Prop 8?

@cicerone imposter,

Love is fine but state licensing of love is not fine when the state have no stake in the love affair outcome.

The state does have an interest in heterosexual love as one plus one can result in three or four or five or six or seven or…….more citizens and if the relationship that love start does not last most of the remainder of the lovers lifetimes then all kinds of bad outcomes are far more likely to occur then not to defenseless children.

In the case of homosexual love the society gain or loss nothing if the love last a lifetime or for 24 hours.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

The bigger question is, why do you care if other loving couples are granted equal rights?

not all love is equal. we have love between parties that is not allowed, say adult/child and between family members. We have love that is one sided, of the stalker variety. We have love that we as a collective decided is unhealthy and attempt to end, that being what we label abusive love relationships. We have love that is a figment of the imagination of both parties. We have love between two parties both of who are too immature to grasp what love it (puppy love).

We sanction the love that we approve of and don't that which we disapprove of. Happens all of the time. We have traditionally not sanction homosexual love, and the burden is on those who think we should to convince us that a change is a good idea. However, this notion that no one should care is naive, we always care what happens to our collective, be it our family or our society.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Who's talking about a adult-child relationship? They are illegal in the US. Is that the best you can come up with? It's also illegal in heterosexual relationships, so what's your point? Straw man.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Good point Bill...only fertile couples should be allowed to marry.

Menopause? No marriage for you.
Sterile? No marriage for you.
Gay? No marriage for you.

Got it.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

This post by hawkeye represents the biggest BS on a2k's history. He claims all those people who are against gay marriage is based on "because they care." He can't see the hypocrisy of his own words.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

This post by hawkeye represents the biggest BS on a2k's history. He claims all those people who are against gay marriage is based on "because they care." He can't see the hypocrisy of his own words.

I never said that, I said that there is a reason to care. Some people are against gay marriage because they care deeply about the greater good, and are convinced that Gay marriage will do great harm to the greater good. The caring is admirable, if you feel that their views and beliefs are in error then try to convince them of their error, but don't trash caring.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

I should point out that gay marriage is one of many flash points between deciding if we are going to promote the best interest of all individuals, even of the few, or rather the best interests of the collective. I for one thing that we have gone too far in allowing all individuals the rights that they want, that we are harming to collective by no paying attention to the best interests of the collective. I am open to being convinced, but my instincts are to not advance individual desires any more. A small numbers of gays want to get married, if this will harm the collective in any way, such as by promoting homosexuality, gender confusion, or harm the kids brought up in these homes, then we should not allow it.

the "I want it and you can't tell me no?" argument of the gay rights crowd is offensive, and not only will it not sway me but it will convince me to work against them.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Who's talking about a adult-child relationship? They are illegal in the US. Is that the best you can come up with? It's also illegal in heterosexual relationships, so what's your point? Straw man.

not strawman, I am pointing out that we are free to make homosexual unions illegal, and to make homosexual conduct illegal, again. Gays should consider being happy with half a loaf for now, and not demand everything. Homosexuality prohibition was consistent with the constitution for a very long time, and can be again by changing our interpretation, again. I point out also the the "defense of marriage act" and the military's prohibition on homosexuals have not even now been overturned by the Supremes.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

I should point out that gay marriage is one of many flash points between deciding if we are going to promote the best interest of all individuals, even of the few, or rather the best interests of the collective. I for one think that we have gone too far in allowing all individuals the rights that they want, that we are harming the collective by not paying attention to the best interests of the collective. I am open to beinging convinced, but my instincts are to not advance individual desires any more. A small number of gays want to get married, if this will harm the collective in any way, such as by promoting homosexuality, gender confusion, or harming the kids brought up in these homes, then we should not allow it.

the "I want it and you can't tell me no?" argument of the gay rights crowd is offensive, and not only will it not sway me but it will convince me to work against them.

I was more sloppy than usual, my apologies

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Who's talking about a adult-child relationship? They are illegal in the US. Is that the best you can come up with? It's also illegal in heterosexual relationships, so what's your point? Straw man.

not strawman, I am pointing out that we are free to make homosexual unions illegal, and to make homosexual conduct illegal, again. Gays should consider being happy with half a loaf for now, and not demand everything. Homosexuality prohibition was consistent with the constitution for a very long time, and can be again by changing our interpretation, again. I point out also the the "defense of marriage act" and the military's prohibition on homosexuals have not even now been overturned by the Supremes.

The denial of equality has never been consistent with our constitution. This is why each and every struggle to reach equality has resulted in an increasing level of equality, by many groups in our nation's history. There's no reason to think that Homosexuals will not also succeed in their struggle.

Statements like this might galvanize you into strengthening your opposition to gay marriage; I and other proponents care naught for this. We will keep right on fighting until we roll over you bigots. Liberalism and Equality are the driving forces of this nation, there is a clear record of victory on the side of those who fight for these values, and the intolerance of some will not stop us from succeeding.

I would point out that our mostly-conservative SC has denied hearing challenges to the DOMA; it has not been overturned b/c it has not actually come before the court for a hearing. Denying review is a powerful tool, and one that the Conservatives on the SC have used for a long time to keep equality down. You shouldn't mistake this for a successful defense of the statue in front of the SC.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

The denial of equality has never been consistent with our constitution. This is why each and every struggle to reach equality has resulted in an increasing level of equality, by many groups in our nation's history. There's no reason to think that Homosexuals will not also succeed in their struggle.

I think otherwise. The constitution does not drive the society. Equality has been driven by a society that generally believes in equality, and wants to do what it can to further equality. However, there is now a serious question in the air about when is enough enough, when does our push for equality undermine the best interest of the nation, when do the claims that more rights must be granted on the equality argument get silly and become an insult to our intelligence.

I don't know that we will draw the line at gay demands for more rights, but it may well be that we should. Till then I want gays to convince me that they should get what they want, not demand that I have no choice but to agree to give them what they want. I demand that respect as a member of the majority.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

I would point out that our mostly-conservative SC has denied hearing challenges to the DOMA; it has not been overturned b/c it has not actually come before the court for a hearing. Denying review is a powerful tool, and one that the Conservatives on the SC have used for a long time to keep equality down. You shouldn't mistake this for a successful defense of the statue in front of the SC

exactly the point that I was trying to get TKO to understand, there are various avenues for the majority to pursue their interest against the minority, and and such efforts are sometimes successful over the long haul. Whining about it is childish... it was always thus and always thus it will be...he should grow the **** up.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Greater good? Who's greater good are you talking about? Your bigoted mind?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

tolorance is not always the best reaction, somethings should not be tolorated, bigots are sometimes right. Calling me a bigot was intended to be an insult I am sure, but it is not.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

However, there is now a serious question in the air about when is enough enough, when does our push for equality undermine the best interest of the nation

No, there is not a 'serious question' in the air about when 'enough is enough.' That's bigot talk. You simply wish to deny Homosexuals equal rights to you, because you don't personally approve of their lifestyle. The law doesn't give a **** for your disapproval, however, and will continue to grant homosexuals more and more rights until they are equal to heterosexuals; you can bet on it.

And if you don't accept it, we'll simply roll right past you as a society, the same way we rolled past those bigoted against blacks and women. You will be left muttering about special interests and moral degradation, and everyone else will simply get on with life.

Quote:

Till then I want gays to convince me that they should get what they want, not demand that I have no choice but to agree to give them what they want.

Gays owe you nothing, no explanation nor any attempt to convince you of anything. They are not somehow required to explain themselves or their choices to you. No part of our law requires them to do this. Equality is the foundational principle of our society and over time attitudes such as yours have been and will continue to be steadily beaten back to where they belong - the intolerant past.

Quote:

I demand that respect as a member of the majority.

What makes you think we or they give a **** about your demands? You can demand whatever you want, but you will not receive it; and they will get what they want anyway. Then you will cry about how unfair it is to the majority, yet nothing will change due to your crying.

You ought to own up to the fact that your opinions are based in hate and bigotry, and a persistent belief that you as a straight are better than gays are. No different than any other type of racist or bigot. There's nothing rational about denying people rights. It's an emotional argument, put forth by those who would seek to keep others down.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

tolorance is not always the best reaction, somethings should not be tolorated, bigots are sometimes right. Calling me a bigot was intended to be an insult I am sure, but it is not.

How's this for an insult: you're a ******* idiot, bigot.

The fact you don't consider the term Bigot to be an insult, pretty much says everything that people need to know about you. Bigots are never right.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

hawkeye talks and walks like a bigot; he wants to deny a group identified by christians as sinners, but can't produce any evidence of their god or any good reason they are so bigoted.

He has no understanding about our Constitution or Bill of Rights. Only bigots understand where he's coming from. Simple concepts like "equal rights" escapes his tiny brain.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

So we should only license cars that are in running order at the time of the licensing or if not to be fair to rowboat owners we should license rowboats as cars? That is your kind of thinking?

Licensing marriages of homosexuals couples where the rate of reproduction is zero does not make any sense at all and to try to justify it by pointing out that heterosexual couples had a rate of reproduction that fall somewhat short of a 100 percent is silly and have no logic behind it.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

No w0nder you're confused; we're talking about other humans who should have the same rights as everybody else. Your comparison of humans to boats and cars only makes sense to bigots..

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

No w0nder you're confused; we're talking about other humans who should have the same rights as everybody else. Your comparison of humans to boats and cars only makes sense to bigots

and what is the name we call people who assume that everyone should share their values and make no effort to value and understand other peoples positions.......Narcissist isn't it?

can we please get beyond the name calling and deal with the issues at hand....we are better than the a2k mudslingers.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know