The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Well, my firts thought when reading this was: when do they introduce the Middle Ages in their constituion?

But, indeed, when a majority thinks, a constitution is the maxime to keep sins and thus gays and lesbians out of their society ...

Something you might bear in mind when contemplating a move to Kansas -- or any of the other 17 states that have voted similarly -- I suppose.

Ticomaya wrote:

Something you might bear in mind when contemplating a move to Kansas -- or any of the other 17 states that have voted similarly -- I suppose.

Since I don't believe that a constitution is changed as often as a shirt - you are completely correct.

blatham wrote:

Tico

Yes, it did. And a poll of 1930's Berliners would have established that Jews are exactly like rats by what percentage?

Couldn't tell you. But we should be able to agree that whether Jews are exactly like rats is a debateable point .... but the fact that Kansans have overwhelmingly voted to amend their constitution is not.

Why are you trying to compare a hypothetical poll to an affirmative vote? I assume you are suggesting the fact that 70% voted that way doesn't make the end result the right thing to do? To which I would respond by saying that you could say the same thing about the Schiavo ruling ... but that doesn't change the facts of the result of this vote, or that Schiavo has been killed.

Ticomaya wrote:

blatham wrote:

Tico

Yes, it did. And a poll of 1930's Berliners would have established that Jews are exactly like rats by what percentage?

Couldn't tell you. But we should be able to agree that whether Jews are exactly like rats is a debateable point .... but the fact that Kansans have overwhelmingly voted to amend their constitution is not.

Why are you trying to compare a hypothetical poll to an affirmative vote? I assume you are suggesting the fact that 70% voted that way doesn't make the end result the right thing to do? To which I would respond by saying that you could say the same thing about the Schiavo ruling ... but that doesn't change the facts of the result of this vote, or that Schiavo has been killed.

"But we should be able to agree that whether Jews are exactly like rats is a debateable point". You sure you want that sentence in an online record, Tico. Or of course, you could begin a thread with it as the lead debate question.

And a poll of 1930's Berliners would have established that Jews are exactly like rats by what percentage?

Before you make confident proclamations about public opinion in Nazi Germany, maybe you want to talk to someone who knows the relevant history.

In 1933, persecution of the Jews became active Nazi policy, but laws were not as rigorously obeyed and were not as devastating as in later years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/opinion/05krugman.html

"Scientific American may think that evolution is supported by mountains of evidence, but President Bush declares that "the jury is still out." Senator James Inhofe dismisses the vast body of research supporting the scientific consensus on climate change as a "gigantic hoax." And conservative pundits like George Will write approvingly about Michael Crichton's anti-environmentalist fantasies."

Rural America is very homophobic. We hear it in Tico's posts everyday. This should be as no surprise.

Dookiestix wrote:

Rural America is very homophobic. We hear it in Tico's posts everyday. This should be as no surprise.

Explain that statement.

Dookiestix wrote:

Rural America is very homophobic. We hear it in Tico's posts everyday. This should be as no surprise.

Explain that statement.

Ticomaya wrote:

Dookiestix wrote:

Rural America is very homophobic. We hear it in Tico's posts everyday. This should be as no surprise.

Explain that statement.

Gloating over a 70% vote banning gay marriage and civil unions is a good start. Nothing subtle about that.

Well, you are from the middle of the heartland, are you not?

:wink:

Hmmm... if the anti-gay marriage movement ISN'T homophobic (which I think you've been implying, although it's usually impossible to tell), then what is it?

As you insist on pointing out the whopping percentage in Kansas who voted against it, what are you implying? Is it significant? And in what way?

Are you as convinced as many of the theocratic Bush minions in the heartland that homosexuality leads to beastiality?

Dookiestix wrote:

Hmmm... if the anti-gay marriage movement ISN'T homophobic (which I think you've been implying, although it's usually impossible to tell), then what is it?

Well, no, I haven't implied it, but IMO keeping the traditional definition of marriage is not homophobic in the sense of being afraid of homosexuality. But I can understand why those who do not agree with it would consider it so, and would consider it an attack upon their lifestyle.
How is it an attack on their lifestyle? And as you seem to understand why these people feel this way, perhaps it is also an "attack" on YOUR lifestyle? Once again, not a very revealing answer...

Quote:

As you insist on pointing out the whopping percentage in Kansas who voted against it, what are you implying? Is it significant? And in what way?

The percentage is significant only in showing the numbers of voters on either side of this issue. I'm implying no other significance. What other significance might it have?
Um, yeah...

Quote:

Are you as convinced as many of the theocratic Bush minions in the heartland that homosexuality leads to beastiality?

I've no idea where you came up with that. The answer is no.
Then you would be adamently against a United States Republican Senator implying that gay marriage DOES lead to polygamy, incest, adultry, and perhaps even beastiality? Wouldn't you be jut a little angrier that Senator Santorum is telling this to members of your "heartland:?"

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."

"All of those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family. And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist, in my opinion, in the United States Constitution."


You have yet to substantiate your earlier comment, "We hear it in Tico's posts everyday," which implies not only that I am homophobic, but that I express my homophobia every day. Are you ready to retract that statement, or are you prepared to let it die as do so many of your false sweeping generalizations about conservatives?
Perhaps after you've answered some more of my questions, I'll consider it...