| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/19/2010 03:00:12 PM · #4001 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Matthew, how would you approach the 65-year old rural Maine farmer who votes for Question 1 (against gay marraige) purely on conservative grounds. That is, he reflects that civil marriage has always been a contract between men and women since the inception of our country and if you ask him (and we are by asking him to vote) he would choose to keep it that way. He doesn't know anything about constitutional law, and frankly doesn't care. That is an issue for the courts. I'm guessing this example represents a sizable chunk of Maine voters who voted against gay marriage. It's a secular argument and it's rational. The question becomes whether it violates the constiution, but we don't have to rely on Mr. Farmer to be able to interpret that. (And if it is eventually determined that it does violate the constitution, I give it a 0.0% chance the reasoning has to do with separation of church and state.)
I bring this up merely to say if we could somehow keep everybody from voting their religious conscience the problem would go away. |
What scientific legwork have you completed that led to this conclusion? Or is it just based on your singular belief that if they don't go to church they can't possibly hold religious ideals? I guess by your logic because the son doesn't go to church he couldn't possibly picked up some of his parent's religious values, or his grandparents, etc, etc?
Awhile back you couldn't stop arguing that marriage and its' defintion was inheritly religious and you couldn't separate the two. Now you're saying there are great masses of people out there that don't think of marriage as a religious concept at all. How interesting... |
Just because I can no longer find the poll data, does not mean I haven't seen it or it is made up out of whole cloth. I do know a chunk of self-identified "non-religious" people voted for Question 1. I also know a large portion of older voters and rural voters also voted for Question 1. It is very logical to assume a chunk of those voters satisfy all three of those criteria and seeing as it only passed by 4%, that chunk cannot be ignored.
Do you really think I'm just making these things up? Has your opinion of me dropped that much? We used to be friends... |
|
|
|
01/19/2010 03:04:57 PM · #4002 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
I see Maine did have an independent ballot (apologies for my ignorance on this), hence your example. These kinds of ballots or referenda are quite obnoxious and detract from the benefits of representative democracy. I'll think more about the specific question later.[/i] |
Independent ballots equal majority rule, and no majority ever votes in favor of a party that they themselves have excluded. When true racial equality was put to popular vote, the result was Jim Crow laws designed to reinforce majority discrimination and circumvent the rights of minorities BECAUSE the average voter "doesn't know anything about constitutional law, and frankly doesn't care." Desegregation and voting rights were established through the courts and congressional legislation despite popular sentiment. The same will eventually happen with this issue. |
|
|
|
01/19/2010 03:11:22 PM · #4003 |
Yank, here's the best I can do for you. This was a poll just prior to the Question 1 vote:
18-29 41 55 4
30-44 44 51 5
45-59 50 45 5
60+ 54 39 7
The first column is for Question 1 (which is against gay marriage), the second is against (and for gay marriage). Note the flip-flop in the youngest and oldest voters. Also I had seen another map that the question passed in all but the 5 most populous districts in the state (indicating rural support). I can't find a specifically religious demographic (which is what we've been looking for and I have seen), but you can't assume that ALL old people in rural Maine are Christians. That's the best I can give you, you'll just have to believe me on the rest.
Message edited by author 2010-01-19 15:12:25. |
|
|
|
01/19/2010 03:16:05 PM · #4004 |
| I think perhaps the upcoming generation(s) should have the right to determine the laws they want to live with? It seems a bit paternalistic for the "older generations" -- who presumably have already gone through the period when they are most likely to marry -- determining who the younger folks get to go through the rest lives with ... |
|
|
|
01/19/2010 04:01:02 PM · #4005 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I think perhaps the upcoming generation(s) should have the right to determine the laws they want to live with? It seems a bit paternalistic for the "older generations" -- who presumably have already gone through the period when they are most likely to marry -- determining who the younger folks get to go through the rest lives with ... |
Heh. Give it another 20 years Paul, then see how you feel. :) |
|
|
|
01/19/2010 04:15:21 PM · #4006 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Heh. Give it another 20 years Paul, then see how you feel. :) |
Did that already ... :-( |
|
|
|
01/19/2010 04:31:18 PM · #4007 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Heh. Give it another 20 years Paul, then see how you feel. :) |
Did that already ... :-( |
Well, take your Geritol and get out of the way! I hereby declare you no longer have a valid input on this thread! ;P
Of course Richard said I need to get out of the way too, so maybe you and I can just go shoot some pictures somewhere...
Message edited by author 2010-01-19 16:32:20. |
|
|
|
01/19/2010 05:28:59 PM · #4008 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Matthew, how would you approach the 65-year old rural Maine farmer who votes for Question 1 (against gay marraige) purely on conservative grounds. That is, he reflects that civil marriage has always been a contract between men and women since the inception of our country and if you ask him (and we are by asking him to vote) he would choose to keep it that way. He doesn't know anything about constitutional law, and frankly doesn't care. That is an issue for the courts. I'm guessing this example represents a sizable chunk of Maine voters who voted against gay marriage. It's a secular argument and it's rational. The question becomes whether it violates the constiution, but we don't have to rely on Mr. Farmer to be able to interpret that. (And if it is eventually determined that it does violate the constitution, I give it a 0.0% chance the reasoning has to do with separation of church and state.)
I bring this up merely to say if we could somehow keep everybody from voting their religious conscience the problem would go away. |
What scientific legwork have you completed that led to this conclusion? Or is it just based on your singular belief that if they don't go to church they can't possibly hold religious ideals? I guess by your logic because the son doesn't go to church he couldn't possibly picked up some of his parent's religious values, or his grandparents, etc, etc?
Awhile back you couldn't stop arguing that marriage and its' defintion was inheritly religious and you couldn't separate the two. Now you're saying there are great masses of people out there that don't think of marriage as a religious concept at all. How interesting... |
Just because I can no longer find the poll data, does not mean I haven't seen it or it is made up out of whole cloth. I do know a chunk of self-identified "non-religious" people voted for Question 1. I also know a large portion of older voters and rural voters also voted for Question 1. It is very logical to assume a chunk of those voters satisfy all three of those criteria and seeing as it only passed by 4%, that chunk cannot be ignored.
Do you really think I'm just making these things up? Has your opinion of me dropped that much? We used to be friends... |
I respect your opinion Jason. That hasn't changed. If it seems like I don't it's probably because I try to consider just the things you say and not assume B, C and D. What is frustrating is you do that to me all too often. For example, I've never claimed that ALL Christians voted against gay marriage. I merely stated they are in the way. Given the fact that they pour millions into trying to stop gay marriage across the country (Maine included) it's not far fetch idea. Now perhaps I shouldn't have singled out just Christians but I doubt substituting "religious people" would of made a difference. That's where I'm coming from. What I don't get is why that even bothers you. Don't you want Christians to be in the way of gay marriage? Aren't you in-favor of belief-driven politics? |
|
|
|
01/19/2010 05:32:38 PM · #4009 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Yank, here's the best I can do for you. This was a poll just prior to the Question 1 vote:
18-29 41 55 4
30-44 44 51 5
45-59 50 45 5
60+ 54 39 7
The first column is for Question 1 (which is against gay marriage), the second is against (and for gay marriage). Note the flip-flop in the youngest and oldest voters. Also I had seen another map that the question passed in all but the 5 most populous districts in the state (indicating rural support). I can't find a specifically religious demographic (which is what we've been looking for and I have seen), but you can't assume that ALL old people in rural Maine are Christians. That's the best I can give you, you'll just have to believe me on the rest. |
I guess this is where I state that polls (ex. Gallup) typically show a strong correlation between age and religion? Of course this doesn't mean All old people... or even the old farts in Maine. |
|
|
|
01/19/2010 05:35:30 PM · #4010 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Heh. Give it another 20 years Paul, then see how you feel. :) |
Did that already ... :-( |
Well, take your Geritol and get out of the way! I hereby declare you no longer have a valid input on this thread! ;P
Of course Richard said I need to get out of the way too, so maybe you and I can just go shoot some pictures somewhere... |
Well if it's any consolation, I'm probably in your way of winning these online arguments. Drum roll please. |
|
|
|
01/19/2010 06:04:15 PM · #4011 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Heh. Give it another 20 years Paul, then see how you feel. :) |
Did that already ... :-( |
Well, take your Geritol and get out of the way! I hereby declare you no longer have a valid input on this thread! ;P
Of course Richard said I need to get out of the way too, so maybe you and I can just go shoot some pictures somewhere... |
Well if it's any consolation, I'm probably in your way of winning these online arguments. Drum roll please. |
Only in the same way a '72 Oldsmobile is "in the way" of a Monster Truck... :P (and I think you mean "Rim shot, please!" :D) //instantrimshot.com/
I totally agree with you, though, that age correlates with religion. However, so does gender with more women considering themselves "religious" than men and yet the poll I quoted above had this to say:
MEN 52 44 4
WOMEN 42 52 6
That would go exactly counter to what was expected.
Message edited by author 2010-01-19 18:08:57. |
|
|
|
01/19/2010 06:07:57 PM · #4012 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Equal Rights=Good
|
Agreed, and always have.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Discrimination=Bad |
Agreed, and again, always have.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I never said I supported any kind of discrimination. It's unbelievable that even though I've clearly stated numerous times that I oppose discrimination, people still assume that I support discrimination simply because I'm religious. |
No, I assume that you support discrimination because you say things like this:
I'm not trying to belittle the issue of gay rights, but let's be honest... even the most marginalized and discriminated against groups in the United States have far more individual rights and liberties than many people around the world.
That's not the point, and it's not germane to the discussion. Just because we have it better doesn't mke the discrimination any less wrong.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2010 06:14:46 PM · #4013 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
As long as you believe in anything short of equal rights for gays, you're no different than the people who killed Mattew Shepard, or the people in Uganda. |
Originally posted by Louis:
That is a dreadful thing to say. You may as well suggest that as long as anyone remains Muslim, they're no better than Osama. Honestly, with hyperbole like this it's no wonder there's so much ill will around here. |
No, I will not suggest such an analogy. As long as support for the discrimination continues, then events like that will happen.
Wasn't it just recently that the inflammatory comments from some Americans spouting off in favor of the discrimination were instrumental in being used to support the issue in Uganda?
Yet those very same people said, "Yeah, well we didn't mean it THAT way!" when it backfired. It really isn't a middle of the road thing, is it?
As long as there is support for the discrimination against gays supported by a supposed segment of the population who have the veneer of respectability, then the extremists will twist it to their ends.
Just in the same fashion that  johnnyphoto will have us believe that all Americans are spoiled, self-centered people.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2010 06:18:05 PM · #4014 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Just in the same fashion that johnnyphoto will have us believe that all Americans are spoiled, self-centered people. |
He never said that at all. Why don't you try reading what people actually write? |
|
|
|
01/19/2010 06:21:03 PM · #4015 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You give yourself away in your last line by expecting people to divorce their religious ideals with their right to vote (which is easy for you because you have no religious ideals). |
Whether either of you have religious ideals or not, they have no place in the vote.
There is no place for religion in government. You cannot force others by law to share youyr religion.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2010 06:21:42 PM · #4016 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Just in the same fashion that johnnyphoto will have us believe that all Americans are spoiled, self-centered people. |
He never said that at all. Why don't you try reading what people actually write? |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
then the extremists will twist it to their ends.
|
Sometimes people don't even read what they themselves write :D |
|
|
|
01/19/2010 06:26:11 PM · #4017 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Just in the same fashion that johnnyphoto will have us believe that all Americans are spoiled, self-centered people. |
Originally posted by Louis:
He never said that at all. Why don't you try reading what people actually write? |
Well, I'm not going to spend a half an hour culling the specific lines from four or five of his last dozen or so posts trying to justify my comments to you, but that's pretty much the impression I've gotten as I've read them.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2010 06:27:36 PM · #4018 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Just in the same fashion that johnnyphoto will have us believe that all Americans are spoiled, self-centered people. |
He never said that at all. Why don't you try reading what people actually write? |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
then the extremists will twist it to their ends.
|
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Sometimes people don't even read what they themselves write :D |
Ah, yes!
Right on time with a snarky comment and no contribution whatsoever to the discussion.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2010 06:34:11 PM · #4019 |
au contraire. The 'snarky' comment was in hope that you could see that you, just like everyone else, are quite adept at twisting things for your own aims, and that you aren't this paragon of virtue that you seem to believe yourself to be, all the time.
Louis was very apt with his counterpoint, and it holds true. Simply not supporting an issue doesn't equal you to people that take things to the extreme, in any way, shape, or form. At all. Period.
Saying such things is merely reactionary. |
|
|
|
01/19/2010 06:38:35 PM · #4020 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Louis was very apt with his counterpoint, and it holds true. Simply not supporting an issue doesn't equal you to people that take things to the extreme, in any way, shape, or form. At all. Period. |
But it's not a case of not supporting an issue, it's a case of where people are actively participating in trying to, and being somewhat effective, at denying people their rights. It causes hardship, it's adversarial, and were they to mind their own business, the inclusion of the gay population as equal would create no hardship to anyone in any manner. Any hardship or issue is strictly of perception.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2010 06:49:52 PM · #4021 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Louis was very apt with his counterpoint, and it holds true. Simply not supporting an issue doesn't equal you to people that take things to the extreme, in any way, shape, or form. At all. Period. |
But it's not a case of not supporting an issue, it's a case of where people are actively participating in trying to, and being somewhat effective, at denying people their rights. It causes hardship, it's adversarial, and were they to mind their own business, the inclusion of the gay population as equal would create no hardship to anyone in any manner. Any hardship or issue is strictly of perception. |
And I don't care for such people, on a personal level, if they actively work to deny such things. HOWEVER, to equate them to murderers? Ridiculous. It doesn't matter what the after-effects may be, everything we do as a society causes hard feelings and is adversarial to SOMEONE. Just because a precious few have some broken mentality and take it to places it should never go, doesn't mean that people fighting for whatever they believe in, no matter how much I, myself, can't understand it, are on the same level as those few, are to blame for those few, or need to be put in the same breath as those few.
Never. |
|
|
|
01/19/2010 07:14:04 PM · #4022 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Louis was very apt with his counterpoint, and it holds true. Simply not supporting an issue doesn't equal you to people that take things to the extreme, in any way, shape, or form. At all. Period. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
But it's not a case of not supporting an issue, it's a case of where people are actively participating in trying to, and being somewhat effective, at denying people their rights. It causes hardship, it's adversarial, and were they to mind their own business, the inclusion of the gay population as equal would create no hardship to anyone in any manner. Any hardship or issue is strictly of perception. |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
And I don't care for such people, on a personal level, if they actively work to deny such things. HOWEVER, to equate them to murderers? Ridiculous. It doesn't matter what the after-effects may be, everything we do as a society causes hard feelings and is adversarial to SOMEONE. Just because a precious few have some broken mentality and take it to places it should never go, doesn't mean that people fighting for whatever they believe in, no matter how much I, myself, can't understand it, are on the same level as those few, are to blame for those few, or need to be put in the same breath as those few.
Never. |
That's fine, you can have all the righteous indignation that you want, but look at the problems we still have to this day with discrimination. Women are still paid less for the equivalent work of men, there are still racial hate crimes years after the supposed equality of all colors here in America, and there will continue to be hate crimes toward gays even if tomorrow a Freedom to Marry act is implemented.
As long as any level of discrimination is tolerated, or worse yet, advocated, then there is a tacit implication in the minmds of extremists that what they're doing has support.
Yes, I see the difference, but to me it simply isn't that far apart when someone can look me in the eye, and with all of his heart tell me that my gay friend is an abomination. That scares the crap out of me that someone can really be like that. If that man is a cop, can we count on him to arrest someone who does beat a gay man to death? If he's a judge, can we count on him to allow the prosecution for murder?
I'm sorry, but that's just too grey for me, and entirely unacceptable. Just like the marriage/civil union debate......let them have their civil union, just don't let them desecrate the institution of marriage.
NOT acceptable.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2010 09:11:10 PM · #4023 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
No, I assume that you support discrimination because you say things like this:
[quote=johnnyphoto]I'm not trying to belittle the issue of gay rights, but let's be honest... even the most marginalized and discriminated against groups in the United States have far more individual rights and liberties than many people around the world. |
So when I say that we should help people in other countries (because they need it more) before helping people in our country, that makes you think I support discrimination? Let me state my opinion in another way... I believe we should help improve human rights in countries where people are killed daily because they are gay, before we help gay people in our country obtain the right to marry. Do you still disagree with me?
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Just in the same fashion that johnnyphoto will have us believe that all Americans are spoiled, self-centered people. |
I'm sorry my statements came across that way. I don't believe that all Americans are spoiled and self-centered. I do believe that we (we = me included) as a collective society are spoiled and self-centered in comparison to other societies and cultures around the world. I'm certainly not trying to say that gay people are self-centered because they want equal rights. Nobody is self-centered for wanting equal rights. But, I think it's fair to say that as a collective society, we are self-centered because we are always pushing to have more rights, more liberties, and more privileges for our own society and we forget that many people around the world are dying every day because they have virtually no rights at all.
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Louis was very apt with his counterpoint, and it holds true. Simply not supporting an issue doesn't equal you to people that take things to the extreme, in any way, shape, or form. At all. Period. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
But it's not a case of not supporting an issue, it's a case of where people are actively participating in trying to, and being somewhat effective, at denying people their rights. It causes hardship, it's adversarial, and were they to mind their own business, the inclusion of the gay population as equal would create no hardship to anyone in any manner. Any hardship or issue is strictly of perception. |
I assure you Jeb, I am not in any way actively participating in trying to deny anyone (in this case homosexuals) equal rights. However, I cannot in good conscience actively support gay rights. Issues like these are not all black and white, as Louis and K10DGuy have stated. Just because I don't actively support gay rights, doesn't mean that I actively oppose them. And it most definitely does not mean that I would ever deliberately cause physical harm to a gay person.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Yes, I see the difference, but to me it simply isn't that far apart when someone can look me in the eye, and with all of his heart tell me that my gay friend is an abomination. |
You seem to be stuck on this stereotype that all Christians believe gay people are abominations, so let me clarify what the Bible teaches.
People are not abominations.
Acts of sin are abominations.
or
What we do angers God.
Who we are does not anger God.
Message edited by author 2010-01-19 21:11:37. |
|
|
|
01/19/2010 11:00:19 PM · #4024 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
You seem to be stuck on this stereotype that all Christians believe gay people are abominations, so let me clarify what the Bible teaches.
People are not abominations.
Acts of sin are abominations.
or
What we do angers God.
Who we are does not anger God. |
Perhaps you could help this old fella understand the Christian perspective. If indeed sins are are abominations, and considering that a gay lifestyle is not a choice, does it not follow that you are calling gays an abomination due to factors beyond their control.
Similarly, if God is angered by what Gays do, do you not find it problematic that this God supposedly loves everyone.
Ray |
|
|
|
01/19/2010 11:11:43 PM · #4025 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Similarly, if God is angered by what Gays do, do you not find it problematic that this God supposedly loves everyone. |
Nobody has even considered the possibility that god himself is gay.
|
|
