• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Proposition 8 Struck Down!!!

Dessi said:
Note that you have no serious response, no credible case against gay couples having equal rights to straight couples. Imagine if you were to make a statement in a courtroom, "your honor, gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they'll stop straight couples from reproducing, thus ending the species" -- you'd be laughed out of the courtroom. Its really so bad it hardly merits refutation.

Actually your comments work in my favor. People reading them can readily see that the opposition to gay rights has no basis in law, reason, or certainly not morality. Its not even rooted in religion, because 90% of the people who attend LGBT groups like PFLAG and GLSEN are Christian; in Omaha, the PFLAG president and her wife are members of the church where our meetings are held -- religious opposition against gays is by no means universal.

It's just so readily evident to everyone that the opposition is rooted in an irrational prejudice toward gay people, no surprise the anti-gay marriage movement will fail. When it does, and gay people enjoy marriage equality, and the doomsday "breaking down the fabric of society / end of the human species" nonsense never materializes, everyone will wonder why marriage equality was so controversial in the first place. I'm fairly confident that anti-gay bigots today will be maligned and vilified as no better than racists and anti-semites -- same irrational prejudice, same goofy "arguments", same bigotry, just two sides of the same coin.

As an LGBT person, and someone with many LGBT friends, I do have a dog in the gay marriage debate. I'm thankful to see our civil rights gaining serious traction in the country and the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

There is no such a thing as "group" rights. There is no such a thing as a homosexual rights. There are only individual rights.
 
Bri said:
You're saying that a significant number of proponents of gay marriage are against heterosexual marriage? Can you provide some examples please?
Click to expand...

It's not hard. I am using my personal experience, but even a two-minute google search for (for example) found a woman who is all agog for gay rights -- but only because she, a single woman, is fighting for the "rights of singles":

All the attention given to gay marriage lately has enlightened me: Shouldn’t we all have the same rights, gay or straight, married or single? What about the right to remain single but enjoy all the benefits that married people have?
Click to expand...

...or, in short, the usual "progressive" "enlightened" view: "All have won, and all shall have prizes". Gay people getting the right to marry is only a step in the direction of everybody getting the same "rights", or, in short, no married person having any.

Examples could be multiplied almost indefinitely.
 
Robert... God and I were down at the local bar shootin' pool and havin' a couple beers, and she told me to tell you to get over yourself. She's awfully sick and tired of you and your type claiming to speak for her.

Her direct quote was "tell him I said 'lighten up, Francis'".
 
When you use an orifice for something other than it's purpose in nature, that is unnatural and unnatural acts can lead to horrific natural consequences.
Click to expand...
Is there some sort of forum law of nature that says every discussion on gay rights has to devolve into a discussion about butt sex:covereyes? What is it with anti-gay activists and their sick fascination with this activity?
 
Robert Prey said:
30,000 or so years of Tradition.
Click to expand...

Which version of traditional marriage?

The one where parents pick the spouse of their offspring in exchange for money?

The one where women become the property of their husbands?

The one where men can marry how many other women they wish, and still have concubines on the side?
 
HawksFan said:
Robert... God and I were down at the local bar shootin' pool and havin' a couple beers, and she told me to tell you to get over yourself. She's awfully sick and tired of you and your type claiming to speak for her.

Her direct quote was "tell him I said 'lighten up, Francis'".
Click to expand...

It's no fun playing with her. I suspect she changes the rules of physics while she plays.
 
Weird Science said:
It's not hard. I am using my personal experience, but even a two-minute google search for (for example) found a woman who is all agog for gay rights -- but only because she, a single woman, is fighting for the "rights of singles":
Click to expand...
So finding one person equals a significant number?

You can google and find individuals who support almost anything. That doesn't mean there's a significant number of tham.

Weird Science said:
...or, in short, the usual "progressive" "enlightened" view: "All have won, and all shall have prizes". Gay people getting the right to marry is only a step in the direction of everybody getting the same "rights", or, in short, no married person having any.

Examples could be multiplied almost indefinitely.
Click to expand...
What rights would a married person not have if everyone had the right to marry?

Just a few will do.
 
RandFan said:
Name them.
Click to expand...

Under ARt III, US Const., the Congress can make whatever exceptions it chooses as to what types of cases the courts may have jurisdiction over. Beyond that Constitutional limitation, a court may, for example, rule that 2 plus 2 equals 5, but that does not make it so. In "Camelot" there is a legal limit to the snowfall, but this is not Camelot.
 
The more I see the ridiculous, irrational, illogical, dishonest, and often repugnant arguments against gay marriage (like the ones in this thread) the more convinced I am that allowing it is both the right thing to do and a good thing.

(I'll add - I have yet to hear any argument against gay marriage, from anyone, on this forum or otherwise, that does not fit one or more of the criteria above.)
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
30,000 or so years of Tradition.
Click to expand...

Are you sure this is the argument you really want to be making?

Because the obvious flaw here being that the oldest practiced modern religion (Judaism) is Only about five thousand years old.
 
Robert Prey said:
Under ARt III, US Const., the Congress can make whatever exceptions it chooses as to what types of cases the courts may have jurisdiction over. Beyond that Constitutional limitation, a court may, for example, rule that 2 plus 2 equals 5, but that does not make it so. In "Camelot" there is a legal limit to the snowfall, but this is not Camelot.
Click to expand...
Not an answer. BTW: You are making a fundamental error. What marriage is, isn't a priori.
 
It's just so readily evident to everyone that the opposition is rooted in an irrational prejudice toward gay people
Click to expand...

Ah, here we disagree. What you're saying is a bit like saying "it's just so readily evident to everyone that the opposition to the Pope's policies is rooted in irrational hatred of God". Well, not necessarily -- even if you are a believer in God. You might just think, with good reason, that many of those who proclaim to speak for God have an ulterior motive -- in this case, Church power.

Same here. Gay rights are often used as an excuse for attack on marriage itself -- denials notwithstanding -- the ultimate goal being a society where marriage, that antiquated evil and sexist institution, is eliminated. This is why, while gay marriage per se is not necessarily an attack on marriage, the political campaign for it is: because gay marriage is only a stage.

For this type of "gay marriage" activist (as opposed to the folks who really are pro-gay, as opposed to anti-marriage), the "rights" of polygamists are next. That polygamists are, almost inevitably, chauvinist pigs who really DO enslave their women, is conveniently, forgotten for the moment (it's all just "more love" or something, right?), as part of the goal of the elimination of the evil and sexist institute of marriage (as they see it).
 
Weird Science said:
Ah, here we disagree. What you're saying is a bit like saying "it's just so readily evident to everyone that the opposition to the Pope's policies is rooted in irrational hatred of God". Well, not necessarily -- even if you are a believer in God. You might just think, with good reason, that many of those who proclaim to speak for God have an ulterior motive -- in this case, Church power.

Same here. Gay rights are often used as an excuse for attack on marriage itself -- denials notwithstanding -- the ultimate goal being a society where marriage, that antiquated evil and sexist institution, is eliminated. This is why, while gay marriage per se is not necessarily an attack on marriage, the political campaign for it is: because gay marriage is only a stage.

For this type of "gay marriage" activist (as opposed to the folks who really are pro-gay, as opposed to anti-marriage), the "rights" of polygamists are next. That polygamists are, almost inevitably, chauvinist pigs who really DO enslave their women, is conveniently, forgotten for the moment (it's all just "more love" or something, right?), as part of the goal of the elimination of the evil and sexist institute of marriage (as they see it).
Click to expand...
To quote the inestimable Robert Prey: Baloney!

You still haven't shown there are very many of "this type of "gay marriage" activist".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom