Prop 8 Oral Arguments in CA Supreme Court [MERGED]

[Kulindahr]

I'm not playing the semantics game. I said, again, the biggest bitchers in this thread look outward (blaming the presidential candidate and judges FIRST) without looking inward first (towards people in their age demographic).

They have no leg to stand on. We wouldn't be here today if the older people that voted in November were more tolerant. FACT.

And we wouldn't be here if the younger people who voted in November were more tolerant -- FACT.

There were enough young voters who went the "wrong way" to have changed it, too.

So stop focusing on age -- that's just bigotry. Find something that actually makes a difference, like whether someone knows a gay person, or whether they go to a Conservative Baptist church, etc.

"Looking inward" doesn't mean looking at a group someone else defines for you, it means looking at your own group -- and the group of the older people here isn't one that opposed progress.

 

[Kulindahr]

I gravitate to agree with this statement. In which case the structure of government should be changed to take the right of people to revoke consitutional civil rights. I wouldn't be surprised if a serious effort arises to achieve that.

Heh -- there is no "right to revoke constitutional rights". There may be authority to do so, but there's no right to it, because that would mean there's a right to tyranny...

I darned well hope there will be a serious effort to get that established! It should be comprehensive: to establish not only that a vote of the people cannot revoke or limit a protected right, but that all law must be interpreted in such a way as to maximize individual liberty. That way, what's achieved by hard work can't be whittled away incrementally.

 

[hotatlboi]

I understand the age issue but I fail to see how blatent ageist hate rhetoric will do anything toward convincing those older people.

 

[Kulindahr]

I suck dick and am a male, but don't call me gay or a man. I don't belong to either group.

Asking a question is not baiting. The mod gave no warning or points or any penalty. He thought I was going there and I reassured him I wasn't.

You're still hurt to this day from that question I asked. I didn't ask you the size of your penis or how much money you had in the bank. I asked you a hypothetical question that put a hole in your argument and YOU REFUSED TO ANSWER. Now I see, you probably reported the post to the moderator claiming I was baiting and I wasn't (hence no penalty or anything, mods can verify this too).

And you say you don't have any hurt feelings?

No, you asked a question designed to evade your responsibility for fallacious reasoning and bigoted statements.

The way you "reason", I could accuse you of spreading syphilis -- because you suck dick. See, since you're part of a group who engages in a practice that is helping spread syphilis, obviously you're guilty! That's the way you write, over and over, in this forum.

BTW, your "hypothetical question" (it wasn't) didn't touch my argument, because my argument was about your fallacious reasoning.

 

[Kulindahr]

The frustration arises from the fact that age transcends all demographics in opposition to gay marriage. Older blacks are more likely to be opposed than younger blacks, older Jews than younger Jews, older Swedes than younger Swedes, older Women than younger women, and it goes on and on for every single demographic except for gay people ourselves.

First of all, it doesn't: knowing a gay person is above it, membership in a conservative church is above it.

Second, I would bet that the majority of those truly active in the fight for gay equality are still "older people" -- which really changes the picture.


It never helps to condemn anyone for things they didn't choose -- things like age, or sexual orientation.

 

[Lostlover]

And we wouldn't be here if the younger people who voted in November were more tolerant -- FACT.

There were enough young voters who went the "wrong way" to have changed it, too.

So stop focusing on age -- that's just bigotry. Find something that actually makes a difference, like whether someone knows a gay person, or whether they go to a Conservative Baptist church, etc.

"Looking inward" doesn't mean looking at a group someone else defines for you, it means looking at your own group -- and the group of the older people here isn't one that opposed progress.

So older people don't have gay relatives and neighbors? And if they're religious, that excuses bigotry (of course those that voted against gay marriage)?

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Your age group was the least tolerant and somehow, someway you find it in you to blame another group.

You're up way past your bed time. Go to bed.

 

[Kulindahr]

O yes the ranks of young people coming to take gay rights away. I'm so scared!


Don't deflect from the majority of gray haired people who's change we need most on this issue, and if they aren't willing to change then the clock will do it for them.

No deflection at all: what we need on this issue is votes, regardless of age -- and there are enough votes in the younger crowd to make the change. It's like with Prop 8 and blacks: someone showed the figures that there aren't enough black voters to have changed the outcome, so why yell at them? But there are enough younger voters to change the outcome, so to take a theme from LL... the younger crowd should see to their own house, instead of blaming.

Dumping blame on people because they're older is just a chicken way of not coming up with real ways to fight and win -- which is what I'm trying to do. So far, other than my suggestions, I haven't seen too many efforts to do anything except keep antagonizing people needlessly.

 

[hotatlboi]

Well it won't. They come from a different time where gay people weren't out and remain very resistant to accepting gay couples as equal. That's why I believe only the passage of time will make a difference in the oldest people (aka 6-feet under).

But my point is people ARE changing their minds, and of course that has to include some older people. Nationally, support for gay marriage is around 40-45%, which is up a lot from even a few years ago. That's too quick to just be old people dying off. If people made more of an effort to effectively communicate positive messages and viewpoints I think it would help even more.

 

[Lostlover]

O yes the ranks of young people coming to take gay rights away. I'm so scared!


Don't deflect from the majority of gray haired people who's change we need most on this issue, and if they aren't willing to change then the clock will do it for them.

Dude, he was thrown overboard and now he's grabbing onto anything to stay afloat.

He needs to get some Zzzz's. His brain is foggy.

 

[Kulindahr]

I understand the age issue but I fail to see how blatent ageist hate rhetoric will do anything toward convincing those older people.

Bingo.

It's part of a failure to understand that making enemies is not a way to win friends -- or votes.

 

[Kulindahr]

So older people don't have gay relatives and neighbors? And if they're religious, that excuses bigotry (of course those that voted against gay marriage)?

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Your age group was the least tolerant and somehow, someway you find it in you to blame another group.

You're up way past your bed time. Go to bed.

Again, you respond with emotion rather than reason: I gave you some facts, and you ywist them.

It's already been explained to you that older people weren't aware of gay relatives and neighbors, because those gay relatives and neighbors didn't let anyone know -- it wasn't safe to do so.

Nothing was said about excusing bigotry -- you're inventing things again.

I didn't blame anyone -- I stated a fact.

 

[Lostlover]

But my point is people ARE changing their minds, and of course that has to include some older people. Nationally, support for gay marriage is around 40-45%, which is up a lot from even a few years ago. That's too quick to just be old people dying off. If people made more of an effort to effectively communicate positive messages and viewpoints I think it would help even more.

What's funny is that I was actually foolish enough to go look up data again to make a point against Kuli and what I found in one article was that gay marriage is NOW seen more acceptable than it was 9 years ago.

This is a note from a source I was going to quote:

The study found that overall support for marriage equality has increased by 9 percent since 2000, with support increasing among every age group under age 65, across all racial and ethnic groups and among Protestants, Catholics and Jews.

A pure false positive. You don't need to take statistics to know why that statement above is misleading if not entirely flawed.

http://www.letcaliforniaring.org/si...891/k.35FC/Driving_Factors_of_Prop_8_Vote.htm

Do you know what happens with time?












































PEOPLE DIE. Dead people are disproportionately older (DUH, I know) . They're not getting more tolerant, they're just dying.

 

[hotatlboi]

LL, thanks for the link, because otherwise I wouldn't have found this little detail that you conveniently omitted.

The largest gain — up 16 percent — was among voters 45-64 years of age, followed by a 13 percent increase among voters 18-29.

What's this? In this survey older people actually become more accepting than younger people?

 

[Kulindahr]

But my point is people ARE changing their minds, and of course that has to include some older people. Nationally, support for gay marriage is around 40-45%, which is up a lot from even a few years ago. That's too quick to just be old people dying off. If people made more of an effort to effectively communicate positive messages and viewpoints I think it would help even more.

The correlation is, again, with knowing gay people. In many cases, it means here that people are learning that their peers' kids are gay, realizing that they've known these kids all their lives, and they're good kids... and minds change.

It's not just knowing someone who's gay, though; it also involves seeing something in that gay person's life that says to an individual, "That makes him/her okay". As with myself, the Pink Pistols, and some people we've been shooting with, that can be a shared activity which involves a deeply-held value. That's one reason I have a Pink Pistols button on my NRA Life Member cap; it makes shooters rethink things.

So you're right about communicating positive messages; it's when people see that gays share some common values, and stand for some things they do, that minds change -- like the mind of an 82-y.o. (voting) neighbor of my mom recently, when she made the connection my rainbow hex-nut choker showed between being gay and being my mom's son; since my mom was perfectly comfortable with me, then this lady decided that being gay must be okay.

But constantly harping on how it's the fault of everyone over 30... what that does is motivate those against you to go to the polls.

 

[Lostlover]

LL, thanks for the link, because otherwise I wouldn't have found this little details that you conveniently omitted.



What's this? In this survey older people actually become more accepting than younger people?

Do you know what happens with time?












































PEOPLE DIE. Dead people are disproportionately older (DUH, I know) . They're not getting more tolerant, they're just dying.

Maybe with 20 more years and 20 more years worth of deaths, the "older" crowd will believe you're equal.

Talk about being naive...

 

[Lostlover]

Noooo. That couldn't be true...

The data is screwy on that link, which is part of the reason why I didn't post it originally in addition to not wanting to play Kuli's game.

HotATLBoi fell right into the trap though.

 

[hotatlboi]

Maybe with 20 more years and 20 more years worth of deaths, the "older" crowd will believe you're equal.

Talk about being naive...

Huh? The group mentioned was 45-64 years, over the last 9 years. 9 years ago would have been 36-55 years old.

You are really claiming that death is the driving factor in the acceptance of gay people in that age group in America? that's stupid.

If we were talking about the over 65 group, maybe then.

 

[hotatlboi]

The data is screwy on that link, which is part of the reason why I didn't post it originally in addition to not wanting to play Kuli's game.

HotATLBoi fell right into the trap though.

It's screwy just because it doesn't fit into your prejudices against old people?

I mentioned that there was CLEARLY evidence that some older people were changing their minds even before you posted that.

 

[hotatlboi]

Noooo. That couldn't be true...

It would probably have been 80+% opposed from old people if not for the old people who clearly changed their minds in the last 9 years.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yes. I routinely go up to old people and tell them how bad they are. Now I think they are going to vote my way. Of course I don't do that. But I don't waste my time either, I go after the votes of people most likely to be swung my way. Lately it's been mostly my friends' parents. Quite a few times I simply showed the "drinking fountain" analogy and it worked.

No, but LL does, at least here; he regularly blames everyone "older" no matter what their stand.

Hey -- are your friends parents "older"?

I don't recall using the drinking fountain analogy, myself. I'm more likely to ask why, if they're willing to die for their country, they aren't allowed to do so? And if they're willing to do that, why shouldn't they be allowed to decide for themselves who to spend their lives with?


BTW -- last week, speaking at a PFLAG gathering, I got almost unanimous consent to the idea that the government should allow whoever wants to, to enter committed relationships, regardless of anything... including number. It goes along with another theme I have good success with: what business does the government have telling us how to live our personal lives?