California Proposition 8

[Mare Tranquillity]

I can see that fj1 and I are basically on the same page. As to the label of "heterophobes"... I recently read somewhere that a gay bar was moving to ban hetero females from patronage there because they were afraid that they would "agitate" their current customers. One wonders if really it wasn't a move by fearful gays that some of the precious ranks of their Twinks might defect back to hetero and no longer be availible to harvest for gay encounters?

Gotta wonder why gays would want to ban hetero women from their bars...as if they posed some sort of threat to "gay since birth" homosexuals...?

Got a source, or is this another claim to a major in biology?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Personally I don't give a rip one way or the other if homo's are allowed to marry or not. In fact, I really don't give a rip one way or the other if polygamists are allowed to marry as many people as they want to, or if the FLDS down in Texas want to allow their daughters to get married at 13, what it all boils down to is that the states make that decision, hopefully based upon the will of the people, and what the people decide is it, whether anyone likes it or not. If the homo's in California don't like the laws there, they can move to Mass. and get married.

What does bother me is when the courts get involved and invalidate the will of the people based on legal maneuvering instead of the Constitution, because that has been the biggest problem this country has faced.

Maybe you should nip in and take a gander at the Constitution. There's an interesting part about equal protection under the law. All the people on the shallow end of the gene pool can marry, murderers, thieves, drug-dealers, even child molestors can marry, produce children, molest those children and STILL REMAIN MARRIED--but gay people are denied legal marriage. If one uses the Siho-logic it almost as if the government is promoting child molesting, isn't it?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Fortunately, that wasn't how Lincoln handled the emancipation proclamation.

Nor were civil rights for black people put up for vote.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Doing so would first require a constitutional convention, and the passage of an Amendment to the bill of rights.

Not entirely accurate. Since marriage is a contract, as such the government does have the right to regulate it. Also, marriage licenses have been required in America for a long time before the IRS. For instance, in Manatee County Florida, they have marriage licenses dating back to the mid 1800's. King County Washington has required marriage licenses since 1866, again, long before the IRS. In Virginia, marriage "bonds" and licenses go back to before the Revolutionary War, and the same applied to all of the original 13 colonies.

Again, I fear you are operating under an inaccurate concept of the purpose of the marriage license. It is not, contrary to popular myth, "permission" from the government to get married, it is actually an acknowledgment of a legally binding contract under which the rights of both parties, and their descendent's, are to be guaranteed certain legal protections, and as such is a necessary function of the State government.

As far as the tax code is concerned, you'll have to ask a tax attorney, as that is outside my area of expertise.

And with all of that said, tell me again why gay people should be denied these legal rights? There must be some compelling reason to deny a few percent of the tax paying, consenting adult population the same rights as everyone else. What happened to "equal protection" and "pusuit of happiness"?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Segep, why the hostility? 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. 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? 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.

The reason for it is the stuff posted here, shouted at gays and transsexuals, the beatings, the killings, the disenfranchisement. You appear not to have read this post and seen the bucolic end-product being shoveled out by Sihouette. Denying other people the same rights that you claim for your own feels hateful, when your family is ripped apart by religious bigotry if FEELS hateful. The Christian religion has been persecuting gay and transsexual people for centuries, we're tired of it. I'm sorry if you feel attacked, I know that now with my long, legal marriage under assault by people who want to take it from me because of THEIR religious beliefs I FEEL ATTACKED.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

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.

I like it, Falls, because THOSE people are worse than we are, we don't need to worry about about a few murders. A pistol-whipping here, a lynching there, a few rapes, it's all in good fun. Nice of you to admit that might is right, may you be on the receiving end sometime so that you can truly appreciate your own philosophy.

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.

So all the weakest are fair game? Is rape of an unwilling woman acceptable then if you can overpower her? A child? Where does the exercise of might is right end? Theft, murder, arson? Is there nothing beyond acceptibility if one has the power to achieve it? It is because of people just like yourself that I learned early and well how to fight.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

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?

Boy! You really don't have a clue.

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?

The "special rights" are all the more than 1049 rights and privileges guaranteed to legally married people in Federal law that are denied to part of the consenting adult, tax paying public on the basis of religious dogma alone.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

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?

Well, you certainly have set your sight low enough.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

damn I've missed you Mare.

Me too, it's been tough trying to educate people by myself.

 

[Sihouette]

I see your current tactic Mare is to try to use volume and hystrionics to make up for a weak argument...poor poor oppressed gays. Actually, your stance reminds me of a spoiled child who has learned he may not get his way and is crying foul and blaming the adults who are oppressing and mistreating poor him....if only they'd just let him have what he wants, he'll settle down and stop lying and carrying on...

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.

So, to be clear, you are promoting the idea of bigamy and homosexual relationships to be recognized as "legally married"?

Was this idea about bigamy a new one, or one that just popped into your head with the progression of this thread?

Do elaborate on your ideas about bigamy, would you?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I see your current tactic Mare is to try to use volume and hystrionics to make up for a weak argument.

Naw, I was just gone for a couple of days and had to catch up--not that I missed a whole lot, you still haven't figured out that everybody but you and your sycophant are discussing CONSENTING ADULTS.

..poor poor oppressed gays. Actually, your stance reminds me of a spoiled child who has learned he may not get his way and is crying foul and blaming the adults who are oppressing and mistreating poor him....if only they'd just let him have what he wants, he'll settle down and stop lying and carrying on...

Careful, Siho, calling someone a liar is not allowed on the site. And if I was you I wouldn't use much of the "liar, liar" argument since you majored in biology.

Actually, I'd like to see the killing stopped, and the beatings, and the pistol-whippings, I know that's a lot to ask but... Another thing would be if we could be given our Constitutional rights, that would be nice.

So, to be clear, you are promoting the idea of bigamy and homosexual relationships to be recognized as "legally married"?

Was this idea about bigamy a new one, or one that just popped into your head with the progression of this thread?

Do elaborate on your ideas about bigamy, would you?

Speak to your local Mormon missionaries, they can tell you all about bigamy, polygamy, and plural marriage. Unlike you, I'm not into running the lives of other consenting adults. Unlike you, I will not vote to take the rights from others that I claim for myself--I think that's hypocritical.

 

[Segep]

Say, Mare, this is a bit OT, but what are you doing on the 2nd? PM me if ya want.

 

[Chip]

Defintions evolve

Yes, they do.

But this one hasn't.

Marriage remains "between a MAN and a WOMAN as HUSBAND and WIFE."

It takes centuries of privilege for definitive evolution to occur ..., which, obviously, hasn't happened yet here.

and you have made a good case for the defintion of 'marriage' to evolve into meaning 'between consenting adults'.

No, I haven't.

You're projecting.

Otherwise you might end up sounding bigoted and out of touch.

Only to projectors and those who are easily codependently influenced by utilitarian instigators who sacrifice respect for truth and reality to push their agenda.

Better is to remove government and corporate bias from all types of domestic partnerships, marital and non-marital alike, than to childishly pretend a word, "marriage", means other than what we all know it does.

 

[fj1200]

say, mare, this is a bit ot, but what are you doing on the 2nd? Pm me if ya want.

gross!

 

[fj1200]

dunno...not my problem anymore.

You are a sick cOck sucKer. This is a great example of the mental instability of the queer.