Protect Marriage, Protect Children, Prohibit Divorce

Because everyone knows that even the most abusive relationship is better than a single/divorced parent home.

I gotta admit, the video was pretty good. Take that, bigotry!

~HotShotX
 
Oh gay marriage rightists, if logic worked on social conservatives they wouldn't be social conservatives anymore.
 
I've been saying this for years. Sarcastically, of course.

By the way, here's one way you *don't* try to get a political point across: don't ever tell your conservative, divorced, hates-your-father-with-the-fire-of-a-thousand-hells-even-though-they-haven't-spoken-in-nearly-two-decades mother that marriage is no longer a sacred institution, partly due to the fact that she and your father did such a bang-up job fuckin' it up.

Just sayin'.

Also, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rz7qmdRaXA (starting 3-4 minutes in)
 
I totally fuckin agree with this.
Seriously.

There needs to be a "this or that" in the polls.
"Allow Gay Marriage"
"Ban Divorce"

That would be the best poll ever. (Not a CAG poll, but a real one)
 
[quote name='BigT']The government should just stay out of marriage... problem solved![/quote]

But if it's going to be in it, it should get way the fuck up in it and discriminate against certain people doing it, amirite?!
 
[quote name='BigT']The government should just stay out of marriage... problem solved![/QUOTE]

Whaaat?! But we MUST protect it!!!

I really want someone who agreed with Prop 8 and disagrees with what's said in the video the respond to this. I would love to hear your answer. Oh God. I would love it.
 
[quote name='lilboo']Whaaat?! But we MUST protect it!!!

I really want someone who agreed with Prop 8 and disagrees with what's said in the video the respond to this. I would love to hear your answer. Oh God. I would love it.[/quote]

Therein lies the problem though - people who support prop. 8 are not rational, logical people.

Bringing up facts to them is like mentioning that the vast majority of the population does not support the Iraq war to Dick Cheney.
 
The government has no choice but to be involved in marriage when things like taxes or property are going to be involved. They have to recognize your status in order to give you whatever the benefits are.

Now if there were no benefits and the ceremony was made meaningless, then I guess they could not be involved.

I would be for a wholesale destruction of marriage.
 
[quote name='BigT']The government should just stay out of marriage... problem solved![/QUOTE]

You're one of those people who are scared of the government "redefining marriage," aren't you?

Allow me to introduce you to two people who couldn't be legally married through more of America's history than they legally have been allowed to:

obamas.jpg


damned liberals trying to redefine marriage!
 
[quote name='lilboo']Whaaat?! But we MUST protect it!!!

I really want someone who agreed with Prop 8 and disagrees with what's said in the video the respond to this. I would love to hear your answer. Oh God. I would love it.[/QUOTE]

I'll bite.

People are going to do what they want to do. Whether you permit marriage or allow divorce, really won't change people's behavior and choices at all.

Gay people live together for years, or till death. They don't need a marriage certificate in order to allow that.

Married people separate indefinitely all the time. The law telling them they can't would be as inefective as a law saying you have to be good parents.

The video illustrates the absurdity of both arguments, and itself, pretty well. It helps summarize just what a spaghetti bowl fuckaroo it continues to create whenever you want government to be involved in almost anything.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You're one of those people who are scared of the government "redefining marriage," aren't you?

Allow me to introduce you to two people who couldn't be legally married through more of America's history than they legally have been allowed to:

obamas.jpg


damned liberals trying to redefine marriage![/quote]

No, I've always maintained that black people are largely against gay marriage! ;) It's the whites and asians who support it.
 
[quote name='BigT']No, I've always maintained that black people are largely against gay marriage! ;) It's the whites and asians who support it.[/QUOTE]

Which makes it pretty funny that all the lefties are rabidly attacking the religious for the passing of Prop 8. Statistically, the one group that helped it's passing more than any other is Blacks.

But you won't see any lefties or gay activists touch that uncomfortable fact with a ten-foot pole. And besides, they are already so comfortable and have so much experience hating and persecuting religions, why change things up?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Which makes it pretty funny that all the lefties are rabidly attacking the religious for the passing of Prop 8. Statistically, the one group that helped it's passing more than any other is Blacks.

But you won't see any lefties or gay activists touch that uncomfortable fact with a ten-foot pole. And besides, they are already so comfortable and have so much experience hating and persecuting religions, why change things up?[/quote]

Black people aren't religious: check.

Sounds about right though, along with BigT's argument that if black people are against it then it isn't a civil rights issue.
 
[quote name='BigT']No, I've always maintained that black people are largely against gay marriage! ;) It's the whites and asians who support it.[/QUOTE]

Immaterial. You overlooked my point that, in order to those two folks, or any two black folks, or any one white person and one black person to be legally married, the government had to "redefine marriage."

So it's folly to act as if marriage has been a constant, unwavering concept throughout history. Because it hasn't.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You're one of those people who are scared of the government "redefining marriage," aren't you?

Allow me to introduce you to two people who couldn't be legally married through more of America's history than they legally have been allowed to:


damned liberals trying to redefine marriage![/quote]

The civil rights comparison seems to be the rebuttal the pro-gay marriage crowd seems to refer to the most during a debate, and I know for a fact it's not an apt argument, I just have a hard time organizing my thoughts as to why in an understandable manner. I'm going to get back to you guys on this.
 
[quote name='spmahn']The civil rights comparison seems to be the rebuttal the pro-gay marriage crowd seems to refer to the most during a debate, and I know for a fact it's not an apt argument, I just have a hard time organizing my thoughts as to why in an understandable manner. I'm going to get back to you guys on this.[/QUOTE]

The factuality of your fact is suspect, since you're claim it's a fact, but can't articulate it.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Immaterial. You overlooked my point that, in order to those two folks, or any two black folks, or any one white person and one black person to be legally married, the government had to "redefine marriage."

So it's folly to act as if marriage has been a constant, unwavering concept throughout history. Because it hasn't.[/quote]

1. That was somewhat of a tounge-in-cheek comment...

2. You perseverate on the omnipotence of the government to legitimize things. As far as I'm concerned and as far as Church teaching goes, 2 people marry themselves... they enter into a union under God and are not married by the Church nor by the government. Whether the government recognizes it or not is irrelevant... and frankly I don't care. They could ban heterosexual marriage and it would not make a difference for me in my heart or mind.
 
[quote name='lilboo']BRBZ GOTTA GO CHECKZ ME BIBLE LOL LOL LOL

:roll:[/quote]

Screw you, I'm sick and tired of your constant attacks against people on this board, and your outrageous statements that offend even more.

The gay rights movement relies on the civil rights comparison to appeal to emotions, without that comparison it wouldn't have two legs to stand on.

If you want to bring personal opinions into the equation, the two concepts draw even further apart. Clearly people don't choose to be black, and should not be denied privileges due to the color of their skin. Do homosexuals choose their orientation? I don't have an answer to that, and I don't think anyone is ever going to know and be 100% certain about it, but regardless it's certainly not an issue as clear as race.
 
[quote name='spmahn'] Clearly people don't choose to be black, and should not be denied privileges due to the color of their skin. Do homosexuals choose their orientation? I don't have an answer to that, and I don't think anyone is ever going to know and be 100% certain about it, but regardless it's certainly not an issue as clear as race.[/QUOTE]


::raises hand::

OHHH!! I know the answer!!
:whee:
:whee:
:whee:

The answer is
No. Homosexuals do NOT choose to be gay
:shock::shock::shock::shock::shock:

Source: Myself. I didn't wake up and choose this.
 
[quote name='lilboo']::raises hand::

OHHH!! I know the answer!!
:whee:
:whee:
:whee:

The answer is
No. Homosexuals do NOT choose to be gay
:shock::shock::shock::shock::shock:

Source: Myself. I didn't wake up and choose this.[/quote]
Where's Mykevermin claiming that this is anecdotal evidence and asking for citations to prove your assertion?
 
:lol:

I thought this was an interesting article:

I am a perfect example of why the fight against Proposition 8, which amends California's Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, failed to win black support.




I am black. I am a political activist who cares deeply about social justice issues. I am a lesbian. This year, I canvassed the streets of South Los Angeles and Compton, knocking on doors, talking politics to passers-by and working as I never had before to ensure a large voter turnout among African Americans. But even I wasn't inspired to encourage black people to vote against the proposition.
Why? Because I don't see why the right to marry should be a priority for me or other black people. Gay marriage? Please. At a time when blacks are still more likely than whites to be pulled over for no reason, more likely to be unemployed than whites, more likely to live at or below the poverty line, I was too busy trying to get black people registered to vote, period; I wasn't about to focus my attention on what couldn't help but feel like a secondary issue.
The first problem with Prop. 8 was the issue of marriage itself. The white gay community never successfully communicated to blacks why it should matter to us above everything else - not just to me as a lesbian but to blacks generally. The way I see it, the white gay community is banging its head against the glass ceiling of a room called equality, believing that a breakthrough on marriage will bestow on it parity with heterosexuals. But the right to marry does nothing to address the problems faced by both black gays and black straights. Does someone who is homeless or suffering from HIV but has no health care, or newly out of prison and unemployed, really benefit from the right to marry someone of the same sex?
Maybe white gays could afford to be singularly focused, raising millions of dollars to fight for the luxury of same-sex marriage. But blacks were walking the streets of the projects and reaching out to small businesses, gang members, convicted felons and the spectrum of an entire community to ensure that we all were able to vote.
Second is the issue of civil rights. White gays often wonder aloud why blacks, of all people, won't support their civil rights. There is a real misunderstanding by the white gay community about the term. Proponents of gay marriage fling it around as if it is a one-size-fits-all catchphrase for issues of fairness.
But the black civil rights movement was essentially born out of and driven by the black church; social justice and religion are inextricably intertwined in the black community. To many blacks, civil rights are grounded in Christianity - not something separate and apart from religion but synonymous with it. To the extent that the issue of gay marriage seemed to be pitted against the church, it was going to be a losing battle in my community.
Then there was the poorly conceived campaign strategy. Opponents of Prop. 8 relied on an outdated civil-rights model, engaging the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People to help win black support on the issue of gay marriage. This happened despite the warnings of black lesbians and gays that it wouldn't work. While the NAACP definitely should have been included in the strategy, it shouldn't have been the only group. Putting nearly a quarter of a million dollars into an outdated civil-rights group that has very little influence on the black vote - at least when it comes to gay issues - will never work.
Likewise, holding the occasional town-hall meeting in Leimert Park - the one part of the black community where they now feel safe, thanks to gentrification - to tell black people how to vote on something gay isn't effective outreach either.
There's nothing a white gay person can tell me when it comes to how I, as a black lesbian, should talk to my community about this issue. If and when I choose to, I know how to say what needs to be said. Many black gays just haven't been convinced that this movement for marriage is about anything more than the white gays who fund it (and who, we often find, are just as racist and clueless when it comes to blacks as they claim blacks are homophobic).
Some people seem to think that homophobia trumps racism, and that winning the battle for gay marriage will symbolically bring about equality for everyone. That may seem true to white gays, but as a black lesbian, let me tell you: There are still too many inequalities that exist as it relates to my race for that to ever be the case. Ever heard of "driving while black"? Ever looked at the difference between the dropout rates for blacks and for whites? Or test scores? Or wages? Or rates of incarceration?
And in the end, black voters in California voted against gay marriage by more than 2 to 1.
Maybe next time around - because we all know this isn't over - the gay community can demonstrate the capacity and willingness to change that America demonstrated when it went to the polls on Nov. 4. Black gays are depending on their white counterparts to finally "get it."
Until then, don't expect to make any inroads any time soon in the black community on this issue - including with this black lesbian.
Click to expand...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/11/ED33141MLU.DTL
 
[quote name='SpazX']Black people aren't religious: check.

[/QUOTE]

Unless you are going to argue that black people, as a group, are not a political force, then that's immaterial.
 
Short version of her op-ed: inequality still exists, so we felt like extending the courtesy to you.

An accurate, if self-centered and childish, argument.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Unless you are going to argue that black people, as a group, are not a political force, then that's immaterial.[/quote]

I don't understand your point. You said that people blame the religious for passing prop 8 rather than black people. Black people are no less religious that other groups (probably more religious, if anything, due to the cultural importance that religion has to them due to slavery, civil rights, etc.) and more than likely voted yes on prop 8 because of their religion.

Do you think then that they should blame black people as a group rather than the conservatively religious as a group, despite the fact that the reason why black people voted for prop 8 is because they are a subset of the that conservative religious group? Perhaps they should blame it on black people because they make up a smaller percentage of the vote than other groups?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Short version of her op-ed: inequality still exists, so we felt like extending the courtesy to you.

An accurate, if self-centered and childish, argument.[/quote]

Thats what I got out of it too. It still sucks for us too, so deal with it.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Short version of her op-ed: inequality still exists, so we felt like extending the courtesy to you.

An accurate, if self-centered and childish, argument.[/quote]

It's not surprising.

When society bundles fundamental rights with exclusive benefits for a specific group (I believe the term in this case is "affirmative action"), it is natural for that group to see their new rights/benefits package as something earned (a trade if you will, payment for the work of protesting). If we did away with this system of entitlements, and simply granted equal rights to all, then people would start to understand that these rights are not to be earned but rather demanded - that it's an issue of the highest legal and moral imperative rather then a societal business transaction.

This woman is just saying that the homosexuals haven't earned their rights. She doesn't even see that homosexuals, as much as the racially discriminated groups before them, fundamentally deserved these rights all along - that there is no "earning" to be done here, that the only acceptable course of action is an immediate redress of the wrong America is currently doing.
 
[quote name='BigT']No, I've always maintained that black people are largely against gay marriage! ;) It's the whites and asians who support it.[/quote]

The problem is that sometimes my people can't see past themselves and their own issues. Sometimes if it isn't a black issue they just don't care. Not all of us, but enough to where it prevents us as a whole from helping other groups that need support. It's a shame.
 
[quote name='camoor']It's not surprising.

When society bundles fundamental rights with exclusive benefits for a specific group (I believe the term in this case is "affirmative action"), it is natural for that group to see their new rights/benefits package as something earned (a trade if you will, payment for the work of protesting). If we did away with this system of entitlements, and simply granted equal rights to all, then people would start to understand that these rights are not to be earned but rather demanded - that it's an issue of the highest legal and moral imperative rather then a societal business transaction.

This woman is just saying that the homosexuals haven't earned their rights. She doesn't even see that homosexuals, as much as the racially discriminated groups before them, fundamentally deserved these rights all along - that there is no "earning" to be done here, that the only acceptable course of action is an immediate redress of the wrong America is currently doing.[/QUOTE]

No, that makes sense. There's a certain degree of "no, you *really* gotta suffer in order to earn it" for social progress. Civil rights for blacks are due, in part, to the efforts of King, X, and many, many others, but also due, surely, in part to the legacy of suffering. So, while childish still IMO, the "you gotta EARN it" does have some latent social function to it. I don't agree that homosexuals haven't suffered, and I hope that the legacy of black oppression throughout US history is not the measuring stick by which we must establish the threshold to be crossed in order for a movement to be valid. Yikes.

Still, this doesn't explain women's suffrage all that well.

[quote name='GuilewasNK']The problem is that sometimes my people can't see past themselves and their own issues. Sometimes if it isn't a black issue they just don't care. Not all of us, but enough to where it prevents us as a whole from helping other groups that need support. It's a shame.[/QUOTE]

I disagree: I would take "don't care" to turn into a split voting pattern, and not a larger-than-two-thirds-of-CA-blacks voting to ban gay marriage voting pattern. I still see what you're saying, to a degree.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I disagree: I would take "don't care" to turn into a split voting pattern, and not a larger-than-two-thirds-of-CA-blacks voting to ban gay marriage voting pattern. I still see what you're saying, to a degree.[/quote]


Yeah, I don't mean to make it sound like that is exclusive to blacks. Any social group tends to be more focused on the issues that affect their group. It's just that listening to people I know locally (the majority being black) tends to amplify it.
 
I would be FOR Prop 8 AND I would be FOR a ban on Divorce.

I have been a happily married man for 8 years. I know what divorce can do to a family because my parents divorced when I was 5.
 
[quote name='DAWG26']I would be FOR Prop 8 AND I would be FOR a ban on Divorce.

I have been a happily married man for 8 years. I know what divorce can do to a family because my parents divorced when I was 5.[/quote]

A divorce is much better than an unhappy marriage with a child.
 
[quote name='SpazX']A divorce is much better than an unhappy marriage with a child.[/quote]

That's not what most psychologists will tell you. A broken family is far more damaging to a child than one with two people who don't particularly care for each other. Obviously in cases of abuse you need to get away, but if it's simply a case of just not getting along, it's always best to try and make things work together whatever way you can for the sake of the child.
 
[quote name='SpazX']
Do you think then that they should blame black people as a group rather than the conservatively religious as a group, despite the fact that the reason why black people voted for prop 8 is because they are a subset of the that conservative religious group? Perhaps they should blame it on black people because they make up a smaller percentage of the vote than other groups?[/QUOTE]

Yes. I think if they were interested in tackling the actual demographics that pushed Prop 8 through, then they would target blacks. Saying most black people voted yes for religious reasons is conjecture. Even if true, the black churches should be targeted then, and they aren't.

And if black people are largely a subset of the conservatively religious, why do they almost always vote for the party that isn't?
 
[quote name='spmahn']That's not what most psychologists will tell you. A broken family is far more damaging to a child than one with two people who don't particularly care for each other. Obviously in cases of abuse you need to get away, but if it's simply a case of just not getting along, it's always best to try and make things work together whatever way you can for the sake of the child.[/QUOTE]

Wrong. There are adjustment problems for children, and this period can last for over two years, typically. But most children do adjust, save for a few who have permanent problems. Can't say if there's a greater likelihood of long-term problems for kids who result from particularly nasty breakups Kramer vs. Kramer style, or for those who witness or experience a good clip of physical abuse.

But, yeah...you're incorrect.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Yes. I think if they were interested in tackling the actual demographics that pushed Prop 8 through, then they would target blacks. Saying most black people voted yes for religious reasons is conjecture. Even if true, the black churches should be targeted then, and they aren't.[/quote]

Simply put, the black vote in CA was only 10% of the total. Targeting them will be less fruitful than targeting a larger group. Most people who vote against gay marriage rights due so for religious reasons, there are hardly any other arguments against it, and all others are usually just justifications of a religious idea. Disgust is really the only other reason I can think of.

[quote name='thrustbucket']And if black people are largely a subset of the conservatively religious, why do they almost always vote for the party that isn't?[/quote]

As a group, they're reasonably conservative religiously (though not the most conservative), but at the same time more socially liberal in some areas, and definitely more economically liberal. Republicans already have the stain of being thought of as racist as well, so it's really not a big mystery that they usually vote for Democrats 90% or so of the time.

[quote name='spmahn']That's not what most psychologists will tell you. A broken family is far more damaging to a child than one with two people who don't particularly care for each other. Obviously in cases of abuse you need to get away, but if it's simply a case of just not getting along, it's always best to try and make things work together whatever way you can for the sake of the child.[/quote]

Bad bad bad. There are different levels of "not getting along" which is why I said "unhappy" marriages. Marriages in which the people would describe themselves as unhappy generally aren't good for their children. Either they're physically fighting, verbally fighting, or just avoiding each other. None of those have a positive effect on children, and in the case of avoiding each other, they may as well be divorced. It's better for the parents to be divorced and more positive.

If the divorce means that whoever has the child is unable to support it, then that's brings about its own problems, but provided the child is taken care of it's better to bring it up in a more positive environment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top