About prop 8 and other anti gay rights props

Here is another source that breaks down the vote into even finer categories, from the Associated Press based upon exit polls.According to this source the following subgroups approved of Proposition 8 at a greater percentage than blacks in general, which was 70-30 in favor.Black women 75
Party by race - white Republicans 85
Conservatives 85
Optimistic about a McCain presidency 76
Attend church once a week 82
Attend church weekly 84
White evangelical/born again Christians 81
2008 McCain supporter 79
2004 Bush supporter 80
Obama too liberal 74
Aprove of war in Iraq 85
Race an important factor in election 71
McCain would take country in a different direction 79
Approve of Bush job as President 86
Voted for McCain 84
Support Prop. 4 requiring a waiting period and parental notification for a minor to obtain an abortion 76No real surprises, the primary supporters of Proposition 8 were evangelical/born again frequent church attendees who support awful presidents, war, and just hurting other people in general.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

http://washblade.com/2008/12-5/news/national/13690.cfm

quote:

---

“The constitutional finding is that [the children] have a right to permanency. And permanency is not achieved by taking them out of the Gill home where they are thriving,” Lederman said.

​

“I find that the law banning gay adoption is without any rational basis. It is clear that there is no rational basis to preclude homosexuals from adopting.”

---

damn those activist judges creating new rights! How dare they overturn the established order of bigotry!Okay, so what's the bet that Florida will by the next state election try to push through a revision or amendment to the constitution banning homosexuals from adopting?Of course, two years from now we may have something else a little more important to worry about. "It's the economy, stupid". Not that this will stop them, but?

quote:

---

Subbie, stick around you gave a great response and its going to take me a bit to respond....

---

Just a bit of a bump, on the off chance that Artie's actually contemplating a response, not that I'm holding my breath.

Holy Crap, I go on vacation for 5 days (BTW - Arizona is beautiful this time of year), and all of a sudden im dodging stuff and refusing to answer. take a chill pill, this site is not on my 10 things I have to do everyday list, maybe this means more to some people, maybe they love to come here and hate. I don't; this is a casual thing for me, sorry to lead you on d00d! Sounds to me as if you dont really even want me to respond. there was alot of stuff you were saying about the loving case (post #141), and interracial marriage, almost as if that's what we were talking about. All I said was that the Loving case was not related to prop 8. then you go on to explain the loving case and the 14th amendment, which is fine but you never really answered or refuted what i said. I am not argueing what you said, but it was a red herring. It was a particlarly long and well written red herring with much detail, but it did nothing to stay on topic (a classic well written red herring technique, i must say it was impressive though).reguarding the 14th amendment.
I just dont see how a state government created by the federal government in order to force the state government to do what the federal government wanted them to do would ever be considered a valid government. it was all set up. It was one of the most tyrannical acts of the federal government in our short history. I cannot accept the 14th, reguardless if the federal court agrees with it or not.
BTW what did Coleman v. Miller have to do with what I was saying? thanks for the link and the information, but the BS is in the set up, not the time required for ratification.

quote:

---

reguarding the 14th amendment.
I just dont see how a state government created by the federal government in order to force the state government to do what the federal government wanted them to do would ever be considered a valid government. it was all set up. It was one of the most tyrannical acts of the federal government in our short history. I cannot accept the 14th, reguardless if the federal court agrees with it or not.

---

You're seriously calling the Federal Government a tyranny because it won't let the State governments be tyrannies ?Why exactly do you consider the freedom of the State governments so much more important than the freedom of individual citizens ?

rofl.I realize there is no real sarcasm in text and it is hard to read, so i try not to use any, but when i imagine you in person, i can't possibly think you are being serious very often.1. wtf does the snarky comment about the bible have to do with anything? it is irrelevant to any of this (and im catholic, so i have no idea what the bible says).2. sry about the links, but im not quoting many people when i make a post, i can think for myself, thanks. besides, this site is extremely casual to me, if i cant find it in a 5min google search im done, which means you can probably find it in a 5min google search as well.3. i NEVER start with the jabs and the ad hominem, but i will return fire, ALWAYS. Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.

By the same logic you cannot accept the 13th and 15th amendment to the US constitution. So do you think those two other amendments are invalid? If they are valid, what about them is different from the 14th?Remember, your beef is that the federal government essentially forced the southern states to ratify the 14th. The federal government used the same methods to have the southern states ratify the 13th and 15th. If there is something special about the 14th for you to not accept it as valid but think the other two are, you have not brought forth that argument. Since you have not, I have no choice but to accept that your aversion to the 14th is rather immature and petulant.

quote:

---

You're seriously calling the Federal Government a tyranny because it won't let the State governments be tyrannies ?

---

yes.

quote:

---

Why exactly do you consider the freedom of the State governments so much more important than the freedom of individual citizens ?

---

I don't nor did I state that.
what confused you so much?

quote:

---

I don't nor did I state that.
what confused you so much?

---

The fact that you object to the Federal government preventing the State governments from becoming tyrannies implies that you think that the State's right to be a tyranny is more important than the people's right to live free from tyranny.There's no confusion on my part.

oh woe is me that you may think bad things of me, call me names and then call me a name caller when i retaliate. though petulance is on you not me, if you are annoyed by someone its not thier fault you are annoyed.the 13th was pretty much a moot point in the CSA, or what had become for the CSA by that time. The slaves of the CSA were freed by the emacipation proclamation on paper, and with union troops, when they got to them. the 13th amendment was used to free the slaves of the slave states that did not succeed from the union (in Missouri, New Jersey, Delaware, and Kentucky). Maryland had already banned slavery on its own before the 13th. the 13th while one of the reconstruction amendments, had litle effect, as it was stating something that was already being practised in the south. so in reality the 13th "by my logic" so conviently stated by some one other than myself (Kuresu), doesn't fit into the formula.the 14th and 15th do fit. the 15th is bogus too.13th valid
14th invalid
15th invalidcan we get back to prop. 8, or do you like to thread jack?

and when the federal government is a tyranny, over the state government to prevent a tyranny in one place with a larger tyranny in every place, then everyone in everystate is not free from tyranny. we can play the circular reasoning game all day long, but I still wonder what your point is?do you have any examples relative to what we are debating here?

Actually, you'll find that I'm generally serious in debate. This is a debate. Though in my case, my posts do tend to be a first draft of the debate, so they are not quite as good as they could be. Admittedly, not much. Other than your unwarranted (in my opinion) rant against FO. You accuse him of doing things he has not done, so you are casting the first stone. Ironically, you have done the very things you accused him off. See, in academia, you have to actually reference your arguments. You state that Loving v. Virginia has nothing to do with prop 8. Great. Where's your support? So far, all you've said is that it doesn't have any relation, all you've done is assert your position. Links are to substantiate arguments and allow others to follow your line of evidence. Thus, I link to the magna carta so that others can check that it says what I think it says. True, they could look it up, but since I'm making the argument, I should give them the directions. Common knowledge does not need to be referenced.In an earlier version of the post you made, I believe you mentioned that you also did not post links as you thought they were a form of argument by authority. Argument from authority is when you bring in an authoritative source (say, Gould on punctuated equilibrium), and use the source as a method to invalidate criticism. That is, the source is infallible, it is right because it is an expert. This is different from quoting the source as a support for your argument. It just might be that the source is actually right, but the truth of the source is not dependent upon its authority. Arguing that punctuated equilibrium is right because Gould said it is an argument by authority. Arguing that punctuated equilibrium is right by referencing the argument for it that Gould made is not an argument by authority. The former is closed to critique, the latter is not.We also do not argue solely by link.That you think this cite is extremely casual is perhaps part of the problem. I daresay there is much that is extremely casual. Then again, one need only look toward razd, anglagard, brian, cavediver, son goku, coyote, bluejay, roxrkool, and numerous others who are either experts in their field, working towards becoming an expert, or have filed impressive arguments reliant upon a large amount of coherent information, to see that this site also has some very non-casual threads and messages. And from the creationist side of the debate, some very hard to counter threads and posts.Further, had you taken the time to check your sources (namely the great charter and the EBoR), you would have found that they did not support your arguments in the manner you thought they did. Esp. the claim that the right to bear arms comes from the magna carta. So who exactly is the one being cavalier in their arguments and supporting evidence? Turn the other cheek? Could have sworn Jesus said that one as well. And I'm pretty sure you launched some jabs (not necessarily ad hominems, because I'm not certain you meant them like that) towards me that were unprovoked. There is a written record for all to see and judge us by.

quote:

---

and when the federal government is a tyranny, over the state government to prevent a tyranny in one place with a larger tyranny in every place, then everyone in everystate is not free from tyranny. we can play the circular reasoning game all day long, but I still wonder what your point is?

---

I'm not playing circular reasoning. I simply find it bizarre to suggest that the Federal government is being tyrannical in taking a stand against tyranny at the level of the State governments.

Okay, so an amendment that prohibits discrimination based on race as regards voting is bogus? So an amendment protecting voting rights is bogus? My guess than is that the 19th is also bogus (though not because it wasn't forced upon states, but because it too protects voting rights, this time based on sex).Would this mean that things such as the poll tax and literacy tests, which were designed to prevent blacks from voting, were not unconstitutional? That jim crow laws were entirely legal and valid? The latter part of this statement is false. The EP declared that slaves in territories still in rebellion were freed. States in the south that were under union control were not in rebellion, and thus slavery persisted. Thus, slavery was not abolished in Tennessee. Further, there was a very real fear that without the amendment, the EP and the "realities on the ground" would not hold and slavery would persist. I would argue that the 13th actually had a tremendous impact, as it gave abolishment of slavery a far firmer footing than a war act. Well, it's not exactly thread jacking. I'm trying to figure out how your argument against the 14th's validity stands. Since your argument against the 14th is key to your argument against its use in cases such as Roe v. Wade and Loving v. Virginia and presumably a future gay marriage case, demonstrating how your argument against the 14ths validity is invalid is perfectly reasonable within this thread.Further, if I can show that your argument against the validity of the 14th applies to other amendments (which, by your own admission, it does), then I can show that you don't really have a valid argument, as you feel that amendments that guarantee rights are bogus. The 14th and 15th guarantee rights. They bestow the greatest protection available, along with eternal vigilance, to those rights. The Bill of Rights does the same thing. Of course, you don't think those are bogus (especially, the 2nd, right?).So my final guess is that the 15th isn't a bogus amendment either. Just the 14th. So why? Forced ratification can't be it. Is it the submission of state government to the federal?By the way, I did not say you were immature and petulant, just your aversion to the 14th. That is, I insulted your position, not you. And before you claim ad hominem, the insult is not the basis of my argument.