Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Gay Marriage is now legal in California.


Off-Topic Discussions

51 to 100 of 631 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aretas wrote:
You know Paizo mafia moderators have your back. Are you going to flag my reply to stifle opposition to your social engineering experiment as hateful & bigoted?

Considering you just called the Paizo staff 'mafia' I just might flag this post of yours (though I probably won't).

The others, at least the ones aimed at me on this thread? No need to yet. See, I believe in Freedom of Speech-- which means no matter how stupid, ignorant, obnoxious, hateful, prejudiced and just plain wrong I think you may be (in your case, I believe only some of those words apply to your statements, not all of them)-- I still believe you have the right to speak. There are lines of discussion that I will not put up with, if you try to cross them-- those are also usually insults on the level I'd consider "fighting words" if we were talking face-to-face (there's a couple of people on Paizo's boards who have crossed that line, but I'm usually pretty-thick skinned and you haven't gone too far yet-- not even close). Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm going to try to muzzle you, unless you do something to deserve it-- having an opinion, even an objectionable one, is not enough to deserve it.

Now, if I had time to get into it-- I don't, and I don't need to get worked up on accusations and counter-accusations over supposed fascism, I probably would flag some of your posts on another thread, because your ignorance and apparent hatefulness over matters in the Balkans does cross a few lines-- especially with the one-sided propaganda you cite in support of it (yes, I looked at your profile and saw some of the other things you were posting on). If you want to have that debate, between you and me-- I'll send you my observations on the Balkans via PM, but I'm not wading into that other thread, because I only have so much time for these message boards, and the general fray is just another fight I don't want to get into right now.

BTW-- we're not talking about "social experiments" here-- unless you count the U.S. Constitution as still being a social experiment, 223 years after it was ratified.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aretas wrote:

PROP 8 results

Votes Percentage

Yes 7,001,084 52.24%
No 6,401,482 47.76%

Valid votes 13,402,566 97.52%
Invalid or blank votes 340,611 2.48%
Total votes 13,743,177 100.00%
Voter turnout 79.42%
Electorate 17,304,428

The population of California 37,691,912

Just b/c I agree to civil unions that does not mean the constitution can be used to change the definition of Marriage, a Sacrament in the Christian Church. Its a Sacrament not a right to get Married.

What does a legal decision by the state of California have to do with the rites of "the Christian Church" (as though such a thing exists)? Ironically, many Christian churches don't even use the word "sacrament" at all.

You can post voter percentages all you want. It doesn't matter one bit. The people do not get to vote on rights. That's why they're called rights. People can't team up to take them away from you.

Please read up on tyranny of the majority. And please stop trying to shove your religious beliefs down others' throats by using them to justify the establishment of laws. You don't get to do that. We get that you love the Bible and everything in it. Your love of the Bible DOES NOT trump the rights of others.

Quote:
Saying most people who are for Prop 8 are hateful and bigoted is just wrong. It creates animosity for those you name call.

Good.

Supporting Proposition 8 is hateful and bigoted, or shamefully (and likely arrogantly) ignorant. Either way, the people who support(ed) it are poor citizens, and even worse Christians. Speaking as a Christian myself, please stop giving us a bad name. It's getting to the point where I'm ashamed to label myself that because it means I'm somehow associated with Christians like you.

It's times like this where I begin to understand how religious wars were fought. Strong enough religious belief precludes mutual understanding. Where there is no understanding, and where one group can impose their tenets on the other without its consent, bloodshed becomes less tragedy, and more attractive solution.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aretas wrote:


You cannot compare civil rights and womans suffrage to same gender marriage b/c homosexuality is condemned in the Bible and the other issues are not.

Also, I don't care what is and isn't condemned in the Bible, because I do not believe in your god. My right to not believe in your god is in the First Amendment, and the government cannot and should not attempt to impose any of your beliefs on me. Just like it should not impose my religious beliefs on you.

Therefore, all religious discussion concerning the LEGAL matter of marriage are pointless.

Marriage has legal consequences in this country. If you are married, your spouse is automatically considered your closest living relative. Marriage is the ability to choose who that person is.

I want to know why some Americans deserve the right to choose who their family is, while other Americans do not.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

What I never got through all this is that many christians believe that God creates each and every person. This would mean that God makes a certain percentage homosexual - and yet according to these christians would deny them their sexuality. I don't know if it's more stupid or more cruel, to be honest.

Fact is: Legally you are entirely in the wrong, Aretas. Separation of church and state, civil rights, the american constitution and bill of rights, these are all concepts you need to understand for any further discussion with you to be productive in any way. Morally, those of us who are not fundamentalist christians consider your views about homosexuals as repulsive as any demonization project has been throughout history. And finally, your threat about us being anti heterosexual is pathetic and nonsensical. For one thing, most of the people arguing with you are heterosexual, including me. I understand that you have a different viewpoint, but I simply see no reason whatsoever to fear having homosexuals marry as regards any sort of quality of any marriage of my own. I am sure such a threat hold much more water in fundamentalist christian circles.

Edit: One more thing. Understand that you are not the only ones who would be able to do a thing like prop 8. Do you honestly want to face a situation where something vital to your fundamentalist christian community is targeted in this way, and stripped from you because a slim majority voted for it?

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Quite simply, the laws of Germany do not apply in the United States, and as such, neither should the laws of the Kingdom of God. Because you can live in the United States without living in the Kingdom of God, as many choose to do, myself included. Since I do not subject myself to God, no one should force me to follow his laws. And making marriage between man and woman only is just such a case. Take marriage back from the government and make it a church only thing, but give the citizens of the United States the rights they deserve.


This has special significance to me. You see, as a gay pirate, I've often wanted to love a man. The problem is that my religion prohibits sex outside of marriage.
Now, in California, if I find that special fella, I can "put a ring on it" and finally get me gay lovin' without sin. Arr!


I've said it before and I'll say it again:

If there's no felching in heaven, then I don't wanna go!


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Take marriage back from the government and make it a church only thing, but give the citizens of the United States the rights they deserve.

Actually, I'd prefer the opposite: Make marriage a government only thing... and treat it as a contract between two people, regardless of their sex, giving both of them all the rights and all the liabilities you reserved for a male-female marriage so far.

Keep the church out of the whole affair. Ignore any rants about fire, brimstone, the Bible and the like. If two persons wish to religiously celebrate their union (if allowed by their religion), they can do it as much as they want... the legal consequences of any 'church marriage' being exactly zero.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

You just said what I said with different phrasing. ;)

Osirion

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aretas wrote:
You cannot compare civil rights and womans suffrage to same gender marriage b/c homosexuality is condemned in the Bible and the other issues are not.

I think somebody needs to go back to Bible study class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aretas wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Aretas wrote:

PROP 8 results

Votes Percentage

Yes 7,001,084 52.24%
No 6,401,482 47.76%

Valid votes 13,402,566 97.52%
Invalid or blank votes 340,611 2.48%
Total votes 13,743,177 100.00%
Voter turnout 79.42%
Electorate 17,304,428

The population of California 37,691,912

The majority also was against letting women vote and banning segregation.

Quote:
Just b/c I agree to civil unions that does not mean the constitution can be used to change the definition of Marriage, a Sacrament in the Christian Church. Its a Sacrament not a right to get Married.

I don't care if it's a sacrament, because the church does NOT own the idea of marriage. I'm fine with letting individual churches decide whether or not they want to perform gay weddings, but I'll be damned if I'm going to tolerate them telling others whether or not to do so.

Quote:
Saying most people who are for Prop 8 are hateful and bigoted is just wrong. It creates animosity for those you name call.
Fine. I won't call you names.
You cannot compare civil rights and womans suffrage to same gender marriage b/c homosexuality is condemned in the Bible and the other issues are not.

Really? Because in the case of suffrage it got whipped out.

Even if you are right, it doesn't matter, because this country isn't a theocracy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Even if you are right, it doesn't matter, because this country isn't a theocracy.

It's stunning how many people don't seem to comprehend that.

Keep your religion out of my government.

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I applaud you Finn K you spoke that with total truth and correctness.

I think it's time WE the people take this law and rights to the SC and show how un-constitutional it is to prevent Gay marriage. Because it prevents the pursuit of happiness to hundreds of thousands of people.

if a gay person cannot marry the person they love, then neither can a white person, African -American, Asia- American, Mexican- American etc... Marriage across race should be forbid, as well as marriage across religious beliefs, or social standings, or anything for that matter.

To those who do not believe in same sex marriage... I could just as easily say I do not believe in marriage between a male and a female and outlaw it or take away the rights just as easily.

Or I could say I do not believe in your eye color so thus you have no rights to have Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Or just because your left handed, you cannot own a handgun or cannot vote.

It's all the same.

I applaud the judge who ruled on this. Now I say bring on the fight and lets win it


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Aretas wrote:
You cannot compare civil rights and womans suffrage to same gender marriage b/c homosexuality is condemned in the Bible and the other issues are not.

Disclaimer: The bold and font sizes are my emphasis.

Ah, defending your position with Leviticus 18:22 using the "it's condemned in the bible, so I condemn it too" position.

I tend to avoid this direction of discussion (and which is why I remain absent of the ironically titled Civil Religious Discussions thread elsewhere in off-topics) ... but since you opened that door, I ask that the court allow a little latitude on what I'm going to say below.

Let's take a stroll.

  • Check out the female entourage that Solomon had in 1 Kings 11:3. If he was considered wise, then by that deduction it's okay to commit bigamy.
  • While drunk, Lot's two daughters took advantage of him and bore children in Genesis 19:30-38. Incest is okay, I'm assuming? Please keep in mind that Moab was one of the descendants, who in turn founded the Moabites. Ruth was a Moabite (Ruth 1:4), and is the great-grandmother of David. According to Luke 3:23–32, Jesus is a descendant of David. Ergo, a descendant of Lot. Without that encounter in the cave, that'd change a whole lot of history if you're one to place stock in its future lineage's importance.

But why stop there? What else is considered sinful? Let's see.

  • Ladies should have their heads covered.
  • In Deuteronomy, a marriage is only valid if the woman is a virgin and she should be executed if she is not.
  • Anyone that commits adultery should be stoned to death.
  • Somewhere in Mark, divorce is prohibited (but hey, an annulment? Loophole!)

But let's get back to Leviticus. It's a holiness code that was written over three millennia ago that also includes prohibitions against:

  • haircuts
  • tattoos
  • working on the Sabbath
  • wearing garments of mixed fabrics
  • eating pork or shellfish
  • getting your fortune told
  • playing with the skin of a pig (I hope you're not a fan of football)

Don't get me wrong; morality is important. Morality is what one should be doing that is right regardless of whatever I am told. Whereas in some religions, this sometimes come across being told what to do regardless of whether it's right. You're welcome to your own interpretations of the bible and its politics, but I believe that some of us can come to a justified moral conclusion in lieu of a book which instructs us to adhere.

So, I have to ask? Are you all-in? Or do you choose to follow certain moral conducts and disregard the other ones? I seriously cannot imagine you to be a modern-day Nazirite.

EDIT: Makes me feel relieved that when I bought the Paizo Golem Limited Edition T-Shirt back in April 2010 that it was made with 100% cotton.

I don't expect to change your opinion whatsoever. Nor is it my concern about "winning the Internet because someone. is. wrong." But if you're going to use a certain source as a reason for your condemnation, please make sure that it's a blanket condemnation and not something you can pick and choose because it's exegetically convenient for you.

And with that conclusion, it's time for me to resume surfing the Internet for my prime directive: invoking Rule 34. Ciao! =)


IceniQueen wrote:

I think it's time WE the people take this law and rights to the SC and show how un-constitutional it is to prevent Gay marriage. Because it prevents the pursuit of happiness to hundreds of thousands of people.

*other good stuff*

I applaud the judge who ruled on this. Now I say bring on the fight and lets win it

+1!


IceniQueen wrote:
I think it's time WE the people take this law and rights to the SC and show how un-constitutional it is to prevent Gay marriage.

Bad idea. The Supreme Court would likely rule to "protect traditional marriage".

Osirion

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Every Who down in Whoville loved partners a lot,
But the Grinch, who lived just north of Whoville, did not.
The Grinch hated couplings of similar kinds,
For reasons nobody was able to find.
It could be, perhaps, he was taught it’s not right.
It could be he thought it should stay out of sight.
But I think the most likely of all of the causes
Was that 'buggery in public would frighten the horses'.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've said this before and I'll say it again...

I think if you're an American citizen, you get 'x'.
That's how all of our rights should be stated.
We should get rid of language that "justifies" blacks, gays or any other minority group having the same benfits other citizens have.
It's rediculous.

And yes I'm a Christian. When I see ignorant stuff spouted on here by so called Christians who jsutify their ignorant opinions with the coutnry being founded on Christian principles, they seem to forget the Christian principle this country was founded on is simply "Live and let live".

Crickey!

You stay out of my pocket book, I'll stay out of your bedroom. Deal?


Auxmaulous wrote:
IceniQueen wrote:
I think it's time WE the people take this law and rights to the SC and show how un-constitutional it is to prevent Gay marriage.
WE THE PEOPLE of California already did when then voted in strong numbers to make prop 8 law, all this does is invalidate the WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

The will of the people was also to prevent the end of segregation and keep women from voting. That's why there is the idea of majority rules, minority rights, where the majority does NOT have the right to vote things away from the minority, regardless of what the will of the people is.

Quote:
Marriage (as a right) is not protected under the U.S. Constitution, so you have to refer the issue to the States. Marriage being a States issue, California did it the right way by amending its State Constitution to clarify its position on marriage. This whole affair reeks of judicial activism and does NOT represent the will of the people. I know the whole issue is very heated on both sides but imo this is being handled and fought the wrong way.

No, it isn't. The majority doesn't have the right to screw with the minority, and there is a LOT of precedence for this sort of behavior. This judicial activism is what brought down segregation, you know. There is also the system of checks and balances, where the judiciary keeps an eye on the legislature. The judiciary does have the right to intervene in a legislative vote, and does so all the time. That is what happened here, and it's precisely how the system was designed to work.

Furthermore, whether marriage is a right or a privilege is irrelevant. It just so happens to be unconstitutional to discriminate with regards to either one.

Quote:
And while the Ninth circuit judgment was pretty crafty on the rescinding rights issue, unfortunately/fortunately this will probably still go to the SC where it should be rightfully shot down and prop 8 should be upheld. The Ninths ruling on "you can't take a right once given" is on very poor footing - again, it goes to whether the one giving the right was a proper authority in the first place (Gavin Newsom and the city of SF, et al), or where the rights were drawn from (in this case, not the CA constitution).

He absolutely had the proper authority to do so.

Quote:
I voted for prop 8 because I voted for anything and everything anti-democrat party in 2008. I knew Obummer was going to win, so in effect my vote was a protest vote since to me gays = another subset of democrats. I didn't think the damn law would pass - in California of all places!

So basically you voted on party lines and not your conscience? There are no words to describe how disgusting I find this. Vote based on what you believe, not because you got angry.

Quote:
The people who voted for and got this in place as a law were not right-wing conservatives, it was all the Democrat voters who came out in droves to vote the current president into office.

I don't care which party voted for it. I don't have a party.

Quote:
In hindsight I voted against my nature, I personally don't really care either way about the specifics but I do believe in individual rights trump everything else. If the issue came up in a vote again I would either abstain of vote for gay marriage, that being said I think taking this to the courts is the wrong way to fight this. What gay marriage supporters should do is pass another ballot measure to change the Cali Constitution to amend the language and then let that go into effect - and once that is the source of the "right to marriage" then the issue becomes ironclad and irrevocable.

Now that it's in the Cali constitution, it's pretty much impossible to get it out without the feds. They can't just put in another ballot measure, as that cannot legally remove the modification Prop 8 made to the constitution. It's much easier to put something in than it is to take it out.

Quote:
Edit **Please read through this whole post and spare me incendiary responses about bigotry, etc. I know this is an emotional issue to say the least but I am neither a prop 8 supporter or detractor**

My issue isn't bigotry. It's the reason you voted for Prop 8. That sort of voting is downright unconscionable. Either vote for what you believe in, or don't vote at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think every American citizen, male or female, gay or straight, Christian, Moslem, Hindu and Jew should be able to enjoy, at least once in their life, a golden shower.

It is one of the blessed sacraments of the Church of Leafar the Loved and I think it should be turned into a Constitutional amendment.

Osirion

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

<makes mental note not to patronise Doodlebug's roadside lemonade stand.>


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:
WE THE PEOPLE of California already did when then voted in strong numbers to make prop 8 law, all this does is invalidate the WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

GOOD.

We the people do not have the right to tyrannize the minority. The people cannot strip rights away. That's why they're called rights. You don't get to vote on them. You just have them. Forever.

Quote:
I voted for prop 8 because I voted for anything and everything anti-democrat party in 2008. I knew Obummer was going to win, so in effect my vote was a protest vote since to me gays = another subset of democrats.

This is really, really pathetic. You voted to strip a group of people of some basic human rights because you imagined that they might be affiliated with a political party you hate with a burning passion.

I want you to, for a second, imagine that someone did this to you. Think of a basic right that you enjoy, and then imagine that someone voted to strip you of that right because they suspected you might be Republican. Can you imagine how you would react to that?

You did a g+~@!+n monstrous thing. I don't care if "in hindsight" you would have voted not to strip rights. You are so staunchly at war with a political party that you can't think straight. A political party which, let's face it, has a ton-and-a-half more going for it than the Republican party does.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Never thought I'd agree with Scott Betts of all people. Yet, here I am, agreeing 100%. Auxmaulous, you fscked it up bigtime. Claiming you would do otherwise today, and calling yourself anything but a prop 8 supporter is pathetic.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Never thought I'd agree with Scott Betts of all people. Yet, here I am, agreeing 100%.

I daresay we'd probably agree on most important things. We just happen to argue about D&D a lot.

Andoran

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Never thought I'd agree with Scott Betts of all people. Yet, here I am, agreeing 100%.
I daresay we'd probably agree on most important things. We just happen to argue about D&D a lot.

Are you trying to imply that D&D isn't one of the, if not the absolutely, most important thing? For shame, Scott, for shame. ;-)

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Right now... I feel like taking away the rights of some Republicans just because they did not want a Democrat to have rights.

FYI I am Independent, I care less for either side... but to me. To vote on party lines... You might as well be in Nazi Germany and goose stepping with ole Adolf and his Jewish Hating bunch.

Just because your a Republican the Democrats decide that you can no longer breath air in California

~Rolls Eyes~ Childish is what it is to me. Like a spoiled little baby who does not like someone because of their political beliefs. Might as well just go out and shoot a Democrat... same thing really.

OH and I'm NOT a christian either... used to be and then I found out how hypocritical all the ones I knew where. But that goes with any belief system including political.

OH and the way this country rules is thus If your City makes a law and your country passes on that opposes it, County wins. If your county pass a law and your state passes opposite of it, State wins. If the state passes a law and the Federal Government passes one that opposes that one, Federal wins out.

The Civil War was fought to put Federal rights over states rights.

And no Marriage is NOT a states right or privilege, it is a HUMAN right and privilege.

Cheliax

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

These attacks, slurs and other vitriolic trolling have convinced me to do rethink my views on prop 8.
It's obvious that when people don't get their way or when their 100% truth (even if not supported by the constitution) is not enacted they resort to nothing but insults (oh the irony Scott, the irony) and dismissive bilge.... it makes you think how far the human race has not come.

I should have followed my initial instinct that that there is NO reasonable discourse and honesty with people involved in this issue - and thanks again for reinforcing that, really. This thread has made me reassess my sympathies and sense of the human condition.

By all means please continue with emotional outrage and shaking your fist at the sky. I'm sure at one point it'll all make sense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Marriage isn't a right. No one has the right to be married.
A 50 year old 'old maid' can not get the government to force someone to marry her because it's her right to be married. Gay or otherwise.

That having been said...

If one couple can enjoy tax breaks, privacy relaxation due to being their spouse, and access to their benefits after death, then any other couple should have access to those things, regardless of sex (including preference), race or creed.
To do otherwise is discriminatory.


IceniQueen wrote:
FYI I am Independent, I care less for either side...

If I can make a humble suggestion: Please become a Democrat. We're probably not exactly what you want, but democracy isn't about getting exactly what you want. It's about finding compromise with those around you, and banding together to empower both change and stability. Even better, get involved at a local level and push for the issues that you believe in. There's so much opportunity for that right now, and a lot of people simply aren't doing what they could be doing. A party is only as good as the people who belong to it, and you will find like-minded people in the Dems.


Auxmaulous wrote:

These attacks, slurs and other vitriolic trolling have convinced me to do rethink my views on prop 8.

It's obvious that when people don't get their way or when their 100% truth (even if not supported by the constitution) is not enacted they resort to nothing but insults (oh the irony Scott, the irony) and dismissive bilge.... it makes you think how far the human race has not come.

I should have followed my initial instinct that that there is NO reasonable discourse and honesty with people involved in this issue - and thanks again for reinforcing that, really. This thread has made me reassess my sympathies and sense of the human condition.

By all means please continue with emotional outrage and shaking your fist at the sky. I'm sure at one point it'll all make sense.

Really? Because I did my best to address your points without attacking you, with the exception on your motives for voting, which I just plain can't comprehend a defense for.


Auxmaulous wrote:

These attacks, slurs and other vitriolic trolling have convinced me to do rethink my views on prop 8.

It's obvious that when people don't get their way or when their 100% truth (even if not supported by the constitution) is not enacted they resort to nothing but insults (oh the irony Scott, the irony) and dismissive bilge.... it makes you think how far the human race has not come.

I should have followed my initial instinct that that there is NO reasonable discourse and honesty with people involved in this issue - and thanks again for reinforcing that, really. This thread has made me reassess my sympathies and sense of the human condition.

By all means please continue with emotional outrage and shaking your fist at the sky. I'm sure at one point it'll all make sense.

If this was the push you needed to finally justify a set of beliefs you already held, then that's great. You're now off the line, and we can now see clearly where you want to stand. You are now the enemy - not because of what party you belong to, but because of what you have chosen to believe. You stand ready to strip rights from your fellow man. I hope you find solace in those who believe the same as you do.


Scott Betts wrote:
IceniQueen wrote:
FYI I am Independent, I care less for either side...
If I can make a humble suggestion: Please become a Democrat. We're probably not exactly what you want, but democracy isn't about getting exactly what you want. It's about finding compromise with those around you, and banding together to empower both change and stability. Even better, get involved at a local level and push for the issues that you believe in. There's so much opportunity for that right now, and a lot of people simply aren't doing what they could be doing. A party is only as good as the people who belong to it, and you will find like-minded people in the Dems.

With all do respect, I won't do it. I find I agree with democrats more than republicans, but I still disagree with you guys a lot. To be honest, I don't really agree with the idea of political parties.


Kryzbyn wrote:
Marriage isn't a right. No one has the right to be married.

Equal treatment under the law is a right. The ability to marry is simply an example of how the law (in an ever-dwindling number of states) treats one group of people differently from another group.


Kryzbyn wrote:

Marriage isn't a right. No one has the right to be married.

A 50 year old 'old maid' can not get the government to force someone to marry her because it's her right to be married. Gay or otherwise.

That having been said...

If one couple can enjoy tax breaks, privacy relaxation due to being their spouse, and access to their benefits after death, then any other couple should have access to those things, regardless of sex (including preference), race or creed.
To do otherwise is discriminatory.

This. A million times this. You can argue that marriage is a privilege and not a right until you are blue in the face. It doesn't matter, because privileges have to be handed out fairly, too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
IceniQueen wrote:
FYI I am Independent, I care less for either side...
If I can make a humble suggestion: Please become a Democrat. We're probably not exactly what you want, but democracy isn't about getting exactly what you want. It's about finding compromise with those around you, and banding together to empower both change and stability. Even better, get involved at a local level and push for the issues that you believe in. There's so much opportunity for that right now, and a lot of people simply aren't doing what they could be doing. A party is only as good as the people who belong to it, and you will find like-minded people in the Dems.
With all do respect, I won't do it. I find I agree with democrats more than republicans, but I still disagree with you guys a lot.

I get that. I'm in the same boat. But as an independent (I'm assuming you're an independent here, let me know if you're registered with a third party), you have very little power. Your voice does not count for much, and you lack the institutional tools to amplify it. As a member of a party, you have the backing of the entire party on the issues that make up its platform (some of which you clearly care about), and you have the ability to influence that platform from within if you want to change it to encompass more of the issues you care about. There's really no downside to party affiliation, and there are a lot of upsides if your goal is to improve the things you want to see improved.

And, honestly, we could really use your help. The challenges we're up against are kind of enormous.


Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:

These attacks, slurs and other vitriolic trolling have convinced me to do rethink my views on prop 8.

It's obvious that when people don't get their way or when their 100% truth (even if not supported by the constitution) is not enacted they resort to nothing but insults (oh the irony Scott, the irony) and dismissive bilge.... it makes you think how far the human race has not come.

I should have followed my initial instinct that that there is NO reasonable discourse and honesty with people involved in this issue - and thanks again for reinforcing that, really. This thread has made me reassess my sympathies and sense of the human condition.

By all means please continue with emotional outrage and shaking your fist at the sky. I'm sure at one point it'll all make sense.

Really? Because I did my best to address your points without attacking you, with the exception on your motives for voting, which I just plain can't comprehend a defense for.

He's not trying to further dialogue, or respond in an intellectually honest way. He's done with that. He's found an excuse to justify his actions and beliefs, and he can now feel good (or less bad) about what he's done. That's fine. At least we now know where he stands. This is what we're fighting - entrenched beliefs that people will not step off of no matter how strong the evidence against them.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Someday, people will realize, that even if they do not agree with a person's lifestyle, they are still due equal treatment under the law.

Cheliax

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
If this was the push you needed to finally justify a set of beliefs you already held, then that's great. You're now off the line, and we can now see clearly where you want to stand. You are now the enemy - not because of what party you belong to, but because of what you have chosen to believe. You stand ready to strip rights from your fellow man. I hope you find solace in those who believe the same as you do.

I was always the enemy to you, because your ilk always needs enemies. That is the nature of the oppressor/tyrant - people like you always need a scapegoat.

I already said that I would not vote the same as I did, but that wasn't good enough - you and fools like you need someone to kick around to feel that they are right, even when they are wrong. Nothing you or any other posters here have said are based in reality/fact or supported by the Constitution. It doesn't matter how mad you get at me, marriage is NOT a federally protected right, and thus gay marriage is not a right protected by the Constitution. All I did was point this out and actually provide a CORRECT way to ENACT and PROTECT gay marriage. But keep raging; I'm sure all that self-righteousness acts as a stimulant of sort for you (and will make many allies so you can fight all your enemies).

And before you try recruiting people to the Democratic Party, keep in mind that it was your party that voted this into law. It is your party that has a president who does not support gay marriage, at least be partially honest if you are capable about these facts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
IceniQueen wrote:
FYI I am Independent, I care less for either side...
If I can make a humble suggestion: Please become a Democrat. We're probably not exactly what you want, but democracy isn't about getting exactly what you want. It's about finding compromise with those around you, and banding together to empower both change and stability. Even better, get involved at a local level and push for the issues that you believe in. There's so much opportunity for that right now, and a lot of people simply aren't doing what they could be doing. A party is only as good as the people who belong to it, and you will find like-minded people in the Dems.
With all do respect, I won't do it. I find I agree with democrats more than republicans, but I still disagree with you guys a lot.
I get that. I'm in the same boat. But as an independent (I'm assuming you're an independent here, let me know if you're registered with a third party), you have very little power. Your voice does not count for much, and you lack the institutional tools to amplify it. As a member of a party, you have the backing of the entire party on the issues that make up its platform (some of which you clearly care about), and you have the ability to influence that platform from within if you want to change it to encompass more of the issues you care about. There's really no downside to party affiliation, and there are a lot of upsides if your goal is to improve the things you want to see improved.

The thing is, I feel that political parties are a beacon for partisan bickering, and I'd like to see them gone. By becoming a democrat, I'd have backing on things I care about. However, by joining I would be supporting the democrats, which means supporting things I don't like. I can't join the democrats, but only support some of what they do, not all of it. Any money or volunteer work I provide goes to support everything the party is for. Then we get to elections. In order to have a chance of being elected, you have to pretty much mimic party lines, regardless of your own opinions.

Plus, look at what you said. By not having a party, I don't have much of a voice. So, since I don't lock, step, and march with a specific ideology, I have very little say. No, I don't want to support the democrats, or any political party. I think political parties are bad for America, and do more harm then good.

This isn't meant as a personal attack or anything. I don't hate members of political parties. I just question whether they really do more good than harm.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

FWIW (coming from an 18 year Rabbinical student turned U.S. "warmonger")

The question of "why" with regards to the religious aspect and obvious hypocritical viewpoint can easily be answered with two words: tradition and survival. A lot of the Christian dogma regarding homosexuality, divorce, etc. stems from the rules set forth by ancient Jews (my people) in order to maintain a level of cultural stability and sustained tribal propogation. Some of those rules made sense back then, for whatever reason, and due to tradition remain the same. These rules and biases having naturally transfered over to the Christian religion, are now grounded in whats considered the "moral fiber" of the West. At some point logic was used to come up with these rules, then bastardized, then attributed to Gods will. Whatever. Its like the age old argument we have with our Rabbis:

-"Why cant we mix dairy and meat? Why cant we eat pork?"
-"Because God said so."
-"So, its not because when the rules were created this was the best way to avoid bacterial infection and sickness?"
-"No, its because God said so, now go study more."

At any rate, I find it ironic that this mentality about homosexuality (and womens rights, divorce, etc) is derided and condemned by modern Jews (NON orthodox), and you'll find that any Reform Temple is welcome to the LBGT community. In fact my last Rabbi was a woman, and her brother was a post-op transgender.


Humm... I don't really know much of law, especially American law, but considering my girlfriend lives in Cali, I'm hoping for the best.

*crosses fingers*


Auxmaulous wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
If this was the push you needed to finally justify a set of beliefs you already held, then that's great. You're now off the line, and we can now see clearly where you want to stand. You are now the enemy - not because of what party you belong to, but because of what you have chosen to believe. You stand ready to strip rights from your fellow man. I hope you find solace in those who believe the same as you do.
I was always the enemy to you, because your ilk always needs enemies. That is the nature of the oppressor/tyrant - people like you always need a scapegoat.

I have no desire for enemies. I'm also not the one taking away privileges.

Quote:
I already said that I would not vote the same as I did, but that wasn't good enough - you and fools like you need someone to kick around to feel that they are right, even when they are wrong. Nothing you or any other posters here have said are based in reality/fact or supported by the Constitution. It doesn't matter how mad you get at me, marriage is NOT a federally protected right, and thus gay marriage is not a right protected by the Constitution.

It doesn't MATTER if it's a federally protected right. You cannot discriminate with the handing out of privleges.

Quote:
All I did was point this out and actually provide a CORRECT way to ENACT and PROTECT gay marriage. But keep raging; I'm sure all that self-righteousness acts as a stimulant of sort for you (and will make many allies so you can fight all your enemies).

That wasn't a workable method. Legally, a second ballot measure is NOT an option, because a ballot measure cannot remove the statement that was added to the constitution. It's far easier to add something than it is to change it or take it away altogether. A ballot measure can put something into the constitution, but it cannot change or remove it once it is there.

Quote:

And before you try recruiting people to the Democratic Party, keep in mind that it was your party that voted this into law. It is your party that has a president who does not support gay marriage, at least be partially honest if you are capable about these facts.

This is part of why I dislike political parties.


Auxmaulous wrote:


And before you try recruiting people to the Democratic Party, keep in mind that it was your party that voted this into law. It is your party that has a president who does not support gay marriage, at least be partially honest if you are capable about these facts.

Just to clarify, Barack Obama does not support gay marriage, preferring civil unions, but he was against Prop 8. And while I'm certain that some Democrats supported it, a higher percentage of Republicans and independents did so.

Saying "it was your party that voted this into law" is at best, partially honest.


Auxmaulous wrote:
I was always the enemy to you, because your ilk always needs enemies. That is the nature of the oppressor/tyrant - people like you always need a scapegoat.

See, this is cool. By flipping the "oppressor" label around and applying it to proponents of gay rights (whether the label is valid or not) he's preventing it from being applied to him - after all, one side has to be doing the oppressing.

Auxmaulous, you weren't the enemy until you voted against gay rights. That single, conscious decision placed you.

Quote:
I already said that I would not vote the same as I did,

But you would, really. I mean, wouldn't you? Maybe not on gay rights, but if you were angry enough at a political group you'd probably use that anger to justify voting for something you can't find a good reason for voting against otherwise, right?

Heck, you're already talking about how others' actions in this thread have retroactively justified your vote, as though the behavior of a handful of people is a valid reason to strip an entire group of their rights. You're looking for an excuse. I'm happy to give it to you.

Quote:
but that wasn't good enough - you and fools like you need someone to kick around to feel that they are right, even when they are wrong. Nothing you or any other posters here have said are based in reality/fact or supported by the Constitution. It doesn't matter how mad you get at me, marriage is NOT a federally protected right, and thus gay marriage is not a right protected by the Constitution.

IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT MARRIAGE ISN'T PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION. The constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Straight couples are afforded the ability to marry, while gay couples are denied it. You are stripping an entire group of people to their right to be treated equally under the law.

Quote:
All I did was point this out and actually provide a CORRECT way to ENACT and PROTECT gay marriage. But keep raging; I'm sure all that self-righteousness acts as a stimulant of sort for you (and will make many allies so you can fight all your enemies).

The correct way to enact and protect gay marriage was to vote down Prop 8. Gay marriage was already enacted in the state of California. It was threatened by Prop 8, and you willingly chose not to protect it.

Quote:
And before you try recruiting people to the Democratic Party, keep in mind that it was your party that voted this into law.

Neither party is responsible for voting this into law. It was a popular vote. Now, mind you, its campaign was funded almost entirely by interest groups that are heavily aligned with the Republican party.

Quote:
It is your party that has a president who does not support gay marriage, at least be partially honest if you are capable about these facts.

Here's one of the worst-kept secrets in Washington: President Obama supports gay marriage, and secretly does a little victory dance every time it gets closer to universal acceptance. His public stance on the issue is being carefully managed so that he doesn't come across as too liberal. From an article published earlier today:

"President Barack Obama did not weigh in directly on the decision, but White House Press Secretary Jay Carney spoke on his behalf saying, the president continues to "evolve" on the topic of same-sex marriage."

If you support gay rights, the Democratic party is where you want to be.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aretas wrote:
You cannot compare civil rights and womans suffrage to same gender marriage b/c homosexuality is condemned in the Bible and the other issues are not.

This is now my favorite argument ever.

Other Guy: "KC, you're trying to kill me!"
KC: "You're stealing my dirt."
Other Guy: "You threw the dirt at me!"
KC: "Theft is a sin."
Other Guy: "ISN'T MURDER A SIN, TOO?"
KC: "You cannot compare murder to theft. Theft is condemned in the Bible and--"
*Gets decapitated*


Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
The thing is, I feel that political parties are a beacon for partisan bickering, and I'd like to see them gone.

They are a beacon for partisan bickering. But they aren't going anywhere. They are incredibly useful tools.

Quote:
By becoming a democrat, I'd have backing on things I care about. However, by joining I would be supporting the democrats, which means supporting things I don't like.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, perhaps), that's what democracy is about. You have to compromise. Getting everything you want is for tyrants. So you find the group whose interests best align with your own, and you throw your weight behind them because you know that's how you have the best chance to accomplish something. And, meanwhile, you do what you can to alter the party's platform from within to bring their views in line with your own.

Trust me, I understand completely where you're coming from. It's ugly, this politics thing. It's never clean, it's never exactly the way you wish it was. But holding out and becoming a non-participant (in the sense that you don't participate in the party process) isn't going to accomplish anything. I'm not a party official trying to push you to register. I'm not a candidate, or an office-holder. I'm just a guy who did some work for the Dems while he was in college. I know that the idea of political parties leaves a bad taste in your mouth, but mull it over.

51 to 100 of 631 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Gay Marriage is now legal in California. All Messageboards

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.