[quote]46and2AheadofMe wrote:
Lol with the passing of prop 8 we have to change the way our state constitution is written. That should be proof enough that it is unconstitutional. So those of you who voted yes are against the constitution and should be deported.[/quote]
Can I buy some pot from you?
[quote]forlife wrote:
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![/quote]
No way man! That militant propaganda man! You guys are Nazis man! You guys are Nazis!
j/k
So did I ever get an answer about where the “Rainbow Army” ever came from? Are they planning to detonate a gay bomb?
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
46and2AheadofMe wrote:
Um there’s a term for gay men who have sex with women. They are called bi-sexuals.
Then there’s no such thing as homosexuals,or let’s just say the term is very much over used. Most of them are bisexual, by definition.
At least we got on thing cleared up.
[/quote]
Most, not all.
Very poor effort for a troll.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
46and2AheadofMe wrote:
Good point. If we are denying marriage to gays because they can’t procreate, then why aren’t we arguing over marriage rights for the infertile, disabled, or A-sexual partners?
Good point. Here’s another good point. If we accept gay marriage why shouldn’t we accept polygamist marriage?
[/quote]
We should. Consenting marriage between two or more human beings shouldn’t be prohibited against for any reason other than age and closeness of blood relation.
[quote]ninjaboy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Yup. And since gays join up NOT for the purpose of procreation, then its something else. What, I do not know. But since its different than the purpose of love as we define it, then marriage is out.
I think you’re confusing origin with definition. If fact, a non-trival percentage of gay marriage opponents would disagree with your definition of love on the basis of being creationists. A whole lot of people get married without intending to have any kids. You do not have to desire to procreate to love someone.
[/quote]
Instincts are outside of our rationality. They are not subject to decision, merely repression.
Words have meaning. To define romantic love as NOT having origins within the instinct to perpetuate life simply goes against any sort of rational philosophic (or even scientific) definition of love. Animals procreate. Humans procreate. Love, by definition, involves finding what we regard as a suitable mate. But suitable…for what? Making children.
Homosexuality is a perversion therefore, and commands no recognition by society. It is an error in genetic code.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
ninjaboy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Yup. And since gays join up NOT for the purpose of procreation, then its something else. What, I do not know. But since its different than the purpose of love as we define it, then marriage is out.
I think you’re confusing origin with definition. If fact, a non-trival percentage of gay marriage opponents would disagree with your definition of love on the basis of being creationists. A whole lot of people get married without intending to have any kids. You do not have to desire to procreate to love someone.
Instincts are outside of our rationality. They are not subject to decision, merely repression.
Words have meaning. To define romantic love as NOT having origins within the instinct to perpetuate life simply goes against any sort of rational philosophic (or even scientific) definition of love. Animals procreate. Humans procreate. Love, by definition, involves finding what we regard as a suitable mate. But suitable…for what? Making children.
Homosexuality is a perversion therefore, and commands no recognition by society. It is an error in genetic code.
[/quote]
I think you could find many philosophers who would argue that love driven by only the desire to do good for another person is a superior form of love to a love driven by a desire to use another person to mate. In fact, I would define the emotion driven by the biological imperative to procreate as lust, not love. Love is the decision to repress our self-centered, survival based instincts and put the good of someone else above our own good. I will agree that sex is driven by the desire to procreate, but sex and love are two very very very different things.
Also, I don’t see what the origin of the emotion within the human species has to do with anything, or how it effects what love IS. If the works of Shakespear were in fact produced by infinite monkeys with typewriters, does that change their status as great works?
[quote]ninjaboy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
ninjaboy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Yup. And since gays join up NOT for the purpose of procreation, then its something else. What, I do not know. But since its different than the purpose of love as we define it, then marriage is out.
I think you’re confusing origin with definition. If fact, a non-trival percentage of gay marriage opponents would disagree with your definition of love on the basis of being creationists. A whole lot of people get married without intending to have any kids. You do not have to desire to procreate to love someone.
Instincts are outside of our rationality. They are not subject to decision, merely repression.
Words have meaning. To define romantic love as NOT having origins within the instinct to perpetuate life simply goes against any sort of rational philosophic (or even scientific) definition of love. Animals procreate. Humans procreate. Love, by definition, involves finding what we regard as a suitable mate. But suitable…for what? Making children.
Homosexuality is a perversion therefore, and commands no recognition by society. It is an error in genetic code.
I think you could find many philosophers who would argue that love driven by only the desire to do good for another person is a superior form of love to a love driven by a desire to use another person to mate. In fact, I would define the emotion driven by the biological imperative to procreate as lust, not love. Love is the decision to repress our self-centered, survival based instincts and put the good of someone else above our own good. I will agree that sex is driven by the desire to procreate, but sex and love are two very very very different things.
Also, I don’t see what the origin of the emotion within the human species has to do with anything, or how it effects what love IS. If the works of Shakespear were in fact produced by infinite monkeys with typewriters, does that change their status as great works?[/quote]
Love is an extremely selfish act. It means that you choose exactly this one person (out of all the others) to value the most highly. Because of this, the well-being and happiness of the other person becomes of great importance to you.
The question in that that you are ignoring is…why? Why do you value this person above all others? For heterosexuals, it is because this person (in some measure but not all) can help you procreate. Procreation is how living things grasp at immortality and defeat death. I, the individual, will die, but part of me will live on in my children and so on. Marriage is the ultimate recognition of what I and my spouse wish to accomplish.
Gay people getting married is therefore a sham. It belies the very definition of marriage. It dilutes it (which is a goal of the satanic Left). Gay marriage is, in fact, a worshipping of death.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
The people trying to say it would be a ‘special right’ also make no sense, though. It’s not a special right. It’s extending legal benefits to EVERYONE in a committed, formalized relationship. Right now straight people can ‘marry’ who they want. Gay people can’t. All federal recognition of civil unions would do is let EVERYONE who considers themselves to be in a committed realtionship and goes through a (non-religious) ceremony to formalize this realtionship have legal benefits.
Saying, ‘I don’t want to marry a man’ is a non-sequitor. They don’t want to ‘civil-unionize’ with the opposite sex. One group has a right to receive formal benefits based on being in a committed relationship. The other doesn’t. That’s what the fact of the matter is. You might say there are grounds for the distinction as people have argued in this and other threads. That’s more valid. But it is a distinction indeed. And as things stand, everyone does NOT have the same right. To say ot5herwise is only possible by through a bizarre, skewed interpretation of what that right is. [/quote]
I don’t use the term “special right”, but it would be special in the sense that it would be new institution that serves a purpose different from that of marriage.
Homosexuals currently have the “right” of marriage as marriage is properly defined. Marriage is a social institution designed to order child raising. They aren’t being denied that institution.
To grant homosexuals an equivalent of marriage isn’t to give them access to an “equal” institution as it would be in the case of granting voting rights to those who previously didn’t have them - “gay marriage” would be a new institution that serves an entirely different need than the one marriage serves in society.
Gay marriage serves one social purpose - social validation of gay relationships as equal to heterosexual relationships. It has nothing to do with the ordering of child raising or the taming of men during their reproductive years.
All the tax benefits, etc. are not inherent to marriage as a matter of right - they are incentives to get married and stay married, which can be enhanced or taken away by public policy choices. Wanting those benefits and not having them is not a “denial” of rights any more than they would be a “denial” of rights to an unmarried person who would love to have the tax benefits as well (which, undoubtedly, they would).
The laundry list of benefits is a means, not an end - and that distinction is a crucial one that gay marriage advocates can’t seem to wrap their head around. As a society, we want heterosexuals to get married because of what marriage accomplishes for society, so we encourage it.
The only way homosexuals are being “denied” the right of marriage is if marriage’s primary purpose is the validation of their relationships. It isn’t, and it never has been.
So, no, you are absolutely wrong to say there is a “right to receive formal benefits based on being in a committed relationship” - there is no “right” to them in the first place, and the benefits are specifically attached to a public policy that [b]is not furthered by allowing gays to marry[/b].
It would be the equivalent to me claiming I was being denied my right to a farm subsidy from the federal government when I, in fact, did not own a farm. True, I am not getting the benefit (subsidy), but I am not engaging in the kind of behavior the government wants to encourage through subsidy (farming).
Gay marriage doesn’t serve the primary functions of marriage - and if gay marriage advocates really want to see their dream realized, they’d do well to stop tripping over the “equality” argument. It would be a new and unique social arrangement that serves an entirely different social purpose than that of heterosexual marriage.
So, to end, it is foolish to say the homosexuals are being denied this fanciful “right” you insist upon - they only have that “right” if their relationship is the same and serves the same social function of a heterosexual union. Those relationships are not the same, they certainly do not serve the same social function, and as such, this “right” you speak of is nothing more than a “want”.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Why should you be able to prevent brother and sister who do not intend on having children from marrying?
BIGOT.[/quote]
Oh if they want to marry, that’s fine. Just make sure they don’t have kids.
So yes, you’re free to marry your sister as you so dearly wish, Mick.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
That’s good that you’re name calling asshole, but you still have no answer for the above.[/quote]
I said most may well be bisexual. Not all are. Was I not clear on that?
I’ll type slowly next time.
[quote]46and2AheadofMe wrote:
Ummm obviously amendments are not unconstitutional. But if the amendment is IN DIRECT CONTRAST to what the constitution already instates, that shows you that it contradicts the rights already given to people under the constitution. I didn’t mean the amendment itself was unconstitutional, I meant that the philosophy behind it is unconstitutional.[/quote]
And you would again be wrong. By this logic, the Amendments to the federal Constitution granting black men their freedom from slavery and their right to vote was unconstitutional - after all, those amendments “contradicted” the previous version.
Secondly, the state constitution didn’t mandate gay marriage textually - it was the interpretation of judges of the state constitution in a case that determined the state constitution mandated gay marriage. A legislature (or plebiscite acting as one) is co-equal to a judiciary, and if it decides to the contrary and properly changes the law to reverse that judicial decision, nothing about that is unconstitutional.
Well done, Einstein. I weep for your education.
I did - and I understand you have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
Heh. A number of gay marriage advocates never seem to disappoint in their rank stupidity.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I don’t use the term “special right”, but it would be special in the sense that it would be new institution that serves a purpose different from that of marriage.
Homosexuals currently have the “right” of marriage as marriage is properly defined. Marriage is a social institution designed to order child raising. They aren’t being denied that institution.
To grant homosexuals an equivalent of marriage isn’t to give them access to an “equal” institution as it would be in the case of granting voting rights to those who previously didn’t have them - “gay marriage” would be a new institution that serves an entirely different need than the one marriage serves in society.
Gay marriage serves one social purpose - social validation of gay relationships as equal to heterosexual relationships. It has nothing to do with the ordering of child raising or the taming of men during their reproductive years.
All the tax benefits, etc. are not inherent to marriage as a matter of right - they are incentives to get married and stay married, which can be enhanced or taken away by public policy choices. Wanting those benefits and not having them is not a “denial” of rights any more than they would be a “denial” of rights to an unmarried person who would love to have the tax benefits as well (which, undoubtedly, they would).
The laundry list of benefits is a means, not an end - and that distinction is a crucial one that gay marriage advocates can’t seem to wrap their head around. As a society, we want heterosexuals to get married because of what marriage accomplishes for society, so we encourage it.
The only way homosexuals are being “denied” the right of marriage is if marriage’s primary purpose is the validation of their relationships. It isn’t, and it never has been.
So, no, you are absolutely wrong to say there is a “right to receive formal benefits based on being in a committed relationship” - there is no “right” to them in the first place, and the benefits are specifically attached to a public policy that [b]is not furthered by allowing gays to marry[/b].
It would be the equivalent to me claiming I was being denied my right to a farm subsidy from the federal government when I, in fact, did not own a farm. True, I am not getting the benefit (subsidy), but I am not engaging in the kind of behavior the government wants to encourage through subsidy (farming).
Gay marriage doesn’t serve the primary functions of marriage - and if gay marriage advocates really want to see their dream realized, they’d do well to stop tripping over the “equality” argument. It would be a new and unique social arrangement that serves an entirely different social purpose than that of heterosexual marriage.
So, to end, it is foolish to say the homosexuals are being denied this fanciful “right” you insist upon - they only have that “right” if their relationship is the same and serves the same social function of a heterosexual union. Those relationships are not the same, they certainly do not serve the same social function, and as such, this “right” you speak of is nothing more than a “want”.[/quote]
Would you be for going through each individual right afforded by marriage and allowing certain ones to be given to homosexual marriages (or civil unions)? Such as medical decisions, the right to sue if one partner is unlawfully killed, etc. etc ?
[quote]forlife wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Revision, or amendment - it don’t matter.
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.[/quote]
No - I am not acting like anything permanent has been passed. That would be the spoiled brat militant gay fuckwads in California who can’t stand to be told “no”. They are rioting and crying like this is their last chance.
I am fully aware how the constitution can be changed next time it is brought to a vote.
That is precisely what I meant by “deal with it and move on”.
If the Cali Supreme court once again ignores the wishes of the people, I am afraid the gay riots will be a mere gate rush to a Cher concert compared to the rioting that will transpire.
Thunderbolt, very good post. I don’t really have time to respond right now but will tonight or sometime over the weekend.
I will briefly says that the polygamy argument falls on its head. Mick whined for 30 pages last summer about polygamy. Finally (the week before the Bar I might add), I posted a host of resources showing what a cultish, oppresive institution polygamy is, at least in this country.
And the true oppression the vast majority of women in this country, usually little more than babies even if just barely legal, face in this relationship.
You can argue that gay relationships are fundamentally different and don’t deserve the legal benefits and they they ‘threaten’ traditional marriages. And that benefits shouldn’t be extended because they don’t further the social goals of marriage. I don’t agree for reasons I’ve stated in the past.
But it is all about the negative impact or lack of positive impact gay relationships have externally on society as a whole. The state refusing to recognize polygamy is just as much about refusing to sanction a relationship that’s oppresive and damaging to its PARTICIPANTS. When I posted all that evidence about how that is so, no repsonse from Mick after all his whining about ‘proof.’ No surprise there.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Mick whined for 30 pages last summer about polygamy. Finally (the week before the Bar I might add), I posted a host of resources showing what a cultish, oppresive institution polygamy is, at least in this country.
If memory serves I also pointed out statistics regarding many abusive lesbian relationships. In addition to that I also showed statistics regarding the many physical and emotional diseases that are prevalent among the homosexual population.
If your argument is polygamist relationships are inherently bad then there is also a good argument that homosexual relationships are equally destructive.
[/quote]
You actually did not point those out. Feel free to do it now if you’d like. You simply never responded to post at all. But the argument has been made in the past. And it doesn’t show that freely-entered homosexual relationhips are destructive. It shows that homosexuals face unique problems, in or out of relationships, some innate and some externally driven. And much LESS so when in a monogamous relationship. It is the RELATIONSHIP that IS the problem for most young girls in a polygamous ones.