CA Prop. 8 shot down

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
dixon76710 said:
No, Ive already pointed out they dont rub genitals like heterosexual and homosexual couples. But none of you have identified any relevance of rubbing genitals to the formation of stable households.
Click to expand...

What does mothers and daughters living together have to do with the bigotry inherent in not treating gay couples the same way we treat heterosexual couples?

Nothing. Just another red herring you throw out there in the hopes someone will believe it means something. We're talking about extending the same rights and privileges that straights have been granted to gays. Throwing in mothers and daughters living together is nonsensical.

It has nothing to do with the topic. And you know it. But someone told you it's smart to pretend it does. It's not smart. It's nonsensical. It's word salad.
 
dixon76710 said:
As she screams that the state MUST do so in the case of homosexuals.
Click to expand...

False. Extending the rights and privileges of marriage from heterosexuals to gays, is not an encouragement or discouragement of marriage. It's simply extending the civil rights that straights already enjoy, to rightfully end the exclusion of gays.
 
Darla said:
What does mothers and daughters living together have to do with the bigotry inherent in not treating gay couples the same way we treat heterosexual couples?

Nothing. Just another red herring you throw out there in the hopes someone will believe it means something. We're talking about extending the same rights and privileges that straights have been granted to gays. Throwing in mothers and daughters living together is nonsensical.

It has nothing to do with the topic. And you know it. But someone told you it's smart to pretend it does. It's not smart. It's nonsensical. It's word salad.
Click to expand...

State laws that have been on the books for hundreds of years are now "bigotry". Gee, who knew.
 
Darla said:
Horseshit. It's a denial of the same rights and privileges that heterosexual couples enjoy.
Click to expand...

Heterosexuals enjoy the rights because heterosexuals, uniquely have the capacity to procreate. If you want to instead limit marriage to couples with "romantic love", youll need some justification for doing so.
 
Darla said:
What does mothers and daughters living together have to do with the bigotry inherent in not treating gay couples the same way we treat heterosexual couples?

Nothing. Just another red herring you throw out there in the hopes someone will believe it means something. We're talking about extending the same rights and privileges that straights have been granted to gays. Throwing in mothers and daughters living together is nonsensical.

It has nothing to do with the topic. And you know it. But someone told you it's smart to pretend it does. It's not smart. It's nonsensical. It's word salad.
Click to expand...

You have your emotions, hormones and rage to support your assertions, Ive cited 6-7 court cases to support mine.
 
dixon76710 said:
You have your emotions, hormones and rage to support your assertions, Ive cited 6-7 court cases to support mine.
Click to expand...

Any fellow bigot could have done the same when anti-miscegenation laws were passed and upheld.

So what?

In the great American tradition, we're in the middle of yet another expansion of civil rights. Also in the great American tradition, there are a minority of backwards thinkers and hateful bigots hanging on for dear life.

But historically, that's always been irrelevant.

By the way, my emotions, hormones and rage? Gosh, what a surprise that a man who is bigoted against gays and who defines marriage in such a paternalistic manner is a misogynist. Why, you could knock me over with a feather.
 
dixon76710 said:
Heterosexuals enjoy the rights because heterosexuals, uniquely have the capacity to procreate. If you want to instead limit marriage to couples with "romantic love", youll need some justification for doing so.
Click to expand...

Nope, they alone enjoy the rights because of bigotry. There is nothing in heterosexual marriage that is dependent upon procreating. It is you seeking to limit the rights of marriage to heterosexual couples. It is I who seeks to expand those rights to rightfully include gays.
 
Darla said:
False. Extending the rights and privileges of marriage from heterosexuals to gays, is not an encouragement or discouragement of marriage. It's simply extending the civil rights that straights already enjoy, to rightfully end the exclusion of gays.
Click to expand...

We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=316&invol=535

heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341opn.pdf
 
You'll note that among the many posts Dixon the faux-smart bigot ran from was this one:

As to the well-being of children, this world is filled with children who have no homes, and no love. Many heterosexual individuals as well as couples, adopt children for this reason, and are to be admired. Many homosexual individuals and couples do the same, and should be admired the same.

There is nothing about gay marriage that can be considered harmful to the well-being of children. And in fact, gay marriage can be considered beneficial to the well-being of children if the couple in question chooses to adopt and raise a family, as many do. You have taken your backwards, ignorant, and bigoted ideas about both marriage and gays, and projected them onto everyone and everything including the government.

In his continuing quest to make the same factually untrue statement over and over; that marriage is meant to encourage procreation and gays can't marry because they can't procreate.
 
Darla said:
Nope, they alone enjoy the rights because of bigotry. There is nothing in heterosexual marriage that is dependent upon procreating. It is you seeking to limit the rights of marriage to heterosexual couples. It is I who seeks to expand those rights to rightfully include gays.
Click to expand...

Nothing special about gays that would warrant such special treatment. Nothing special about "Romantic Love" that would justify such special treatment to the exclusion of others.
 
Alias said:
State laws that have been on the books for hundreds of years are now "bigotry". Gee, who knew.
Click to expand...

Just like the state laws on the books for hundreds of years that banned racially mixed marriages or made sodomy illegal. Yep, those were and this is bigotry.
 
dixon76710 said:
We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=316&invol=535

heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341opn.pdf
Click to expand...

You're dealing with bigoted legislation that is being overturned and superseded in court cases across the land.

Which is why I said that any of your fellow bigots could have found court cases upholding anti-miscegenation laws at one time, and it's exactly what shows that we are in the middle of yet another American expansion of civil rights. And with that, we get yet another group of bigoted, hateful, ignoramuses like yourself desperately fighting against that expansion.

But historically, you've never stayed relevant. Just how it is.
 
dixon76710 said:
Nothing special about gays that would warrant such special treatment. Nothing special about "Romantic Love" that would justify such special treatment to the exclusion of others.
Click to expand...

So what adverse effect would gay marriage have on our nation or on you? You seem to oppose it for very vague (or invented) reasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top