California Proposition 8

[top gun]

There were no rights taken from homosexuals.

No matter what some previous court might have implied, homosexuals don't have the "right" to marry, as marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

Not true. Gays were legally marrying in California... thousands were already legally married... at the time this right was stripped away just limiting them and no one else.

Thus all homosexuals had for awhile was a privilege granted by an erroneous activist court, not a right ... and that privilege was in violation of the time-honored definition of marriage.

So, rationally, that privilege was removed by the voters.

No religious sect has the ownership of a "word". And seeing as being gay is not illegal... living together gay is not illegal... having the documented legal protection of a committed monogamous relationship (and it's economic/property consequences for divorce) should not be illegal.

And is it also "looking for activist courts" when the anti-gay marriage folks take these cases to court? It's really just two different sides looking for a legal judgment.

You don't have the right to bring a cat to a dog show. Cats are not dogs. And if those who produce the dog show want to allow a cat owner to bring his cat, they may grant that privilege, though understandably that improper inclusion will generate revolt among the dog owners at the show, and rightly so: cats just don't belong at a dog show by definition.

Likewise, homosexuals don't belong in a marriage, by definition. It is completely understandable that heterosexuals revolted at the thought of homosexuals marrying, just as it is completely understandable that dog owners would revolt against a cat being shown at the dog show.

This issue isn't about rights or religion or bias.

It's about definitive propriety.

I wasn't aware gays were a completely different species?????????? Gays aren't human beings in your book???????????

I think the real parable here would be you can bring different breeds of dogs to a dog show.

Let's not go completely homophobic here. Gay marriage doesn't affect me or my heterosexualness in any way and hurts no one.

 

[Sihouette]

Of course gays are human beings. Just like any other deviant. We need to view them compassionately because in my opinion and from my observation, most of them are "made", environmentally formed in an impressionable age by an inappropriate contact from an older homosexual. And once they are thus harmed, their sexual urges seem to be permanently fixed that way. We just decided we don't want their impressionable mental affect to be modeled as a normal sexual relationshp (marriage) between two adults.

That's why I gave the examples of farm animals who were frustrated or trained to mount dummy females for the purposes of artificial insemination (AI). Trainers all know to get at the animal right at the onset of puberty because this is the time they are most malleable to be "set" towards a certain type of sexual behavior. Many of these bulls, stallions and boars will only mount a dummy and will turn askance from even a female in heat. This is not their normal behavior and it was trained. This is how powerful the sexual-preference malleablility factor is in mammals, of which we are.

Now if common farm folk have that mechanism down to a science and know full-well that sexuality is imprinted just at the onset of adolescence, then how come human behavioralists sit around scratching their heads, sitting on their hands and playing dumb and mute when it comes to the same mechanism in people? That's where your blinding acedemia and political-correctness gets in the way of common sense every time..

Homosexuality is a deviant sexual behavior in all animals since sexuality in animals originated to procreate young. It is the most common-sense thing you can say to describe the situation.

Yes, homosexuality is deviant behavior and we don't model deviant behavior as "normal" to our impressionable youth. Remember, youth can sense hypocrisy immediately. When we teach them that the sexual drives came about to create offspring and then ask them to accept homosexuality as "normal" we will show them we are dysfunctional, and then they'll either run with that and rub our noses in it (rebel) or model themselves after hypocrisy.. Neither of which is desireable.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Homosexuality has nothing to do with race. Nor does the meaning of marriage apply to genetics or darwinism. You are trying to combine two things which have nothing in common.

Funny thing is that a lot of the scientists in the world realize that what you've posted is wrong. Singling out a small minority for persecution and denial of rights is a civil rights issue, or are you still maintaining that the Christians who drove the Mormons out into the West by killing them, raping their women, and burning their farms were doing God's work?

I've seen the laughable ranting on all these issues before. Thanks, but this thread is about California Prop 8, and the ability of people to marry, which everyone has.

If you want to talk about most of those willfully ignorant views of what the Bible teaches, that's great, but not in this thread. The plain answer is, it doesn't say that for most of those, and the ones that it does require you to believe in a G-d, and one who has the right to take life, as much as he has to give it.

The whole argument is undergirded with religious dogma, that's the basis for the hate and persecution that has been visited on gay people for the last 6 centuries.

Smearing feces in people's faces is God-like behavior to you? Ordering people to bake bread with their own feces and eat it in public in order to shame them? That's sickness, we put people in prison for that kind of thing, and you would worship a god who does that? I think your standards may be a touch low.

 

[Sihouette]

Remember, if you love someone of the same gender, try this challenge. Imagine loving them without feeling the need to hump them. Deep connections like this used to be called "friendships".

Andy, be advised that Mare is trying to steer you into the swampy marsh of a relgious argument pro or con homosexuality. That is because s/he knows that trying to debate it with logic and common sense is a failed mission.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I don't see how the passage applies to Joan of Arc. Nor do I see credible evidence that Joan was transsexual. I'm also not surprised that you worry about what Christians did, when a vast number of other religious groups did the same.

I live in a country with Christians doing things like Prop 8 and passing laws to disenfranchise tax-paying citizens for religious reasons. That people with the kind of mindset you have get to vote their hate and detestation (based on religion) is why I worry about what Christians do

If you had an education in Christian history you would have read the transcript of Joan's trial and you would know that they burned her for refusing to wear women's clothing and act like a woman. In fact they were really pissed because she had taken Communion several times while dressed in men's attire. It's interesting because I've heard many of the same words used by Christians today to attack transsexuals. Not that a source will help you any, but: TRANSGENDERED WARRIORS by Leslie Feinberg, pg. 34-36.

That said, I agree with the passage. It is detestable. Maybe you don't mind blood and poop stains on your pants, or carrying a little baggy around with a hose shoved up your rear, but that's your choice, not mine.

What has your personal squeamishness about other people's fecal matter have to do with this? So you're saying that murder is less of a crime? Child molesting is less of a crime? Rape, sadism, arson, and torture are all lesser crimes? Because anyone guilty of any of those things is still allowed to marry the consenting adult of their choice. Hetero and homo people do a lot of strange things for sexual kicks, but to take one example and apply it universally to millions of people you've never met is hysterical. You've lost any sense of proportion.

Are you familiar with the whore houses called "slaughter houses"? The women never even get out of bed, each man gets 15 minutes with her before the next man gets on. If you are going to start comparing stupid stuff that people do for sexual gratification you need to know that the 96% of the population who are heterosexual have a huge numerical superiority when it comes to inventing weirdness.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Remember, if you love someone of the same gender, try this challenge. Imagine loving them without feeling the need to hump them. Deep connections like this used to be called "friendships".

Andy, be advised that Mare is trying to steer you into the swampy marsh of a relgious argument pro or con homosexuality. That is because s/he knows that trying to debate it with logic and common sense is a failed mission.

We don't know if it's a failed mission since not a single scientific source from this century has been cited by the gay bashers. Specious reasoning based on anecdotal evidence is not logic.

 

[Andy]

Funny thing is that a lot of the scientists in the world realize that what you've posted is wrong. Singling out a small minority for persecution and denial of rights is a civil rights issue, or are you still maintaining that the Christians who drove the Mormons out into the West by killing them, raping their women, and burning their farms were doing God's work?

Classic straw-man arguments that don't even deserve serious thought. You can just say "I don't have a point" any time now.

The whole argument is undergirded with religious dogma, that's the basis for the hate and persecution that has been visited on gay people for the last 6 centuries.

Yeah, the facts and evidence, are religious dogma.

Smearing feces in people's faces is God-like behavior to you? Ordering people to bake bread with their own feces and eat it in public in order to shame them? That's sickness, we put people in prison for that kind of thing, and you would worship a god who does that? I think your standards may be a touch low.

How does this bs you are spewing here, apply to the topic at hand? This is called a "straw-man argument", and it's a sign you can't make a point and have lost. If you can't make a case against the facts given, perhaps you should give up. At this point you ARE the bigot you claim others to be.

 

[Chip]

Not true. Gays were legally marrying in California... thousands were already legally married... at the time this right was stripped away just limiting them and no one else.

No, that is not correct.

The court granted them the privilege to marry, they did not grant them a right. No matter what was spoken, reality remains that they were granted a privilege, not a right.

The reason they were not granted a right is because prior to the court granting homosexuals the privilege to marry, homosexual marriage was not reasonable and customary in the state of California.

Refer to the thread Realities of Rights. Unless a privilege that falls truly in one of the three classes of rights has become reasonable and customary, it has not yet become a right.

Homosexual marriage is not yet reasonable and customary, as such must stand the test of time.

Thus, in truth, no right had been granted homosexuals to marry in California.

That was only a privilege to marry that they had received, thus it was subject to revoke by vote, and, hopefully, the California Supreme Court will do the right thing and uphold that vote.

No religious sect has the ownership of a "word".

Your statement is irrelevant.

This matter is not about religion.

It's about definitive propriety.

And seeing as being gay is not illegal... living together gay is not illegal... having the documented legal protection of a committed monogamous relationship (and it's economic/property consequences for divorce) should not be illegal.

I agree ... with exception to the word "divorce", as divorce is a marital matter which does not rightly apply to homosexual domestic partnerships.

Indeed, your statment here for the most part presents the crux of the matter.

Whether a domestic partnership is marital (man and woman as husband and wife) or non-martial (any other valid domestic partnership including gay/lesbian), there should be no discrimination with regard to government and corporate policies: marital as well as non-marital domestic partnerships should have equal rights in this regard.

Had all types of domestic partnerships equal rights, there would not have been any issue irrationally compelling homosexuals to the inappropriate quick fix of hijacking the definition of marriage. Please see Proposition 8 Supporting Argument for more information.

And is it also "looking for activist courts" when the anti-gay marriage folks take these cases to court? It's really just two different sides looking for a legal judgment.

Maybe it's two sides seeking an activist court from your dualistic perspective.

But from mine it's merely a matter of grasping the reality that the privilege of homosexual marriage is a definitive impropriety and thus either it needs to be denied in the courts or the definition of marriage needs to be changed. Rightly, with respect to both the realities of rights and definitive impropriety, homosexual marriage needs to be rightly denied.

If our legal system cannot consistently make accurate judgments with intelligent respect to rational concepts of reason, then we cannot trust it.

So no matter what your bias in the matter may be, it is always best to ask the courts to intelligently respect rational concepts of reason.

I wasn't aware gays were a completely different species?????????? Gays aren't human beings in your book???????????

Your transferred hyperbole is irrelevant and erroneous.

I think the real parable here would be you can bring different breeds of dogs to a dog show.

No, because in a marriage you can indeed bring different races and ethnicities into a marriage, the accurate analogy to your "different breeds" perspective.

But that is irrelevant and thus doesn't illustrate the point that gays/lesbians are not definitively "a man and a woman", "a man and a woman" being the minimal requirement for a marriage, by definition.

I used the cat and dog analogy because it accurately and clearly illustrates the definitive propriety crux of this matter.

It is also easier for people to then understand how heterosexuals would be definitively rightly opposed to the inappropriate inclusion of gays/lesbians in marriage, just as dog owners would be definitively rightly opposed to the inappropriate inclusion of cats in a dog show.

Let's not go completely homophobic here.

This matter is not about homophobia.

Heterosexuals are no more homophobic when they oppose definitively inappropriate inclusion of gays/lesbians in marriage than dog owners are felinaphobic when they oppose the definitively inappropriate inclusion of cats into the dog show.

No matter how irrationally you've been agitated by pro-gay/lesbian marriage activists, this matter simply isn't about phobia in any way.

Flamebaiting by insinuating that an anti-gay/lesbian marriage position is about homophobia is erroneous and unbecoming of a rational debator.

Gay marriage doesn't affect me or my heterosexualness in any way and hurts no one.

It doesn't matter whether the substance of gay/lesbian attempts to marry affects you or not.

It doesn't matter whether the substance of gay/lesbian attempts to marry hurts no one in any way or not.

What matters is that gay/lesbian marriage is definitively inappropriate and thus rational reason and common sense must be opposed to it.

And if you don't think that definitive propriety is highly important in every walk of daily life, simply look at the contents label on any multi-ingredient package of food ... and be thankful there are laws that make it illegal for manufacturers to call chiuauas "beef". ... ...

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Of course gays are human beings. Just like any other deviant. We need to view them compassionately because in my opinion and from my observation, most of them are "made", environmentally formed in an impressionable age by an inappropriate contact from an older homosexual. And once they are thus harmed, their sexual urges seem to be permanently fixed that way. We just decided we don't want their impressionable mental affect to be modeled as a normal sexual relationshp (marriage) between two adults.

Your whole "logical" argument is based on one premise: that sexual orientation is learned behavior. You appear to have based this on anecdotal evidence from observing farm animals and from one homosexual relationship that you've detailed for us.

Provide some proof, some sources of scientific research to support you "logic" please, because extrapolating to wild animals from confined domesticated animals is not accurate nor is extrapolation from one person's experience to a whole population.

 

[Sihouette]

Your whole "logical" argument is based on one premise: that sexual orientation is learned behavior.

It is learned behavior.

Farm industry is not "anecdotal evidence". People who depend on AI, foremost porkbellies for your bacon and sausage depend on the exact science of knowing that mammals can be impressed to behave a certain way sexually and compulsively from the training forward to a certain preference that may not even involve another live animal.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

It is learned behavior.

Farm industry is not "anecdotal evidence". People who depend on AI, foremost porkbellies for your bacon and sausage depend on the exact science of knowing that mammals can be impressed to behave a certain way sexually and compulsively from the training forward to a certain preference that may not even involve another live animal.

What twaddle! If you kept people in prison camps the ten thousand generations, seletively breeding them for high milk production and fast weight gain you wouldn't be able to extrapolate anything much from them when it came to the study of wild humans. If you kept human mothers in farrowing cages while pregnant and nursing, if you castrated all but a few of the males and kept all of these poor creatures in feed lots wading around belly-deep in their own feces and fed sub-clinical doses of anti-biotics to keep them alive long enough to be ready for slaughter, they would be less than shadows of real humans. The same applies to animals. Don't try to bullsh8t me, I worked in agri-business for 16 years after I finished college, I know how the animals are raised, how they are chemically treated, and I know that someone who claimed to have majored in biology was being... ah, disengenuous.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Yeah, the facts and evidence, are religious dogma.



How does this bs you are spewing here, apply to the topic at hand? This is called a "straw-man argument", and it's a sign you can't make a point and have lost. If you can't make a case against the facts given, perhaps you should give up. At this point you ARE the bigot you claim others to be.

I like this, Andy, in your top paragraph you acknowledge that religious dogma is the basis for your "facts and evidence". Then in the bottom paragraph when questioned about other "facts and evidence" in your religious dogma--suddenly relgious dogma is not the topic.

In point of fact religious dogma is only topic here despite Sihouette's attempts at rolling his/her religious beliefs in a coating of imaginary "logic".

It is nice that you don't question the scriptures to which I refer, either you know the Bible well enough to know I'm telling the truth or you are too scared to find out. Faith is what you settle for when you don't want the truth.

 

[Andy]

I like this, Andy, in your top paragraph you acknowledge that religious dogma is the basis for your "facts and evidence". Then in the bottom paragraph when questioned about other "facts and evidence" in your religious dogma--suddenly relgious dogma is not the topic.

Ok, the facts and evidence I was referring to was outlined in post #66. That's not religious dogma, that's scientifically provable evidence.

Assuming that you are referring to the Bible and such, you have brought up the Bible more than anyone on this thread. You can claim that it is religious dogma, but you have failed to make any provable points about it.

In point of fact religious dogma is only topic here despite Sihouette's attempts at rolling his/her religious beliefs in a coating of imaginary "logic".

Your refusal to accept his logic, does not make it "imaginary". Nor does your inability to consider other view points make you less "bigoted" than those you are arguing with.

It is nice that you don't question the scriptures to which I refer, either you know the Bible well enough to know I'm telling the truth or you are too scared to find out. Faith is what you settle for when you don't want the truth.

I have talked with people like you before, and learned many things from doing so. Namely, it would be pointless for me to get the references that you refer to as basis of your fruity claims. Because even after I explain the real meaning, the context, the obvious observation of what they really mean, you will no doubt, neither accept that, nor learn anything from it.

In other words, you accept by faith the view the Bible supports those things, and if someone were to challenge that, you would bigotedly reject all new information.

Why should I waste my time? It does no good for me, because most of those I've heard before and know the answer. It does not good for you, because you are religiously attached to your belief, and will never give it up.

 

[Andy]

It is learned behavior.

Farm industry is not "anecdotal evidence". People who depend on AI, foremost porkbellies for your bacon and sausage depend on the exact science of knowing that mammals can be impressed to behave a certain way sexually and compulsively from the training forward to a certain preference that may not even involve another live animal.

I agree with Sih here. If homosexuality is not a learned behavior, then explain why the percentage of homosexuals in prisons are many times higher than those found in the general public? And even among those who would say they were not homosexuals before being sent to prison.

 

[Sihouette]

In point of fact religious dogma is only topic here despite Sihouette's attempts at rolling his/her religious beliefs in a coating of imaginary "logic". ~Mare

Now you're really inserting your own reality into the fray...

I insisted on staying away from religious discussions involving this subject and sticking to science.

Let me refer you to my post from page 6:

That being said, I am simply using logic to get to the bottom of the gay marriage issue. That's why I presented the "Givens" and the "Conclusion" above. We have to weigh things logically, else we'll come back later and find a mistake we made that may not be able to be so easily undone.

Religion is fine, if you come to your beliefs as a result of weighing the edicts of that religion on your "logicometer". I think bringing religion into this discussion may actually be a clever device of a homosexual hellbent on swaying the topic away from the powerful tool of logic and towards the flimsy and defeatable platform of [implied] "I hate fags because the Bible says to."

Just a hunch?

You are attempting to insert religion into my arguments because on their own merit they are kicking your butt. So to sully them, you need to make them look like bias instead of critical thinking.

I understand. It's just that you're dealing with people here that are smarter than the average bear and see through your devices.

And aside: Oh, and Andy, I'm a woman. I tried to log on originally with the name "Silhouette" with an "L", to spell the word properly. For some reason it wouldn't let me so I dropped the "L" and it worked.