Pathetic and disgusting: The elections weren't all about progress.

JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Pathetic and disgusting: The elections weren't all about progress.

"Proposition 8" in California passed. A change to the state constitution based on nothing other than pure bigotry and hate, conceived by religious jackasses and supported by such bottom feeders as Howard Ahmanson, Jr. (who bankrolls the Discovery Institute) and John Templeton.

Other, similar measures passed in Arizona (ban gay marriage), Arkansas (ban gay adoption), and Florida (ban gay marriage).

People are pathetic.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:iwbiek wrote: HOW

EXC wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

 HOW CAN ANY PERSON WITH A

!!!!!!!WORKING FUCKING BRAIN!!!!!!!

ACTUALLY SUPPORT THE PHILISTINE, BIGOTED, BOURGEOIS STATUS QUO???

TELL ME PLEASE!

Oh, I don't know, maybe because it is better than:

STARVING TO DEATH BECAUSE THERE ARE CONSTANT FOOD SHORTAGES BECAUSE LITTLE FOOD IS PRODUCED AFTER THE COMMIES DECIDE TO PAY EVERYONE ACCORDING TO WHAT THEY NEED INSTEAD OF WHAT THEY PRODUCE

or maybe it could be better than

BEING BUTCHERED TO DEATH BY AN ANGRY RIOTOUS COMMUNIST MOB BENT ON STEALING AND DESTROYING ALL ONE'S HARD EARNED WEALTH.

so most sane people will choose religious society over a communist one.

 

 

what the fuck? What has any of that got to do with the topic of this thread?

What a strange world you must live in, EXC, that you have this black-n-white choice. This false dichotomy.This utterly inane idea that anything that's not pure capitalism can only be that dreaded communism.

Well, here's some news: McCarthy is long dead, son. The Red Menace was never the threat to America he painted it to be. Socialist values can function just dandy within a capitalist framework as a natural extension of our evolutionary instinct to support our troupe.

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Diagoras23
atheist
Diagoras23's picture
Posts: 77
Joined: 2008-11-25
User is offlineOffline
You could

You could just move to my place in Australia.

Everybody!

Bring your cozzies.

 

 

This Outsider's View

Word poetry by William Shatner

The US dichotomy

Swing to the right but Obama?

Precarious

What if he is shot?

LA riots nothing

Civil war

*concerned look*

*Kate Bush fade out*

 

Who would want to finish what they have said with the same thing everytime?


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Sorry, I think I'm

Sorry, I think I'm contributing to the crusade to hijack this thread. BTW, what does everyone think about the idea of giving homosexuals the same rights, but calling it a legal union instead of marriage? Because many theists are just stuck on how homosexuals are violating their holy tradition from God, if you take away the word, would most theists still give a damn? 

iwbiek wrote:
this is not really the place to discuss my issues with the constitution in detail, but essentially my problem is the altering of jefferson's "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in the declaration to "life, liberty, and property" in the constitution.

Haha, I'm actually going to agree with you there. The right to own property is paramount in a developed society, and the Founding Fathers only replaced "property" with "the pursuit of happiness" during their plagiarism of Thomas Paine to appeal to the lower classes.

This wouldn't be taking away any rights away either because notice that "liberty" and "the pursuit of happiness" is redundant. If you actually have liberty, then you certainly have the liberty to pursue happiness. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Sorry, I

butterbattle wrote:
Sorry, I think I'm contributing to the crusade to hijack this thread. BTW, what does everyone think about the idea of giving homosexuals the same rights, but calling it a legal union instead of marriage? Because many theists are just stuck on how homosexuals are violating their holy tradition from God, if you take away the word, would most theists still give a damn? 
Separate but equal doesn't fly.

I'd be OK with it were the state to change all marriages to be civil unions, or cohabitation contracts or whatever, and leave the religious thier precious "marriage" word. But to separate folks into two classes... "coloreds only" comes leaping to mind.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


stillmatic
stillmatic's picture
Posts: 288
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:butterbattle

JillSwift wrote:

butterbattle wrote:
Sorry, I think I'm contributing to the crusade to hijack this thread. BTW, what does everyone think about the idea of giving homosexuals the same rights, but calling it a legal union instead of marriage? Because many theists are just stuck on how homosexuals are violating their holy tradition from God, if you take away the word, would most theists still give a damn? 
Separate but equal doesn't fly.

I'd be OK with it were the state to change all marriages to be civil unions, or cohabitation contracts or whatever, and leave the religious thier precious "marriage" word. But to separate folks into two classes... "coloreds only" comes leaping to mind.

That's the way it should be. All civil unions performed by the state and religious "marriage" ceremonies have no legal standing.

I'm Canadian and was the best man at my buddies wedding (he and his wife are Hindu). They had a traditional Hindu wedding, but then had a civil service afterwards to actually seal the deal legally.

"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." -- former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:iwbiek wrote: HOW

EXC wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

 HOW CAN ANY PERSON WITH A

!!!!!!!WORKING FUCKING BRAIN!!!!!!!

ACTUALLY SUPPORT THE PHILISTINE, BIGOTED, BOURGEOIS STATUS QUO???

TELL ME PLEASE!

Oh, I don't know, maybe because it is better than:

STARVING TO DEATH BECAUSE THERE ARE CONSTANT FOOD SHORTAGES BECAUSE LITTLE FOOD IS PRODUCED AFTER THE COMMIES DECIDE TO PAY EVERYONE ACCORDING TO WHAT THEY NEED INSTEAD OF WHAT THEY PRODUCE

or maybe it could be better than

BEING BUTCHERED TO DEATH BY AN ANGRY RIOTOUS COMMUNIST MOB BENT ON STEALING AND DESTROYING ALL ONE'S HARD EARNED WEALTH.

so most sane people will choose religious society over a communist one.

 

 

exc, how many times do i have to tell you to fuck off?

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Separate but equal

Quote:
Separate but equal doesn't fly.

 

I'd be OK with it were the state to change all marriages to be civil unions, or cohabitation contracts or whatever, and leave the religious thier precious "marriage" word.

Ah yes, good point. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Prop 8 and its dangerous precedent.

I was thinking about the precedent Prop 8 may be setting.

The amendment to California's constitution removes a right recently established for a particular group of people.

Think about that for a moment. With the backing of outside sources (particularly the Mormon Church) and a sustained propoganda campaign a right was removed from a minority group. Essentially arbitrarily.

If the opportunity were to arise on some neighboring state, could a careful campaign make it illegal to (for example) be a Mormon? Or mean a Mormon marriage is not recognised?

It's something to give a little thought time to, in my opinion.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:I was

JillSwift wrote:

I was thinking about the precedent Prop 8 may be setting.

The amendment to California's constitution removes a right recently established for a particular group of people.

Think about that for a moment. With the backing of outside sources (particularly the Mormon Church) and a sustained propoganda campaign a right was removed from a minority group. Essentially arbitrarily.

If the opportunity were to arise on some neighboring state, could a careful campaign make it illegal to (for example) be a Mormon? Or mean a Mormon marriage is not recognised?

It's something to give a little thought time to, in my opinion.

I don't see the poor, repressed religious Christian minority ( and just ask them, they'll tell you how repressed they are ) allowing a bill making Christian religions illegal. More likely it would be making things like Wicca, Buddhism, atheism, certain skin pigmintations, specific sexual orientations, and anything past a third grade education illegal.

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Desdenova wrote:I don't see

Desdenova wrote:
I don't see the poor, repressed religious Christian minority ( and just ask them, they'll tell you how repressed they are ) allowing a bill making Christian religions illegal. More likely it would be making things like Wicca, Buddhism, atheism, certain skin pigmintations, specific sexual orientations, and anything past a third grade education illegal.
Yes, well - I picked Mormons because there are places in this weird land where they are not well represented and well resented and it would be turnabout. Still, your list of examples is more likely and considerably scarier.


 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
They should have set a thing

They should have set a thing up in the voting booth that anyone who voted "yes" on any of these it would dump like a gallon of steak sauce on their head.

People that want to force their religious bigotry on everyone else should get a hornets nest thrown down their pants and then kicked in the nuts.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team