California Proposition 8

[Mare Tranquillity]

Perhaps the bottom line works out to a totally economic purpose. When we get old, we need support (all forms) from our children. If my children die before me, then my sustenance is going to necessarily come from your children and vice-versa. As such, we created the laws directing ownership and inheritance with certain practicalities in mind. In what seems like an odd sense, the having of children is to some extent an investment in the future, and not just one's own future--the future of others as well.

That said, most folks on some deep level probably consider it throwing money away to grant gay couples (who obviously aren't going to be having children) the same rights to what they perceive to be their future investment capital. This would be the kind of thing that's emotional in basis and is more difficult to put into words.

But it works the other way as well, marriage confers rights, but also responsibilities. Old married couples take care of each other, singles end up on the public dole. Denial of inheritance rights as in marriage make it more difficult to plan for the future, if you move from one State to another you have to re-do your legal papers since there is little reciprocity except in marriage law.

There are also a lot of gay people with children--shouldn't they be given marriage rights? If you are going to deny marriage to childless gay couples doesn't it seem equitable to deny them to childless hetero couples--equal protection under the law?

I suppose another point would be that your post suggests that our economy will be strained by the number of gay marriages. Gays only make up about 3-5% of the population, not all of them will marry, so we're talking about a very small financial impact if any at all.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Pidgey is skirting around the abstract core of the real issue. Good for you Pidgey! I didn't think anyone here at this board was capable of ferreting it out. What a relief..It does have to do with the future and our investment in ourselves and our children. What we form as "normal" for them is what future generations will inherit as "reality". When you dissolve the differences between "male" and "female" by ambiguous homosexuality, you dissolve the real purpose of having "male" and "female" around. Homosexuality serves a purpose, in the back seat, forever and never as the paramount example of a sexual union. Here's the Hindu part of me speaking now. We all come back 'round to fill different roles. And we need those roles to be solid, more or less, to learn what we need to learn. When you are in a male body and decide to forego relationships with women (and same for women to men) you are bucking lessons you otherwise needed to know. But everything works out in the end. If you choose a homosexual lifestyle, that will take you down another road of lessons to learn. The main one I can think of is that you still won't get away from the male/female interaction. And that is why I brought up the bit about no matter what gay couple you meet, one of them is butch (male) and the other is frill (female). Every single time I see this (and I have yet not to.. ) I nearly fall over laughing...You see, the joke's on them. Subconsciously, they themselves long for the male/female relationship. Yet they want to parade their situation as normal. It isn't. Patently. This observation has nothing to do with prejudice or hatred. It is simply an indisputable truth placed before the eyes. Small children will point and say "mommy, why is that one lady dressed like a man and the other lady dressed like a woman?" Or "mommy why is that one man wiggling his hips and acting like a lady and the other man isn't?" It's just hilarious..And it brings me back to the fact that we need to preserve the basic (not abusive male or super female) but basic roles of men and women as normal...and be tolerant of severe deviations like homosexuality. We just cannot let them supplant the superior roles.. All for the purpose of learning.Adolescents and their rebellion or malleability are the means to which a society's future can be permanently altered. Through them new directions are spawned and take root. When we parade warped edicts for them to either mimic or use to justify their own rebellions, we tamper with our futures and the very fabric of the learning matrix.People learn socially. We cannot therefore teach socially that alogical deviants, homosexuals, from the true purpose of sexuality are to be seen as equals with heteros. They aren't and should never be seen that way...sexually. And the world marriage is "implied sexuality". So we can never allow homosexuals to hold the title of "married".Like someone else said: let them call their unions something else, just not "married".

Same old story that you've been posting all along. It's fear talking, nothing more. Do you truly believe that your own children won't see through to your fear? "...society's future...permanently altered." Do you realize that when women wanted to own property that the argument was that it would change society for the worse because men would no longer be able to control their wives, marriage would be destroyed. Fear, it's all baseless fear and ignorance.

 

[Sihouette]

There are some things appropriate to change and some that aren't. Abuse should not be tolerated under any situation. But abusing women and gays wanting condoned social legetimacy are apples and oranges...or ironically maybe not (read below). You consistently present flawed reasoning in these wide-reaches of "logic".

Gays are, de facto, attempting to psychologically abuse youth by increasing the prevalance of their deviant unions via normalizing them with the stamp of "marriage". Follow the breadcrumbs logically... If gay marriage becomes legal, apart from their already equal civil-union rights, then gayness itself will become normalized. In becoming normalized, its prevalance will increase via mimicry in youth who aspire ultimately to social norms. Therefore, gayness will become more prevalent. And more gays mean more partners for currently outnumbered gays to choose from.

Many people think that mind-f-ing youth by demonstrating two opposing realities: the reality of sex being for procreation between opposite genders and the unreality of sex being for pleasure only between anything-other-than opposite genders, and then asking those children not to do anything else with their bodies for pleasure only , like drugs, is wrong and harmful.

Homosexuals want not freedom from oppression, because they already have that; they want to recruit, to increase their prevalence and numbers. That is the real drive behind their pleas to be "married" and not be content with civil unions outside the norm.

I don't want Proctor and Gamble to have to come out with a new line of "anal seepage" diapers for a new generation of majority-deviants who used their bodies beyond what they were intended for. This may be an outlandish opinion, but it's mine and I stand by it. We need roles to be preserved intact, without abuse. Gays have rights to abuse themselves and live their hetero-aspiring-but-not-quite-there lifestyles in the minority. Once they start stepping into wanting to be something for all to aspire to, that's when someone needs to draw the line.

 

[top gun]

Perhaps the bottom line works out to a totally economic purpose. When we get old, we need support (all forms) from our children. If my children die before me, then my sustenance is going to necessarily come from your children and vice-versa. As such, we created the laws directing ownership and inheritance with certain practicalities in mind. In what seems like an odd sense, the having of children is to some extent an investment in the future, and not just one's own future--the future of others as well.

That said, most folks on some deep level probably consider it throwing money away to grant gay couples (who obviously aren't going to be having children) the same rights to what they perceive to be their future investment capital. This would be the kind of thing that's emotional in basis and is more difficult to put into words.

Well for that to be fair we should definately force all straight couples to produce children to support them also in their old age, or revoke their marriage contract.

I mean it's one thing to be gay and up front about not being able to produce children... but it's obviously a form of something much worse HETEROSEXUAL FRAUD to fake society out like you're going to get married and have kids and then just become a big burden on society.

Or we could just encourage everybody to adopt children. There's plenty of them to go around.

But then those gays would be raising all those unwanted and abandoned children and I don't know if I like that.

It is a deep philosophical problem.... not.

 

[Pidgey]

I'm just saying that most folks are probably going to vote viscerally on something like this--which choice they make and mark is going to come from someplace inside that's more than likely beyond their ability to even express in coherent language. If they (the majority) feel that a minority group isn't going to contribute to the continuity of the whole or even if they feel that said minority group is going to ultimately contribute a net negative to the continuity of the whole, then they'll just... do what they did, all arguments to the contrary be damned.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

There are some things appropriate to change and some that aren't. Abuse should not be tolerated under any situation. But abusing women and gays wanting condoned social legetimacy are apples and oranges...or ironically maybe not (read below). You consistently present flawed reasoning in these wide-reaches of "logic".

So YOU say with nothing to back up your opinion.

Gays are, de facto, attempting to psychologically abuse youth by increasing the prevalance of their deviant unions via normalizing them with the stamp of "marriage". Follow the breadcrumbs logically... If gay marriage becomes legal, apart from their already equal civil-union rights, then gayness itself will become normalized. In becoming normalized, its prevalance will increase via mimicry in youth who aspire ultimately to social norms. Therefore, gayness will become more prevalent. And more gays mean more partners for currently outnumbered gays to choose from.

So YOU say, again with nothing to back up your opinion. You keep trying to make people believe that you can tell the future, that you know all about gay people and what they want, you claim to have majored in biology, on and on and on you keep making unsupported statements. You have been backed into a corner on every tack you have taken to denigrate homosexual and transsexual people because you don't know what you're talking about.

Many people think that mind-f-ing youth by demonstrating two opposing realities: the reality of sex being for procreation between opposite genders and the unreality of sex being for pleasure only between anything-other-than opposite genders, and then asking those children not to do anything else with their bodies for pleasure only , like drugs, is wrong and harmful.

You keep verbally painting the rainbow in black and white, but you have nothing with which to back up your claims.

Homosexuals want not freedom from oppression, because they already have that; they want to recruit, to increase their prevalence and numbers. That is the real drive behind their pleas to be "married" and not be content with civil unions outside the norm.

You don't know what gay people want, you can't speak for them, you're just an angry, fearful person saying the same things over and over again in hope that someone will believe you.

I don't want Proctor and Gamble to have to come out with a new line of "anal seepage" diapers for a new generation of majority-deviants who used their bodies beyond what they were intended for. This may be an outlandish opinion, but it's mine and I stand by it. We need roles to be preserved intact, without abuse. Gays have rights to abuse themselves and live their hetero-aspiring-but-not-quite-there lifestyles in the minority. Once they start stepping into wanting to be something for all to aspire to, that's when someone needs to draw the line.

What's really pitiful is that you resort to stupidity like this and expect anyone to take you seriously. You badgered me about transsexuals and in the process demonstrated to everyone that you have no idea what you're talking about. Your children will see through you. We all do.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I'm just saying that most folks are probably going to vote viscerally on something like this--which choice they make and mark is going to come from someplace inside that's more than likely beyond their ability to even express in coherent language. If they (the majority) feel that a minority group isn't going to contribute to the continuity of the whole or even if they feel that said minority group is going to ultimately contribute a net negative to the continuity of the whole, then they'll just... do what they did, all arguments to the contrary be damned.

Sad to say, but what you say is true. Looking at history we find one example after another where emotions (like Siho's fear) carry people away and make them lash out at perceived threats in their panic.

The up-side is that these people die of old age and new generations grow up accepting women and blacks as full members of society, understanding that interfaith and interracial marriages are not harmful or evil, that mentally ill people are possessed by demons, and they are growing up knowing that the hatred towards gay and trans-people is just bigotry: a mix of fear and ignorance. All we can do is speak our piece, try to educate the young people, and dispel the cloud of fear in which they have been raised. And that very process scares my brother so badly that he has put his children into a private religious academy where they are taught the fundamentalist cant and kept ignorant of the real world.

Despite the Sihos of the world, I am encouraged by the responses of the hundreds of University students I meet each year, they are growing up knowing about gay people, there are gay and trans-people in many of the classes and the kids can see that the horror stories about them are just not true.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Well for that to be fair we should definately force all straight couples to produce children to support them also in their old age, or revoke their marriage contract.

I mean it's one thing to be gay and up front about not being able to produce children... but it's obviously a form of something much worse HETEROSEXUAL FRAUD to fake society out like you're going to get married and have kids and then just become a big burden on society.

Or we could just encourage everybody to adopt children. There's plenty of them to go around.

But then those gays would be raising all those unwanted and abandoned children and I don't know if I like that.

It is a deep philosophical problem.... not.

Has anyone ever mentioned that you can be a touch sarcastic now and then? I like that in a person, it's so much better than fear.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

There are places that have not only not made child molestation illegal, but where it is in fact promoted. Google it sometime..or refer to my quotes from homosexual studies on the previous page.

Okay, name the places where child molesting has been made legal. Except for the State of Alabama where the age of consent is 13, I don't know of anyplace in this country where child molesting is legal. Pony up, Siho, where is this?

You obviously forgot to give us the information on legal child molesting, here's another chance.

 

[top gun]

I'm just saying that most folks are probably going to vote viscerally on something like this--which choice they make and mark is going to come from someplace inside that's more than likely beyond their ability to even express in coherent language. If they (the majority) feel that a minority group isn't going to contribute to the continuity of the whole or even if they feel that said minority group is going to ultimately contribute a net negative to the continuity of the whole, then they'll just... do what they did, all arguments to the contrary be damned.

It really is all about church groups with deep pockets drumming up their turnout and little more. Most everyday people have much more important things to worry about than should gays be allowed to marry.

But if one side really stokes a fire it can sometimes tip the balance.

I'm more concerned for... is it right to deny it. And on that fundamental point I just don't think it's fair.

 

[top gun]

Has anyone ever mentioned that you can be a touch sarcastic now and then? I like that in a person, it's so much better than fear.

Thanks Mare. You know you can be a little sarcastic and get your point across or you can really blow up and get banned.

I'm just stayin' in the game!

 

[Pidgey]

Thanks Mare. You know you can be a little sarcastic and get your point across or you can really blow up and get banned.

I'm just stayin' in the game!

Like:

Shut your goddamn face you stupid silly alien atheist.

 

[Sihouette]

I'm just saying that most folks are probably going to vote viscerally on something like this--which choice they make and mark is going to come from someplace inside that's more than likely beyond their ability to even express in coherent language. If they (the majority) feel that a minority group isn't going to contribute to the continuity of the whole or even if they feel that said minority group is going to ultimately contribute a net negative to the continuity of the whole, then they'll just... do what they did, all arguments to the contrary be damned.~ Pidgey

That's just another way of saying "they instictively have the same arguments I'm putting out, in their heads, that will force them to vote down gay marriage."

Unfortunately the courts have a chance to overturn it and will hash out every minute argument. Hence my going into detail here.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

That's just another way of saying "they instictively have the same arguments I'm putting out, in their heads, that will force them to vote down gay marriage."

Unfortunately the courts have a chance to overturn it and will hash out every minute argument. Hence my going into detail here.

Instinctively? Bigotry is now an instinct? When the courts overturn the laws they will do it for cause, not baseless fears or religious dogma.

In court you have to prove your major in biology or your accusations of child molestation. If you stand up and say that child molesting is legal somewhere you'll have to prove it. It's not like here where you can say anything without a shred of proof.

 

[Sihouette]

You know, you play pretty fast and loose with the word "bigot". I suppose then that your stance towards NAMBLA members, calling them "nut-bars" and dismissing their "cause" with the wave of your judgemental hand can also be called "bigoted" under the same sweeping umbrella?

Really? Why not? It's all about "love", right?

Why do gays parade as a straight couple? What mixed up thoughts go on in their heads? Why is one always more butch and one always more fem in a couple?

Because in their minds they are seeking a hetero relationship, only their wires got crossed in puberty and they were conditioned to associate the strong instinctive sexual drive with the same sex instead of the opposite one, yet they mimic hetero relationships with their affect and garb.

It is an imbalance, a skew. It's not their fault and we shouldn't descriminate against them in any other area EXCEPT where they try to get society to officially condone their situation as normal, as in marriage.

The "instinctive" reference I made in my previous post is that most people see the butch/fem thing and realize on a visceral level that something is screwy and will vote from that angle. They innately sense the hypocrisy. Apparently adolescents don't lose the bloodhound sniff for hypocrisy. It just goes underground when they become adults and rules from the subconscious instead..