You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 04, 2016, 08:34:11 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Prop 8 struck down.  (Read 18709 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Florence

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #125 on: August 09, 2010, 12:04:26 PM »
Should we start shaping our culture to better accommodate schizophrenics too? I have a very minor case of Asperger's myself, as well as a few other things, mainly ADHD and likely a minor case of OCD. Granted it's not too terribly bad as far as things go, but the fact is I still get what it's like to have your brain not work entirely properly. That said, it's really your problem, isn't it? I don't like blonde, semi-retarded bimbos prancing around like they own the world, I find it offensive to every part of my dignity as a human being, and yet I don't demand we ban blonde semi-retarded bimbos from prancing around on television, do I? In fact, blonde semi-retarded bimbos prancing around is a major part of our culture, and I respect people's right to be blonde semi-retarded bimbos and prance around to their hearts content.

Things will make you uncomfortable, that's a fact of life. That isn't the fault of other people, and shouldn't dictate what they can or cannot do. Also, as Will said while I was writing this, uncomfortable is NOT the same as psychologically damaged.

Offline Brandon

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #126 on: August 09, 2010, 12:15:42 PM »
To be fair, I think some people owe hunter an apology for completely dismissing some of the things he pointed out and they need to stop doing that. It seems to be a rather unfortunate side of people not wanting to see the other side so they refuse to even entertain the notion that there may be something that runs counter to their position.

Anyway, having learned that the judge who overturned this is gay I just have to do this



I mean really? Didnt they realize what was going to happen here? Now it looks like the LGBT community is trying to write the law and people who disagree be damned, especially when it was voted on and passed. Im sure theres going to be a big investigation in the near future which gets this ruling shot down and then causes the whole situation to start over.

I mean come on, if they just would have made a heterosexual judge overturn it then there would have been no problem. These people cant have been stupid enough to not realize how it looks

Offline Will

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #127 on: August 09, 2010, 12:31:10 PM »
Hunter made a statement that I believed to be false, or more accurately, an exaggeration.  I said as much.  How do I owe an apology for that?  I'm not close-minded about this, I assure you.  I invite him to educate me on such a condition where PDA causes serious mental trauma.  Any claim you make here is going to be questioned.

Offline Brandon

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #128 on: August 09, 2010, 12:33:22 PM »
Hunter made a statement that I believed to be false, or more accurately, an exaggeration.  I said as much.  How do I owe an apology for that?  I'm not close-minded about this, I assure you.  I invite him to educate me on such a condition where PDA causes serious mental trauma.  Any claim you make here is going to be questioned.

You owe him an apology for completely dismissing his point earlier. To be frank, you do that a lot Will

Offline Will

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #129 on: August 09, 2010, 12:35:28 PM »
Oh, his point about gay people wanting "special privileges?"  I didn't dismiss that at all.  I'm still waiting on him to elaborate.

And don't make this personal, Brandon.

Offline Brandon

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #130 on: August 09, 2010, 12:49:34 PM »
Oh, his point about gay people wanting "special privileges?"  I didn't dismiss that at all.  I'm still waiting on him to elaborate.

And don't make this personal, Brandon.

The only way its personal is due to your personal behavoir, a behavoir that has gone on through many many many conversations in politics and religion and IMO hinders the free expression and discussion of ideas. However if you think its getting personal, as in personal attacks, then fair enough I wont say anything more of it

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #131 on: August 09, 2010, 01:07:41 PM »
I think that each of us has a level where a PDA is too affectionate for public display.  It definitely varies from person to person - some people are weirded out by two strangers playing tonsil-hockey in the subway, some people don't notice anything short of public sex, some people may be uncomfortable with two people holding hands.  The reason could be anything from past trauma to a feeling of (unwanted) voyeurism, to jealousy - and I'm just scratching the surface of what I can think of as a fairly average person.

The important thing is for everyone to be courteous, whether on the affectionate end or the unwitting observer.

Offline Noelle

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #132 on: August 09, 2010, 01:52:58 PM »
I think we should let people speak for themselves here instead of demanding apologies on their behalf. Pointing fingers also seems awfully ironic, but that's a whole different matter.

1. Proper justice served would've been an impartial judge without a conflict of interest. Just because a judge ruled on the perceived "right" side of things, doesn't mean you can throw fair and unbiased process out the window. I can't think of too many homosexual judges who would rule for upholding prop 8 if, hypothetically speaking (since I don't actually think this), it was the just thing to do.

2. Clubs don't shut down because a very small portion of the population has seizures when exposed to strobes. Grocery stores don't stop selling X and Y foods because someone is deathly allergic. Fact is, being asexual is not the norm. The majority of the human race has an interest in sex, and being unable to handle it to the point it's 'traumatizing' (and I do agree -- being traumatized and being uncomfortable are two completely different things, so it's important to be consistent) is an extreme and uncommon reaction. To make an exception for every single person who has any kind of aversion to that point is impossible. If you'd like to see what happens to a culture that suppresses sexuality, take a look at Japan. It's not healthy.

That being said, what's funny is that our culture is pretty two-faced about sexuality. It runs rampant in the media, that's not hard to see, but then we have a lot of attitudes of shame and suppression amongst the actual population. People are quick to label women as sluts and whores, they frown upon any signs of overt sexuality, even to extreme points as victim blaming in cases of rape and sexual assault. We have a culture that generally doesn't promote open conversations about sex, especially between parent and child in terms of education. Kind of funny how the two clash.

Offline Will

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #133 on: August 09, 2010, 02:04:13 PM »
Honestly, I do feel like I should apologize.  Not to anyone in particular, but to the thread as a whole.  I got back into the emotionally charged subject matter that caused the thread to be locked in the first place.  I wasn't the only one, but still, my bad.

So!  Following Jude's lead, I'll comment on the judge being biased.  I'm really torn on that.  I want to say take what's yours, however you can get it, and to hell with what's fair.  I mean, if you're being treated unfairly to begin with, it kinda makes sense.  But it just looks REALLY bad. >.<

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #134 on: August 09, 2010, 02:20:53 PM »
Would probably be polite to leave Hunter's personal life out of the debate. However, that means also that Hunter needs to leave his personal life out of the debate as well, seeing as he introduced it in the first place.

1. Proper justice served would've been an impartial judge without a conflict of interest. Just because a judge ruled on the perceived "right" side of things, doesn't mean you can throw fair and unbiased process out the window. I can't think of too many homosexual judges who would rule for upholding prop 8 if, hypothetically speaking (since I don't actually think this), it was the just thing to do.

The thing is that if the judge had been straight, he could have been said to have been biased, as well. Not all gay people support gay marriage. There are some that think it's very wrong, and believe that the laws should be left well enough alone. Assuming all gay people are for gay marriage is like assuming all straight people are against it.

I think that the judge's judicial record should be looked at more than his orientation, and if he has a history of fair and impartial rulings then I don't see a problem. If he has a history of biased rulings, then he should be looked at by a higher court - which he will be.

Offline Kip

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #135 on: August 09, 2010, 02:40:55 PM »
While I am for gay marriage, I have spoken to other gay individuals who are vehemently opposed to it .

Assuming that Judge Walker is, based on reports, gay himself is not enough to claim bias in the ruling.  To make that claim, other assumptions are being made -

1) That he is personally for gay marriage himself
2) That he personally values the concept of gay marriage
3) That he wants to be married
4) That the ruling was biased based on his sexuality - that he wasn't able to be impartial
5) That he wasn't able to acknowledge said impartiality and recuse himself

Ironically, he was nominated to the bench by republicans and is considered to be a conservative jurist - he was opposed by the Democrats at the time for being insensitive to gays.

I suspect that he wouldn't win this argument anyway - there would always be some way to suggest that the decision was personally flawed. 

Offline Jude

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #136 on: August 09, 2010, 02:44:57 PM »
Significantly more gay people support gay marriage than the percent of straight people who are against it though; like I said, we're talking like, 50-60% straights against, versus 90%+ gay people for.  This is the definition of conflict of interest:  making a decision which you directly stand to gain from.

And his record on gay issues, well...
Quote
In 1999, Walker rejected arguments from the parents of a San Leandro boy who claimed their religious rights were violated by pro-gay comments made by their son's teacher in the classroom.

In 2005, Walker sided with the City of Oakland against two employees who placed flyers promoting "natural family, marriage and family values." Walker wrote in an opinion that the City had "significant interests in restricting discriminatory speech about homosexuals ... (and has) a duty under state law to prevent workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."
The only ruling which I've seen where he ruled against anything vaguely homosexual is when he refused to let some event call itself the Gay Olympics because the word Olympics is trademarked, and that happened a long time ago (and is really more of an issue of trademarks and business than anything even remotely related to gay rights).  He has a record of supporting gay rights (which is... unsurprising considering he is gay).

EDIT:  The Gay Olympics ruling is the one that made his nomination troublesome, I believe.

You guys honestly don't think this looks bad?  Law past by majority mandate against gay marriage gets overturned by gay judge... I'm astonished you're not seeing a problem with this just in terms of the sheer disrespect for the process of Democracy.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2010, 02:47:10 PM by Jude »

Offline Kip

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #137 on: August 09, 2010, 02:54:42 PM »
I believe there are two separate issues at play there -

Laws passed by a majority struck down - That's one issue.  There is a reason the court system is there and that's been debated.  The majority cannot act to remove rights from the minority and the striking down of laws that have done this has occurred multiple times in American history.  Whether this is a right that said minority is entitled to is another issue.  I believe it is, others argue otherwise.  Regardless, that's one issue.

The second issue is one of impartiality.  Again, it is being assumed that he isn't being impartial - there are a number of ways to take this and I would suspect that a better way to discuss this would be to prove that the finding of facts and legal conclusions he came to are the result of bias rather than assuming that bias actually exists rather than on widespread reporting of his assumed sexuality.

Edited to fix bad spelling *sigh*
« Last Edit: August 09, 2010, 02:55:50 PM by Kip »

Offline Brandon

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #138 on: August 09, 2010, 02:58:11 PM »
I dont know if it was implied or not but I dont personally believe that his decision has to be biased. I think it can be though. Can not necessarily is

My comments were more geared toward what it looks like rather then the reality that it could be and from where Im sitting it looks very very very bad for both the judge and the LGBT community

Offline Jude

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #139 on: August 09, 2010, 03:01:03 PM »
Well, yes, but both of these issues happen to co-habit in this case, and even if you don't normally have a problem with judicial legislation and perceived conflicts of interest, when they work in concert to strike down a law, even if they're OK individually, you have to think about how the public is going to perceive this.

I'm really confused by how gay rights activists expect to win, and keep, additional legal rights (which even I feel they should be afforded) when they support extreme measures which look really bad in order to claim them.  The point is, if you win the short-term battle but lose the PR war, it's only a matter of time that you're going to be right back where you started.

Gays will forever be a minority and their only real hope of reaching a point where they're treated with the consideration, politeness and respect that they deserve is making peace with the people who hate them.  This is not the way.

Offline Noelle

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #140 on: August 09, 2010, 03:03:34 PM »
Would probably be polite to leave Hunter's personal life out of the debate. However, that means also that Hunter needs to leave his personal life out of the debate as well, seeing as he introduced it in the first place.

The thing is that if the judge had been straight, he could have been said to have been biased, as well. Not all gay people support gay marriage. There are some that think it's very wrong, and believe that the laws should be left well enough alone. Assuming all gay people are for gay marriage is like assuming all straight people are against it.

I think that the judge's judicial record should be looked at more than his orientation, and if he has a history of fair and impartial rulings then I don't see a problem. If he has a history of biased rulings, then he should be looked at by a higher court - which he will be.

I never claimed all homosexuals are for gay marriage, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that significantly more gays support their own legal equality and stand more to gain from it than heterosexuals, which means the chance for slant is much greater.

The rest can basically be left to Jude's citation as to his dubious record. It's not the ruling I oppose -- certainly I continue to support the efforts towards giving gays full legal equality, and I don't claim to know for sure that it was a ruling based off of bias, I'd like to think it wasn't, but that's the whole problem here -- that the potential margin of bias was allowed for at all and that the man could very well stand to gain from his own ruling. I wish justice would've been served in a less troubling way because it just makes the victory look like a victory of convenience -- getting the right judge for the right issue, and that doesn't bode well in winning people over.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2010, 03:04:38 PM by Noelle »

Offline Kip

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #141 on: August 09, 2010, 03:06:59 PM »
Well, yes, but both of these issues happen to co-habit in this case, and even if you don't normally have a problem with judicial legislation and perceived conflicts of interest, when they work in concert to strike down a law, even if they're OK individually, you have to think about how the public is going to perceive this.

I'm really confused by how gay rights activists expect to win, and keep, additional legal rights (which even I feel they should be afforded) when they support extreme measures which look really bad in order to claim them.  The point is, if you win the short-term battle but lose the PR war, it's only a matter of time that you're going to be right back where you started.

Gays will forever be a minority and their only real hope of reaching a point where they're treated with the consideration, politeness and respect that they deserve is making peace with the people who hate them.  This is not the way.

Can you expand on the bolded part?

The problem with hate is that hate is emotional - it is very difficult, if not impossible, to make peace as a result.  I'm going to leave that there because the result of said hate is something that really... really... irks me and I personally will not be attempting to make peace with said hate - I'm just going to live my life and disprove the reasons behind it.

Offline Jude

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #142 on: August 09, 2010, 03:13:54 PM »
I consider overwriting the will of the majority an extreme measure, but I take your point that that might be an unfair way to describe what's happened given the connotations of extreme.  I do believe gay activists regularly go "too far" in trying to promote their lifestyle.  Pride parades, open displays of vehement hostility towards people who disagree with them--I prefer a much more sober approach, Ghandiesque greeting of hatred with open arms.  I think it's the only way that works.  Showing open resentment just gives the other side more fuel (think back to the Carie Prejean episode).

As for the rest of what you said:  people keep saying that talking won't do any good, hate can't be reasoned with, et cetera.  Yet in the same instance they love to compare this situation to the one of civil rights and racism:  do you believe the hate that was felt for blacks was not diminished?  And if it was, then why is hatred for gays some immortal foe?
« Last Edit: August 09, 2010, 03:16:20 PM by Jude »

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #143 on: August 09, 2010, 03:28:54 PM »
You know what, you're right. Hard to keep that in sight sometimes.

Former Ku Klux Klan leader Johnny Lee Clary

At least gay men can sit on the bench these days. It's more than a black man could have done in the 50s.

Offline Kip

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #144 on: August 09, 2010, 04:27:35 PM »
I don't back away from my assertion that I will not make peace with hate - I will continue to fight but I do it in my own way.

I live my life as I see appropriate - I don't impose on others, I cheerfully head on my way.  I have both seen the results of hatred - physical, verbal and emotional.  I cannot and will not enter into a dialogue with that.  I will debate the issues and I will engage with the hate with the only way I know how - setting an example that disproves the fears and assumptions.

I don't believe that fear for GLBT individuals is immortal - far from it.  I also don't see why it should be something that should not be challenged and left to die by attrition.  In this way, I think that pride fairs and parades are fine, not "too far" and are not easily compared to examples of open hostility.  I believe that they are a celebration and not an attack but that's likely an entirely separate debate.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #145 on: August 09, 2010, 04:44:42 PM »
I live my life as I see appropriate - I don't impose on others, I cheerfully head on my way.  I have both seen the results of hatred - physical, verbal and emotional.  I cannot and will not enter into a dialogue with that.  I will debate the issues and I will engage with the hate with the only way I know how - setting an example that disproves the fears and assumptions.

Also, it's easier for people to hate someone that they don't know.  When my mother first found out that some of my friends were gay, she got very bent out of shape.  A year or so later, my sister came out, had my mother's first (and so far only) grandson, and then had a commitment ceremony with her S.O.  I can't say whether or not my mother has fully accepted them, but she isn't quite so 'knee-jerk' about it. 

Offline Florence

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #146 on: August 09, 2010, 04:52:00 PM »
The problem is gay people TRIED the whole Ghandi approach and it got them nowhere. Gay people used to dress all classy, act all proper, protest all super-peacefully, and people walked all over them for it. At least we're making some SLOW progress now, as opposed to none at all.

Offline Jude

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #147 on: August 09, 2010, 05:22:34 PM »
The problem is gay people TRIED the whole Ghandi approach and it got them nowhere. Gay people used to dress all classy, act all proper, protest all super-peacefully, and people walked all over them for it. At least we're making some SLOW progress now, as opposed to none at all.
I'm guessing you don't know anything about the Stonewall Riots.

Offline Noelle

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #148 on: August 09, 2010, 05:40:13 PM »
Unfortunately, if you want your cause to push through, your options as far as initiating dialogue goes are pretty slim. You can't say you're entitled to something, that you want acceptance, and then refuse to make contact with the other side to get it. That's a one-way ticket to failure of your cause, simply because not initiating dialogue to plead for your side is not in your favor; inaction means things stay the way they are. Inaction means that the opposing side doesn't have to do much work, because your cause isn't doing enough.

Offline Brandon

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #149 on: August 09, 2010, 06:01:57 PM »
Another somewhat problematic part of that argument is gays need to realize that disagreeing with allowing gay marriage isnt a sign of proven utter hate and disgust. Now certainly there are cases where it is, but its not always like that. Saying (and Im paraphrasing here) that anyone who isnt for gay marriage is a bigot is just as rediculous as saying Im racist because I dont like Obama's policies