Obama Admin: Still Anti-Gay

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
forlife wrote:
I agree, and the statistical trends bear this out. Polls have steadily moved upward in favor of gay rights, to the point where gay marriage and civil unions are actually legal in several states. I’m just glad it is happening in my lifetime.

The hypnotic trance that your boyfriends asshole has over you has deluded your sense of good judgement. Every major poll by every credible source clearly shows that the majority of people are solidly against gay marriage…

…Silly homo marriage is for hetero’s…[/quote]

I don think that you will ever be able to move under a nice bridge.

If you cant smile, dont open a shop as the Chinese say.

42

I swear to God there is a special sort of homophobe who thinks more often about gay sex than gay men do-

That is very gay and something is profoundly wrong with that.

If you are into dick, well, go for it ?!?

All this denial and sexual frustration gives me blue balls from 6000 miles away.

43

[quote]orion wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Basically, am I summing up your post and position correctly to say that you are opposed to people having the freedom to operate their business according to voluntary agreement between employer and employee on what constitutes salary and benefits acceptable to both, when you don’t consider that “fair” ?

Instead, you want a party to be forced to do something they don’t choose to do, on account of your idea of how things should be.

I disagree.

In my view, if an employer wants to give benefits to those who ride Kawasaki motorcycles but not Hondas; to those who earn credits at a trade school but not at a university; to those who wear green clothes but not khaki; to those who have a dog at home but not to those who don’t; to those who are UNMARRIED but not to those that are married; or to those who are married to a person of the opposite sex but not to those who are not, in a free country that is his right.

But instead you call it a “right” to deny him his freedom of choice, and to insert government into what compensation may be mutually agreed on by employer and employee, whenever it’s a thing you consider “unfair.” Correct? Or if not, how is that not your position?

If that was directed at me, this is a tricky question.[/quote]

It wasn’t. I would not have thought that any of the above were your positions. However looking above, my post was directly after yours. I think what happened is that I thought the back-and-forth with LankyMofo was continuing, when instead in fact, you had added a post to the discussion.

[quote]On the one hand, if it was all up to the employer employee relationship, I do not care.

They can give out benefits according to Celtic astrological signs as far as I care.

If government however mandated some benefits they force employers to subsidize lifestyles in the case of marriage.

That is unjust as you pointed out.

However if they do not also force them to pay out the same benefits to gay couples it is deeply unfair.

Since governments obviously do not care about natural rights should they not at least be fair?[/quote]

I would be opposed to such government-mandated benefits. I don’t believe such is mandated in the US – e.g., at least up till the present employers have not been mandated to provide health insurance for the spouse or minor children of an employee – though I cannot be sure of states other than Florida.

But I don’t think it’s the case in any state that an employer is forced to provide benefits for anyone other than the employee (if even the employee), regardless of what other benefits he may or may not offer, according to what he chooses to do and employees choose to accept according to their mutually-accepted voluntary agreement.

44

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
lucasa wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
I like to compare anyone who is against gay marriage now to anyone that was against civil rights in the 60s.

I’m fine with you doing that as long as you’re okay with me comparing the advancing acceptance of homosexuality in our Republic to the advancing acceptance of homosexuality in the Roman Republic.

I have no idea what you’re getting at.[/quote]

As Rome “progressed” from a Republic to an Empire and finally to it’s demise, it became more and more tolerant of homosexuality. Towards its twilight, its leaders practiced homosexuality freely (I think there’s been a thread or two about a gay president). Most of the great thinkers in the same were critical of homosexuality. Even the simplest of minds could grasp what Plato thought of relationships oriented around sex rather than reproduction. Keep in mind, all of this was well before Christendom.

Maybe I should’ve been more blatant and said that I’m fine with you associating critics of gay marriage to civil rights detractors in the 60s if you’re fine with me comparing gay marriage advocates to affirmative action advocates in the last two decade. Civil Rights in the Sixties was about ending segregation practices that kept black people out of ‘white schools’, homosexuality in the current age is about setting up schools that help segregate straight and gay students so that homosexuals can ‘feel safe’ in their ‘gay schools’.

45

[quote]orion wrote:

So if governments arbitrarily create rights and exclude gays that is a problem. Should they not at least be fair if they have to be unjust?

[/quote]

The father of two children works next to the single guy for 40 yrs., at the end of that time, they both retire to collect social security. Where is the equality in taking equally from two people who don’t don’t contribute to society equally? Gay people don’t carry the ‘inherent penalty’ of reproductive sex. I’m not saying they should be punished in any way, but a gay man/woman contributing to the average heterosexual marriage is much more likely to get a return on his ‘investment’ than a straight man/woman is.

As I’ve said multiple times, I’m fine with things the way they are, if I had to change them, I’d make it harder for anyone to get married.

46

Lol, Bill. Keep sidestepping. That’s twice you haven’t answered a simple question.

@ lucasa - As I’ve already said, that analogy was just being used to show that the current GOP position on gay marriage will hurt them politically once gay marriage is legalized, which, in my opinion, is inevitable.

48

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Lol, Bill. Keep sidestepping. That’s twice you haven’t answered a simple question.

@ lucasa - As I’ve already said, that analogy was just being used to show that the current GOP position on gay marriage will hurt them politically once gay marriage is legalized, which, in my opinion, is inevitable. [/quote]

And I’m saying if it’s legalized, once people realize they’ve bought into Affirmative Action for Gays, the buyer’s remorse will have another George Bush in office much sooner than expected. Can you imagine the end of the Obama administration and the crowning achievement is homosexual marriage? It’ll be the first time a Republican could stumble drunk into the White House since Grant was elected.

BTW, Bill keeps sidestepping because you posed a pointless hypothetical or ideal situation. Telepathy with a small side of precognitive vision would be the only way to truly know and understand what a person’s motives are.

And if we discover/invent telepathy, I hope to God the last thing on the ‘to do’ list is understand why homosexuals want to get married.

49

[quote]orion wrote:
I swear to God there is a special sort of homophobe who thinks more often about gay sex than gay men do-

That is very gay and something is profoundly wrong with that.

If you are into dick, well, go for it ?!?

All this denial and sexual frustration gives me blue balls from 6000 miles away.
[/quote]

Yeah, the “hynotic asshole” comment kind of gave it away for Troll28.

At one time I saw some promise in the boy, but alas, that ole country bridge is beyond his grasp.

50

[quote]lucasa wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
Lol, Bill. Keep sidestepping. That’s twice you haven’t answered a simple question.

@ lucasa - As I’ve already said, that analogy was just being used to show that the current GOP position on gay marriage will hurt them politically once gay marriage is legalized, which, in my opinion, is inevitable.

And I’m saying if it’s legalized, once people realize they’ve bought into Affirmative Action for Gays, the buyer’s remorse will have another George Bush in office much sooner than expected. Can you imagine the end of the Obama administration and the crowning achievement is homosexual marriage? It’ll be the first time a Republican could stumble drunk into the White House since Grant was elected.

BTW, Bill keeps sidestepping because you posed a pointless hypothetical or ideal situation. Telepathy with a small side of precognitive vision would be the only way to truly know and understand what a person’s motives are.

And if we discover/invent telepathy, I hope to God the last thing on the ‘to do’ list is understand why homosexuals want to get married.[/quote]

Lol, yet another sidestep.

And let me clarify a couple things. I think gays should be allowed to marry. I feel that way because I don’t give a fuck what two consenting adults do. Conservatives preach (and rightly so) about limited government involvement yet we will not allow two consenting adults to marry? That’s ridiculous.

Now, while I believe gays should be allowed to marry, I’m most concerned that once they are allowed to marry the GOP is going to look retarded. Eventually it will be universally accepted that they should be allowed to marry and the right will be fighting it the entire time. That hurts our cause.

No one is asking for affirmative action for gays. Letting them marry won’t be giving them any advantages that other people don’t have. I don’t know where you’re coming up with this nonsense.

Edit: And since you brought it up, you’re correct. Telephathy (currently) isn’t possible. So why is Bill assuming he knows gay people want benefits, not marriage?

51

Edit: And since you brought it up, you’re correct. Telephathy (currently) isn’t possible. So why is Bill assuming he knows gay people want benefits, not marriage?

52

Lanky, “LOL” all you want because clearly it’s the best you can do towards a substantive reply.

Unless you consider attributing to me assumptions I never made to be even better than LOL’ing. Perhaps you do.

I have already explained to you that no new law is needed for any two gays to have any relationship between them that they want to have. They need no new “right” for that. You continue to act as if they are being denied that presently.

I have “side-stepped” nothing.

You on the other hand have repeatedly avoiding providing any response in the slightest acknowledging a single statement that I have made, let alone actually addressing them. Very direct statements put to you, you act precisely as if they were not written.

Accordingly, until you actually engage in discussion (which involves acknowledging and responding relevantly to what is said to you), there is no point in replying further to you in this thread. I’m not going to continue to reply to completely non-substantive nonsense and not going to continue typing to a wall (an entity that ignores whatever is written, as you do.)

54

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Lanky, “LOL” all you want because clearly it’s the best you can do towards a substantive reply.

Unless you consider attributing to me assumptions I never made to be even better than LOL’ing. Perhaps you do.

I have already explained to you that no new law is needed for any two gays to have any relationship between them that they want to have. They need no new “right” for that. You continue to act as if they are being denied that presently.

I have “side-stepped” nothing.

You on the other hand have repeatedly avoiding providing any response in the slightest acknowledging a single statement that I have made, let alone actually addressing them. Very direct statements put to you, you act precisely as if they were not written.

Accordingly, until you actually engage in discussion (which involves acknowledging and responding relevantly to what is said to you), there is no point in replying further to you in this thread. I’m not going to continue to reply to completely non-substantive nonsense and not going to continue typing to a wall (an entity that ignores whatever is written, as you do.)[/quote]

L.O.L.

55

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
little dusty writes his usual sophomoric blather:

More Internet jargon from little dusty who lives in a world of trolls and dragons and other made up Internet nonsense…The only boy on this thread is you turd boy…now run along before mommy takes your computer privileges away like she did last summer.
[/quote]

I will run along.

I don’t want to take time away from you and your “hypnotic assholes”.

57

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

Lol, yet another sidestep.[/quote]

If the issue can’t exist, any move you make or don’t make is sidestepping. You might as well point your finger like my two-year-old, say,‘PCHOW!, Gotcha!’… Fine, once we develop telepathy and some limited ‘precognizance’, after we’ve alleviated violent crime, given peace in the Middle East it’s final blow, and made women understand The Three Stooges, then, Yes, I think we should allow the homosexuals that are ‘good candidates’ to marry. Since we probably won’t have human bodies at that point, technically, I’m still sidestepping.

Then you are defining marriage as some sort of socio-religious ceremony honoring the union of two souls. I’m right there with you, I don’t give to shits what goes on. Currently, the U.S. Gov’t doesn’t either. No tax dollars are spent interrupting Gay wedding ceremonies or kicking in doors of cohabitating religiously wed gay couples. Want to marry two goats and four women in your Church? Fine. (The funniest part of the whole thing is that if you started amassing guns, the ATF comes knocking).

What I care about is a homosexual American citizen, meeting a ‘mate’ in Africa, contracting AIDS, and then demanding that we honor their marriage, allow their husband/wife to immigrate and treat both of them for their disease on the Socialized medicine dollar. I’m interested in minimizing the number of couples who partake in a social contract that they have no intent to uphold (or at least selecting the most motivated to uphold…), I’m interested in rational, sound, and mutually beneficial personal and social decision-making. Gay marriage and the expansion of marriage in general is anti-thetic to those aims.

We clearly do not share ‘the cause’ and I share no such concerns. My concern is quite the opposite, we do a very poor job of erasing what shouldn’t be penned into law in the first place and tend to keep on writing around the issue. This lack of of bookkeeping is the definition of pervasive gov’t.

It won’t make them in any way equal to heterosexual marriage, either. I don’t know where you got your nonsense, but there will be the same amount of confusion, the same amount of life-threatening STDs, and the same prevalence of mental disease ‘after gay marriage’ as there was before. The only difference will be that insurance companies will be forced to pay for their ‘spouses’ treatments as well.

Just so you know, feigning stupidity and actual stupidity are virtually indistinguishable over the internet. You would do well to read some of Plato, Aristotle, and Socrtes’ writings.

58

[quote]lucasa wrote:

Then you are defining marriage as some sort of socio-religious ceremony honoring the union of two souls. I’m right there with you, I don’t give to shits what goes on. Currently, the U.S. Gov’t doesn’t either. No tax dollars are spent interrupting Gay wedding ceremonies or kicking in doors of cohabitating religiously wed gay couples. Want to marry two goats and four women in your Church? Fine. (The funniest part of the whole thing is that if you started amassing guns, the ATF comes knocking).

What I care about is a homosexual American citizen, meeting a ‘mate’ in Africa, contracting AIDS, and then demanding that we honor their marriage, allow their husband/wife to immigrate and treat both of them for their disease on the Socialized medicine dollar. I’m interested in minimizing the number of couples who partake in a social contract that they have no intent to uphold (or at least selecting the most motivated to uphold…), I’m interested in rational, sound, and mutually beneficial personal and social decision-making. Gay marriage and the expansion of marriage in general is anti-thetic to those aims.

[/quote]

I’m considering these paragraphs as the only substantive arguments you’ve provided, so I’ll respond to these and let the rest go. To be honest, they’re actually the best arguments I’ve heard against gay marriage so far, but I still see a couple problems with it.

  1. There is nothing stopping a straight person from going to Africa, finding a “mate”, contracting HIV and bringing them to the states for treatment. I know, gays are much more likely to contract HIV than straight people, but nonetheless, the possibility exists all the same.

  2. Wouldn’t the actual problem with this senario be the “socialized medicine” you described? I don’t want to pay for others health care any more than you do. Wouldn’t it be better to focus efforts against the crazy amounts of our money the government spends for medicare/medicaid, welfare, etc., rather than focus on gay marriage which may result in a .00001% increase in the amount we’re already currently spending?

That’s an honest question.

59

[quote]lucasa wrote:

What I care about is a homosexual American citizen, meeting a ‘mate’ in Africa, contracting AIDS, and then demanding that we honor their marriage, allow their husband/wife to immigrate and treat both of them for their disease on the Socialized medicine dollar. [/quote]

Let me make sure I have this right, your concern is that large numbers of American homosexuals are going to fly to Africa, contract HIV, choose to marry an HIV positive individual, that individual will then fly back to America and be allowed to emigrate, somehow the person with the money to fly to Africa won’t have health insurance, and then taxes will increase because of socialized medicine?

That’s some staggering logic worthy of PWI. You have just given Zeb and PR a run for their money.

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

I’m considering these paragraphs as the only substantive arguments you’ve provided [lucasa], so I’ll respond to these and let the rest go. To be honest, they’re actually the best arguments I’ve heard against gay marriage so far, [/quote]

You thought this was “substantive” and the “best arguments” you’ve heard?

60

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
orion wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
forlife wrote:
I agree, and the statistical trends bear this out. Polls have steadily moved upward in favor of gay rights, to the point where gay marriage and civil unions are actually legal in several states. I’m just glad it is happening in my lifetime.

The hypnotic trance that your boyfriends asshole has over you has deluded your sense of good judgement. Every major poll by every credible source clearly shows that the majority of people are solidly against gay marriage…

…Silly homo marriage is for hetero’s…

I don think that you will ever be able to move under a nice bridge.

If you cant smile, dont open a shop as the Chinese say.

I don’t think that you will ever be able to have a life outside of posting on a US BB message board…austrian idiot.
[/quote]

Homophobic AND racist.

Nice.