7 ms·

The percentage of sociopathy does not match the percentage of homophobes opposed to marriage equality, a number which has changed a lot in living memory.

by rmc 11y ago

LordKano 11y ago
Virtually no one was opposed to marriage equality. Many people were and are opposed to the judicial redefinition of marriage.
- coldpie 11y ago
  Uh, no, don't try to rewrite history. The attacks were directed at gay people. Quoting this article: Early on, Prop 8’s supporters decided to focus their campaign primarily on children, stoking parents’ fears about gay people brainwashing their kids with pro-gay messages or, implicitly, turning their children gay. Another notorious commercial shows an earnest school administrator fretting that a “new health curriculum” that mentions gay marriage will “mess up” children with reference to “gay attraction.” This message of belittlement cut across pretty much every pro-Prop 8 ad—ads that ran incessantly in the state for months. The campaign’s strategy was to debase gay families as deviant and unhealthy while insinuating that gay people are engaged in a full-scale campaign to convert children to their cause. http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/04/brendan_eich_supported_prop_8_which_was_worse_than_you_remember.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/04/brendan_eich_s...
  - LordKano 11y ago
    I'm rewriting nothing. I have no dog in this fight. I'm not in California. I'm not gay. I'm not currently married. I am reminding people of a recently unpopular truth. Prop 8 only happened because of judicial activism on the issue. Notice that in states where the voters legalized same sex "marriage", there was no similar backlash.
    - vectorpush 11y ago
      > judicial activism That's disingenuous bullshit. The spirit of the constitution protects individual rights, and there is no constitutional reason why an arbitrary religious definition of marriage should be respected over the rights of individuals. It's not activism to say that discrimination based on sexual orientation is unconstitutional. Any feelings you have about the definition of marriage based on culture, tradition, or god's divine law are irreverent to the legal institution of marriage established by our secular government.
      - LordKano 11y ago
        The spirit of the constitution protects individual rights Do you support polygamous marriage? It's not activism to say that discrimination based on sexual orientation is unconstitutional. It's not bigotry to say that marriage is a societal institution and society can define it. Any feelings you have about the definition of marriage based on culture, tradition, or god's divine law are irreverent to the legal institution of marriage established by our secular government. You're projecting. I have no feelings about what the definition of marriage should be. I have feelings about who should decide such definitions. Furthermore, if you would like to take a few minutes to review my comment history to see if I have ever used "God" or religion as the basis for any argument, I'll wait. You're attempting to setup strawmen against which you can argue. Like I pointed out earlier. In states where marriage was redefined legislatively, there was nothing like Proposition 8. Haven't you wondered why that is?
        vectorpush 11y ago
        > Do you support polygamous marriage? Two different things. Polygamy is prohibited based on the total number of individuals, gay marriage prohibition is based on the identity of the individuals; it's a critical distinction as far as the protection of individual rights are concerned. When you prohibit gay marriage you're saying "these types of people cannot be married" you must evaluate their individual identity to enforce the prohibition, when you're prohibiting polygamy you're saying "a marriage cannot exceed two individuals" where specific qualities of the individuals have no bearing on the application of the prohibition. >It's not bigotry to say that marriage is a societal institution and society can define it. No it's not, so lets just dispense with that strawman. What is said of marriage is irrelevant; bigotry is denying people the legal right to be married because of their sexual orientation. Period. > You're projecting. I have no feelings about what the definition of marriage should be... Furthermore, if you would like to take a few minutes to review my comment history to see if I have ever used "God" or religion as the basis for any argument, I'll wait. You're attempting to setup strawmen against which you can argue. Wrong. I am not projecting or setting up a strawman, I am heading off common arguments in advance of their appearance in the discussion, that is why I said "culture", "tradition" OR "god's divine word". > I have feelings about who should decide such definitions.... Like I pointed out earlier. In states where marriage was redefined legislatively, there was nothing like Proposition 8. Haven't you wondered why that is? It is the prerogative of the courts to weigh in on the constitutionality of the law. It doesn't matter if society wants to prevent gay people from being married, the constitution is pretty clear about protecting the rights of individuals from the government as well as from the tyranny of the majority.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  > Virtually no one was opposed to marriage equality. On the other hand, observed reality.
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
    In particular, to say that opponents of gay marriage were just getting fussy about judicial definitions is to say that the civil war was about states rights.

The percentage of sociopathy does not match the percentage of homophobes opposed to marriage equality, a number which has changed a lot in living memory.

by rmc 11y ago

The percentage of sociopathy does not match the percentage of homophobes opposed to marriage equality, a number which has changed a lot in living memory.

LordKano 11y ago

Virtually no one was opposed to marriage equality. Many people were and are opposed to the judicial redefinition of marriage.

coldpie 11y ago
Uh, no, don't try to rewrite history. The attacks were directed at gay people. Quoting this article: Early on, Prop 8’s supporters decided to focus their campaign primarily on children, stoking parents’ fears about gay people brainwashing their kids with pro-gay messages or, implicitly, turning their children gay. Another notorious commercial shows an earnest school administrator fretting that a “new health curriculum” that mentions gay marriage will “mess up” children with reference to “gay attraction.” This message of belittlement cut across pretty much every pro-Prop 8 ad—ads that ran incessantly in the state for months. The campaign’s strategy was to debase gay families as deviant and unhealthy while insinuating that gay people are engaged in a full-scale campaign to convert children to their cause. http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/04/brendan_eich_supported_prop_8_which_was_worse_than_you_remember.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/04/brendan_eich_s...
- LordKano 11y ago
  I'm rewriting nothing. I have no dog in this fight. I'm not in California. I'm not gay. I'm not currently married. I am reminding people of a recently unpopular truth. Prop 8 only happened because of judicial activism on the issue. Notice that in states where the voters legalized same sex "marriage", there was no similar backlash.
  - vectorpush 11y ago
    > judicial activism That's disingenuous bullshit. The spirit of the constitution protects individual rights, and there is no constitutional reason why an arbitrary religious definition of marriage should be respected over the rights of individuals. It's not activism to say that discrimination based on sexual orientation is unconstitutional. Any feelings you have about the definition of marriage based on culture, tradition, or god's divine law are irreverent to the legal institution of marriage established by our secular government.
    - LordKano 11y ago
      The spirit of the constitution protects individual rights Do you support polygamous marriage? It's not activism to say that discrimination based on sexual orientation is unconstitutional. It's not bigotry to say that marriage is a societal institution and society can define it. Any feelings you have about the definition of marriage based on culture, tradition, or god's divine law are irreverent to the legal institution of marriage established by our secular government. You're projecting. I have no feelings about what the definition of marriage should be. I have feelings about who should decide such definitions. Furthermore, if you would like to take a few minutes to review my comment history to see if I have ever used "God" or religion as the basis for any argument, I'll wait. You're attempting to setup strawmen against which you can argue. Like I pointed out earlier. In states where marriage was redefined legislatively, there was nothing like Proposition 8. Haven't you wondered why that is?
      - vectorpush 11y ago
        > Do you support polygamous marriage? Two different things. Polygamy is prohibited based on the total number of individuals, gay marriage prohibition is based on the identity of the individuals; it's a critical distinction as far as the protection of individual rights are concerned. When you prohibit gay marriage you're saying "these types of people cannot be married" you must evaluate their individual identity to enforce the prohibition, when you're prohibiting polygamy you're saying "a marriage cannot exceed two individuals" where specific qualities of the individuals have no bearing on the application of the prohibition. >It's not bigotry to say that marriage is a societal institution and society can define it. No it's not, so lets just dispense with that strawman. What is said of marriage is irrelevant; bigotry is denying people the legal right to be married because of their sexual orientation. Period. > You're projecting. I have no feelings about what the definition of marriage should be... Furthermore, if you would like to take a few minutes to review my comment history to see if I have ever used "God" or religion as the basis for any argument, I'll wait. You're attempting to setup strawmen against which you can argue. Wrong. I am not projecting or setting up a strawman, I am heading off common arguments in advance of their appearance in the discussion, that is why I said "culture", "tradition" OR "god's divine word". > I have feelings about who should decide such definitions.... Like I pointed out earlier. In states where marriage was redefined legislatively, there was nothing like Proposition 8. Haven't you wondered why that is? It is the prerogative of the courts to weigh in on the constitutionality of the law. It doesn't matter if society wants to prevent gay people from being married, the constitution is pretty clear about protecting the rights of individuals from the government as well as from the tyranny of the majority.
GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
> Virtually no one was opposed to marriage equality. On the other hand, observed reality.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  In particular, to say that opponents of gay marriage were just getting fussy about judicial definitions is to say that the civil war was about states rights.