shirt off? Because I guarantee you that you don't have a good reason for your intolerance, and I can assure you that the day is coming that you won't be able to simply vote away rights that make you uncomfortable.

Instead of playing some ridiculous semantic game and beating around the proverbial bush, why don't you at least have the honesty and the guts to come out and be honest about the discrimination you support? Because if you think anyone is going to be fooled by a limp-wristed statement about "I don't like you having my word, gosh boy howdy" then you really have an overinflated opinion of how clever you are. Wouldn't you rather be merely unscrupulous and petty instead of unscrupulous, petty and woefully dishonest? It would bring the whole argument up a notch.

Damn! And I thought I could be brutal. ;) That was awesome.

Now abut that guy washing his car in the hot sun- can you get me one of those? :)

[Prof.]

Then you're a bigger man than I.

Semantics, iObama? Really? Which, then, do you prefer, oppressive bigot or hateful chauvinist? I'll let you pick because I'm feeling generous like that. I'm curious as to what you think gives you the right to determine where the line is drawn between homosexuals and the rest of society. Is it out of a slavish devotion to an increasingly marginalized set of dogmatic scriptures, or do you just enjoy feeling like you're superior to a different segment of society? Or are you scared about some unusual feelings you might be feeling for the man washing his car in the hot sun with his shirt off? Because I guarantee you that you don't have a good reason for your intolerance, and I can assure you that the day is coming that you won't be able to simply vote away rights that make you uncomfortable.

Instead of playing some ridiculous semantic game and beating around the proverbial bush, why don't you at least have the honesty and the guts to come out and be honest about the discrimination you support? Because if you think anyone is going to be fooled by a limp-wristed statement about "I don't like you having my word, gosh boy howdy" then you really have an overinflated opinion of how clever you are. Wouldn't you rather be merely unscrupulous and petty instead of unscrupulous, petty and woefully dishonest? It would bring the whole argument up a notch.
I love you. Will you marry me?:D

[leekohler]

I love you. Will you marry me?:D

Hands off, I asked first! :D

[Prof.]

Hands off, I asked first! :D
You can have Iscariot on the weekdays and I'll take wednesdays and weekends.:D

[leekohler]

You can have Iscariot on the weekdays and I'll take wednesdays and weekends.:D

Sorry man- he said yes a long time ago. You'll have to negotiate with both of us now. :D

[NT1440]

My my, how gay this thread has become:p

Probably going to scare away all the prop 8 supporters.

I love it!

[atszyman]

Sorry man- he said yes a long time ago. You'll have to negotiate with both of us now. :D

Damnit Lee, why do you always have to turn debates about gay marriage into polygamy threads?:D

[Prof.]

Sorry man- he said yes a long time ago. You'll have to negotiate with both of us now. :D
Well...then... I guess i'll have to come to chicago and "take care of you"http://i42.tinypic.com/2q03fi0.gif

[leekohler]

Damnit Lee, why do you always have to turn debates about gay marriage into polygamy threads?:D

It's Prof's fault! :D

Well...then... I guess i'll have to come to chicago and "take care of you"http://i42.tinypic.com/2q03fi0.gif

EEK! :)

[DiamondMac]

I do find it a bit funny how the site is registered anonymously through GoDaddy and offers no contact information

Little ironic

[leekohler]

Well...then... I guess i'll have to come to chicago and "take care of you"http://i42.tinypic.com/2q03fi0.gif

You could also meet us in Toronto, Prof:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=645686

Sorry- shameless plug for Toronto MR meetup night out!

[yg17]

I do find it a bit funny how the site is registered anonymously through GoDaddy and offers no contact information

Little ironic


I had a domain name registered with my info in the whois and got so much spam and even junk in the snail mail, and the occasional phone call or two in relation to the domain, so I paid for the anonymous registration and it's been well worth it. I would do it for any domain I registered, and I can't fault the owner of that site

[DiamondMac]

For some reason I doubt he did it for spam

[FX120]

It's pretty obvious by the replies in this thread that the core issue is being covered up by the perticular feelings about this subject of Prop 8.

The question is at what point does the use of this information become objectionable, not about how you feel on this perticular issue.

It's pretty obvious to what the intent of this site is, it's meant for the sole purpose of targeting people who support a perticular political organization.

And the gate can swing both ways. Imagine being interviewed for a high paying job, and the boss is a bitter conservative who is seeing tax increases. In their process of background checks they discover that you donated $500 to the Obama campaign, and this factors into their decision to hire you.

Voter privacy exists to protect people from this sort of discrimiation based on political beliefs. People shouldn't be scared of donating to a political campaign on the basis that their beliefs might be made public, along with their name, profession, address, and a marker on a map. No matter how you stand on the issue of prop 8, I don't know why anyone would find this acceptable.

[NT1440]

It's pretty obvious to what the intent of this site is, it's meant for the sole purpose of targeting people who support a perticular political organization.


Obvious to anyone that wants to see it that way.

[leekohler]

It's pretty obvious by the replies in this thread that the core issue is being covered up by the perticular feelings about this subject of Prop 8.

The question is at what point does the use of this information become objectionable, not about how you feel on this perticular issue.

It's pretty obvious to what the intent of this site is, it's meant for the sole purpose of targeting people who support a perticular political organization.

And the gate can swing both ways. Imagine being interviewed for a high paying job, and the boss is a bitter conservative who is seeing tax increases. In their process of background checks they discover that you donated $500 to the Obama campaign, and this factors into their decision to hire you.

Voter privacy exists to protect people from this sort of discrimiation based on political beliefs. People shouldn't be scared of donating to a political campaign on the basis that their beliefs might be made public, along with their name, profession, address, and a marker on a map. No matter how you stand on the issue of prop 8, I don't know why anyone would find this acceptable.

These are the risks one takes. And yes, the door has swung the other way for a very long time, and I'm quite familiar with it. No one seemed to be too upset about it then. I accepted it and stood my ground, as did many others who came before me. Ironic that's it's now the bigots who are trying to hide, isn't it?

[NT1440]

Ironic that's it's now the bigots who are trying to hide, isn't it?

I thought thats how they always worked. When they are suddenly in the bad light, its time to claim being attacked for their beliefs!

[DiamondMac]

Ironic that's it's now the bigots who are trying to hide, isn't it?

Like the person who runs the site?

[leekohler]

Like the person who runs the site?

If you're so concerned, write to them and find out who put it up. It shouldn't be that hard. Is that knowledge public domain?

[NT1440]

Like the person who runs the site?

Somehow I think if their information was out MUCH worse things would happen than to anyone listed on the site.

Read into that however you will, you know its true.

[atszyman]

And the gate can swing both ways. Imagine being interviewed for a high paying job, and the boss is a bitter conservative who is seeing tax increases. In their process of background checks they discover that you donated $500 to the Obama campaign, and this factors into their decision to hire you.

The information is out there if they choose to look in the right places. If the right motivated individual wants to create a website with it, rather than complain about someone who did it for the other side, that is their right to do so. It's not like you have to dig too hard to find that information, if they're background check doesn't find political donations, they need to hire a new agency.

If someone decides that I should not be doing a job I'm qualified for because my political beliefs don't mesh with their own, I'm not sure I want to work for him anyway.

[DiamondMac]

If you're so concerned, write to them and find out who put it up. It shouldn't be that hard. Is that knowledge public domain?

As I said above, the site is registered anonymously through GoDaddy so unless he puts any up, one will not be able to find any. Pretty ironic for what the site gives

[leekohler]

As I said above, the site is registered anonymously through GoDaddy so unless he puts any up, one will not be able to find any. Pretty ironic for what the site gives

But the owner of the site obtained information that is public record. There is no crime here, and these people knew they did this publicly.

[DiamondMac]

Somehow I think if their information was out MUCH worse things would happen than to anyone listed on the site.

Yea, who knows...he may receive death threats?

[Rodimus Prime]

But the owner of the site obtained information that is public record. There is no crime here, and these people knew they did this publicly.

still goes back to the point. What was the orginal intent of making those record public. It was not intended to be plasted on the web.

What happens if they change it to if you request the information you can get it. But the catch is you are not allowed to publish or disputed the information and it carries some very steep penalties if you do.

That general protects everyone like it orginally would of been because most people are lazy and not going to go though the trouble to request the information and the groups that in the past would of requested it any how still have access to it.

I see sites like this hurting in the long run. It hurts all sides and prevents people from wanting to get involved for fear or retaliations. Illegal retaliation.

[NT1440]

still goes back to the point. What was the orginal intent of making those record public. It was not intended to be plasted on the web.



Making records public wasn't intended for....making them public?

[Rodimus Prime]

Making records public wasn't intended for....making them public?

Still public record. Just requires more leg work for everyone to see. AKA everyone has to request for it instead of one ******* doing it and posted it on the web.

People are lazy. They can get it all they have to do is ask the city/state for it.

[Rodimus Prime]

On prop 8.

Something I have never figure out is why not go for civil unions that offer the same legal standing and protection as marriage nation wide.

That is a much MUCH easier battle to win and covers large chunk of homosexual community wants in my understanding. It gets all the leagal protection in place.

Once that is in place the start going after the term and get it all put under mairage.

Skipping step 1 is where I see the largest problem is. They are going after to much in a single step. Get the legal part first cover then worry about the term.

hell once the legal protection part is won with civil unions nation wide then getting the term marriage would be a hell of a lot easier.

That has at least been my view on it. Get the easier step done first.

[NT1440]

Still public record. Just requires more leg work for everyone to see. AKA everyone has to request for it instead of one ******* doing it and posted it on the web.

People are lazy. They can get it all they have to do is ask the city/state for it.
Making it more difficult to get public information goes against the idea of freedom of information.

[FreeState]

Just FYI - you can get the exact same information from the California Secretary of State:

http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Measures/Detail.aspx?id=1302602&session=2007

Or from The LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-metro-prop-8,0,2463893.htmlstory

Or San Francisco Chronicle:

http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/?appSession=283467309891049

[SFStateStudent]

I gave to the "NoOnPropHate(8)" and I noticed a bunch of Budweiser beer cans tossed on my front lawn...:eek:

[Gelfin]

Making records of campaign donations public is intended in part to address the problem that anonymously funded campaigns are festering pits of corruption.

Even forgetting for a moment the definition of the word public, placing restrictions on the use and dissemination of that information would mean that anyone who uncovered corrupt campaign financing of any kind would be implicitly forbidden from exposing that corruption.

Beyond that, people simply have the right to know who is backing the measures that affect their communities. It's simply part of being an informed voter.

On prop 8.

Something I have never figure out is why not go for civil unions that offer the same legal standing and protection as marriage nation wide.

That is a much MUCH easier battle to win and covers large chunk of homosexual community wants in my understanding. It gets all the leagal protection in place.

Once that is in place the start going after the term and get it all put under mairage.

Skipping step 1 is where I see the largest problem is. They are going after to much in a single step. Get the legal part first cover then worry about the term.

hell once the legal protection part is won with civil unions nation wide then getting the term marriage would be a hell of a lot easier.

That has at least been my view on it. Get the easier step done first.

You haven't been keeping up. Not only did we have your "step 1" for years, but we had "step 2." Full, real same-sex marriage existed in California. Prop 8 was the Constitutional amendment to remove that right. The original draft of the amendment attempted to roll back "step 1" as well.

[FreeState]

On prop 8.

Something I have never figure out is why not go for civil unions that offer the same legal standing and protection as marriage nation wide.

Maybe because they do not offer the same legal standing or protections?

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/12/goldstein.html

"The final report of the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission says it gathered "overwhelming evidence" the civil union law not only fails to provide the same protections as marriage, it also has created economic, medical and emotional hardships for gay couples.

The commission concluded denying same-sex couples the right to marry is as unjust as government imposing racial segregation laws against African-Americans."

The California Supreme Court also ruled the same - that Civil Unions do not give all the rights and protections of marriage.

[FX120]

Obvious to anyone that wants to see it that way.

Well, let's see, taking a list of a single group of people, mapping those people, and putting a target above their location on that map. Seems like targeting to me. If this map even made an effort to include other donors for other funds, it would be a different issue, but it does not.

What do you see the intent of that map being?

These are the risks one takes. And yes, the door has swung the other way for a very long time, and I'm quite familiar with it. No one seemed to be too upset about it then. I accepted it and stood my ground, as did many others who came before me.
And? It isn't right either way.

The information is out there if they choose to look in the right places. If the right motivated individual wants to create a website with it, rather than complain about someone who did it for the other side, that is their right to do so. It's not like you have to dig too hard to find that information, if they're background check doesn't find political donations, they need to hire a new agency.
The problem I see here is that information is being made public that was provided so that donors make make a tax deduction for the ammount that they donated, not so that it could be used like this. There is the option to donate anonymously, however then you cannot write off your donation. Personally I believe that private indivuduals (not corporations, trusts, businesses and other legal entities) should be able to do both, and that the laws should be adjusted accordingly.

We would be discusted if someone used public information, selected out say latino people, and published a similar map, and titled the page "findaspic.com".

If someone decides that I should not be doing a job I'm qualified for because my political beliefs don't mesh with their own, I'm not sure I want to work for him anyway.Maybe that lesbian schoolgirl who was expelled shouldn't be wanting to attend that Catholic school anyway...

[Gelfin]

I gave to the "NoOnPropHate(8)" and I noticed a bunch of Budweiser beer cans tossed on my front lawn...:eek:

Parkmerced? :)

[Rodimus Prime]

Maybe because they do not offer the same legal standing or protections?

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/12/goldstein.html

"The final report of the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission says it gathered "overwhelming evidence" the civil union law not only fails to provide the same protections as marriage, it also has created economic, medical and emotional hardships for gay couples.

The commission concluded denying same-sex couples the right to marry is as unjust as government imposing racial segregation laws against African-Americans."

The California Supreme Court also ruled the same - that Civil Unions do not give all the rights and protections of marriage.


Oh I agree it is a lot like segregation of the past. Not nearly as bad but still not good. If they offer the same legal protection and get nation wide it is a HUGE first step.

From there target the segration part of it and role it all under one.

Marriage is views as a religious act so I fully support the church in saying now. They have biblical passages backing them. But that is the church.

Problem is the same term is usage for the government side of it and people do not want the term clouded there. While everyone under civil unions and the term marriage would work would be fine just getting there would be near impossible so that means the term Marrage applying to gays would be where the end result is.

Just I have not seen step one completed. To many states do not do it yet. Just a very VERY small handful do.

I do agree the federal governments hands are tied in this battle because it falls under states rights just we need all the states to get to civil unions then get the term corrected.

[Gelfin]

we need all the states to get to civil unions then get the term corrected.

So your argument is that Mississippi needs to accept civil unions before Massachusetts can consider gay marriages? Seriously?

[Rodimus Prime]

So your argument is that Mississippi needs to accept civil unions before Massachusetts can consider gay marriages? Seriously?

No more it means before tons of money be spent on the gay marriage try to get more states seeing civil unions and spend most of the campaign nationally on that approach. Get majority of the states there then the rest will be a lot easier.

That just my though on it. Everyone screams for Gay marriage but they want everything all at once and not try to get the easier step done first.

Just Civil unions in the states that pass them need to make it clear that they get all the same leagal proction.


The problem is the current set up is you have most of the states that do not legally recognize gay marriages and their for can not recognize a divorce. So that becomes a huge mess.

At least if most if not all the states at least recognized civil unions then other legal problems would be able to handle better because they could at the very least role them under that.

[Gelfin]

No more it means before tons of money be spent on the gay marriage try to get more states seeing civil unions and spend most of the campaign nationally on that approach. Get majority of the states there then the rest will be a lot easier.

So then your argument is that the massive funding pumped into California to abolish already existent gay marriage should have gone unchallenged? People should have let their rights, and in several cases their marriages, go without a fight?

Otherwise you're not talking about Prop 8 anymore.

That just my though on it. Everyone screams for Gay marriage but they want everything all at once and not try to get the easier step done first.

Just Civil unions in the states that pass them need to make it clear that they get all the same leagal proction.


The problem is the current set up is you have most of the states that do not legally recognize gay marriages and their for can not recognize a divorce. So that becomes a huge mess.

At least if most if not all the states at least recognized civil unions then other legal problems would be able to handle better because they could at the very least role them under that.

I disagree. The simplest and cheapest route is to get gay marriage firmly established in one state (Massachusetts doesn't count -- they built a hedge into their law) and then challenge the Constitutionality of DOMA. The bigots know that's in the pipe, and moreover they know there's a damn good case there. Why else do you think people in Utah care so much about whether California offers marriage licenses to gay people?

[EricNau]

The majority of Prop 8 supporters don't hate gay people. If I could've voted, I would've voted Yes on 8 because I don't support the redefinition of the term marriage. The word "marriage" is not meant for gay couples, in the same way cat is not a word to describe dog. It's not out of hate, it's out of semantics.
The word marriage holds an immeasurable amount of definitions across various timeframes, religions, nationalities, and cultures. To claim the word has one static definition is nothing short of asinine.

[CalBoy]

That just my though on it. Everyone screams for Gay marriage but they want everything all at once and not try to get the easier step done first.

That's precisely what happened in California, Connecticut, Vermont, and several other states over the last decade. European nations also followed this trend.

In case you missed it, California went from: No rights>>Domestic Partnerships>>Marriage<<back down to Domestic Partnerships.

What made this vote so crucial is California's status as a laboratory state. If the ban had failed here, it would have marked an important turning point in public sentiment. Note, however, that it did not pass by much, and that the opposition was poorly organized and had fewer funds until the last two weeks of the campaign.

The simple fact that the California Supreme Court took up this cause and voted in favor of same-sex marriage marks a crucial turning point for American jurisprudence. The California Supreme Court is the most followed court in the nation (after the US Supreme Court of course), and its decision in May of 2008 will be the basis for countless others in Iowa, Rhode Island, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, and any others who may take up the issue in the coming few years.

So, no, no one is looking for the "easy way" to do things.

Just Civil unions in the states that pass them need to make it clear that they get all the same leagal proction.

For the most part, that will be as difficult a fight as same-sex marriage. Some states like Arkansas and Florida recently stripped gay couples any and all rights they had retained. In Arkansas, they can't even adopt children anymore.

The only way this will end with a universal blanket of rights is through the US Supreme Court; there is no other way.

[Rodimus Prime]

T
The only way this will end with a universal blanket of rights is through the US Supreme Court; there is no other way.

Problem is the US supreme court has already ruled on it.

The US Supreme Court response was this falls under States rights.

End result is the US Supreme Court nor the federal government can do anything short of a Constitution amendment and that will never pass since it requires 3/4 of states to pas it.

While it sucks it is a step backwards. Does not mean to give up the fight. It just means keep on going.

I see the website as a step backwards though. People on the fence are going to think poorly of these actions and be even less likely to support it in the long run.

[EricNau]

End result is the US Supreme Court nor the federal government can do anything short of a Constitution amendment and that will never pass since it requires 3/4 of states to pas it.
No, the Supreme Court can certainly reach a different ruling without a constitutional amendment.

[CalBoy]

Problem is the US supreme court has already ruled on it.

No, it hasn't.

The US Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that a ban on interracial marriage violated the 14th Amendment.

It then ruled in 2003 that any ban on gay sodomy was also unconstitutional. Since then, the Court hasn't touched a gay rights issue.

The US Supreme Court response was this falls under States rights.

Again, no it hasn't.

End result is the US Supreme Court nor the federal government can do anything short of a Constitution amendment and that will never pass since it requires 3/4 of states to pas it.

Even if the Supreme Court had decided against gay marriage, this wouldn't mean that an amendment would be required. Congress could always legislate gay marriage using the same tools it did for Civil Rights.

[Beric]

I constantly hear about "voting to take away someone's civil rights". To actually say that gays have a civil right to call their civil unions "marriage" is absolutely incredulous to me. And everyone who simply believes that a definition that has been held constant, based in the Christian heritage of our nation, should suddenly be applied to a some other unrelated group, is incomprehensible to me. Prop 8 was about a definition, and nothing more. Calling people "bigots" who simply see no reason to change this definition just because of a loudmouthed group saying it's about "civil rights" is completely out of line.

We aren't bigots by any stretch of the imagination. But neither do we wish to be called that false name by Prop. 8 supporters. And so we don't go around yelling everywhere about "civil rights" that are far from them. We want to keep our views private, within our constitutional rights. Gays have the same civil rights as ever. And they also aren't under the union of marriage with has nothing to do with gays, nor ever has.

[EricNau]

I constantly hear about "voting to take away someone's civil rights". To actually say that gays have a civil right to call their civil unions "marriage" is absolutely incredulous to me. And everyone who simply believes that a definition that has been held constant, based in the Christian heritage of our nation . . .
Our nation is not based on a "Christian heritage." Quite the opposite, actually. To quote the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by President Adams and ratified unanimously by the U.S. Senate:
"[T]he Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

. . . should suddenly be applied to a some other unrelated group, is incomprehensible to me. Prop 8 was about a definition, and nothing more. Calling people "bigots" who simply see no reason to change this definition just because of a loudmouthed group saying it's about "civil rights" is completely out of line.
If the definition of "property" had remained constant since the founding of our nation african americans would still be slaves. Would it not be accurate to call those who hold white supremacist views bigots?

[SFStateStudent]

Parkmerced? :)

You got it! Could have been that "NoOnPropHate(8)" bumper sticker...:(

[Gelfin]

You got it! Could have been that "NoOnPropHate(8)" bumper sticker...:(

I thought a lawn full of Bud cans was just what happened when you lived at Parkmerced. ;)

[atszyman]

The problem I see here is that information is being made public that was provided so that donors make make a tax deduction for the ammount that they donated, not so that it could be used like this. There is the option to donate anonymously, however then you cannot write off your donation. Personally I believe that private indivuduals (not corporations, trusts, businesses and other legal entities) should be able to do both, and that the laws should be adjusted accordingly.

There's no reason that you'd have to make them public to receive a tax deduction. They were made public in order to out corruption. Websites like OpenSecrets (http://www.opensecrets.org) have made this information publicly searchable for quite some time already.

Maybe that lesbian schoolgirl who was expelled shouldn't be wanting to attend that Catholic school anyway...

She was already enrolled. That situation would be more like getting fired for having the wrong campaigns bumper sticker on your car.

[Iscariot]

that a definition that has been held constant, based in the Christian heritage of our nation

A poor understanding of basic history is no excuse for unrepentant bigotry. Not only was the United States of America not founded on Christian principles, it's judicial system was not founded on Christian principles, and the institution of marriage was not founded on Christian principles. This is blatant dishonesty and a total disregard for factual accuracy, which represents fully the kind of impartial misrepresentation that defines bigotry.
We aren't bigots by any stretch of the imagination.big·ot (bĭg'ət)
n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Quod erat demonstratum.

[iGary]

Gays have the same civil rights as ever. And they also aren't under the union of marriage with has nothing to do with gays, nor ever has.

You do what "same" means, right?

[mactastic]

Wow... there's so much stupid in this thread, it's hard to know where to begin...

I see it as no different. You get people attacking conservative for not support them.

But it is not fair to begin with the minority is getting away with a lot more than the majority.

In the end the attack just happens to be because of prop 8. Either being for it or against it. Yet one gets call a hate crime and the other gets a slap on the wrist comparatively.
It's actually not a hate crime to attack someone based on their perceived political affiliation, no matter how much you want to say it is. You really need to brush up on what hate crime legislation *actually* says, not just what you think it says.

Again, this is why I'm against hate crime legislation in the first place, because how do you know what the motive truly is? If a Prop 8 detractor is attacked, was it because of their sexual orientation, or because of their political beliefs? Surely the prosecutor will argue that it was because of their sexual orientation, but many of the No On 8 folks are straight. I fall in that category. So if someone attacks me for my No On 8 stance, are they committing a hate crime?

And please... provide some examples of where gays are "getting away" with stuff that straights aren't. I, and others, have challenged you to point this out more than once. Yet you keep repeating the claim without any proof.

On that note, I am throwing out my support for anyone who decides to commit near-terrorist acts on all No on 8 supporters. If you're going to throw money at changing marriage for everyone else because you can't handle the phrase "civil union," then you should have the balls to stand up and say so. Actions have consequences.

So No on 8 hate crimes? I'm for 'em :rolleyes:
You're a disgusting human being if you support violence against others for no reason than a fit of pique.

And if you'll note, the people who were throwing money at changing marriage are the ones who's names are on this website. Funny how they don't "have the balls" to stand up and say so, no? :rolleyes:

For some reason I doubt he did it for spam
Is there a legal requirement for a website creator to publicly identify themselves?

Is there a legal requirement for donors to political causes to publicly identify themselves?

'Nuff said...

It's pretty obvious to what the intent of this site is, it's meant for the sole purpose of targeting people who support a perticular political organization.
Then it should also be obvious to you that the sole purpose of a phone book is for stalkers to find their victims. :rolleyes:

And the gate can swing both ways. Imagine being interviewed for a high paying job, and the boss is a bitter conservative who is seeing tax increases. In their process of background checks they discover that you donated $500 to the Obama campaign, and this factors into their decision to hire you.
Does a private employer not currently have this right? Political affiliation isn't, to my knowledge, a protected class. It surely didn't prevent the Bush administration, for example, from using political ideology as a vetting tool in their civil-service hires which are supposed to be non-partisan.

Voter privacy exists to protect people from this sort of discrimiation based on political beliefs. People shouldn't be scared of donating to a political campaign on the basis that their beliefs might be made public, along with their name, profession, address, and a marker on a map. No matter how you stand on the issue of prop 8, I don't know why anyone would find this acceptable.
Don't confuse "voter privacy" with a donation. A donation is an exercise of free speech, and as such, is just as likely to be "heard" by someone as if you were standing on a soapbox in the public square exhorting people to support the same cause you donated to.

We would be discusted if someone used public information, selected out say latino people, and published a similar map, and titled the page "findaspic.com".
I certainly would be disgusted. But short of actively encouraging illegal acts, I wouldn't demand that the site be taken down because I find it offensive. Unless you can provide proof that this site owner intends for it's readers to commit crimes, you have no right to force them to take down publicly available information.

You do not have a right not to be offended in this country.

I constantly hear about "voting to take away someone's civil rights". To actually say that gays have a civil right to call their civil unions "marriage" is absolutely incredulous to me. And everyone who simply believes that a definition that has been held constant, based in the Christian heritage of our nation, should suddenly be applied to a some other unrelated group, is incomprehensible to me. Prop 8 was about a definition, and nothing more. Calling people "bigots" who simply see no reason to change this definition just because of a loudmouthed group saying it's about "civil rights" is completely out of line.
It's funny... we just had a thread a week or so ago where the very devout Christian poster was claiming that the Founding Fathers were not True Christians. Which would mean this country was not founded on any kind of Christian heritage.

Use them when it suits the argument, discard them when it doesn't... typical.

We aren't bigots by any stretch of the imagination. But neither do we wish to be called that false name by Prop. 8 supporters. And so we don't go around yelling everywhere about "civil rights" that are far from them. We want to keep our views private, within our constitutional rights. Gays have the same civil rights as ever. And they also aren't under the union of marriage with has nothing to do with gays, nor ever has.
You did indeed vote to take rights away from homosexuals. If you don't want to be labeled a bigot, perhaps you should take the personal responsibility to conduct yourself in ways that don't reflect that moniker...

[iObama]

Then you're a bigger man than I.

Semantics, iObama? Really? Which, then, do you prefer, oppressive bigot or hateful chauvinist? I'll let you pick because I'm feeling generous like that. I'm curious as to what you think gives you the right to determine where the line is drawn between homosexuals and the rest of society. Is it out of a slavish devotion to an increasingly marginalized set of dogmatic scriptures, or do you just enjoy feeling like you're superior to a different segment of society? Or are you scared about some unusual feelings you might be feeling for the man washing his car in the hot sun with his shirt off? Because I guarantee you that you don't have a good reason for your intolerance, and I can assure you that the day is coming that you won't be able to simply vote away rights that make you uncomfortable.

Instead of playing some ridiculous semantic game and beating around the proverbial bush, why don't you at least have the honesty and the guts to come out and be honest about the discrimination you support? Because if you think anyone is going to be fooled by a limp-wristed statement about "I don't like you having my word, gosh boy howdy" then you really have an overinflated opinion of how clever you are. Wouldn't you rather be merely unscrupulous and petty instead of unscrupulous, petty and woefully dishonest? It would bring the whole argument up a notch.

You go right ahead and attack me. My belief that marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman IN NO WAY means that I am intolerant towards gay people. As a matter or fact, YOU'RE the intolerant one for assuming that because I supported Prop 8 meant that I am intolerant towards gay people. Then after saying I don't, you continue to assume that I do because you are so narrow-minded and quick to judge that you can't get over yourself.

So, sorry dude. You're just wrong on this one.

[és:]

My belief that marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman

So? Why should your belief matter outside of what you do? Why should your belief effect how other people live any more than if a homosexual man said 'My belief is that marriage is a covenant between two males'?

So, sorry dude. You're just wrong on this one.

Ah, the ol' telling somebody they are wrong line. That always goes down well. Telling somebody they are wrong isn't enough.

[leekohler]

You go right ahead and attack me. My belief that marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman IN NO WAY means that I am intolerant towards gay people. As a matter or fact, YOU'RE the intolerant one for assuming that because I supported Prop 8 meant that I am intolerant towards gay people. Then after saying I don't, you continue to assume that I do because you are so narrow-minded and quick to judge that you can't get over yourself.

So, sorry dude. You're just wrong on this one.

No he isn't. You want to discriminate. You obviously want to discriminate. You have some bizarre need to make sure that gay people are labeled differently than you. Why?

[ZiggyPastorius]

You go right ahead and attack me. My belief that marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman IN NO WAY means that I am intolerant towards gay people. As a matter or fact, YOU'RE the intolerant one for assuming that because I supported Prop 8 meant that I am intolerant towards gay people. Then after saying I don't, you continue to assume that I do because you are so narrow-minded and quick to judge that you can't get over yourself.

So, sorry dude. You're just wrong on this one.

I'm glad that your opinion of what marriage really is is not only profound enough to rewrite history (i.e. changing what marriage actually was originally and what it hasn't been in the majority of cases throughout history, one man and one woman bonding in the Christian faith and staying together forever virtuously), but also profound enough that simply the fact that you believe it makes it okay to deny a group of people the same rights and benefits that you have.

Astounding.

Edit: Alas, picture taken from my mother's bedroom wall. All she and Laura are allowed to have, and guess what benefits they get from it? Jack squat. Our country is really rather pathetic in this regard, and it kind of saddens me. (Last names blurred)

[yg17]

You go right ahead and attack me. My belief that marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman IN NO WAY means that I am intolerant towards gay people. As a matter or fact, YOU'RE the intolerant one for assuming that because I supported Prop 8 meant that I am intolerant towards gay people. Then after saying I don't, you continue to assume that I do because you are so narrow-minded and quick to judge that you can't get over yourself.

So, sorry dude. You're just wrong on this one.

If you believe that marriage is between man and woman, then don't get a gay marriage. Why should your belief stop anyone else from having equal rights?

I believe that broccoli is disgusting and tastes like crap. So, I just don't eat broccoli. I'm not going to try to stop someone else from eating it because I don't like it.

[NT1440]

If you believe that marriage is between man and woman, then don't get a gay marriage. Why should your belief stop anyone else from having equal rights?

I believe that broccoli is disgusting and tastes like crap. So, I just don't eat broccoli. I'm not going to try to stop someone else from eating it because I don't like it.
:mad: What in the sam hell do you have against broccoli?

I wonder what its going to take for people to see this for what it is, a civil rights issue.

[és:]

I wonder what its going to take for people to see this for what it is, a civil rights issue.

My guess is a leader. A real one.

[mactastic]

:mad: What in the sam hell do you have against broccoli?

I wonder what its going to take for people to see this for what it is, a civil rights issue.
Eating broccoli, or gay rights?:confused:

;)

[EricNau]

You go right ahead and attack me. My belief that marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman IN NO WAY means that I am intolerant towards gay people. As a matter or fact, YOU'RE the intolerant one for assuming that because I supported Prop 8 meant that I am intolerant towards gay people. Then after saying I don't, you continue to assume that I do because you are so narrow-minded and quick to judge that you can't get over yourself.

So, sorry dude. You're just wrong on this one.
Actions speak louder than words. If you're truly "tolerant" of gay people, you certainly aren't demonstrating it with your vote.

It's easy to deny your intolerance, but those words are hollow if you continue to preach inequality.

[Gelfin]

My belief that marriage is defined by my religious beliefs to the exclusion of everybody else's IN NO WAY means that I am intolerant towards gay people. As a matter or fact, YOU'RE the intolerant one for assuming that because I supported excluding people my religion deems immoral from daring to assert themselves to be my full equal under the law meant that I am intolerant towards gay people. Then after saying I don't, you continue to assume that I do because you are so narrow-minded and quick to judge that you can't get over yourself.

Edited for accuracy and implicit absurdity.

You don't have to be out lighting crosses on somebody's lawn to be properly considered intolerant.

How about people who swore they weren't "intolerant" of black people so long as they stayed at the back of the bus? I mean, they were allowed to ride the bus, weren't they? Didn't they get where they were going same as white folks? Doesn't that make riding up front a purely symbolic gesture unrelated to any actual legal equality? What about decent white folks' right to not feel all ookie sitting next to a Darkie? My goodness gracious, there's just no end to the unreasonable things those coloreds will ask for, is there? It's just so ungrateful of them to call us white folks intolerant after all the not lynching them we've done.

Wouldn't you agree that such protestations of tolerance rang a little hollow? Wasn't keeping black people at the back of the bus in the first place the "symbolic gesture?" Symbolic of white people's prior claim on defining the society in which black people were graciously permitted to live?

Telling a group of people what their "proper place" is in your society according to how you define it, and using the law to force them into submission is prima facie intolerance. Tolerance entails an acceptance that it's our society and it's got to accommodate all of us, even at the cost of some philosophical disagreements, not a situation where some of us enjoy membership in society only on the terms you dictate.

People like you are like people who begin sentences with the words, "I don't have anything against the Jews, but…" and then say something bottomlessly stupid about banks or TV news -- the sort that always acts blindsided when people start identifying him as "Bob, the guy who hates Jews." You think you can quack like a duck and then simply swear on your grandmother's eyes that you aren't a duck, and you're surprised when that doesn't convince people.

The fundamental disconnect is that you and Bob only care about not being identified by a particular label, whereas the people assigning the unwanted label do so on the basis of your expressed beliefs and actions, and it's those things they care about.

[ZiggyPastorius]

Edited for accuracy and implicit absurdity.

You don't have to be out lighting crosses on somebody's lawn to be properly considered intolerant.

How about people who swore they weren't "intolerant" of black people so long as they stayed at the back of the bus? I mean, they were allowed to ride the bus, weren't they? Didn't they get where they were going same as white folks? Doesn't that make riding up front a purely symbolic gesture unrelated to any actual legal equality? What about decent white folks' right to not feel all ookie sitting next to a Darkie? My goodness gracious, there's just no end to the unreasonable things those coloreds will ask for, is there? It's just so ungrateful of them to call us white folks intolerant after all the not lynching them we've done.

Wouldn't you agree that such protestations of tolerance rang a little hollow? Wasn't keeping black people at the back of the bus in the first place the "symbolic gesture?" Symbolic of white people's prior claim on defining the society in which black people were graciously permitted to live?

Telling a group of people what their "proper place" is in your society according to how you define it, and using the law to force them into submission is prima facie intolerance. Tolerance entails an acceptance that it's our society and it's got to accommodate all of us, even at the cost of some philosophical disagreements, not a situation where some of us enjoy membership in society only on the terms you dictate.

People like you are like people who begin sentences with the words, "I don't have anything against the Jews, but…" and then say something bottomlessly stupid about banks or TV news -- the sort that always acts blindsided when people start identifying him as "Bob, the guy who hates Jews." You think you can quack like a duck and then simply swear on your grandmother's eyes that you aren't a duck, and you're surprised when that doesn't convince people.

The fundamental disconnect is that you and Bob only care about not being identified by a particular label, whereas the people assigning the unwanted label do so on the basis of your expressed beliefs and actions, and it's those things they care about.

Amazingly worded, though your one paragraph struck me particularly hard. I got really worked up one day in school because of that sentence. Nothing gets me riled up faster than hearing someone say that. "I don't have anything against [blacks, gays, et cetera], I just don't want them [near me, kissing near me, getting married, et cetera]." It disgusts me to no end.

/rant.

[FX120]

Then it should also be obvious to you that the sole purpose of a phone book is for stalkers to find their victims.
I am pretty sure that a phone book includes people regardless of their race, age, sex, or political beliefs.

This site singles out a single group of people.

Does a private employer not currently have this right? Political affiliation isn't, to my knowledge, a protected class. It surely didn't prevent the Bush administration, for example, from using political ideology as a vetting tool in their civil-service hires which are supposed to be non-partisan.Just because it is legal doesn't mean it is correct. I work for a number of houses of worship, yet am agnostic. I don't go around shouting my religeious beliefs while on the job because for one it's unprofessional, and secondly because it could damage the chance of getting work from them again. If your polticial beliefs that would otherwise be private, and would have no affect of your ability to perform a job or otherwise influence your tasks, there should be no reason for them to come up in a job interview.

Don't confuse "voter privacy" with a donation. A donation is an exercise of free speech, and as such, is just as likely to be "heard" by someone as if you were standing on a soapbox in the public square exhorting people to support the same cause you donated to.
Don't assume that everyone who donates to a political organization doesn't also want to be private in their beliefs. People standing on soapboxes and shouting don't care about their right to a private vote, but many other people still do, and this same privacy should be extended to supporting political organization through donations for private individuals.

I certainly would be disgusted. But short of actively encouraging illegal acts, I wouldn't demand that the site be taken down because I find it offensive. Unless you can provide proof that this site owner intends for it's readers to commit crimes, you have no right to force them to take down publicly available information.

You do not have a right not to be offended in this country.
I haven't demanded that this site be taken down, I am wondering why this information is being made public in the first place. I do however think that this information is being misued, and that the person who created that site should think again about their own moral stance.

[obeygiant]

Same sex marriage is yet to hurt anyone or impose on other marriages. Its really only a matter of time before its completely legal. 20 years maybe?

[leekohler]

Just because it is legal doesn't mean it is correct. I work for a number of houses of worship, yet am agnostic. I don't go around shouting my religeious beliefs while on the job because for one it's unprofessional, and secondly because it could damage the chance of getting work from them again.

Bingo! And if you donate to a political campaign to take away the rights of those with whom you disagree, I have every right to know you did so. I also have the right not to do business with you.

[Rt&Dzine]

If you are going to use the Bible to justify 'marriage' only between a man and a woman, then divorced people can't marry either (except under special circumstances). God hates divorce. Their false marriages should be revoked under Proposition 19.

[ZiggyPastorius]

Just because it is legal doesn't mean it is correct. I work for a number of houses of worship, yet am agnostic. I don't go around shouting my religeious beliefs while on the job because for one it's unprofessional, and secondly because it could damage the chance of getting work from them again. If your polticial beliefs that would otherwise be private, and would have no affect of your ability to perform a job or otherwise influence your tasks, there should be no reason for them to come up in a job interview.

What does being agnostic have to do with working at a church/other place of worship? :confused: Agnostic is not the same thing as atheist, nor is agnostic even a religious belief (which is the only way I could see your post being relevant?)

[mactastic]

I am pretty sure that a phone book includes people regardless of their race, age, sex, or political beliefs.

This site singles out a single group of people.
So? A phone book singles out a single group of people too. Like people who all live in the same region.

Just because it is legal doesn't mean it is correct.
Well, that's a different discussion.

I work for a number of houses of worship, yet am agnostic. I don't go around shouting my religeious beliefs while on the job because for one it's unprofessional, and secondly because it could damage the chance of getting work from them again.
So you deny who you are in order to gain work? That's fine, it's your choice. But that doesn't mean everyone needs to live that way.

If your polticial beliefs that would otherwise be private, and would have no affect of your ability to perform a job or otherwise influence your tasks, there should be no reason for them to come up in a job interview.
Donating money is speech. Conservatives have argued many court cases to ensure that this is so. If you choose to "speak" (ie, donate money) in the public arena, you have no more of expectation of privacy than you do if you stand on the street corner publicly endorsing a candidate.

Don't assume that everyone who donates to a political organization doesn't also want to be private in their beliefs. People standing on soapboxes and shouting don't care about their right to a private vote, but many other people still do, and this same privacy should be extended to supporting political organization through donations for private individuals.
LOL! I'm sure an awful lot of people who donate to a political organization wish they could do it in the shadows so they don't have to own up to their actions.

Besides, my point is that you were trying to conflate the right to a private vote with the right to donate to a campaign in secret. The two are NOT the same thing.

I haven't demanded that this site be taken down, I am wondering why this information is being made public in the first place. I do however think that this information is being misued, and that the person who created that site should think again about their own moral stance.
Why is this information being made public in the first place? IT'S THE LAW!!!

[Iscariot]

The interesting thing about bigotry is how it's defined by drawing lines of what rights you are willing to concede on, and what rights you believe are only for you and your chosen group. In this case, you're willing to give homosexuals legal rights, as long as they don't have the right to have their marriage considered equal to yours through the use of selective vocabulary. It's interesting that you think that this is acceptable behaviour when it is actually exactly what the definition of bigotry is, and a shining example of how bigots justify themselves by pointing to their concessions and claiming that they are being reasonable. You have drawn a line in the sand to differentiate yourself, you have said "this far and no further". To borrow an analogy from Gelfin, you are the white man at the front of the bus citing the nerve of them coloreds for wanting to sit up front with you; they should be grateful that you are willing to let them ride at all.

If you don't wish to be labeled a bigot, I suggest you stop acting like one. And I don't know why you think that someone like Leekohler, who has fought his whole life to be given even basic human rights should pull any punches. If you had spent your whole life as a second class citizen — something I sincerely hope you are privileged enough to never experience — then I would think that you would be fiercely defending your right to be seen as a human being. And a part of that right means you don't get to draw your lines in the sand and pretend you are being reasonable.

[CalBoy]

No, I wouldn't. I don't believe it is a "right" for gay people to be married. I believe it's a right for gay couples to have "civil unions."

This steadfast desire to cling to definitions and semantics do indeed make you a bigot.

Gelfin, Iscariot, and others have already explained, quite thoroughly I might add, why, so no further explanation is needed from me.

The only thing I can offer you is some substitution:

I don't believe it is a "right" for black people to be married. I believe it's a right for black couples to have "civil unions."

In structure, logic, and organization, this sentence is the same as yours above. Most people would undoubtedly call the latter bigotry, because as you fail to realize, bigotry is not about particular any one group or any one issue: it's about the blind absolutes that are attached to it.

You call it bigotry, I call it different definitions. I vote for my definition, you vote for yours. It's not out of hate whatsoever. You want it to be for the sake of argument, but it's just not.

Out of curiosity, are the gay friends you have happy with your position on this? Or are they all like Lee too?

[SFStateStudent]

I thought a lawn full of Bud cans was just what happened when you lived at Parkmerced. ;)

True; those recycling collectors make bank on Monday mornings...:p

[leekohler]

No, I wouldn't. I don't believe it is a "right" for gay people to be married. I believe it's a right for gay couples to have "civil unions."

You call it bigotry, I call it different definitions. I vote for my definition, you vote for yours. It's not out of hate whatsoever. You want it to be for the sake of argument, but it's just not.

Why are you so afraid that our relationships get called the same thing in the eyes of the government? I've already met you half way. I said I'd be fine with the term "civil union" as long as the same term applies to what you have legally. So why do you feel the need to make sure that it's called something different for us?

The interesting thing about bigotry is how it's defined by drawing lines of what rights you are willing to concede on, and what rights you believe are only for you and your chosen group. In this case, you're willing to give homosexuals legal rights, as long as they don't have the right to have their marriage considered equal to yours through the use of selective vocabulary. It's interesting that you think that this is acceptable behaviour when it is actually exactly what the definition of bigotry is, and a shining example of how bigots justify themselves by pointing to their concessions and claiming that they are being reasonable. You have drawn a line in the sand to differentiate yourself, you have said "this far and no further". To borrow an analogy from Gelfin, you are the white man at the front of the bus citing the nerve of them coloreds for wanting to sit up front with you; they should be grateful that you are willing to let them ride at all.

If you don't wish to be labeled a bigot, I suggest you stop acting like one. And I don't know why you think that someone like Leekohler, who has fought his whole life to be given even basic human rights should pull any punches. If you had spent your whole life as a second class citizen — something I sincerely hope you are privileged enough to never experience — then I would think that you would be fiercely defending your right to be seen as a human being. And a part of that right means you don't get to draw your lines in the sand and pretend you are being reasonable.

You're the best, babe. :)

[Gelfin]

If it really isn't a big deal to you, and if you're really that supportive, then why act like a bigot over that one point?

Moreover, if it really is nothing more than those eight letters that matter to you, then, brother, you've been suckered, because the people your vote supports want a hell of a lot more than that. Among the primary backers of Proposition 8, who most certainly are bigots by any term you can imagine, the victory you would help give them is a foot in the door towards their explicit goal of taking it all. Not just the word, but everything the word represents, by any name or none.

Finally, it may not be a big deal to you, but it most certainly is a big deal to the people whose unions are commonly regarded as some sort of legal technicality, a semantic ghetto everyone knows was constructed primarily so that people who just plain don't like gay people can go on pretending that all of society supports their hatred.

I'm really sorry it's hard for you, but that 110% support you promised necessitates siding against a hateful agenda, not with it. Call that extra 10% letting go of something that, by your own admission, doesn't really matter terribly much to you to begin with.

[.Andy]

No, I wouldn't. I don't believe it is a "right" for gay people to be married. I believe it's a right for gay couples to have "civil unions."
Are there any other rights that you don't think people have?

[leekohler]

BTW- we've already shown you that civil unions aren't the same. We don't get the same rights. You can choose to ignore that though.

[leekohler]

When we have equal rights, you can call me a bigot. Until then, sorry- you don't have a clue what you're talking about. You have no idea what it's like to be a gay person in this society at this moment. And you can call me whatever you want, you just make yourself look even worse.

You have not answered one single person here or addressed one single point made. You just cover your ears and go "lalalalalalala! I can't hear you!"

Answer this question- Why is it that you are so afraid that everyone's relationship gets called the same thing, whether it be "marriage" or "civil union"? I've already told you I'm fine with either, as long as it's the same for everyone. Why does it have to be called something different?

[Rodimus Prime]

Get used to it here. They call you a bigot when you do not agree with them. They are intolerant of your belief.

It is funny but they complain about you being a bigot but yet under the same definition they are a bigot themselves.

They are intolerant. It is a reason why you see people leaving these forums.

I still stand by what I said that site like one that this tread is based on will damage the process in the long run for all sides involved on ANY topic.

I think the person who made the site is a spineless gutless ass. I still believe that the site was made for harassment and they are hiding behind the law. I think that of the people who made the same type of site (if it was made) for people who were against prop 8. It harassment and it is meant to cause fear.

it is meant to make people scared to donate money.

long run it will hurt the case more than help it because I see more people being afraid to donate to the case of gay marriage over not. They believe it in but due to circles they are they can not because of fear of revenge.

Just I getting annoyed that the people here can not see that. They are blinded by their own hated and bigotty.

[SLC Flyfishing]

Oh, and SLC Flyfishing, the thread would be full of bigots if they held steadfastly to their opinions without any desire to engage in logical discourse. So far only one poster has shown that behavior, so the thread is not full of bigots. ;)

I hear ya Calboy, though I seriously doubt any of the rest of you are any more willing to budge on your positions than iObama! is. And maybe I'm wrong, but I detect a sense of self-appointed moral superiority in many people's posts from both sides of the argument. So in all technicality there are bigots on either side.

Until recently I thought that Bigot was just a flowery way of saying Racist. So at least I've learned something new from all of this right?

Have a good evening everyone! I'm off to memorize my textbooks, I've got a whole slew of exams this week. :mad:

SLC

[leekohler]

Get used to it here. They call you a bigot when you do not agree with them. They are intolerant of your belief.

It is funny but they complain about you being a bigot but yet under the same definition they are a bigot themselves.

They are intolerant. It is a reason why you see people leaving these forums.

I still stand by what I said that site like one that this tread is based on will damage the process in the long run for all sides involved on ANY topic.

I think the person who made the site is a spineless gutless ass. I still believe that the site was made for harassment and they are hiding behind the law. I think that of the people who made the same type of site (if it was made) for people who were against prop 8. It harassment and it is meant to cause fear.

it is meant to make people scared to donate money.

long run it will hurt the case more than help it because I see more people being afraid to donate to the case of gay marriage over not. They believe it in but due to circles they are they can not because of fear of revenge.

Just I getting annoyed that the people here can not see that. They are blinded by their own hated and bigotty.

Yep- we sure are the bad guys, Rodimus. We're the ones who deny people rights. Yep- that's us. We're the big bad scary homos coming for your kids and out to destroy the family. Why- you should just be lucky that we don't put you right back in the closet where you belong. :rolleyes: We are truly awful, terrible, mean people.

And you're damn right- I'm intolerant of people who seek to deny others their rights. You are damn right about that.

I hear ya Calboy, though I seriously doubt any of the rest of you are any more willing to budge on your positions than iObama! is. And maybe I'm wrong, but I detect a sense of self-appointed moral superiority in many people's posts from both sides of the argument. So in all technicality there are bigots on either side.

Until recently I thought that Bigot was just a flowery way of saying Racist. So at least I've learned something new from all of this right?

Have a good evening everyone! I'm off to memorize my textbooks, I've got a whole slew of exams this week. :mad:

SLC

Hello? I for one have expressed openness to the the term "civil union" as long as the term applies equally to everyone in the eyes of the government. iObama has refused to discuss that possibility several times. I'm not even insisting on a term, just equal application and treatment. I've tried to offer a compromise, but I get nothing.

[Rodimus Prime]

Yep- we sure are the bad guys, Rodimus. We're the ones who deny people rights. Yep- that's us. We're the big bad scary homos coming for your kids and out to destroy the family. Why- you should just be lucky that we don't put you right back in the closet where you belong. :rolleyes: We are truly awful, terrible, mean people.

And you're damn right- I'm intolerant of people who seek to deny others their rights. You are damn right about that.

and YET again you seem to some how get my belief out of that and twist it.

From how you are twisting my post it would not be far for me to twist yours and say that you have no problem with people being harrassed and threaten and support death threats.

Really for the love of GOD stop saying I believe something when I do not. I NEVER ****ING POSTED belief that you are some how getting out of there.

[AP_piano295]

iObama did have one point though, I and others on this board are prejudiced against his views and beliefs and believe his views to be inferior.

So I guess my question is...is being bigoted against a bigot truly being bigoted, or is it a logical reaction based on reason and facts.

I guess that might be what really defines a bigot someone who conforms to a set of beliefs/values and assumes that they are absolutely correct without any evidence (and despite contradicting evidence).

[leekohler]

and YET again you seem to some how get my belief out of that and twist it.

From how you are twisting my post it would not be far for me to twist yours and say that you have no problem with people being harrassed and threaten and support death threats.

Really for the love of GOD stop saying I believe something when I do not. I NEVER ****ING POSTED belief that you are some how getting out of there.

I responded to your twisted post with one of my own. Read my edit, maybe you'll understand why I get so frustrated. You claimed that we're the intolerant ones, which is unbelievably disingenuous of you. You guys sit and cry like you're nailed to a cross, when you have no clue what it's like for us. I'm a bit sick of it. It's disgusting.

[Rodimus Prime]

iObama did have one point though, I and others on this board are prejudiced against his views and beliefs and believe his views to be inferior.

So I guess my question is...is being bigoted against a bigot truly being bigoted, or is it a logical reaction based on reason and facts.

I guess that might be what really defines a bigot someone who conforms to a set of beliefs/values and assumes that they are absolutely correct without any evidence (and despite contradicting evidence).

It is how you act.

I would not call some one who believes that Gay marriage should be legal a bigot.
What would make them a bigot is if they where intolerant of those who believe it should be legal. Or of gays. They could not stand being around them and so on.

Same goes the other way. It is how you act and deal with it. Some people hate pretty intolerant of another belief.

It much more subtle. It in how they act.

While I admit I do not agree with homosexual life style. I have nothing against gay marriage and fully believe that they should be offered the same legal protection. I have no problem with people being gay but when it comes to PDA my limits are the same as they are with a straight couple which quite frankly is not much. Hold hands maybe a quite peck or 2. but that is the extant to what I can stand.

Quite frankly I have had a few friends who where gay and we got along fine. They where not close friends but those are very few and far between for me. Hell I do not agree with some of my best friends on some big issues but we are still great friends.

Just because I do not agree or believe the same thing does not mean that I am a bigot. It just means I do not agree with you.

[Rodimus Prime]

I responded to your twisted post with one of my own. Read my edit, maybe you'll understand why I get so frustrated. You claimed that we're the intolerant ones, which is unbelievably disingenuous of you. You guys sit and cry like you're nailed to a cross, when you have no clue what it's like for us. I'm a bit sick of it. It's disgusting.

I stand by why I think the state is poor and wrong.

I think any site like that how it is so detailed to where people live is wrong. When it gets that detailed to me shows it is set up for harassment. I shows name with locations and just way to much information easy to get. To me it means they are setting it up for harassment and hiding behind the law.

In the long run site like prop8 supporters will hurt gay marriage in the long wrong because the same sites are made for the other side and fear or reprisal from the majority is much worse than the other side. The people against Gay marriages have much deeper pockets. Pro gay marriage need all the help they can get. I do think the government needs to step in and prevent sites like this clearly set up for harassment from happening.

[Rodimus Prime]

Hello? I for one have expressed openness to the the term "civil union" as long as the term applies equally to everyone in the eyes of the government. iObama has refused to discuss that possibility several times. I'm not even insisting on a term, just equal application and treatment. I've tried to offer a compromise, but I get nothing.

I think that might be the best solution just I see it being easier to get gay marriages passed than that to happen.

I have said ti before but I have no problem with the church saying no to gay marriages they do have scripture to back them there. But that is another issue and not for debate here.

Just term marriage is a religous one first and it is getting messy in government.

[leekohler]

It is how you act.

I would not call some one who believes that Gay marriage should be legal a bigot.
What would make them a bigot is if they where intolerant of those who believe it should be legal. Or of gays. They could not stand being around them and so on.

Same goes the other way. It is how you act and deal with it. Some people hate pretty intolerant of another belief.

It much more subtle. It in how they act.

While I admit I do not agree with homosexual life style. I have nothing against gay marriage and fully believe that they should be offered the same legal protection. I have no problem with people being gay but when it comes to PDA my limits are the same as they are with a straight couple which quite frankly is not much. Hold hands maybe a quite peck or 2. but that is the extant to what I can stand.

Quite frankly I have had a few friends who where gay and we got along fine. They where not close friends but those are very few and far between for me. Hell I do not agree with some of my best friends on some big issues but we are still great friends.

Just because I do not agree or believe the same thing does not mean that I am a bigot. It just means I do not agree with you.

Look- I don't give a crap what anybody thinks of me. I don't need or want your approval. You can think whatever it is that you want of me, and honestly, I could give a crap. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THE LAW, I absolutely demand to be treated the same as anyone else. That's the bottom line, man. Believe what you want, you're welcome to it. But don't make me live according your beliefs.

[CalBoy]

I hear ya Calboy, though I seriously doubt any of the rest of you are any more willing to budge on your positions than iObama! is.

That's where you're wrong! :)

I, and others who have posted in this thread, no doubt have our own prior beliefs and ideas about an issue, but we are also willing to take up a well-reasoned position when it is presented.

For example, I had not been against capital punishment when I first posted in PRSI. However, I did take the time to read the case made by skunk and Iscariot (in particular). In the end, my position changed (although with a different emphasis on the reasons why).

That's happened for me a few times in here, and I know for a few other posters as well, some of whom have posted in this thread in a position that is contrary to iObama's.

And maybe I'm wrong, but I detect a sense of self-appointed moral superiority in many people's posts from both sides of the argument. So in all technicality there are bigots on either side.

You could be right about that, but I don't think the scales are quite balanced. On one side we have those who have their moral superiority derived from a position that is based on religious conviction, and on the other a simple desire for equality under the law.

History shows that those with the latter kind of morality tend to be the ones with a legitimate claim to it.

iObama did have one point though, I and others on this board are prejudiced against his views and beliefs and believe his views to be inferior.

So I guess my question is...is being bigoted against a bigot truly being bigoted, or is it a logical reaction based on reason and facts.

That one word sets apart a bigot from a person engaged in rational discussion.

iObama hasn't cared to explain himself logically yet, despite the numerous requests. Everyone else here has explained what is logically wrong with his reasoning, however.

I guess that might be what really defines a bigot someone who conforms to a set of beliefs/values and assumes that they are absolutely correct without any evidence (and despite contradicting evidence).

Indeed. The reasons are important, not the end result.

[iObama]

You pulled a partial definition (you really love dictionaries don't you, they seem to be a main point to your argument with the meaning of marriage).

No one should tolerate intolerant ideas.

actually, you can see for yourself what I pulled. type in "define bigot" on google and see what comes up. Oh yeah... It's what I pulled!

:p

[leekohler]

actually, you can see for yourself what I pulled. type in "define bigot" on google and see what comes up. Oh yeah... It's what I pulled!

:p

And yet you still refuse to engage in any meaningful discussion of the topic. Answer my question I've asked you numerous times. Answer Iscariot, Calboy and everyone else here who has tried to reason with you. Give it a try, I dare you. Or you can continue to just ignore it all. It's up to you.

[iObama]

Look- I don't give a crap what anybody thinks of me. I don't need or want your approval. You can think whatever it is that you want of me, and honestly, I could give a crap. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THE LAW, I absolutely demand to be treated the same as anyone else. That's the bottom line, man. Believe what you want, you're welcome to it. But don't make me live according your beliefs.

And you ARE - In California, at least - TREATED the same way. It's just not called the same thing because it's NOT.

[CalBoy]

It's just not called the same thing because it's NOT.

Why this would suggest that a marriage and a civil union are substantively different.

It would also mean that you don't want gay couples and straight couples in monogamous long-term relationships to be treated the same.

What's your reason for this again? Oh right, a set of beliefs you have been raised with that you hold as unquestionable.

It's beginning to smell a lot like a 5-letter word that starts with a 'b.'

[leekohler]

And you ARE - In California, at least - TREATED the same way. It's just not called the same thing because it's NOT.

That's not true. I've already explained to you how civil unions are subpar to full-fledged marriage. Several others have too. And you still refuse to explain yourself.

That sentence is nothing other than your opinion. It's called the same thing in Massachusetts, Canada, and many places throughout the world. So apparently, it is the same thing in many, many places. But you claim that it's not the same. So if it's not the same, how can it be the same treatment?

Well, some of us have jobs, so I'm off to bed. Nighty night kids!

[EricNau]

It's fallacious to protect all opinions as equal, or portray such positions as not having a correct conclusion.

Not all opinions are equal, especially when they can be backed with evidence or dismissed due to lack of substantiated claims, as is the case here.

You might not "believe" that same-sex couples have the right to marry, but you must be prepared to defend your position with facts and evidence; "because I say so" is not a valid (nor rational) defense.

[iGary]

If we put religion aside, what argument do we have against gay marriage? :confused:

[és:]

It affects how I vote.

You shouldn't be allowed to have a vote on it. Just like people shouldn't be allowed to vote to make black people slaves or give up their seat on the bus.

[iGary]

You shouldn't be allowed to have a vote on it. Just like people shouldn't be allowed to vote to make black people slaves or give up their seat on the bus.

So now you're taking away his right to vote? :confused:

[és:]

So now you're taking away his right to vote? :confused:

No. Clearly not.

There should be no voting in this sort of matter. It's not OK for people to vote on issues of civil liberty. Why not have a vote to reintroduce a sodomy law?

Why not just scrap the entire equal protection clause (no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws) and be done with it. Wait, let's have vote and discriminate against whoever loses.

[Rodimus Prime]

Part of this issue can be boiled down to is being homosexual a choice or is genetic.

If it is a choice that being used as a case to deny the right to gay marriages.

If it is genetic I can see helping out the case for gay marriages.

[iGary]

Part of this issue can be boiled down to is being homosexual a choice or is genetic.

If it is a choice that being used as a case to deny the right to gay marriages.

If it is genetic I can see helping out the case for gay marriages.

Would you argue that heterosexuality is genetic? (God, I wish we weren't talking about this again.)

[és:]

Part of this issue can be boiled down to is being homosexual a choice or is genetic.

If it is a choice that being used as a case to deny the right to gay marriages.

If it is genetic I can see helping out the case for gay marriages.

If Being heterosexual is genetic then so is being homosexual. If being homosexual is a choice then so is heterosexuality.

[Rodimus Prime]

If Being heterosexual is genetic then so is being homosexual. If being homosexual is a choice then so is heterosexuality.

if you make that your case the question comes up why do you not see homosexually in nature. Why is it limited only to humans and this goes back to the original question.

My though on it is it is part both.

Some people have more homosexual tendency genetics. This would lead them to be much more likely to want to be homosexual.

[és:]

if you make that your case the question comes up why do you not see homosexually in nature. Why is it limited only to humans and this goes back to the original question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

Homosexual and bisexual behavior are widespread in the animal kingdom: a 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them

[Queso]

if you make that your case the question comes up why do you not see homosexually in nature. Why is it limited only to humans and this goes back to the original question.
You see homosexual behaviour in nature all the time. Wildlife documentary crews have filmed it over and over again.

[yg17]

if you make that your case the question comes up why do you not see homosexually in nature. Why is it limited only to humans and this goes back to the original question.

My though on it is it is part both.

Some people have more homosexual tendency genetics. This would lead them to be much more likely to want to be homosexual.

Let me ask you this: When did you choose to be straight? I certainly don't remember when I chose to be straight. I know I didn't wake up one morning and say "You know what? I think I'm gonna like girls for the rest of my life!" I've just been that way by nature.

Gay people don't just choose to be gay. I don't even know why anyone would want to choose to be part of a minority that faces so much hate and discrimination. There's a reason gay people are gay, and it's not by choice.

[SLC Flyfishing]

Let me ask you this: When did you choose to be straight? I certainly don't remember when I chose to be straight. I know I didn't wake up one morning and say "You know what? I think I'm gonna like girls for the rest of my life!" I've just been that way by nature.

Gay people don't just choose to be gay. I don't even know why anyone would want to choose to be part of a minority that faces so much hate and discrimination. There's a reason gay people are gay, and it's not by choice.

I need sources describing the genetic basis for Homosexuality. Last I heard (two years ago when I thought I'd go into anthropology) it was still just an idea. I read something about X chromosome sabotaging being a possible answer to homosexual tendencies but even then there was absolutely no evidence to support the idea.

Has this information come into being, or are people still just assuming that to be the case?

And as far as homosexuality in Nature, there are widespread examples, but I know of no other species in which same sex pair bonding occurs. Homosexual behavior in my observations appears to have more to do with communication (bonobos for example) than affection and courtship.

I have been conducting research on sexually dimorphic fish, and one could argue that they display homosexual (particularly lesbian) courtship initially, but one individual always changes gender shortly after regular courtship begins. It's fascinating stuff!

SLC

[Queso]

Some people have more homosexual tendency genetics. This would lead them to be much more likely to want to be homosexual.
Just how twisted does logic have to be to fit your prejudices?

[Theophany]

I say what goes around comes around. Karma's a bitch. 2 wrongs don't make a right, but I can't have much sympathy for a group who worked to take away someone else's civil rights.

That's a very contentious thing to say, seeing as the supporters of prop 8 would say it wasn't a civil right. Heck, I'd be inclined to disagree about it being a civil right - I don't think heterosexual marriage is a civil right seeing as it's in common law, not civil law.

I think you have to ask yourself on what grounds there is justification for this kind of behaviour. The proposition was put to the public, the public voted and the choice of the public was put into action. It's called democracy, shame nobody has a flaming clue what it actually is anymore, they just question the existence of it when they don't get their way. :rolleyes:

*This post in no way constitutes my beliefs on heterosexual marriage, so for the love of Yahweh, don't be stupid enough to use any part of this post to rant/flame me for what I haven't said.

[atszyman]

Lee - if the debate was over whether or not civil unions THAT WOULD GRANT ALL THE SAME LEGAL RIGHTS AS MARRIAGES were permitted, I'd be marching in the street with you guys. I will give 110% support to the gay community in that regard.

So if it confers all of the same legal rights as marriage why the different name? It's not like this would force churches to marry gay couples.

Think of using the name "marriage" as a cost saving measure. If we call them Civil Unions, every time marriage is mentioned in laws/paperwork it needs to be amended to cover Marriage and Civil Unions. Every time you see a check box for Married/Single, another check box for Civilly United needs to be added. If you want to take the lazy and cheap way out, you can say that the word Marriage will cover both unions, and that anyone Civilly United can check the "Married" box, but then why bother with a different name? As soon as the easy path of using the "Married" check box starts people will get lazy and start referring to the Civilly United as "Married" at which point there was no reason to even bother with Civil Unions in the first place.

If you're going to insist that a different name has all the same legal rights, I can only conclude that you are for increased government expense and bureaucracy since it would be much easier and cheaper to use the existing legal framework than to amend it all to allow for "Marriage in everything but name." And one mistake/omission on amending will nullify the argument that "It has all the same legal rights." since the omission or mistake will allow a loophole to not recognize Civil Unions in the same way that Marriage is.

And as far as homosexuality in Nature, there are widespread examples, but I know of no other species in which same sex pair bonding occurs. Homosexual behavior in my observations appears to have more to do with communication (bonobos for example) than affection and courtship.


Penguins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals#Penguins)

[SLC Flyfishing]

Penguins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals#Penguins)

Pair bonding, but no mention of sexual behavior between male couples.

Anything else?

I'm just curious by the way!

SLC

[és:]

Pair bonding, but no mention of sexual behavior between male couples.

Anything else?

I'm just curious by the way!

SLC

Why the distinction between bonding and sexual activity. Are you OK with one and not the other?

[yg17]

Pair bonding, but no mention of sexual behavior between male couples.

Anything else?

I'm just curious by the way!

SLC

I think my dog might be bi, she seems to enjoy sniffing the butts of other female dogs in the neighborhood just as much as she seems to enjoy sniffing the butts of the male dogs. :D

Seriously though, I'll look later. I'm at work right now and think googling "animals having gay sex" might get me in trouble ;)

[atszyman]

Pair bonding, but no mention of sexual behavior between male couples.

Anything else?

I'm just curious by the way!

SLC

Well then how about Elephants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals#Elephants)?

African, as well as Asiatic males will engage in same-sex bonding and mounting.

I think my dog might be bi, she seems to enjoy sniffing the butts of other female dogs in the neighborhood just as much as she seems to enjoy sniffing the butts of the male dogs. :D

My spayed, female dog, used to mount my landlord's female German Shepherd all the time... of course she also did it to the male one as well... My dog is a transexual bi...:D

Seriously though, I'll look later. I'm at work right now and think googling "animals having gay sex" might get me in trouble ;)

Think of it as a "Job creation effort" and Google away. If you get fired that's a job created for someone else...:D

[SLC Flyfishing]

Well then how about Elephants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals#Elephants)?

Interesting, but are they homosexual or does this fall under the umbrella of communication etc. Do Elephants form committed relationships and pair off for good (as human's do), or do they do this as some sort of means of establishing a social hierarchy?

It appears to be the latter.

SLC

[atszyman]

Interesting, but are they homosexual or does this fall under the umbrella of communication etc. Do Elephants form committed relationships and pair off for good (as human's do), or do they do this as some sort of means of establishing a social hierarchy?

It appears to be the latter.

SLC

Then show me which animals get married so we can use that as the definition of whether homosexual marriage is found in nature.

All animals have different mating habits, very few form life long pair bonds (actually very few humans do these days). If they're forming a bond and having sex in the manner that would normally be done with another of the opposite sex, does that not qualify as a pair bond for them, more equivalent to marriage, our societal construct for pair bonding?

[SLC Flyfishing]

Then show me which animals get married so we can use that as the definition of whether homosexual marriage is found in nature.

All animals have different mating habits, very few form life long pair bonds (actually very few humans do these days). If they're forming a bond and having sex in the manner that would normally be done with another of the opposite sex, does that not qualify as a pair bond for them, more equivalent to marriage, our societal construct for pair bonding?

No I agree, I'm just wondering if there are animals who mate homosexually for life. Not with one individual necessarily but only with other individuals of the same gender

SLC

[Queso]

Interesting, but are they homosexual or does this fall under the umbrella of communication etc. Do Elephants form committed relationships and pair off for good (as human's do), or do they do this as some sort of means of establishing a social hierarchy?

It appears to be the latter.

SLC
I fail to see how this is actually relevant. The fact is that we cannot ask these animals directly about what is driving them, but we can ask humans. Overwhelmingly the humans say this is just how they are, and yet still all these people and their first-hand experiences are dismissed in favour of some fairy tale written in the desert thousands of years ago when people understood absolutely nothing about how the world works or how it's put together. I don't for one second think we have all the answers now, but I'll say for a fact we're a damn sight closer to them than some bronze-age tribe.

Being gay isn't a choice, just like being left-handed isn't a choice. The only reason people bend over backwards to not accept this is because they've been brainwashed into thinking that sex itself is something either bad or something sacred, when really it's just a biological action with about as much hidden meaning as taking your morning dump. If two people want to get together, get married and form a life together why should anyone else care what sex they are? It's none of their business. All this protection of marriage vomit that gets spewed around is verbal cancer designed to prolong prejudice, nothing more.

The sooner all these churches, mosques etc. burn to the ground and stop filling people's heads with dogmatic rubbish the better. The day can't come soon enough.

[leekohler]

No I agree, I'm just wondering if there are animals who mate homosexually for life. Not with one individual necessarily but only with other individuals of the same gender

SLC

Please read. It's pretty fascinating. Animal relationships vary as much as human relationships.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

Oh- and am I allowed to use this as my new sig?

[kavika411]

Being gay isn't a choice, just like being left-handed isn't a choice.

I don't know jack about biology, science, etc. of being gay, but I've always been concerned when I hear a statement like this, but not for any reason you'd probably think. My issue is one of bland advocacy/oration.

I'll start by saying that based on what experience I have had with gay people, directly and indirectly, I believe 100% that being gay is, like you say, not a choice; rather, you are born that way. Yes, I realize I am not saying anything novel. But here is my concern, from the sterile standpoint of watching this issue debated and general debate/argument tactics: I think there are many non-gay people who, when they hear the comment made that "you/we are born that way," think it subtly sounds like an excuse, like there is a small suggestion that, "I can't help it." It tacitly sounds like the person is saying, "I can't help doing something that is wrong. It's in my DNA."

So as to be absolutely clear - I believe being gay is biological from birth. My point is that I fear the pro-gay movement (if that is the correct phrase; apologies if it is not) do some amount of harm by leaving it at, "I/we were born that way." I often think - as someone from a distance, who doesn't pretend to know the difficulties of advocating for gays - that the gay movement would be better off saying, "We were born this way, but even if it were completely by choice, it doesn't change a damn thing. We are still your equal, etc." That way, there is no unintended implication/inference that there is something wrong with "being born that way."

Just a thought.

[leekohler]

I don't know jack about biology, science, etc. of being gay, but I've always been concerned when I hear a statement like this, but not for any reason you'd probably think. My issue is one of bland advocacy/oration.

I'll start by saying that based on what experience I have had with gay people, directly and indirectly, I believe 100% that being gay is, like you say, not a choice; rather, you are born that way. Yes, I realize I am not saying anything novel. But here is my concern, from the sterile standpoint of watching this issue debated and general debate/argument tactics: I think there are many non-gay people who, when they hear the comment made that "you/we are born that way," think it subtly sounds like an excuse, like there is a small suggestion that, "I can't help it." It tacitly sounds like the person is saying, "I can't help doing something that is wrong. It's in my DNA."

So as to be absolutely clear - I believe being gay is biological from birth. My point is that I fear the pro-gay movement (if that is the correct phrase; apologies if it is not) do some amount of harm by leaving it at, "I/we were born that way." I often think - as someone from a distance, who doesn't pretend to know the difficulties of advocating for gays - that the gay movement would be better off saying, "We were born this way, but even if it were completely by choice, it doesn't change a damn thing. We are still your equal, etc." That way, there is no unintended implication/inference that there is something wrong with "being born that way."

Just a thought.

That's what's wrong with your statement. There's nothing wrong with being gay. That's a value statement others attach to homosexuality.

As for the latter part of your post- we do say just exactly that, all the time.

[yg17]

Then show me which animals get married so we can use that as the definition of whether homosexual marriage is found in nature.

I-I-I could s-s-see the squirrles, and-and-and they were married.

So (at least in Office Space), squirrles marry :D

[kavika411]

That's what's wrong with your statement. There's nothing wrong with being gay. That's a value statement others attach to homosexuality.

Chill, leekohler. If you will calmly read my post, you will see that (1) I am saying there is nothing wrong with being gay, (2) my concern is that there are non-gays who read things into the born-that-way statement that are not there and are not true, and (3) I am making a humble, pro-gay tactical suggestion from the standpoint of someone who admits to his lack of knowledge on all things gay. What's your problem?

[leekohler]

Chill, leekohler. If you will calmly read my post, you will see that (1) I am saying there is nothing wrong with being gay, (2) my concern is that there are non-gays who read things into the born-that-way statement that are not there and are not true, and (3) I am making a humble, pro-gay tactical suggestion from the standpoint of someone who admits to his lack of knowledge on all things gay. What's your problem?

Umm...I think you over-reacted to my statement. I was simply pointing out that those people who think it's wrong are going to think it's wrong no matter what we say.

Chill.

I also pointed out that we say exactly what you suggested all the time. It's been said countless times in this forum. What did I say to make you think I was flipping out?

[kavika411]

Umm...I think you over-reacted to my statement. I was simply pointing out that those people who think it's wrong are going to think it's wrong no matter what we say.

Chill.

Then, my apologies. I think that's the second time I've apologized to you in recent days for missing or mis-reading a post. My batting average is going down.

As for your comment that the born-that-way-or-by-choice-either-way-is fine being said all the time, as an outsider to the gay movement, but as someone who does read quite a few of these threads, I don't remember hearing it that much, if at all. That's not to say it isn't there, I just don't hear it. If it is argued that way all the time already, then disregard my post. Cheers.

[leekohler]

Then, my apologies. I think that's the second time I've apologized to you in recent days for missing or mis-reading a post. My batting average is going down.

That's OK. Remember- I'm the person who makes America suck, according to iObama. :) So ya know, it's understandable. ;)

[Queso]

Umm...I think you over-reacted to my statement. I was simply pointing out that those people who think it's wrong are going to think it's wrong no matter what we say.
That's basically it. It's only in the heads of those that despise us anyway that we're doing anything wrong, and any attempt by ourselves to correct that fallacy is met with scorn about the "gay agenda". This isn't about justifying ourselves, it's about being allowed to just get on with our lives in exactly the same way those around us can. Part of that is removing those bits of the civil code that discriminate against us.

[xUKHCx]

Quite a few posts were deleted and some edited to remove reference to the deleted material. If you are reading this thread from the beginning that is why it appears a bit disjointed.

I declare this thread open.


Please report bad posts.

[kavika411]

That's OK. Remember- I'm the person who makes America suck...

That's a lot weight for just one person to carry. You may need to get in the gym and eat well to ensure you are up to the task.

[atszyman]

That's OK. Remember- I'm the person who makes America suck, according to iObama. :) So ya know, it's understandable. ;)

So...many...jokes...about...Lee...sucking...can't decide where to begin...:D

I thought that gay marriage wasn't forced on anyone, now I find out you're trying to make American's suck?

Don't you cause earthquakes (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=438492) too?

And weren't you responsible for Katrina (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=146968) as well?

[leekohler]

So...many...jokes...about...Lee...sucking...can't decide where to begin...:D

I thought that gay marriage wasn't forced on anyone, now I find out you're trying to make American's suck?

Don't you cause earthquakes (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=438492) too?

And weren't you responsible for Katrina (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=146968) as well?

Every Friday night, the city of Chicago experiences shaking off the Richter scale. :) I admit- I'm responsible. Oh wait- not just Friday night. Also late morning to mid afternoon on Saturday. ;)

[mactastic]

Sounds like everyone in every thread is a bigot now...

[it5five]

Interesting, but are they homosexual or does this fall under the umbrella of communication etc. Do Elephants form committed relationships and pair off for good (as human's do), or do they do this as some sort of means of establishing a social hierarchy?

It appears to be the latter.

SLC

No I agree, I'm just wondering if there are animals who mate homosexually for life. Not with one individual necessarily but only with other individuals of the same gender

SLC

Everyone, I think I just discovered the "Male Republican Rational" for having sex with other guys. You're not gay unless you are in a life-long relationship with the other person. So it's alright, and not at all gay, to have sex with a lot of guys. It's just an establishment of social hierarchy. But the rest of the world doesn't understand this, until now, so this is why they always have to sneak around to have sex.

I think I'm on to something here. See, this is also why Republicans fiercely oppose same-sex marriage equality. Right now the only thing keeping them from being homosexual is the barrier to marry any of the guys they are sleeping with. If you open up that door, they might become homosexual.

[leekohler]

Everyone, I think I just discovered the "Male Republican Rational" for having sex with other guys. You're not gay unless you are in a life-long relationship with the other person. So it's alright, and not at all gay, to have sex with a lot of guys. It's just an establishment of social hierarchy. But the rest of the world doesn't understand this, until now, so this is why they always have to sneak around to have sex.

I think I'm on to something here. See, this is also why Republicans fiercely oppose same-sex marriage equality. Right now the only thing keeping them from being homosexual is the barrier to marry any of the guys they are sleeping with. If you open up that door, they might become homosexual.

OMG! That was really funny. :) I think you may be onto something.

[iJohnHenry]

I haven't committed, so I'm just bi???

[Iscariot]

And maybe I'm wrong, but I detect a sense of self-appointed moral superiority in many people's posts from both sides of the argument. So in all technicality there are bigots on either side.

I can not speak for anyone else, but there have been times in Canada where the right for someone to say or do something I am in complete disagreement with has come under fire, and I have defended those rights with the same fervor I would defend my own. I believe that everyone should have the same rights that I enjoy, even if I find what they do with those rights to be distasteful. If you find me intolerant of those who would seek to strip or limit the rights of anyone for any ideological reason, then so be it; I will wear that banner proudly.

[Rt&Dzine]

YOU may not personally be a bigot ... but treating gay people like second class citizens promotes bigotry. It wasn't that long ago that divorced people were considered heathens. According to the bible most of them should not be allowed to remarry. But times have changed.

[it5five]

I haven't committed, so I'm just bi???

No no. You're just a straight man who likes a little man-love on the side from time to time.

[Rt&Dzine]

I think I'm on to something here. See, this is also why Republicans fiercely oppose same-sex marriage equality. Right now the only thing keeping them from being homosexual is the barrier to marry any of the guys they are sleeping with. If you open up that door, they might become homosexual.

Ted Haggard was outspoken against gays

[ZiggyPastorius]

I can not speak for anyone else, but there have been times in Canada where the right for someone to say or do something I am in complete disagreement with has come under fire, and I have defended those rights with the same fervor I would defend my own. I believe that everyone should have the same rights that I enjoy, even if I find what they do with those rights to be distasteful. If you find me intolerant of those who would seek to strip or limit the rights of anyone for any ideological reason, then so be it; I will wear that banner proudly.

I have done and do the exact same thing, Iscariot. Cheers :)

[iJohnHenry]

No no. You're just a straight man who likes a little man-love on the side from time to time.

Just a Republican, polling his constituents then??

Whew, I'm glad for that. :rolleyes:

[leekohler]

I can not speak for anyone else, but there have been times in Canada where the right for someone to say or do something I am in complete disagreement with has come under fire, and I have defended those rights with the same fervor I would defend my own. I believe that everyone should have the same rights that I enjoy, even if I find what they do with those rights to be distasteful. If you find me intolerant of those who would seek to strip or limit the rights of anyone for any ideological reason, then so be it; I will wear that banner proudly.

Me too. I'll wear that label proudly.

[suburbia]

Reading this thread, I'm really at once amused and saddened by the genuine denial of bigotry by some people...

50 years ago, this exact same argument would be about the civil rights of black people. Isn't it an everyday attitude back then in some parts of the US that interracial couples were denied marriage by the Church citing that God did not allowed "race mixing"?

Anyway, I love the sad irony of poster iObama and his/her support of Prop 8: As someone who obviously supports Obama, I would think you would be more sensitive to the struggles of minorities: The oppression, bigotry, discrimination, prejudice and hatred... Same issues gays deal with. As a supporter of Obama, whose color is the symbol of America's past injustice and oppression, why would you turn around and do the same thing to another group that's still fighting just to be treated as equals? You should know better.

[atszyman]

So the liberals have been told for years how faith based programs are more cost effective since the infrastructure is in place already and there is no redundancy in spending.

Isn't the same true for homosexual marriage? Rather than put a parallel union in place that confers the same rights and privileges, why not use the exisiting infrastructure to save time, money and confusion?

[NT1440]

So the liberals have been told for years how faith based programs are more cost effective since the infrastructure is in place already and there is no redundancy in spending.

Isn't the same true for homosexual marriage? Rather than put a parallel union in place that confers the same rights and privileges, why not use the exisiting infrastructure to save time, money and confusion?

Because it gets in the way with THEIR religious beliefs. You know how it goes, they swear they love the constitution, but somehow can't keep religion out of their policy.

[SLC Flyfishing]

Everyone, I think I just discovered the "Male Republican Rational" for having sex with other guys. You're not gay unless you are in a life-long relationship with the other person. So it's alright, and not at all gay, to have sex with a lot of guys. It's just an establishment of social hierarchy. But the rest of the world doesn't understand this, until now, so this is why they always have to sneak around to have sex.

I think I'm on to something here. See, this is also why Republicans fiercely oppose same-sex marriage equality. Right now the only thing keeping them from being homosexual is the barrier to marry any of the guys they are sleeping with. If you open up that door, they might become homosexual.


I don't think you are on to anything, but you've done a great job taking my comments completely out of context.

All I'm getting at/asking about is whether or not there are any other species out there who have individuals who are exclusively homosexual. It's widely known that sex is a means of communication and social structuring (even among same gender groups) in the animal kingdom, much like rape is generally used as a method of establishing and or excercising dominance in human populations; but I know of no animals who are known to have individuals which only behave sexually with members of the same gender. Most sexually reproductive animals will take any opportunity given them to reproduce as frequently as possible. It's basic biology folks.

SLC

[ZiggyPastorius]

I don't think you are on to anything, but you've done a great job taking my comments completely out of context.

All I'm getting at/asking about is whether or not there are any other species out there who have individuals who are exclusively homosexual. It's widely known that sex is a means of communication and social structuring (even among same gender groups) in the animal kingdom, much like rape is generally used as a method of establishing and or excercising dominance in human populations; but I know of no animals who are known to have individuals which only behave sexually with members of the same gender. Most sexually reproductive animals will take any opportunity given them to reproduce as frequently as possible. It's basic biology folks.

SLC

To be fair, humans are a bit different than the entire rest of the animal kingdom and have far less need to dedicate their time to survival.

[EricNau]

All I'm getting at/asking about is whether or not there are any other species out there who have individuals who are exclusively homosexual. It's widely known that sex is a means of communication and social structuring (even among same gender groups) in the animal kingdom, much like rape is generally used as a method of establishing and or excercising dominance in human populations; but I know of no animals who are known to have individuals which only behave sexually with members of the same gender. Most sexually reproductive animals will take any opportunity given them to reproduce as frequently as possible. It's basic biology folks.

SLC
And how common is monogamy in the animal kingdom? Perhaps marriage shouldn't exist at all, seeing how rare exclusive relationships are among other mammals.

[SLC Flyfishing]

And how common is monogamy in the animal kingdom? Perhaps marriage shouldn't exist at all, seeing how rare exclusive relationships are among other mammals.

How common is monogamy in the Human population? I'd suggest it's a lot less common than most folks believe.

It's a basic instinct for all humans to have "wandering eyes" when it comes to members of the other gender. Many humans work against that instinct, but it's present in all of us.

SLC

[atszyman]

How common is monogamy in the Human population? I'd suggest it's a lot less common than most folks believe.

It's a basic instinct for all humans to have "wandering eyes" when it comes to members of the other gender. Many humans work against that instinct, but it's present in all of us.

SLC

So what is the purpose of trying to find life long pair bonded sexually active animals if we agree that their behaviors are very different than humans. There are examples of animals that pair bond for life, and examples of homosexual behavior in nature so we've established that we are not the only animals to bahave in this manner. We are the only species that has the legal construct of marriage so there isn't a good parallel in the animal kingdom. Does this mean we shouldn't even have straight marriage?

The Penguins linked to above pair bonded (for life) and used rocks as eggs, and even raised an orphaned egg/chick. Would that not be analogous to a same sex marriage/family?

[Queso]

It's a basic instinct for all humans to have "wandering eyes" when it comes to members of the other gender. Many humans work against that instinct, but it's present in all of us.
Absolutely 100% wrong in my case I'm afraid. I know you won't allow yourself to believe that since you honestly seem to think you know my urges better than I do, but it's still the truth.

[skunk]

It's a basic instinct for all humans to have "wandering eyes" when it comes to members of the other gender. Many humans work against that instinct, but it's present in all of us.What a strange assertion to make in a thread about homosexuality. :confused:

[mactastic]

It's a basic instinct for all humans to have "wandering eyes" when it comes to members of the other gender. Many humans work against that instinct, but it's present in all of us.
How about it Lee? You fall into the set of "all humans", right? Do you have wandering eyes for the opposite sex?

Or is SLC just full of **** again? :p

[skunk]

How about it Lee? You fall into the set of "all humans", right? Do you have wandering eyes for the opposite sex?He's working against his instinct. Hard.

[Queso]

He's working against his instinct. Hard.
And frequently :D

[SLC Flyfishing]

I guess I should have specified that Gays have wandering eyes for other members of the same sex.

Sheesh, gone off on a technicality haven't we? I'd have thought you guys would have understood the intention of what I said there.

SLC

[skunk]

As someone in a monogamous relationship for over thirty years, I can confirm that it is indeed possible.

[FreeState]

All I'm getting at/asking about is whether or not there are any other species out there who have individuals who are exclusively homosexual.

The answer is yes. A simple google search of "Homosexual Pair Bonding" will bring up thousands of articles - like this one:

http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/sheepandanimals.html

"Scientists studied 27 sheep -- 10 ewes, nine rams that mated only with other rams and eight rams that mated only with females. "

...snip...

"Eight percent of the male sheep at the United States Department of Agriculture's Sheep Experimental Station in Dubois, Idaho, are gay, officials confirmed in late November. "These animals are homosexual. They are responding physically to how they are," explained Anne Perkins, a doctoral student at the station who is completing her dissertation on "Reproductive Behavior In Rams." Station officials deferred to Perkins when asked for details on the matter."

...snip...

"In addition to the rams who are practicing homosexuals, another eight percent of Perkins' ram population fail to express interest in any kind of sex. "They have a very low libido," she explained. Two percent of the gay sheep, meanwhile, begin dabbling in bisexuality following one year of exclusive homosexuality, Perkins said.

Researchers don't have many theories yet about why some sheep are gay, but Perkins says she is convinced that the animals are genuinely homosexual. "We're not embarrassed or ashamed of this," she added. "But we do hope it doesn't get twisted and distorted in a way that could do harm to the United States Department of Agriculture.""

[iJohnHenry]

Do homosexual sheep taste any different??

WAIT, don't answer that!!! :eek:

If they don't reproduce, then their genetic line is lost.

Nature has the answer.

[Gelfin]

"We're not embarrassed or ashamed of this," she added. "But we do hope it doesn't get twisted and distorted in a way that could do harm to the United States Department of Agriculture."

Yeah, it would be awful if someone started writing things like:

USDA SCIENTIST "NOT EMBARRASSED" ABOUT DEVIANT SHEEP LIFESTYLE CHOICE

AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT GAY ACTIVISTS RECRUIT SHEEP

USDA MEAT-GRADING LOGO: SECRET GAY SYMBOL?

STUDY: SOME USDA OFFICIAL RAMS GAY

[ZiggyPastorius]

Yeah, it would be awful if someone started writing things like:

USDA SCIENTIST "NOT EMBARRASSED" ABOUT DEVIANT SHEEP LIFESTYLE CHOICE

AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT GAY ACTIVISTS RECRUIT SHEEP

USDA MEAT-GRADING LOGO: SECRET GAY SYMBOL?

STUDY: SOME USDA OFFICIAL RAMS GAY

****!

Quick, Doc! Tell me it ain't so !!

Is my sheep...a ghey?!?!

Edit: His rear is unusually large. :p

[mactastic]

But have they evolved to the foot-tap under their neighboring stall's fence?

[Queso]

But have they evolved to the foot-tap under their neighboring stall's fence?
Are you claiming Republicans are just like sheep? :p