CA Prop. 8 shot down

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
Darla said:
Another paternalistic view of marriage. Tell us Mr. Misogynist, what on earth does that have to do with gays marrying??? .
Click to expand...

Absolutely nothing whatsover. Thats the point. Only heterosexual marriage creates parental rights and responsibilities. Only a woman can carry, give birth to and nurse a mans children which he is responsible for. And only women as mothers and men as fathers isnt paternalistic, its biology.
 
Alias said:
This has been a very educational thread and we've all learned so much, especially that the majority of blacks in California are bigots. Liberals are so smart.
Click to expand...

Stop trying to equate equivalency w/ your own views. It doesn't take a lot of "smarts" to just blindly hate groups of people.
\
 
dixon76710 said:
Absolutely nothing whatsover. Thats the point. Only heterosexual marriage creates parental rights and responsibilities. Only a woman can carry, give birth to and nurse a mans children which he is responsible for. And only women as mothers and men as fathers isnt paternalistic, its biology.
Click to expand...

More word salad. That's your point? You have no point. Heterosexual marriage creates nothing unless the two people involved choose that, whether through deciding to bear children, or adoption.

You get weaker and weaker the longer this thread goes on, and you started out badly.
 
Darla said:
So in other words you pulled it out of your misogynistic ass and pretended this antiquated "idea" has anything to do with gay rights.
Got it.
Click to expand...

???? Its in the many court cases Ive cited. The BC Roman law Ive cited, it was never in my ass, cunt.
 
dixon76710 said:
???? Its in the many court cases Ive cited. The BC Roman law Ive cited, it was never in my ass, cunt.
Click to expand...


Ohhh, someone's getting testy. Well, calling me a c*nt will go along way to disproving my claim that you're a misogynist.

So you are citing BC Roman Law in an attempt to prove that there is some "idea" in modern times of getting "children with their biological mother and father" and that this has something to do with denying gays their civil rights?

Your arguments make no sense. They're incoherent nonsense.
 
Darla said:
More word salad. That's your point? You have no point. Heterosexual marriage creates nothing unless the two people involved choose that, whether through deciding to bear children, or adoption.
Click to expand...

Majority of births are unplanned. They didnt decide anything. It happened. Exclusively among the heterosexual couples, never among the homosexual couples. And if they adopt, the marriage doesnt create the parental rights and responsibilitioes. The adoption does.
 
dixon76710 said:
Majority of births are unplanned. They didnt decide anything. It happened. Exclusively among the heterosexual couples, never among the homosexual couples. And if they adopt, the marriage doesnt create the parental rights and responsibilitioes. The adoption does.
Click to expand...

Really, homosexual couples don't have unplanned pregnancies? You don't say? Wow, you are smart.

Marriage is not prohibited to couples who promise to have children, and gays adopting also creates legal rights and responsibilities.

You have no argument.
 
Onceler said:
Stop trying to equate equivalency w/ your own views. It doesn't take a lot of "smarts" to just blindly hate groups of people.
\
Click to expand...

Not my views. 70% of Blacks in California voted for Prop 8. Therefore, 70% of Blacks in California are bigots. That's just the tip of the iceberg, considering how many Blacks there are in this nation. Amazing discovery. Thanks.
 
Alias said:
Not my views. 70% of Blacks in California voted for Prop 8. Therefore, 70% of Blacks in California are bigots. That's just the tip of the iceberg, considering how many Blacks there are in this nation. Amazing discovery. Thanks.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about your views, as expressed on this thread. They are almost pure hate (the remainder is anger).
 
dixon76710 said:
One of the parents dies, the children still need to be provided for. A wife, who has spent much of her adult life pregnant with a child, nursing a child and caring for her children frequently need to be provided for.
Click to expand...

Same holds true for gay couples with kids. Whether the kid is adopted or not doesn't matter, does it?

If a gay couple has a stay at home spouse, that same need for provision would still hold true.

Those reasons you list have nothing to do with procreation itself. They have to do with having families.
 
Darla said:
Ohhh, someone's getting testy. Well, calling me a c*nt will go along way to disproving my claim that you're a misogynist.

So you are citing BC Roman Law in an attempt to prove that there is some "idea" in modern times of getting "children with their biological mother and father" and that this has something to do with denying gays their civil rights?

Your arguments make no sense. They're incoherent nonsense.
Click to expand...

??? The other poster asked whose "idea" it was. Like I said, it preceeds recorded history, I dont know. Cited one of the oldest references I could think of off the top of my head, avoiding religious ones.
 
Darla said:
Really, homosexual couples don't have unplanned pregnancies? You don't say? Wow, you are smart.

Marriage is not prohibited to couples who promise to have children, and gays adopting also creates legal rights and responsibilities.

You have no argument.
Click to expand...

Thats a funny claim to make after writing the above
 
Superfreak said:
Same holds true for gay couples with kids. Whether the kid is adopted or not doesn't matter, does it?

If a gay couple has a stay at home spouse, that same need for provision would still hold true.

Those reasons you list have nothing to do with procreation itself. They have to do with having families.
Click to expand...

???? The reasons you list have nothing to do with being gay. Couple of homos isnt some kind of second best alternative to biological parents.
 
Onceler said:
I'm talking about your views, as expressed on this thread. They are almost pure hate (the remainder is anger).
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the views of your pals in this thread that 70% of Blacks in California are bigots. That is pure hate and the remainder is anger because it shows your pals not only to be bigots, but also racists.
 
Alias said:
I'm talking about the views of your pals in this thread that 70% of Blacks in California are bigots. That is pure hate and the remainder is anger because it shows your pals not only to be bigots, but also racists.
Click to expand...

Stop your lying, not even 70% of Black people voted in that election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top