CA Prop. 8 shot down

[Cancel 2016.11]

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.

An expansion of the civil rights that heterosexuals enjoy to include gays, is not special treatment. It's just a rightful expansion of civil rights and an end to historic bigotry in the great American tradition.

The only people being "excluded" currently are gays. But that's changing. And you and your antiquated arguments, won't be relevant to that. You never have been. That's just how it shakes out historically.

 

[dixon76710]

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.

Ive addressed the same argument repeatedly. Marriage for ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS, with or without "romantic love" "can be considered beneficial to the well-being of children if the couple in question chooses to adopt and raise a family. No justification for special treatment for those who happen to be hmosexual.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

You keep saying that marriage is about procreation, and yet you do not want to remove the ability to marry from those straight couples unable to procreate.

If it is just about procreation, then the benefits should extend only to those who do so, and the benefits should be removed when their children become self-sufficient.

 

[dixon76710]

An expansion of the civil rights that heterosexuals enjoy to include gays, is not special treatment. It's just a rightful expansion of civil rights and an end to historic bigotry in the great American tradition.

The only people being "excluded" currently are gays. .

Nope, even in the 6 states with gay marriage, marriages between closely related couples is prohibited and laws still annul or dissolve platonic marriages for a failure to procreate.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Ive addressed the same argument repeatedly. Marriage for ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS, with or without "romantic love" "can be considered beneficial to the well-being of children if the couple in question chooses to adopt and raise a family. No justification for special treatment for those who happen to be hmosexual.

There is no special treatment. Here is your smarminess at it's zenith. In fact, heterosexuals are the ones enjoying special treatment under the law. In fact, gays are the only ones currently being excluded from the legal and societal benefits of marriage. To claim that extending marriage to gays would be prejudicial against others wanting to marry like mothers and daughters, is as ignorant as the claim that if you extend marriage to gays "next people will want to marry their dogs".

You have taken the fact that gays are being prejudiced against, and turned that into a smarmy, smug, and factually untrue claim that ending that prejudice would be bigotry.

It's nonsensical.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Nope, even in the 6 states with gay marriage, marriages between closely related couples is prohibited and laws still annul or dissolve platonic marriages for a failure to procreate.

Incest is in no way comparable to gay relationships. Incest between heterosexuals and homosexuals will be equally regulated. There is no prejudice.

There is however, an absurdity in attempting to equate homosexuality with incest. And a hatefulness.

 

[Alias]

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.

70% of Blacks in California voted for Prop 8. Please explain to me how 70% of Black Americans in California are bigots and denying fellow Americans their civil rights.

 

[dixon76710]

You keep saying that marriage is about procreation, and yet you do not want to remove the ability to marry from those straight couples unable to procreate..

Nope, marriage is about dealing with the product of that procreation. Procreation that can only occur among the heterosexual couples.
And government cant know which couples can or will procreate with any certainty. Thus the encouragement of all heterosexual couples.

 

[Alias]

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.

So 70% of Black Californians are now bigots. Gee, who knew.

 

[dixon76710]

There is no special treatment. Here is your smarminess at it's zenith. In fact, heterosexuals are the ones enjoying special treatment under the law.

And it would continue to be special treatment if the gays are included in that it STILL, isnt available to any two consenting adults but instead the special treatment would now be resrved to those couples with "Romantic love" whatever the fuck that means.

 

[Alias]

A guy in Seattle made love to his horse. Now he is not allowed to make an honest woman out of her, you bigots.

 

[Damocles]

No, its for more children born into homes with both their mother and father present to provide and care for them and fewer born into homes with only one or none of those parents present. To improve the well being of the children.

You have not proven that children's lives are improved in any way by a government sanction of your specific form of "Traditional" marriage. The government doesn't have a hand in marriage, it is what "God" has brought together let no man put asunder not what Government has joined in matrimony.

So far you have given no evidence to prove that there is any benefit whatsoever to have the government sanctioning any religious ceremony or given a valid reason for the government to try to sanction or limit our personal lives at this level and have been incapable of answering a simple question on the manner based on government powers listed in the constitution.

Your argument leads me to believe that there really is no valid reason or power of the government to "bless" your specific form of "Tradition" while devaluing another.

 

[WinterBorn]

Nope, marriage is about dealing with the product of that procreation. Procreation that can only occur among the heterosexual couples.
And government cant know which couples can or will procreate with any certainty. Thus the encouragement of all heterosexual couples.

If the couple is made up of a pair of 80 year olds, or the woman has had a hystorectomy, it would be quite easy to tell.

And what about a lesbian couple if one gets pregnant via artificial insemination? Won't they fit the "procreation" model as well as straight couples who divorce and remarry someone else?

 

[WinterBorn]

So 70% of Black Californians are now bigots. Gee, who knew.

And? Are you saying that bigotry is only related to race?

 

[dixon76710]

Incest is in no way comparable to gay relationships. Incest between heterosexuals and homosexuals will be equally regulated. .

Nobody has ever suggested that the single mother and grandmother, or ANY OTHER closely related couple engaged in sexual relations with each other and 3 or 4 times I specifically pointed out that they did not. Aaaaand of course thats exactly why you run there. Ill wait here while you slay that strawman.

 

[Alias]

If the couple is made up of a pair of 80 year olds, or the woman has had a hystorectomy, it would be quite easy to tell.

And what about a lesbian couple if one gets pregnant via artificial insemination? Won't they fit the "procreation" model as well as straight couples who divorce and remarry someone else?

You're not getting it. A man and a woman fit together anatomically and naturally. We are talking about REAL marriage, not artificial and perverted.

 

[Damocles]

A guy in Seattle made love to his horse. Now he is not allowed to make an honest woman out of her, you bigots.

Horses have no capacity for consent. It is idiotic to compare unrelated consenting adults to horses. Do you really believe that your wife should be compared to a donkey for instance?

Children haven't the experience or understanding to consent, animals do not have the capacity to begin to understand. You devalue your own choices when you compare such things and attempt to anthropomorphize stupidly.

 

[WinterBorn]

A guy in Seattle made love to his horse. Now he is not allowed to make an honest woman out of her, you bigots.

If this is the best you have to offer, then please sit quietly and let the grownups discuss the actual issue.

 

[WinterBorn]

You're not getting it. A man and a woman fit together anatomically and naturally. We are talking about REAL marriage, not artificial and perverted.

First of all, the comment you quoted was in reference to dixon's insistence that the gov't encourages marriage solely because of procreation.

Second of all, your comment as to how it fits shows you are still fixated on the sexual aspect and ignoring the emotional aspect of these relationships.

 

[Alias]

Horses have no capacity for consent. It is idiotic to compare unrelated consenting adults to horses. Do you really believe that your wife should be compared to a donkey for instance?

Children haven't the experience or understanding to consent, animals do not have the capacity to begin to understand. You devalue your own choices when you compare such things and attempt to anthropomorphize stupidly.

It was a joke. I'm not that crazy.