Steve Young's family up against Mormon church on Prop. 8

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Let me clarify my point since I apparently wasn't clear enough -- Many times, social and religious conservatives voice their disapproval of homosexuality because of the perception that they are too promiscuous, that they have a hand in spreading disease. If they truly believe this, then they should be for gay marriage since that will take at least some of the people they have such big a problem with and put them in a relationship which promotes the values of monogamy.

If this is such an absurd argument that is loaded with fallacies then by all means, post them and maybe I will be proven wrong.

Beems, your take here assumes that there is some sort of logical and rational basis behind those that are against gay marriage. Let's cut to the chase and call it like it is. Religious wackos and ignorant homophobes are the problem, simple as that.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Beems, your take here assumes that there is some sort of logical and rational basis behind those that are against gay marriage. Let's cut to the chase and call it like it is. Religious wackos and ignorant homophobes are the problem, simple as that.

I've repeatedly stated my opinions on this issue, in this thread. I've provided my rationale respectfully, while being insulted multiple times. Your post is just the latest example of anyone who holds a conservative point of view being the enemy. While this is a football fan site, the parking lot has always, to me, been its saving grace. When the football talk degrades to unbearable levels I still come back to what has routinely been intelligent and entertaining off topic discussion. Over the last 6 months I've noticed a sharp turn in the tone of discussion where those with left-leaning views are given time while the more conservative members are either shouted down or, by viewing the tone taken with others, encouraged not to post at all. So while I will miss many portions of this site, I cannot in good conscience continue to support something that to me is a shadow of what it once was. To be clear, this is my last post.

Matty, if at all possible, delete my account. If not, simply leave it dormant. Thank you and Hail to the Redskins.

[saden1]

Given time? Encouraged not to post at all? This asynchronous forum, you give yourself time and if someone doesn't agree with you move on. Apparently you're moving on and taking your ball with you too. I can't speak for the mods but this is all getting into the Cancel Your Own Goddam Subscription territory.


Happy Thanksgiving, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. I wish you the best in life. Bleeding Burgundy until the day I die. Hail to the Redksins!

[SmootSmack]

I've said this a few times, I lean conservative in many respects. And I know that puts me in the minority when it comes to the more active voices on this site. It's true the conservative voices are often dismissed and ridiculed on this site. Some deservedly so, like Buster. Others, such as FRPLG, should be heard and respected. But there's no denying the pervailing tone here is left-leaning. (though curiously not so much, when you actually ask people how they lean on specific issues). I probably wouldn't go so far as "encouraged not to post" That makes it sound like the mods are suggesting if they post they will be banned, or some such action would be taken against them. That's just not going to happen.

I consider myself religious, I believe in God, I pray, I'm not a wacko. I have nothing against gays. I know gays. Some of my best friends are gay (yeah I went there with that). And I think they should get benefits. I think it's ridiculous that say irish and offiss can truly love each other, move in together, spend 10 years together and should, God forbid, anything happen to one of them the other won't get the same benefits that say Gmanc and Dynamite Rave could get should they decide to elope after one night of drunken debauchery at the Bellagio. To me, it seem backwards.

But I think understand Beem's point and I think more than that, we shouldn't be so quick to always thrown in the word "Whacko" when talking about religion. If you're not religious and you don't believe in it that's fine, but I don't think there's a need to generalize.

[onlydarksets]

Well said, SS.

This is a difficult issue to discuss, since the underpinning of the conservative argument is usually rooted in faith (i.e., homosexuality is "fundamentally" immoral). So, to attack the argument is usually to attack the faith, which does not tend to end well.

[firstdown]

THis thread has really taking a turn. I also think this thread is a great example of why not to attack a person personally but discuss the topic and just agree to disagree. I have voiced my thoughts before on the personal attacks on people rather its me, another poster, a politcal figure etc... why the need for the personal attacks? I personaly do not know enough on the subject to have a strong personal opinion either way so thats why I have stayed out of this.

[MTK]

Sorry I'm not going to apologize for having an opinion, and I've never discouraged anyone from doing the same. My comments on 'religious wackos and ignorant homophobes' was meant as a general statement (and I was not trying to say that everyone who is religious is a wacko), and not pertaining to anyone here specifically. So if anyone misconstrued that and took it personally, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

[70Chip]

I think the reality of Prop 8 is that it was actually done in by the media's desire to see Obama elected President. Here me out now. Normally the mainstream media would have done numerous stories on the referendum, all showing the homosexuals in the best possible light and the opponents as paranoid weirdos. Instead they mostly ignored it, only doing a few stories on the money aspect of the vote, very late in the race. Why would they do this? Beause the conventional wisdom in those circles is that John Kerry lost in part because several of these initiatives were on the ballot across the country. The media figured that if people made any sort of connection between Obama and Prop 8 it may hurt him in swing states like Virginia, Ohio etc. They may have even been told this explicitly by the Obama campaign. "We don't want to get tied into the prop 8 thing".

[saden1]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

I think the reality of Prop 8 is that it was actually done in by the media's desire to see Obama elected President. Here me out now. Normally the mainstream media would have done numerous stories on the referendum, all showing the homosexuals in the best possible light and the opponents as paranoid weirdos. Instead they mostly ignored it, only doing a few stories on the money aspect of the vote, very late in the race. Why would they do this? Beause the conventional wisdom in those circles is that John Kerry lost in part because several of these initiatives were on the ballot across the country. The media figured that if people made any sort of connection between Obama and Prop 8 it may hurt him in swing states like Virginia, Ohio etc. They may have even been told this explicitly by the Obama campaign. "We don't want to get tied into the prop 8 thing".

You are absolutely right. It got zero national coverage and Obama stayed away from the issue as if it was going to set him on fire if he didn't. It has been said though that most new voters that voted for Obama voted against Prop 8.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by saden1

You are absolutely right. It got zero national coverage and Obama stayed away from the issue as if it was going to set him on fire if he didn't. It has been said though that most new voters that voted for Obama voted against Prop 8.

I'm glad we have found some commom ground.

[itvnetop]

I haven't read through the entire thread yet and someone may have already mentioned this already, but it's interesting to note that most ethnic groups were fairly split on the 8 vote. However, the African-American community voted 70-30 in favor of 8. The Obama push within the AA community ironically helped get Prop 8 passed in CA. There were actually predominantly black churches distributing Pro-8 pamphlets out to residents, displaying pics of ministers and Obama (seemingly tying the candidate with Prop 8).

The anti-8 protests have been extremely fierce, but seem to be misdirected. Most of the rallies are being held in anti-8 areas, such as West Hollywood (the predominantly gay area of LA) and West LA. It's kind of like they're preaching to the choir. No rallies have even stepped foot in many of the sections that overwhelmingly voted for 8, like East LA or South Central. The protesters are way more comfortable shouting outside of the Mormon Temple in liberal Century City (where most residents voted "No") instead of in front of the AME Church in Inglewood (where most voted "Yes").

[Lady Brave]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

I've repeatedly stated my opinions on this issue, in this thread. I've provided my rationale respectfully, while being insulted multiple times. Your post is just the latest example of anyone who holds a conservative point of view being the enemy. While this is a football fan site, the parking lot has always, to me, been its saving grace. When the football talk degrades to unbearable levels I still come back to what has routinely been intelligent and entertaining off topic discussion. Over the last 6 months I've noticed a sharp turn in the tone of discussion where those with left-leaning views are given time while the more conservative members are either shouted down or, by viewing the tone taken with others, encouraged not to post at all. So while I will miss many portions of this site, I cannot in good conscience continue to support something that to me is a shadow of what it once was. To be clear, this is my last post.

Matty, if at all possible, delete my account. If not, simply leave it dormant. Thank you and Hail to the Redskins.

Quoted for truth.

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Sorry I'm not going to apologize for having an opinion, and I've never discouraged anyone from doing the same. My comments on 'religious wackos and ignorant homophobes' was meant as a general statement (and I was not trying to say that everyone who is religious is a wacko), and not pertaining to anyone here specifically. So if anyone misconstrued that and took it personally, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

And I think that's exactly what that was, a general statement. I don't think he said, for example, "conservative/evangelical religious wackos", because if that's the case, I definitely know some liberal religious wackos (I grew up in a household full of them). There are always exceptions to the rule and to opinions.

I'm going to guess that if someone jumps on the offensive about the wackos/homophobe statement, they might fall into one of the two categories. Otherwise there's no reason to get your knickers in such a twist.

Plus there's no real reason to leave the board. Love for the Skins should trump everything, disagreements on sexual orientation, political parties, etc. But good luck BB.

Anyway, I digress...

[TheLastDon]

Originally Posted by saden1

WTF do you think a ban on gay marriage does? Isn't the view point being pushed by proponents of the ban "gay marrige is not OK?"

Don't get it twisted homie this ban is a variation of Loving v. Virginia which is to say it a clear violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:

To use the 14th amendment to defend gay marriage is laughable, but you libs always do that type of thing. You twist the constitution to fit your perverted view of America. I'm pretty sure the intent of the 14th amendment had 0 to do with anything about gay rights. In law one of the things you are supposed to determine is INTENT of the law. That's just basic law 101 type of stuff. Also, you libs use the 14th amendment to say if you are born here to an illegal alien you become a citizen. Yet another twisting of this amendment. Now if you want to go ahead and get another amendment into the constitution that says gay marriage is legal then you'd have an argument, but until then you have no valid argument. You can bring up your decisions like Loving v. Virginia all you want, but we know that there are a TON of decisions that are just plain wrong. Did you think the Dred Scott decision was a good one? Did you think Plessy v. Ferguson was a good one? Should we use those as precedent too?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by TheLastDon

To use the 14th amendment to defend gay marriage is laughable, but you libs always do that type of thing. You twist the constitution to fit your perverted view of America. I'm pretty sure the intent of the 14th amendment had 0 to do with anything about gay rights. In law one of the things you are supposed to determine is INTENT of the law. That's just basic law 101 type of stuff. Also, you libs use the 14th amendment to say if you are born here to an illegal alien you become a citizen. Yet another twisting of this amendment. Now if you want to go ahead and get another amendment into the constitution that says gay marriage is legal then you'd have an argument, but until then you have no valid argument. You can bring up your decisions like Loving v. Virginia all you want, but we know that there are a TON of decisions that are just plain wrong. Did you think the Dred Scott decision was a good one? Did you think Plessy v. Ferguson was a good one? Should we use those as precedent too?

We're not the ones trying to change the Constitution to fit our world views. Last time I checked it is you conservatives that are proposing consititional amendments because the Constitution doesn't allow you to win in the courts. Here's a quick list of amendments championed by conservatives as an addendum to our beloved part-time-sacred-document:

• The Flag Desecration Amendment
• Balanced budget Amendment
• Supermajority to raise taxes
• “Parental rights” Amendment – the right of parents to “raise their children as they see fit, introduced last year by Jim DeMint and Peter Hoekstra.
• Human life Amendment, banning abortion
• The Federal Marriage Amendment, banning gay marriage
• Believing that the DC Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional, Lisa Murkowski proposed an Amendment giving the District a single voting representative.
• Last year, Jim DeMint introduced a term limits Amendment (3 terms in the House, 2 in the Senate).
• Allowing state-endorsed prayer in public schools.
• Scraping birth right citizenship from the 14th Amendment.
• Scraping the 17th Amendment and the ability of voters to choose their own senators.
• Repealing and "restoring" the 13th Amendment

The really sad part is that your representatives don't think you numskulls realize how difficult it is to change the Constitution so they toy with you. You have to change hearts and minds before you go after the Constitution. Don't get it twisted homie, you're the ones that don't like the Constitution. I forgive you though, it's your nature and you don't know any better.

BTW, bad decisions have been made in the past...there is no question about that...slowly but surely we rectified those decisions. And discrimination against the gays is no different...time is on our side cuz.