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
 JadeMuse
Joined: 11/3/2007
Msg: 430
Prop h8 is bigotryPage 8 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)
As far as The Founding Fathers go, I don't believe that they would have predicted the world as it is now, and all that entails...

What they accomplished was something more...
--It created a foundation for an evolving system greater than itself --one of tolerance.

Although some of Our Fathers were outspoken bigots and racists, The Constitution was not confined to a singular viewpoint or philosophy; it had built-in tolerance written into it.

America may not have evolved into exactly what they had dreamed up in the beginning, but they opened the door to a better (read: more tolerant) life for everyone... and I certainly won't forget that.

I am an average American... and I approve this message.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 431
Prop h8 is bigotry
Posted: 11/2/2008 5:35:16 PM

And by the way, you DON'T know what the founding farthers would say. And nor do I. You can guess, you can surmise, but no you don't know, therefore it is a mute point.


I base my conjecture on the things that they wrote. And based on what they wrote, I stand by my view. Of course you are free to disagree, but on what basis?

If I can challenge even one person on this thread to think their position through one more time before casting their ballot, I think it's worth the effort. That's what free speech is about. It isn't about who can shout the loudest. It is about making the case.

I am perfectly willing to have my mind changed on the basis of logic, reason, and compassion. I am not willing to submit to vague fears, religous authority, or ad hominem when peoples' rights are at stake.

So convince me on the basis of logic, evidence, and compassion that Prop 8 is the way to go and I'll vote for it. It takes more than simply asserting that a definition isn't oppressive. There was a defnition in the Constitution that a black man was worth only 3/5ths of a white man when counting the census. Did that make it right?
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 432
Prop h8 is bigotry
Posted: 11/2/2008 5:51:04 PM
Fair enough!

I believe I said I thought the Founders would be proud, not that they in fact would be. But if I were a betting man, that's how I'd bet. Just sayin'

Congratulations on voting, and thank you for doing so!
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 433
Prop 8 is bigotry
Posted: 11/2/2008 5:56:48 PM
It is nice, I guess, that you parents are republicans but it hardly has anything to do with this topic. Please open your eyes and maybe maintain the few strands of moral fiber that remains in this state. If not for the state, then try nature.


I brought up my parents and Goldwater to show that perfectly respectable Conservatives can see this issue from a perspctive that differs from that of the churches who are backing Prop 8.

To me, the moral fiber of this country is our mutual commitment to protect our individual rights--those of us all, not just the ones we like--and anything that undermines those rights undermines our moral fiber and weakens us as a nation. To me, it takes character to set aside disgust and prejudice to do what is right.

Let me ask you this: If it came down to a choice between your rights and church doctrine, how do you think the church would come down? Historically speaking, how have the churches who back Prop 8 come down? Do you really want to side with people who have no compunctions about burning people at the stake or torturing them into salvation? My grandparents believed that it was their God-given duty to break the spirits of my mother and her siblings so that they could be saved. Is that what you want us all to go back to? Is that _really_ what you consider to be moral fiber?
 amusinglisa
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 434
A New Form of National Security
Posted: 11/2/2008 6:42:37 PM
Barbe1963

Please don't worry about posting whatever you might wish to send me here on the forum. I don't get much lee-way when accessing my account from my phone and have no idea what you had to say.
 ohsweetlaura
Joined: 11/28/2005
Msg: 435
view profile
History
Standards of Morality
Posted: 11/2/2008 7:40:15 PM
Ace said:



“…My view is that individual rights are the foundation of morality. If someone's behavior isn't going to harm anyone else, I figure it's none of my business. If it is likely to hurt someone else, or to violate their rights, I consider it immoral.”


I would bet a large number of people would essentially agree with Ace. As a fundamental rule of life, "as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else" is a pretty skimpy ethical principle.

I ask then, is it ok to cheat on a test? Do drugs? Tell a “white” lie? Keep cash we may find in the video box at the thrift store? Run a red light? For a 19-year old female to have consensual sex with a 15-year old boy? Curse when we’ve hit our thumb with a hammer? Refuse to take out the trash when asked by our parents? Ride a motorcycle without a helmet? Lust after the hot barista at Starbucks? Live at home, jobless and aimless, refusing to grow up when one is 25, able-bodied, and competent?

None of the things listed above “hurt” anyone else. But, all of them are either against the law and/or morally repugnant.

Rick Wade answers that better than I ever could:

"First, if there are no concrete ethical principles that apply across the board, how do we measure hurt? Some things are obvious. Swinging a bat in a roomful of people will have immediate and obvious negative consequences. But physical hurt isn't the only kind. We need to know what constitutes "hurt" in order to apply the "as long as" principle. So, one question to ask a person who touts this approach to life is, How do you decide whether something is hurtful or not? Without concrete ethical norms, the "as long as" rule is empty.

Second, this rule faces a problem similar to one faced by utilitarian ethics. Utilitarianism seeks to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people. But how can a person predict the outcome of an action? It's difficult to work out a greatest good calculus. The "as long as" rule doesn't even go as far as utilitarianism. The latter at least seeks the good of others (in principle, anyway). The former only seeks to avoid harming them. So the question becomes, How can you predict who will be hurt or how?...

...The "as long as" rule pushes personal liberty almost to the limit. It puts me at the center of the world. I can do whatever I want, and furthermore, you'd better not do anything that I find hurtful. I stated the rule in the first person in the opening paragraph ("I can do whatever I want") deliberately. For some reason we don't apply it as liberally to others as we do to ourselves!"

People need a permanent, grounded set of moral rules or laws by which to live.
 blaqman
Joined: 1/27/2007
Msg: 436
view profile
History
Standards of Morality
Posted: 11/2/2008 7:56:19 PM

“…My view is that individual rights are the foundation of morality. If someone's behavior isn't going to harm anyone else, I figure it's none of my business. If it is likely to hurt someone else, or to violate their rights, I consider it immoral.”


Gays have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as do hetros, thus they denied their right.

However, I don't know why you guys haven't supported my dream to have 30 wives. - seems so unfair and you are denying me my right to do what I want to do. Afterall, it doesn't harm you.
 amusinglisa
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 438
Prop h8 is bigotry
Posted: 11/2/2008 8:14:09 PM
Ayers and Obama???

What about the Keating 5?????


OT, but seriously -- who in the world thinks that serving on a non-profit committee with someone who has been exonerated and is considered a pillar of the community is anything like being in a long-term personal relationship (their families vacationed together for cryin out loud) with someone who ripped off the pensions of millions andhelped him do it [by exhibiting "poor judgement" of course]
 amusinglisa
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 439
Prop h8 is bigotry
Posted: 11/2/2008 9:01:38 PM
I want my kids to know we are better than that.

http://www.noonprop8.com/messages

My beliefs don't have to treat people unequally.

I am actually enough of a grown-up that I let my son's birth mom have him call her "mommy" -- and it does not change one little bit who I am to him... Words are simply words. If your hang up is with words, get a life. If your hang up is with relationships that you don't understand or have yourself, get some empathy or go find somewhere to live where everyone is as nigardly (that is NOT the "n" word) as you are.

I am better than that, so I am voting "No"
 blaqman
Joined: 1/27/2007
Msg: 440
view profile
History
Standards of Morality
Posted: 11/2/2008 9:44:29 PM
Sorry Willis, I've never been hurt by anyone who has cheated on a test.

So, what about:

1) Your neighbor who parks his car on the grass. It is his choice and does not offend everyone?

2) You neighbor who paints his own house black with pink trim? Somebody likes that color and if you want to sell your house, it may make the price go higher if you sell to a person who likes such colors

3) A pimp who does employs young but legal aged girls to make his clients happy?

4) Someone walking up and down the street with an unloaded assault rifle and has no ammo?

5) How does it hurt you if someone decides to jump of the Golden Gate.

6) Euthanasia, how does that hurt you?

7) How does it hurt you when someone drives in front of you 20mph below the speed limit?

8) How does it hurt you when an able body person parks in a disabled spot for a second when there are 10 other such spots that are not occupied?

9) How does it hurt you if some perverted scumbag in a trench coat were allowed to flash your wife, your mother, sister, etc.? How does it hurt them?

10) How does it hurt you if Billy-Bob has his goat?

Point is, laws are about co-existing in society and setting rules according to the expectations of society. Not all laws exist because someone might get hurt. The above examples may be laws and ordinances but doesn't mean someone would get injured or hurt
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 441
Standards of Morality
Posted: 11/2/2008 10:27:06 PM

I ask then, is it ok to cheat on a test? Do drugs? Tell a “white” lie? Keep cash we may find in the video box at the thrift store? Run a red light? For a 19-year old female to have consensual sex with a 15-year old boy? Curse when we’ve hit our thumb with a hammer? Refuse to take out the trash when asked by our parents? Ride a motorcycle without a helmet? Lust after the hot barista at Starbucks? Live at home, jobless and aimless, refusing to grow up when one is 25, able-bodied, and competent?


Those things all hurt people. Refusing to pull one's own weight or to cooperate with reasonable authority means that others have to take up the slack.

Well, maybe not cursing over a sore thumb or lusting in your heart.

I agree that we need clear moral principles, but if they are discriminatory and irrational, that is also a pretty flimsy moral compass.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 442
Standards of Morality
Posted: 11/2/2008 10:29:28 PM
Gays have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as do hetros, thus they denied their right.


This is disengenuous and you know it. You want to deny them the right to marry the person of their choice. Why?


However, I don't know why you guys haven't supported my dream to have 30 wives. - seems so unfair and you are denying me my right to do what I want to do. Afterall, it doesn't harm you.


If all 30 of them consent to the arrangement and you can work out the inheritance details so that none of the children is hurt, I just don't have a problem with it.

Good luck with that!
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 445
Standards of Morality
Posted: 11/2/2008 10:36:43 PM
Sorry Willis, I've never been hurt by anyone who has cheated on a test.


Well, the folks in New York City upon whom the crane fell might disagree with that. Some of the crane operators had been cheating on their qualifying exams, it seems. And even if it wasn't one of the cheaters operating the crane that fell, the climate of cheating made crane inspections more likely to be falsified or poorly conducted, and that hurts everyone.

No, the "as long as no one gets hurt" standard seems to hold up pretty well when you give it a chance. Perhaps I should clarify it a bit more. As long as no one is hurt either immediately or in the long run. Otherwise, polluting the environment would be considered moral, and it certainly is not that. But hey, that's not in the 10 Commandments, so I guess that's OK.

Permanent rules cannot hold up in the face of increasing knowledge about ourselves and our world. I do agree that we need principles from which to derive the rules that reflect our highest understanding. I'm perfectly happy to make the Golden Rule the starting point, especially since even the most orthodox of fundamentalist Christians assert that Jesus's sacrifice rendered the Old Testament laws obsolete.

So let's start there, with what Jesus said, shall we? If you were a gay person who came by it honestly, what would you want?
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 447
Standards of Morality
Posted: 11/2/2008 10:46:01 PM

You and I would not be here were it not for a man and a woman's reproductive ability.

How can anyone in good conscience dishonor the mothers and fathers who made marriage not only meaningful throughout history but also a lawfully necessary union by redefining what men and women created together?


I do not see expanding the scope of the loves we are willing to honor as dishonoring anyone or anything. Quite the opposite. If marriage is a holy estate, recognizing all those who want to enter into it can only strenghten it's good influence on society.

And remember, that stable 10% of the population acts as an insurance policy for the children of their brothers and sisters who might otherwise be orphaned and placed with strangers. That is the value of having gay family members to the children of those who are straight. Why would you dishonor that?
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 449
Standards of Morality
Posted: 11/2/2008 11:17:00 PM
1) Your neighbor who parks his car on the grass. It is his choice and does not offend everyone?

2) You neighbor who paints his own house black with pink trim? Somebody likes that color and if you want to sell your house, it may make the price go higher if you sell to a person who likes such colors


In both cases, if his doing so would lower another neighbor's property values, that neighbor is hurt.


3) A pimp who does employs young but legal aged girls to make his clients happy?


Please. If he's running a protection racket on them, they're all being hurt.


4) Someone walking up and down the street with an unloaded assault rifle and has no ammo?


Creating a climate of fear such that people are afraid to exercise their right to use the streets or gather peacably violates their rights.


5) How does it hurt you if someone decides to jump of the Golden Gate.


In two ways. One, it traumatized the family members and those who witness it. Two, my tax dollars have to go to clean up the mess.


6) Euthanasia, how does that hurt you?


This is an ethics quesiton as much as a moral one. If a doctor assists in taking a life, how can we know that the "treatment" was made with the consent of the deceased? If it was, and the doctor concurs that the life was going to end soon anyway, I see no reason why a person cannot choose to die in comfort. However, issues of undue influence and money mean that we run the risk of violating the rights of a person near death if we allow euthanasia. On the other hand, we rob a person who wants to die with dignity of that chance if we don't allow it. It's a hard choice.


7) How does it hurt you when someone drives in front of you 20mph below the speed limit?


It violates my right of way.


8) How does it hurt you when an able body person parks in a disabled spot for a second when there are 10 other such spots that are not occupied?


It establishes a precedent for the disregard of laws meant to protect the right to equal access to public accomodations for the vulnerable minorities among us--such as gays and lesbians.


9) How does it hurt you if some perverted scumbag in a trench coat were allowed to flash your wife, your mother, sister, etc.? How does it hurt them?


It hurts the women by threatening them with the prospect of rape. It hurts me by creating a climate in which women cannot afford to trust men.


10) How does it hurt you if Billy-Bob has his goat?


Well, I really don't want STDs that could jump the species barrier to get the chance. I also don't think we want to condone cruelty to animals, because as with suicide, people who witness such acts can be traumatized--including the person performing them.

Straw-man arguments all. Show me a single harm to an innocent person that arises from a gay marriage and you win the debate.

Here is another way for you to win the debate. Show me how your definition of marriage conforms with the Golden Rule as it is viewed from the perspective of someone who is gay and in love.
 blaqman
Joined: 1/27/2007
Msg: 451
view profile
History
Standards of Morality
Posted: 11/2/2008 11:24:20 PM
Whoa there Aerospace, your words are not passing the sniff test here. You are not being consistent in your measure of the situation.



If all 30 of them consent to the arrangement and you can work out the inheritance details so that none of the children is hurt, I just don't have a problem with it.


There are no guarantees that nobody, including children, will not be hurt when someone passes. Also, what does 30 wives have to do with "all" the children, can I not have too many children to support even though I may be married to single lady? Please stay consistent in your ideas, measures, and arguments .


Gays have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as do hetros, thus they denied their right.
This is disengenuous and you know it. You want to deny them the right to marry the person of their choice. Why?


Sorry, maybe it is dis-engenuous is your eyes but not mine. Not everyone can marry who they want. We already covered this in the case of incest about 10 pages ago. It is no different here. A homosexual can marry if prop 8 passes just like anyone else. Why do you deny me the right to march around the neighborhood with an AK-47 if it is unloaded? What, what was that? Oh I see, you just don't like it even though nobody would hurt?
Laws help establish rules and protocals for society to function by. The proposition is asking me if I like the traditional definition, and values of marriage. The answer is YES.

Here's an interesting item. Our company open enrollment for benefits is happening right now and this is the new policy:
"Benefits for domestic partners of opposite sex will no longer be available. Benefits for domestic partnerships of the same sex are unaffected." Can you imagine the news in the headlines if it were reversed?
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 452
Don't touch it...
Posted: 11/2/2008 11:33:20 PM
Along comes a gay couple and builds another castle right next to it. Not only that, they widen the protective wall around both castles in the process.

Why are you crying? Don't you like your new neighbors?
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 453
Don't touch it...
Posted: 11/2/2008 11:37:45 PM

There are no guarantees that nobody, including children, will not be hurt when someone passes. Also, what does 30 wives have to do with "all" the children, can I not have too many children to support even though I may be married to single lady? Please stay consistent in your ideas, measures, and arguments .


Fair enough. You pointed out a harm that makes polyamorous marriages questionable. If the 30 of you can't support yourselves and your children, the taxpayers all are hurt. But I'm not sure that's a problem with you being married so much as it is with you not pulling your collective weight.

If you want to argue that the practical limit for partners in a marriage is two, be my guest. The Muslims claim it's five--four women and a man. Me? I have no idea. All I know is that if a gay couple wants to get married, I see no practical reason why they shouldn't. Do you?
 ohsweetlaura
Joined: 11/28/2005
Msg: 454
view profile
History
Standards of Morality
Posted: 11/2/2008 11:50:56 PM
My point is that individual rights should not be the foundation of morality. One needs a moral compass, a permanent set of principals to follow. (NOTE: Just because something is legal, doesn't make it moral ie swinging. And, just because something is illegal, doesn't make it immoral, such as riding a motor-cycle without a helmet)

For example: abortion. Morally speaking, America’s opinions range from abortion is always wrong, to abortion is ok if the mother’s life is in danger, to abortion is ok in cases of rape or incest, to abortion is ok to use as a form of birth control.

Another example: theft. When is it ok to steal and when isn’t it? If the cashier gives you back more change than he should, is that stealing? If you find a wallet full of cash on the street, is it stealing if you keep it? What if there is no name, address, or other way to identify the owner? Let’s say you are at a yard sale and they give you a paper bag and tell you everything you can fit in the bag is $1. You stuff it with books, a CD, a couple T shirts, and a pair of jeans with cash in the pocket. Is that stealing? How about stealing from your neighbor’s garden? Would it make a difference if you had lost your job and needed to feed your family?

Some of you scoff at fears that allowing gays to marry will open the doors to brothers marrying sisters, Joseph marrying not just Sue but also Sue’s sisters, niece, and cousin, and Uncle Henry marrying his goat. But, if we don’t have impermeable boundaries, the line keeps getting moved. Because each time we cross the line, it gets easier to justify moving it a
little

bit


further.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 455
Standards of Morality
Posted: 11/2/2008 11:51:31 PM

Sorry, maybe it is dis-engenuous is your eyes but not mine. Not everyone can marry who they want. We already covered this in the case of incest about 10 pages ago. It is no different here.


There is a difference. A homosexual marriage does not put a child at risk for birth defects. An incestuous marriage does.


A homosexual can marry if prop 8 passes just like anyone else.


Give me a break. The value of marriage is in marrying the person you _want_ to marry. You know that. That is what I mean by disengenuous. You know that too.


Why do you deny me the right to march around the neighborhood with an AK-47 if it is unloaded? What, what was that? Oh I see, you just don't like it even though nobody would hurt?


If someone is out marching around with an assault rifle, I have no idea if it is loaded or not. That gun poses a threat to my safety, even if the person carrying it around thinks it's unloaded. There could be a round in the chamber. So, in the face of a credible threat, I'm not going out there. Not being able to go out there is a violation of my equal access to the public streets.

What credible threat is there when you see a gay couple walking down the street holding hands? In what way is your physical safety put at risk?


Laws help establish rules and protocals for society to function by.


I have no problem with laws, so long as they do not violate our rights. In this country, the laws are put in place to protect our rights, not the other way around.


The proposition is asking me if I like the traditional definition, and values of marriage. The answer is YES.


It is one thing to say you like it. It is quite another to say that you like it so much that you're willing to violate the rights of others in order to keep it. If you're willing to do that, I believe that your attitude is immoral and unAmerican.

But hey, no worries. I don't believe that we can afford to waste water on lawns any more. So, if it's all the same to you, I'm going to raise an initiative that will allow the state to confiscate the land on which you grow your lawn. Why? Because I like that kind of rule and think society would be better off with it. If I can get enough people to go along with me on this, should my "ban all lawns" initiative win?
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 456
Standards of Morality
Posted: 11/2/2008 11:53:26 PM
Here's an interesting item. Our company open enrollment for benefits is happening right now and this is the new policy:
"Benefits for domestic partners of opposite sex will no longer be available. Benefits for domestic partnerships of the same sex are unaffected." Can you imagine the news in the headlines if it were reversed?


The HR director at your company is an idiot. If I were the CEO, that person would be fired. If I had standing to sue your company over that, I would. And I do believe I'd win. Equal treatment under the law means ...

EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 457
Standards of Morality
Posted: 11/3/2008 12:08:25 AM
Some of you scoff at fears that allowing gays to marry will open the doors to brothers marrying sisters, Joseph marrying not just Sue but also Sue’s sisters, niece, and cousin, and Uncle Henry marrying his goat. But, if we don’t have impermeable boundaries, the line keeps getting moved. Because each time we cross the line, it gets easier to justify moving it a little bit


Every one of the examples you cite is excluded from being considered moral by the "no one injured" rule. In the case of abortion, what makes it difficult is the fact that harm can arise either way and it's hard to say which is worse. If an unwanted child's fate would be a life of neglect, abuse, misery, and despair, and we allow that to happen, we harm the child through negligence. If we abort the prengancy, we harm the child directly. Which harm is worse? I cannot say. And I won't play God by saying even if I thought I knew. The only person with a clear view of the facts in each case is the woman responsible for the decision. It is a very bad position to be in, for sure.

We've already disposed of incestuous marriages among adults, and informed consent rules out marriages to animals and minors (except for those goofy age of consent laws that let adults bamboozle young girls into getting married before they're old enough to understand what they're doing). Polyamorous marriages are still an open question in my mind, though if it complicates inheritance enough there might be a relevant reason, other than disgust, to limit marriage to couples.

I do not scoff at these fears. I have considered each one of them carefully, applied reason, and come to the conclusion that they are groundless. That is hardly the same thing as scoffing. And, I discuss my reasoning so that you all can correct me if it is flawed. So please have at it. If your arguments hold up, I'll change my view. If they don't, perhaps you should reconsider yours.

At the moment it is you who appears to be scoffing at the fundamental premise of human liberty and completely ignoring all consideration of the Golden Rule as the fundamental principle of morality--at least in this discussion so far.

Why?
 amusinglisa
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 467
Prop H8 is bigotry
Posted: 11/3/2008 8:20:04 AM

But the neighbors are trying to take the name of the castle they did not build. E


It's just a word for cryin out loud! Even a word like "mommy" means nothing if it is used for someone who has not raised, loved and nurtured a child.
Are you out of your collective minds?

Just

One

Single

case of harm to

ANY

marriage

family

or individual

that has resulted from any or all of the thousands of gay marriages that already exist.

Just

One

No?

THAT's right. NO.

and No on h8
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 468
That's ours...
Posted: 11/3/2008 8:31:00 AM
A rose is a rose by any other name. You just don't want "those" people living in your neighborhood. Why can't you simply admit it and be done with this nonsense?

You build a sand castle and on that basis want to claim ownerhsip of the entire beach.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way, and even if you could manipulate the law to give you what you think you want, it's still wrong, and dangerous--and somewhere inside you you know it.

That is why you cannot stand to have your views challenged. When they are, or when your motivations for clinging to them are questioned, you get defensive. If my position boiled down to bigotry, I wouldn't want to question it too much either. But there comes a day when we each have to grow up and face the ugliness inside ourselves, and K, today is your day.

I invite you to take my views apart. Give them your very best shot--not with sentimental analogies that you find comforting, but with cold, hard, logical reason, factual evidence, and a demonstration of exactly where it is that my compassion is lacking. Yes I'm fierce about this. Of course I am. Peoples' rights are at stake.

I can assure you that there is more to my position than a castle built on sand. Can you honestly say the same?

And please, don't cite tradition for me again. There are people alive right now who belive it is both traditional and moral to cut out the clitorises of their granddaughters without anaesthetic or sterile instruments. And such atrocities still occur every day. If you want to side with them when it comes to tradition vs. reason as the basis for moral behavior, God help you.

Z, you talk about a slippery slope. Well, the slope to degradation begins with the removal of individual rights, one by one, until young girls have no recourse against atrocities like that done in the name of religious tradition. I don't think that's a direction you want to go in, but if you don't want to wind up there you have to protect the rights of those disgusting queers. All of their rights.

Choose correctly tomorrow or wonder forever over the fate of your granddaughters. It wasn't some depraved Mullah who invented the Iron Maiden or pressed the witches in Salem. It was good Christian clergymen who did those things. If you want to give them that kind of power, which is exactly what this measure is about, God help you and your descendents.

Think it through. Carefully. That is all I ask. Then vote.
 amusinglisa
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 473
Prop H8 is bigotry
Posted: 11/3/2008 11:23:41 AM

But the neighbors are trying to take the name of the castle they did not build


If you are going to be upset that others build sand castles and have the audacity to call them "sand castles" why not go ahead and call yours a fishpaste instead?
Show ALL Forums  > California  >