Prop 8?

Debra what you seem so eager to overlook is not only are gay couples tax payers but so are single people and you seem to wish to trafer weath from that group and give it to gay couples and my question to you is why do you wish to do that?

What benefit as a society do we get from gay couples that would allow you to walk up to single people and ask them to open their wallet to them?

As I already said to Debra TKO please explain why single people both gay and straight should be happy to tranfer weath to gay couples?

Cycloptichorn you love to play silly games the only thing you don't know is I been dealing with silly people like you from the days of 300 baud moderns.

Some people think they are being cute by challenging statements of common knowledge and common sense and demanding proof and then when you give them proof that the world for example is not indeed flat they then try to go sideway in some manner or other.

Normally I do not play the game with them however from time to time I do enjoy showing off my ability with search engines and allowing the oh so cute poster to look the fool as they move more and more in a sideway direction.

You had by this time move so far sideway that you had fallen off the flat earth.

I think that it's funny that you're calling me such hatefull things and then calling me the hater. You say that my side of the story is so full of holes, but I say that your side is full of holes. I am not, nor have I ever professed to be a legal expert. Most of your defense has been that your side is the side to believe because you say so. You have gone out and found evidences to support your claims. I give you props for that. Most of the people who are hating on prop 8 supporters are just lashing out insults. You have found some ground to stand on. So, I give you credit for that. However, I remain unconvinced that your arguments are the best way to view this situation. I have read what you've cited as references and pointed out. I believe that your references only stregnthen my point of view. The fact that we don't agree on this subject does not make me a hater. This is the thing that frustrates me most with the homosexual community. Either you fully accept that lifestyle or you're a hater. I don't believe that disagreeing over ONE issue makes a person a hater. I have friends that disagree with me over movies, sports teams, politics, and religion. Yet, we still can maintain a great friendship. My fiance's parents disagree with my views on politics and religion. Yet, we can totally enjoy being around each other. Why is it so different with homosexuality? Why am I a hater just because I don't agree with you on same-sex marriage? Why can't we just agree to disagree?

Reality check time...proposition 8 passed. So, our state constitution reads that a marriage is between a man and a woman. It will read that today, tomorrow, the rest of this year, and into the next year. No matter how much you complain or debate how you feel about that, it will still be this way for the time being. The CA Supreme Courts will rule on this issue for the second time in two years sometime next year. From there, we'll see what happens. So, if it makes you feel better about yourself to continue to call people names...call them uneducated, bigoted, or whatever you wish. But, the reality of the situation is that your rantings and ravings aren't going to change the outcome of this election nor what the CA Supreme Court rules next year.

I really wish that you would stop calling people uneducated and haters just because they don't agree with you. Who are you to judge their education? Additionally, who are you to judge the decisions of other Supreme Court justices? They have studied the law longer than you and you know the law better than they do?

By this last post, you are showing me that you have some pretty biased views on this subject. You read the opinions of others with your gay rights glasses and put words into people's mouths that aren't there. You've taken a case about interracial marriage and made it about same-sex marriage. That's like comparing apples with oranges. You say that the "fundamental right to marry" that Loving v. Virginia stated is about calling any union of two people in love a marriage. That's reading something into that statement. I could look at the "fundamental right to marry" as a fundamental right to have marriage rights, which civil unions afford same sex couples. You say that I'm sweeping history under the rug to divert attention away from the sins of the past in order to justify the sins of today. I would say that you are using the sins of the past to justify the sins of today. I am in no way like slave owners of yore. THAT'S an outrageous statement. It's also unwarranted and hurtfull.

As I type this, I realize that you and I are NEVER going to see eye to eye on this. I'm fine with whatever names you wish to call me for having an opinion that differes from yours because that's just the way you're going to see this. Before you go on name calling agian, let me remind you that you DON'T know me at all. So, to make statements about the level of my education or to call me a hater seems like a rather erroneous. I can call you narrow minded, but only on this subject. You may very well be more open minded about other issues. However, since you have dismissed anything as unintelligent that doesn't support your view, there is nothing else that I can assume about your stance on this issue but that your are narrow minded on the issue at hand. I am the same way and have stated so before.

That's total BS. You're attempting to leverage some catch phrase the GOP has engineered to make a non-point. If a transfer of wealth is your concern then the only transfer of wealth taking place is from homosexuals to heterosexuals.

You still haven't answered my question. Please stop dodging. It was a direct question.

If civil unions offer the same rights and marriage, why would you choose marriage?

What are you so afraid of?

T
K
O

Copper Smith take a deep breath and do not let Debra emotional reaction to anyone who disagree with her on this matter get you down.

In her eyes she is on the side of the good and we are on the side of the evil and that is just how it is.

This is not gong to be change one litttle bit as it is a highly emotional matter that compare to the issue of abortion in how driven some people are on both sides.

It's not "hateful" to point out your ignorance and bigotry. The truth may hurt, but it's still the truth. You're the oppressor. Not me.



Every source I provided, including the applicable constitutional provision and excerpts from the Federalist Papers, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the majority is constitutionally forbidden from using the power of the state to oppress minorities. Those incontrovertible sources do not strengthen your position in any way. Those sources completely controvert your indefensible position. Do you think lying to me somehow absolves you of your immoral and sinful participation in the oppression of your fellow human beings? It doesn't. It never will.

I didn't say you were a "hater," I said you were an oppressor.

If you were the overseer on a slave plantation and it was your job to whip the flesh off the backs of slaves for breaking the master's rules, do you think I would enjoy being around you? You might not hate the slaves who are under your oppressive rule, but you believe that they need to be taught their "proper place" in society. You might call that a "disagreement" over ONE issue--but I call that oppression of your fellow human being.

By depriving other human beings of the fundamental freedom that you reserve for yourself and by crushing their hopes and dreams for happiness and acceptance, you are no better than the overseer of the past who carried the whip. You are abusing the power of the State to teach gay people their "proper place" in society. You hold yourself out as superior and relegate them to second-class citizens who must continue their struggle for equality in America.

People who cherish liberty and justice will never "agree to disagree" over majoritarian oppression of individuals or minorities. Although you struggle to portray yourself as a good guy--a joy to be around--you haven't convinced me that your participation in the oppression of an entire class of people should be minimized and equated to a mere disagreement over sports. That's pathetic.

For curiosity sake, do you believe homosexuality is a a choice? Why or why not?

Because I believe homosexuality is a choice because sex, itself, is a choice. We can decide to have sex or not to have it. We decide who we want to have sex with and when we have it. It's not like skin color. You can't wake up and say, "I'm not going to have a skin color today." However, you can wake up and say, "I'm not going to have sex today." There's nothing stopping me from having sex with a man aside from my belief that I shouldn't. It doesn't take a specific gender to get someone aroused. It takes a sexual stimulus. These are some reasons that I believe (and probably others, although they couldn't express it) that homosexuality is a choice much like all sexual decisions.

I know this is somewhat off track, I'm just curious as to your thoughts Debra

choice?

If it was a choice, it would be the choice to follow their own nature.
If it was a choice, it would be a very dangerous one considering all the idiots in this world that are willing to physically harm someone because they are gay.

If it was a choice, it's a brave one to make. The only choice is which side of the closet door they want to be on. People like you don't understand homosexuality so you reduce it's existence into something you can understand and judge. I'm not convinced you have a real understanding of this issue to really speak.

You don't owe an argument to Debra, Cyclo or myself. You owe a rationale to a gay couple face to face. You deserve the shame of seeing how it hurts them. You deserve the discomfort that comes with explaining how it's so goddamn important to you that they don't marry. You owe it to them to get a ******* clue.

T
K
O

How the **** does it "hurt them"? Besides the inability to file a joint tax return, where is the discrimination that a civil union would not provide.

You never explain that.

Copper Seth in my opinion it is not a choice it is just a sexual disorder.

And before all you supporters of the gay right movement point out that it was de-listed as a disorder in 1973 or so, may I point out that the gay right movement turn two of the APA yearly meetings in a row into a joke with their protests just before the APA de-list homosexuality as a disorder

And that the incoming president of the APA at the time was an in the closet gay gentleman that in the end came out to his family on his eighty birthday party of all things by bringing along his 18 years old boy toy.

Public Radio had an interesting interview with the man daughter a few years ago and you could hear the shock still remaining in the lady voice as she told the story of that party.

So the point of this is that in my opinion the delisting had zero to do with science or the honest opinion of the APA members but just the reaction of a group that wish to hold their yearly meetings in peace.

Sexual orientation has nothing to do with a "choice" to abstain or not to obstain from having sexual relations. You don't wake up and say, "I'm not going to be gay today." You might as well say, "I'm not going to breathe today." It can't be done. Similarly, if you're in love with someone whom is so special to you that you want to spend the rest of your life him or her, you don't wake up and say, "I'm not going to love that person today." It can't be done.

Furthermore, there is a lot more to marriage than sex. If someone was going to take my husband away from me, then they might as well take my air. He means everything to me. He is the love and the joy of my life. Don't you feel that same way about your fiancee? How would you feel if you could not marry the love of your life because of a discriminatory law--a law that existed solely because of other people's religious or moral disapproval of your innate attraction and love for your fiancee? Could you then wake up tomorrow and simply say, "Okie dokie, I choose not to be innately attracted to my fiancee today; I choose not to love her today." It can't be done.

It was your irrational religious or moral disapproval of gay couples that caused you to cast your vote to deny to them what you treasure and reserve for yourself and your fiancee. Congratulations on your future marriage. I'm so glad that you can experience the joy of marriage. Some people don't have that right. Thanks to you.

You know Debra I offer had wonder if the almost automatic distaste a large percent of the population seem to feel when viewing gay couples could have some foundation in our build in biology driven animal instincts instead of being just culturely base.

This misdirection of the sexual instincts after all could be view deep down as a threat to the survival of the species and we could have some hard wiring in our brains concerning the matter.

People who have true ability with 'search engines' can find better support than the dreck you put forward, Bill. The links you have posted just don't support your contention.

I interview a lot of people like you at work - people who use words that purport to show they know a lot about computers, but that people who really do, don't.

You were the one forwarding a false proposition; that Gay folk somehow steal money from SS if they get married. How do you justify this, especially as a careful reading would seem to indicate that in all likelihood, they will get LESS money from SS after being married than they would being single?

Cycloptichorn

Diest TKO above is correct. This is the sort of thing written by someone who has very little experience with actual gay folks.

There is zero doubt in my mind, that it is not a 'choice.' Here in SF you meet a lot of gay folks. I know several people who are gay who have gone through a significant amount of **** in their life because of it. I know many who were self-hating for a large point of their lives (strangely enough, they were all Republican). I know people who have lost touch with their families over sexual orientation and others who have lost their jobs.

You think that they 'chose' to make those things happen? That those people didn't want to be normal? That they wanted to be different inside?

You say that it doesn't take a specific gender to get someone aroused; to which I would respond, oh really? The thought of someone grabbing your cock right now gets you aroused, even if that someone is a big hairy italian guy? A large African woman? A small chinese grandma? You honestly believe that individual details are unimportant and not hard-wired into people? I doubt it. It's just a convenient way of blaming people for being who they are instead of accepting them for being who they are.

Being gay isn't about having sex with people from your same gender, it's about being attracted to them. I don't think people just wake up and decide to start being attracted to the same gender. There's something innate inside them, just as there is something innate inside you or most others which attracts you to the opposite gender.

Believing that Homosexuality is a choice allows you and others who would deny the rights of homosexuals to pretend that you are not a bigot; that you are condemning actions and not people. That belief is about you, not about them. You ought to realize that.

Cycloptichorn

As there are many instances of Homosexuality in nature outside of Humanity, I think this is pure bullshit.

The 'automatic distaste' you speak of Bill is Fear. You are afraid of gays. And at heart, I suspect that you are afraid of your own homosexual tendencies. Most bigots like yourself are and that is what leads to their extreme anti-gay views. You're afraid that if presented with a dick, you'd suck it.

Think about fear. Think about disgust and what it means. Where does disgust come from? Fear of being contaminated or in some other way harmed by contact or presence. And why would you be afraid of something for which there was no possibility of it happening? I have gay friends, we hang out, I'm not disgusted by them b/c at the end of the day their life choices don't impact me in any way. If you had a stronger sense of sexual orientation I suspect you would feel the same way.

You would do much better to embrace your fear and be honest about your true feelings, rather than hide behind a screen of disgust and denial. Be honest with yourself and I think you will find that your problems with gays getting married stem from inside you and not from anything they may have done.

Cycloptichorn

You do indeed do careful reading my friend as it is clear that you have a choice of going with your earning record or you partner earning record so there is no way you could get less then if you was single.

In addition, if one of the partners happen to had been in either a low paying job or was out of the work force for a time then going on to his or her partner record could indeed result in a higher SS payment.

In my own family my mother work as a clerk for a number of years however her SS credit did not amount to what she now received in spouse benefit under my father record and this is a fairly common happening.

You might wish to try to improve your reading abilities.

Bill,

You aren't showing how this is any different for a gay couple than a straight couple. In all likelihood the gay couple will be contributing more to SS, through working more hours than a straight couple would; SS monies do not only pay out what you put in, they also go to support others. A gay couple is likely putting more money into SS while taking out a comparable amount.

You haven't done your logic on this one, Bill. You haven't shown how anything you've written shows gay couples profiting from SS in a way that straight couples don't.

Cycloptichorn

What possible connect does it have that this sexual disorder also exist in other animals beside man that there might or might be a hard wire distaste in our brain for homosexual behaviors? It would be in fact be very surprising if the misdirection of sexual instincts would only occur in mankind now would it not?

I had not seen any studies one way or another whether other pack animals then human can or do reaction in a negative way to homosexual conduct inside their packs. I would love to see such studies with special reference to animals that pair bond over a long period in order to raise their young.

And your statement that the distaste is fear base does not mean that this could not be one aspect of our possible hard wire dislike for homosexual conduct.

Your logic seem somewhat lacking all over the place.