The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Gay marriage has lost votes in 31 states
Poast new message in this thread
Date: November 4th, 2009 6:11 AM Author: Cream electric furnace field ?? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13173474) |
 |
Date: November 4th, 2009 6:13 AM Author: Slate Incel But it has won in enlightened states like Washington, Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts etc. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13173477) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 6:18 AM Author: Cream electric furnace field gay marriage has lost in all 31 states it has been put to a popular vote.. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13173481) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 6:38 AM Author: appetizing underhanded casino to be fair, an argumentum ad populum is a fairly shitty way to support a premise. for instance, what percentage of confederate states vote slavery blah blah so on i think you know what i mean. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13173499) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 6:41 AM Author: Big-titted sanctuary to be fair, he was merely stating a fact. didn't score too well on the LSAT RC? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13173502) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 6:52 AM Author: appetizing underhanded casino to be fair, he is bothered. i think we all know damn well what he was getting at. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13173522) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 6:54 AM Author: Cream electric furnace field I'm not sure I was getting at... aren't we more sure of what the voters were getting at? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13173524) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 6:55 AM Author: appetizing underhanded casino well, it's no secret that most americans hate queers.
however, that is quite distinct from the question of whether or not gays deserve to have marriage protected as a right. |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 7:49 AM Author: godawful poppy faggotry base n/a (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13173566) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 8:31 AM Author: mint station This is horrifyingly bad logic. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13173666) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 8:32 AM Author: nighttime legend people who are hurt lol you support appeals to populism? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13173677) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 8:34 AM Author: mint station Of course I don't. But the comparison to, "well, lots of people in the South supported slavery" is absurd. Not just at a normative level, but at a descriptive level. You had bleeding Kansas precisely because there was a groundswell of populist sentiment in northern States opposing slavery. In not a single State today do you have that kind of support for same-sex marriage. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13173687) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 8:37 AM Author: nighttime legend people who are hurt well, this all depends on the claim you are trying to make.
for instance,
"gay marriage has been voted down 30 out of 31 times; it won't be widespread anytime soon"
true. realpolitik makes this clear.
but that's completely distinct from a normative assertion such as
"gay marriage has been consistently voted down, therefore it is bad"
since of course voters can be total retards. |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 8:38 AM Author: mint station I agree. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13173707) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 7:33 AM Author: Fiercely-loyal haunted graveyard crackhouse Who cares? There are rights that can't be voted away. It makes absolutely no sense in any imagineable way to deny gays the right to marry. Just because there are Godly homophobes who turn out in huge numbers just because they think their sham of a marriage is only kept together by denying gays the right to marriage means absolutely nothing. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13173549) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 8:38 AM Author: Violent spectacular goyim Lol.nice post homo
edit: also, it appears you're wrong- ask the people in california. |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 3:39 PM Author: maniacal stimulating lay Uhm. If a bunch of people vote to stop gay marriage it is pretty clear that the "right" can be voted away. As a side point, you have no rights that cannot be voted/taken away, Westerners only think that they do. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13176474) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 9:14 AM Author: multi-colored nursing home Who knew bothered was from ARE COUNTRY? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13173828) |
Date: November 4th, 2009 7:50 AM Author: Bateful mildly autistic factory reset button really tough guy this will change in about ten years as the olds die off (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13173567) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 7:53 AM Author: Fiercely-loyal haunted graveyard crackhouse titcr. Old people are homophobic bigots, whereas people in ARE GENERATION tend to be way more tolerant of this stuff. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13173571) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 7:54 AM Author: Chartreuse self-centered property cuckold OUR GENERATION = spineless (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13173573) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 8:03 AM Author: pearly abode I agree only in that we seem to have no will to tell old people to go fuck themselves and die already. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13173595) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 10:38 AM Author: Titillating sticky center digit ratio ty (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13174256) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 7:56 AM Author: arrogant den background story In the intermediate term, states should focus on civil unions. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13173576) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 8:30 AM Author: mint station This isn't exactly accurate. First, even "young" states like California and Texas enacted same-sex marriage bans; California did so even though same-sex marriage had been legalized by the court, and even though they had a massive liberal youth turnout.
Second, the *repeal* of same-sex marriage bans and the *enactment* of same-sex marriage is going to be a different animal than their enactment in the first place. There's no question that, starting from scratch, plenty of states in 10 or 20 years might think that same-sex marriage is okay. But repealing the constitutional amendment, even if that goes through, isn't enough; there has to be some kind of positive legislation, judicial determination, or a second constitutional amendment doing so.
Third, it will be interesting to see if views on same-sex marriage are generational, or age-specific. That is, do people become less inclined to support alternative definitions of marriage as they grow older, have kids, etc.? Or is it simply that today's kids are going to be progressively more tolerant about same-sex marriage, and that tolerance will transcend their aging? We'll find out. |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 7:58 AM Author: ruddy mind-boggling cruise ship Right now it looks like Vermont is perhaps the only state it could win. If Iowans voted on the issue, pretty sure the results would be worse than Maine and California. Oregon and Washington could become battlegrounds on the issue, both strike me as liberal, educated and godless enough to possibly support it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13173582) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 9:05 AM Author: arrogant den background story NY, CT, and possibly NH would also as well (not RI or MA) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13173787) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 9:10 AM Author: mint station NY would be a fascinating case study, I think. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13173811) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 9:08 AM Author: Irate dog poop Just goes to show, people aren't fit to govern themselves. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13173798) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 9:10 AM Author: mint station George III would agree. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13173810) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 9:12 AM Author: Irate dog poop Every morning, I walk down the street and look at the disgusting people around me, getting fat in their SUVs, hooting and jumping like uncaged baboons, talking about whatever inane reality television program they self-lobtomized with last night.
All I can think is: Their vote is equal to mine? That insults not only me but this country and every person that lives in it as well. |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 9:15 AM Author: Violent spectacular goyim Hint: you're a fucking idiot. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13173839) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 9:16 AM Author: Irate dog poop your moniker will be among the first on my little list of people who shall be "reeducated" under my nascent regime (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13173844) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 9:35 AM Author: Balding vibrant trust fund locale (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13173957) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 9:40 AM Author: mint station No, it's not purely out of spite. This is the typical "disbelief" from those who can't conceive of anyone disagreeing with a position other than that advocated by gay rights' groups, which results in shell-shocked name-calling of "unproductive," "pathetic," "lowlives," "miserable," and so on. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13173981) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 9:45 AM Author: Balding vibrant trust fund locale If you take a single hour out of your day to protest gay marriage, your life is pretty fucking miserable and unproductive (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13174006) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 9:46 AM Author: mint station Would you say the same thing about a straight person spending a single hour supporting gay marriage? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13174008) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 9:51 AM Author: Balding vibrant trust fund locale Yes, but those straight dudes are trying to provide strength in numbers for their gay friends so there prensence is little less unproductive (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13174022) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 9:47 AM Author: multi-colored nursing home It's easy to imagine the existence of hateful people. Most of them are pathetic. But, yes, they could be pathetic and productive. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13174012) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 9:54 AM Author: Balding vibrant trust fund locale I'm not saying everying should agree with gay marriages. I understand they have their own reasons for why they don't, but to disagree with it so much that you have to take political action is incredibly pathetic no matter your reason (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13174032) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 9:57 AM Author: mint station Had courts not started deciding this on their own, I don't think there would have been any political action. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13174052) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 10:25 AM Author: Balding vibrant trust fund locale Are you really going to sit there an tell me someone who's out there collecting signatures to put gay marriage ban on the ballot isn't filled in hate in his heart? I'm not speaking of those just passively against the idea of gay marriage, but those who actively conspire to destroy it. They're primarily motivated by spite no matter what they say about faith, values, or some bullshit about negative social outcomes. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13174181) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 9:38 AM Author: Balding vibrant trust fund locale I can't believe there are straight people out there going door to door to collecting signatures because they're that passionate about this issue.
How miserable does your life have to be to care so much about an issue with virtually no impact on your life or livelyhood? Its one thing to just go to the polls and check "no" on a ballot because you don't like change. But the people who organize these referendums, pay for TV ads, collect thousands of signatures, have rallies in opposition to gay marriage, etc. are doing so purely out of spite. It's unbelievable how unproductive and pathetic these lowlives are. |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 10:24 AM Author: Pink Kitchen Love Of Her Life No, they're doing it because they have strong moral convictions and believe it's important for social policy to reflect traditional moral norms.
I know it's hard for many nonreligious people our age to even grasp the concept of such moral values, but people have held them for thousands of years and they are perfectly normal. |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 10:29 AM Author: Balding vibrant trust fund locale Please.
Moral conviction is a bunch of hogwash. I don't see them putting a referendum to make divorce damn nearly impossible or to ban the marriage between two infertile people or denying legal rights to those who have children out of wedlock. They're out there on the street with signs about the sanctity of marriage because they have hate in their hearts and minds. |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 10:36 AM Author: mint station Surely, you're more intelligent than this.
It's not "hate," except as a meme to those who don't understand the position. It's a genuine conviction that homosexuality is immoral and shouldn't receive the sanction of the state.
The only reason that homosexuality is at *all* treated uniquely among conservatives nowadays is because the bell has been rung for everything else. No-fault divorce? Battle lost. Pornography? Battle lost. Fornication? Battle lost. Sodomy legislation? Battle lost.
Why in the world would it be, at all, a meaningful use of your time to go around trying to convince people to unring those bells? Same-sex marriage is at a unique place for that reason.
This is the same thing that happened with polygamy 100 to 150 years ago. Who knows, maybe it'll come around again. But this isn't remarkable or unique.
"Spite," as you keep harping on, is for, essentially, trivial or meaningless reasons. And the reasons for same-sex marriage bans aren't personal animus. And you should know that. If you don't, then you're just buying into the typical rhetoric that fires your side of the debate up, just like there's rhetoric on the other side, too. |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 10:49 AM Author: haunting mentally impaired location pervert You can rename "hate" into "genuine conviction that homosexuality is immoral" all you want but it will not change anything. I would be curious to see what labels would be put on people who would argue that being straght is "immoral" and who would try to prevent straight people from marrying. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13174299) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 10:57 AM Author: Pink Kitchen Love Of Her Life Hate and morality are fundamentally different bases for opposition to gay marriage. Just because you don't understand the concept of morality doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
As for anyone who would argue that being straight is immoral, they're misanthropes and I'd question the basis for their moral conviction. |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 11:01 AM Author: Balding vibrant trust fund locale "Just because you don't understand the concept of morality "
Because anyone doesn't follow your flawed moral compass doesn't understand morality? |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 11:05 AM Author: Pink Kitchen Love Of Her Life Not at all. It's completely reasonable to disagree with my morals, but you can't even understand the difference between moral conviction and hate, showing you don't even grasp the concept. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13174374) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 11:10 AM Author: Balding vibrant trust fund locale I think there's a strong undertone of hate for your fellow man in your "convictions"
|
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 11:14 AM Author: Pink Kitchen Love Of Her Life And how would you know, since you know nothing of my convictions? My guess is you've never even known a religiously conservative person well or done much research on the topic.
Or maybe you did know a couple who were in fact hateful, and illogically assume they reflect everyone with moral conviction. |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 11:20 AM Author: Cruel-hearted anal jewess Having grown up, lived with, and been around these religious conservatives most of my life, my experience matches TMLT's. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13174455) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 11:07 AM Author: haunting mentally impaired location pervert It seems that it's you who doesn't understand the concept of morality. "Morality" is a concept people use to label their irrational prejudices to make themselves appear "civilized". However, in substance, it's all personal biases, prejudices, and hate. Human psychology 101.
As to arguments that being straight is immoral, in terms of moral relativism, it's no better or worse than your own position with respect to homosexuality. |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 11:21 AM Author: Pink Kitchen Love Of Her Life "However, in substance, it's all personal biases, prejudices, and hate. Human psychology 101."
No, it's not, and 80% of the population would probably disagree with you. But it's not really something we can prove one way or another.
"As to arguments that being straight is immoral, in terms of moral relativism, it's no better or worse than your own position with respect to homosexuality."
Maybe not, but it's obviously ridiculous unless you want to see humanity wiped out. |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 11:35 AM Author: haunting mentally impaired location pervert "No, it's not, and 80% of the population would probably disagree with you."
The opinion of the 80% of the population is irrelevant. It's not how you establish existence or non-existence of natural or social phenomena. Next thing you'll suggest would be to prove theorems of mathematics by taking a popular vote.
"Maybe not, but it's obviously ridiculous unless you want to see humanity wiped out."
Pwnd by logic and by reading comprehension. You were offered a moral relativism argument, but perhaps you didn't notice. Also, inability to get married does not imply inability to procreate. I'm done here, apparently we're not on the same page/level. |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 11:36 AM Author: Pink Kitchen Love Of Her Life "It's not how you establish existence or non-existence of natural or social phenomena."
Given that it's impossible for you to prove that moral conviction is simply a collection of biases and hatred, it's better than nothing. |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 3:25 PM Author: Razzmatazz turquoise selfie i have a genuine moral conviction the lord intended all NIGGERS to be slaves (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13176384) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 10:58 AM Author: Balding vibrant trust fund locale I don't feel strongly about gay marriage, to be honest. I just look down on all non-gays who do.
You can make excuses all you want how those collecting signatures are motivated by their own righteousness. But we've all met that person who's out there with a bullhorn outside the mall blabbing about gay marriage will end civilization as we know it. That person isn't out there for any virtuous reason. |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 11:07 AM Author: Pink Kitchen Love Of Her Life And on what basis do you assume that guy on the bullhorn represents all those who actively oppose gay marriage?
Logic is clearly not your strong point. |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 11:26 AM Author: Cruel-hearted anal jewess So you decide to draw a line in the sand after all the major battles have been lost already?
At some point religious conservatives need to realize that they're not going to be able to legislate their morality in this country. (Especially since so many conservatives are bad enough at following their own moral "convictions") You've had your 200 years, it's time to step aside. |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 3:22 PM Author: contagious smoky menage "religious conservatives" existed here before 200 years ago (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13176363) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 10:36 AM Author: Pink Kitchen Love Of Her Life "Moral conviction is a bunch of hogwash."
Maybe in your narrow little world. To dismiss it so thoroughly (rather than simply disagreeing with others' moral convictions) demonstrates you're at least as close-minded as the people you attack. |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 10:51 AM Author: haunting mentally impaired location pervert Reading comp pwnd. The poster was saying that "moral conviction" argument is a bunch of lies given that conservatives seem to accept happily other social phenomena that undermine "traditional marriage". (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13174311) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 11:00 AM Author: Pink Kitchen Love Of Her Life Hardly. Conservatives don't happily accept other social ills, but have generally given up on legislating them. The poster was clearly dismissing the entire concept of moral conviction, and equating it with hatred. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13174358) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 11:04 AM Author: Balding vibrant trust fund locale No, I was saying their moral conviction is seriously inconsistent and disingenuous hence the sentence that followed. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13174368) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 3:23 PM Author: contagious smoky menage This is a form of bigotry, fyi. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13176368) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 4:04 PM Author: Balding vibrant trust fund locale Eat a dick, fyi. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13176706) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 10:42 AM Author: frum cowardly famous landscape painting dysfunction I'm reasonably liberal on social issues and despise the Christian right, but your posts on this issue are remarkably ignorant. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13174275) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 10:43 AM Author: haunting mentally impaired location pervert cr. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13174277) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 10:51 AM Author: coiffed histrionic stage "Moral conviction is a bunch of hogwash."
aaaaaaaaaaand, you lose the debate. |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 10:50 AM Author: coiffed histrionic stage Ding, fags! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13174302) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 11:16 AM Author: peach knife i support gay marriage but believe it's reasonable to have "civil unions" for gays and "marraiage" for man/woman marriages. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13174432) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 3:15 PM Author: godawful poppy faggotry base n/a (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13176331) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 3:27 PM Author: red parlour i don't care anymore and just wish the gays would stfu. are country has more important things to worry about. |
|
Date: November 4th, 2009 4:05 PM Author: Comical boistinker philosopher-king let 'em get married. call it what you will--civil union, marriage, whatever--but they should be eligible for the same benefits as straight people. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1128943&forum_id=2#13176717) |