• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

Homophilia belongs to the same cataloguing of necrophilia, [/quote[

False. Necrophilia involves a person who can't consent. Gay relationships don't.

conqueror said:
zoophilia,

False. Zoophilia involves a creature that can't consent. Gay relationships don't.

conqueror said:
and incest

And again...false. Incest is most often committed as a crime against children, who by virtue of their rage, cannot consent.

So if the above situations all involve non-consent and garm and gay relationships do not, what's your basis, besides hatred and a desire to smear consenting adults who desire to live their lives in happiness, causing no one any harm, for equating them?

conqueror said:
so, any other attempt to pass a bill aproving gay marriage, such bill must include the whole group as one. Otherwise, such bill will "discriminate" to the ones who commint incest and such is not fair...:shock:

False, and on the whole, hateful equivocation with no logical basis.

Let me ask you something conqueror. How does allowing gay couples to live out their lives in happiness hurt you? How does allowing a gay man to receive care on his partner's health insurance hurt you? How does a child being raised by two able and loving parents who just happen to be the same gender hurt you?
 
It is clear that nothing good in humans comes from homophilia, neither as part of society and less as a species.

Except forcing putzes like you to live with the fact that MOST people aen['t as rediculously bigoted like you.
 
Peter the gay is almost dying and in his will he declares that he consents that Paul the sissy can have sex with his dead body before bury him.

Is the law capable to protect the rights of Peter and Paul commiting necrophilia? I don't think so.

Is the law capable to protect the rights of a brother and sister commiting incest? Hell don't know.

Is the law capable to protect the rights of dudes commiting homophilia? No way.

Why?

Because society must put limits to what is decent and moral to maintain order.

It is clear that nothing good in humans comes from homophilia, neither as part of society and less as a species.

I still think that perverts are paying good money to some leaders in society to abuse their authority and make official the negative behaviour of homosexuality.

We need to protect our children from such perversion, it is no doubt that homosexuals need help, but instead of recognizing their mental sickness, they have manipulated the reality of their status to the point of demand rights instead of mental therapy.

Homophilia belongs to the same cataloguing of necrophilia, zoophilia, and incest, so, any other attempt to pass a bill aproving gay marriage, such bill must include the whole group as one. Otherwise, such bill will "discriminate" to the ones who commint incest and such is not fair...:shock:

It is good to know that you are completely clueless and can only communicate inaccurate, bigoted information. Please tell us when you have something of substance or something that makes sense to say on the topic.
 
By jfuh
It is still a contract of property before the state, nothing more nothing less.
I was referring to the woman becoming the property of the man.
It simply isn't that anymore.




By jfuh
And as it is a contract like every other contract before the state, there is no matter of ones race, sex or creed.

... it was changed to include everyone - with the exception of this property contract before the state for homosexuals.

Rate it as you will, it's still a contract before the state and thus there is no reason why gays should not be allowed.
That isn't accurate. Contracts are limited all the time.
The contract that exists, and allowed to be enter into, is for anyone (with a few exceptions), if they so choose, to enter into it with someone of the opposite gender.
That is equal.




By jfuh
Once the state made marriage a state issue, then like contracts of everything else there can be no limitations whatsoever of someone's sexuality.
There isn't a limit on sexuality.
It is is a contract of partnership, specifically called marriage, that only two people of opposite gender can execute. It has nothing to do with a persons sexuality.
Matter of fact, many gay people have availed themselves of this very contract to have a partnership with someone of the opposite gender.




By jfuh
So there you go, forcing your sexuality onto someone else. This is quite despicable.
Forcing?
Despicable?
biglol.gif

I haven't forced my sexuality on anybody.
I find it despicable foolish for someone to make assumptions about another when they haven't revealed the any such information about their self.
For all you know, I might be gay, transsexual or even bi.
Heck, for all you know, I might be mono-sexual. :mrgreen:




By jfuh
No, not the creation of some new right, you have the right to choose anyone according to your sexuality because you are straight, but should you be gay you have said right taken away from you.
Homosexuals are simply asking for the equality of the same right to property and recognition under the state as heterosexuals already enjoy.
Yes, it is a creation of a new 'right'. (And I use the term 'right' loosely.)
The current 'right' is for two of opposite gender to engage in a contract by the name of marriage.
Everybody has that same right - to marry someone of the opposite gender. Equality is there and no one has had it taken away from them because they are gay.
Like I already said; many gay people have availed their self of this contract.

People can already engage in contractual partnerships without being married.
What gay people are wanting is a new contract to be created between two of the same sex, (Something that doesn't exist at this time.) have it legally recognized as, and called, marriage. All in an effort to obtain the same benefits that those in marriage have.

Yes, they are trying to have a new 'right' established.




By jfuh
So if your neighbor were gay and they married that's disrespectful to you and your marriage? WTF??
This isn't about me, is it?
I can also see you are missing the point I am trying to make.

We have a group of people who are outside the norm in regards to their sexual preference. This group of people (in general) really haven't been accepted or respected but rejected and disrespected as a whole, because of it.
This same group of people want to be accepted and respected as normal (Not that being outside the norm isn't normal in itself.) and in their pursuit they are trying to take a State recognized contract between two of the opposite sex and have it apply to them also.
The disrespect comes from them wanting to be socially and legally accepted and respected but refusing to respect those different from them in trying to usurp the commitment/partner contract that is between those of the opposite sex for their own same sex purposes.
That is disrespect.



::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


By Kandahar
However, opposition to gay marriage *is* based on hate and fear. I'm willing to accept multiple viewpoints on most issues as long as they're well-defended.
But there is NO logical argument to oppose gay marriage. None.
And you are incorrect.
 
By veganshawn
You are uniformed about the history of gay marriage and it is a common mistake to think it is a "new" issue, there have been documented cases in some native American tribes, ancient Greece, Egypt, part of Africa and Asia etc.. do a google search and read up on history.
No, it is you who are uniformed as to my knowledge of the subject.
Of course there are always exceptions to the rule, or norm, but you are speaking of anomalies within the norm (or that which isn't 'in general').
Where as, I was speaking 'in general'.

But hey, if you want to discuss those different cultures you mentioned above as having had same gender marriages that were common place and excepted, lets do it. It is easy to point out the differences.
Otherwise, all you have is anomalies.




By veganshawn
All children should be taught there is nothing wrong with gay people!
No, schools should not be involved in teaching any such thing. Individuals should decide for themselves how they feel about it.



By veganshawn
And a lot of people in this country once tolerated racism and sexism, didn't make it right for them nor does it make it right now.
It didn't make it wrong either. The only thing that makes it wrong now is interpretation of/and law.



::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::



By Orius
So you acknowledge that the meaning of marriage has changed over time, from one where the women was contractually the man's property (and thus she received his last name), to one, post-suffrage, where the woman has the right to self-determination and the ability to even keep her last name if she so chooses. If what marriage means can change in that sense, then it can change in others as well.
The contract involves two of the opposite gender. That 'meaning' really hasn't changed.



By Orius
The marriage contract has nothing to do with love. It is about legal recognition of the state. You don't need the state to officiate whether or not you love someone, but you *do* want the joint benefits of being married. If it were just about love, then the state wouldn't be involved at all.
I fully agree, yet the impetus to enter into said contract is, 'in general', love.
Which is why those seeking a new 'right' be created frequently sight this in their arguments. When in reality they are seeking this new 'right' because of the benefits associated with marriage.




By Orius
I don't need a parental government telling me which marriages are and aren't "real". The same people who argue for smaller government are the same people who, ironically, want the government to step in and limit the definition of legal marriage contracts. It's one giant hypocrisy.
I don't need some people to come along and try to change the definition of marriage to suite their own purposes.
What I see as hypocrisy is those who know that marriage was created for, and acknowledged by the government for, those of the opposite gender, but then try to make it apply to those of the same gender.




By Orius
The only thing being usurped here is freedom of self-determination, and equal representation.
Not true.



By Orius
A same-sex couple getting married has zero affect on the lives of others.
Not true.



By Orius
It has nothing to do with school policy, as that is a separate issue altogether. Gays already walk the streets in big cities together, holding hands. If the argument is that children will be affected, then they are already being affected.
I haven't made that argument.



By Orius
You can't stop social change and expansion of civil rights. The nature of social evolution will prevent this from being suppressed forever. I give it 10 years, 15 tops, until it is accepted nation wide.
I suppose that by 'nation wide', you mean government acknowledged. If so, then I think it will take longer than that.
If by 'nation wide', you mean accepted by the whole populous... no, there will always be people how view it as wrong.
In general I agree, yet social change and expansion of civil rights are stopped all the time. The ones that do get passed just make it easier for future legislation to be passed.



It should be clear that I am against the term 'marriage' being usurped by same gender couples. Marriage was never meant to accommodate them and should remain the sole term used for opposite gender couples.

Let me elaborate on my personal view.
I have no problem with homosexual or transgender people.
I have no problem with the creation of a contract of partnership being entered into by same gender couples so that they may receive the same benefits as those who engage in marriage. Just don't call it 'marriage' because it clearly is not. It is a partnership that is different from 'marriage'.

I am also against any benefits given to those who are married, which means that I am also against any benefits given for those who decide to have children. These practices are truly unfair and should be done away with.
 
Stating the obvious = personal attack?
So, if I call you a whole bunch of names and then claim that I was 'just stating the bovious', I'm not violating the TOS and I wont get an infraction?
Before you answer, you braindead pissant*, think REALLY hard.

* Just stating the obvious
 
Last edited:
So, if I call you a whole bunch of names and then claim that I was 'just stating the bovious', I'm not violating the TOS and I wont get an infraction?
Before you answer, you braindead pissant*, think REALLY hard.

* Just stating the obvious

I'm baffled as to why you're defending a bigoted individual full of hatred. It's evident in his posting that he has no idea what he's talking about. No need to get your panties in a bunch, I was just asking a question.
 
I'm baffled as to why you're defending a bigoted individual full of hatred.
So... its OK to lay personal attacks, in violation of the TOS, simply bevause you dont like what the guys says.

I'll be sure to refer to this as the "Egoff defense" when I do it -- and I'll expect the same pass that CapC will get when he makes his personal attacks (such as the one noted above).
 
So... its OK to lay personal attacks, in violation of the TOS, simply bevause you dont like what the guys says.

He didn't say anything logical. That's how a debate works... you bring facts and logic to the table and you discuss.

I'll be sure to refer to this as the "Egoff defense" when I do it -- and I'll expect the same pass that CapC will get when he makes his personal attacks (such as the one noted above).

Good luck.
 
He didn't say anything logical. That's how a debate works... you bring facts and logic to the table and you discuss.
This doesnt excuse the personal attack.

Good luck
Well yes -- given the double standard in CapC's "moderation", I don't expect much success.
 
He didn't say anything logical. That's how a debate works... you bring facts and logic to the table and you discuss.

Good luck.

Fascinating denial; because YOU judge someone else’s comments as illogical, they can be insulted by moderators and members in violation of the rules.

I could say the same thing about ALL of your posts; does that mean we can claim you are clueless?

The double standards and hypocrisy on this forum are profound.

A moderator on this forum how has infracted me on numerous occasions violated the forum rules; it doesn’t matter WHO he did it to.

Carry on.
:roll:
 
Then leave. I doubt you're partisan shenanigans and "valuable" contributions will be missed.
Ah -- the old 'if you dont love it, leave it' response.

Silly that we expect fair moderation and for the moderators to follow the rules they enforce.
 
Silly that we expect fair moderation and for the moderators to follow the rules they enforce.

I don't recall saying that that was an unfair expectation. I was merely pointing out that Truth Detector is not being held captive here...
 
Moderator's Warning:
Any discussions regarding moderation issues must be presented via PM or a 6A violation might ensue. Please be aware of this.
 
Then leave. I doubt you're partisan shenanigans and "valuable" contributions will be missed.

But your partisan shenanigans and less than coherent contributions would be missed?

How profound; when confronted with Liberal hypocrisy, lies and distortions, the typical response is: “why don’t you leave?”

Why would I want to leave when I can delight in exposing Liberals for the hypocrites and liars that they are and watch Liberals like you get so enraged they run to the basement to whine? I enjoy watching Liberals like you bust a vein when they get exposed for the liars and hypocrites they are.

You obviously mistake me for someone who cares about your OPINIONS; this is FUN for me.

Carry on; I look forward to more of your delusions and defense of the indefensible because it merely reflects your distorted politics and point of view.
 
Last edited:
Some more exit poll info on SFgate:
--------------------------------

Exit polls show that religious views had a profound effect on the result, spanning racial lines:

-- 84 percent of those who attend church weekly voted yes.

-- 81 percent of white evangelicals voted yes.

-- 65 percent of white Protestants voted yes.

-- 64 percent of Catholics voted yes. Catholics accounted for 30 percent of all voters.

Catholic support increased from 44 percent to 64 percent - a jump that accounted for 6 percent of the total California electorate and equivalent to the state's entire African American population combined. The shift in Catholics alone more than accounted for Prop. 8's 5 percent margin of victory.
--------------------------------

Thus we Christians made this all possible thankyou and will take the credit. It was all a matter of churches actually bringing the matter up to parishioners and reminding them what the Bible teaches.
 
Men are allowed to marry women, but women aren't allowed to marry women. You don't think that's a women's issue? So you only CLAIM to be fighting for equality, when in fact that's not your agenda at all.

The only place in this country where women are not equal is the military.

I'm not fighting for equality, but women's equality.
 
But your partisan shenanigans and less than coherent contributions would be missed?

What partisan shenanigans? You're the diehard Republican here, not I.

How profound; when confronted with Liberal hypocrisy, lies and distortions, the typical response is: “why don’t you leave?”

Well you can leave or continue the incessant bitching. I'm assuming most people would prefer the former.

Why would I want to leave when I can delight in exposing Liberals for the hypocrites and liars that they are and watch Liberals like you get so enraged they run to the basement to whine? I enjoy watching Liberals like you bust a vein when they get exposed for the liars and hypocrites they are.
I prove my point. You think I'm a Liberal... It's so cute when they try their hardest and still fall on their face ;)

Carry on; I look forward to more of your delusions and defense of the indefensible because it merely reflects your distorted politics and point of view.
You've already proven that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to my political views. Hell, I don't even need to debate you: you make yourself look foolish.
 
Yeah, they have it better. :roll: They're not ALLOWED to do what they want to do, that's SOOOO much better than having a choice.

Its obvious you know zilch about the military......:roll:
 
Its obvious you know zilch about the military......:roll:

I know what fields I was allowed to go into, what fields I was NOT allowed to go into. So, tell me, are women allowed in all the same jobs as men in the military?

No?

Imagine that. That they don't have the same choices. :roll:
 
I know what fields I was allowed to go into, what fields I was NOT allowed to go into. So, tell me, are women allowed in all the same jobs as men in the military?

No?

Imagine that. That they don't have the same choices. :roll:

You were in the wrong branch of service............;)
 
You were in the wrong branch of service............;)

I explored all of them.

Do you know of a branch that allows women to do all the same jobs as men? If so, do you not think that being limited to a branch is a limitation of choice?
 
Back
Top Bottom