I won't lie, I think your right about me.

I may and I think it is due to my native culture which see's as the most vile thing you can do.

The western influence has gotten to me and modernized my views, however certain biases seem will never leave my mind.

That is true for all us, maybe not to Gay people but to something else.

Oh my god.


There is nothing in what I said which suggests hypocrasy.

First of all, I am NOT celebrating Obama's win because he's black. I celebrate his win because that fucker McCain and those fucking Republicans will not be in power now.

However, if anyone celebrates Obama's win as a sign of progress, it is unconscionable of them to not extend a hand to homosexuals as well, and it is clear from the voting patterns in California and Florida that there was a profound hypocrisy at play among minority voters.


Democracy is usually a failure. I have NO faith in people and absolutely none in the mob. The mob is what gives us people like Hitler, Bush, and Palin. If it gives us an Obama here and there, that's an exception, which is why his win is extraordinary.


As I said above, if the majority had a say, those Black and Hispanic people who voted for Obama and against gay marriage would never have been given the right to vote for either to begin with. The entire history of progress in America has revolved around protecting minorities from the majority, because of the majority's anti-democratic sentiments.


Let me repeat, AGAIN, that true democracy is NOT only about giving the largest group of people the biggest say, it is also about defending the rights of minority groups to have the same rights as everyone else, and if the majority disagrees, it is the duty of the government to impose equality whether the majority likes it or not. There is nothing hypocritical in that. You're just taking pleasure in the fact that gay rights have taken a beating and using our reaction to the loss as an excuse to call us hypocrites.

However a great deal of politicians and people do not see Gay rights as being fundamental basic rights that come under such protection as a great deal of you suggest. That is why Gay rights have not advanced.

We can argue about the Ideal all day, but that is the real situation and things should be done to correct that.

It has to be seen more as being a basic human rights, then "letting the Liberal left corrupt us".

Like to be against Blacks would be not be tolerable today but to be against Gays??.

Thats the situation today.


I had a feeling it would be supported. Judging from my own experience here, I knew a great deal of the minority population there would not support it.

I think the arrival of the Harvey Milk biopic will have more resonance in California because of this. It'll be interesting to see what happens in the next few months, at least.

The great deal of us who suggest that include the CA Supreme court and the CA constitution, as well as the US constitution, and the reasons gay rights have not progessed--or, more accurately, progessed and then were snatched away--are bigotry, fear, homophobia, which all stem from people's religions brainwashing them into thinking there's something wrong with being gay from a young age and that, in turn, seeping into the culture we live in, but there's clearly no talking to you so I guess I'm done.

That's an excuse, not even a belief. It has to do again with people not realizing what the fuck a democracy is. Citizens all have the same rights, and the idea of even questioning the rights of gays is separating them from citizenry.

A glimmer of hope:

The California Attorney General, Equality California, and the nation's leading LGBT legal groups agree that the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who married between June 16, 2008 and the possible passage of Proposition 8 are still valid in the state of California and must continue to be honored by the state.

What you just said here is not funny

It is the predominant reason that HIV is so prevelant in the black community and the reason it will continue to grow in it. Homosexuality is not a choice, Transexuality is not a choice either however at least transexuals can marry in the US homosexuals can not. The sad thing is until the US can get a grip on this issue it is not just an issue of civil rights but also bleeds into health and while no law can deal with the anonymous unprotected sex behavior that is largely spurred by homophobia either socially or personnally it can set the path for 20 or so years down the road when that will come about and people don't cringe at 2 people kissing.

-well you guys have convinced me, that issues of civil rights should not be open to propositions or referendums.

I am the one who was the hypocrite. I have been long against having referendum's on social policy in Canada. I had blasted many conservatives who want issues like minority rights/death penalty put to such votes.


Thinking about it, I would be certain the Death Penalty would pass in Canada if it came to a popular vote, I would not like that.

Sometimes having the govt go against the will of the majority is a great thing.

Nevertheless when it comes to Gay's, I am a bit "backwards". Nothing to be proud of. I try my best to change. Like when I meant I find two men kissing wrong.

Like I do not find it wrong on TV at all and find it funny when actors do that. It's when it happens publicly it makes a bit upset.


It appears now that younger white people are the ones who are that are the most tolerant. I have noticed that.

Also note I am a religious person somewhat.


However, if you think I am bad, I think when you here what other people think. It may shock you.

Frankly, I don't have a problem with your reaction per se. You can't help that. But you recognize your own prejudice and you can clearly be persuaded by reason.

All of that is to the good.

it appears in my quest to be a moderate I am starting to slip into social conservatism..

Way to let the majority browbeat you. The people here forget, that in the U.S. at least, the minority was often the one rejecting the majority from enacting more beneficial social and economic policy.

Lemme see. Dred Scott case was the minority (a court) telling a majority that the fugitive slave act was unconstitutional. The Civil War was (at least mostly) about a minority of state's refusing to bend to the will of the majority and ending slavery.

Anti-lynching laws were again passed to the vocal hatred of the minority of states. Same with things like the Civil Rights act(s) and Voting Right(s) acts.

The Court's used to strike down all types of democratically enacted legislation that would (at least in the majority's eyes) have helped the economy during the great depression.

Who was it that passed the 13-15th Amendments? Oh yea, a majority of state's.

Box's analysis here is highly simplistic. Sure the democratic process has it's failings, but it also has it's triumphs. In a non-democratic society, does anyone here see gay marriage being allowed? I don't.

Everything you said, KidRock, is either unrelated to the topic, or reaffirms box's points.

So, to sum up, gay people wanting to not be discriminated against is the same as southern states refusing to give up slavery and being forced to enact anti-lynching laws, among other things.

Please, enlighten us. What other crimes against humanity are gay people being given equal rights as straight people comparable to? FYI, that was a rhetorical question. I've had enough hate-spewing, small-minded people droning on about how us gays getting married will lead to hell on Earth for at least a week.


Also:

"The Civil War was (at least mostly) about a minority of state's refusing to bend to the will of the majority and ending slavery."
-homophobic bigot--er, KidRock69X

Just so you know, the way you phrase that makes it sound a lot like you think the South was being honorable somehow in refusing to tow the company line.

While he's at it, have him explain to you why the courts completely overstepped their bounds and legislated from the bench in overturning a gay marriage ban in California, but the courts were perfectly within their rights and should be applauded for overturning a handgun ban in DC.

Its because frankly you agree with a process that supports your viewpoints and then hate it when it does not. Of course I am not talking about civil rights and such.

Its like how so many people were saying democracy sucks when Bush was reelected in 2004 and then praise it when Obama won a huge victory. I tend to do that to. When the Conservatives in Canada won in 2006 here, I went in the typical "stupid rural white people" mode. Then I realized how silly I was.

For the second time I am talking about elections and not civil rights.

BTW, Bush did not steal the 2004 election, he won by 3 million votes!!! Like sure Gore lost (stolen) yet won 500k votes and the democrats are still bitter. How crazy you think Republicans would get by losing and winning by 3 million votes.


Imo the only two stolen elections were the 1960 and 2000 elections.
If you think the 2000 elections were stolen then you must then believe the 1960 ones where as well. Kennedy stole Illinois, but it was for the better, so we do not care anymore.

Malcolm, you just completely obliterated that strawman. I was talking about Box's over generalization about majorities needing to be reigned in. Meaning sometimes the majority is right, sometimes wrong, it just isn't as black and white as box (and evidently you) would have us believe. I would have voted for the proposition if I lived in California. [edit. I phrased this wrong. I meant for gay marriage so a "no" on the proposition]

What hate did I spew? If I did "spew" any hate, I apologize.

I'm sorry but using the majority argument here is irrelevant. denying someone a right that is available to everyone else, is ludicrous. Here America is going around Muslims countries trying to prevent extremists from getting into government and bringing "democracy" to those people, yet they can't look themselves. As far as I know, maybe next time you do your pledge of allegiance, maybe u should add a "except for homosexuals" at the end. and God forbid we define that Christian definition of marriage. something not written in the bible. i

and with a username like kid rock, it's a case of "no shit, Sherlock" on u voting for the prop.

it must anger you that euthanasia is now legal in Washington though. and once upon a time, the majority would have been against that too. maybe Washington has less Christian fundamentalists living in their state.

and its fair to call mannythebest a homophobe. and u kidrock, r just an ignorant piece of shit. but then again, we all knew that.

You would have voted FOR a ban on gay marriage? I hope you are simply misunderstanding what the Prop did.

I edited my post above so sorry for trouble it caused. Also, I voted for euthanasia in Washington.

I edited my post above so sorry for trouble it caused. Also, I voted for euthanasia in Washington.

Also, I'm an atheist.

By any chance were there t.v. spots for the 'W' proposal?
I'd love to see either or both a "Yes on this' and a 'No on this' just to see how the usual political spin is applied to the subject. Youtube?

EDIT: If there are ads on youtube, then please start a new thread.
I don't mean to be off-topic.

Yes the tens of thousand's of elections that have given communites and countries everyday leaders and politican's and government officials that run countries with no fanfare and calm like the people want is a failure.

People like those you list are the exception not the rule.

Also I feel a need to point out two of your examples did not win electoral majorities.

Palin did get elected in Alaska, and Bush counts because of his re-election, though I agree with the rest of your post overall.

I was referring to Palin in this Presidental election, the other one is Hitler since he never actually achieved a majority in a free election, i think the most the Nazi's got in the Weimer elections was like 34%.