Prop 8?

Being against homosexual marriage does not make one homophobic. Regardless of what you so called "elitists" think.

Do not ever tell me how I feel when you have no knowledge of who I am or who I associate with. You again demonstrate the usual arrogant presumption which makes you a fool.

Apparently then, I can presume you are homosexual since you feel so strongly about this social issue. You really should be more open about your homosexuality.

You know my position on this issue and I strongly support homosexual rights.

When you or anyone else can demonstrate that homosexuals are being discriminated against, let me know.

Why do you hate heterosexuals like me? Do all homosexuals hate heterosexuals?

Since you are unable to make a convincing argument to satisfy your needs as a homosexual to be accepted in mainstream society, you should temper your hatred and work harder to find acceptance for who you are as a homosexual.

I show no hatred to homosexuals like you and only offer support. However, you need to be honest in your debate.

Make that your new years resolution.

Being against homosexual marriage does not make one homophobic. Regardless of what you so called "elitists" think.

Phobia: An unreasonable sort of fear that can cause avoidance and panic. Phobias are a relatively common type of anxiety disorder.

For example, extreme fear of spiders is called arachnophobia, and fear of being outside is known as agoraphobia. Phobias can be treated with cognitive behavioral therapy using exposure and fear reduction techniques. In many cases, anti-anxiety or anti-depressant medication proves helpful, especially during the early stages of therapy.

The word "phobia" is from the Greek "phobos" (fear).

Arkansas voters will decide in November whether to bar unmarried couples from fostering or adopting children.

Secretary of State Charlie Daniels certified the measure Monday, saying that the Arkansas Family Council Action Committee had submitted 85,389 valid signatures from registered voters - more than 23-thousand more valid names than required by law.

Last month the socially conservative group that spearheaded Arkansas’ constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, handed in its petitions prior to the state deadline for getting issues on the November ballot. But the secretary of state validated only 57,888 signatures. Since the number fell within a state “grace” guideline the group was given another 30 days to get the additional signatures.

Arkansas Families First, the group fighting the measure said it is preparing to take the issue to court. Spokesperson Debbie Willhite said the group will ask the Arkansas Supreme Court to enjoin the initiative.

The adoption referendum is similar to a bill that died in the Legislature earlier this year.

That legislation failed after Gov. Mike Beebe suggested that there were constitutional problems with the bill, although he would not say if he intended to veto it if it were passed.

The bill was introduced following a state Supreme Court ruling last year.

Arkansas’s Child Welfare Agency Review Board had established a policy in 1999 that banned gay people from serving as foster parents, and the Arkansas Supreme Court struck it down after a seven-year legal battle between the state and the ACLU.

Several state and national child welfare groups filed friend-of-the-court briefs urging the court to strike down the exclusion because it worked against the best interests of foster children.

In its unanimous ruling, the court said testimony in the state’s appeal demonstrated that “the driving force behind adoption of the regulations was not to promote the health, safety and welfare of foster children but rather based upon the board’s views of morality and its bias against homosexuals.”

Arkansas adoption ban passes despite shortage of homes for needy children....

LITTLE ROCK" The American Civil Liberties Union today filed a lawsuit seeking to strike down a new law that bans any unmarried person who lives with a partner from serving as an adoptive or foster parent in the state of Arkansas...

Your opposition to same-sex marriage is both irrational and unreasonable. There exists no rational basis for using our laws as a means to oppress other human beings and to discriminate against them on the basis of their sexual orientation. Your oppression and discrimination is unreasonable because it unnecessarily deprives others of their constitutionally secured liberty interests and fails to serve any legitimate government interest.

Quote:

Your opposition to same-sex marriage is both irrational and unreasonable. There exists no rational basis for using our laws as a means to oppress other human beings and to discriminate against them on the basis of their sexual orientation. Your oppression and discrimination is unreasonable because it unnecessarily deprives others of their constitutionally secured liberty interests and fails to serve any legitimate government interest.

law is a temple of rationality, thus if there is no rational reasons for an endeavour then the courts left to their own devices will not allow it, this much is true. However, you reach too far when you say that if the majority does not have a rational argument then the majority can't do it. Much of that individuals and societies do is not rational, we are not primarily rational beings. This attempt to negate our irrationality, to forbid irrational behaviour, is an attempt to squash our humanity. It is the most dreadful oppression imaginable. We are not droids, and as much as you want to browbeat the majority into following your line of logic and then agreeing with it your tactic ignores that being irrational is not a deal breaker, nor should it be. If rationality were enforceable we would not have either love or marriage...

The phrase "constitutionally secured" is nonsense as several of us have pointed out, because the constitution can be and has been used as the living see fit, it is flexible. That right which you claim here is constitutionally secure has never existed in the entire history of the nation, making your claim so outrageous one must ask if you know what words mean.

Debra-- if a "same sex marriage" goes on the rocks do we divi-up the joint assets as we do now after the lady has sobbed for the judge. What would constitute being the wronged party?

And if an accountant's 50-50 split is your answer how come we don't have that now with usual marriages if there is, as you claim, no differences.

spendius is also exercising his right to engage in irrationality because his post makes no sense.

I choose not to support gay marriage.