CA Prop. 8 shot down

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
dixon76710 said:
Nooooo its equating encouraging all owners of motor vehicles operated upon the public streets to have auto liability insurance because they have the potential of being liable for an auto accident, with encouraging all heterosexuals to marry because they have the potential to procreate.
You seem drawn to irrelevancy like a moth to a flame.
Click to expand...

Buying car insurance is incase you injure someone else; but you can buy extra, to cover your own costs also.
Heterosexuals are not required to be married, in case they have children; nor is there a penalty for having children without being married.
Since sterile people, or couples, have no chance of procreation; what is the purpose of them marrying?

You appear to like sticking your head in the sand, like ostrichs are portrayed.

How do gays marrying, denigrate anyone else's marriage?
 
dixon76710 said:
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.
Click to expand...

But you neglect to consider where children are born into homes, where the mother and father are both present;but are not married.
How do you account for this discrepancy?
 
dixon76710 said:
I tend to skip the stupid ones. Marriages limitation of to a man and a woman isnt intended to protect anyone.
Click to expand...

Then you'll understand why going forward I'm going to skip all your posts.

Your behavior on this thread is smarmy, smug, and ignorant. Your red herrings about children, and brothers and sisters, and "nothing special about gays" is double-speak, it's Orwellian, it's pure nonsense. Word salad. You remind me of something Krugman said about Newt: He talks the way a stupid person thinks a smart person talks.

But there's nothing smart about you. There's nothing smart about equating gays with brothers and sisters. You're a bigot and an idiot.

The only comparable relationship is heterosexual romantic love. Gays do not want "special rights" - to claim so is idiotic. They want equal rights. Rights that are equal to heterosexuals. Though children often have nothing to do with marriage, and though your smarmy diversion tactics claiming that the government has an explicit purpose to promote marriage between heterosexuals in order to engineer nuclear families is an outright lie, the fact remains that gays can and do raise children.

You're a rambling idiot. And a hateful bigot. You've come up with nothing on this thread other than faux-intellectual masturbation that is actually deep stupidity, fooling only those who are stupider than you are. We have about four of those here. You'll be a big hit with them.

For me? Well, "I tend to skip the stupid ones."
 
Darla said:
Then you'll understand why going forward I'm going to skip all your posts.

Your behavior on this thread is smarmy, smug, and ignorant. Your red herrings about children, and brothers and sisters, and "nothing special about gays" is double-speak, it's Orwellian, it's pure nonsense.
Click to expand...


My arguments are mirrored in the court cases cited. Yours within your own uneducated ignorance.
 
dixon76710 said:
My arguments are mirrored in the court cases cited. Yours within your own uneducated ignorance.
Click to expand...

Your arguments are bigoted, deeply stupid, and make no sense.

Your smarmy and smug "nothing special bout gays" while comparing them to brothers and sisters, is offensive, hateful, and dumb.

Your faux-intellectual masturbation turned you on to yourself, I can really tell. But the actual educated here? Not so much.
 
dixon76710 said:
Maybe secondary but still elemental. Gay lovers werent considered property or have dowries to entice good husbands. Because

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."


Yes, the old fashioned notions of the different roles to be played by men and women, no longer have any applicability in modern society. But the limitation of only men becoming fathers by turning a woman into a mother, isnt old fashioned notions of the differing roles of men and women but is intead the differing biological roles of men and women in procreation.

§ 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY.
(a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the child is born during the marriage;....

just as it was, thousands of years ago in BC Rome

Mater semper certa est ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")
Click to expand...

And yet, this has zero to do with gays marrying and only a stupid person would be fooled into believing it did.

"But the limitation of only men becoming fathers by turning a woman into a mother"

False. A man can become a father by adopting. He does not need to "turn a woman into a mother" a phrase that is not only incorrect but assigns the passive role to the woman and the active role to the man. False again.

You're actually posting nothing but nonsense. Does this tactic work for you elsewhere?
 
Darla said:
Your arguments are bigoted, deeply stupid, and make no sense.

Your smarmy and smug "nothing special bout gays" while comparing them to brothers and sisters, is offensive, hateful, and dumb.
Click to expand...

Revealing, I never used an example of a brother and a sister, and so thats right where you decided to go.
 
dixon76710 said:
Its why you cant marry your same sex squeeze in 44 states. You seem to have difficulty grasping reality.
Click to expand...

So? Skin color used to be the reason you couldn't marry your "squeeze" in many states. Who cares? What does that have to do with whether gays should be able to marry? We already knew that in most states they can't.

Did you think this was breaking news???
 
dixon76710 said:
Revealing, I never used an example of a brother and a sister, and so thats right where you decided to go.
Click to expand...

Oh mothers and daughters is what you used. Maybe that's revealing about you. The only thing this revealed about me is that to compare any familial relationship with homosexual, or heterosexual, love is disturbing.
 
Darla said:
So? Skin color used to be the reason you couldn't marry your "squeeze" in many states. Who cares? What does that have to do with whether gays should be able to marry? We already knew that in most states they can't.

Did you think this was breaking news???
Click to expand...

You are the one who claimed it has "zero to do with gays marrying", WHEN IN FACT, it is why gays cant marry in 44 states.
And purifying the white race was deemed not to be a legitimate governmental interest. Improving the well being of children is such a legitimate governmental interest.
 
dixon76710 said:
You are the one who claimed it has "zero to do with gays marrying", WHEN IN FACT, it is why gays cant marry in 44 states.
And purifying the white race was deemed not to be a legitimate governmental interest. Improving the well being of children is such a legitimate governmental interest.
Click to expand...

Gays can't marry in 44 states because of bigots like you. Period.

"But the limitation of only men becoming fathers by turning a woman into a mother.."

Your claim that this is why gays can't marry in 44 states is absurd on its face as your statement is factually wrong. It wouldn't be the first time laws were based on factually wrong and even bigoted ideas.

Your last premise is based on the assumption that preventing gays from marrying improves the well-being of children. This is a bigoted and factually wrong assumption.

You've got nothing.

Boiled down and take out the Latin - you got hate. Hate, ignorance, and stupidity. However that's not all! In your case, you also have a healthy dose of smarminess.
 
evince said:
some see the freedom of others as bad.

They make really lousy Americans
Click to expand...

You dont need governmental endorsement, tax breaks and entitlements to exercise your freedom. To equate the denial of tax breaks and governmental entitlements with a denial of freedom is absurd. Denial of these tax breaks and governmental entitlements to homosexual couples is no more a denial of freedom than the denial of tax breaks and governmental entitlements reserved for owners of small businesses, denied to all other business owners.
 
dixon76710 said:
You dont need governmental endorsement, tax breaks and entitlements to exercise your freedom. To equate the denial of tax breaks and governmental entitlements with a denial of freedom is absurd. Denial of these tax breaks and governmental entitlements to homosexual couples is no more a denial of freedom than the denial of tax breaks and governmental entitlements reserved for owners of small businesses, denied to all other business owners.
Click to expand...

Horseshit. It's a denial of the same rights and privileges that heterosexual couples enjoy. That's bigotry on its face. Stop throwing in things (it's just like mothers and daughters!! it's exactly like small businesses!!) that have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that heterosexual couples have been granted rights and privileges that are being withheld from homosexual couples because of bigotry.
 
Last edited:
Darla said:
Your last premise is based on the assumption that preventing gays from marrying improves the well-being of children. This is a bigoted and factually wrong assumption.
Click to expand...

Nope, encouraging heterosexuals to marry improves the well being of children. Encouraging homosexuals to marry does not, because they dont create any children. A child with a homosexual couple at a minimum requires the separation of the child from at least one of its biological parents. Marriage is intended to increase the prevalence of children with their biological parents, not to separate them from those parents.
 
dixon76710 said:
Nope, encouraging heterosexuals to marry improves the well being of children. Encouraging homosexuals to marry does not, because they dont create any children. A child with a homosexual couple at a minimum requires the separation of the child from at least one of its biological parents. Marriage is intended to increase the prevalence of children with their biological parents, not to separate them from those parents.
Click to expand...
\

Horseshit. It's not the state's role to encourage hetero or homsexual marriage. Or of discouraging it. Marriage is not intended to increase the prevalence of children with their biological parents (whatever that convoluted claim means). Modernity has changed marriage from a institution primarily concerned with consolidating and increasing property, into one of romantic love and partnership.

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.
 
Darla said:
Oh mothers and daughters is what you used. Maybe that's revealing about you. The only thing this revealed about me is that to compare any familial relationship with homosexual, or heterosexual, love is disturbing.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top