Mare Tranquillity
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 3,477
Hate never takes a day off.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
California Proposition 8
- Thread starter Sihouette
- Start date
- Status
Hate never takes a day off.
Werbung:
jrobert484
Member
Christians are destroying the country either through ignorance or hate. Some may argue both, and it would be a strong argument. Anyway, this article put it so well when it broke down the christian problem this imperiled country is now facing.
http://www.broowaha.com/article.php?id=4488
http://www.broowaha.com/article.php?id=4488
I understand what you mean. I'd be more specific and say it's the evangelical Christians that are tearing our country apart. There are Christians that follow their faith, try to impress by example and steer clear of the radical, coercive, threatening, fear mongering and dividing.
It's such a shame that the evangelicals were ever able to worm their way into American politics. It's not supposed to be that way.
Re: California Proposition 8 not an issue for politicians
I hate to give this answer but here goes:
This is not an issue for politicians or courts to decide. Similar to abortion, it's not a key issue. It only becomes an issue when Repubs and Dems want to seperate themselves or get votes. Now that the election is over, both sides will do everything they can to avoid tackling this issue. The truth is, matters of the heart should not be left to politicians or courts.
Disagree? visit my campaign at www.trulotics.com
I hate to give this answer but here goes:
This is not an issue for politicians or courts to decide. Similar to abortion, it's not a key issue. It only becomes an issue when Repubs and Dems want to seperate themselves or get votes. Now that the election is over, both sides will do everything they can to avoid tackling this issue. The truth is, matters of the heart should not be left to politicians or courts.
Disagree? visit my campaign at www.trulotics.com
Re: California Proposition 8 not an issue for politicians
You miss the main reality of the situation. American politics will never change to you're ideology for one simple reason. It's not set up that way. American politics is set up on discourse and debate. Individual politicians trying to help their home district or state.
What you are purposing is more like something a Dictator would be able to do... JUST DO WHAT I SAY, THE WAY I SAY IT, NO ONE ELSE NEED APPLY!
The problem with Dictators is they always go in with the "good intentions" of straightening out all problems with government and all the right ideas... but in the end they are so all powerful they actually make things much, MUCH worse for their people.
As far as the Inauguration this is a historic moment. America needs a mental lift after 8 long years of Bush/Cheney. And not all the cost you cite is even paid for by the government.
TOMORROW 1/20/09 IS A GREAT DAY FOR AMERICA... LET'S JUST ENJOY IT TOGETHER!
You miss the main reality of the situation. American politics will never change to you're ideology for one simple reason. It's not set up that way. American politics is set up on discourse and debate. Individual politicians trying to help their home district or state.
What you are purposing is more like something a Dictator would be able to do... JUST DO WHAT I SAY, THE WAY I SAY IT, NO ONE ELSE NEED APPLY!
The problem with Dictators is they always go in with the "good intentions" of straightening out all problems with government and all the right ideas... but in the end they are so all powerful they actually make things much, MUCH worse for their people.
As far as the Inauguration this is a historic moment. America needs a mental lift after 8 long years of Bush/Cheney. And not all the cost you cite is even paid for by the government.
TOMORROW 1/20/09 IS A GREAT DAY FOR AMERICA... LET'S JUST ENJOY IT TOGETHER!
It appears after the oral arguments that the California Supreme Court is leaning toward supporting Proposition 8 ... at least that's what it appeared, anyway.
But it also appeared that though they were leaning toward saying that Prop 8 isn't a revision and merely an amendment, that they would somehow continue to allow the state to acknowledge the homosexual marriages made in California between last May and November.
This seems a bit strange to me.
Prop 8 basically used fourteen words to clearly state that "only marriage between a man and a woman is legal or recognized in California". That's the simplicity of Prop 8, verbatum.
That clearly means that if the California Supreme Court lets Prop 8 stand, they can't also let the homosexual marriages that occurred between last May and November be recognized as marriages, without, in effect, exceptionally voiding Prop 8.
Allowing that exception seems, to me, absolutely ludicrous.
Either they must reject Prop 8 entirely or support Prop 8 entirely. The court can't revise Prop 8 or stipulate exceptions to it at their whim.
I can't help but think, therefore, that when the final verdict is in, that it will either reject Prop 8 entirely or support Prop 8 entirely.
But to think that judges can legislate in partial and exceptional support of the matter is just simply absurd.
But it also appeared that though they were leaning toward saying that Prop 8 isn't a revision and merely an amendment, that they would somehow continue to allow the state to acknowledge the homosexual marriages made in California between last May and November.
This seems a bit strange to me.
Prop 8 basically used fourteen words to clearly state that "only marriage between a man and a woman is legal or recognized in California". That's the simplicity of Prop 8, verbatum.
That clearly means that if the California Supreme Court lets Prop 8 stand, they can't also let the homosexual marriages that occurred between last May and November be recognized as marriages, without, in effect, exceptionally voiding Prop 8.
Allowing that exception seems, to me, absolutely ludicrous.
Either they must reject Prop 8 entirely or support Prop 8 entirely. The court can't revise Prop 8 or stipulate exceptions to it at their whim.
I can't help but think, therefore, that when the final verdict is in, that it will either reject Prop 8 entirely or support Prop 8 entirely.
But to think that judges can legislate in partial and exceptional support of the matter is just simply absurd.
Sihouette
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,635
You are right. And what you're saying is they are back-door overturning Prop 8. (pardon the pun)
Yeah, if they allow recognition of the gays previously "married", then they are essentially overturning Prop 8 in spite of the voters' wishes. Everyone knows about fair play and equality in California. The liberals will whine and get their way asserting that "if some are recognized, all must be allowed to be recognized". I'm not an attorney, and yet I know enough about law and precidents and equality to weave a solid case to overturn Prop 8 all by myself based on these laws conflicting if some gays are allowed to be "legally married". That's like kindergarten law stuff.
It'll be a headline that pops out of nowhere: "Prop 8 overturned in California Court today. Precident and equality made a case for dismissal of the overwhelmingly popular proposition." If some are allowed, all must be allowed. The Supreme Court would back that up nine ways to Sunday.
Mark my words.
They are kicking the door down if they allow ANY gay "marriage" to stand. Oh, yes they are..
And I don't need to go through all the details of why that's not a good idea again do I? How many pages is this thread up to now? 63!
Yeah, if they allow recognition of the gays previously "married", then they are essentially overturning Prop 8 in spite of the voters' wishes. Everyone knows about fair play and equality in California. The liberals will whine and get their way asserting that "if some are recognized, all must be allowed to be recognized". I'm not an attorney, and yet I know enough about law and precidents and equality to weave a solid case to overturn Prop 8 all by myself based on these laws conflicting if some gays are allowed to be "legally married". That's like kindergarten law stuff.
It'll be a headline that pops out of nowhere: "Prop 8 overturned in California Court today. Precident and equality made a case for dismissal of the overwhelmingly popular proposition." If some are allowed, all must be allowed. The Supreme Court would back that up nine ways to Sunday.
Mark my words.
They are kicking the door down if they allow ANY gay "marriage" to stand. Oh, yes they are..
And I don't need to go through all the details of why that's not a good idea again do I? How many pages is this thread up to now? 63!
Sihouette
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,635
OK, I'll recap my reasons again for why gay marriage should not be allowed:
Society decides to legitimize certain things as a means of establishing norms for itself. Marriage was established to project the norm of the two opposite genders with the potential to procreate offspring as the normal union. Once we allow any other types of unions to be normalized that aren't heterosexual, we set an example for our children and subsequent generations that aberrant sexuality (behavior) is rewarded with society's approval. Sexual unions outside the potential for procreation are aberrant. Of course there will always be exceptions and exceptions must be treated with a measure of compassion and attempts to understand; but they must not be upheld as "normal" to be aspired to by subsequent generations.
Our ability to seriously tweak our society by doing so should be evident. When my teenage son confronts me as to why if men tearing each others anuses apart is OK as long as it's pleasure seeking and considered "love" then how am I to tell him smoking cigarettes (that tear his lungs apart for euphoria that nicotine produces) is wrong? And so on...
We are treading on thin ice once we open up that Pandora's box. Our youth are watching with wide eyes and absorbent minds.
Naturally this is just exactly what the gays know...It's like the gay marriage thing is a giant conscious/subconscious recruitment drive.
Gays aren't born that way, they're made, usually via inappropriate contact at the malleable age of adolescence or before. Often these molestations are blacked out and all the gay person "knows" is that "they were always gay". And once this behavior is impressed it becomes a reflexive preference...the misplaced baby-duck syndrome that will follow whatever it sees at a given age of impressionability. So the gays are right, they cannot change. The anti-gays must recognize this and have compassion. But the original crimes against these people must not be normalized for criminey's sake! That is just pure insanity.
Society decides to legitimize certain things as a means of establishing norms for itself. Marriage was established to project the norm of the two opposite genders with the potential to procreate offspring as the normal union. Once we allow any other types of unions to be normalized that aren't heterosexual, we set an example for our children and subsequent generations that aberrant sexuality (behavior) is rewarded with society's approval. Sexual unions outside the potential for procreation are aberrant. Of course there will always be exceptions and exceptions must be treated with a measure of compassion and attempts to understand; but they must not be upheld as "normal" to be aspired to by subsequent generations.
Our ability to seriously tweak our society by doing so should be evident. When my teenage son confronts me as to why if men tearing each others anuses apart is OK as long as it's pleasure seeking and considered "love" then how am I to tell him smoking cigarettes (that tear his lungs apart for euphoria that nicotine produces) is wrong? And so on...
We are treading on thin ice once we open up that Pandora's box. Our youth are watching with wide eyes and absorbent minds.
Naturally this is just exactly what the gays know...It's like the gay marriage thing is a giant conscious/subconscious recruitment drive.
Gays aren't born that way, they're made, usually via inappropriate contact at the malleable age of adolescence or before. Often these molestations are blacked out and all the gay person "knows" is that "they were always gay". And once this behavior is impressed it becomes a reflexive preference...the misplaced baby-duck syndrome that will follow whatever it sees at a given age of impressionability. So the gays are right, they cannot change. The anti-gays must recognize this and have compassion. But the original crimes against these people must not be normalized for criminey's sake! That is just pure insanity.
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
majority rule is scary, I hope you see that.
Majority rule kept woman from voting, blacks as slaves, and said that Iraq attacked us on Sept 11....majority does not equal right or legal.
Sihouette
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,635
You're comparing apples to oranges again.
Forced sexuality is not the same as what one is born as: woman or dark skinned. The key and crucial difference between the two arguments is that homosexuality is an aquired socially-born deviance occuring usually in the form of child molestation or rape or in appropriate exposure/contact in the sufferers of the syndrome at a young and crucial age. Therefore to laud it as acceptable via granting it legitimacy is to perpetuate the syndrome.
You can say I and others are wrong about this syndrome, but you'd better have proof as to why that refutes other proof of animal sexual behavior known as impressionable in adolescence. After all, we get much of what we know about our own behavior from the study of animals in similar conditions. Until you can prove me wrong, we should err on the side of caution. Because if I am right, homosexuality will gain a foothold in our society that may lead to more inappropriate contact of minors.
If we accept that
A. Homosexuality arises from inappropriate contact of minors by same-sexed individuals at a crucial age. and
B. That child molesters themselves have almost overwhelmingly themselves been molested as children/adolescents.
We must therefore also accept that
C. Homosexuals are prone to molest children and pass on an unwanted social illness.
And indeed, it just so happens that many gays I know seem to spend an inordinate amount of time lusting after very young adolescents and even children in some cases. The numbers are running like 9 of 10 of gays I know that do this....often openly, in this community where gays really have the run of the place. "Twinkies". It's not just a name, it's a way of life..
Forced sexuality is not the same as what one is born as: woman or dark skinned. The key and crucial difference between the two arguments is that homosexuality is an aquired socially-born deviance occuring usually in the form of child molestation or rape or in appropriate exposure/contact in the sufferers of the syndrome at a young and crucial age. Therefore to laud it as acceptable via granting it legitimacy is to perpetuate the syndrome.
You can say I and others are wrong about this syndrome, but you'd better have proof as to why that refutes other proof of animal sexual behavior known as impressionable in adolescence. After all, we get much of what we know about our own behavior from the study of animals in similar conditions. Until you can prove me wrong, we should err on the side of caution. Because if I am right, homosexuality will gain a foothold in our society that may lead to more inappropriate contact of minors.
If we accept that
A. Homosexuality arises from inappropriate contact of minors by same-sexed individuals at a crucial age. and
B. That child molesters themselves have almost overwhelmingly themselves been molested as children/adolescents.
We must therefore also accept that
C. Homosexuals are prone to molest children and pass on an unwanted social illness.
And indeed, it just so happens that many gays I know seem to spend an inordinate amount of time lusting after very young adolescents and even children in some cases. The numbers are running like 9 of 10 of gays I know that do this....often openly, in this community where gays really have the run of the place. "Twinkies". It's not just a name, it's a way of life..
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
I think you have a warped view of gays then, because that fits zero of the gays I know. Zero. And I don't choose to take their rights away of many based on the actions of others.
And you accept a lot of things in that statement with no proof. yet take away a important right to many people. My guess is there is about as much chance I could show you that you are wrong in that view, as I could make a straight person gay, or a gay person strait though.
Would majority rule in this instance if the vote went differently?
Werbung:
Sihouette
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,635
No Pocket. I have used extrapolation from real and actual animal industries dependant on keen knowledge of how sexuality is acquired in order to keep the cash flowing.
Pre-adolescent and adolescent male animals that are to be trained to "dummies" for artificial insemination (AI) must associate certain types of objects at a critical age with sexual stimulation and orgasm in order for the industry to survive. If you let a male adolescent start mounting females as he is normally wired to do, you run the risk of losing him as a good dummy-mounting AI stud. In fact, once a male animal is trained to mount a dummy, he often will no longer prefer live females.
In the cattle industry bulls are taught to vent their natural drives to mount cows onto "mount-steers" for collection of semen. As with the dummys, once a bull's sexuality is fixed, around pre-adolescence or adolescence, he will no longer care to mount cows and will instead look for a steer to mount. It is a complex association of smell, morphology and trained-preference that after the first encounter that achieves orgasm, the animal learns to seek that particular [fill in the blank] to acheive orgasm with from then on. It's classical associative conditioning..associate a certain [fill in the blank] with euphoric pleasure at an impressionable age and you will have a subconscious fixation...in any species...including human..
So, considering an entire industry relies on this as fact, I tend to give it some credence.
And humans are animals too. It isn't really a hard bridge to cross to see that if pre-adolescents and adolescents are approached to acheive orgasm associated with a same-sex perp., then from that point on they will most likely prefer same-sex partners to acheive orgasm. It isn't rocket science.
Now, add in another well-known and documented human-psychological phenomenon of the molestation blackout syndrome, where memories of molestation are suppressed, then you have gays adamantly insisting they were "born that way"; when in fact instead they were trained that way by other(s) in encounters they don't remember.
We don't want to train an entire society to adopt an aberrant biological behavior, so Prop 8 should stand. The science behind what I'm saying is out there. You can either pretend it isn't or accept the fact that sexuality is malleable up until puberty when then the preference is set by the first experiences.
It's why I advocate understanding and compassion, but no lesser emphasis on either. Don't downplay the truth, and don't use it to hurt anyone either. Once sexuality is trained, it is usually permanent and the affectee can no more change their fixation than a bull can for steers. It's in the realm of that instinctive hard-wiring acquired after birth and during childhood up to adolescence...that youthful malleability that humans and many mammals are famous for. "Impressionable youth" isn't just a saying, it is a phenomenon. And it most definitely applies to sexual preference. Visit an AI facility and help train the bulls or boars. You'll find out..
The part about molestees being more likely to molest as adults isn't made up either. So if you accept the premise that homosexuals were approached (some but not all) by adult same-sexed perps., then you can extrapolate that they themselves might be inclined to thusly "initiate" youngsters in the same manner heterosexual child molesters do. Again, not rocket science.
Pre-adolescent and adolescent male animals that are to be trained to "dummies" for artificial insemination (AI) must associate certain types of objects at a critical age with sexual stimulation and orgasm in order for the industry to survive. If you let a male adolescent start mounting females as he is normally wired to do, you run the risk of losing him as a good dummy-mounting AI stud. In fact, once a male animal is trained to mount a dummy, he often will no longer prefer live females.
In the cattle industry bulls are taught to vent their natural drives to mount cows onto "mount-steers" for collection of semen. As with the dummys, once a bull's sexuality is fixed, around pre-adolescence or adolescence, he will no longer care to mount cows and will instead look for a steer to mount. It is a complex association of smell, morphology and trained-preference that after the first encounter that achieves orgasm, the animal learns to seek that particular [fill in the blank] to acheive orgasm with from then on. It's classical associative conditioning..associate a certain [fill in the blank] with euphoric pleasure at an impressionable age and you will have a subconscious fixation...in any species...including human..
So, considering an entire industry relies on this as fact, I tend to give it some credence.
And humans are animals too. It isn't really a hard bridge to cross to see that if pre-adolescents and adolescents are approached to acheive orgasm associated with a same-sex perp., then from that point on they will most likely prefer same-sex partners to acheive orgasm. It isn't rocket science.
Now, add in another well-known and documented human-psychological phenomenon of the molestation blackout syndrome, where memories of molestation are suppressed, then you have gays adamantly insisting they were "born that way"; when in fact instead they were trained that way by other(s) in encounters they don't remember.
We don't want to train an entire society to adopt an aberrant biological behavior, so Prop 8 should stand. The science behind what I'm saying is out there. You can either pretend it isn't or accept the fact that sexuality is malleable up until puberty when then the preference is set by the first experiences.
It's why I advocate understanding and compassion, but no lesser emphasis on either. Don't downplay the truth, and don't use it to hurt anyone either. Once sexuality is trained, it is usually permanent and the affectee can no more change their fixation than a bull can for steers. It's in the realm of that instinctive hard-wiring acquired after birth and during childhood up to adolescence...that youthful malleability that humans and many mammals are famous for. "Impressionable youth" isn't just a saying, it is a phenomenon. And it most definitely applies to sexual preference. Visit an AI facility and help train the bulls or boars. You'll find out..
The part about molestees being more likely to molest as adults isn't made up either. So if you accept the premise that homosexuals were approached (some but not all) by adult same-sexed perps., then you can extrapolate that they themselves might be inclined to thusly "initiate" youngsters in the same manner heterosexual child molesters do. Again, not rocket science.
- Status
Similar threads
