LISTEN TO WHAT SOMEONE ACTUALLY SAYS FOR ONCE INSTEAD OF JUST READING ENOUGH TO GET WHAT HE’S TALKING ABOUT IN GENERAL TERMS AND THEN SUBSTITUTING YOUR STRAWMAN FOR HIS ACTUAL ARGUMENT!

Yup — as people who stand up against violence against little old ladies, vandalism of church property, sexualization of little children, and promiscuous public sex.

Of course you would find that disgusting and bad, Dave, because it severely cramps what you support and endorse as a gay liberal. If I were a “good” person like you, I’d be making excuses and rationalization for those behaviors, just like you do.

Again, please state that gay and lesbian people who go to locations with the intent of antagonizing the people therein may be violently assaulted and viciously attacked, since you refuse to condemn the gay people who do so and claim that it’s the fault of other people for “antagonizing” them.

For instance, you claimed that violence against a little old lady was justified because:

But the simple fact is that it is a tactic of the right wing “christians” to 1) go to LGBT events/gatherings with the intent of antagonizing the crowd 2) they send in older women so they can turn around and broadcast far and wide about “grandmas being arrested” like in Philly or in this case assaulted for “defending marriage”.

Therefore, please state that gay and lesbian people who go to locations with the intent of antagonizing the people therein may be violently assaulted and viciously attacked, since you refuse to condemn the gay people who do so and claim that it’s the fault of other people for “antagonizing” them.

One was in Snellville, Ga., where Denene Millner said a boy on the school bus told her 9-year-old daughter the day after the election: “I hope Obama gets assassinated.” That night, someone trashed her sister-in-law’s front lawn, mangled the Obama lawn signs, and left two pizza boxes filled with human feces outside the front door, Millner said.

I’d tell Millner’s sister-in-law to put up those signs again and bring me a lawnchair, because I will personally sit there and watch them — and if those who decided to do that come back, they will find out rather quickly what it feels like to be spotlighted and driving home with those pizza boxes in the back seat of their car.

That’s the difference, Dave. I don’t feel the need to defend assholes because they also oppose Obama, I sure as hell don’t feel the need to make excuses for them, and my condemning and putting to an immediate stop their behavior does not make me a self-loathing McCain supporter. But you, being a typical brainwashed gay leftist, equate criticizing another gay person, REGARDLESS of their behavior, as being a capital crime.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=39460

Using NDT’s logic, I guess y’all approve.

And your statements do not change the fact that appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy. There is, however, a difference between saying, “This is how it’s always been done, therefore this is how must be done still,” and saying, “This is how it’s been done in the past for some time. Here’s why. And here’s why I think these are still good reasons to do it like such.”

And here’s another argument against the appeal to tradition. The changes in the law, if Prop 8 were to be ruled a revision, invalid, whatever, would not change the status of straight couples who get married; they still get married with no impedance created by this change. The change would simply add to the list of those granted the privileged of being married.

Furthermore, PSUdain, given that you oppose “tradition” being used as a guide, then get rid of the one male-one female tradition, get rid of the age limit tradition, and get rid of the close-blood limit tradition.

Tradition????? OK.

OK. Old testament allowed polygamy:

In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of women without any limits to how many he can marry.

In Deuteronomy 21:15 “If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons….”

Age limitation?

The average age of a female in a first time marriage had been 14 to 16 up till the twentieth century. The age of the husbands was often older, due to various conflicts where large numbers of younger men perished.

Close-blood limit tradition? They may be based on superstition and not science.

Prof Bittles reviewed 48 studies from 11 countries and found that the risks of birth defects rose from about 2 per cent in the general population to 4 per cent in consanguineous or same blood couples.

“In reality there are over 1000 million people worldwide that live in regions where 20 – 50 per cent of marriages are between blood relatives.”.

The “Tradition’ arguments has wholes, sometimes a mile wide. I wouldn’t rely on them in a logic driven world.

I just don’t see how they can honorably rule it a revision since it doesn’t address issues the farmers of the state constitution even considered.

Yet the ruling came not on marriage per se but on equal application of the law under the CA Constitution. That isn’t limited except by other provisions of the CA Constitution, which unless Prop 8 is validated does not include marriage as such an exception. I’ve heard Scalia himself talk about principles of the US Constitution like equal treatment under the law being applied to modern circumstances not to invent new rights but a logical extension of the same. And yes, I’m aware that as is currently known Scalia would not dream that same-sex marriage is included in such a reading of equal treatment while others obviously disagree.

I think it would be bad for California — and even worse for the debate over gay marriage should the state Supreme Court overturn the will of the people.

I disagree about results for California, except the next judicial election will prove to be interesting if such a ruling occurs, but I do agree somewhat for other States. It’s difficult to say though because the same religious right groups are already pushing for amendments in the remaining 20 states regardless of what the CA Supremes decide about Prop 8. Frankly at this point, the Rubicon has been crossed and their’s no going back now. If the CA Supremes overturn Prop 8 I’ll welcome that as something which will help efforts in other States in the long run but damage efforts in the short term. If they decide to uphold it, unless movement can be made in NY or NJ I’d say that same-sex marriage is for the most part a dead issue for a generation.

What I would really love to see in the aftermath of all this, is a process that makes it much harder to amend the state constitution. I don’t like doing it via initiative, but if it must be done in that fashion, at the very least it should require a super majority of the popular vote.

I don’t necessarily think an initiative process is wrong in amending a State constitution, but the threshold should be higher like the 60% requirement in Florida. Actually, if you combine the 2/3′s approval of the legislature with 60% of the electorate that to me seems to be better. One of the reasons why it is so difficult to amend the US Constitution is that the Founders didn’t want mob rule where the passions of the majority could be whipped into a frenzy and eventually undo the fabric of the Republic. It may seem undemocratic to some (an ironic charge since we are a Republic and NOT a democracy) but it makes better governance and provides stability for society overall. I say this even though in this particular case I personally do not believe these marriage amendments are legit under the 14th Amendment. That’s a separate issue from the fact that I think it’s better to make adoption of amendments tougher.

Furthermore I said nothing about tradition as a guide, which is often used by people, sometimes to good effect, sometimes to ill effect. That’s another can of worms that we could discuss another time (or now if you prefer). I was talking about tradition as an argument for a case.

And your statements do not change the fact that appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy. There is, however, a difference between saying, “This is how it’s always been done, therefore this is how must be done still,” and saying, “This is how it’s been done in the past for some time. Here’s why. And here’s why I think these are still good reasons to do it like such.”

Going back to tradition as a guide, now; tradition becomes useful when you analyse it and figure out why it is so. Otherwise we end up like that story about the daughter and the ham in the roasting pan and waste perfectly good meat. (Here’s the best account that I could find.)

Except that the majority of states had already by that time a) repealed their miscegenation laws or b) had never had ones in the first place.

Furthermore, PSUdain, given that you oppose “tradition” being used as a guide, then get rid of the one male-one female tradition, get rid of the age limit tradition, and get rid of the close-blood limit tradition.