Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What planet do you live on? Devious? How so? Narcissistic? More narcissistic than what other group? Belligerent? You think that gay people asking for equal treatment under the law are belligerent? And that the people on this thread saying that discrimination is okay aren't belligerent? I have yet to see you actually answer my question. Or is this your answer? We should discriminate against gay people because "they are devious, narcissistic and belligerent and deserve nothing more than society giving them a hard kick in the teeth for their arrogant demands"? I really don't think I need to point out that there were a lot of racists in the 50's, 60's and 70's who thought the same thing about black people demanding their civil rights. And they justified their discrimination the same way, those black people were "sneaky" pretending to be just like white folks, and how dare they demand to be treated like equals. "Uppity" black people were arrogant to think they were the equals of the white people. And when women were demanding the right to vote, and equal pay in the workplace---women were manipulative, and mouthy, and man-hating.
The truth is that there is no justification for discriminating against gay people. I've asked you and others to provide some rational justification, and NONE of you have been able to provide any reasons except for fear and hatred. Thank goodness we live in a society that rejects fear and hatred as reasons to discriminate.
Devious, as in just as you are doing now. Skipping past the issue of their initial claim in order to conclude their position of claim as valid.
Deal with my initial points concerning marriage. If you disregard it, dismiss it, presumptively summarize your own, it is a devious action.
They are narcissistic as in they feel they should be represented at levels in society as if they were anything more than an abnormality. Their appearance and mention is common among most entertainment. They demand everything to create a new attendance to their condition.
They focus on marriage due to their devious position and narcissistic needs (I am speaking of the movement in general, not each and every homosexual, this is the face of their movement).
They chose a path that was not of reason, but of emotional demand. My kick to the teeth comment is figuratively. They choose a path to demand, dismiss, and attack any who brought up an honest point in the issue.
Their continued forced acceptance (and this is what they are seeking) will result in contempt. It will end badly for them (as in anyone respecting their position) and it will end badly for the actions of the government to which has disregarded proper course of our system.
This is not a civil rights issue. It is a circus of appeal with those seeking the spotlight of attention.
Sorry DC, you know I discuss most things rationally, but I am fed up. I am tired to talking to idiots who can only respond with hateful comments they accuse me of. Their actions speak for themselves.
First off, they can't marry. You can change the word all you like, you can disregard the history of the word, the purpose and the design of it, but in the end all you are trying to sell me is slang that has no meaning.
They want to be accepted. Period. They want everyone to look at them as normal. They are not. They are abnormal, uncommon, deviant of the norm, etc...
They represent a very small percentage of the population, yet they demand most of the attention. They are either born with or socially develop actions of sexual deviant behavior and expect everyone to look at them as simply a normal process of life. What they choose to do such on their own is fine, but they have been pushing to inject their position into society for a very long time. They view themselves as if they are a race that is discriminated against, which is an insult to those who have had such hardships.
They want to be normal, they can not be. They must accept that not everyone accepts such deviant behavior. They have a right to live as they choose and not be attacked for it, but past that, they have no right to inject their position into every aspect of life by redefining the language, demanding equal placement and attention. They will never be such unless they force people and forced acceptance only breeds contempt.
you speak as if your OPINION is fact.. you have every right to think of homosexuality in any way you like, but your personal feelings are not factual, or anything that can hold up in a court of law to support a case against gays..
in other words.. you can't deny them... "just because I feel this way"
any you speak of people having contempt for the gay community more now.. I actually think it's the opposite, but I'm probably of a different generation than you.. I don't know... regardless, gays are very much use to having contempt towards us.. we can handle it.. and don't care about what you think or what you might do.. we will continue to live our lives and seek equal representation under the law for our relationships by the same government we pay taxes to as well thank you very much.. you or 200 million other people will not stop us
QUOTE: We want this to go before SCOTUS. We're anxious for this to be heard by them. Every appeal is a step closer to equality... these appeals do nothing but help us.
Are you familiar with the make-up of the Supreme Court? Thomas, Scalia, Alito, Roberts--do you actually believe any one of them will rule that gays have a constitutional right to marriage??? Take a look at Scalia's scathing response to the Supreme Court's ruling on sodomy laws. I cannot imagine this court ruling in favor of gay marriage.
Justice Scalia has already admitted no rational impediment to gay marriage after Lawrence (the sodomy law case), although I'm sure he'll come up with something. He'll probably go back to his dissent in Romer: "Since the Constitution of the United States says nothing about this subject [homosexuality], it is left to be resolved by normal democratic means, including the democratic adoption of provisions in state constitutions."
The real question is Justice Kennedy. He has written the two most pro-gay opinions of all time, Lawrence v Texas and Romer v. Evans. He has thought deeply on this issue for a very long time (Romer was decided in 1996). In Lawrence he seemed to imply that he was not willing to rule in favor of gay marriage ... yet. I think he's there. It's just a question of whether he thinks the country is ready for it.
I have gut feeling that the country has changed on this issue in the last two years. It used to be that the opposition was either opposed to it outright or, like Justice Kennedy, uncomfortable with it "for the time being." You're never going to change the extreme opposition, but I think the people who where merely "uncomfortable" are changing faster than one would have expected.
Ironically, I think the Tea Party movement has helped in an unintended way. They promote libertarian ideology among people who are more "traditionalist" conservatives. Libertarians make strange bedfellows on some social issues, like gay marriage and abortion.
If we want to help Justice Kennedy, we need to give him cover by making gay marriage legal in as many states as possible. Hawaii just needs a new governor, which will happen in November. Minnesota is waiting for a Democrat as well. If the New York Senate can ever get its act together, it'll pass there. If we could get one more unexpected state like Iowa, it would be a huge plus. Maybe New Mexico? Wisconsin? A southern state like North Carolina would be a real coup.
Here's a complicated strategy, but it might be more successful in the court of public opinion: (1) Judge Walker issues a stay on the order pending appeal; (2) Ted Olson secures a sweeping, en banc (all of the judges sitting together) decision upholding the ruling (thus establishing it as precedent) that is still stayed; (3) he dawdles/delays on getting the appeal to the Supreme Court; (4) put Prop. 8 back on the ballot in California in 2012 where is voted down (obviating the need for the ruling and thus the appeal); (5) use the Olson/Boies trial strategy and the precedent established by the 9th Circuit to flood the federal courts with lawsuits in as many circuits as possible, especially targeting high-population swing states like Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania.
After that Justice Kennedy would have more than enough cover to rule in favor of gay marriage.
Justice Scalia has already admitted no rational impediment to gay marriage after Lawrence (the sodomy law case), although I'm sure he'll come up with something. He'll probably go back to his dissent in Romer: "Since the Constitution of the United States says nothing about this subject [homosexuality], it is left to be resolved by normal democratic means, including the democratic adoption of provisions in state constitutions."
The real question is Justice Kennedy. He has written the two most pro-gay opinions of all time, Lawrence v Texas and Romer v. Evans. He has thought deeply on this issue for a very long time (Romer was decided in 1996). In Lawrence he seemed to imply that he was not willing to rule in favor of gay marriage ... yet. I think he's there. It's just a question of whether he thinks the country is ready for it.
I have gut feeling that the country has changed on this issue in the last two years. It used to be that the opposition was either opposed to it outright or, like Justice Kennedy, uncomfortable with it "for the time being." You're never going to change the extreme opposition, but I think the people who where merely "uncomfortable" are changing faster than one would have expected.
Ironically, I think the Tea Party movement has helped in an unintended way. They promote libertarian ideology among people who are more "traditionalist" conservatives. Libertarians make strange bedfellows on some social issues, like gay marriage and abortion.
If we want to help Justice Kennedy, we need to give him cover by making gay marriage legal in as many states as possible. Hawaii just needs a new governor, which will happen in November. Minnesota is waiting for a Democrat as well. If the New York Senate can ever get its act together, it'll pass there. If we could get one more unexpected state like Iowa, it would be a huge plus. Maybe New Mexico? Wisconsin? A southern state like North Carolina would be a real coup.
Here's a complicated strategy, but it might be more successful in the court of public opinion: (1) Judge Walker issues a stay on the order pending appeal; (2) Ted Olson secures a sweeping, en banc (all of the judges sitting together) decision upholding the ruling (thus establishing it as precedent) that is still stayed; (3) he dawdles/delays on getting the appeal to the Supreme Court; (4) put Prop. 8 back on the ballot in California in 2012 where is voted down (obviating the need for the ruling and thus the appeal); (5) use the Olson/Boies trial strategy and the precedent established by the 9th Circuit to flood the federal courts with lawsuits in as many circuits as possible, especially targeting high-population swing states like Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania.
After that Justice Kennedy would have more than enough cover to rule in favor of gay marriage.
Justice Kennedy:
And Judge Walker's decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger cites Kennedy's majority opinions in Romer and Lawrence over a dozen times in total. This should make a USSC's review of the case interesting, to say the least.
Minnesota:
Sadly, Minnesota isn't anywhere close to enacting same-sex marriage. In 2009, a civil unions bill couldn't even get out of the Senate judiciary committee to a floor vote, and the DFL controls the Minnesota Senate 46-21.
Question:
You're an attorney, I take it? What happens if a 2012 proposition reverses Proposition 8 before the case gets to the high court? Does the case then become moot?
Everything else you posted is an argument to a point that is irrelevant to the issue.
That is, why should they have to defend the meaning of a word past its meaning across boundaries to which you contest?
You make a single point that is relevant right at the start. They contest because of what they lack in terms of legal recognition. This is what Civil Unions are for, this is what they serve. Everything else is simply attempting to demand conformity to a view.
I have said this is in past discussions like these. While there are some states that it might be an issue, if the homosexual community put even a 1/4 of the effort they do into demanding Marriage be changed to include homosexuals into Civil unions being up to par with the federal/state/civil responsibilities and legal protections that marriage has, this would have been over decades ago.
They chose a battle which lends itself far more to demanding acceptance and thumbing ones nose in the face of those who have rational arguments against their "marriage" position than it does to actually achieving what it claims it wants.
Due to this reason, I personally hope they get nothing. They are devious, narcissistic, and belligerent and they deserve nothing more than society giving them a hard kick in the teeth for their arrogant demands.
This issue is and always has been about complete and submissive acceptance of homosexual practice. Nothing more.
I can understand your point and agree with it somewhat, however you have to look at it from their side. States have taken different stances on civil unions and that in itself is a big fight. It may seem like a big power play (and for some, it probably is) however when you get right down to it, going for "marriage" is the only way to ensure they get the right to equality they feel they deserve.
Again, I wonder if gay people would have made a big deal out of this if
a. people hadn't gone out of their way to create laws prohibiting gay unions
b. people hadn't gone out of their way to deny them access to their loved ones in times of tragedy, custody disputes, will disputes, etc
c. people hadn't gone out of their way to discriminate and perpetrate crimes against them based on their sexual orientation
People against gay marriage or who say that gay people are being obnoxious and launching an offense may do well to consider that this offense is actually part of a good defense.
Nomander, sir (clears throat). You and I engaged in a profitable discussion in the subject of marriage, it's historical context and meaning some time ago. I enjoyed that discussion and you thanked me for my part in it.
On this area, however, the historical context is now and freedom has become identified with the right to choose marriage and placed under the umbrella of the 14th amendment. This is a fair assertion in my mind and in the mind of the Federal Court which accepted the argument and granted relief (stayed) to the plaintiffs.
We all have limits lord knows, and since you realize you have reached yours on this area (as we all do) perhaps take a small walk in the woods and reflect on freedom (no sarcasm intended or offered) and save that good head on your shoulders for another day............another interrogatory.
Devious, as in just as you are doing now. Skipping past the issue of their initial claim in order to conclude their position of claim as valid.
Deal with my initial points concerning marriage. If you disregard it, dismiss it, presumptively summarize your own, it is a devious action.
They are narcissistic as in they feel they should be represented at levels in society as if they were anything more than an abnormality. Their appearance and mention is common among most entertainment. They demand everything to create a new attendance to their condition.
They focus on marriage due to their devious position and narcissistic needs (I am speaking of the movement in general, not each and every homosexual, this is the face of their movement).
They chose a path that was not of reason, but of emotional demand. My kick to the teeth comment is figuratively. They choose a path to demand, dismiss, and attack any who brought up an honest point in the issue.
Their continued forced acceptance (and this is what they are seeking) will result in contempt. It will end badly for them (as in anyone respecting their position) and it will end badly for the actions of the government to which has disregarded proper course of our system.
This is not a civil rights issue. It is a circus of appeal with those seeking the spotlight of attention.
Sorry DC, you know I discuss most things rationally, but I am fed up. I am tired to talking to idiots who can only respond with hateful comments they accuse me of. Their actions speak for themselves.
I may be devious (I don't really think so, but if you do <shrug>), but I'm not gay. So my devious-ness has nothing to do with you arguing somehow that gay people are devious.
As for responding to your argument about the roots of marriage, it bears pointing out that marriage has evolved. Marriage was originally a property contract. In the case of royal marriages, property also entailed power and alliances. Early in history, people without property often did not go through the formality of "marriage" when they didn't have property at stake. In some parts of the world marriages are still arranged, dowries are still exchanged. We don't do that in the United States. We shifted the definition of marriage at some point so that it is not a property contract, but instead it is a public affirmation of love and commitment. It's not a business merger, it's two adults committing to one another in a very specific way. The commitment between two homosexuals is not different than the commitment between two heterosexuals. Logically, you should be able to recognize that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
