California Proposition 8

[Mare Tranquillity]

Marriage is a concept invented by mankind.

It can and should evolve or it will die.

Chip's views on gay marriage are as repugnant as Muslim views about women.

But then religion doesn't like women does it?

I mean, it is Eve's fault that we are all sinners cos she listened to the talking snake.

I reckon god is a homosexual.

He is definitely a misoginist

Don't blackball God because His followers are dorky, I mean give God a break, even His 6 year olds will probably grow up in a few more lifetimes. That is what I love about the idea of reincarnation: Siho and Chip and Andy coming back gay or transgendered--like the Bible says, "As ye sow, that also shall ye reap". I think that God did a pretty good job on the Universe, but He may have had bad seed stock when He made people. Perhaps He'll see that and start over with better dirt when He makes new people.

If the Grim Reaper gets you before you're 18 years old, is that statutory reap?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Gee, thanks for being the moral authority on all things appropriate. How have any of us managed to survive so long without your guidance? Your vast knowledge of world cultures and their relative correctness is truly astounding.

Intelligent enough to know when engaging a particular poster is a waste of my time. I'll leave you to Mare, who has more patience with fools than I do.

Now, now, Segep, you have to remember that some people arguing with us are practicing the oldest Christian virtue: ignorance.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Again, you continue to show your inability to grasp the foundational first-test of definitive propriety.There's really not much more you have substantively until you show that you get definitive propriety and its accurate application here, and that "equality" and "equal protection under the law" are simply not relevant because definitive propriety overrules. Obviously you read into history what egotistically suits you.Your examples, I reiterate, are not examples of "differing definitions", they are examples of aberration with respect to the correct definition of marriage being "between a MAN and a WOMAN as HUSBAND and WIFE", and this localized aberration does not in any way, shape or form revise this long-standing, time-honored, cross-cultural, traditional definition of marriage to which the overwhelming vast majority of people rationally appeal.
Your exceptions are meaningless aberration.They are not definition revision.
Meaningless rhetoric that doesn't address the definitive propriety foundational issue.Anyone can see that your allusions are merely a handful of local aberrations.That's the reality of it.Because of the billions who disagree with you, one would think you'd see the error of your ways.
Something can be both anecdotal and authority reported at the same time.
You have nothing that shows a revision to the definition of marriage.
Just as if a cat sneaks into a dog show that doesn't revise the definition of "dog", neither does a handful of localized aberrations not revise the definition of marriage accepted by the overwhleming vast majority of billions as being "between a MAN and a WOMAN as HUSBAND and WIFE".You have nothing.False.An obvious reality needs no "evidence".It's simply obvious, and, you know it.Next thing I know you're going to want me to provide "evidence" that a dog is a dog and not a cat!Again, not only is appeal to "A"uthority a fallacy of logic, you misrepresent what you've presented, mistaking aberration for definition.Your prejudice and bias that causes your error is, however, obvious from your own admission in past posts.Wow -- you make an obvious misrepresentation of an obvious reality, and then you attack my character!You must really distrust yourself if you have to slay me to feel good about your mistake.I'm going to deny your misapplication of alleged "scientific research", absolutely.Wow -- your erroneous appeal to "A"uthority is laughable, and if that's the best you've got, you've lost.
Oh, again, absolutely.Six year-olds tell the truth of this matter.They know what marriage is.They haven't been damaged by bias and codependent liaisons to deny what is true in their heart.Their purity allows them to tell the truth, the truth that marriage is "Between a MAN and a WOMAN as HUSBAND and WIFE".Yes, poll every six year-old, and you'll see the truth in the matter is as I present it.Yes, it does -- it attests to the fact that I respect the truth in the matter regardless of how the truth affects me.It appears I can't say the same for you, as your apparent oppositional defiant disorder agenda could utilitarianly care less about the the truth of reality.Your allusion to being personally attacked was merely a reflection of your own initiated attacks.I simply let you taste your own medicine.I don't initiate ad hominems ... but if you continue to initiate them, I will simply reflect your own stuff back at you.I suggest you stay on topic sans initiation of personal attacks.Then you won't have anything to worry about from me ... other than the truth I present.

Like many women, I know better than to argue adult subjects with 6 year olds.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Do you spend a lot of time with 6 year olds?

Yes, he does, there is one standing his shoes as we speak.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Yes ... but a six year-old is still sufficiently in touch with their heart to tell the truth of what they've learned.

Many adults, damaged by outrageous misfortune, codependent alliances, and utilitarian coping mechanisms ... no longer can tell that truth.

They are out of touch with their heart, living at best in the conflict nexus in their mind between ego and superego, simply trying to survive the "onslaught".

To them, the truth, an honest presentation of reality, is negotiable, and their thereby sometimes frequent misrepresentation of obvious realities is, though laughable, also sadly obvious.
Erroneous and therefore meaningless ... as well as irrelevant.

So, if a 6 year person with a penis told you he was a girl, that he'd always felt like a girl, would you believe him? Or just beat the shlt out of him till he remained silent? I knew a t-girl who told her parents at age 5 that she wasn't a boy and till she ran away from home at age 14 her Father alternately beat her for not being "manly" and raped her because she was so feminine.

 

[Sihouette]

Wow Mare...8 posts in a row?


Methinks...

nevermind...

Many adults, damaged by outrageous misfortune, codependent alliances, and utilitarian coping mechanisms ... no longer can tell that truth.

They are out of touch with their heart, living at best in the conflict nexus in their mind between ego and superego, simply trying to survive the "onslaught".

To them, the truth, an honest presentation of reality, is negotiable, and their thereby sometimes frequent misrepresentation of obvious realities is, though laughable, also sadly obvious.~Chip

Thanks Chip for that nugget of clear and absolute truth. Mare, born male, traumatized in youth to the point of hating his own gender so much that he chopped off his penis, all the while surrounding himself with sycophants who "yessed" him all the way to the operating table and beyond, but quite apparently not to the psychiatrist's couch, comes to this thread and expects to be taken seriously when he attacks and plays victim.

I imagine that very few six year olds want to chop their penis off in order to pretend to be girls. The aberrant few should not be held as a model to aspire to..

The truth in the marriage description is non-negotiable. Gays can call their unions something else, but they may not be allowed to access our social "dictionary" and rewrite the definition of "dogs" and "cats".

Think about their mantra. You've all heard it. "We're here and were queer."

Factually yes, you are here. And factually yes, you are queer. And we, as a society, have decided to acknowledge both by enacting "don't ask, don't tell" to protect your "hereness" and your queerness. You want to now rewrite our social dictionary to paint "queer" as "normal". And we're not having that. You want your cake, to eat it and then to smother it in potato chips and chili sauce to boot.

This far and no farther. California's thusfar lenience and compassion has rightly drawn a line in the sand.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Wow Mare...8 posts in a row?

I have to catch up somehow.

Methinks...

No particular evidence of that on this thread.

Part of your problem is that neither you or Chip know anything about transsexuality, so you have to make it up as you go along. The penis is NOT cut off. And saying that it is, like a bleating sheep, doesn't make it true.

Nor is the "sycophants" (I know that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, you're welcome, I'm glad I could expand your vocabulary by at least one word) comment true--you would not believe the number of people who tried to do as you have and make the rainbow black and white--but it's just not going to work. One preacher--who had never met me--took it upon himself to tell me that the only reason I was changing my gender presentation was to "slap God in the face". That is my second favorite stupid comment (neither you or Chip even make the top ten, sorry, but you are not nearly creative enough). My all-time favorite is one by my little brother who said I was only doing this to "disrespect his religion".

Why not post some more stuff by John Bailey or another veterinarian report, Siho? Or maybe you could post something else from the ADVOCATE that you haven't read. I'd like to note here that you have not addressed either of the articles that YOU posted which said YOU were wrong in your assumptions. Why is that?

 

[Chip]

So, if a 6 year person with a penis told you he was a girl, that he'd always felt like a girl, would you believe him? Or just beat the shlt out of him till he remained silent? I knew a t-girl who told her parents at age 5 that she wasn't a boy and till she ran away from home at age 14 her Father alternately beat her for not being "manly" and raped her because she was so feminine.

Your projections are topically irrelevant ... though they do demonstrate that your personal struggles, which you've documented in this thread, make it understandably difficult for you to stay on topic as well as understandably preventing you from seeing clearly and thus accurately with respect to the topic.

Regardless, please post relevant to the topic.

When you do, such will be conducive to productive discussion.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Chip, your views on gay marriage will be viewed as those on racism are viewed now.

It just takes the US an awful long time to understand equality.

Remember you had apartheid until the mid sixties when the good old christian white people thought it was right to segregate dem n.i.g.g,e.r.s.

You know as in all men are born equal.

Unless you are a commie, fag ass n.i.g,g,e,r of course.

Your descendants will be ashamed of you.

If as a gay man you can actually bring yourself to have sex with a woman.

And if there is a woman willing to let you.

 

[Chip]

Chip, your views on gay marriage will be viewed as those on racism are viewed now.

It just takes the US an awful long time to understand equality.

Remember you had apartheid until the mid sixties when the good old christian white people thought it was right to segregate dem n.i.g.g,e.r.s.

You know as in all men are born equal.

Unless you are a commie, fag ass n.i.g,g,e,r of course.

Your descendants will be ashamed of you.

If as a gay man you can actually bring yourself to have sex with a woman.

And if there is a woman willing to let you.

Again, Dawkinsrocks, you add nothing of quality topically relevant substance to the discussion, deferring instead to the casting of erroneous dispersions, complete with name-calling and attempts at character assassination, that thereby divertively digress and devalue this thread.

Please stop inititiating unprovoked ad hominems and instead post rational relevant topic matter.

Thank you.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

There is nothing wrong with gay marriage and all that needs doing to accommodate it within the law is small change of the definiton of one word.

This is quite common in law.

Only bigots would oppose it as it hurts nobody, benefits some and costs nothing.

So, by implication you are a bigot and you sound like an angry closet homosexual.

Does that help you to understand the substance of my post?

 

[Chip]

There is nothing wrong with gay marriage and all that needs doing to accommodate it within the law is small change of the definiton of one word.

This is quite common in law.

Only bigots would oppose it as it hurts nobody, benefits some and costs nothing.

So, by implication you are a bigot and you sound like an angry closet homosexual.

Does that help you to understand the substance of my post?

There is no topically relevant substance to your post.

Your post is merely more unprovoked unjustified ad hominems leveled at me here and throughout at those who disagree with you.

Hopefully a moderator will also ask you to stay on topic sans ad hominems.

Regardless, until you can post relevant substantive content sans ad hominems you will be rightly ignored.

 

[Sihouette]

There is nothing wrong with gay marriage and all that needs doing to accommodate it within the law is small change of the definiton of one word.~dawk

No, that one little definition is redefining dogs as cats, as Chip pointed out.

And "I'm sorry Dave [we] can't do that."


You cannot say in one breath "we're queer and we're here" and then want inclusion in the definition of the word "normal", via marriage. Marriage is what society considers a normal sexual relationship between two people. YOU may not consider it that way, but society does, in the majority, as evidenced by the recent vote for Prop 8.

If we changed every law that a cloistered group of minority deviants wanted changed to include themselves in the fabric of the description of mainstream, we've really got a rats nest on our hands, legally speaking. I like Chip's example of cats going to dog shows because it does take the emotional charge out of the argument and puts it in a benign and plain light.

Society defines different things as normal as it wants to tailor itself into being. That is the beauty of America. And yet it is also tolerant, not historically, but in its heart. In other words, we hear the pleas of sexual deviants. We know they didn't get there by birth, but instead were placed in homosexual situations at a critical age. We don't want to punish them by excluding them from employment, or survivor's benefits, or medical benefits. We just don't want them describing themselves as normal within our current mainstream fabric.

"We're here and we're queer." You say I'm averse to anything gay. However, that statement I wholeheartedly agree with. I have no wish to exterminate or hate gays. I have several friends and two family members who are gay, and who I care about very much. Like Elton John said, it was a mistake for gays to want inclusion in society's description of "married". In other words it was right for them to want to be treated with respect and to form bonds with whomever they wish. It is wrong for them to want to be described (via the granting of marriage rights) as non-deviant.

Gay sex is deviant sex. Period. By virtue of that alone we cannot include it in the description of mainstream marriage, a condoned implied sexual relationship. We cannot enter a definition of a cat under the word "dog" in our dictionary. I like both cats and dogs but I don't think it's appropriate to treat them as the same animal.

You can ad hominem/and/or cry "victim!" until the cows come home, but it will not affect that truth even slightly.

 

[top gun]

Sihouette;80150]Wow Mare...8 posts in a row?

Thanks Chip for that nugget of clear and absolute truth. Mare, born male, traumatized in youth to the point of hating his own gender so much that he chopped off his penis, all the while surrounding himself with sycophants who "yessed" him all the way to the operating table and beyond, but quite apparently not to the psychiatrist's couch, comes to this thread and expects to be taken seriously when he attacks and plays victim.

Boy Siho talk about digressing off topic! Aren't there a couple things just glaring at you here.

First... we (for like the millionth time trying to keep you on track) are talking about same sex marriage... not some off the wall "personal opinion" psychotherapy diagnoses of transsexuality.

Secondly... everyone in America has the right of control over their own personal body as long as it hurts no one else. There are people out there who would argue having a vasectomy or a face lift or a boob job is wrong.

So while I would care about the fact that ANY irreversible operation needs to be fully understood and anyone having such should be evaluated and counseled appropriately by proffessionals due to this permanency...

I have to say I've seen some right out of the FREAK SHOW looking heterosexuals so obviously there are reasons (both straight & gay) for wanting to be different or comfortable within ones own self other than the narrow lines you've painted.

I imagine that very few six year olds want to chop their penis off in order to pretend to be girls. The aberrant few should not be held as a model to aspire to..

Actually studies show many have but don't have the proper safe means until later in life. And I see no one saying anything about this being a "model" for anyone to aspire to. All I see is someones personal choice about their private destiny.

The truth in the marriage description is non-negotiable. Gays can call their unions something else, but they may not be allowed to access our social "dictionary" and rewrite the definition of "dogs" and "cats".

Okaaaaaaay... then if the "word used" is the only problem you are absolutely fine with and would vote for gays being... let's call it... "Nuptialed" with all the rights and responsibilities of a heterosexual marriage. Straights are "Married" Gays are "Nuptialed".

That should be cool with you then, the word married is not a factor anymore... but I'm guessin your still gonna have a complaint!

Think about their mantra. You've all heard it. "We're here and were queer."

You do realize that mantra to a gay person is like a black person in the civil rights era saying Black Power... it's a statement of empowerment...right?

Factually yes, you are here. And factually yes, you are queer. And we, as a society, have decided to acknowledge both by enacting "don't ask, don't tell" to protect your "hereness" and your queerness. You want to now rewrite our social dictionary to paint "queer" as "normal". And we're not having that. You want your cake, to eat it and then to smother it in potato chips and chili sauce to boot.

I think you'd be for burning anybody's social dictionary if it wasn't in line with your particular mind set even though everything in it was totally just & legal.

This far and no farther. California's thusfar lenience and compassion has rightly drawn a line in the sand.

As the old saying goes.... Funny thing about sand, the tighter you squeeze it in your hand... the more that escapes through your fingers!

Think about it... you know this won't stand over time.

 

[Sihouette]

In spite of your self-congratulating Topgun, your argument has not tightened up at all. You're reaching. But while we are tromping around in the area of armchair psychology..

We do not fully understand how homosexuals are made. This is a point I brought up early on that needs to be revisited, frequently..

If I and others (like in the AI field who train animals to deviant sexualty at the onset of puberty), are right about homosexuality being a learned trait, and I know I'm right that humans learn socially..1+1 =2 in this case I'm afraid.

If sexuality is trained, or learned, then our social fabric will be harmed in a significant way if gayness acheives the title of normal via marriage, an implied condoned sexual relationship. In other words, numbers of homosexuals one would be expecting in a given population of humans would be expected to rise significantly if humans learn socially, gayness is learned and gayness becomes "mainstream" via overturning Prop 8. It is a direct and predictable relationship if my unknown variable becomes confirmed as true; which I believe it has by an entire industry that our very survival depends on (agricultural artificial insemination).

I'll let you in on another unknown, but highly suspected variable. Homosexuals in general recognize, on a visceral level, evidence by scores of them I've talked to and the article The Ten Reasons Gays Chase Straights http://www.thefreelibrary.com/10+reasons+gays+chase+straights%3a+we've+all+done+it%2c+and+some+of+us+do...-a0106560150 that they picked up their deviance since birth. Knowing that gayness is aquired via the enviroment and wanting the environment to normalize gayness via marriage = a recruitment drive; whether it's willful or not.