California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

@failures art,

Quote:

How is homosexuality dangerous? Specifically.

I didn't say it was dangerous fa. Or at least I don't think I did. How do you construe my post to think I did which you must have done to ask the question? In fact you ought to be ashamed of yourself for suggesting I had said homosexuality is dangerous when I didn't. But it does show something about you that you did so. That you are oversensitive and defensive about an objective post on the matter and will spew lies to try to prop up your position.

In fact I said that heterosexual relationships are dangerous, which they are, and that homosexuality if rendered respectable and acceptable is an alternative for those who seek to evade those dangers if there is no social disapproval of it.

I have also said that institutionalising homosexuality in California might have economic advantages to certain elements in the state and to male homosexuals. Possibly to the state as a whole.

What I said boiled down to the view that once homosexuality is rendered respectable and acceptable it will increase and that California has a choice whether to try such an experiment. If a judge makes the choice and not the electorate I find it astonishing. And doubly so if the judge is a homosexual.

All of which renders this--

Quote:

You claim this so casually, but don't seem to be able to demonstrate any real threat.

Objectively inane and incomprehensible as I claimed no such thing. All I claimed is that there will be effects. That California's image will change.

Quote:

. How can you claim to know it's dangerous when history says otherwise?

I don't claim to know that it is dangerous if I may repeat myself, again. But history certainly voted against it after it being given a chance and history also shows that it was older men of the upper classes in Greece and Rome who had homosexual relations with young men; preferably the beardless. And both cultures ended in ruination.

In fine fa--you're up a gum tree with your slanders and libels.

2 Replies

@djjd62,

Women are all bisexual and most men are bisexual... this is why gays are born... So do you propose we kill all bisexuals? Nature made it this way so there would be a diversity of sexuality between humans. This diversity is the beauty of humanity not the curse.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Objectively inane and incomprehensible as I claimed no such thing. All I claimed is that there will be effects. That California's image will change.

Yes, Californians will be seen as being more humane...

2 Replies

@RexRed,

You notice how spendi likes to dangle suggestions that are usually negative results? He tries awful damn hard, but doesn't realize his games are juvenile at best.

0 Replies

@RexRed,

Quote:

Yes, Californians will be seen as being more humane...

But you see Rex you are begging the question. We have not yet decided whether being more humane is any good and if it is whose good it will be for. You are using "humane" the way you choose to use it. That makes your statement circular and thus meaningless.

Ever since the Church persecuted those who went over the top humane in a bid for a life of eternal bliss we have had to balance humanity with inhumanity. Over the top humanity was considered dangerous. We have all seen many scenes in movies, Laurel and Hardy for example, and lesser artistic works, when the "after you--no after you- oh no after you" results in the doorway getting jammed and two heads being knocked together. Which is an artistic depiction of the principle that if a competition gets going about who is the most humane with prizes in the hierarchy of eternal bliss up for grabs then the whole balloon goes up which would be very inhumane in our present circumstances. It might be another matter for a Pakistani stuck on a grassy knoll in a Flood but for us, with our computers and other junk in a descending line of importance, it would be ghastly.

Right then--how humane do we have to get before you say, as a theologian, that we are just humane enough for you to opine that we are humane. Is it just as far as reversing Prop 8. How about emptying the prisons on the grounds that the inmates have a criminal gene which they can't help and should thus be treated in properly equipt centres with doctors and nurses to try to cure them. You see--there are limits to the humanity of even such a humane person as you.

And you cannot even show that Californians will be seen as being more humane. Are you a fortune teller? There are other opinions on what California will become if your side gets its own way on this one. Being known as a "Californian" in the nations of the world might cause one to lean one's back against the wall when he entered a room or put a record on the Juke Box with "California" in the title. The Greeks have never lived down their penchant for a certain type of intercourse to have gone into the literary canon under their name. And everybody knows what "French" is, and "Turkish".

It is things such as that which the electorate considers. Heterosexal Californians might think of altering their esteemed new status by fleeing and the better off and most talented have the most options. The ones who can't afford to flee will just get grumpier and grumpier as the state goes pinker and pinker.

I'm afraid Rex that a simple circularity like that one above, which is basically in the service of displaying your humanity before us all, is not going to count in this debate even if it counts with a few on A2K who are operating with your definition of "humane" i.e. some airy-fairy abstraction which sounds good to say.

1 Reply

@RexRed,

I do see your point Rex red. I very well may be wrong but just as there are gay people mainly neurological but also biological they are by nature and not by choice.
There are also people like Foofie for the same reasons as listed above are who they are. "Think that they have absolute answers of how things should be" It could be just as hard to make them have a better ethical view of this subject as it would be to get a gay person that never had sexual desires for women to start liking women.
I do realise that foofie's thinking could be enviromental [psychology]. In my opinion for one to see things with clear reason one would have to forgive foofie just as you would hope that people would forgive you for who you are and not impose their beliefs on how you should live your life.
I do realise it is hard to over look when you know that they are going to the voteing booths to take away your rights. ethics evolve. His ethics are not perfect and neither or yours nor mine.
I am not religious but I do think jesus had it right when he said "love your enemy". I do not know how christains could interpret that to mean "take away their rights".
I am not saying love them to the point that you are vunerable and they stab you in the back but to forgive them for their ignorance and continue to make the world a better place how ever you can.

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

continue to make the world a better place how ever you can.

But that is what Rex is claiming to be doing. Make us "more humane" he said. That's a laudable aim. The problem is that what he promotes will not necessarily do that and might do the opposite. It is a moot point whether it will benefit the homosexual community never mind California. He is simply asserting that it will which is valueless.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Yes Spendi the church and your own over the top rhetoric once thought it humane to deny common people the right to read and write freely...

Am I a fortune teller? Is the word better off literate?

It was "Christianity" that destroyed Rome, pagan Europe, Mesoamerica and now is attempting to destroy the cohesiveness of a free American society based upon consensual human sexuality.

It was the church the burnt women at the stake for assuming traditionally male roles. This same church that burnt libraries of antiquity, burnt theaters to the ground and forbid most art forms of self expression... And you wonder what happened to ancient Rome? Is this humane? This is being inhumane...

And this is the same church we want to trust our future with? HELL NO!

The only circularity about this is the church constantly shows up as the culprit murdering and molesting people and destroying societies while they claim to be saints. There is nothing loving and humane about this church you are bamboozled by.

1 Reply

@spendius,

It is your acts that ye shall be known, and not what you say.

Preach to the choir all you want; history tells us a different story.
Do you know how many children priests have molested? Is one too many?

1 Reply

@RexRed,

RexRed wrote:

Well wasn't that progressive of them...

Exactly it's backwards. What on earth made them approve the ban Rex?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

That is why i said foo's thought needed to be exterminated and not foo himself. If an opinion is simply racists, sexist or plain insulting without a purpose other than to hate, how much character does that person have in your mind? Remember RL, I am not the one in here attacking strictly straight men but it is foo entering into this thread and attacking gays. I am not trying to turn straight men gay... I am not threatening their lifestyle and very right to exist with DNA cures... So what exactly do I need to be forgiven for? For once again standing up for my rights in the world that has not matured yet? When will the hatred end? Gays just hope that marriage equality will simply end the hate... I love myself anyway and would not change... I have forgiven foo but I don't trust him. Trust is something people have got to earn...

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Do you know how many children priests have molested? Is one too many?

Of course it is. How many policemen have brutalised suspects? Is one too many? How many (fill in occupation of your choice) have molested children. Is one too many?

Go give talks in the nursery school.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Hey, we're talking about California, and "religion and christians" here, because gay bashing is directly related to what christians believe about gays and lesbians - as dictated by your bible. If you want to talk about police brutality, start your own thread

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

Your innuendo would only be a false accusation, since my post only reflects being a champion of heterosexual parents, and their usual desire to have heterosexual offspring, so that there will be biological grandchildren, rather than grandchildren from some other paradigm.

And ze Germans just liked blond hair and blue eyes...

Foofie wrote:

Not everyone prefers to raise children that are not comprised of DNA from two sets of grandparents that are known by each set of grandparents.

Those people don't have to. Who is forcing you ( a person who prefers this) to do this?

Foofie wrote:

Have we lost the right to maintain "classic family structure," or must the "brave new world" be modelled by the preferences of the lgbt community?

No. You haven't. Letting gays marry will not effect your right to raise your family how you choose. You may still do as you wish.

Foofie wrote:

There is nothing inferior about any "gay gene," if it was discovered; however, the reality is many heterosexual parents would prefer to not have any "gay gene" active in their offspring, I believe. Nothing wrong with that.

If parents wish to do this, and the science was there, it's not my place to stop them. Exactly like abortion. It's not my place to stand in the way of their family planning. As long as it's not mandatory, this is not really an issue.

Children, for that matter, are not really a necessary element in discussion of marriage legality.

Foofie wrote:

Sort of like not converting to another religion, since one was raised in another specific faith, even though one is aware that no other faith is "inferior" to one's own faith.

Show me a way in which any religious claim can prove itself superior that doesn't involve mass violence, and I'll take that seriously.

You're doing great in creating your superior uber race.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@Caroline,

Fear tactics on the TV from the Mormons multimillion dollar hate campaign directed at Californian voters against gays... They said on TV that gays would be teaching their children sex education... They paint gays with a wide discriminatory brush and played on public fears and old hatreds. People don't want to be exposed for being bisexuals in this type of climate... So if these religious homophobes (closeted perverts themselves) fan the fears so they can steer the public to react in a mob style riotous fashion to accomplish the churches motives to keep gays as rejects of society so the churches can exploit them and make them and the children from previous marriages "well" again... In other words the churches want to exploit gays and their children. By them, blocking gay marriage gays cannot marry and form functional family lives with their own children from past marriages.

Whenever the church wants to motivate people they use fear. Fear is a common enemy that unites people. The churches are the number one manufacturer of this type of fear for the masses. It is time the churches learn that the people of California are not as gullible and that they have a sense of confidence and trust (the opposite of fear) about their stand for fairness and equality for gays and lesbians...

OOooo, marriage will change and heteros won't value love and family anymore... they will make more people gay, we will all die of aids, world population will plummet, polygamy will be next, children will be corrupted... FEAR FEAR FEAR...

Now sign your vote on the line...

2 Replies

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

In my own opinion, homosexuality is dangerous to society, and women specifically, since I believe much of homophobia correlates to misogyny.

This is like saying running in the park is dangerous because being stabbed correlates with having a knife placed in you involuntarily.

Foofie wrote:

In other words, when one may hear a male teenager calling another male teenager, "faggot," that I believe is because one teenager sees another teenager acting in less than a supposed masculine manner, and that in the eyes of the heckling teenager "cheapens" the "guy world" he believes he lives in and is very much part of (or questions unconsciously whether he really will be part of, or possibly would like to be more part of?).

So, whenever a teenager, that just might grow up to be part of the lgbt community, displays some behavior that "rankles" some other teenager that has bought into some hyper-vision of masculinity, I believe misogyny is being given credence to. In other words, in the eyes of these teenagers guys should "act like men," and only girls can "act like girls," in the hyper-vision of the masculine "guy world."

In other words, in my opinion, homosexuality is like salt in the wound of a society that already devalues women for their feminine traits.

Homosexuals are not the part of society that does this to women or female traits. It's absurd to have them accommodate. Salt in an open wound? Why not go after the people making the wounds? Salt doesn't hurt wounds that don't exist.

Gay's aren't salty, they're sassy. That's apparently enough to scare the **** out of "macho" guys.

Foofie wrote:

I know many would offer the solution of eliminating homophobia. But, like solving a simple equation, the solution could also be by eliminating homosexuals through, perhaps, finding the genetic cause and how to silence it genetically.

Maybe we could call this exercise in genetics something snappy and powerful; something to convey a feeling of accomplishment; something triumphant.

How about...

A
R
The Final Solution

3 Replies

@RexRed,

The conservatives are doing the same thing with the mosque at "ground zero."

Many people do not have the ability to know the difference between right and wrong; they listen to their "leaders" and parrot what they hear without intellectual thought.

0 Replies

@RexRed,

You evidently didn't understand my post Rex. Not that I'm bothered. Others might have.

Your assertions don't mean anything. What do you know about the persecution of witches? Or about what destroyed Rome. How would pagan Europe have found America? A whole pagan system of mighty power was on the west coast of Europe for over a 1000 years. Why didn't they find and colonise America? Are you saying that pagan Europe should have been retained and the Indians in north and south America? Is that what you're saying? Do you really think you would be sat where you are with what you've got were those systems still in being. Good grief.

The Christian mission, for all its faults, caused by the difficulties, has presided over a culture in which humane values have never ceased to improve starting from a position of the grossest barbarity being practiced as a matter of course and even for entertainment. The human sacrifice rituals of what you call "mesoamerica" are too disgusting to discuss. Many priests were tortured to death in the Christian mission to America in the 15th and 16th centuries.

It's an answer to my post that's needed rather that a daft rant in which 2,000 years is encapsulated in an emotional blurt.

0 Replies

@RexRed,

please refrain from taking said post seriously, i was mocking foofie's ridiculous stance, by way of cyclo's post

0 Replies

@spendius,

You put a lot of words down just to say nothing at all.

Quote:

In fact you ought to be ashamed of yourself for suggesting I had said homosexuality is dangerous when I didn't.

Quote:

In fact I said that heterosexual relationships are dangerous, which they are, and that homosexuality if rendered respectable and acceptable is an alternative for those who seek to evade those dangers if there is no social disapproval of it.

You realize that homosexual relationships are a part of homosexuality right?

No matter how you dice what you do or don't say is dangerous, you can't seem to back up either with anything more than vacant assertions.

You're no stranger to offending history, and I don't' think you care, but why bother responding if you can't answer the question? You've lost your edge, you used to be sort of interesting.

A
R
T

1 Reply

California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know