|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Cali Supreme Court ruling on legality of same-sex marriage ban | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
subbie, come with me across the Heartland of America, from sea to shining sea, and let's visit every farmhouse together and ask those fine people one question: Mr. and Mrs. Jones, do you believe that the institution of marriage, "holy matrimony," would suffer if gays were allow to get married?" And then let's have a beer in New York and tally up the results. Any bets on what they might be?
This issue makes bigots out of a lot of good people. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Granny, you've gone hysterical. I haven't harmed any gay people yet. And your said post way back when is too complicated for me to deal with, given the lead in my bigoted bidge. Can you pose a simpler question for your elderly victim?
”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Taz writes:
Wonder why. Kooties?
You have any idea how hard it is for gay people to adopt?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
subbie writes:
Sorry, subbie, but I can't agree. You can't call Mr. and Mrs, John bigots; they are the core of America, and it's a matter of opinion anyway. Take a vote. If you believe in democracy you can't negate the opinions of Mr. and Mrs. Jones. Are you agreeing that there's no basis for opposing it than bigotry? ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Way to go, iano!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
subbie writes:
OK, so we're all bigots, even the atheists. We can handle that. How is not allowing them to do that for no reason other than religious prejudice not bigotry? subbie, here a test on prejudice for you: If you parented four children wouldn't you hope that two were gay? After all, they're good people, too, who deserve equal rights and equal love. Would you have hopes for the homosexuality of your children that equal those for heterosexuality? If you fail this test, subbie, I might call you a bigot. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
subbie, your responded to my test question:
If you parented four children wouldn't you hope that two were gay? After all, they're good people, too, who deserve equal rights and equal love. Would you have hopes for the homosexuality of your children that equal those for heterosexuality?
this way:
I have a son. I hope he's not gay. My main reason for doing so is that I'm quite certain he would have considerable pain and unhappiness in his life as a result of being gay that he would not have if he's straight. I will admit, secondarily, that I would be disappointed, in that it would be unlikely that he would have any natural born children, that I wouldn't have any grandchildren to spoil in my dotage...
Although you are honest and sincere, you have revealed a prejudice against homosexuality. That is the prerequisite of bigotry. But I don't regard you as a bigot anymore than I regard myself as such. We're both realistic about homosexuality: it's an aberration of choice. And now they're making laws to accommodate that aberrattion as if they are ramping the curbs for crippled people.
How would you answer your own question, HM?
Same as you, mostly. And I support their right to choose. But I don't support any special rights to choose, like maybe a special right granted to the Hells Angeles to not to wear helmets if they don't want to. How about a special law for old people that protects their rights to suicide if that's what they choose to do? Don't you think that once you age past 70 you ought to be able to choose when you die, legally? Yes, I know you'll say it's OT, but it's not. We're talking here about making laws to protect aberrant choices. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
GM writes:
No, they missed the part about separating government from religion. The government should get out of the marriage business and focus on civil unions.
Do you think that the California Supreme Court got this decision right? If not, where, in US law, do you think they got it wrong?
Easy, as I have stated in Message 38: The First Amendement”"Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion..." ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
GM writes:
Oh, Granny, let's do what subbie and I did, take a cruise across America and ask a simple question of Mr. and Mrs. Jones, our model married couple: "Does the legalization of "gay marriage" interfere in any way with your own marriage?" We'll keep score, go have a cocktail, and ask ourselves two questions: Whose opinion on this matter counts most: the vast majority or the slim minority? And what's the meaning of democracy? For God's sake, wouldn't it be simpler to just let gays marry and stop interfering in other people's lives? Come on, Granny, we can stay in Motel 8s. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
GM writes:
That's fluff, Granny. It's matter of opinion, and you're so opinionated on the matter that you're playing the bigot card. Makes me wonder just who is the real bigot. Let's be real; it's only a matter of opinion. And when the U.S. Supreme Court is called upon to render its opinion, what do you suppose that will be? Since your hypothetical bigots would be unable to demonstrate any material instance where gay marriage interferes with their lives (beyond "Eww, that's icky") it hardly matters. I knew a large-dog person once who hated small-dog people. And I knew a small-dog person who felt the same about large-dog people. And then I knew a person once who didn't like any kind of dog people. They all had one thing in common, though: they all called each other "bigots." ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
subbie writes:
Gosh, subbie, I don't think that one helped your argument very much, but I liked its visual value. By imposing gay marriage under the law you would be imposing a special exemption to the traditional value of marriage. But it's a fig in fir tree. A tempest in a teapot. And until the government reverts to something other than a democracy, majority rules. And until the First Amendment is suspended, we have a separation of church and state. Could you decide all of a sudden that your passion is inflamed by taking a cruise up the Hershey Highway? Neither could I. I've never said gays shouldn't be married. I'm only saying that the law doesn't need to be involved. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
bluecat48 writes:
Where is your proof that homosexuality is an "aberration of choice?"quote:Didn't subbie already testified that he would not welcome homosexuality in his children, but he would love them anyway? He didn't want that kind aberration. If you say it's not an aberration then you don't understand the term. Would you want any of your children to turn out gay? Be honest. Now, I don't need to define "choice." We know what that is. If there is some biological reason that people become gay without choice then please bring it forward. Personally, I think there is a biological reason, but it seems to be elusive and no confirmable gene has been discovered. Perhaps it's hormonal/developmental. But, more likely, confused youngsters dabble with it like they dabble with drugs and alcohol. And dabbling choice, is it not? Thus gays engage in an "aberration of choice." And perhaps you have prejudices you're unwilling to face up to. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
rahvin writes:
Then how in hell did we get ourselves into Iraq to kill its dictator and propagate democracy? Where were the legislative and judicial branches when we needed them? Wasn't there a vote in Congress? Come on, rahvin, we have to deal with majority-rule politics to run this country, even if it is not a pure democracy, and even if the majority is wrong. Isn't it a very good thing that the US is not actually a true democracy? I sure think so. I mean, it's a Very Bad Thing to be any sort of minority, gay or otherwise, when all legal concerns are strictly a matter of how many people agree with you. I rather like the fact that we have a Constitution, a Judicial branch to make sure that we don't legislate anything that contradicts it, and the other checks and balances in our government that prevent the tyranny of the majority. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
subbie writes:
You're over-reacting. Here's what you said in Message 62:
I must reply to your latest slander upon me. I have a son. I hope he's not gay. My main reason for doing so is that I'm quite certain he would have considerable pain and unhappiness in his life as a result of being gay that he would not have if he's straight. I will admit, secondarily, that I would be disappointed, in that it would be unlikely that he would have any natural born children, that I wouldn't have any grandchildren to spoil in my dotage. Then here's what I said in Message 92:
Didn't subbie already testified that he would not welcome homosexuality in his children, but he would love them anyway?
What's slandering about that? And then I said:
He didn't want that kind aberration.
Is that the slander you claim? If so, I don't get it, because I didn't think you wanted that kind of aberration.
I never said I didn't want "that kind of aberration" in my family. In fact, I actually said it wasn't an aberration. You are the only person to use that bigotry in this thread.
Then what is it? It isn't normal. It looks like an aberration to me. You're not being honest because you have already admitted that homosexuality is not equal in your eyes to heterosexuality in terms what you would prefer for your children. And get off the bigotry band wagon. Save it for a better cause.
If you slander me further, I will ask for your suspension.
I heard your mother was a Nazi. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
lyx2no writes:
I should have know that. So how does this republic work if it doesn't run on democracy? It's a constitutional republic. It was so constructed that's we might avoid the tyranny of the majority. ”HM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024