Prop 8?

@BillRM,

Do as you wish Bill. It's a free country... if you're straight. If you so badly want to associate yourself with the people that wanted to oppress homosexuals, go for it. If you simply object the the list itself, I could care less. These people/businesses make their beds and they can sleep in it. If their support becomes their liability, so be it.

I so rarely see someone as eager as yourself to align with tyranny.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Are you old enough to remember the 50s my friend? The old blacklist had always been a tool of tyranny not a tool for freedom for any group.

The best way of deal with this tool is to make sure it result in a 180 degree reversal of what it makers would wish for and you are right the people who dare to support a position the gay right movement do not care for deserve the support of the majority of the citizens who by their votes had also shown they agree with the people who send the checks in.

There is a lot of evil and ugliness connected with the gay right movement over the years. Try looking at youtube and see some of the behavior of the act our group for just one example.

Hell your name calling is another fine example of this nonsense and is very counter produced for your cause in my opinion even if it did get homosexual delisted as a disorder in 1973.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

You're idiotic opinion is of no concern of mine. I gave you the chance to prove your points. You failed terribly. Beyond that, you've done damage to your credibility. Your beliefs are littered with such hypocritical double talk, you might as well have two mouths.

I'm sure your little soapbox on gays being so dark and evil by creating a blacklist doesn't have room for the people who boycott store because they don't say "Merry Christmas." Give me a break.

What you are attempting to do is label what the LGBT community is doing as an unique form of protest, and an evil one as well.

T
K
O

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

It is indeed evil and as a small footnote what the hell are you talking about concerning Christmas greetings? Both my wife and I happen to be proud card carrying atheists as a matter of fact.

Are you just assuming for some strange reason that anyone who would think that the whole idea of state licensing same sex relationships is silly must be fundamental christens?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Atheists don't carry cards Bill.

However, if I've mistaken you for a fundamental Christian, it would be because of you tendency for irrational group think. Even I make mistakes.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Oh if anyone else wish to get on the gay blacklist here is the link that should do it assuming they are updating their list. One can only hope so.

https://www.icontribute.us/protectmarriage/initiative/main

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Oh if anyone else wish to get on the gay blacklist here is the link that should do it assuming they are updating their list. One can only hope so.

https://www.icontribute.us/protectmarriage/initiative/main

I'm all for you making a public ass out of yourself. One thing though. It's not like here, you can't hide behind a screen name. Your character is fully up fro grabs IRL.

Do you own a business? What do you have to lose? Go ahead and send as much money as you can to the prop8 fund.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Sure we do and I have it right next to my ACLU card as a matter of fact<grin> and once upon a time I even have a NOW card in my wallet.

When I tried to get the local chapter of NOW to help out in dealing with a woman at risk by her husband they would not help so I did not renew my membership. Lord that was a long time ago.

In any case it is you who lack the logic to deal with my arguments and find yourself in need of venting emotions by name calling not I.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

That's Cute Bill, but you haven't employed any real logic.

Your tasks are easily defined:
a: Show how it is in any state's interest to ban gays from marrying.
b: Show how a ban would not be in violation of the rest of the constitution.

You've tried, but you've yet to provide anything distinct. You tried with SS, but that fell flat on it's ass. What do you have left? Just your out of touch view.

Your marriage, and the reasons you wed you so notably referred to as "not my business" only solidify my case. Who the hell are you to judge these people for getting married?

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

There happen to be zero way they can harm me with their silly list but I would hope if that was not the case I would still send the check.

I lot of people had given their life for our freedoms so facing up to the gay right movement threats of economic harm is hardly a big deal in any case.

I was way too young to do anything about the 50s black lists and the House Committee on UN-American Activities even if I remember upsetting my father by stating the only UN-American activities was the committee itself and how could you not have contempt for congress.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Don't you understand the irony of what you are saying. You say you'd oppose a committee to find "un-american" activities, yet you are behind a movement to ostracize an entire community because they are as Prop8 so clearly challenges "damage" the institution of marriage?

As for dying for our freedoms. The first man to get injured in the Iraq war was gay. I remember a quote from a gay veteran. He fought valiantly in Vietnam, but was discharged when the military learned he was a homosexual. He fought hard to be reinstated. He loved the army, and wanted nothing more to serve.

"The US government gave me a medal for killing two men, and a dishonorable discharge for loving one."

T
K
O

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

The US government gave me a medal for killing two men, and a dishonorable discharge for loving one."

You conveniantly leave out the part where this guy was in the army only because he committed an illegal act....not telling the Army that he was Gay.

In any case expanding the definition of marriage to include being between two men or two women (or as the FLDS desires one man and many women) changes what marriage is. Those who have marriage now have the right to object to the change. Gays also don't have the right to be married, the majority can allow it but is under no compunction moral or otherwise to do so. It is a judgement call. I come down on thinking that marriage should remain between one man and one woman. Gay unions should be given some legal standing, but not include the full rights that married have. They also must take another name for their contract of union.

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

I happen to be addressing one issue of the logic or lack of same in the state licensing same sex relationships and granting benefits as a result that are the same as for heterosexual couples.

I don’t think that the government should be in the business of granting licenses concerning private relationships unless there happen to be an overriding need to do so. As in the case where one plus one can and most time does equal three or four or five or………….

As far as the subject of the military that you had brought up is concern I do know that there are a lot of problems now that heterosexual couples are on ships together for example and I can see why the military leadership would fear adding homosexual tensions into the mix of combat situations not just on ships but throughout the military.

If we once more need to go to the draft the homosexual ban will be needed to drop in any case so that no one can get out by just claiming to be gay with a smile and a wink.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
The US government gave me a medal for killing two men, and a dishonorable discharge for loving one."

You conveniantly leave out the part where this guy was in the army only because he committed an illegal act....not telling the Army that he was Gay.

In any case expanding the definition of marriage to include being between two men or two women (or as the FLDS desires one man and many women) changes what marriage is. Those who have marriage now have the right to object to the change. Gays also don't have the right to be married, the majority can allow it but is under no compunction moral or otherwise to do so. It is a judgement call. I come down on thinking that marriage should remain between one man and one woman. Gay unions should be given some legal standing, but not include the full rights that married have. They also must take another name for their contract of union.

Circular logic hawkeye10.

The point is that it shouldn't have been a violation.
K
O

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

I don’t think that the government should be in the business of granting licenses concerning private relationships unless there happen to be an overriding need to do so. As in the case where one plus one can and most time does equal three or four or five or………….

Wow. That's a deep hole you've dug yourself in. How does the government have a "overriding need" to endorse a marriage between a couple that has 3,4,5, or 12 children? More offspring doesn't help the state. That's about the dumbest argument you've used yet. Lots of kids actually puts a larger burden on the state.

The state has no overriding need in banning gay marriage. If you meant what you said, you have no reason to support the ban.

T
K
O

3 Replies

@Diest TKO,

How silly can you be here the whole system of laws concerning married is wrap around the fact that most marriages had children and the tax laws are set up to help families and the SS system grant special benefits to help the people who had likely taken part in raising the next generation.

Hell the state even limit who a heterosexual can married by how close a blood relationship can be between the couple in order to protect the next generation from the harm of inbreeding.

The state is involved in encouraging stable long term heterosexual relationships and setting details rules concerning what will happen if that relationship does happen to fail all with the eye to limiting the harm to minor children.

I know to you this is an emotional issue to you and you wish to have a state seal of approval for your relationship but that that is not and never had been the purpose of the three corner contract with the state being one of the parties.

But let set all the above logic aside and you instead can tell us please the real purpose of the state granting a married license to anyone dealing with a private sexual relationship. If it not about children what is it about?

Why would the society care to set up family courts and transfer the wealth programs and on and on?

Frankly without the concern for children I can see zero reason for the state to be granting anyone a license or setting up a whole section of the legal system over a private sexual relationship between adults only.

However I am sure you will explain why we are spending so must resources over this if not because of children

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

You know I think I can sum up the whole married state be telling about a short conversion I had with a female neighbor many years ago.

She had a young son and she stated yes her now husband had informed her after they had been living together for a number of years that he would like to have a son and she told me her reply was ok John but first you will have to married me.

It is my opinion that she was aware of the main purpose and reason for marriages.

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Oh and married is not to encourage more children mother nature will do that with or without a state license however it is to help increase the likelihood that the children that are born have stable homes and the state don’t need to support or raise them.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

How silly can you be here the whole system of laws concerning married is wrap around the fact that most marriages had children and the tax laws are set up to help families and the SS system grant special benefits to help the people who had likely taken part in raising the next generation.

Tell me the point when you were filing for a marriage license when you listed how many children you were told you had to provide?

Tell me about a straight couple that has had their marriage revoked by the state because they elected to not have any children?

You're wrong. again.

BillRM wrote:

The state is involved in encouraging stable long term heterosexual relationships and setting details rules concerning what will happen if that relationship does happen to fail all with the eye to limiting the harm to minor children.

No it is not Bill. Your premise is wrong, so understandably, your conclusion is wrong.
1) Allowing gays to marry doesn't threaten or discourage straight people from marrying or having their own relationships.
2) Plenty of children raised by gay couples or individuals, (or for that matter single parent homes) show the same degree of functionality as those raised in the nuclear family status quo.

How does gays marrying harm children? If you can't answer this with some sort of real substance, you should withdraw your statement.

BillRM wrote:

I know to you this is an emotional issue to you and you wish to have a state seal of approval for your relationship but that that is not and never had been the purpose of the three corner contract with the state being one of the parties.

My relationship? I'm a single straight man.

The state approval of homosexuality, further gay marriage, is one I find passion in, because I've taken the time to become educated on the issue. Additionally to that, in my time in college, I met enough LGBT to realize how I love someone is the same way they love someone. Their rights were mine as far as I was concerned.

BillRM wrote:

But let set all the above logic aside and you instead can tell us please the real purpose of the state granting a married license to anyone dealing with a private sexual relationship. If it not about children what is it about?

You haven't brought any logic into the thread, so that should be easy to set aside.

Your question: What is marriage about?
My answer: Love.

BillRM wrote:

Why would the society care to set up family courts and transfer the wealth programs and on and on?

I'm not sure I get what you're getting at here...

BillRM wrote:

Frankly without the concern for children I can see zero reason for the state to be granting anyone a license or setting up a whole section of the legal system over a private sexual relationship between adults only.

So go petition to have the state revoke the marriages of the straight couples that haven't had any children. Otherwise, your argument is bunk.

BillRM wrote:

However I am sure you will explain why we are spending so must resources over this if not because of children

I'll put this simply for you Bill. Do you know what the difference for children was between Nov 3rd and Nov4th? Nothing. If your interest is with children as you so nobly posture, then you would not be making yourself a barrier.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@BillRM,

So it's about a commitment.

T
K
O

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know