Prop 8?

then again, maybe I understand far better than you do, thus you can't make the connection between what I say and what you believe to be true

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/faithandreason/perspectives1.html

We Egocentric humans believe in rationality....cling to rationality, yet there are enough cracks in the facade that we should be able to see that it is not as correct as we think it is. You guys who demean the religious folk, who start from the position that all religous doctrine was born of ignorance, are no better than the worst of the "religious crackpots"

The ones who are smart, who are the most sane, are those of us who know that both the spiritualist and the scientist are correct in their own way, that both types of truth are needed to live this life well.

Is this the 'It's so crazy, it's just gotta work!' theory of the world?

Religion wasn't born of ignorance - it was born of fear and control. Spirituality is what you were trying to refer to, and failing; and Spirituality does not call for limiting the actions of others in any way.

Cycloptichorn

Reality will be a very cold bath for you when it's time to come clean.

1) How is the notion of a "assault upon the collective" even plausible. You are talking about a degree of conspiracy and coordination unachievable by man to date. The cold war could not keep a secret that tight and yet groups like the KGB and CIA tried to cloak and dagger each other to death while smiling and showing teeth. This notion of a gay agenda, especially one which is an "assault upon the collective" is unfounded.

2) We should not "encourage" homosexual behavior? So tell me hawkeye10, exactly how much encouragement would it take for you to engage in homosexual behavior? I suspect that your answer is that you could be encouraged to any degree, but save threatening you, you'd stay comfortably heterosexual. If you were encouraged to be gay would you do it? You. You specifically. The dilemma is obvious.

Back it up to the actual situation we are in: Gays just want to get married, they don't want anything from you. No agenda. No dark alley meetings or super secret gay handshakes into fabulous-share-your-best-baked-goods-and-plot-to-destroy-the-collective-parties. The only place any threat exists, is your mind.

They certainly weren't idiots, but we still have the game winning advantage of perspective. We, for that matter have the benefit of their own failures and admittance of guilt for the mistakes they made.

I don't think that everything that comes out of religious tradition is "quackery." It's not a buy a slice get the loaf kind of deal. Having said that, My opinions RE: homosexuality are not based in a distaste for religion, so your argument does not apply to me.

T
K
O

Rationality isn't anymore broken than gravity hawkeye10. You spend several weeks calculating the trajectory of a ball being thrown through the air, and come the day of the experiment the ball flies and lands 2 ft away from where you thought it would land.

You say: "That's not right, I did all the calculations right!"

It's not a breakdown of science or reason, nor did nature give you some rare exception and put the ball in the wrong place. The ball ended up exactly where it was going to end up. exactly.

The truth is your calculations were wrong. Science didn't fail you, but your ego can quickly take hold of you and convince you that your perception is greater than rationality.

My college physics professor had a saying, and he'd use it whenever the a student would try and weasel points out by saying that their calculations were right and that the experiment was wrong.

"Nature does not argue, it only wins."

Your abandonment of ration is not because ration is somehow flawed or incomplete, it is your weakness. Your weakness that you can't accept what ration offers; that it too often directs you away from your perception. You are only defending your ego. You insecurity does not surprise me in the least.

No. You're wrong. I could hate on some religious people all day, and when the suns falls, I will have never assaulted, murdered, robbed, or denied them their rights. That's what the "religious crackpots" do.

You are now in the phase of your argument, where you've lost so much intellectual ground you have resorted to try and make your argument equal by the notion that both myself and the religious zealot (what you perceive as my nemesis in this struggle) ultimately are no different.

It's a retreat on your behalf. You can't have me argue with you, so you push a concept in front of me to argue with. A concept which you control. A concept which can't be held accountable; you can't be accountable. In the end, you don't have to be right. All you have to do is find a way to find some group (in this case you think it's religious people) that you can feel like I oppress. The product of something like this is that you feel satisfied that you create a image in your mind about who I am by characterizing who I attack. This of course ignores the truth that I'm not actually arguing against anyone but you.

This debate via proxy is pure cowardice. You wanna prove something, you put something on the line. You put out your ideas as your own. Don't hide behind religion.

I know your argument better than you do. I could pose as a gay oppressor on a different message board and stir up people like myself better than you.


How is the spiritualist right? We have emotions, we have our own subjective feelings, and we often do what makes us feel right.

We'll turn down rational things like security for emotional things like love. Is their fault in that? No. What presides however is not our inner self but our outer self. I don't agree with what you think, but I don't desire to police your thoughts or feelings. You can't say the same. Further, gays don't need you to approve of their life, like them, encourage them. Do you live a life that demands all of humanity to approve of you? Like you? Encourage you? I don't think so. Gays only want to be treated as equals by the law, I'm sure they can handle you and your opinions contrary to that.

Your argument is only about you. Your ego. Your insecurity.

T
K
O

This posting of your seem to contain zero logic a real achievement.

First statement any one who have the viewpoint that homosexualtiy is a disorder is on the face of it a bigot correct!

Who said that every problem a baby might have is cause by drug used of the parents?

Who said that anyone who is considing adoptaion is not free to take into consideration or not the biological parents health and medical history?
Most do but if you wish not to that is your right jsut as it is the right of others to do so.

Desirebale as in common sense as in what most people seem to take into consideration and why it is harder to adopt a child that is not a baby.

Lord you can think better then this can you not?

I love the fact that peolpe in the PC mode is so ready to declare with no question in their minds that anyone who dare to disagree wihththem is wrong. Hell not only wrong but bigots

Even in the face of a majority of the huma race doing the disgreement thoughout history.

And when you hit them with logic thye just fall back on name calling.

Strange people indeed.

And you could care less about either science or logic when it does not support your positions.

Hmm religion was born out of a need to understand the universe the same human drive that gave birth to science a few centuries ago.

BillRM wrote:

No; religion was created to control the masses. The heads of all religions know that humans desire some superpower poof-man who can give its adherents "eternal life" after death, and they followed in droves. It doesn't matter which religion; they all work.

Here I am a proud atheist and I even do not share the opinion that religion was started as a mean of control in the society!

True that it had been used as a tool of power but that is not why it started, as even with all our knowledge the universe is a strange and sometime frightening place.

We always had try to understand it and control it to a degree by having gods we could deal with in charge.

You do however seem to have a very high opinion of yourself and a very low opinion of the rest of mankind!

But of course you do as you have cheerfully declared, on this thread, that anyone who would disagree with you on any grounds that homosexuality should be view as the same as heterosexuality is both wrong and a bigot.

Ninety-nine or so percent of the human race through out history is wrong and you are correct! Maybe you are but so far have not been able to give a strong case for your position and had fallen back on name calling.

It's your problem that you think I "have a very high opinion of" myself. It's not about me; it's about the issue of homosexuals in the greater human family. I believe all humans, irregardless of what "groupings" humans wish to apply, leads to the "bigotry." I believe in equal rights for all humans.

This holds true for "all" groups if they live by the laws established that guaratees equal treatment for all. Even our Constitution states that "all men are created equal."

It matters not whether you are an atheist or anything else religion-wise. It's not a "religious" issue; it's an equal rights issue, but many of religion are taught that "homosexuals" are sinners.

Even god have told his flock not to judge others, but they do anywhos. So much for hypocrisy.

The christen god had also given orders for whole nations to be destroy for daring to have lands that he wish to grant to his chosen people.

For tribes to be wipe out with only the young girls who had yet to know a man to be save.

The christen bible also command homosexuals to be put to death along with the children that talk back to their parents and people who work on Sundays.

Sorry but only a very small part of the bible is full of loving and caring by way of Jesus. Hell even Jesus for some reason whiped the money changers for daring to do their job that in fact supported god temple.

God in fact once judged the whole human race with the flood so he is into judging big time.

So call god people trend to be followers of the old treatment not the new no matter what they claim and are more then willing to judge homosexuality as not good at all.

With all the above said just because the good christens had taken a position on gay married due to the writings in the bible do not mean they are wrong.

The whole idea of gay married IE the licensing of private sexual relationships that does not impact the rest of society is silly on the face of it and all you need is commonsense not the good book.

BillRM wrote:

Oh? How has the gays who are married impacted you, a family member or friend, in a personal way?

Well I just know I had gone over this many times but once more it would tend to reduce the pool of SS funding, it would give unearn tax breaks that the rest of us would need to make up, and it would increase the cost of buisnesses and cause them to raised everyone prices to cover health benefits for gay partners of their employees. In other word an unfair and unearn tranfer of wealth to gay couples from the rest of us.

That three ways right off the top, then we would of course increase the load on our court system for no good reason as gay divorces cases are hear. True divorce lawyers would be happy.

You just proved my point; you don't want this special group of humans to have the same rights as you.

FYI, they have jobs like everybody else, and pays taxes like you and I. They even serve in the military of the US.

Three ways that are false.

1) The notion that the pool is reduced by gays - While it is true that if SS benefits were transferable between gay couples that it would mean gays get more, your statement is completely ignorant of the fact that homosexuals and heterosexuals currently pay into SS, and if you're gay you are getting less for that contribution. To give gays transferable benefits isn't a (here comes the GOP favorite spin word) "redistribution."

By this logic, women who want to get paid the same dollar for their work as their male counterparts are lobbying for a "redistribution." What both groups want is equal compensation.

2) How would a tax break for a gay couple that is married be "unearned?"

3) The "cost of business?" The idea that somehow a wife or a man deserves coverage that a wife of woman doesn't lacks any base in logic. If the cost of business is your concern, why don't we drop coverage for spouses? As far as a company is concerned, a extra person on a coverage plan is simply another person. They'll pay the same dollar for each additional person.

This also is particularly ironic considering the arguments that heterosexual couples are somehow entitled more for the configuration of their genitals.

Let's use an example. Two straight women work at a company. One has a kid, the other has 7 kids. Both are married. One woman is covering on her plan 3 people, the other woman is covering 9. Woman 2 is driving the "cost of business" to go up is she not? The business's invested interest in both women is their talents, not the make up of their family.

3) Raised prices for everyone - Raised cost for the gay person too if that's what happens.

Your counter arguments all have one theme: I don't want gays to be able to obtain what I have. They can work as hard as I do, but I think they deserve less.

As for divorce, what's your point? Gay people to the back of the line? Not every marriage works whether it be gay or straight. Your idea that there is "no good reason" for them to be there is based on the opinion that you don't think they should be married in the first place. It's a circular argument.

T
K
O

I love how well you pay attention.....I don't abandon reason and ration, but I realize that it is only part of the story. Humans are only partly reasonable and rational, and if we were completely so we would be so machine like that we might as well exterminate ourselves. Because we are only partly rational rationality is only part of the truth that we need to live by.

You might look back to where I said that we need to look at the results of gay raising kids and of not representing homosexuality, using scientific study, before we move any further in that direction. Science is not all of the information that is required for a wise determination on how to handle gays, but if science does not show a problem then I know that the gay rights crowd will get their way. If study shows a problem for society I would fully expect that gays would still claim that they can't be denied what they want, but reasonable rational people would take note and perhaps say that the drive to equality has gone far enough.


I can say the same...society always decides the individuals right to act on their thoughts and feelings, and always has that right. If you were familiar with my posting history you would know that I constantly say that anything should be able to be talked about, that no person should be persecuted based upon what they believe. The law is supposed be be about actions and not thoughts and feelings for a reason. Our society is off of the rails and one of the clearest places to see this is that many want to make the law about thoughts and feelings. You keep accusing me and others of wanting to criminalize homosexual love but this is not the case. I am not even sure that Homosexuality is a problem that should be regulated or depressed, but if it is a problem and we do regulate or act to depress homosexuality it will be to confront heterosexual behaviour, not feelings or thoughts. Expressions of love are actions, and are regulated by law....lots of laws. Sex is regulated by law....lots of laws. Homosexuals should not get a free pass around the normal mechanisms of societal regulation just by virtue of playing the victim of oppression.

So what single people both gays and non gays are doing the same thing so why do you think it is right to tranfer wealth to gay couples?

Not for any benefit their relationships are doing for the rest of the society that for sure!

BillRM wrote:

Who's transferring wealth to gay couples? Do you have a specific case where this is happening?

BillRM wrote:

If they work and pay taxes, why shouldn't they enjoy the same benefits as everybody else?

on the federal level alone there are over 100 marriage benefits, many of which have a financial component. Marriage is financially supported by the general society. Assuming that the pot of money is not made bigger allowing for gay marriage will decease the benefit for heterosexual couples. Reason #763 for why the majority hetrosexual population has a stake in the gay marriage debate.