California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Show us where homosexuals "want everything?"

What is that you have that they don't have? Any clues?

How do you know what they want ci.? Are they happy with you speaking up on their behalf. What's your interest in this matter. I'm defending ladies.

What they have is getting off without having to deal with ladies. That's a pretty easy ride but with you being a complete male chauvinist pig misogynist you wouldn't know what the real thing is. You think ladies are easy to deal with because you have them under the cosh. It's a form of draft dodging.

I can't understand ladies not coming on here and objecting to you lot thinking there's an alternative to them and campaigning to increase the number of similar backsliders. It's like putting a uniform on and working in the stores or the motor pool at Fort Baxter and then spending the rest of your life going around saying "when I was in the military". It's a form of theft.

0 Replies

The reason hawk and myself give priority to the collective over the individual is that the individual is dependent upon the collective and the collective doesn't give a **** for the individual. It pretends to. It has to because there's votes in doing so. Especially in narcissistic societies. But you could pop off tomorrow and it would hardly register on the collective unless you pop off dramatically and even then it would only be to get the 15 minutes of fame in. 24 hour news is drama after drama. Even if it was dramatic enough to cause an enquiry or a trial it would be nothing to do with you. It would be just a part of the pretence that the individual has priority over the collective. Spin if you like. Strictly for those on the rockinghorse roundabout. If the collective popped off you would be naked on a blasted heath.

That's not circular. That's a simple fact. The collective always has priority. Thinking the individual has priority is like pretending you're posh after you won the lottery.

The collective votes against homosexual unions being given the status of "Marriage". The national collective and the world collective. Getting the tax breaks that come with marriage with the wages of two chaps is just not on and not having to put up with a ball and chain nagging machine who knows how to get all her own way as well.

Why do you think bachelors pay more tax than a chap with a wife. It's a fee for the service he provides to the collective for his taking responsibility for a female. Or a punishment for the bachelor who shirks the duty. Many a man has married for the tax rebates. It's the benefits of the status of marriage these agitators are after and those benefits exist for no other reason than to encourage men to marry and make children rather than cadge them off some unfortunate mother. And they are not even prepared to live the bachelor's monastic existence picking up the odd stray nun when and where he can.

It's the first rule of journalism. Follow the money.

One might imagine two homosexuals on $45,000 each starting a campaign to get laundry services tax allowed on the grounds that their rights are being infringed because chaps with wives get it done free. Prop 6969. And it being voted for if it had enough supporters. And claiming for a "wife" each.

2 Replies

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

You don't value the family more than any gay person or myself. I want to have a family, and gay people marrying doesn't threaten that. Many if not most gay people want to raise families too, even have surrogate parents and pass their genes on.

Your politics don't get to claim family values. Family values are not only a part of heterosexual relationships.

A
R
T

I cannot agree, since the nuance of family is what one sees in genealogical charts. Opposite genders marry, and produce off-spring for the next generation. A "family tree chart" that includes surrogates, or whatever gays would need to "be a family" could be called a "Mr. Potato Head Family Tree," so to speak. In effect, the concept of "grafting" is what would be done to the "family tree." It would not be a "family tree" anymore, but a "grafted family tree."

Like baseball, not everyone accepts games played with a "designated hitter" authentic baseball. So, gay marriage might be considered by many as not authentic marriage. In effect, this might just beg the question, are gays trying to change the Civil League rules, so to speak? One does not do that in baseball. One plays in another league.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Your definition of family changing doesn't matter--It really doesn't
it is not about me, it is about all of us. "Family" used to mean something, now it does not. We should have realized that we were in trouble when the Manson cult decided they were a family, but sadly we did not. Now the concept is gone. Since "family" is now a meaningless term so is "family values", which was my point.

You cut through the rhetoric like a lighthouse beam!

0 Replies

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

Homosexuals don't have any less family values than heterosexuals simply because they are gay. Children raised by gay couples are no less loved or cared for. They aren't any less well adjusted either.

A
R
T

The definition of "family values" is germane. My semantics includes a family headed by both genders. So, if gays had these "family values" they would stay in the closet, marry and procreate. They did that in Victorian times (and later), why must they "have their cake and eat it too" based on the belief that they can fine-tune the definition of "family values"?

Also, the fact that gays love their children is a non-sequitor. No one accused gays of not being able to be loving parents.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

hawk, When are you going to learn that homosexuals don't want more than the others have. You're playing with great imagination in your opinions about what is and what is not. Show us where homosexuals "want everything?"

What is that you have that they don't have? Any clues?

I believe homosexuals want more than heterosexuals, since heterosexuals to get married must remain heterosexual. A homosexual might want the benefit of possibly morphing between preferences. In effect, with gay marriage, a person can one day say that they were married three times, once to a man, and twice to a woman. Or, any combination or permutation. Did someone say Hollywood?

2 Replies

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

hawk, When are you going to learn that homosexuals don't want more than the others have. You're playing with great imagination in your opinions about what is and what is not. Show us where homosexuals "want everything?"

What is that you have that they don't have? Any clues?

I believe homosexuals want more than heterosexuals, since heterosexuals to get married must remain heterosexual. A homosexual might want the benefit of possibly morphing between preferences. In effect, with gay marriage, a person can one day say that they were married three times, once to a man, and twice to a woman. Or, any combination or permutation. Did someone say Hollywood?

That's not anything more than heterosexuals. They could change their preference and marry someone of the same sex as well. You still haven't pointed out a right that they would have that you wouldn't.

I think this is just a cute way of you saying that you don't believe their sexual identity is real, or permanent, but instead is contrived and malleable; unlike yours, of course, which is the real deal. Sort of a way of insulting them. Not very cool.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Foofie,

There's a huge difference between what you believe and facts. You can't even name me one concern that you seem to have about homosexuals wanting more than heterosexuals have.

Your imagination is in overdrive.

3 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

There's an interesting article in today's San Jose Mercury News on the Prop 8 appeal. It seems there's an out to throw out the appeal, because pro Prop 8 supporters cannot show how they will be personally harmed by homosexual marriage. The legal term is called "standing."

0 Replies

@spendius,

There is no "collective." This is a false consensus you try and cite. In terms of the majority versus the minority, putting this in terms of "priority" is stupid, because giving homosexual rights doesn't affect the rights of heterosexuals. There isn't a conflict or interest for heterosexual to protect. This is a semantic lie. The only reason people opposed homosexuals is because they do not like them.

It has nothing to do with protecting family values or definitions. Cowards, all.

A
R
T

2 Replies

@failures art,

And most of those learned it from the bible. They call themselves "christians."

0 Replies

@failures art,

I agree. The concept of the 'collective' is so fungible, it can be used to advance any sort of nefarious goal on the part of would-be social conservatives. Never is any actual damage shown; only vague allusions to 'changing the meanings of words,' as if anyone gave a **** about that - or it had any relevance to whether or not something should or should not be done.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

One might imagine two homosexuals on $45,000 each starting a campaign to get laundry services tax allowed on the grounds that their rights are being infringed because chaps with wives get it done free. Prop 6969. And it being voted for if it had enough supporters. And claiming for a "wife" each.

what century do you live in?

2 Replies

@djjd62,

The question isn't whether which century he lives in, but is he human? I think he's an alien.

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

I cannot agree, since the nuance of family is what one sees in genealogical charts. Opposite genders marry, and produce off-spring for the next generation.

Having children nor being fertile are requisite for a legal marriage.

Foofie wrote:

A "family tree chart" that includes surrogates, or whatever gays would need to "be a family" could be called a "Mr. Potato Head Family Tree," so to speak. In effect, the concept of "grafting" is what would be done to the "family tree." It would not be a "family tree" anymore, but a "grafted family tree."

These "potato-head" trees already exist without homosexuals. Heterosexuals adopt and have surrogates already. They are no less family.

Foofie wrote:

Like baseball, not everyone accepts games played with a "designated hitter" authentic baseball. So, gay marriage might be considered by many as not authentic marriage.

I don't care. More importantly, neither do you. I've decided, I don't approve of your marriage. I don't think it's authentic. Do you care? Didn't think so.

Rights are not so willy nilly. We may not approve of hate speech (like the hate speech many in this thread spread about homosexuals) but we don't dare make it illegal.

Foofie wrote:

In effect, this might just beg the question, are gays trying to change the Civil League rules, so to speak? One does not do that in baseball. One plays in another league.

It's not changing the rules, it's being allowed to step on the field and play the same game. Homosexuals aren't trying to be more married or alter how heterosexuals get married, they are trying to have access to the exact same right you and I are free to enjoy.

Equal protection of the law for all.

A
R
T

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

The definition of "family values" is germane. My semantics includes a family headed by both genders. So, if gays had these "family values" they would stay in the closet, marry and procreate.

Opinion noted.

Foofie wrote:

They did that in Victorian times (and later), why must they "have their cake and eat it too" based on the belief that they can fine-tune the definition of "family values"?

So let me get this right? You want homosexuals to live by Victorian mores/values. Do you live by Victorian values? This should be amusing.

Foofie wrote:

Also, the fact that gays love their children is a non-sequitor. No one accused gays of not being able to be loving parents.

Quite contrary. This is a major thrust of many religious groups. Don't play naive.

A
R
T

2 Replies

@failures art,

I doubt very much Foofie can distinguish between family values and the real world.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Two quotes from above--

Quote:

. You still haven't pointed out a right that they would have that you wouldn't.

Quote:

You can't even name me one concern that you seem to have about homosexuals wanting more than heterosexuals have.

And I have done. They want two mens wages coming into the same household and the same benefits and allowances as men married to a woman gets. That's going to distort the agreed arrangements. Two guys could get those benefits without being homosexuals. Just by claiming to be.

And they get the "look at me" benefit which any novelty brings in its train. Attention for those with nothing else going for them.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendi wrote:

Quote:

And I have done. They want two mens wages coming into the same household and the same benefits and allowances as men married to a woman gets.

Please provide proof for this inane claim? Wages in the US are primarily based on education and skill level. Show us which homosexual couple has demanded what you claim here?

Quote:

That's going to distort the agreed arrangements. Two guys could get those benefits without being homosexuals. Just by claiming to be.

You already belong on the laffer curve; this is a joke, right?

Quote:

And they get the "look at me" benefit which any novelty brings in its train. Attention for those with nothing else going for them.

What exactly is that "nothing else going for them mean?"

You speak in code that only people like you can understand; a bunch of bible stomping bigots.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Show us which homosexual couple has demanded what you claim here?

I'm not talking about a homosexual couple. I'm talking about tens of thousands of them and hundreds of thousands of them if the grooming goes to plan.

Where's the evidence that people are born homosexual. That it is nature. Nurture says it's learned. And it was harder to learn in the past than it will be once it becomes respectable.

Which grey squirrel pair was harmful to the red squirrel population. But grey squirrels have almost supplanted red ones in pretty short order?

Which illegal inmmigrant is harmful?

You lot have one argument for one thing and another argument for another thing. You're individualists when you want to be and collectivists the rest of the time.

1 Reply

California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know