[quote]vroom wrote:
Solomon Grundy wrote:
Canada already allows same sex marriage so why are you so interested in what happens down here in the bad and evil USA?
We’re entralled and amazed by the brazen displays of ignorance and bigotry routinely put on display for our viewing pleasure…[/quote]
In that case from one ignorant bigot to another I’m glad I could be of service.
Me Solomon Grundy
[quote]Solomon Grundy wrote:
In that case from one ignorant bigot to another I’m glad I could be of service.[/quote]
LOL. Close, but no cigar.
Do you think we don’t know who you are by your screen name or something?
[quote]pookie wrote:
Following that logic, we could then, if we applied ourselves to it, both become gay?
I don’t see sexual preference as being “changeable.”
[/quote]
Then we are just wasting our time putting pedophiles in prison and trying to rehabilitate them to not be attracted to boys?
So do we then apply that brilliant logic to every antisocial behavior as well? Hummmm!
Lorisco,
Whether or not something is antisocial in your phrasing may have a little bit to do with whether or not there is someone who does not or is not able to give consent.
Do you at least fathom this concept?
Pedophiles and various predators have a victim. To compare consenting gay couples, male or female, to such is terribly inappropriate.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Solomon Grundy wrote:
In that case from one ignorant bigot to another I’m glad I could be of service.
LOL. Close, but no cigar.
Me Solomon Grundy
Do you think we don’t know who you are by your screen name or something?
[/quote]
No, he Solomon Grundy! He make big fire rubbing stick together! He chase mastodon and eat it! He then make big steaming pile poopy! He chase woman and drag her back to cave by hair! Arrrr!
Just because some studies happen to support your pet theory, doesn’t mean it’s correct.
BostonB posted a pretty good summary of recent thinking of the subject of homosexuality, pointing out that the current “favorite” among the scientific community involved hormonal imbalance in the womb. It makes the trait “inborn,” but not genetic.
It’s wrong according to you and your stone age morals; furthermore, you still assume that it can be changed while nothing supports that supposition.
Your case is weak.
Well, you can say it; but it has to be confirmed by a psychological exam. I’m sure you oppose those too.
No, but it means it’s natural.
You’re still a mammal like everyone else.
You didn’t read BostonB’s post, did you. I guess it’s better to simply avoid any inconveniencing fact and stick to blind prejudice.
The gist of the current favored explanation is that the cause is present during the pregnancy, but is not genetic. So it doesn’t “breed” out.
That would mean redefining marriage as sanctioning a relationship where one of the participant is a victim. They’d be no support for that.
I’m really fascinated by how all you Christians apparently dream of marrying your dogs.
No. Not Really. And because I value my relationship with my wife above all.
Well anyone can assert anything they want. You sa white, I say black and no one’s the wiser.
You seem to be doing some pretty selective interpreting. Civilizations and empires fall for various reasons; but none of them have died of an overdose of “gayness.”
Everything is highly debatable. Do you have any concrete examples of social ills suffered since gay marriage was allowed in those countries?
You could see it as “more free and available to more loving couples.” Are you against freedom and love?
How? How does a gay married couple weaken the bonds between you and your wife?
Well, it saves a lot of paperwork; but objectively, it changes nothing between the partners.
Probably for the same reason that straight people have for being set on it. Reproduction excepted.
I’m just interested in the reasons you have for opposing it. It just seems to be a complete non-issue for me. I’d rather we fix education and health care; you know, stuff that would actually help families.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Then we are just wasting our time putting pedophiles in prison and trying to rehabilitate them to not be attracted to boys?[/quote]
What it is with you and pedophiles? Did you get manhandled in your youth?
But to answer your questions: I think they do fine in prison; and I don’t think they can be rehabilitated. The “repeat offender” statistics seem to support my views.
Antisocial is the key word here. Individuals unable to function in society without preying on others will be excluded from it (ie, jailed) for the safety of the majority.
Two adult gay partners wishing to marry is not antisocial behavior.
You should try to think a bit more about those things before you go raving about “brilliant logic” and such.
You come off as an angry simpleton looking to “score” a point against people who have actually given the issues a bit of thought.
Maybe you can get together with JeffR and you two can have the meekest battle of wits ever witnessed in history.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Jews are not a race.
I said “ethnic backgrounds.”
All meaningful nasty insults aside. I don’t think anyone can actually converse with you as you have no idea what they are saying.
You apparently try to read the words but for some reason you are not seeing them…
It’s freaking weird.
[/quote]
Mmm, yes: I’m the dumb one. I’m the one who thinks people can change what sexually arouses them by praying really hard.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Solomon Grundy wrote:
In that case from one ignorant bigot to another I’m glad I could be of service.
LOL. Close, but no cigar.
[/quote]
You must have been practicing reverse-bigotry then.
Do you seriously want me to explain my signature or why I use it?
Me Solomon Grundy
Yes.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Jews are not a race.
I said “ethnic backgrounds.”
All meaningful nasty insults aside. I don’t think anyone can actually converse with you as you have no idea what they are saying.
You apparently try to read the words but for some reason you are not seeing them…
It’s freaking weird.
Mmm, yes: I’m the dumb one. [/quote]
Thank you for admitting it. And to show that you are in fact correct with this statement you posted the following to further prove your stupidity:
[quote]I’m the one who thinks people can change what sexually arouses them by praying really hard.
[/quote]
Where in the world did I ever post that statement?
I posted volumes on those who have changed due to something called THERAPY!
If you like I’ll post the incredible amount of studies that demonstrate that anywhere from 30% to 70% of those with a same sex attraction dropped it and became heterosexuals!
And I might add that after you attend somne remedial reading classes I suggest therapy for you as well.
But your kind of therapy should be centered around “anger management.”
[quote]pookie wrote:
Two adult gay partners wishing to marry is not antisocial behavior.[/quote]
-There is not one productive, civilized long lived society in antiquity that had included in it two homosexuals marrying.
-There is not one major world wide religion that promotes two homosexuals marrying.
-There is not one state that has held a referendum (20 states have) which approved of two homosexuals marrying. And in fact the average vote that turned out against homosexual marriage was 71%.
Let’s stop trying act like there is nothing out of the ordinary about two men having sex and wanting the state to sanction it! It is NOT socially acceptable and will NOT be sanctioned.
Some updates on the litigation front:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_07_09-2006_07_15.shtml#1152899198
[Dale Carpenter, July 14, 2006 at 1:46pm] 0 Trackbacks / Possibly More Trackbacks
Yet more losses for gay-marriage litigants:
Two more today, one in Tennessee apparently letting an anti-gay-marriage state constitutional amendment go to the ballot and one in the Eighth Circuit reversing a district judge’s ruling that Nebraska’s gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional ( MSN ). That makes losses four and five in one week.
The Eighth Circuit decision, which can be read here ( http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/052604P.pdf ), is especially important. It’s significant because it reverses a district court decision that opponents of gay marriage, among them Maggie Gallagher and the Senate Republican Policy Committee, had relied on heavily as part of the “judicial activism” justification for passing a federal constitutional amendment. Very few constitutional law experts I know believed the district court opinion would be upheld, but that did not stop amendment supporters from using it to goad Congress and the public.
The Eighth Circuit opinion is also significant because it appears to contain very broad language rejecting same-sex marriage claims. This is especially curious because the litigants had not asked the federal court to force Nebraska to recognize gay marriage; they had only asked the courts to hold that Nebraska’s state constitutional amendment, which seems to ban much more than gay marriage, was too broad. Not content to reject just that claim, the Eighth Circuit seems to have taken it upon itself to reject gay-marriage claims generally. It holds that only rational basis review applies to Nebraska’s definition of marriage and that the state has rational interests supporting the definition, including interests in children very much like those sustained by the New York Court of Appeals last week.
The Eighth Circuit opinion ends with a quote from Judge Richard Posner in a law review article nine years ago, arguing that for prudential reasons federal courts should be especially careful about recognizing “new rights” broadly opposed by the public.
My hunch is that, if asked, the Supreme Court will deny cert in the Eighth Circuit case.
Gay-marriage litigants will be deeply disappointed by this string of losses, especially the New York and Eighth Circuit rulings. But perhaps the more excitable elements of the anti-gay-marriage movement will calm down just a bit.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Do you seriously want me to explain my signature or why I use it?
Yes.[/quote]
Solomon Grundy was one of Superman?s adversaries. On the carton ?The Super Friends? He talked that way, usually be saying ?me Solomon Grundy?.
Me Solomon Grundy
[quote]ZEB wrote:
-There is not one productive, civilized long lived society in antiquity that had included in it two homosexuals marrying.[/quote]
So? What’s your point? That bronze age civilizations had bronze age values?
Are you implying that if they had allowed gay marriage, they might still be around today?
So? Religions do not adapt well to change; so it’s to be expected. Just because they’ve renamed their prejudices “commandments” doesn’t make them right in any way.
See, at least this part I can respect. If the decision is democratically submitted to the people and rejected by a majority (and a large one here) then just keep the status quo. Don’t just try to justify it based on “God given morals” and other similar drivel.
There’s still 30 (or 29? Doesn’t Massachussets allow it already?) states remaining. How likely is it that all of those will also reject it? I haven’t seen the list; but I’d bet that the 20 polled state are deeply red and the referendum was held more as a publicity stunt by the anti-gay coalition as the outcomes had probably never been in doubt.
Out of the ordinary? Sure. So what? A mixed race couple is out of the ordinary. A young man married to and old woman is out of the ordinary.
And who are you to decide what’s socially acceptable? You get your one vote, just like everyone else.
[quote]pookie wrote:
ZEB wrote:
-There is not one productive, civilized long lived society in antiquity that had included in it two homosexuals marrying.
So? What’s your point? That bronze age civilizations had bronze age values?
Are you implying that if they had allowed gay marriage, they might still be around today?[/quote]
Not all. Simply stating that there is not one productive, civilized long lived society in antiquity that had included two homosexuals marrying.
[quote]-There is not one major world wide religion that promotes two homosexuals marrying.
So? Religions do not adapt well to change; so it’s to be expected. Just because they’ve renamed their prejudices “commandments” doesn’t make them right in any way.[/quote]
Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Animism, Christianity, Hinduism…um name a world wide religion. None of them promote homosexuality.
You see religions dictate morality, among other things.
[quote]-There is not one state that has held a referendum (20 states have) which approved of two homosexuals marrying. And in fact the average vote that turned out against homosexual marriage was 71%.
See, at least this part I can respect. If the decision is democratically submitted to the people and rejected by a majority (and a large one here) then just keep the status quo. Don’t just try to justify it based on “God given morals” and other similar drivel.[/quote]
None of it is drivel. I have given you three reasons why homosexual marriage is in fact socially unacceptable. You have not stated even one GOOD reason why it should be accepted. And the onus is on YOU to do that, not on me to show you why it should not be accepted.
And on more thing…
For the very reason that you accept the public opinion based upon the referendums above, you must accept the public opinion regarding religion. And 90%+ of the people believe in God. Or does that not count because YOU are an atheist?
Point is, all three reasons above are quite valid.
Massachusetts will be reversing that particular law in the upcoming months. It was a “judges decision” that opened it up. And it will be the “peoples decision” to shut it down!
Take a look:
"Backers of a constitutional ban on gay marriage in Massachusetts have shattered a 20-year-old record for the most certified signatures ever gathered in support of a proposed ballot question.
Breaking News Alerts Secretary of State William F. Galvin this week certified the signatures of 123,356 registered voters, nearly twice as many as the number required to get on the ballot.
Supporters of the ban said their effort shows that gay marriage is still a burning issue among thousands of voters, and legislators should pay heed."
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/12/22/petition_vs_gay_marriage_advances/
Actually this is an issue that transcends party lines. No one (other than the far left) really wants gay “marriage.”
Take a look:
"But Alabama isn’t alone. Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin also are scheduled to vote on similar amendments this year. A handful of other states may follow. Wisconsin, in particular, would be a big win for pro-family groups, since it traditionally has been considered a “blue” state and hasn’t voted Republican since 1984. Two other blue states – Michigan and Oregon – have adopted marriage amendments.
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=23414
[quote]Let’s stop trying act like there is nothing out of the ordinary about two men having sex and wanting the state to sanction it! It is NOT socially acceptable and will NOT be sanctioned.
Out of the ordinary? Sure. So what? A mixed race couple is out of the ordinary. A young man married to and old woman is out of the ordinary.[/quote]
Oh good I was wondering how long you’d wait before pulling out the old “blacks were different at one time too” bullshit.
Here you go:
Race = genetic
Homosexual = an action
Unless you are willing for the state to sanction every sort of (sexually) oddball marriage…I would not be that quick to say that gay “marriage” should be sanctioned.
And don’t give me the slippery slope crap either…just check the Netherlands. It only took four years after the legalization of gay marriage for legalized polygamy to take place.
So here we go…
-Polygamy
-Incestual
Let’s see what could be next?
I’ll let your imagination grab hold of all the other possible combinations.
But you just want it changed for this one group right?
Life is soooo simple…
lol
[quote]And who are you to decide what’s socially acceptable? You get your one vote, just like everyone else.
[/quote]
Wow…that was deep.
Every single piece of evidence from health statistics, public opinion, referendums, religion, tradition etc is on my side.
I don’t have to justify NOT wanting gay “marriage.” YOU have to explain WHY it’s a good idea.
And you can’t.
And that’s why the idea is getting crushed in every state wide referendum, even those in blue states. Even in liberal states like New York, at the judicial level no less.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Not all. Simply stating that there is not one productive, civilized long lived society in antiquity that had included two homosexuals marrying.[/quote]
Again: Your point?
[quote]Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Animism, Christianity, Hinduism…um name a world wide religion. None of them promote homosexuality.
You see religions dictate morality, among other things.[/quote]
Well Buddhism has no actual rule pertaining to homosexuality; at least not that I’ve ever read. I guess it would be covered by the usual “do no harm” guiding principle. Consenting adults should be covered.
Is today “no point” day and someone forgot to tell me?
I can accept that a majority of people believe in a deity of some sort; oddly though, no single belief has a majority, unless you reduce your sample to a small region.
On a global scale, various factions of your “90% of believers” have been at each other’s throats for centuries if not millenia, all in the name of God/Allah/Vishnu/Santa/etc.
I was simply posting examples of rarely seen couples. I see you conveniently ignored the example involving age. Forget the mixed race one and use the old/young one as an out of the ordinary couple that’s “allowed.”
Lucky for you, since none of the reasons you give make any sense.
Old civilization didn’t drive cars.
World religions don’t support cars.
Traditionnaly, people have walked, swimmed and went by horseback.
Let’s ban all cars. Antiquity, religion and tradition all support me.
I don’t really care one way or another; I’m not married myself. I don’t know about US laws, but here you can take a few legal arrangements and enjoy all the same rights and privileges as a married couple vis-a-vis income tax, inheritance, etc. It’s a lot cheaper than the standard wedding too.
As for disallowing gay marriage, it simply seems some arbitrary restraints being placed on the freedom of individuals.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Antisocial is the key word here. Individuals unable to function in society without preying on others will be excluded from it (ie, jailed) for the safety of the majority.
Two adult gay partners wishing to marry is not antisocial behavior.
You should try to think a bit more about those things before you go raving about “brilliant logic” and such.
[/quote]
Good, then maybe you need to take a look at the statistics that show how homosexual men have a much higher rate of molesting young boys than heterosexual. Zeb can fill you in on the details.
So does your definition of gays include gays who molest kids? And then would those gays be considered deviant?
And if more gays are child molesters than others would that mean that there is something inherently deviant about all gays?
You see sport, there are those in the medical field who understand and have done research and know a fews things about behavioral issues, you just don’t happen to be one of them. (Although you play like you know something on the Internet).
For those of you who went to college or have medical training, this post is what you would call “Projecting”. Enough said.
[quote]Solomon Grundy wrote:
pookie wrote:
Do you seriously want me to explain my signature or why I use it?
Yes.
Solomon Grundy was one of Superman?s adversaries. On the carton ?The Super Friends? He talked that way, usually be saying ?me Solomon Grundy?.
Me Solomon Grundy[/quote]
And Solomon Grundy has an IQ of what, 50!
You could use all the same gay support arguments for the obese, but you wouldn’t support the obese, because their lifestyle is disgusting to you. One can argue they are born with that genetic predisposition a hell of a lot better than homosexuality. Do they deserve special protection or “rights” under the law?