The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Uh, it's satire, prom.

0 Replies

Just arrived. ( Read only 8 pages, will read the rest after this post.)

McG wrote (p.8) "A semantics discussion is exactly what this is. An argument over the definition of the word "marriage". Neither side seems willing to negotiate the definition so the debate wears on. "

ok.

Because I have dialogued with McG on other threads re this issue, I believe I am accurate in saying that, for McG, if ALL and EXACTLY the same legal rights, state and federal, were granted to a gay couple via a civil union, that would be ok with him. Just as long as the word "marriage" is not used.

This position, however, would NOT be supported by most opponents of gay "marriage", as they really do not want gay couples to have equal rights, under any name. For McG, it IS a semantic issue; he is, however, in the minority. For most gay marriage opponents, it's about denying equal rights.

I agree with McG that a genuinely fair and reasonable solution would be to designate all legal unions to be "civil" unions, carrying exactly equivalent legal rights, and that "marriage" ought to be reserved for religious institutions which could obviously decide to "marry" whomever they chose.

Gay couples/families want and deserve their legal rights. If a "union" granted them true legal equality, I daresay most of them wouldn't care what you called it.

0 Replies

how much more uncivilized can you be?

woiyo wrote:

HOMOPHOBIC????? Typically, the liberal mantra is to distort reality when their position is rejected by the VAST MAJORITY of people in this nation.

NO BALLOT INITIATIVE EVER suggested that HOMOSEXUALITY be banned, only the MARRIAGE of homosexuals. There are law on the books that protect homos from discrimination at home and at work.

Since the VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICAN have voted to maintain tradition, I would suggest the VAST MINORITY of homosexuals stop trying to distort tradition and look for a compromise that would provide the financial and life benefits currently provided to traditional married couples.

What are you really saying? Because the mob voted to discriminate against homosexuals -- those darn homos ought to just crawl back into their closets and stop demanding their right to equal protection under the law? Maybe you'll throw them a few crumbs?

Bigotry and hypocrisy are the main ingredients in your post. So what if the "vast majority of Americans" voted to deny gay and lesbian couples the right to marry? They acted unlawfully -- the fact that so many people acted together to deprive a minority of equal rights under the law is nothing to brag about. It's an embarrassment.

So what if marriage has been "traditionally" sanctioned as a union between two people of the opposite sex? You're just using the alleged agenda of protecting "traditional marriage" (from being soiled by the homosexuals) as a freakin' red herring.

The Montana Supreme Court Justice James C. Nelson recently wrote the following:

. . . the entire focus of laws directed at gays and lesbians is sex. Majoritarian morality and prevailing political ideology are offended by the fact that people of the same sex have sexual relations with each other. This offense translates into laws and policies that explicitly or implicitly demonize homosexuals and make them a disfavored class. Heterosexuals, on the other hand, are a favored class because their sexual relations are with persons of the opposite sex. Homosexuals are a disfavored class because their sexual relations are with persons of the same sex. Regardless, however, the defining criteria of either class is plainly and simply sex--or, to be more specific, with which sex one is having sex. To paraphrase an old adage, “When they say it isn’t about sex, it’s about sex.”

"When they say it isn’t about sex, it’s about sex."

"If the age of a pernicious practice were a sufficient reason for its continued acceptance, the constitutional attack on racial discrimination would, of course, have been doomed to failure." Rutan, et al. V. Republican Party of Illinois, et al., 497 U.S. 62 (1990) (JUSTICE STEVENS, concurring) (quoting Illinois State Employees Union, et.al. vs. Lewis, 473 F.2d 561, 568 (1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 928 (1973)).

0 Replies

Sorry. Mistaken intepretation.

0 Replies

angie wrote:

This position, however, would NOT be supported by most opponents of gay "marriage", as they really do not want gay couples to have equal rights, under any name. For McG, it IS a semantic issue; he is, however, in the minority. For most gay marriage opponents, it's about denying equal rights.

The minority he's in isn't as small as you seem to imply here. The exit polls after the Nov election came up with 37% of the population opposed to both gay marriage and civil unions, 25% supporting full marriage and 35% supporting civil unions. Subsequent polls have reflected numbers very close to these as well.

0 Replies

fishin wrote: "The minority he's in isn't as small as you seem to imply here."

I certainly hope you're right, though I suspect otherwise. I'm talking about full and equal state and federal rights.

Let's see how many gay marriage opponents, other than McG, show up here to support that premise.

0 Replies

Re: how much more uncivilized can you be?

Debra_Law wrote:

woiyo wrote:
HOMOPHOBIC????? Typically, the liberal mantra is to distort reality when their position is rejected by the VAST MAJORITY of people in this nation.

NO BALLOT INITIATIVE EVER suggested that HOMOSEXUALITY be banned, only the MARRIAGE of homosexuals. There are law on the books that protect homos from discrimination at home and at work.

Since the VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICAN have voted to maintain tradition, I would suggest the VAST MINORITY of homosexuals stop trying to distort tradition and look for a compromise that would provide the financial and life benefits currently provided to traditional married couples.

What are you really saying? Because the mob voted to discriminate against homosexuals -- those darn homos ought to just crawl back into their closets and stop demanding their right to equal protection under the law? Maybe you'll throw them a few crumbs?

Bigotry and hypocrisy are the main ingredients in your post. So what if the "vast majority of Americans" voted to deny gay and lesbian couples the right to marry? They acted unlawfully -- the fact that so many people acted together to deprive a minority of equal rights under the law is nothing to brag about. It's an embarrassment.

So what if marriage has been "traditionally" sanctioned as a union between two people of the opposite sex? You're just using the alleged agenda of protecting "traditional marriage" (from being soiled by the homosexuals) as a freakin' red herring.

The Montana Supreme Court Justice James C. Nelson recently wrote the following:

. . . the entire focus of laws directed at gays and lesbians is sex. Majoritarian morality and prevailing political ideology are offended by the fact that people of the same sex have sexual relations with each other. This offense translates into laws and policies that explicitly or implicitly demonize homosexuals and make them a disfavored class. Heterosexuals, on the other hand, are a favored class because their sexual relations are with persons of the opposite sex. Homosexuals are a disfavored class because their sexual relations are with persons of the same sex. Regardless, however, the defining criteria of either class is plainly and simply sex--or, to be more specific, with which sex one is having sex. To paraphrase an old adage, "When they say it isn't about sex, it's about sex."

"When they say it isn't about sex, it's about sex."

BS. It's all about the money and benefits.

"If the age of a pernicious practice were a sufficient reason for its continued acceptance, the constitutional attack on racial discrimination would, of course, have been doomed to failure." Rutan, et al. V. Republican Party of Illinois, et al., 497 U.S. 62 (1990) (JUSTICE STEVENS, concurring) (quoting Illinois State Employees Union, et.al. vs. Lewis, 473 F.2d 561, 568 (1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 928 (1973)).

0 Replies

gay agenda

blatham wrote:

dadothree

Quote:
What do you find to be the most dependable sources of information on the gay agenda?

I would not limit myself to any one source.
The most accurate info is derived from the facts that have already occured, such as the boy scout situation. The root of the problem in my opinion is that homosexuals do not simply want to be tolerated, they want us to all accept their behavior as normal and healthy. An example of this is the "tolerance training" many people are forced to attend in the workplace. This so called tolerance seem to be a one way street. A tiny minority object to prayer and it is banned from school. Meanwhile thousands object to homosexual propaganda in schools with little results. If you choose to experiment with your own children thats fine. You are free to teach them what you want about your lifestyle. But you should leave mine alone. As more people begin to realize how same sex marriage will affect what is taught in our schools, the number of us who oppose it will increase. As people learn more facts about the dangers of homosexuality, such as the increased suicide rate especially among teens, our numbers will grow even more quickly.
dadothree
dadothree

0 Replies

dado wrote : "The root of the problem in my opinion is that homosexuals do not simply want to be tolerated, they want us to all accept their behavior as normal and healthy. "

I think the notion of any human being "tolerating" or "accepting" another is despicable. No one needs the approval of anyone else to exist. My opinion is that gay people want EXACTLY what we all want: freedom, civil rights, a family to share love, good health, a decent job, etc. Remember that catchy phrase : life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Kind of like that.

dado wrote: "As people learn more facts about the dangers of homosexuality, such as the increased suicide rate especially among teens, our numbers will grow even more quickly."

Your logic is incredibly twisted. The high suicide rate among gay teens is the result of bigotry levied against them by hateful members of society. The fault lies not with the gay teens. They are innocent children trying to figure things out about themselves, about life, just like straight children. The fault lies with narrow-minded, prejudiced bigots who choose to judge and condemn them simply for who they are.

All the same prejudices and hateful judgments were once levied against people of color, and before them against European and Asian immigrants. Those prejudices have since been recognized as garbage. I am personally hopeful that the current prejudices felt by some people toward our fellow human beings who happen to be gay will end up in the same trash pile, where all bigotry belongs.

0 Replies

dadothree

You don't have to settle on one. Give me three or five you rely upon. I note that elsewhere you mention the 'inerrancy of the bible'. You could include that.

I gather you refer above to the the United Way's decision to drop funding due to the Boy Scouts membership policy (ban on gay people and on atheists). Earlier in your nation's history, agencies and individuals decided to cease giving funding to organizations which prohibited membership of jews and colored people. Of course, this was the work of the jew agenda and the black agenda.

You imply that homosexuality is not 'normal'. Please define that term. Homosexuality is found in all cultures, in all time periods, in many other primate species (baboon males of the same troop, when greeting each other, reach out and give the other fella's penis a tug) and homosexual behaviors are extremely common throughout the animal kingdom.

Re 'tolerance training'...could you please link us to, or provide copy from, any such course so that we might adjudicate whether you have this right or not. Do such courses involve gay matters only, or other social matters such as race, gender, etc?

You refer to homosexual propaganda in schools. Could you please quote some, with links so we might verify your claims?

You mention also suicide rates. Please forward links to the studies that support your claim.

0 Replies

Blatham,

You are (so far successfully) demanding a remarkably massive shift in the burden of proof here. Diversity & tolerance or whatever training is indeed ubiquitous, particularly in large American corporations. Unsurprisingly the emphasis is chiefly on the issues favored by well-organized and active single issue lobbying groups, Christians excepted. Smaller businesses are much more variable in their approach (or lack of it) to all this, mostly because they aren't sufficiently vulnerable to lobbying activities.

In several salient ways our society has become much more tolerant, as you noted. The motivations for these changes are as varied as the population: some you would likely call good, some not. However, new forms of intolerance creep in at the sides along with occasional snippets of the old familiar ones - an inevitable result of the constancy of human nature. Are Canadians free of these vices?

As for the rest I either don't know, care or haven't an opinion.

0 Replies

Burden of proof falls upon the person making the claim. And the post I addressed is jam-packed with 'em. Of course, it's pretty clear just where the fellow/fellowess picked up the data and I was just trying to see how honest he or she would be about it. Answer...so far, not very.

Growing up in Canada in the fifties, we absorbed the cultural norms around us, and so, thought native indians rather scummy and fags something of a blight and catholics to be just weird in their idol-worship. Of course, we were eight years old. It took a while for experience and reflection and principle to evaporate such bigoted notions.

Not long ago, I spent an evening with an old hippy friend from my home town. In the late sixties and early seventies, we'd head out into the flat farmland in someone's car in order to safely smoke dope (you could see anyone approaching). On a number of those evenings, I brought along a taperecorder. Some thirty five years later, my friend and I dug these up and listened to them (of course, we got stoned again first).

We replayed an evening where three fellows and a girl in our crowd were together. What absolutely set me back on my heels was the degree to which we disregarded the female's ideas and conversation. It was flatout sexist. The thing was, I'd had no idea we'd been like that. I thought we'd been fair and inclusive (she was a very smart girl, now making high-level documentary films in California).

There are very good reasons why we often need to be helped to new viewpoints on how we think about and how we treat others, not least of them being our tendency to rally in groups of like-minded or like-looking and excluding (or treating poorly) the 'others'. Commonly, we do not even realize what we are doing.

The great experiment of America is liberty and inclusion. What do you imagine Lincoln might say to dadothree?

0 Replies

Amusing and interesting story. I agree I am generally less aware of my faults and failings than those who observe me. Hell, I deny many of them altogether. Believe it or not there's been a sexist moment or two in my life - or so it has been reported. (I generously overlooked them.)

We have grown more tolerant of many things and less tolerant of others. I sometimes believe there is a temporal phase shift behind many of the arguments between liberals and conservatives here - liberals focusing on the declining prejudices of the past; conservatives on the new forms growing to replace them. Both are partly correct, but for the most part we talk past each other.

Manners and styles of expression change from decade to decade. Some of the improvements we congratulate ourselves for are merely the different styles of the time. Some also represent the accumulation of some small measure of wisdom as we age. Were you to repeat your open field & stoned recordings now and play them in 20 years or so you might again have a similar reaction.

The U.S. is and long has been inclusive, but generally in a somewhat rough, competitive way a bit unlike the rather more smarmy variety often held up for imitation today. I'm not sure Lincoln would recognize the highly stylized and euphemism-laden modes of expression that too often pass for correct or sensitive behavior now.

What's the book going to be about?

0 Replies

Quote:

What's the book going to be about?

You.

0 Replies

Lucky devil.

Are you up to it?

0 Replies

Not certain. Reading Plautus and Terrance furiously.

0 Replies

Don't forget Plutarch.

0 Replies

So what's the title gonna be? I'm expecting: "Confessions of a repenting liberal -- How georgeob1's great arguments converted me into a born-again Republican."

Right?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

So what's the title gonna be? I'm expecting: "Confessions of a repenting liberal -- How georgeob1's great arguments converted me into a born-again Republican."

Right?

Although I just noticed at amazon.com that "Noctes Blathaminia et bubulcus Americanus" is said to be coming this year ...

0 Replies

The story begins in a bleak and muddy Irish potato field. Ragged clothing is yanked aside. There is eye-scratching. Glorious conception. A shotgun and broken teeth. The odifeous trans-oceanic voyage. Chicago and jewish people. A racy bathhouse scene. The navy. Laughs all the way through.

0 Replies

The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know