Prop 8?

@Debra Law,

Second the court that found a right to abortion is not the same court that is sitting now thank to an number of Republican presidents and the judges that the future president is likely to be able to appoint are the ones that will maintain the balance at the very best.

There is no way in hell that the current court is going to vote 5/4 for gay married rights.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra the 1972 court might had been able/willing to bypass the slow winning of heart and minds that would allow gay married rights but once more not the current court or any likely future court.

Yes I know there is at the moment not a chance in hell that the 'bigot’ majority that now agree with me that gay married is either silly or sinful however it still your best bet of winning this battle.

That mean instead of being nasty and telling us all how bigot we are for daring to disagree with you, you are going to have to convince the majority of us that we are wrong to stand in the way of love and happiness of gays men and women.

Strong-arm tactics such as the silliness of a boycott by a small minority aim at a majority is not the best road to take unless you wish to loss this battle, in my opinion. Marching around churches and attacking people faith is not the best road either.

Yes I know you will be shouting about a hidden constitution right for the rest of your lifespan, just like the nut case that is yelling that Obama can not be president because he was in fact not born on American soil.

0 Replies

You are a coward Bill.

You know you need to establish why it's in the public's interest of all (not the majority) to continue to do something like this, and yet you can't seem to find a way that gay marriage will legitimately provide that threat; that criteria. You know that your simple disapproval of homosexuals is not enough, so you'll talk about anything and everything else.

You can't make the case, and yet you can't admit you can't make the case. You only have your homophobia and selfishness left. Intellectually naked, you tell us to marvel at the emperor's new clothes.

What are so ashamed of? The fact that you oppress others? Just admit it. Parading around in this thread, you've abandoned all argument and moved on to padding your ego. You're not convincing anyone.

T
K
O

3 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

You're not convincing anyone.

So you are an all knowing God now right..........how about you try sticking to speaking for yourself, and let others speak for themselves. Oh right, that would get in the way of your presenting your view as the majority view, which it is not. Your dishonest tactics of argument don't win you any points with me.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
You're not convincing anyone.

So you are an all knowing God now right..........how about you try sticking to speaking for yourself, and let others speak for themselves. Oh right, that would get in the way of your presenting your view as the majority view, which it is not. Your dishonest tactics of argument don't win you any points with me.

It doesn't take an all knowing deity to come to this conclusion.

I have already established that we have reached our inevitable impasse long ago. I do not believe I am convincing you or Bill of anything. What everyone brings in here is their opinion. A discussion that is established where we exchange opinions is one thing, however, Bill (and others including yourself) comes here and tells us what he thinks and fails his own burden of evidence to support his ideas.

I don't have to agree with your viewpoint, but I need to be presented a real claim and the support for it.

Nobody came here to be convinced about anything obviously. The only thing that can be taken from this is a understanding of the opponents arguments. As of now, I know your view and I know exactly the deficit in material you have in support of it. You aren't offering anything.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

It not a threat it is just an unearn enrichment of one group at the expense of everyone else in society.

There is zero purpose in allowing gay married rights and zero benefit in so doing for the society as a whole.

Gays do not and can not fit into the class of people that society had design married to serve.

The only group other then gay couples to benefit from this silliness that I can see are divorce lawyers.

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Yes the liklihood of you convining me that gay married have any sense to it is very small as I had yet to hear any logical reasons for allowing gays to have a license sexual relationship from the state.

I will however do you a favor by pointing out once more it is never wise to insult the majority of the population that clearly do not support gay married even if you have every so call opinion maker on your side.

As I pointed out the chance of getting your way by the courts or threat of harm to the majortiy is small. That method work for the movement when it was dealing with the APA or the New York Police department but it just setting the majority opinion more firmly in place.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

It not a threat it is just an unearn enrichment of one group at the expense of everyone else in society.

Thank you for admitting there is not a threat.

However, they already have earned that enrichment, and if they don't deserve it, I suggest that they should not have to pay taxes into the gov for those programs and benefits. The way I see it is that gays are being asked to pay for things they can't have, and that they are being asked to prove/earn things that heterosexuals are not asked to earn/prove.

Of course you could prove me wrong by simply directing me to the law that invalidates a marriage if it doesn't produce a child OR a law that prohibits infertile people from "unearned enrichment" at the expense of everyone else.

BillRM wrote:

There is zero purpose in allowing gay married rights and zero benefit in so doing for the society as a whole.

Says you.

It does not need to benefit all for it to be granted. Programs like welfare or even faith based initiatives do not benefit everyone. The burden you have to fill is how it would harm everyone. That burden you surrendered above by declaring it not a threat.

BillRM wrote:

Gays do not and can not fit into the class of people that society had design married to serve.

Says you.

It seems to work fine in the two states that allow it.

BillRM wrote:

The only group other then gay couples to benefit from this silliness that I can see are divorce lawyers.

I guess wedding planners, florists, bakers, tailors, dressmakers, parks, and recreational facilities would too.

...just like they do with straight couples.

You're right I'm sure about the divorce lawyers, they'd get some business.

...just like they do with straight couples.

The same people benefit (perhaps with the exception of the churches that do not or will not offer services to gay couples) in both cases. As always, you are a step behind.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Yes the liklihood of you convining me that gay married have any sense to it is very small as I had yet to hear any logical reasons for allowing gays to have a license sexual relationship from the state.

I have zero interest in convincing someone without any power nor any interest in being convinced of something.

BillRM wrote:

I will however do you a favor by pointing out once more it is never wise to insult the majority of the population that clearly do not support gay married even if you have every so call opinion maker on your side.

The minority has the same rights as the majority. Deal with it. If the majority can come out and us it's large number sot condemn gays then the minority can come out and condemn those who oppress them with their small numbers. Grow a pair. You apparently can dish it out, but you can't take it.

BillRM wrote:

As I pointed out the chance of getting your way by the courts or threat of harm to the majortiy is small. That method work for the movement when it was dealing with the APA or the New York Police department but it just setting the majority opinion more firmly in place.

And yet as human history progresses we see an always improving degree of equality for homosexuals.

Take something such as "Don't ask don't tell."

In 1992 we saw that 30% of the population was okay with gay men and women serving openly in the military. Now we see 75% okay with it. When people abandon irrational bigoted opinions on gays they begin to see the larger picture. A larger picture of our country in a large war on terror and 12,000 gay solders discharged many of whom were Arab language specialists. People start to realized that the only threat to our culture in light of gays was the small world view of them.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Everytime it came up for a vote your silliness had lost but for one time and then there was a revote in that state and once more you had lost. An almost perfect record. Your PR campaign seem lacking.

Two states now allow it only because of a few judges where brain dead and those states sadly do not have fast track for the voters to change it back in the short term.

Half the states and the voters in those states had to this point place blocks to stop thier state courts from doing the same and more are very likely to follow in the near future.

If this is you idea of winning good luck to you.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

I'm playing more than a numbers game Bill. No luck needed, only time.

Those states where gay marriage is legal aren't falling apart from it. Face it, you ideas are tested and failed. Instead of supporting the tested truth, you remain stubborn and choose to defend your ego. What cowardice.

You don't want laws that are right, you want laws that say you are right.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Who said they would fall apart? It just unfair enrichment that should and will be stop.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Who said they would fall apart? It just unfair enrichment that should and will be stop.

Bill, you've never established how it would be unfair for gays to marry. As for things falling part, that is the charge, that societal fabric would come undone; that it would destroy the institution of marriage. If this was not the charge why in the hell was prop8 sold as protecting marriage if t wasn't under attack?

The institution of marriage is not threatened.

The sky is not falling.
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

The prop 8 was voted into place for as many reasons as their are voters.

As far as your silliness that the voters fear that the whole society would end if this was allow I had seen little sign of that being a major reason for the vote.

It nice that you place a staw man reason for banning gay married and then point out that it did not happen!

That tactic will get you nowhere except for the supporters of gay marriages.

Maybe you would also care also to explain to all of us why wealth should be transfer to gay couples from everyone else? Why should a single man or woman pay more taxes then a gay couple next door to them?

What does the single man or women get in return for having less in their paycheck?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

The prop 8 was voted into place for as many reasons as their are voters.

Prove it then: List them. Can't list them all? I'll forgive you. Let's see you come up with 20. Certainly more than 20 people voted.

BillRM wrote:

As far as your silliness that the voters fear that the whole society would end if this was allow I had seen little sign of that being a major reason for the vote.

Yeah, that's why the main site for prop8 was called http://www.defendmarriage.com

Rolling Eyes

BillRM wrote:

It nice that you place a staw man reason for banning gay married and then point out that it did not happen!

It is a straw man, that's the whole point. However, it's not my Strawman, it's the pro prop8's argumentum ad strawman ad parade de terribles.

BillRM wrote:

That tactic will get you nowhere except for the supporters of gay marriages.

What tactic? Comparing the fears of gay marriage to the actualities of gay marriage? If that message only resounds with gay rights supporters it speaks terribly of the intelligence of those who oppose gay rights.

BillRM wrote:

Maybe you would also care also to explain to all of us why wealth should be transfer to gay couples from everyone else? Why should a single man or woman pay more taxes then a gay couple next door to them?

Everyone else includes gays for one. They pay into the same system now and in this theoretical scenario. They pay, so they should benefit too.

As things are now, there is a "wealth transfer" from gays to straights. Allowing gay marriage, would fix that. Then things would be fair.

BillRM wrote:

What does the single man or women get in return for having less in their paycheck?

What does the single gay man or woman get in return for having less in their paycheck NOW? "Now" as in our present reality; as in we don't have to speculate.

Gays receiving privileges afforded to married couples is perfectly fair because gays pay in just like everyone else.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

And single people both gay and straight pay as must taxes as everyone else also!!!!!

Once more what does the society as a whole get in benefits for transfering wealth to gay couples? Oh beside we will not hear whining over this matter but I am sure that the gay community will find other reasons for whining.

The case can be make that we do get benefits by having very long term stable heterosexual relationships that does not apply to gay couples on it face.

So once more what claim do gay couples have to those benefits.

It is a simple question and have no connection with the fact that they are now rightfully paying their fair share of taxes.

Like your staw man attack on voters who supported prop 8 by giving them a reason that they voted on this issue without any proof of your own that there was great fear that the world will end you seem not to be able to be honest wiht your replies for some reason.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

I see you aren't going to fulfill my request (as if you ever answer the questions directed at you). What are you so ashamed of?

It's simple, gays pay their taxes and get shorted on the benefits. What benefit do we get as a whole from straight couples? They have kids? Well if that is the way we play, then what benefit do we get from infertile straight couples or couples with no kids?

Again, you can prove me wrong and shut me up. I've even told you how. Just direct me to the law that will invalidate a marriage if it doesn't produce a child or a law that prohibits infertile couples from marriage.

Your silence on this speaks volumes on how poor your arguments is.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

You're trying to get an intelligent response from a homophobic bigot who's too ignorant to understand his own contradictions.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Anyone with an opposing point of view is automatically labeled as a "homophobic bigot and ignorant"?

Next time you go on a cruise, get a balcony room, and take a jump.

1 Reply

@Woiyo9,

No, just those who display homophobia and bigotry.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know