Video: Gay Marriage Proponents Attack Elderly Woman

Originally posted by MacDonagh
You didn't answer my question. Why would an old lady with a giant cruxifix knowingly protest where the gay people were protesting?

More importantly, why can't she do that without being assaulted and intimidated? The day when you can't protest for fear of "the other side" bashing your head in, will be a sad day for America. Remember that when your time comes to protest.

It's sounds as if who ever has the biggest crowd gets to protest and no one else is allowed, is that how it goes?

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
Actually, the law is not required to give any benefits based on marriage. It does, but that is something that could be changed without getting into Constitutional issues.

It just seems to me that, despite your best attempts, the issue about inequality under Civil Unions is simply not making it to the community at large. As I have stated before, my responses to you have always been in order to help you, not to pick an argument for the sake of argument. That said, and based on other statements you have made:

You do realize that, no matter what happens with the present challenges underway, it will only affect the state level? So far, this electoral decision is limited to California.

What else is not right? Lumping all gay protesters or gays together as if they agree with such actions and judging them all for the actions of a few people.

I could not agree more. But the public is notorious for doing just that.

TheRedneck

reply to post by MAINTAL

Don't try to shame me for bringing that into it because I am here trying to tell you the reasons why many are against it and surely that is one of the many. Look if you want to get this passed, I suggest you don't make an enemy of those on the fence over this issue because they are the ones that can change all this.

Shame you? I’m pointing out that your argument has no legality, it is irrelevant in a secular nation, where those of all religions or none are allowed to marry if they are straight. I suggest to not take away rights from people when that right given to them does not lawfully affect you, you risk making a lot of enemies with such careless actions, making people live by your standard of morality for no good legal reason. I don’t want you as an enemy; I’m trying to help you understand as well. You don’t seem to understand gay couples, their personal struggle, or their legal struggle.



[edit on 12-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

Marshall law on these homosexuals id join the national guard to participate!! haha

Caps lock edit. Please review the following threads.

Courtesy Is Mandatory

Civility & Decorum are Expected

The use of ALL CAPS

[edit on 12-11-2008 by dbates]

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

You make it sound as if the majority of the nations in the world allow same sex marriages, that plainly is not the case. I count six, that offer full blown same sex marriage.

news.bbc.co.uk...


en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by pavil

More importantly, why can't she do that without being assaulted and intimidated?.

Because it wouldn't make very good television now would it? I want to know what possessed her to think that was a good idea. Was she senile or looking for a reaction for the cameras that just so happened to be there? The CNN network must be thanking it's lucky stars that they were able to capture some great footage by being at the wrong place at the right time eh? Dissenting voices opposing a protest which they happen to be at will always be drowned out by the greater majority.

The day when you can't protest for fear of "the other side" bashing your head in, will be a sad day for America. Remember that when your time comes to protest.

There is always a fear of getting your head bashed about in Scotland whether it be by delinquents, psychos, or policemen. Protests not included!

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage


I don't know how many more times I have to say this but yes it does have to do with it unless of course you don't think any of those people that vote against it for religious reasons exist. That is all I am trying to say! and Guess what else, just because YOU say this is a secular issue doesn't mean it is! Not to them it's not! Also the idea you have that because I cite such reasons exist doesn't mean that is MY reason!

Now I hope it never happens and I have YOU to thank for it because YOU are as

much a bigot lumping me in with everyone you disagree with as you say we are . I swear you just can't talk to you people without having to hear we are bigots or homophobic or too stupid to understand.

Good luck with that

reply to post by TheRedneck

You do realize that, no matter what happens with the present challenges underway, it will only affect the state level?

Yes, one step at a time, as they say…

It just seems to me that, despite your best attempts, the issue about inequality under Civil Unions is simply not making it to the community at large.

Perhaps, but I don’t think we can fix people’s lack of interest. Some people don’t care about this issue, and only repeat pundit’s talking points. If they aren’t educated on this issue we can’t force them to be, I try to point it out when I can. I’m not saying they don’t wish to know or that they should know, but I find it interesting they state it as a fact when it is not, surely they heard it somewhere? If they agree with whatever they have heard with out doing the proper research then that is their doing.

Actually, the law is not required to give any benefits based on marriage. It does, but that is something that could be changed without getting into Constitutional issues.

Sorry, let me correct myself: but they are faced with the trouble that nation wide marriage is the only union acknowledged when it comes to all the privileges married people enjoy. Never stated it has to be a constitutional issue, it is however an issue that needs to be corrected.


[edit on 12-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

Originally posted by pavil
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

 

You make it sound as if the majority of the nations in the world allow same sex marriages, that plainly is not the case. I count six, that offer full blown same sex marriage.

news.bbc.co.uk...


en.wikipedia.org...

I never stated the majority does. If you assumed that, well, I don’t control the way your mind works. I was making a point about a faulty slippery slope argument.

Originally posted by NickT916
MARSHALL LAW ON THESE HOMOSEXUALS ID JOIN THE NATIONAL GUARD TO PARTICIPATE!! HAHA

It's actually "martial" law pal.

Marshall Law is a character in the Tekken fighting game series.

reply to post by undo


Great post. Star for you.

Must feel odd getting lambasted by some you are in agreement with.

reply to post by MAINTAL

I don't know how many more times I have to say this but yes it does have to do with it unless of course you don't think any of those people that vote against it for religious reasons exist.

You repeatedly miss the point. Legally religion should not be allowed to be involved in rights issues, regrettably it is, but that is not the case that sells this crap.

just because YOU say this is a secular issue doesn't mean it is!

Legally it is. Legality is what matters when making laws or taking away rights in a secular nation, not your personal religious beliefs.

much a bigot lumping me in with everyone you disagree with as you say we are . I swear you just can't talk to you people without having to hear we are bigots or homophobic or too stupid to understand.

Show me where I called you a bigot or homophobe? By the way, you told me I don’t understand as well, maybe when using a point in an argument you might not want to put someone else down who uses it too.


[edit on 12-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

reply to post by pavil


yes, frankly, it does. never seen anything quite like it before. even when you agree with them, you're a scum bucket because you're a christian. another christian might tell me that's because i'm not drawing inside the lines. well screw that. i'm creative lol if you don't like me for me, not much i can do about that! but i certainly can try!

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
Perhaps, but I don’t think we can fix people’s lack of interest. Some people don’t care about this issue, and only repeat pundit’s talking points. If they aren’t educated on this issue we can’t force them to be, I try to point it out when I can. I’m not saying they don’t wish to know or that they should know, but I find it interesting they state it as a fact when it is not, surely they heard it somewhere? If they agree with whatever they have heard with out doing the proper research then that is their doing.

Ya know, one could very easily contend that is was the opponents of Prop 8 who showed the real lack of interest. They are the one's who don't seem to care about the issue, IMO or else they would have voted. If you think the Anti prop 8 people are the majority of California, then you sure have a funny way of showing it at the polls as you have gotten beaten twice.

And I know you didn't say anything about the amount of countries allowing same sex marriage. You seem to think your opinion is the right one, I just stated that to show you how few people in the world seem to agree with the notion of same sex marriages.

Hey you fight whatever battles you want, sometimes it better to pick smaller ones and build on them. But hey, what do I know?

Where is your outrage on the other State that have banned same sex marriages? Why doesn't someone try to take it up with the U.S. Supreme Court if you think your cause is right? It seems odd that it hasn't been brought before them to be honest.

The tactics involved by the same sex marriage crowd seemed destined to delay if not stop, their stated goal. Trying to ramrod things down the throats of people isn't the best way of achieving your goals. That's kinda what the people of California have told you but you are not listening.

Just an honest opinion.

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

Yes, one step at a time, as they say…

That's fine, I just wanted to make sure you weren't deluding yourself.

Perhaps, but I don’t think we can fix people’s lack of interest. Some people don’t care about this issue, and only repeat pundit’s talking points.

Which means someone on your side must repeat the disclaimer to those talking points just as much. I'll admit it's an uphill battle on that front, but I also have to admit you seem to be doing a pretty good job of it. Kudos to you on that.

I want to thank you for the responses. They were civil, informed, and on topic. I hope we keep it that way.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
T"I can't Hear You!"h"I can't Hear You!"ey di"I can't Hear You!"dn't d"I can't H"I can't Hear You!"e"I can't Hear You!"ar You!"eny h"I can't Hear You!"er rig"I can't Hear You!"ht t"I can't Hear You!"o spe"I can't Hear You!"ech. They yell"I can't Hear You!"ed over h"I can't Hear You!"er a"I can't Hear You!"nd g"I can't Hear You!"ave he"I can't Hear You!"r a re"I can't Hear You!"ally hard t"I can't Hear You!"ime, b"I can't Hear You!"ut t"I can't Hear You!"hey di"I can't Hear You!"dn't st"I can't Hear You!"op h"I can't Hear You!"er f"I can't Hear You!"ro"I can't Hear You!"m speaking.

........
She is at fault for going there on her "mission".
They are at fault for taking her cross.

Huh? So as long as you can speak, it doesn't matter that you can't actually be heard? That's quite a broad interpretation of being allowed to speak. I hope my illustration above shows you how great that is. What about in the video where one person tries to tear down a sign and others cover them up with other signs? Is that ok too in your book?

Why is she at fault for protesting? Is she not allowed to do that?

reply to post by pavil

If you think the Anti prop 8 people are the majority of California, then you sure have a funny way of showing it at the polls as you have gotten beaten twice.

When did I say we were in the majority? I said the trend keeps going our way, just like with interracial marriage, even when it was legalized nation wide the majority was still not for it.

You seem to think your opinion is the right one, I just stated that to show you how few people in the world seem to agree with the notion of same sex marriages.

How do you know what people in the world think about gay marriage? That was not what my post was about and you know it, it was about slippery slope logic. As much as I enjoy discussing these tangents the other countries you speak of, some of them are great countries, some of them promote genocide, some of them kill those who do not practice the religion they enforce, and some murder homosexuals. I have no problem with some countries that do not have gay marriage legalized, I support the fight for equality in them though, there are however some countries I judge not for gay marriage but because of the atrocities within them. I am not a one issue person, I don’t judge a country on one issue and I’ve never implied I do.

Where is your outrage on the other State that have banned same sex marriages?

Again, one step at a time. I’m more focused on other issue, believe it or not, that I think should be ruled on by the Supreme Court long before gay marriage.

The tactics involved by the same sex marriage crowd seemed destined to delay if not stop, their stated goal. Trying to ramrod things down the throats of people isn't the best way of achieving your goals. That's kinda what the people of California have told you but you are not listening.

If anything the polls show we have been progressing, not lagging. I’m trying to protect our country from others ramming their morality down our throats, gay marriage does not lawfully affect you, and your opposition however lawfully affects gays, this is what the fight for equality is about when it comes to opposing Prop 8.


[edit on 12-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage


Sorry if I respond as if I am soliciting a response from just you, I use your replies as a jumping off point for discussion. You have been fairly levelheaded throughout this, I enjoy that, even though I don't agree with you. Don't take anything I say as personal towards you, that's not my intention.

You say that you keep getting closer, but still no one ever wants to seem to take it to the Supreme Court in our land, why is that? Wouldn't that be the best way to effect the change you desire? You obviously don't seem too thrilled with results you are getting using the ballot. Sure you can say you are getting closer, but truth is, you lost twice when it's come time to really matter.

When you don't respect or honor the results of elections, you are asking for trouble, IMO. I think your side is just going about it the wrong way.

reply to post by pavil

You say that you keep getting closer, but still no one ever wants to seem to take it to the Supreme Court in our land, why is that? Wouldn't that be the best way to effect the change you desire? You obviously don't seem too thrilled with results you are getting using the ballot. Sure you can say you are getting closer, but truth is, you lost twice when it's come time to really matter.

What really matters? Hm, I guess we have different standards of what matters. I don’t feel that this win is permanent, so why not look at the good that has come from it? I’m glad that it won by only a narrow margin, I’m glad to see that a huge margin of anti-gay marriage supporters will be dead in thirty years or less while future citizens who were young now will be involved in this issue then, and by then if the trend continues, as it has for years, as it did with interracial marriage, we will gain support from younger generations as well.

When you don't respect or honor the results of elections, you are asking for trouble, IMO. I think your side is just going about it the wrong way.

I’ll respect your opinion, though I disagree. I don’t believe the measure was constitutional, I think it was discriminatory. For too long people in America have sat back and “taken” it. Injustice is injustice, majority support or not, you can not overcome it with compliance.

I’m glad to see that a huge margin of anti-gay marriage supporters will be dead in thirty years or less

un-freakin-believable.
even if i didn't agree with a single thing you said, i would never be glad you would be dead in 60 years or less, because you are valuable.

GADS, STOP THE PLANET, LET ME OFF! PEOPLE HAVE GONE BONKERS!