So... Every time this has gone to a public vote it has lost?
Specifically, every time it's been pushed to a public vote, the National Organization for Marriage pulls out their 'if gay marriage is legalized, public schools will have to indoctrinate children into being gay (by, say, telling them that homosexuality exists and is not wrong)' canard, and... people fall for it.
The same thing happened in California.
In this case, the organization pushing the repeal, Stand For Marriage Maine, is primarily funded by the NOM*, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, and Focus on the Family.
What I really hate is how these anti-gay groups tend to just try to convince people that things on the ballot are about things that they aren't. As Ro pointed out, Ref. 71 in Washington was a big victim of this. Whenever I would leave the safe confines of Seattle to visit my family up north, I would see huge numbers of people opposing it lining the streets with signs decrying it. Sure, whatever, you can state your opinion, but most of the signs were specifically about keeping marriage between one man and one woman. Ref. 71 isn't about marriage you dipshits! It's about giving equal rights to all domestic partners, including your "pure" marriages. On the plus side, it does seem to be passing, so the conservative "reframing" bullshit doesn't seem to have worked.
What I really hate is how these anti-gay groups tend to just try to convince people that things on the ballot are about things that they aren't. As Ro pointed out, Ref. 71 in Washington was a big victim of this. Whenever I would leave the safe confines of Seattle to visit my family up north, I would see huge numbers of people opposing it lining the streets with signs decrying it. Sure, whatever, you can state your opinion, but most of the signs were specifically about keeping marriage between one man and one woman. Ref. 71 isn't about marriage you dipshits! It's about giving equal rights to all domestic partners, including your "pure" marriages. On the plus side, it does seem to be passing, so the conservative "reframing" bullshit doesn't seem to have worked.
Yeah, one of the things they claim to attempt placating us with is that very same "Separate but equal" bullshit that hasn't been constitutional since at least 50 years ago. But as illustrated by Washington, they don't even want us to have that much. The idiot voters may not know the real issue on the ballot, but the people who successfully put it there sure do.
The fact that they are allowed to get on the news and say that they are not bigots and they are not discriminatory is ridiculous. Their behavior fits the very definition.
All lies and bizarrely socially accepted euphemisms aside, the only true aim of those people is this - "I don't like what these people do, therefore they do not deserve the same civil rights that I do!" That's all there is to it.
I cannot express how completely and utterly wrong it seems to me to deny people equal rights based on unfounded fear and disapproval. I just can't understand how these people can't see what they are doing. I have no capacity to understand how they think same-sex marriage is going to hurt them in any way that hetero marriage wouldn't.
I cannot express how completely and utterly wrong it seems to me to deny people equal rights based on unfounded fear and disapproval. I just can't understand how these people can't see what they are doing. I have no capacity to understand how they think same-sex marriage is going to hurt them in any way that hetero marriage wouldn't.
They fear the unknown. It's pretty much that simple. They refuse to understand a viewpoint that is any different than their own. They're also generally very stupid.
I cannot express how completely and utterly wrong it seems to me to deny people equal rights based on unfounded fear and disapproval. I just can't understand how these people can't see what they are doing. I have no capacity to understand how they think same-sex marriage is going to hurt them in any way that hetero marriage wouldn't.
They fear the unknown. It's pretty much that simple. They refuse to understand a viewpoint that is any different than their own. They're also generally very stupid.
I understand that they fear the unknown. Abstractly, that is an understandable concept. Applied to this circumstance, it is not. There really isn't much "unknown" about letting same-sex couples get married. There are places it is allowed, and we have hard evidence that the world did not, in fact, end. The fact that they fear the unknown does absolutely nothing to explain the harm that same-sex marriage would do to them, or why they think it would be bad. Fear of the unknown is an abstract concept that hasn't been specifically applied to this situation in any understandable rhetoric.
I know they are stupid and fearful. What I'm saying is that I lack the capacity to make my brain functions parallel theirs, even theoretically, and therefore cannot understand how point A (stupidity and fear) leads to point B (gay marriage is the apocalypse!).
The fact that they fear the unknown does absolutely nothing to explain the harm that same-sex marriage would do to them, or why they think it would be bad.
They don't fundamentally understand why, because their method of "spiritual guidance" is anything but guidance. Rather, it stymies any efforts at personal spiritual growth and instead applies a template to which they must conform. It takes a lot of psychological conditioning to make it work, and you have to effectively destroy a person's ego and reshape it into something new.
I used to be that way, back in the day. I think I've told the story of my Christian days before. I bought it completely. I always had a side of rational inquiry and skeptical reasoning, but my religious education suppressed that. I learned, through humiliation, and consequently self-loathing, that asking too many questions was a bad thing, and that I was a bad person for wanting to know. My fragile young psyche, in order to protect itself and my physical body from harm, bought into it. Fear broke me and turned me into a good little Christian soldier.
The only thing that changed that was my home life. I was steeped in a home life of rational thought and inquiry, so my rational capacity never fully died. It was beaten and left in the closet, but my parents nurtured it when I was at home. After a long bout of suicidal depression and a nervous breakdown, the rational brain took over and said, "Alright, seriously, this is bullshit. Knock it off."
I know what it is to have your rational capacity nearly killed. Someone in an environment with no rational outlet, and who is constantly indoctrinated while at home, is doomed to have all rational capacity die completely.
They're afraid because questioning any part of the dogma that's been pounded into their heads is literally the same as attacking them physically. The brain has been molded to have rational inquiry become linked with any other threat to their survival. Their fragile psyche, beaten and broken by years of abuse, resorts to total submission in order to survive.
It's sick, but that's how it works. Maybe you have to have been through it to understand how it works, but my personal experience is one of the reasons that I still try to have rational discussions with fundamentalist Christians. I fervently hope that I can spark that little engine of rationality back to life.
Yeah, I grew up Lutheran, so I never had that. See, my church encouraged thought and reasoning...which may be why I have never really been religious, despite what I was taught in Sunday school. Took the principles, left the doctrine. The Bible was always emphasized much more as teaching material rather than absolute fact in my church, anyway.
So basically what you are saying is that I can't understand their argument because they HAVE no argument. All they have is subconscious fingers in their ears going "LALALALALA!"
@Pete My life has been pretty much the exact opposite. My home life was where all the indoctrination was throughout my whole life. I'm just thankful for the internet which allowed me to "leave home" without leaving home throughout my teen years and be exposed to logical thought processes and intellectual inquiry.
So basically what you are saying is that I can't understand their argument because they HAVE no argument. All they have is subconscious fingers in their ears going "LALALALALA!
Awesome analogy. I've gotta remember to use that when the Crazy Christians make their rounds at my college.
Yeah, I grew up Lutheran, so I never had that. See, my church encouraged thought and reasoning...which may be why I have never really been religious, despite what I was taught in Sunday school. Took the principles, left the doctrine. The Bible was always emphasized much more as teaching material rather than absolute fact in my church, anyway.
Same thing here. Methodist, plus an atheist mom coupled with a preacher's son dad.
Seriously? There is no argument these people can make that doesn't boil down to "I'm a Bigot!"
Yeah, I grew up Lutheran, so I never had that. See, my church encouraged thought and reasoning...which may be why I have never really been religious, despite what I was taught in Sunday school. Took the principles, left the doctrine. The Bible was always emphasized much more as teaching material rather than absolute fact in my church, anyway.
It depends on the family life, too. If your parents were generally rational individuals, and you weren't being really indoctrinated at home, you were probably going to turn out fine. You also have a giant family, so that can help to give a lot of different perspectives. If you also didn't receive a religious education, then you really were well-equipped to have your more than ample rational engine run you.
My life has been pretty much the exact opposite. My home life was where all the indoctrination was throughout my whole life. I'm just thankful for the internet which allowed me to "leave home" without leaving home throughout my teen years and be exposed to logical thought processes and intellectual inquiry.
A secular school life can help to break away from indoctrination at home, but yeah, the household indoctrination is really rough.
I should specify: I had a religious education throughout grade school. It was a Catholic school, and it was really the best school in the area. The combination of a religious educational environment and a somewhat emotionally fragile (for various reasons) young boy created the mental environment that I described. Basically, you take a person in their vulnerable, confused, and emotionally unstable phase of life (generally the 8 - 15 year old range) and subject them to indoctrination on all fronts; you immerse their entire social network (home and elsewhere) in the religious dogma. A person of generally average rational capacity is doomed. A person of extraordinary intellectual capacity is very likely doomed, unless they're receiving rational stimulation elsewhere, in which case they may actually break out of it. Even then, the odds aren't always the best, and it often takes a pretty major event of some sort to provide the necessary rational kick start.
My dad was a Methodist, and he was pretty much a deist. He called himself a "Taoist Methodist," which indicates a person who is actually spiritual. We had intellectual discussions all the time, and that is what essentially allowed me to actually be me. If it were just my mother and, say, some very Catholic man, I may very well have been a radically different person.
So basically what you are saying is that I can't understand their argument because they HAVE no argument.
Exactly. Many of these people literally lack the capacity for rational thought. It's gone. You might as well tell a paraplegic to walk.
Liberal Catholic home life + Jesuit high school + a complete unwillingness to back down from my opinions, supported by awesome parents = Somewhat lapsed Catholic beliefs, and an aggressively cynical stance against fundamentalists of all religions.
I ended a conversation with my parents on gay marriage with "Well your generation will be dead soon and then it's my turn" when my dad who is actually in favor of Civil Unions said that they couldn't have gay marriage because it was "wrong". We have to remove Marriage from secular government totally. It's a loaded term that some people who are in favor of giving gay people the same rights still get hung up on.
Yeah, I grew up Lutheran, so I never had that. See, my church encouraged thought and reasoning...which may be why I have never really been religious, despite what I was taught in Sunday school. Took the principles, left the doctrine. The Bible was always emphasized much more as teaching material rather than absolute fact in my church, anyway.
It depends on the family life, too. If your parents were generally rational individuals, and you weren't being really indoctrinated at home, you were probably going to turn out fine. You also have a giant family, so that can help to give a lot of different perspectives. If you also didn't receive a religious education, then you really were well-equipped to have your more than ample rational engine run you.
Yeah...having 2 parents with PhD's and 2 parents with MD's might have helped just a tad. Pretty much everybody in my family, immediate and extended, is highly intelligent. Some of them (like my Dad) are douches, but still intelligent. I actually had the opposite problem that many people here complain about: I would ask who they were voting for, and they would jump all over me, asserting that I needed to think for myself and make my own conclusions. I mean yeesh...I was just asking!
My mom has gone through 4 or 5 different "religions" since I left home. Lutheran, Methodist, Episcopalian, Buddhist...maybe some others in there somewhere.
If only all children had ONLY the problems I had to deal with while growing up, the world would be a much better place.
We have to remove Marriage from secular government totally.
Yes, remove it completely. It should all be contracts between parties. I see no compelling reason to treat "marriage" differently than any other contract.
EDIT: Man, I love a good misanthropic day. Gets the blood flowing, y'know?
I can't think of a single example of contract law that requires the parties involved to be different in some respect except marriage.
Exactly how many examples of "contract law" can you "think of"? Please enlighten us with your hard-won, profound, legal scholarship.
How would you suggest I prove a negative?
It's not proving a negative Steve. You said that you considered several "examples of contract law". What examples did you consider? It's a totally fair question. List the "examples" or admit that you are once again shit-talking about stuff you don't know about.
I can't think of a single example of contract law that requires the parties involved to be different in some respect except marriage.
Exactly how many examples of "contract law" can you "think of"? Please enlighten us with your hard-won, profound, legal scholarship.
How would you suggest I prove a negative?
It's not proving a negative Steve. You said that you considered several "examples of contract law". What examples did you consider?
Me thinks you have some trouble there. I did not say what you think I said.
Do you have some examples of contract law that are similar to marriage in that the two parties must belong to different genders? Is there some other form of contract where two members of the same gender can not enter into said contract?
Me thinks you have some trouble there. I did not say what you think I said.
Do you have some examples of contract law that are similar to marriage in that the two parties must belong to different genders? Is there some other form of contract where two members of the same gender can not enter into said contract?
Read what you wrote again. You wrote, "I can't think of a single example of contract law that requires the parties involved to be different in some respect except marriage." The question, "What examples did you consider?" is a totally fair one. Either list the examples or admit you were shit-talking.
You were the one who made the statement. You have the burden of proof.
Honestly Joe, you are just picking a fight here where one did not need to be picked. Down boy.
It just pisses me off when he makes a pompous statement such as that when everyone knows that he doesn't have a snowball's chance of backing it up.
It also pisses me off that the construction of the statement shows that he doesn't understand what he's talking about. Marriage might have some quasi-contract principles, but it is not a part of "contract law". I guess it's just a hang-up of mine that, if you obviously know nothing about a subject, it makes sense to not weigh in on it.
I would expect people to get pissed off if I started writing a bunch of stupid statements and crazy criticisms of the internal architecture of the Palm Pre. I don't know the first thing about it. I know it and everyone else knows it. SO - I don't go around making stupid statements and crazy criticisms about it.
Honestly Joe, you are just picking a fight here where one did not need to be picked. Down boy.
It just pisses me off when he makes a pompous statement such as that when everyone knows that he doesn't have a snowball's chance of backing it up.
Then prove me wrong by citing an example.
This is no different than if I had stated, "I didn't see any red cars with black interior today," and you responded with, "how many cars did you see?" I can't prove a negative Joe (but you can prove a positive).
Besides, there was nothing pompous in my statement. I made no claim to having an encyclopedic knowledge of contract law. I made no claim at all as to how much or little I know about contracts. I merely stated that *I* know of no examples of contract law that prohibit persons from signing a contract simply because they are of the same gender.
I agree with Joe, although I restrained myself from responding. Technically, the statement "I cannot think of" does not mean he actually knows of any other examples of contract law. It simply implies that he does. It would be pretty cool if we could use that comment to initiate an actual discussion though...
Can any of us come up with examples of parties that are not allowed to form a certain type of contract with each other based upon some physical characteristic (as opposed to a legitimate lack of capacity to enter into one)?
Honestly Joe, you are just picking a fight here where one did not need to be picked. Down boy.
It just pisses me off when he makes a pompous statement such as that when everyone knows that he doesn't have a snowball's chance of backing it up.
Then prove me wrong by citing an example.
It's not my burden to prove you wrong. You made the statement. You have the burden. It's not proving a negative. All you have to do is list for us the "examples of contract law" you considered and how they are related to marriage.
I merely stated that *I* know of no examples of contract law that prohibit persons from signing a contract simply because they are of the same gender.
I know of no reason why the Palm Pre should not be able to teleport me back into time. That's because I don't know anything about the Palm Pre. You can't think of "examples of contract law that prohibit persons from signing a contract simply because they are of the same gender" because you don't know anything about "contract law".
Joe, all he said is that he couldn't think of any other examples. He never said there weren't any, and he never said he considered any. It wasn't a statement of fact that anyone has to prove. It was simply a comment on his speculation, however lacking that analysis might have been. You might as well ask him to prove that he thinks he likes pie.
Comments
The same thing happened in California.
In this case, the organization pushing the repeal, Stand For Marriage Maine, is primarily funded by the NOM*, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, and Focus on the Family.
Maine Campaign Finance records for StandForMarriageMaine.com - Sort by amount for best effect.
* It's unfortunate that a delightful little onomatopoeia for chowing down is the same as the acronym for these theocratic <epithet>s.
The fact that they are allowed to get on the news and say that they are not bigots and they are not discriminatory is ridiculous. Their behavior fits the very definition.
All lies and bizarrely socially accepted euphemisms aside, the only true aim of those people is this - "I don't like what these people do, therefore they do not deserve the same civil rights that I do!" That's all there is to it.
I know they are stupid and fearful. What I'm saying is that I lack the capacity to make my brain functions parallel theirs, even theoretically, and therefore cannot understand how point A (stupidity and fear) leads to point B (gay marriage is the apocalypse!).
I used to be that way, back in the day. I think I've told the story of my Christian days before. I bought it completely. I always had a side of rational inquiry and skeptical reasoning, but my religious education suppressed that. I learned, through humiliation, and consequently self-loathing, that asking too many questions was a bad thing, and that I was a bad person for wanting to know. My fragile young psyche, in order to protect itself and my physical body from harm, bought into it. Fear broke me and turned me into a good little Christian soldier.
The only thing that changed that was my home life. I was steeped in a home life of rational thought and inquiry, so my rational capacity never fully died. It was beaten and left in the closet, but my parents nurtured it when I was at home. After a long bout of suicidal depression and a nervous breakdown, the rational brain took over and said, "Alright, seriously, this is bullshit. Knock it off."
I know what it is to have your rational capacity nearly killed. Someone in an environment with no rational outlet, and who is constantly indoctrinated while at home, is doomed to have all rational capacity die completely.
They're afraid because questioning any part of the dogma that's been pounded into their heads is literally the same as attacking them physically. The brain has been molded to have rational inquiry become linked with any other threat to their survival. Their fragile psyche, beaten and broken by years of abuse, resorts to total submission in order to survive.
It's sick, but that's how it works. Maybe you have to have been through it to understand how it works, but my personal experience is one of the reasons that I still try to have rational discussions with fundamentalist Christians. I fervently hope that I can spark that little engine of rationality back to life.
So basically what you are saying is that I can't understand their argument because they HAVE no argument. All they have is subconscious fingers in their ears going "LALALALALA!"
My life has been pretty much the exact opposite. My home life was where all the indoctrination was throughout my whole life. I'm just thankful for the internet which allowed me to "leave home" without leaving home throughout my teen years and be exposed to logical thought processes and intellectual inquiry. Awesome analogy. I've gotta remember to use that when the Crazy Christians make their rounds at my college.
Seriously? There is no argument these people can make that doesn't boil down to "I'm a Bigot!"
I should specify: I had a religious education throughout grade school. It was a Catholic school, and it was really the best school in the area. The combination of a religious educational environment and a somewhat emotionally fragile (for various reasons) young boy created the mental environment that I described. Basically, you take a person in their vulnerable, confused, and emotionally unstable phase of life (generally the 8 - 15 year old range) and subject them to indoctrination on all fronts; you immerse their entire social network (home and elsewhere) in the religious dogma. A person of generally average rational capacity is doomed. A person of extraordinary intellectual capacity is very likely doomed, unless they're receiving rational stimulation elsewhere, in which case they may actually break out of it. Even then, the odds aren't always the best, and it often takes a pretty major event of some sort to provide the necessary rational kick start.
My dad was a Methodist, and he was pretty much a deist. He called himself a "Taoist Methodist," which indicates a person who is actually spiritual. We had intellectual discussions all the time, and that is what essentially allowed me to actually be me. If it were just my mother and, say, some very Catholic man, I may very well have been a radically different person. Exactly. Many of these people literally lack the capacity for rational thought. It's gone. You might as well tell a paraplegic to walk.
My mom has gone through 4 or 5 different "religions" since I left home. Lutheran, Methodist, Episcopalian, Buddhist...maybe some others in there somewhere.
If only all children had ONLY the problems I had to deal with while growing up, the world would be a much better place.
EDIT: Man, I love a good misanthropic day.
Do you have some examples of contract law that are similar to marriage in that the two parties must belong to different genders? Is there some other form of contract where two members of the same gender can not enter into said contract?
You were the one who made the statement. You have the burden of proof.
It also pisses me off that the construction of the statement shows that he doesn't understand what he's talking about. Marriage might have some quasi-contract principles, but it is not a part of "contract law". I guess it's just a hang-up of mine that, if you obviously know nothing about a subject, it makes sense to not weigh in on it.
I would expect people to get pissed off if I started writing a bunch of stupid statements and crazy criticisms of the internal architecture of the Palm Pre. I don't know the first thing about it. I know it and everyone else knows it. SO - I don't go around making stupid statements and crazy criticisms about it.
This is no different than if I had stated, "I didn't see any red cars with black interior today," and you responded with, "how many cars did you see?" I can't prove a negative Joe (but you can prove a positive).
Besides, there was nothing pompous in my statement. I made no claim to having an encyclopedic knowledge of contract law. I made no claim at all as to how much or little I know about contracts. I merely stated that *I* know of no examples of contract law that prohibit persons from signing a contract simply because they are of the same gender.
I don't know why this statement irks you so much.
Can any of us come up with examples of parties that are not allowed to form a certain type of contract with each other based upon some physical characteristic (as opposed to a legitimate lack of capacity to enter into one)?