| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| California to vote on Same Sex Marriage | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 19 2008, 08:45 PM (2,085 Views) | |
| QuirtEvans | Jul 20 2008, 04:18 AM Post #26 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
You have a right to vote for or against, for any reason you like. But not in California, unless you relocate there. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | Jul 20 2008, 04:32 AM Post #27 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Quirt, I'm trying to tell you that I find the idea that voters can vote whether or not my relationship should have the same legal rights as anyone else's relationship offensive. You can think I'm wrong for feeling that way and I would never claim to be an expert in the law. But this is an issue which affects me personally having been in a relationship for 14 years with someone I've known for 20, with someone whom I'm going to be with until one of us dies. Hopefully in Hawaii though. Good night. Have to go now. |
![]() |
|
| Red Rice | Jul 20 2008, 04:32 AM Post #28 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
:lol: |
|
Civilisation, I vaguely realized then - and subsequent observation has confirmed the view - could not progress that way. It must have a greater guiding principle to survive. To treat it as a carcase off which each man tears as much as he can for himself, is to stand convicted a brute, fit for nothing better than a jungle existence, which is a death-struggle, leading nowhither. I did not believe that was the human destiny, for Man individually was sane and reasonable, only collectively a fool. I hope the gunner of that Hun two-seater shot him clean, bullet to heart, and that his plane, on fire, fell like a meteor through the sky he loved. Since he had to end, I hope he ended so. But, oh, the waste! The loss! - Cecil Lewis | |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Jul 20 2008, 06:27 AM Post #29 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Daniel - One would think that the only basis for your choosing a candidate is how it affects (1) gay people and (2) car drivers in Hawaii. And your personal attack on IT, while certainly within forum rules, seems both rude, off-topic, uncalled-for, and, AFAIK, false. |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jul 20 2008, 06:56 AM Post #30 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Different people find different things offensive, Daniel. You find people voting on whether homosexuals can marry offensive. Mark finds the income tax offensive. I find torture offensive. The point is, we live in a society that has established rules. One of the rules is that the Constitution is the ultimate arbiter of all these disputes. Another is that the people can amend the Constitution. This is true at the state level as well as the federal level. You, and I, may think something is totally wrong. But that doesn't mean that the people don't have a right to vote on it. Ultimately, if we're a democracy as opposed to some other form of government, the people have to be able to decide, and some of what they decide may be offensive to you, to me, or to Mark. They may need a supermajority or some other system to decide, but, ultimately, they have the right to decide. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jul 20 2008, 08:54 AM Post #31 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I understand, Daniel. But that does not matter to me. Your opinions on the subject seem entirely informed by your need to make the world conform to your own subjective experience. My opinion about your views should not matter to you. Yet for some reason they do, and so whenever I write anything about the topic you attack me. I am not going to stop writing about the topic, Daniel. And I really don't care if you continue to attack me. Once again I need to point out that you are wrong. I do not make the argument based on religious grounds, but on biology and political order. You keep stating that my objections are on religious grounds as if you keep shrilly playing the religion card that it will make it so. But you are wrong. No Daniel. I doubt you have ever examined the politics that went into having same sex disorder removed from the DSM. You seem entirely blindered to this. I realize you consider them to be ignorant. I also realize that you distort the argument so that you can attempt to discard it.
I only posted a story about the topic as a current event of interest to many people here. Yet you can only attack me for starting the thread. That is completely unhealthy and emotionally unbalanced, Daniel.
I have no side in this, Daniel. I have already said many times that I am in favor of a registered domestic corporation to ensure the rights and responsibilities of all citizens. Yet you continue to attack me. You seem grievously psychologically and emotionally wounded. You lash out irrationally at me. That is just not healthy. I am not upset with you for not being emotionally healthy, any more than I would be angry at someone in a wheelchair for not being about to walk. But you really need to direct the bad feelings from your own psychomachia at their root -- your own interior life, and not externalize them against other people who don't conform to the world as you wish it were. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| OperaTenor | Jul 20 2008, 05:38 PM Post #32 |
|
Pisa-Carp
|
A substantial portion of of Californians find the voter initiative process a poor way to legislate, and tend to vote against *any* voter initiative, regardless of the issue. There are also a lot of people here who balk at the absolutist nature of the amendment initiative itself. Those two groups, together with those who are simply against the initiative, will in all likelihood vote it down. Kenny's right. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jul 20 2008, 05:56 PM Post #33 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Are we talking about a voter initiative, or about the California Constitution? IT's original post is unclear. We could have an interesting discussion about whether voter initiatives are a good way to make policy and law, or not. However, it is the law of the land in California, for better or worse. And, if we're talking about the requirements of the California Constitution, those cannot be overridden by a voter initiative. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Copper | Jul 20 2008, 06:16 PM Post #34 |
|
Shortstop
|
If Mr. Obama is elected this may become a moot point. I believe he is committed to surrendering to Iran. As we all know there are no gays in Iran. It’s probably safe to assume they’ll have the same policy here. |
|
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy | |
![]() |
|
| OperaTenor | Jul 20 2008, 08:37 PM Post #35 |
|
Pisa-Carp
|
It's a voter initiative to amend the California constitution. ![]() (I have become one of those who think the voter initiative process in general is stupid. We end up voting in things that cost the state money but refuse to vote to pay for it.) |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | Jul 20 2008, 08:50 PM Post #36 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
You'll excuse me if my give a damn meter is busted in terms of your choice for President as I've watched you switch from supporting Clinton to supporting Obama to supporting McCain. What kind of core principles could you possibly have when you blithely switch from one Democrat to another to a Republican? I don't care if you vote according to your self interest. You have the right to do that. But in terms of your posts indicating to me that you actually believe in anything? BTW, if nobody ever told you, you look like a total asshole by suggesting that "car drivers" are an interest group. |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Jul 20 2008, 09:04 PM Post #37 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Daniel - "believe in anything? " As should be clear, I am economically conservative but socially liberal. Therefore, neither major party really fits my view or appeals to me. I am trying to make the best of a bad situation, which seems to be divided government. |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | Jul 20 2008, 09:14 PM Post #38 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
So now it's "biology and political order." Do you recall the last great experiment in basing political order in biology? No, I wouldn't expect you to. Instead, you'll start screaming insults at me. Whatever. And yes, your view that homosexuality is a disorder is a religious idea. Lie about it if you like. I've read your posts in which you've explained this in detail. As far as politics being involved in changing the diagnostic manual- we gays are sooooo politically powerful that we can tell entire professions what to do, say, and think. Especially in the early 1970's. Gays were social pariahs all the way through the 1980's, but I'm sure we were single handedly responsible for the change. The entire profession is corrupt and controlled by gays. Even today! You are the one who rejects 40 years of establishment psychiatry AND offers up the work of anti-gay hacks with a clear agenda every chance you get. I know who is reputable and whose work to take seriously. Unless a psychiatrist or psychologist agrees with you about homosexuality being a disorder, you reject their work. That leaves me with the work of the establishment and you with the work of an extremist fringe group, but if you really want to look like prejudiced fool, live and be happy. You really *don't* get the message that your views are ignorant. You are the one with whom the experts in the field disagree. But I am the one who is personally motivated and ignorant. Ok. As to your other comments, you acted like a troll in this thread. You posted something that you knew would provoke some of us and posted the to see what kinds of responses you would get. You got what you asked for. |
![]() |
|
| Rainman | Jul 20 2008, 09:18 PM Post #39 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
Quirt, not sure how it is in Kalifornia, but it may be similar to Oregon. We have the usual legislative process, when the legislators cop-out, they use the referendum. The initiative process was introduced in the early 20th century, and is "direct democracy" where the voters directly amend the constitution. Good idea or bad, we have 227 (maybe more) amendments to the Oregon constitution. Edit: I see OperaTenor already covered this above. In my view, the worst thing about the initiative process is it takes away any flexibility of legislative compromise. No compromises, it is either a Yes or No, on one issue, direct vote of the people. I wonder how many other states have this form of direct democracy which overrides the legislative process? The governor cannot veto an initiative, the legislature cannot change or modify it. The initiative results (if passed by the people) become part of the constitution. |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | Jul 20 2008, 09:22 PM Post #40 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Thanks, OT. I hope that they do vote it down. I think I know how you're going to vote. ![]() |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | Jul 20 2008, 09:30 PM Post #41 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
One more thing I want to say regarding state constitutions. Our (Hawaii's) constitution has the same thing proposed in California. 51% (or more, I don't remember) voted for an amendment the language of which says that marriage is between a man and a woman. It doesn't matter if that concept violated our constitution or not. Once that one piece of language was inserted into the constitution, all of a sudden it "constitutional." I still maintain that the Supreme Court can take care of this in short order (although obviously not "this" Supreme Court). |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | Jul 20 2008, 10:04 PM Post #42 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
The world's most powerful nation is going to be taken over by Iran? Please tell me this is your trollish sense of humor. Please tell me you don't actually believe this. :wacko: |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jul 20 2008, 10:39 PM Post #43 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Daniel, you are a bitter, nasty little sh!t who can't get along with anyone. You are psychologically damaged. Get the f*ck off the forums and stop pissing all over everyone else. Geez. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jul 20 2008, 11:09 PM Post #44 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Daniel: You make enemies out of people who once were, and should be, your friends. You interpret everything through your own neurosis -- even a little popcorn eating emoticon. There is no point continuing a conversation with you since you are irrationally attacking me. But nor will you silence me or anyone else from stating our opinions. If that does not accord with your world view, I'd suggest you change your world view since you will not change the world. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | Jul 20 2008, 11:28 PM Post #45 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
The world is changing all around you, Ivory. You're the one who is not willing to accept it. ![]() |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jul 21 2008, 12:13 AM Post #46 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
That has all the verisimilitude of profundity while remaining virtually meaningless.
|
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | Jul 21 2008, 12:36 AM Post #47 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Oh, now you're hurting my feelings. I googled a cute bunny picture for you and everything. I wasn't going to continue posting in this thread since you indicated that you didn't want me continue but I'll say a couple of things. I think it's quite remarkable that you reject almost 40 years of establishment psychiatry. For a person with a good education that seems remarkably ignorant. It isn't just "gay" psychiatrists who subscribe to the establishment view- and it involves more than simply having taken the diagnoses out of the diagnostic manual. Let a psychiatrist try shock therapy on a gay patient as was done in the past, for example, as see how that works out for the doctor. No, it includes all kinds of prescriptions for dealing with this subject. It's about having healthy (since you like the word so much) and responsible interactions with patients. So here's the "meaning" as apparently I have to spell it out for you. Homosexuality is not considered to be a mental disorder and hasn't been considered one for almost 40 years. You choose not to accept this. Or same-sex marriage in California. Or same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. Good on you. Your choice. Finally, you have a hang-up about accusing me of not wanting you to speak. Speak! It doesn't mean that much to me what you do. Speak out about this "issue." Fight the good fight. However, be prepared when others tell you what they think about what you say. And I think that a lot of what you say is ignorant. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jul 21 2008, 12:56 AM Post #48 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Daniel: You are really mistaken. I do not think homosexuality is a mental disorder. I have never held that homosexuality is a mental disorder. I don't recall ever writing here that homosexuality was a mental disorder. I would never consciously or deliberately use the language of mental disorder to describe homosexuality. You act neurotically and you attack people irrationally. That is my observation. That might be caused by your homosexuality, it might be the cause of your homosexuality, or it might be entirely independent of it. I have no way of knowing. That is something for you to work out for yourself. I only comment on your behavior, and I have never commented on your sexuality, and I have never commented on your personal life. You seem unable to accord people the same courtesy. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | Jul 21 2008, 01:22 AM Post #49 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
"That might be caused by your homosexuality, it might be the cause of your homosexuality, or it might be entirely independent of it." Like I said, ignorance personified. You are an ignorant twit when it comes to this subject. You never comment on my sexuality or my personal life? You just did. And don't think I've forgotten that you called me a twit, questioned my sanity, and called me "Danny Boy" the last time we spoke. I don't pretend that I've never make personal attacks on this board. You, on the other hand, are a self-righteous hypocrite. Obviously, you've decided that character assassination is your best bet when dealing with me. That's fine. I know how to deal with people like you. Let me know when you decide to join the modern world, IT. I don't have any interest in pretending to like someone who spews the kind of ignorance that you spew on this board everyday. |
![]() |
|
| Klaus | Jul 21 2008, 01:28 AM Post #50 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Darn, I ignored this thread at first and almost missed some pleasant mudslinging ![]() How can I become a part of this? Let me try: Daniel, you are a <insert homosexual insult here> !!! (I'll insult the others later on, don't worry) |
| Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |








to see what kinds of responses you would get. You got what you asked for.





4:52 PM Jul 10