Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2008 01:00 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Being against homosexual marriage does not make one homophobic. Regardless of what you so called "elitists" think.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2008 01:12 pm
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

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



Yes, it does. We had a whole thread about exactly this, you may recall it - "The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic"

http://able2know.org/topic/38700-1

There is no other motivation for preventing gay marriage besides fear.

Cycloptichorn
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2008 01:23 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I disagree.

I do not have a fear of homosexuals.

Therefore, I can not be homophobic.

You are wrong again.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2008 01:24 pm
@Woiyo9,
You are lying to yourself and us. You do fear homosexuals, or you would not care if they enjoyed the right to marriage or not.

Explain the basis for your belief that they should be denied the right to marry and show how in no way is it motivated by fear of homosexuals or the effects that their marriages might have on society.

Cycloptichorn
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2008 01:30 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
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.



Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2008 02:12 pm
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

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.






It matters little to me that you cannot reconcile your homophobia, woiyo. You seek to deny homosexuals the same rights you enjoy, and that's all the proof anyone needs. All discrimination is born out of fear, and yours is no different. The fact that you like to pretend you are somehow a friend of those who you actively seek to oppress is particularly sickening, however.

In order for something to be illegal, you need to show what harm that action inflicts upon a person or society. Neither you nor any other proponent of denying gays marriage has done so without resorting to base fear as your foundational principle.

I don't have to know who you are, woiyo; you reveal yourself to any reader through your words. You show that you are a homophobe with your actions. Accept it and admit it and you'll be less conflicted on this issue.

Cycloptichorn
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2008 02:35 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
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.
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2008 03:19 pm
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

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.


I am not a homosexual, though I'm not sure why it would matter if I was, to the discussion. So your first paragraph is immaterial to our conversation.

The second is nonsensical.

The third is a lie on your part.

The fourth is unsolicited advice which does not pertain to the conversation.

You have tried to turn this around on me to avoid addressing the fact that your homophobia is rooted in fear of gays and the gay community. You have presented no argument for why others should be denied rights which is not based upon fear; therefore I am entirely accurate in my conclusions as to your innate feelings on the matter, and your protestations to the contrary are meaningless.

Prove me wrong; provide your non-fear based rationale for denying gays the right to marry. I think that you will not do so, because you do not have a rationale.

Cycloptichorn
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2008 05:59 pm
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

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



Definition of Phobia

Quote:
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).


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.

Your opposition to same-sex marriage is grounded in your desperate desire to prevent homosexuals (and their families) from being treated with the same respect and dignity that you preserve for yourself (and your family). You are afraid, if the state sanctions same sex marriage in the same way that it sanctions opposite sex marriage, then homosexuals (and their families) will become accepted as equally valued and respected members of society. Your animus toward homosexuality feeds your phobia (irrational and unreasonable fear) and you reject all "treatment" for your phobia. Treatment, of course, would be through the acquisition of knowledge and repeated exposure to information that negates your fears. However, you label people who have informed themselves as "elitist" as though the acquisition of knowledge is something bad. You wallow in your ignorance with arrogant pride.

You are indeed homophobic. Your denials are unavailing.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2008 06:00 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Man, someone is sure slinging it and playing the outing game which is not just nonsensical but ignorance based on denial.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2008 06:36 pm
Closely related issue:

Arkansas to vote on gay adoption ban

Quote:
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.”


Next skirmish in culture war: Gay parenting

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


ACLU Asks Court To Strike Down Arkansas Parenting Ban

Quote:
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...
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2008 06:57 pm
@Debra Law,
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.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2008 07:06 pm
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.
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 01:22 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

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...


No one is depriving you of your ability to be irrational and unreasonable. As this thread demonstrates, you are a liberal exerciser of your "right" to be irrational and unreasonable. No one is oppressing you. However, we are not a nation of irrational and unreasonable men; we are a nation of laws. It is the LAW that may not be irrational and unreasonable. Our Constitution, the supreme law of the land, secures individual liberty against arbitrary governance whether by a totalitarian leader or by mob rule. Thus, the law must be rationally related to a legitimate state interest. With respect to fundamental rights, the law must be necessary and narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. In other words, you and your unruly mob may not use the LAW to impose your irrationality and unreasonableness on everyone else in society.

hawkeye10 wrote:
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.


You are wrong. The fundmental right to marry exists. The fundamental right to marry is secured by the constitution against unreasonable state infringements. The civil institution of marriage existed at the time our nation was founded and it has undergone substantial evolution throughout our national history. Homosexual couples have the same fundamental right as heterosexuals to participate in our existing institution of marriage.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 01:40 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

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.

Every state in the union has enacted "no fault" divorce laws. Thus, no one has to be wronged and no one has to sob in court to obtain a property distribution in accordance with state laws.

Some states provide for an "equitable distribution" of property. Courts look at many factors. A property distribution does not have to be equal to be equitable. Some states provide for distribution in accordance with "community property" principles. Same sex couples going through a divorce may seek a property distribution by using the same rules that apply to opposite sex couples.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 05:34 am
@Debra Law,
What Debra means is that nobody has to sob in court when the bloke's gallantry has made the procedure unnecessary in the preliminary discussions. Usually when he has been threatened with it.

I get around Debra and I know too large a number of divorced men and they all (100%) got screwed. If they resist they are threatened with claims that they demanded perverted sexual practices which they are unable to challenge. Such as anal intercourse.

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


I'm used to that sort of meaningless statement from the "scientifics". They have no effect. How can they when they mean nothing.

You didn't answer the question. Would a same-sex divorce be the same as a normal divorce. (Normal refers to numbers.) When there is significant property involved.

What does "some states" mean? You go from that expression straight into "courts look at many factors." Then you use the same trick again.

Do you think we are stupid?
0 Replies
 
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 07:19 am
@Debra Law,
It's not FEAR you idiot!!!!!!

It is a choice we have to provide for homosexual marriage in this society.

I choose not to support gay marriage.
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 07:19 am
@Cycloptichorn,
See prior post.

spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 09:23 am
@Woiyo9,
Quote:
I choose not to support gay marriage.


You have fallen for their propaganda Woi.

It is "settled homosexual union" or something similar.

They have ripped the fine olde English word "gay" out of the lexicon and now they are trying it on with "marriage". It's a trick.

Why can't they use their own words?

Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 11:39 am
@spendius,
Because the are being intellectually dishonest.

You are correct. I choose not top support homosexual marriage.
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Prop 8?
  3. » Page 49
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/24/2021 at 05:36:59