Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
[Blog] Memo to California
I Read This
July 18, 2018, 23:47:59 EDT *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you have any issues at all, visit our support site.
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13
  Print  
Author Topic: [Blog] Memo to California  (Read 34196 times)
Octan
Political Commentator
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 69


WWW
« Reply #165 on: November 11, 2008, 14:51:21 EST »

I don't see why the government regulates marriage at all, seems to me to be a waste.  Just don't grant anyone special privledges for getting married and pitch the whole thing into the sea.  Wanna get married to your dog, sure, whatever, don't care.
...Wow.  I was intentionally trying to avoid taking it that far, myself, and I'd say the dog bit was crossing the line, but hey.  Right on with the sentiment.  That said, there are certain practical reasons for a couple to be legally recognized as such.  For example, income tax.  While I would say joint filing is totally expendable, it's useful to be able to claim one's spouse as a dependent, so they're not penalized just because they don't both have full-time jobs.  Then there's the one that's been brought up time and time again by pro-gay-marriage people: visitation rights in hospitals.  Apparently there's some universal policy that in certain conditions only "family" are allowed to visit people in the hospital.  I personally think this is stupid, but if it's the hospitals' policy and not the government's, there's not much that can be done about it.

On another note, regarding those people who object solely to the use of the term "marriage" being used... so what if the government uses the term in its own laws?  The government is hardly the final authority in moral matters; would they also argue that a straight couple that were married by a priest but didn't get a marriage license aren't really married and therefore living in sin?  I propose that same-sex couples who say "we'd be married by now if it were legal" just go have a freaking wedding ceremony anyway, and then refer to their significant other as their "husband" or "wife".*  Ain't no law against that.  I've always had the impression that people who are against "same-sex marriage" would be slightly shocked to realize a gay couple can still do that.  Hopefully over time they'll realize that what the government defines as marriage is pretty meaningless from their point of view, and stop caring about the issue.

Hell, if I were the marrying type and were engaged at this point, I'd have a traditional ceremony but forgo getting a marriage license, just to spite the system.  Tax filing rights be damned.

* As appropriate for their gender, of course.  I draw the line at imitating a Chick tract.
Logged

"If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged." - Noam Chomsky

"The truth is that Bush just likes to blow things up." -- Rep. Pete Stark

"Talk show hosts, political candidates, news programs, special interest groups…they all become successful by reducing debates to the level of shouted rage.  Nothing gets solved, but we’re all entertained." -- Calvin, Calvin and Hobbes
rogue-kun
Dog of Lysdexics
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4057


When I grow up I wanna be a kid


WWW
« Reply #166 on: November 11, 2008, 17:41:59 EST »

Apparently there's some universal policy that in certain conditions only "family" are allowed to visit people in the hospital.  I personally think this is stupid, but if it's the hospitals' policy and not the government's, there's not much that can be done about it.

It strongly influenced by Privacy rights of the paceint by limited it to family execet in very limited hours the control not letting anything slip to outsiders.
Logged


 It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the dew of the mountain that thoughts acquire speed; the hands acquire shakes; the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Economic Left/Right: -7.38 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79
This message is encoded with ROT26. Decoding is punishable by law under the DMCA.
Rogue's Weyr Rogue's Rabblings
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #167 on: November 11, 2008, 21:51:56 EST »

I'd perfer to have everyone have to have a name in the database saying who they want contacted about medical or emergancy needs.  I'm a hick, and I love my folks, but if I get shot by someone or something like that, I don't want them called, I'd rather they call my friends, you know, the people who actually know me as a person.

I really think this emphisis of some or of marital or biological supremacy is just silly.  My Significant Other does not know me better then my ex-roomie who can finish my statements.  Love 'em to death, but I do not want them to have to make such horrific decisions, I -want- to be able to define who it is that I trust the most, and not have it defined for me.
Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #168 on: November 11, 2008, 21:53:25 EST »

As for the dog thing, yeah, beastiality strikes me as wrong, but I can't justify why, so if someone could somehow prove consent (I don't have the slightest idea what would convince me of that), I'd wish them well and mutter "wa-ow" as they walked away.
Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell
joshbrenton
Active Libertarian
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 365


« Reply #169 on: November 11, 2008, 23:48:07 EST »

I realize this has the potential to start a huge firestorm, but I had to ask it. Mostly all of the ire over the passage of Prop. 8 is being directed at the Mormon Church. What do you think of the number of black voters who voted in favor of the bill, because from what I've heard that played a role in helping the measure get passed.
Logged
rogue-kun
Dog of Lysdexics
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4057


When I grow up I wanna be a kid


WWW
« Reply #170 on: November 11, 2008, 23:57:11 EST »

I realize this has the potential to start a huge firestorm, but I had to ask it. Mostly all of the ire over the passage of Prop. 8 is being directed at the Mormon Church. What do you think of the number of black voters who voted in favor of the bill, because from what I've heard that played a role in helping the measure get passed.

Nice deflect, yes the Black Vote was 70% for. But that not the biggest demographic the voted for it... Older Voters. Guess that was a factor in the Black vote too, yes this might shock you, there are Older back people.
Logged


 It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the dew of the mountain that thoughts acquire speed; the hands acquire shakes; the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Economic Left/Right: -7.38 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79
This message is encoded with ROT26. Decoding is punishable by law under the DMCA.
Rogue's Weyr Rogue's Rabblings
joshbrenton
Active Libertarian
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 365


« Reply #171 on: November 11, 2008, 23:58:51 EST »


Nice deflect, yes the Black Vote was 70% for. But that not the biggest demographic the voted for it... Older Voters. Guess that was a factor in the Black vote too, yes this might shock you, there are Older back people.

Okay then, so why not get angry at old voters and black voters who approved of Prop. 8 as well? Why do they get a pass and everyone just attacks the Mormons?
Logged
rogue-kun
Dog of Lysdexics
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4057


When I grow up I wanna be a kid


WWW
« Reply #172 on: November 12, 2008, 00:06:40 EST »


Nice deflect, yes the Black Vote was 70% for. But that not the biggest demographic the voted for it... Older Voters. Guess that was a factor in the Black vote too, yes this might shock you, there are Older back people.

Okay then, so why not get angry at old voters and black voters who approved of Prop. 8 as well? Why do they get a pass and everyone just attacks the Mormons?

Cause they will die off... institutions that abuse power stick around.
Logged


 It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the dew of the mountain that thoughts acquire speed; the hands acquire shakes; the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Economic Left/Right: -7.38 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79
This message is encoded with ROT26. Decoding is punishable by law under the DMCA.
Rogue's Weyr Rogue's Rabblings
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #173 on: November 12, 2008, 00:38:30 EST »


Nice deflect, yes the Black Vote was 70% for. But that not the biggest demographic the voted for it... Older Voters. Guess that was a factor in the Black vote too, yes this might shock you, there are Older back people.

Okay then, so why not get angry at old voters and black voters who approved of Prop. 8 as well? Why do they get a pass and everyone just attacks the Mormons?

Because they didn't use force to get tens of millions of dollars for the campaign, not to mention "willing" volunteers.
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
joshbrenton
Active Libertarian
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 365


« Reply #174 on: November 12, 2008, 01:01:49 EST »


Because they didn't use force to get tens of millions of dollars for the campaign, not to mention "willing" volunteers.

They still made the decision to vote yes on Prop. 8, though.

I don't want to sound suspicious here, but it seems like the reason it hasn't been brought up is because no one here wants to risk criticizing the black voters who supported the measure and get accused of being racist. That's why the Mormons are getting the brunt of the anger, because they're a safe target.

I'm not saying you guys shouldn't criticize the Mormon church for their backing the gay marriage ban, but I think it would be reasonable to vent your frustration at the other groups who voted for its passage as well.
Logged
Bocaj Claw
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 349


WWW
« Reply #175 on: November 12, 2008, 01:41:16 EST »

I heard tell that black people are only about 10% of the population of California though. People are angry at the Mormon church because they were one of the biggest driving force of proposition 8 passing. You go down a tricky road when you blame a demographic in a situation like this. Its not like they're a monolithic group that get together and decide how to vote.
Logged

rogue-kun
Dog of Lysdexics
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4057


When I grow up I wanna be a kid


WWW
« Reply #176 on: November 12, 2008, 01:54:50 EST »

I heard tell that black people are only about 10% of the population of California though. People are angry at the Mormon church because they were one of the biggest driving force of proposition 8 passing. You go down a tricky road when you blame a demographic in a situation like this. Its not like they're a monolithic group that get together and decide how to vote.

Except in the case in which the Morman has be accused of violating.
Logged


 It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the dew of the mountain that thoughts acquire speed; the hands acquire shakes; the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Economic Left/Right: -7.38 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79
This message is encoded with ROT26. Decoding is punishable by law under the DMCA.
Rogue's Weyr Rogue's Rabblings
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #177 on: November 12, 2008, 02:13:58 EST »


Because they didn't use force to get tens of millions of dollars for the campaign, not to mention "willing" volunteers.

They still made the decision to vote yes on Prop. 8, though.

I don't want to sound suspicious here, but it seems like the reason it hasn't been brought up is because no one here wants to risk criticizing the black voters who supported the measure and get accused of being racist. That's why the Mormons are getting the brunt of the anger, because they're a safe target.

I'm not saying you guys shouldn't criticize the Mormon church for their backing the gay marriage ban, but I think it would be reasonable to vent your frustration at the other groups who voted for its passage as well.

I usually vote Labor, because I find that the Liberal party screws Australia sideways and without lube. This doesn't mean that I rail against my parents who feel that their positions are best represented by said Liberal party. Nor do they rail against me, despite thinking that the Labor party screws Australia sideways.

However, when things like this happen, you bet your arse I rail against the perpetrators.

Similarly, it's the opinion of 70% of black voters that gays should be allowed to marry. They're wrong, but so are my parents about the Liberals. It wouldn't be a democracy if people had to bend to what I think is right. But when a church, that regularly excommunicates people for disobeying, hands down a decree that its members must donate time and money, something's fishy in the state of Denmark.

Not to mention that before the LDS church got involved, the proposition was going down at something like 41-59. Afterwards, it won at something like 52-48. Somehow methinks there was an effect.
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
hitchkitty
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 244


« Reply #178 on: November 12, 2008, 06:58:15 EST »

I realize this has the potential to start a huge firestorm, but I had to ask it. Mostly all of the ire over the passage of Prop. 8 is being directed at the Mormon Church. What do you think of the number of black voters who voted in favor of the bill, because from what I've heard that played a role in helping the measure get passed.

As far as I'm aware, there was no organization called "Black People" that pumped $ObsceneAmounts into amending another state's constitution.
Logged
hitchkitty
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 244


« Reply #179 on: November 12, 2008, 07:20:50 EST »

Laserlips' religious doctrine teaches that the indigenous people of the Americas and Africa bear the "mark of Cain", having been cursed with dark skin because they and their ancestors were evil. So, of course they would have something as dirty and sinful as same-sex marriage. They are "a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations", to quote from his own holy book.

Y'know, if people are going to use a holy text to support their bigotry, the least they can do is actually read it.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!