California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

@spendius,

Quote:

Talking about me being in my cups all day just makes you look stupid and even if I was in such a state it makes no odds to what my posts say.

Only because Intoxicated is a good descriptor of your normal posts, Spendi ol' chum.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Why should homosexuals be denied equal rights?
In the past the answer has always been that it is not equal behaviour. You are free to ask that people change their minds, you are not free to demand so, nor are you free to demand that people treat something as equal if they do not believe it is.

What kind of non-answer is this?

What is "equal behavior" and how do all of the heterosexuals manage to do it without exception? This is a totally bogus criteria.

As for forcing people to change their minds, who cares? Nobody cares if you want to continue to have bigoted ideas. Have them. Please. Help yourself. dusk until dawn. High noon or midnight. Have fun hating the gays or thinking you're superior. I don't care. Your opinion however is not sufficient justification for denying homosexuals equal rights.

You can hate gays just as much if they have equal rights. In fact, you have my permission to hate them even more. When the day comes, I won't even bother trying to convince you to think otherwise.

A
R
T

2 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

Your opinion however is not sufficient justification for denying homosexuals equal rights.

it is sufficient justification for me doing what I can to install representatives into government who reflect my values, and who will work to see that the justice system supports my values AKA promotes justice.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Your opinion however is not sufficient justification for denying homosexuals equal rights.

it is sufficient justification for me doing what I can to install representatives into government who reflect my values, and who will work to see that the justice system supports my values AKA promotes justice.

A very honest confession by you that your values are in opposition with the values of justice itself.

You aren't promoting justice, don't kid yourself. You're cry-babying and throwing a fit because the USA is not the populist democracy you desire. Not that justice has anything to do with what you want. There is no justice in bigotry, no matter ho popular. You're just hiding, because you can't defend your view with sound logic.

A
R
T

2 Replies

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

You're cry-babying and throwing a fit because the USA is not the populist democracy you desire.

Well... he desires it except when "the collective" disagrees with what him.

The cry-babying happens in either case, though.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

It struck me in the bath Cyclo that animals didn't start behaving differently to what McDougal and millions of others had observed just because a more modern psychology got going and somebody got pork funding for DSM. I hardly think DSM could have suddenly discovered that animals are homosexual after thousands of years of humans observing them.

That fact alone suggests DSM have an agenda. They would be desk jobs wouldn't they in DSM? McDougal was FRS and top dog in the treatment of shell shock. And pretty liberal with it.

Quote:

Only because Intoxicated is a good descriptor of your normal posts, Spendi ol' chum.

You don't hear the substance of my posts in a pub late at night. There's plenty of stuff like your posts though.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

a fit because the USA is not the populist democracy you desire

Your are sure lost.....the subject of this thread started out as being about the populous deciding, and now it is about the courts overruling us.

EVERY single time the question of gay marriage has been put before the people the people have said no.

2 Replies

Why are you all scared of the economic arguments? Don't two men living together have a distinct advantage over a husband and wife? Not having ten yards of frocks in the wardrobe and three hundred bottles in the bathroom is a nice little earner. Not to mention the absence of nagging.

And no 15 years of one wage while the kids are raised. Homs will end up with all the best houses. Two DSM statisticians against a trucker with a wife at home bringing up the nippers. It's no contest.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

And no 15 years of one wage while the kids are raised.

I think you are off base with this argument. Gays often want kids and they want their genes passed on so they go for expensive child creation methods to get what they want. I'll bet the next battle will be over gay demands that the collective through insurance and government programs pay for their children desires. They will go back to the well yet again about how they have "rights" and how the rest of us dont have the right to say no even when we are paying for something for them. The American laws that forbid insurance companies to pass on to women their added burden to the system due to their reproductive needs will be the template, it will be argued to do this for women of hetros but not to gays is a violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. And on it will go, with each demand getting more nutty and expensive than the last.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

You're wrong on that count; most recent polls taken of Californians concerning gay marriage - the majority approve it.

Where do you get your info? FOX News?

From Wiki:

Quote:

The poll also showed majority support among those under 50 years of age, with 68% of 18 to 29 year olds supporting it. Among those 65 or older, support drops to 36%. Majorities in support of same sex marriages were also found among those living in Los Angeles County, the San Francisco Bay Area and other more urban parts of Northern California, while a majority of those in the Central Valley and areas of Southern California outside Los Angeles County were opposed.

A poll released in March, 2010 by The Public Policy Institute of California found that 50% of respondents support gay marriage while 45% oppose it.[62]

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Gays often want kids

I don't know what "often" means hawk. But I take your point that the few who are nutty enough to want kids can cause heap big trouble.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Well--I've been saying all along that a city v country dispute is at the core of this argument, the evolution argument, and the whole bag of left-wing barmcake.

I told you to read Spengler. It's not my fault that it is too difficult for you to understand.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

I don't know what "often" means hawk. But I take your point that the few who are nutty enough to want kids can cause heap big trouble.

Expense, surrogates alone run $10K I believe and that will surely go up as it moves from being charity to being the business of rent a womb. Insemination and invitro is another $10-15K. Gays will demand that the collective pay these charges in order to fulfill their "rights".

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

You wouldn't believe what's on the end of it hawk.

0 Replies

@spendius,

If you're an example of the people who claim to be well read, but can't comprehend simple concepts like evolution, should not make recommendations on reading material. Whatever you're reading is the wrong stuff.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
a fit because the USA is not the populist democracy you desire
Your are sure lost.....the subject of this thread started out as being about the populous deciding, and now it is about the courts overruling us.

EVERY single time the question of gay marriage has been put before the people the people have said no.

This isn't something to brag about. Civil rights may not be determined by vote. You choose to ignore this because it deflates your already wimpy stance.

The populous does not have this right. Illegitimate voting measures passing doesn't justify unethical practices to obstruct equal rights to citizens.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

Foofie wrote:

I believe society may not want "to go there," since parents, relatives, etc. could then think they are to blame in some way for a child being "gay," and then it becomes a spreading source of discontent in families, more so than it may be now.

I don't think this is a huge concern. Your kid turning out to be gay is not the end of the world nor anything worth guilt.

What if we could find a religious gene and then understood what made some people religious? Perhaps then we could fix that.

We do not agree. I put the family ahead of the individual; therefore, I commiserate with the fact that an lgbt child might end the dreams of people who like to think they are part of a continuing chain into the future of a specific family. This might not seem important to you; however, it is important to many people. Simply put, it really is not all about an individual, I believe. I would rather lgbt people stay in the closet, like in Victorian times, marry and have a family. In that way, one's genes are passed on into the future.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

We have seen over the years the progress made by the gay-lesbian community as more people accept who they are. Some parents will never accept that their child is gay or lesbian, but they're the real losers, because it's still their children. Hating any child, especially your own is contrary to parenting.

Why people must try to "prosecute" gay-lesbian people by trying to deny them equal legal rights only shows how insecure they are of their own sexuality.

People need to be judged by their character, not by their sexuality.

It is not about the individual, I believe. It is about the possibility of the end of a family line, because someone just cannot stay in the closet and marry, and have children. As an Asian you likely understand the emphasis on "family," rather than the individual?

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

The problem with allowing abnormals like gays to marry is that it's a slippery slope. I mean, what will those crazy liberals come up with next: marriage for left-handed people?

Supposedly, more lesbians are left-handed than the general population. Not all left-handed women though are lesbians.

I assume you were being fascetious though.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yeah - in 1926, when our understanding of the brain and psychology was ridiculously poor. Modern psychologists do not agree with his assessment, and in fact, Homosexuality is not a disorder in the DSM.

If you bothered to use modern researchers you would quickly see how silly and stupid your positions are; but you don't actually know anything about the science of it at all.

Cycloptichorn

The fact that homosexuality is not a disorder in the DSM-IV might just be because of the protests that went on before its publication.

And, what "science" are you talking about? The fact that homosexuality exists among other species? What does that prove? It might just be due to overpopulation of a species, with a limited food source?

The whole thing about homosexuality is that it is supposed to correlate to a degree of narcissism and gender confusion. Call that normal, if you want. But, I feel sad for every parent that has to reconcile the fact that they may not ever have their own biological grandchildren to spend the holidays with. It is not all about the individual, I contend.

0 Replies

California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know