California Proposition 8

[Segep]

Segep, why the hostility?

Because 2008 was a bad year for anti-gay violence.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28372051/

Why do so many proponents of homosexual marriage constantly resort to claims of "homophobia", and slanders of "hate mongering" and "fear tactics" when the truth of the matter is that most people simply find it to be repugnant. There's no "fear" to it, there's no "hate" to it either, it's simply distasteful for them, and as such they eschew it.

If that were true, and they simply "eschewed" it, they wouldn't spend so much time in debate forums trying to convince everyone how deviant and immoral we are, and simply wouldn't practice it themselves.

As far as "understanding" is concerned, that's a load of horse-hockey too. Are you interested in "understanding" Muslims habit of killing victims of rape while allowing the rapist to go free, or do you simply find the practice repugnant, and leave it at that? To you, the narcissistic practice of homosexuality may be just as "normal" as it is for them to blame the victim, but that doesn't mean that the rest of the world shares your view, or has any reason to want to "understand" it either.

Also, the tired old canard of "trying to eradicate an entire minority group" doesn't wash either. Now, if we were in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, or any of the other countries in the Muslim world, you might have a point, but here in the US, your assertions are pure tripe and clap-trap. You know Iran doesn't have a homosexual "problem", because they KILL them, on sight, and generally without a trial. When was the last time that happened here?

December 7, 2008

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/12/13/hate.crime/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Of course, that was just the last reported incident that I know of.

So please, do us all a favor, and if you want to advocate for your position, do so without all of the typical feminine hysterics, all it does is bore the hell out of everyone.

Feminine hysterics?! LOL very classy.

Their victims most often are other young men with feminine demeanors or transgender women, said Wilchins. "These assailants are looking to eradicate and exterminate something that enrages them, and that is what makes them hate crimes," he said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28372051/

 

[Fallschirmjager]

Because 2008 was a bad year for anti-gay violence.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28372051/

Wow, a whole half a dozen incidents, that must be some kind of record...NOT. What does any of that have to do with the citizens of the state of California voting not to allow homosexual marriage? Was it the state that committed those acts, or were they isolated incidents of citizens engaging in unlawful activity? You want to talk about a "bad year for anti-gay violence"? Go to Iraq or Afghanistan and see what I've seen, and THEN come back and talk to me about it.

If that were true, and they simply "eschewed" it, they wouldn't spend so much time in debate forums trying to convince everyone how deviant and immoral we are, and simply wouldn't practice it themselves.

Why not? Do you have a problem with American citizens exercising their constitutionally guaranteed right of freedom of speech?

December 7, 2008

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/12/13/hate.crime/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Of course, that was just the last reported incident that I know of.

And again, it doesn't mean anything. I could dredge up THOUSANDS of reports of black on white crime and make it out to be a racist uprising, but I seriously doubt that that would be the case. What about all of the black on black crimes? Are blacks engaging in tribal genocide?

Feminine hysterics?! LOL very classy.

Well, I didn't want to say "whining like a bunch of little girls", but since you insist, there it is. It's time to put your "big girl" panties on, and make a real argument, or you'll continue to be granted the attention that whiny little girls get...NONE.

LATE EDIT:

young men with feminine demeanors

There's a clue there, if you're smart enough to pick up on it. Quit acting like a bunch of poofters and you won't get picked on. This is nothing new, and it happens in every pre-school playground in the world. The weak ones (that's the poofters) get picked on until they start acting like males, it's natures way of eleminating weakness in the species.

 

[Pandora]

Why not, it has worked for as long as we have existed as a nation. I myself was married in another State, but my current State fully recognizes our marriage, why should it be any different for anyone else? Any state that refuses to acknowledge a legally binding marriage contract from another state is in clear violation of the "equal protection clause" of the Constitution, and would be found guilty of such in any court in America.

Any state would fully recognize a marriage between one man and one woman who are not related nor are they married to another person at the time of the marriage. There is no state that does not recognize a traditional marriage. There is only 1 state that recognizes homosexual marriage (that I know of) so I don’t see how they could ever move.

If all privileges and "special rights" were taken away from currently married couples then it would end the argument that is another possible answer.

I still think letting anyone or anything marry anyone or anything anytime for any reason in groups or in singles would be the best way to solve it.

 

[Segep]

Wow, a whole half a dozen incidents, that must be some kind of record...NOT. What does any of that have to do with the citizens of the state of California voting not to allow homosexual marriage? Was it the state that committed those acts, or were they isolated incidents of citizens engaging in unlawful activity? You want to talk about a "bad year for anti-gay violence"? Go to Iraq or Afghanistan and see what I've seen, and THEN come back and talk to me about it.

That is irrelevant. If you didn't notice, the title of this thread is California Proposition 8, not Do Gays Really Suffer From Violence and How Much?....

Why not? Do you have a problem with American citizens exercising their constitutionally guaranteed right of freedom of speech?

Nope. Do you?

And again, it doesn't mean anything. I could dredge up THOUSANDS of reports of black on white crime and make it out to be a racist uprising, but I seriously doubt that that would be the case. What about all of the black on black crimes? Are blacks engaging in tribal genocide?

You asked when the last time a gay person was killed without trial here in the U.S.. I answered. It's not my problem if you don't like the answer.

Well, I didn't want to say "whining like a bunch of little girls", but since you insist, there it is. It's time to put your "big girl" panties on, and make a real argument, or you'll continue to be granted the attention that whiny little girls get...NONE.

LATE EDIT:

There's a clue there, if you're smart enough to pick up on it. Quit acting like a bunch of poofters and you won't get picked on. This is nothing new, and it happens in every pre-school playground in the world. The weak ones (that's the poofters) get picked on until they start acting like males, it's natures way of eleminating weakness in the species.

LOL even more class....

These assailants are looking to eradicate and exterminate something that enrages them...

So your solution is that everyone must look and act a certain way to be free from the threat of violence? Wow. How....fascist of you. Are you sure you wouldn't rather be living in Iran or Saudi Arabia?

 

[Fallschirmjager]

Any state would fully recognize a marriage between one man and one woman who are not related nor are they married to another person at the time of the marriage. There is no state that does not recognize a traditional marriage. There is only 1 state that recognizes homosexual marriage (that I know of) so I don’t see how they could ever move.

They're not issued a "Gay Marriage License" NO Obamanation, they're issued a "Marriage License", so unless they run around telling everyone that they're gay, who's going to know?

If all privileges and "special rights" were taken away from currently married couples then it would end the argument that is another possible answer.

And what "special rights" are those? There are none, they are only privileges that are extended to married couples, the same ones that have been extended to them since America was founded, so you're wanting to turn the entire country upside down to satisfy a very small, and deviant, segment of our society?

I still think letting anyone or anything marry anyone or anything anytime for any reason in groups or in singles would be the best way to solve it.

Anyone? I agree with that. Anything? EXQUEEZE ME? Unless or until Bessy the cow can say "I do", IN ENGLISH, and sign her name on the license, there's no way on God's green earth I'm going to support ANYONE marrying anything other than another human being. That's just plain sick.

 

[Fallschirmjager]

That is irrelevant. If you didn't notice, the title of this thread is California Proposition 8, not Do Gays Really Suffer From Violence and How Much?....

Excuse me? You're the one that brought up homo's getting their butts kicked. I was simply trying to illustrate that you're not even being "put upon" compared to other parts of the world. It's called "perspective", which you obviously lack. As to the title of the thread, you are correct, and as such it has only to do with homosexual marriage, not how many times poofters get their butts kicked in a year, so why don't you try to keep it on topic and I'll do the same.

Nope. Do you?

Not at all, which is why I question the motivation for your previous statement.

You asked when the last time a gay person was killed without trial here in the U.S.. I answered. It's not my problem if you don't like the answer.

That was not a governmental action, that was a crime committed in the street. Please try to pay attention to the specific verbiage used.

LOL even more class....

You have a problem with someone pointing out why nobody takes you seriously, and offering a solution that will garner your arguments some validity, or are you just one of those "sensitive" boys that can't take any constructive criticism if it isn't wrapped in a pretty pink bow?

So your solution is that everyone must look and act a certain way to be free from the threat of violence? Wow. How....fascist of you. Are you sure you wouldn't rather be living in Iran or Saudi Arabia?

Little boy, if you want to maintain your delusion of adequacy while acting like a little girl, that's your problem, not mine, but don't complain to me about it when some inbred hillbilly beats your ass up one side and back down the other for entertainment. I'm simply telling you what IS, and if you don't like it, again, that's YOUR problem, not mine.

Oh, and no, I've been to SA, and I didn't like it there one bit. Too hot, too much sand, ugly women, no beer, and Sharia Law sucks. You wouldn't like it there either though, but for a completely different reason, mainly because the government would throw your silly ass in a cell for a few months, where every other poofter would gang rape your silly ass on a daily basis until you bled, and when it was finally so worn out that nobody could get off any more then they'd give you a "fair" trial, a "fair" conviction, and a "fair" sentence, where they would take you out and behead you in the public square. Now, you were saying what about it being a "bad year" for homos in America?

 

[Segep]

Excuse me? You're the one that brought up homo's getting their butts kicked.

Do we really have to go through this? You asked why the hostility and I answered you honestly. Again, not my problem if you don't like the answer. Perhaps you shouldn't ask questions that you have no interest in having answered.

 

[Segep]

Oh, never mind you're banned. That saves me from having to track the conversation from the last two pages.

 

[Pandora]

why did he get banned?

 

[Segep]

dunno...not my problem anymore.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

No, it isn't the same argument and here's why: blacks and whites and any other color are able to have sex to procreate. Whereas the first argument was one of prejudice, the other argument is one of function. Gay sex steps outside the natural function of the human body, regardless of skin color, race, religious affiliation or what have you. Gay sex cannot result in the natural function of sex, to procreate children. Being a wholesale deviance. Interracial sex (the implied result of interracial marriage) still results in offspring and is therefore a natural human function. If for some reason blacks and whites were different species (which they are not) then it would something akin to beastiality for one to have sexual contact with the other.

Gay sex is a deviant use of the sexual organs for pleasure only, as is pedophilia and bestiality. We cannot make distinctions from one deviation to the other once a precident is set. It will simply be a matter of time and a few teams of shrewd attorneys from NAMBLA or what have you, to either reverse the original "bonus" won by the gay community, via the outrageous insistance causing people to wake up to deviance in general, in order to make "all equal"; or they will get their "equal rights" to have sex with minors (to practice the sexual deviance of their choice via the precident set by gays). The one area that really comes to mind that will follow directly on the heels of gay marriage will be polygamy. There will be no more argument against heterosexual polygamy since gay sex is deviant, then with marriage "rights" and polygamy is not deviant, but rather just not currently accepted.It will have to be if gay marriage is ratified. If this is the direction we want to go, then we must accept that this too will happen. I'm telling you, we're opening pandora's box. The deviants say "great!". Me, I'm not so sure...

This is the same nonsense that you have been posting, it was wrong before, it's still wrong now. If you had majored in biology as you had claimed, or if you had studied cultural anthropology or ANYTHING besides feedlot breeding you would know that sex has uses far beyond procreation. Your pitiful claim that all sex besides peno-vaginal intercourse is "deviant" is not supported by either science or nature. A woman can usually only have one pregnancy per year without risking becoming run down. If sex was only for procreation women could simply come into heat once a year and everything would be jake, but sex is for pair-bonding. Marriage is nothing more than legal pair-bonding as it is set forth in US law. There is no rational reason for denying legal marriage to consenting adults based on their sexual orientation.

The horrific imaginings you post are but vapors from the oldest Christian virtue: ignorance.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You are advocating opening pandora's box.

If I understand the gay argument for their being included in marriage, it is based on two entities being "in love" as the foundation for their inclusion.

Try to grasp what people have been saying on this thread: Legal marriage is about legal equality. Most marriages are not about love, they are about rampant sexual hormones and that's why Heterosexual marriages mostly end in divorce

I assume you've heard of precidents? How would gays then exclude other entities "in love" from the same inclusion in marriage without themselves seeming prejudiced?

ONLY you keeps bringing in anything you can think of in order to obfuscate the issue. If you had read my posts you would know that this is an issue about legal marriage for CONSENTING ADULTS. If you were to spend less time in the farrowing sheds and feedlots and more time with people you would perhaps recognize that you are in a minority when it comes to this fixation on "deviant" sex. It might lead one to enquire about why you have this obsession. (I am using the word "obsession" in its third meaning from the Merriam Webster dictionary: 3 a persistent and disturbing intrusion of or anxious and inescapable preoccupation with an idea or feeling especially if known to be unreasonable.)

It's a bit of a brain teaser.

Only to the very simplest of those present.

At the very least the new definition of "marriage" would have to include very specific language about what constitutes "being gay". We have a fine example right in this thread of a person who is on the fence with sexuality having first been born male, deciding to change to "female" and then having no little ambiguity about who they are attracted to. Do we include transgenders? Do we exclude bigamists? Do we include or prohibit pedophiles? Should it be between members of the same species or are non-offspring producing orgasmic ativity of all walks open to inclusion? Why or why not?

The language should be very specific.

Now, who will step up and offer the new "marriage" language to be written into law?

Poor Siho, yes, I will indeed step up and offer once again what I have said before. All consenting adults should have the right to marry legally. CONSENTING ADULTS. I know you won't listen to this like you didn't last time I wrote it.

I am in compete agreement with NoAbamanation in that confining marriages to just two people is also not necessary--CONSENTING ADULTS willing to accept responsibilities should be allowed to marry in groups if they wish. NO Siho, NO CHILDREN, NO ANIMALS, NO APPLIANCES, ONLY CONSENTING ADULTS.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The fact is that states decide who can get married within their state. It doesn't matter if you or I like it or not, until a state changes it's laws, it is what it is, and in this case, the majority of voters in California have decided that they do not wish to extend marriage to homos.

States decreed that blacks were slaves too, that didn't make it right.

 

[Segep]

damn I've missed you Mare.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

This is far to concise and clear-minded for your average hetrophobe to grasp. Anyway THEY don't really give a damn about the LEGAL status of those that choose to engage in unnatural sex acts, what they care about is deluding the public into accepting their deviant behavior as "normal". THAT is what ALL this crap is about really.

As for the idiotic "consenting adults" argument. Social mores are established to protect children in many cases and if society condones homosexual deviance, children can be tricked when most vulnerable to engage in acts that they will regret sooner or later. We MUST protect the children.

The sycophant returns bleating like one of Siho's imginary sodomized sheep.