Gay Marriage Down in Flames!

[apbt55]

[quote]ninjaboy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
ninjaboy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

Is it possible for a gay person ‘to love’? Are we redefining love now? Love springs, at least partially, from the innate desire to procreate.

Gay people cannot love, in the actual sense of the word.

Do you love your mother, Headhunter?

Love for relatives is different from romantic love, toolboy. Love for family is rooted in the instinct for self-preservation (families work together for the survival of each).

Romantic love is based on the creation of children. Gay ‘love’ is not equivalent, by definition, therefore gay ‘love’ is simply perversion, and deserves no recognition by society.

Love is wanting the best for another person regardless of the cost to yourself, the whole “lay down your life for a friend” deal. It sounds like you’re confusing romantic love with physical attraction, which while similar are in fact two different things. Also, the point isn’t that gay love deserves recognition by society, its that two adult people (or more) should be able to sign a legally binding contract which grants certain privilages and responsabilities to both parties, regardless of their gender. Honestly, if a religious group chooses to recognize that contract as marriage, more power to them, but if not, it shouldn’t really effect how the government operates. I’ll say it again in case you missed it earlier, I don’t believe that homosexuals can be married in the eyes of God, no matter what the government says. Hell, I’d be happy if the government just called everything a civil union, and left the religious elements of marriage to churches. But as long as we’re going to say “you two people can obtain a legal status by signing this document” then we’d damn well better not add “unless you’re the same gender”.

[/quote]

No he is going by the evolutionary definition of love.

It is an emotion evolved to keep mates together to raise their offspring so that their offspring have a better chance of survival.

[forlife]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Revision, or amendment - it don’t matter. [/quote]

It does matter, because you’re acting as if a permanent constitutional amendment has been passed. You’re also dead wrong in your insistence that it can only be resolved at the level of the U.S. Supreme Court. The California Supreme Court will be determining the constituionality of the recently passed revision.

[forlife]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Romantic love is based on the creation of children. [/quote]

So an infertile couple can’t experience romantic love? God, what an idiot.

[forlife]

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
But as I just stated, the domestic partners law already gives the same rights.
[/quote]

As pointed out numerous times in this thread, the current law doesn’t grant federal rights.

[NeelyDan]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Yes. You can’t read and you are a fucking idiot. Not my fault. Just stating the obvious.[/quote]

Riiiiight. Because the sort of utterly simplistic tripe that comes out of that sewer grate of yours is so fucking difficult to grasp.

[quote]
I’m not dimwitted. You are a fucking moron for trying to use my post as a springboard for a gay revolution. I was commenting on the Prop 8 election in California - not the entirity of the fucking gay movement, you ignorant fuck.[/quote]

Au contraire, ye of the sloped forehead variety. First of all, save your dramatic springboard comment - I have not exactly made a huge deductive leap here or anything, eh? In spite of prop 8 being inherently part of the gay rights debate to begin with, it’s fairly fucking obvious (outside of cretins like yourself) what your stance is on the issue in its entirety. I didn’t jump in here to use your post as a springboard - don’t flatter yourself, sweetheart. I merely ended up doubled over in laughter at you calling someone else a bigot, and had to say hello.

No - you just can’t fucking read and comprehend what is written.

Go back to Canadian politics. You are a fucking idiot and have no reason to be proving it on an American board.

Apparently noone on this board can. I guess you’ve gotta be a slack-jawed good ol’ boy to make sense of all the confusing words you use.

[pat]

[quote]MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
pat wrote:
There is no discrimination of gays.

I could get insulted by this if I let myself. Insulted not simply because you are anti-gay marriage, but insulted that someone could be this dumb and/or ignorant to make such a statement.

[/quote]

You are wrong…I am not anti-gay marriage. I just don’t see the need for it I really don’t give a shit if gay want to marry. I am insulted by this entitlement mentality that because you like to fuck men instead of women or vice versa, people need to bend over backwards to accommodate you.

Second, show me a single law or judicial decision that says that because a person is gay they cannot do something everybody else is allowed to do, name one.

[forlife]

[quote]pat wrote:
I am insulted by this entitlement mentality that because you like to fuck men instead of women or vice versa, people need to bend over backwards to accommodate you.[/quote]

If anyone has an “entitlement mentality”, it is heterosexuals because they want special rights based on who they fuck. Gays only want to have the same rights, duh.

Second, show me a single law or judicial decision that says that because a person is gay they cannot do something everybody else is allowed to do, name one.

Ever hear about DOMA, DADT, and child adoption laws? Not only that, but the law fails to protect gays from hate crimes and employment discrimination.

[pat]

[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
They were asking for the basic rights of all Americans, not special rights for black people.

God, how can I make this any clearer?

You are saying that gays are asking for special rights BECAUSE they already have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

That is the IDENTICAL LOGIC TO saying that blacks were asking for special rights BECAUSE they already had the right to marry someone of the same race.

It’s about the logical fallacy, not about comparing gays with blacks. By your twisted logic, blacks already had the right to marry someone of the same race, so they were asking for special rights.

You can fly to Massachusetts or Connecticut to get married by the way, they passed it. Just buy a plane ticket and quit whining.

Texas doesn’t recognize gay marriages conducted in other states. I shouldn’t have to move to another state in order to have equal rights, and even if I did, I would still be denied all the federal rights that straight couples have.[/quote]

You can’t because you dead fucking wrong. It is in no way similar so quit trying to ride on the coat tails of the civil rights movement of the mid-20th century. It’s not even fucking close, why don’t you explain your comparison to an older black person who lived through it. They’ll laugh their ass off at you if not hit you for belittling their struggle.

I do not see any reason what so ever to let gays marry. I am not against it, but this whole idea that because your different we have to change a system of laws to accommodate you. Why? What purpose is served by granting this to gay people? So a very small minority of a small minority can have their papers that say their married? For what? You won’t procreate, your union will not contribute to society at large. So what is the point? To tie up an already flooded court system with even more divorces?

[pat]

[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
I am insulted by this entitlement mentality that because you like to fuck men instead of women or vice versa, people need to bend over backwards to accommodate you.

If anyone has an “entitlement mentality”, it is heterosexuals because they want special rights based on who they fuck. Gays only want to have the same rights, duh.

Second, show me a single law or judicial decision that says that because a person is gay they cannot do something everybody else is allowed to do, name one.

Ever hear about DOMA, DADT, and child adoption laws? Not only that, but the law fails to protect gays from hate crimes and employment discrimination.[/quote]

Do you want kids? 'Cause you have no idea what you are in for.

Bullshit, no employer can discriminate against you for sexual orientation. It’s written on the wall in my break room. An employer is liable if they discriminate against you for being gay.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

So why aren’t you equally against the government recognizing (and giving legal rights/tax benefits/etc for) marriage between heterosexuals?

Because it’s not marriage, it is domestic partners and it was already in effect before prop 8. And it remains in effect after prop 8. So this shows that it is not about rights, because the domestic partners law already gives the same rights as marriage in California. They just can’t call it marriage.

And I don’t care about this because it’s not marriage and therefore not religious.

[/quote]

Reread what I wrote. Are you saying that in California heterosexuals have to get domestic partnerships?

You’re also, still, ignoring the fact that the battle is for legal marriage. Any two people can have a ceremony with or without religious leaders present, they can wear rings and call themselves married; but only a select group can actually get the legal benefits of it.

Well, I know it’s about legal marriage and I’m saying the State should recognize any marriage sanctioned by any legitimate religion. But as I just stated, the domestic partners law already gives the same rights. So the ‘rights’ argument does not fly in California.

It’s about the term and meaning of marriage as a religious institution. And as you can see, Californians are not going to allow gays to redefine a religious institution with legal implications.

So you think that no couples should get legal marriage benefits?

[forlife]

[quote]pat wrote:
It is in no way similar[/quote]

Don’t blame me for your inability to understand and consistently apply logic to a given statement.

Let’s put it this way:

What would be wrong with defending mixed-race marriage laws by telling blacks that they wanted special rights? Do you agree that blacks in fact wanted special rights? Why or why not?

What purpose is served by granting this to gay people?

Most importantly: Equal treatment for people that pay equal taxes.

Beyond that, marriage provides stability to society through responsibilities and rights that make it more likely a couple will ride out the rough spots in their relationship. It reduces promiscuity and the spread of disease. It fosters mental health. Collectively, this benefits the couple, any children they may have, and society at large.

[forlife]

[quote]pat wrote:
Do you want kids? 'Cause you have no idea what you are in for.[/quote]

I have kids. Shocking I know, but many gays actually do have kids either through previous marriage, surrogacy, or adoption. Even more hard to believe, my kids actually love me and say I’m a good dad!

Bullshit, no employer can discriminate against you for sexual orientation. It’s written on the wall in my break room. An employer is liable if they discriminate against you for being gay.

Are you interested in educating yourself, or do you enjoy spouting shit you know nothing about? There is no federal protection against employment discrimination of gays. It is up to the company, and any company wanting to discriminate based on sexual orientation is entirely free to do so.

[MeinHerzBrennt]

[quote]pat wrote:
MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
pat wrote:
There is no discrimination of gays.

I could get insulted by this if I let myself. Insulted not simply because you are anti-gay marriage, but insulted that someone could be this dumb and/or ignorant to make such a statement.

You are wrong…I am not anti-gay marriage. I just don’t see the need for it I really don’t give a shit if gay want to marry. I am insulted by this entitlement mentality that because you like to fuck men instead of women or vice versa, people need to bend over backwards to accommodate you.

Second, show me a single law or judicial decision that says that because a person is gay they cannot do something everybody else is allowed to do, name one.[/quote]

I apologize then for assuming you were anti-gay marriage.
But as for your question, I have an answer: marriage.

I really don’t understand the bend over backwards mentality though. There is no bending over backwards. There is no burden on the United States to simply stop separating marriages based on a moral opinion.

There was probably a far greater ‘burden’ on the US when they had to repeal numerous discriminatory laws against blacks and eventually desegregate schools all over the country.

And again, I draw that distinction because the core principle is exactly the same: discriminating against someone who has done no harm to others and simply wants to be treated equally, all because of some quality which the majority finds fault with.

[Lorisco]

[quote]forlife wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
But as I just stated, the domestic partners law already gives the same rights.

As pointed out numerous times in this thread, the current law doesn’t grant federal rights.
[/quote]

Prop 8 was California only, as such talking about federal rights is irrelevant.

[forlife]

Not irrelevant, because gay marriage at the state level is one step toward equal rights at the federal level.

[apbt55]

[quote]forlife wrote:
Not irrelevant, because gay marriage at the state level is one step toward equal rights at the federal level.[/quote]

No with the way the house, senate, supreme court and the whitehouse are looking with Obama at the helm, you may get federal support before state.

As well as a number of other Gay/Lesbian and Transgender agenda items.

Question, does it bug you that Gay/Lesbian gets grouped in with transgender?

[apbt55]

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
forlife wrote:
Not irrelevant, because gay marriage at the state level is one step toward equal rights at the federal level.

No with the way the house, senate, supreme court and the whitehouse are looking with Obama at the helm, you may get federal support before state.

As well as a number of other Gay/Lesbian and Transgender agenda items.

Question, does it bug you that Gay/Lesbian gets grouped in with transgender?

[/quote]

Yes inlcuding a bill to make it illegal to discriminate for federal positions based on sexual orientation or gender confusion.

[Lorisco]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
benefits?[/quote]

No, try and follow. I’m not against the government giving tax benefits, etc to anyone, which is what occurs now either through the domestic partners law or marriage. In terms of benefits these are both the same.

What I’m against is the government deciding who should be married and who not. The process should be the people are married by the religion and if it is an ordained clergy, etc from a recognized legitimit religion the government should accept that without applying any additional criteria.

So my issue is not benefits, it is that if the Government has marriage criteria then it could potentially get changed to the extent that it would affect legitimate religions ability to marry according to THEIR faith.

So as long as it’s in governments hands people will vote for props like 8; not because they care if gays get married, but because they don’t want their ability to marry according to their faith to be affected.

[Lorisco]

[quote]forlife wrote:
Not irrelevant, because gay marriage at the state level is one step toward equal rights at the federal level.[/quote]

That is wishful thinking. Other State issues like gun ownership laws have been on the books in Texas for many years and the Feds are not adopting those. So your argument does not hold water.

[forlife]

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Question, does it bug you that Gay/Lesbian gets grouped in with transgender?
[/quote]

Not really, although I do think sexual orientation is different from sexual identity.