Prop 8?

@Woiyo9,

...but you can't be bothered to make a reasoned explanation as to why and then support it...

T
K
O

@Diest TKO,

A reasoned explanation TK gets a bit crude and advantage can be taken of us not wishing to take it there which we all know is where it's at.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

I have done so several times.

Your inability to recognize an alternative point of view is an indication that YOU have the problem.

1 Reply

@Woiyo9,

Incorrect. You've made no reasoned argument. For what you have crapped in this thread, you become 100% vacant in terms of defending.

You've never shown any interest in defending your position as being reasoned or robust in any manner.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

I repeat, your inability to recognize an alternative point of view is your problem.

1 Reply

@Woiyo9,

Woiyo9 wrote:

I repeat, your inability to recognize an alternative point of view is your problem.

I recognize your alternative view point and I also recognize the absence of material to call it a reasoned viewpoint. It's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but it's not based on any real logic.

You simply don't want gay marriage, nothing more than you not wanting it. You aren't here delivering some academic or nuanced reasoning.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Woiyo9,

Woiyo9 wrote:

See prior post.

You choose not to, because you are afraid of gays and the effects that recognizing their marriages would have on society. Or perhaps you can explain your rationale which is different than this.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

I presume from that TK that you don't accept that there is no academic or nuanced reasoning in the matter of official recognition of homosexual domestic partnerships. It is, as I said, a crude matter to which justice cannot be done in polite company.

The coy, abstract discussion of the matter is simply a device to enable it to proceed in polite company as if nothing much was worth bothering about.

All I know is that the idea of getting into bed with a hairy flat chested bloke with a moustache and kissing the bugger passionately while we fondle each other's dicks and balls to warm up for boning each other up the arse or giving each other a blow is not my idea of what a real gay marriage consists of. If lingerie was involved I would probably be safe as nobody would try anything on with someone uncontollably tittering. And if there was no lingerie involved what can one say?

It has so little charm and it just doesn't seem something which state officials ought to be giving their blessing to. It rather brings state officials into some disrepute to be seen signing off for that I'm inclined to think. What could a critical biographer of the Govenor make of that?

I suppose we could all pretend that they were going to help each other to do the dishes or take turns to put the cat out or fix the motor or shovel the snow. It is a bit tough having to do all the snow shovelling as gaily married men have to do. It must be handy having another handyman around the house. And no nagging.

But that's just me. I'll admit a prejudice. I was nobbled early by the fair ones and steadfastly conditioned to think in such terms. Had there been a lot more of settled homosexual unions in those days, every third house say, things might be different. But I doubt it. My mother and my aunties cuddled me too much and rubbed me into their titties so I had no chance. They wore heavenly perfumes and the softest frillies you can imagine. I hated it of course but what was I to do? My father and uncles were ridiculous. Hard men all. And there wasn't a house anywhere I ever heard of where anything like that was going on.

In fact I was 18 before I ever heard of this subject.

So I'm probably well out of date. An old-fashioned, anachronistic, piss-pot like all the other chaps in the pub.

A Labour MP I have read of, who is aptly named Burrows, is, I think, in somesort of quasi-official domestic union with another chap. So your project is on the up and up.

Do they do afterplay?

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

All I know is that the idea of getting into bed with a hairy flat chested bloke with a moustache and kissing the bugger passionately while we fondle each other's dicks and balls to warm up for boning each other up the arse or giving each other a blow is not my idea of what a real gay marriage consists of. If lingerie was involved I would probably be safe as nobody would try anything on with someone uncontollably tittering. And if there was no lingerie involved what can one say?

It has so little charm and it just doesn't seem something which state officials ought to be giving their blessing to....

There are millions of flabby, big-bellied, unattractive opposite-sex couples, with or without lingerie, for whom there is little "charm" in the "idea" of them flopping around their marital beds. The civil institution of marriage, however, is not about the state blessing sexual relationships. The civil institution of marriage is all about stability.

People will couple, people will mate, people will procreate, people will raise children, and people will form families. The government must necessarily deal with that human reality. Through the institution of marriage, the state regulates familial benefits and duties. The state encourages marriage because the civil institution promotes stability for families and for society.

1 Reply

Marriage is about STABILITY. Why does the state deny stability to existing families headed by same-sex couples when familial stability is necessary for societal stability? What legitimate government interest is served?

Arkansas Adoption Ban Passes, Fails to Eliminate Queers and their Spawn from the Earth

Quote:

The saddest thing about the anti-gay ballot initiatives that passed Tuesday in California (banning same-sex marriage), Florida (banning even same-sex civil partnerships) and Arkansas (banning foster care and adoption by unmarried couples ie: same-sex couples) is the effect they have on the children of same-sex parents.

I don't think my partner and I would feel much need for legal marriage if we didn't have children. If we didn't have children, I'd be working full-time for my own benefits and wouldn't need hers. I'd have my own retirement security, probably be able to make the house payments if anything happened to her.

But we have two children and being able to both be their legal parents is critical to their well-being. As adoption attorney, Jennifer Fairfax points out in this article from US News and World Report,

"Adoption gives the child two legal parents, two people who have to support the child, two people that the child can inherit from. If the parent dies, the child can get security from either."

Considering the high value social conservatives place on stay-at-home parents, one would think that helping families support a stay-at-home parent by making sure that either parent can provide health benefits and other legal protections to the family's children would be a priority, leading to support for same-sex adoption and/or marriage.

My partner and I are lucky. We were able to adopt in one of a handful of jurisdictions that have strong court precedents for granting same-sex co-adoptions, though this jurisdiction does not have a law protecting these adoptions specifically. As such, either of us can give our children what straight parents take for granted. Our children can rely on the fact that if anything happens to one of us, their lives will not be further disrupted by legal questions about the status of their surviving parent.

Marriage would grant these rights automatically, as married couples always have the right to petition to adopt together and a married woman who gives birth can automatically name her legal spouse the child's other parent--regardless of whether or not the second parent is biologically related to the child. Marriage would also save us between $50,000 and $100,000 in taxes and other "fees" associated with cobbling together legal protections for our family over the years of raising our children. College fund, anyone?

When people oppose same-sex adoption, what they oppose is an idea that falls short of their ideal of two married, opposite-sex parents. But the plain truth of fact is that millions of children do not live in these kinds of families already. Banning their actual family structures from legal recognition and protection does not help those children magically attain the two-opposite-sex-parents ideal, even if you want to believe (against the word of authorities like the American Academy of Pediatrics) that ideal really is best.

What opponents of same-sex marriage and/or adoption do not understand is that these arguments are not theoretical. Banning various people from various institutional protections will not make those people go away. In fact, the "gayby" boom continues boomingly on unchecked. Every young queer high school or college student I talk to these days simply assumes that she or he will someday be a parent. It is not just a double-standard for adults gay rights opposition upholds, but a double-standard for increasing numbers of children (at least 90% of whom, for the record, will grow up to be heterosexual). When you deny me the right to marry or the right to adopt with my partner, you deny my children the same security yours take for granted. You may not like it, but my children are here now and they aren't going anywhere. Don't they deserve the same protection as their playmates?

1 Reply

@Woiyo9,

Woiyo9 wrote:

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.

You CHOOSE to abuse the power of the state to oppress and discriminate against homosexuals and their families? WHY? Your "choice" is the product of your homophobia and your animus toward homosexuals and their families. There is no other explanation.

Additionally, what makes you believe that YOU have the power and authority to impose your irrational and unreasonable "choice" on everyone else in society through the operation of our laws? The LAW must, at a minimum, be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. The supreme LAW of the land does not allow the State to deprive individuals and minorities of fundamental rights simply because YOU disapprove of them and their families.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Quote:

There are millions of flabby, big-bellied, unattractive opposite-sex couples, with or without lingerie, for whom there is little "charm" in the "idea" of them flopping around their marital beds. The civil institution of marriage, however, is not about the state blessing sexual relationships. The civil institution of marriage is all about stability.

I must admit that I hadn't thought about stability Debbie. Is it not boring? Michelengelo is supposed to have depicted how boring stability is on the Sistine Chapel ceiling. Surely stability is fundamentally un-American.

But I know what you mean. I just left the pub at 11.50 because one of my mates tipped me off that Doreen was waiting for the midnight dong and to use it as an excuse to give me a good French kissing.

Do you agree or do you not that homosexuals, whatever else they do, have stolen the beautiful word "gay" from our very consciousness and given it a meaning which is a travesty of what it once meant in Gay Paree and when the Gay Cavalier waltzed the gaily released debutante around the ballreoom floor and are now embarked on doing the same to "marriage". "Pussy" is next.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Quote:

What legitimate government interest is served?

The avoidance of being laughed to scorn. That's a legitimate interest. It is hard to get men to do battle when the government is a joke. The Church of England is a national joke here. You must have seen The Vicar of Dibney.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo, It's ironic that you would mention the emotion of fear about some people who are against same sex marriage. They ignore all the ills and sins of heterosexual couples including raping their own children, divorce exceeding fifty percent of heterosexual marriages leaving innocent children without the support of both biological parents. Their fears are based on ignorance and homophobic bigotry; nothing else.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

What about the ills of industrialisation ci? There's enough of them to make a longer and more dramatic list than you have.

And you are really scraping the bottom of the statistics barrel talking about people raping their children. If you want to get that far down I think you will find that all activity should cease. Take driving motor vehicles. That has a lot to answer for don't you think?

Can you not praise same sex unions on a more positive level. See if you can enthuse us. You could put up some of Mr Bacon's art for example.

And really the subject is about official recognition of them. I cannot understand why they want that. Can they not go quietly about their business as many do I gather. And most might well continue to do even if official recognition is granted.

1 Reply

@spendius,

This thread is a sad sad place.

I guess this is a forseeable result of allowing the fools of this society to turn a sexual disorder into a civil right movement.

Shaking my head at the hate and other nonsense that is being posted here.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

This thread is a sad sad place.

This from the man that in the face of detailed legal and logical argument comes equipped with an opinion.

BillRM wrote:

I guess this is a forseeable result of allowing the fools of this society to turn a sexual disorder into a civil right movement.

When Matthew Sheppard is tied to a fence and brutally beaten then dragged behind a truck until dead solely because he was gay, it's a civil movement.

When 12,500 homosexuals are forced out of the military and countless others are forced to remain in the closet for fear of discharge, it's a civil movement.

When the suicide rate and teen homeless percentage amongst teens is highest for young homosexuals who suffer from social persecution, it's a civil movement.

When gays can't get married because a majority disfavors them and yet it does not threaten them, it's a civil movement.

When an old guy who wants to score with woman, not even for the purposes of breed for that matter, but can only do so with Viagra, THEN we're talking about a sexual disorder.

BillRM wrote:

Shaking my head at the hate and other nonsense that is being posted here.

You are the contributor of hatred here. You. If you're shaking your head, but whine about your neck hurting.

T
K
O

4 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

When an old guy who wants to score with woman, not even for the purposes of breed for that matter, but can only do so with Viagra, THEN we're talking about a sexual disorder.

I agree with that.

But I'm against lovely words like " gay" and "marriage" being travestied. I am sympathetic with same sex unions but not with the language being fucked over.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

SO TKO when gay males rape and or murder straight males that in no way reflect on the majority of gay males correct?

However if somewhere in some manner a group of straight males murder a gay male then you get to point to this as some kind of indictment of all straight males at least all straight males that does not support your logic concerning the gay right community correct!

I seen little indication that gays males are any less likely as a group to be guilty of hate crimes then heterosexual males are.

In fact in the number of serial sexual driven killers gay males seem to be more then holding their own for example.

Good try but being a hypocrite on the subject of evil doers is not very rewarding.

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Oh TKO thank for bringing up the military as Debra should take note that the SC had not rule that limiting or banning gays in the military is wrong.

What you really need in a combat squad is sexual tensions not!

It is bad enough when on ships such as aircraft carriers you get the love boat effect after we open such ships to women serving on them.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know