Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > California  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 529
H8 is bigotedPage 10 of 52    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41)
Kater,

I'm willing to give you credit for your support of oppressed minorities to which you don't belong.

I am also willing to say that when it comes to gays, you appear to be as bigoted as Archie Bunker.

How did I get such an unflattering impression of you?
 amusinglisa
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 530
OT "elite" :laugh:
Posted: 11/3/2008 10:39:58 PM
I pronounce Pakistan (and Iran) with soft vowels -- that whole "ostentatiously exotic pronunciation" thing. does that make me an elitist?
 amusinglisa
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 532
H8 is bigoted
Posted: 11/3/2008 10:44:12 PM
what I don't get is if


The Catholic Church will never bow down to a civil authority. We hold our own truths, and these truths will not be dictated by any civil authority.


WHY does civil authority need to be changed to let the catholics in this mind frame be safe in their "religious freedom"???
 amusinglisa
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 537
H8 is bigoted
Posted: 11/3/2008 11:07:28 PM

Your sly attack on my character because I believe what I believe only makes you look, well...questionable.


Ummmmmmm -- there is nothing "sly" or any form of "attack" here, honey, just a statement that you are so very entrenched in your perspective that 31 pages of discussion have been merely periods of time during which you have waited until others have finished posting so you can post again. Ace is not questionable, but a dogged insistence on removing a set of rights from a group to which you do not belong without any proof whatsoever of any threat or danger to you or anyone else quite simply makes your opinion of the matter bigoted.

"A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding state of mind. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable."
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 538
H8 is bigoted
Posted: 11/3/2008 11:13:36 PM

Your sly attack on my character because I believe what I believe only makes you look, well...questionable.


I'm not attacking your character. I know that you mean well.

I am attacking your beliefs about gays and marriage, because I think they are based on ugly, bigoted nonsense.
 amusinglisa
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 546
H8 is bigoted
Posted: 11/3/2008 11:43:53 PM

I'm not intolerant, I'm just not willing to swallow the dream pill and leave the notion of family behind.


...as long as "family" falls into your definition of the word. Are you claiming that word as well? What will I call my ragtag little group here? We don't have a man and a woman... I guess that makes me and my children a -- a what? a "civil group"?

Good thing I have someone to define what "family" is. I was thinking we were one. So are the hundreds of gay couples with and without children who have been sticking out the tough times (instead of splitting up) until they could get married -- often 10, 20 or even 30 years later.

Does talking about those situations threaten your "religious freedom"? Am I oppressing you by noting that Nancy and Suzanne and their wonderful 17 year old son had tears in their eyes when Nancy and Suzanne finally got to marry each other? Is that a threat to you or your "family" (assuming you have a man in there)?
 amusinglisa
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 547
H8 is bigoted
Posted: 11/3/2008 11:49:02 PM



what I don't get is if


The Catholic Church will never bow down to a civil authority. We hold our own truths, and these truths will not be dictated by any civil authority.



WHY does civil authority need to be changed to let the catholics in this mind frame be safe in their "religious freedom"???



Autonomy.

If you worked for the thought police, would you turn me in for my thoughts amusinglisa?



Autonomy. What do you mean by that??

Explain how an institution that does not recognize any civil authority that holds its own truths that are NOT DICTATED BY ANY CIVIL AUTHORITY needs to have the local civil authority remove civil rights from anyone.

The thought police would have to have evidence of actual thought. Circular logic is not the same thing.
 amusinglisa
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 551
H8 is bigoted
Posted: 11/4/2008 12:06:43 AM

If you worked for the thought police, would you turn me in for my "circular" thoughts amusinglisa?


REALITY CHECK: there are no thought police. What do you mean when you say "thought police"?

And circular logic is not thought; neither is randomly quoting irrelevant passages.
 amusinglisa
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 552
H8 is bigoted
Posted: 11/4/2008 12:09:11 AM
^^ ER, no, actually; I am point out that your dogmatic, narrow- and closed-minded arguments lead to conclusions that are absurd. Funny how you see it as all about you...
 amusinglisa
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 555
H8 is bigoted
Posted: 11/4/2008 12:24:48 AM
^^ You would have to have had a thought first, which you have not demonstrated.


Sorry, honey, I calls 'em as I sees 'em. I tried to weasel out of this one in the kindest way, but if you have to insist, I have to tell you that I don't find evidence of actual thought in anything you have posted. You have done a nice job hunting up quotes and making dogmatic statements, but you have not been able to demonstrate any sort of independent thinking.

Nice job following links for quotes, though. Even to ol' John Birch...


I thought good catholics weren't supposed to get divorced. Is that OK if you have "religious freedom"? Is it OK to break with some parts of your bible (like the part with Jesus and the woman at the well and all) but not others?

Have you had a chance to find any actual harm from gay marriage?
 amusinglisa
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 556
H8 is bigoted
Posted: 11/4/2008 12:29:58 AM

I was just wondering if you would turn a person in if they shared a thought which you did not agree with.


Unlike legislating your thoughts...

Please don't characterize me as angry or my posts as such -- mind reading is a -- a what? a dangerous thing...? Some pages back, I remarked that I majored in philosophy. This does not have any effort of anger in it. You are reading a whole lot into statements.
 OldFolkie
Joined: 6/8/2008
Msg: 557
view profile
History
H8 is bigoted
Posted: 11/4/2008 12:41:42 AM
Katerivta, as I mentioned earlier, I spent 21 years of my life defending YOUR right to express your beliefs. Whether those beliefs of yours are dictated to you by some old men wearing robes living in Italy, or whether you choose blindly to accept their interpretation of social mores, is irrelevant. The point is and must be that THIS nation, this society and its laws, are NOT subject to the whims of some old Italian men.

OT: I can no more understand your willingness to bend your spirit and mind to the dictates of elderly Italians than I can understand the willingness of Muslim women to gleefully agree to be less than second-class citizens and accept that wearing a veil is the "place" of woman in human society .

If I come across as critical of your political position, Kat, I don't mean to be mean-spirited. I only ask that you take a breath, and consider the true meaning of "equal rights" as we have come to see it in American society.

As has been pointed out, the soci0-political edicts (Papal Bulls?) of those antique Italians have, and have for many years, little correlation to the changes that American society has undergone in the last 50 years. When Catholic doctine and dogma, as dicated from the confines of a 2000 year old rigidity of thought, conflict with the aspirations and ideals of an American society that has for 50 years embraced the ideal that ALL humans (male- female, gay-straight, black-white. liberal-conservative) not only deserve, but MUST be guaranteed the right to equal protection under Law.

Once again, I defend, and have spent much of my life defending, your right to express your beliefs. That those beliefs may subvert and oppose the fundamental rights of ALL American citizens is unfortunate, but you have the absolute and incontrovertible right to state those views in any "forum' you may choose. I only hope that at some point you can see (and I forecast that the results of the vote on Prop 8 will affirm) that the majority of Americans, and the subset of its population of "Californians", will affirm that basic tenet of human rights....that a religion...ANY religion!, may not and must not in a free, democratic society, have the right to dictate who or who may not be eligible for basic human freedoms.
 Sirens Call
Joined: 7/29/2007
Msg: 562
blindly
Posted: 11/4/2008 5:46:53 AM
Okay everyone, time to take your opinions off this thread and put them to work at the polls. Everyone should vote their conscience and be proud to do so.
 amusinglisa
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 563
Vote no on H8
Posted: 11/4/2008 6:40:08 AM
I have been asking for ONE example throughout this thread because there still has

NOT

been one single example of damage caused to a single individual, family or marriage due to gay marriage.

Kater, if you want to argue that with the state constitution as it is- that is, WITHOUT the changes in prop H8 - people are unhappy, I could not agree with you more. The trouble I have (and it may very well be that this is shared by others, but I would not presume anyone's feelings unless they are clearly stated) is that you have, for 32 pages, been claiming that lives, marriages and families are at stake here and you cannot provide a single example of this supposed "harm" other than this supposed "threat" to YOUR "religious freedom". As soon as someone calls you on the lack of examples (or anyone else, but you are the dog with the bone [like me] and just cannot lit it go, so you draw the most commentary), you either give an example of some business which has made a choice to discriminate and has suffered the consequences OR you change the subject.

You say that you don't want the definition of marriage changed, yet you want to see the state constitution changed because leaving it as it reads and has read all along no longer suits you and then you argue for keeping things the same.

You want to make my objection about religious antagonism, yet you have no idea my religious affiliations or what my beliefs are; all you know is that I disagree with the way you choose to profess your "faith" and when I point out your inconsistencies, you label me antagonistic.

Now you ask me about hate crime enforcement. Why? I have stated that I think you have a right to whatever you believe and that you are free to practice your religion as you see fit, ESPECIALLY as you have an understanding that your particular religion is above and separate from civil law. That means you get to, within your religion and with every "religious freedom" on the planet, deny catholic marriage to every single gay couple ever. You go! No one cares about that. You can discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, gender, religious belief or ever race. There are plenty of churches that won't offer the sacrament of marriage to anyone outside their faith. That keeps their "religious freedom" intact. You get to keep that. But just because you don't want to share your toys in the sandbox doesn't mean you get to make it a rule that no one else in any other sand box can share their toys either.

You are fortunate that you have had the choice to marry, to divorce and even, against the teachings of your church, to seek a new relationship. Forty years ago, you would have been riding the back of the bus, the relationship of your parents would have been illegal (because there are passages in your bible that say that it the way it should be) and things would just plain have been hard for you. Someone somewhere (actually, a whole lot of someones in a lot of places) saw that it is wrong to treat anyone differently, no matter how much we agree or disagree with their actions and worked very hard to make sure that you have all the choices available to you that everyone else has. Given all that, you still see fit to argue to put someone else in the proverbial back of the bus.

And you STILL cannot provide a single example of harm. How sad.



Everyone, please make sure you exercise your responsibility to vote. So very many have fought so very hard to make sure you have that privilege.





...and please say a little prayer or send good thoughts my way. I will be helping to get out the vote for equality for all, and we all need a little extra strength today.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 564
H8 is bigoted
Posted: 11/4/2008 9:04:00 AM
No Ace, you are wrong. Her position is not reasonable to you, but it's reasonable to her. My position is okay in your eyes, because I did not vote yes, but if I had even after listening to your arguments, and allowing you your say , it still would not have been reasonable to you, but it would have been reasonable to me. We all have our own criteria which makes up our reason. God, if you are a believer gave us free will to make our own decisions, and guess what, you don't get to make decisions for anyone else but you. Unless you are a parent, in which case you get to for a time.


Barbe,

I thought I was clear about this. It is not the fact that she has a different conclusion than I do that makes her position unreasonable. Reasonable people are free to disagree. It is the fact that she refuses to consider the arguments on the other side. Were she to consider them and offer her insight as to why they are in error or don't apply, that would be reasonable. But she refuses to do that. Instead, she interprets every argument that is contrary to her own viewpoint as an attack upon her faith.

That is what is unreasonable about her position and those of people like her.

The difference between your position and hers is not that you refrained from contributing to what I think would be a bad outcome. It is that you were willing to _listen_ and consider the arguments of those who disagree with you. Had you voted for Prop 8 after having listened and considered what "the gang" has been saying, I would have disagreed with your choice. I would have been disappointed by it. But, I would not have called you a bigot because you would not have been behaving like one.

And, I regret having to use that word with respect to her position. But I know of no other word for it. Do you?

ps. Anyone who's reading this: If you haven't voted yet, stop reading this and get on it! What are you waiting for!!!!!!
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 569
H8 is bigoted
Posted: 11/4/2008 11:35:09 AM

You keep calling it an "emotional bias". It the arguement is not founded in emotional bias here, but rather it is a part of a structure of belief that is different than your own. And furthermore, it is a structure of belief within the organization who first invented the institution of marriage in the first place. On the other hand, Governments protect and operate within civil areas. Certainly our government should be looking out for the concept of Civil Unions, but the concept of marriage yet still should fall to the institutions that founded it.


If it isn't founded on logic or evidence, what is its basis? What is tradition if not an emotional attachment to the past?

You say that the concept should fall to the institution that founded it, but we're not just talking about a concept. We're talking about a bundle of legal rights.

If the proponents of this measure had any respect whatsoever for the institution of government as a servant of the people, the separation of church and state, and the rights of others--all fundamental concepts of our form of government--they would have put forward a measure that reflected that respect. One thing they could have done would be to change all instances of the word "marriage" to the words "civil union" and then reserved the definition of marriage to themselves.

I would totally support that. Regardless of what happens with Prop h8, that might be a good way to settle this nonsense once and for all.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 572
H8 is bigoted
Posted: 11/4/2008 11:51:18 AM
The credit for this must go to Mominatrix! Yay Mom!

I do so love being friends with people who can think.
 amusinglisa
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 588
Risks...
Posted: 11/4/2008 2:45:48 PM



My hands are tied. The wise thing to do is to not try to tread on the rights on even the most ignorantly religious or gay: what is freedom for anyone is also freedom for you. The lack of concern for the rights of another will CERTAINLY bite anyone in the butt, be they gay, Christian, or anything else. I'm telling you, the monkey tied on the back of the words marriage and homosexuality is religion.


SO UNTIE THE BLINKING MONKEY before the lack of concern for the rights of others bites you in your backside. What is freedom for gays is also freedom for you.

I know for certain you were not debating in my league.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 591
H8 is bigoted
Posted: 11/4/2008 3:33:39 PM
K,

I very much appreciate the distinction that Plato drew between philosophy--which seeks the truth, and sophistry--which seeks to be convincing. In that regard I must say that I am much more interested in getting at the truth of the matter than convincing you one way or another.

There is a difference between arguing against your position and attacking either you or your faith.

There is a difference between criticizing the basis for your assertion that a church has the moral authority to dictate to others vs. attacking the church per se. Every church has a right to exist and to proffer whatever ideas its members are willing to subscribe to.

There is also a difference between calling your position bigoted and calling you a bigot. I realize that it is a subtle distinction, and I also realize that I myself have blurred it while addressing you in this thread. For that I deeply apologize and ask your forgiveness.

Hate the sin and love the sinner. I hate your position and wish to God you'd get off it. However, I wish you every happiness and pray that you will be generous when it comes to the happiness of others.
 amusinglisa
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 592
H8 is bigoted
Posted: 11/4/2008 4:35:57 PM
Well, I spent 6 hours today talking to voters and waving and getting the thumbs up over and over.

I am delighted to report that, though exhausted (and my parade-wave arms are TAHRD!) it heartening to see how very many people in that area were encouraging us and waving to us and even coming out and standing with us with signs.

One more thing? I am SO happy to be part of a faction (as it were) that has either a smile or a wave or no response (to the "Yes on 8" people that came out to provide balance). There *were* folks who looked nothing if not bitter, angry and downright mean -- and some of them were the sign-holders.

You GO you No On 8 people! How delightful to see you today.
 amusinglisa
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 601
Risks...
Posted: 11/4/2008 7:58:50 PM

What happens if it passes? What comes next?


I think gays should start refusing services to Catholics.



Eeeek, they drop out of wedding planning and some weddings get even tackier???
 Buffalonian
Joined: 3/8/2008
Msg: 611
Prop 8
Posted: 11/4/2008 10:03:49 PM
Los Angeles Times November 2, 2008 editorial, "No on Proposition 8 /
Debunking the myths used to promote the ban on same-sex marriage," noted what is actuals news rather than opinion. \\
"Clever magicians practice the art of misdirection -- distracting the eyes of the audience to something attention-grabbing but irrelevant so that no one notices what the magician is really doing. Look over at that fuchsia scarf, up this sleeve, at anything besides the actual trick.
\\
The campaign promoting Proposition 8, which proposes to amend the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriages, has masterfully misdirected its audience, California voters. Look at the first-graders in San Francisco, attending their lesbian teacher's wedding! ...
That San Francisco field trip? The children who attended the wedding had their parents' signed permission, as law requires. A year ago, with the same permission, they could have traveled to their teacher's domestic-partnership ceremony. Proposition 8 does not change the rules about what children are exposed to in school. The state Education Code does not allow schools to teach comprehensive sex education -- which includes instruction about marriage -- to children whose parents object."

The election is over. Preliminary results show that Proposition 8 is leading by a 5:4 margin; however, as a historical pattern, poll results reflect the fact more conservative voters vote earlier. Many do not get Election Day off from work vote after clocking out and thus later votes have a far greater percentage of working people than earlier ones. So, wait for a greater percentage of precincts / votes to be tallied before jumping to conclusions about the results (other than on the U.S. presidency, which exit polls have already predicted and McCain has already conceded).

In 1994, a bigoted ballot measure against immigrants (Proposition 187, denying them services, etc.) was leading by an overwhelming 3:1 margin. Defenders of immigrant rights organized a mass protest against the measure. (The crowd seemed too large to count; my eyes saw other people behind me as far as I could see, so I will use the Los Angeles Police Department (under)estimate of 70,000 people assembled at City Hall for that rally.) The pro-Prop.-187 margin literally declined 10% within the couple of days between polls -- no doubt as a result of the reaction to people seeing / hearing about the march / rally; that measure won by 3:2 margin on Election Day. Although the judge's decision declaring most key provisions of Proposition 187 to be illegal and/or unconstitutional was written in legalese and declared to be exclusively deciding relevant legal matters, it was clear that it was the pressure of public protest (and the prospect of further more massive marches) that produced that (limited) victory for immigrants' rights.

So, if Proposition 8 will have passed after all the ballots are tallied, what is needed is not acceptance of a measure sold as literally as a pack of lies, but protest rallies against anti-gay bigotry. (Had there been a single sizable rally of opponents of that bigoted ballot measure, the number of votes for it would have qualitatively diminished.

(In another thread, I wrote:
Three decades ago, I [although neither a school employee nor gay, but understanding the old union solidarity slogan that "An injury to one is an injury to all!"] was involved in protests against The Briggs Initiative. Wikipedia entry notes that ““… The Briggs Initiative was an initiative on the California State ballot in 1978. Sponsored by John Briggs, a conservative state legislator from Orange County, the failed initiative would have banned gays and lesbians from working in California's public schools.” Rather than being demoralized by polls which initially showed support for the measure by 2 to1 margin or adhere to advice to put efforts into campaigning for “friendly” candidates on Election Day, rights activists, civil liberties supporters, unions of teachers and others and their allies called massive demonstrations and public teach-ins. The highly public and very loud campaign against the initiative turned the tide against that bigoted ballot initiative." That lesson that the teachers unions (which were also among the major $ contributors in opposing this year's Proposition 8) taught needs to be re-learned.
 TheLimey
Joined: 2/24/2008
Msg: 612
view profile
History
Risks...
Posted: 11/4/2008 10:10:34 PM
The next step is challenging the legality of a majority vote.

You're ****ing kidding, right???????????? Did you actually read what you typed begfore you hit the "post" button?

Having laws/elections etc passed by the majority of the people is what stops crackpots like the KKK from being elected to office, or the Phelps clan etc. Is that what you really want?
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 620
prop 8
Posted: 11/5/2008 10:06:00 AM

With that picture up there, I don't think you have a thing to worry about Pete!
Here's hoping that the Supreme Court will think this through and come up with something we can ALL live with.


I don't know. I've seen scarier pics on here.

Yes, I certainly hope the Supremes think this one through. Again, it's not the province of the electorate to vote away the rights of others. I am certainly disappointed by this outcome.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 623
prop 8
Posted: 11/5/2008 10:13:33 AM

So I'd rather keep the traditional meaning of the word Marriage as meaning a Union, a Merging, and just keep the same language and not change the language to appeal to those who are bigoted in their notions, no matter how noble their bigotry may be cloaked, even bigotry can be cloaked in love and friendship.


Awesome post, Bob! Sorry, Mom. I think he's got you on this one. Legal marriage it is.

BTW, when bigotry is cloaked in "friendship" it is about patronizing one's inferiors. It's easy to see when it's being done to us. It can be harder to spot when we ourselves are doing it--but not impossible if we look.

So, as we each review our own remarks and attitudes in this thread, we would do well to identify instances when we ourselves have done it. I believe that all of us have, including myself.

If nothing else comes out of this debate, that bit of humility and self-awareness could be a good result.
Show ALL Forums  > California  >