[speakeasy]

(05-10-2012 02:28 PM)Keyser Söze Wrote:  

(05-10-2012 02:22 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

I'm agnostic/borderline atheist so that most certainly wasn't my implication. I have no idea if there is a God or not, but that doesn't preclude design. Just as I can say your eyes were designed by nature to allow you to see.

Gay people exist because for the same reason colorblind people exist, or dwarves, or albinos, or women with 2 vaginas(like in that other thread), or people that are born siamese twins, etc etc. It's essentially a genetic defect. Whatever genetic marker controls our sexual preference gets wrongly assigned in a small percentage or humans. Clearly homosexuality serves no more function than hermaphroditism. The difference however is that homosexuals unlike other groups of people have made their birth defect into a social class and present themselves as some sort of quasi-minority group with political demands. Think about it, why is it that if a person is born with both a dick and pussy, we can call that a genetic defect, but if a man is born without the ability to be attracted to women that is not a defect of birth?

At the heart of it, gay marriage is a way of the gay community forcing society to accept homosexuality as a social norm on par with heterosexuality. That's why even if you offered them "civil unions" with the same exact rights as marriage, they still reject that, because they want the word marriage itself. It's not about the rights to them, it's about the word. And when the word marriage can just as easily apply to two men as a man and a woman, then you can no longer make the claim that it's preferable for men to desire women without being the equivalent of a racist. You will then have a situation like you had in Massachusetts(where gay marriage is legal) a few years ago where a grade school teacher was reading homosexual love stories to children, and when parents fought it, the courts came down in favor of the teacher because that's now the law. There was another story about a school teacher than banned any Mother's Day celebration for her students because one of the kids had two gay dads. And the teacher didn't want to offend the kid of the gay parents. That's the kind of PC minefield we're going to have to navigate through on a daily basis.

That's a fairly astonishing level of bigotry and ignorance that you managed to put in just a few sentences.
I guess the only way true bigots like you or Dick Cheney change is by a very personal experience like having a gay child.

I don't care if you think I'm a bigot or not. This is a real talk forum and we are men here. If I had a gay child, I would accept him just the way I'd accept that was born a midget or with Down's syndrome or born asexual or with any other number of genetic defects. I'd prefer that my children if I had any would be born straight, but if not, I would not reject them for their sexuality.

That's the problem with you guys. You think anybody that isn't pro gay marriage hates gays. I don't hate anyone. I just call shit for what it is.

Now here's a purely hypothetical question for you. If your wife was pregnant and the doctor ran a test saying the kid would be born gay, but had a pill your wife could take that would turn the kid straight, would you want your wife to take the pill?

I love asking this question to pro gay people and seeing their hamster wheel spin.

[Luvianka]

Obama is doing it because he wants to get two things: a) to lock up the liberal vote, also in states like California, New York and Florida; b) he wants to divert the attention on the big issues such as economy and the Mexican question.

As for gay marriage itself, it's a non sense. Marriage is an institution created to raise children in an environmente of stability, and gay people, by definition can't have children. Yes, I know that now medicine and adoption can solve this 'problem', but if such it's the case, gay couples can have civil agreements to have something similar to marriage.

And for you, hetero guys, if you don't want to get children any time soon, don't you get married, that simple.

[Moma]

(05-10-2012 01:55 PM)teh_skeeze Wrote:  

If people are so concerned about the sanctity of marriage, why not outlaw divorce?

I hope they make gay marriage legal in New Jersey. I will marry my best friend for the benefits and then I can tell lizards I can't get married because legally I can't have two spouses.

Can't you marry him in California as well? Do you have to prove that you love him to get married? Or can any two legally consenting adults do so?

Proof in a court of law involves: Pictorial evidence of you taking him up the Gary Glitter.

[oldnemesis]

(05-09-2012 03:07 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Right, but some people are moderates who aren't anti-gay per se but yet aren't all ideologically wrapped up in the gay movement either. A lot of the more moderate people in the bible belt have this position.

My opinion is that so few people in America are moderate that they don't really count. Really, Bible Belt, how many of them gonna vote for Obama?

[oldnemesis]

(05-09-2012 10:46 PM)Brian Wrote:  

I just think you shouldnt keep spending more then you make.

Hell yeah. Do we really need to spend more on military than the rest of the world combined? Do we really need those wars? Do we need to provide corn subsidies? I hope you already talked to your Representatives about those high-spending issues which need to be cut down significantly.

[oldnemesis]

(05-10-2012 01:30 PM)kosko Wrote:  

My issue is calling a horse a chicken. Gay marriage and strait marriage are two different things.

Two courts (District and 9th Circuit) just said they're the same thing.

Quote:

Affording the same rights to a pro-creative mother and income earning husband can't be equally applied to two Suzies and two Pauls.

Then the union between a 70yo man and woman cannot be called marriage either, since she's not pro-creative mother and he's not earning income. Correct?

Quote:

You can't tell me having two moms or two dads will not fuck things up for the child down the road.

The studies show that it will not. But I'm sure you never heard of them, since you spend all your time reading some conspiracy.

[speakeasy]

(05-10-2012 05:34 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

Quote:

You can't tell me having two moms or two dads will not fuck things up for the child down the road.

The studies show that it will not. But I'm sure you never heard of them, since you spend all your time reading some conspiracy.

You can cook up a study to prove anything if you shop it to the right research team. There are "studies" that both say that illegal immigration is great for America and there are some that say the opposite, depending on what criteria you use. Most studies are driven by an agenda.

I think all of you in here can verify the veracity of these studies by asking yourself if you had rather been raised by a mother and father as opposed to two mothers. I doubt I'll find a person that prefers they'd been raised by two dads or two moms over having both. Despite what any study says.

[oldnemesis]

(05-10-2012 02:27 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

To me it's not about "protecting the sanctity of marriage". It's about gays trying to use marriage as a way of forcing society to accept homosexuality as a social norm and make one the equivalent of a racist if they state that it's preferable that men be with women.

I wonder if you actually realize that just fifty years ago exactly the same things were said about the interracial marriage - that it is just a way of making socially acceptable such a filthy thing like having your White daughter marrying a colored guy, and that the people who say they prefer to be with the people of different race must be sick and need psychotherapy. And there were laws against that. You probably do not remember how bad it was, so look here:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix

You probably think this was said by some retarded redneck KKK pastor in 1920? No, that was the verdict of the United States court in Eastern Virginia from 1963. And Virginia Supreme Court upheld that. It took SCOTUS to drop it. Google "Loving v Virginia"

[oldnemesis]

(05-10-2012 05:43 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

You can cook up a study to prove anything if you shop it to the right research team.

Please show us the studies which prove that "having two moms or two dads will fuck things up for the child down the road". There are a lot of anti-gay people in this country with a lot of money, so surely there should be a lot of studies about that.

Quote:

I think all of you in here can verify the veracity of these studies by asking yourself if you had rather been raised by a mother and father as opposed to two mothers.

I wonder if you really understand that it proves NOTHING in your statement? Same way sure I'd prefer to have a rich parents. Does it mean that anyone who has poor parents would suck?

[j r]

(05-10-2012 05:43 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(05-10-2012 05:34 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

Quote:

You can't tell me having two moms or two dads will not fuck things up for the child down the road.

The studies show that it will not. But I'm sure you never heard of them, since you spend all your time reading some conspiracy.

You can cook up a study to prove anything if you shop it to the right research team. There are "studies" that both say that illegal immigration is great for America and there are some that say the opposite, depending on what criteria you use. Most studies are driven by an agenda.

I think all of you in here can verify the veracity of these studies by asking yourself if you had rather been raised by a mother and father as opposed to two mothers. I doubt I'll find a person that prefers they'd been raised by two dads or two moms over having both. Despite what any study says.

Forget about empirical verification and just go with your gut? Is that your argument? Let's sat that I went around and asked a bunch of white people if they were they to be reincarnated, if they would rather be born white or born black, and almost all of them said white. Does that "verify the veracity" of white supremacy?

And it isn't that hard to do an honest study on this sort of thing. All you do is compare a sample of children raised by same sex couples with a sample of children raised by different-sex couples and see if there is any statistically significant differences in outcomes like education, mental illness, criminal convictions, etc. If you corrected for demographic variables, you'd likely find no differences. If you didn't correct for demographics, I bet you'd find better outcomes with the children of gay couples. A gay couple needs to be somewhat together to get in a position to raise kids; whereas, just about any two straight deadbeats can make a baby.

[speakeasy]

(05-10-2012 05:46 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(05-10-2012 02:27 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

To me it's not about "protecting the sanctity of marriage". It's about gays trying to use marriage as a way of forcing society to accept homosexuality as a social norm and make one the equivalent of a racist if they state that it's preferable that men be with women.

I wonder if you actually realize that just fifty years ago exactly the same things were said about the interracial marriage - that it is just a way of making socially acceptable such a filthy thing like having your White daughter marrying a colored guy, and that the people who say they prefer to be with the people of different race must be sick and need psychotherapy. And there were laws against that. You probably do not remember how bad it was, so look here:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix

You probably think this was said by some retarded redneck KKK pastor in 1920? No, that was the verdict of the United States court in Eastern Virginia from 1963. And Virginia Supreme Court upheld that. It took SCOTUS to drop it. Google "Loving v Virginia"

I tire of these comparisons made between race and homosexuality. There is none. AT ALL. For example, there's a reason why we don't have separate bathrooms for blacks and whites anymore. Yet we DO have separate bathrooms for men and women. Or why we don't have Boy Scouts segregated by race, but we have them segregated by sex.

A black and a white can produce a healthy offspring that could even grow up to be president of the United States. However no gay couple ever produced a kid. So stop acting like it's analogous. Racial intermixing has been going on since man has been on the planet. We have entire races that are just mixes of other races, like mestizos who dominate Latin America. Or the Japanese who are a combination of Korean and native Ainu. Or Northern Indians who have blue eyes because of their mix with Caucasion genes. We just had a brief 300 year period unique to the United States and parts of Southern Africa that created a caste system based on race. Obviously you cannot have a racial caste system if people are mixing it up. In the ten thousand years of human history, that's really just a blip on the radar.

[speakeasy]

(05-10-2012 06:12 PM)j r Wrote:  

Forget about empirical verification and just go with your gut? Is that your argument? Let's sat that I went around and asked a bunch of white people if they were they to be reincarnated, if they would rather be born white or born black, and almost all of them said white. Does that "verify the veracity" of white supremacy?

Apples and oranges. A mother and a father have different things to give a kid. Just because a there are healthy kids that come out of gay households doesn't mean that's preferable. There are healthy kids that come out of orphanages. Does that mean an orphanage is preferable to having parents? There are healthy kids that still manage to come out of dysfunctional homes for that matter. I know such examples.

Quote:

And it isn't that hard to do an honest study on this sort of thing. All you do is compare a sample of children raised by same sex couples with a sample of children raised by different-sex couples and see if there is any statistically significant differences in outcomes like education, mental illness, criminal convictions, etc. If you corrected for demographic variables, you'd likely find no differences. If you didn't correct for demographics, I bet you'd find better outcomes with the children of gay couples. A gay couple needs to be somewhat together to get in a position to raise kids; whereas, just about any two straight deadbeats can make a baby.

Gays who adopt are obviously selected very carefully as are any parents who are screened for adoption. So it's not like you are getting a random slice of the gay population. The Queens parading down the Castro district in leather chaps probably aren't the going to be the ones adopting.

I never said that gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt. But I think there should be a preference to a mother and father couple. If the reason for that isn't axiomatic, I motherfucking give up!

[gringochileno]

(05-10-2012 07:02 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(05-10-2012 06:12 PM)j r Wrote:  

Forget about empirical verification and just go with your gut? Is that your argument? Let's sat that I went around and asked a bunch of white people if they were they to be reincarnated, if they would rather be born white or born black, and almost all of them said white. Does that "verify the veracity" of white supremacy?

Apples and oranges. A mother and a father have different things to give a kid. Just because a there are healthy kids that come out of gay households doesn't mean that's preferable. There are healthy kids that come out of orphanages. Does that mean an orphanage is preferable to having parents? There are healthy kids that still manage to come out of dysfunctional homes for that matter. I know such examples.

Quote:

And it isn't that hard to do an honest study on this sort of thing. All you do is compare a sample of children raised by same sex couples with a sample of children raised by different-sex couples and see if there is any statistically significant differences in outcomes like education, mental illness, criminal convictions, etc. If you corrected for demographic variables, you'd likely find no differences. If you didn't correct for demographics, I bet you'd find better outcomes with the children of gay couples. A gay couple needs to be somewhat together to get in a position to raise kids; whereas, just about any two straight deadbeats can make a baby.

Gays who adopt are obviously selected very carefully as are any parents who are screened for adoption. So it's not like you are getting a random slice of the gay population. The Queens parading down the Castro district in leather chaps probably aren't the going to be the ones adopting.

I never said that gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt. But I think there should be a preference to a mother and father couple. If the reason for that isn't axiomatic, I motherfucking give up!

If you'd read any of the four links I provided in this post you'd see that those concerns are well-accounted for in the literature. Gay parenting is a very heavily researched topic with numerous well-designed studies that have looked into it. The literature is very clear that there is no negative association between having gay parents and life outcomes. If your gut is telling you something different, then your gut is misleading you, possibly as a result of a conscious or unconscious prejudice.

[kosko]

If same sex unions existed in nature with positive results I would not care. A brown and a pink pig mating is no big deal, neither are separate breeds of dogs or whatever animal. There are even cases where mothers can happily raise other animals with not that crazy of results. But show me two female or male animals raising a flock successfully.

Humans think they can out smart laws which over power or own common and legal creations. It does not work. Justifying and providing artificial rights to two males or females is only a reality in our created world. Left to its natural order it would not exist.

Now I am not a staunch biggot. Same sex couples deserve legal protections but to put equal to the union of a man and a female is a fuming joke and everybody knows it. Nature would tell you exactly of what a same sex union means in the grand scheme.

[ColSpanker]

I think this just might be the real reason why Obama came out supporting teh gey:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/1...G420120511

[YoungGunner]

(05-09-2012 10:22 PM)Caligula Wrote:  

We need a Needs more Brian emoticon

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3p8sjv/

[bacan]

Funny to see all the people getting upset about the idea of gays being able to marry. It's an important symbolic (and legal) privilege to allow gay people to feel like equal members of society. It won't stop you from marrying whoever you want and kids raised by gays are not disadvantaged relative to kids raised in traditional marriages.

You guys who are so against this need to make more gay friends and open your minds a little bit. It sometimes is embarrassing to see the type of closed-minded people that can be part of this community of mine based on our other common interests.

[speakeasy]

Part of me almost wishes they would go ahead and make gay marriage federal law tomorrow if that means I can stop hearing about gays every damn day in the media. For only being a few percent of the population they make a hell of a lot of noise.

[oldnemesis]

(05-10-2012 09:22 PM)kosko Wrote:  

If same sex unions existed in nature with positive results I would not care.

It does exist in nature. If you read books instead of articles written by retarded illiterate people who believe the Earth is 5,000 years old, you'd know it.

[oldnemesis]

(05-10-2012 06:14 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

I tire of these comparisons made between race and homosexuality. There is none. AT ALL.

In fact there is a single important common trait.
You're born with the specific skin color, and you cannot change that.
You're born with the specific sexuality, and you cannot change that.

Quote:

For example, there's a reason why we don't have separate bathrooms for blacks and whites anymore. Yet we DO have separate bathrooms for men and women. Or why we don't have Boy Scouts segregated by race, but we have them segregated by sex.

I don't see your point here. Yes, there is legitimate reason to have separate male and female bathrooms. This is why we still have it. Same way there is a legitimate reason to deny marriage license to the underage kids.

However there were NO legitimate reason besides bigotry to have separate bathrooms for white males and black males. This is why we do not have it anymore. Same way there is no legitimate reason to deny marriage license to an interracial union, or to gay union.

Quote:

A black and a white can produce a healthy offspring that could even grow up to be president of the United States. However no gay couple ever produced a kid. So stop acting like it's analogous.

Being able or willing to procreate was never a requirement for marriage in the US. Using your logic if you got vasectomy or if a woman got her tubes tied none of them should not be allowed to marry either, as there is no way for them to have an offspring. Same for disabled people, as some of them cannot even have sex not to mention carry a child. Same for the very old people who would not be able to have kids even if they want to.

Quote:

Racial intermixing has been going on since man has been on the planet.

Same for the gay sex. Really, guys, how can you believe all that shit media throws at you without even trying to validate it? Do you really enjoy be the victims of paid propaganda?

[oldnemesis]

(05-11-2012 02:44 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Part of me almost wishes they would go ahead and make gay marriage federal law tomorrow if that means I can stop hearing about gays every damn day in the media. For only being a few percent of the population they make a hell of a lot of noise.

I just envision some redneck from 60s complaining about those "damn niggers" he has to hear every day in the media, and about the hell of a lot of noise they make while only being 10% of the population.

[speakeasy]

(05-11-2012 04:37 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(05-11-2012 02:44 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Part of me almost wishes they would go ahead and make gay marriage federal law tomorrow if that means I can stop hearing about gays every damn day in the media. For only being a few percent of the population they make a hell of a lot of noise.

I just envision some redneck from 60s complaining about those "damn niggers" he has to hear every day in the media, and about the hell of a lot of noise they make while only being 10% of the population.

Once again, your race-homosexuality analogy doesn't hold up. Gays were never rounded up and used as beasts of burden. Gays were never denied the right to vote. Gays were never denied from owning property. Gays didn't have to drink from different water fountains. Gays weren't denied an education. Gays didn't face Jim Crow. While there have always been gay bashers, there was nothing like a KKK that went around hanging gays from trees. I'm not saying gays haven't faced discrimination and repression, but it's obviously on a totally different level with blacks. So it's not a good comparison.

Gays may have faced Jim Crow only in the sense that they weren't allowed to serve in the military. But as un-PC as it may sound, there actually are some rational reasons behind that in part. You don't want to have the possibility of attraction and the drama that comes along with that being an issue amongst your soldiers. Something that could impact the cohesiveness of the unit. It's the same reason you don't have males and females sleeping in the same barracks. Now I am fine with gays serving openly, but I do think that's an issue of concern.

[oldnemesis]

(05-11-2012 05:13 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Once again, your race-homosexuality analogy doesn't hold up. Gays were never rounded up and used as beasts of burden. Gays were never denied the right to vote. Gays were never denied from owning property. Gays didn't have to drink from different water fountains. Gays weren't denied an education. Gays didn't face Jim Crow. While there have always been gay bashers, there was nothing like a KKK that went around hanging gays from trees.

So how much discrimination the blacks still faced in 1967 when the interracial marriage was finally decided? How many of the items you listed were still applicable in 1967? Could you go to jail because you're black having consensual sex with another black? Do you remember that the statutes criminalizing a typical gay behavior were struck down by the SCOTUS as recently as 2003?

Quote:

I'm not saying gays haven't faced discrimination and repression, but it's obviously on a totally different level with blacks. So it's not a good comparison.

But the relief they're requesting is on a totally different level as well. They do not request affirmative action, employment quotas or welfare. They request to access the fundamental right everyone else has access to.

Quote:

Gays may have faced Jim Crow only in the sense that they weren't allowed to serve in the military. But as un-PC as it may sound, there actually are some rational reasons behind that in part.

Of course. Every discrimination has some rational reasons behind that. Otherwise the majority would not support it as they're mostly rational people. Just above I quoted a typical example of a "rational reason" behind the U.S. court decision prohibiting the interracial marriage. Doesn't sound too rational to you? Well it surely did for that judge and for the majority of the American population (the polls said up to 70% of Americans opposed decriminalization of interracial marriage).

In twenty years the kids would look at your arguments and wonder how the one could be so ridiculously brainwashed - the same way we're looking at the arguments made by the Loving v Virginia judge.

[Keyser Söze]

1. The shocking hatred and bigotry that I have read in this thread has permanently changed my view of some members, and has made me consider leaving RVF so that I cannot in any way be associated with the comments here.

2. This is to anyone reading this who is against gay marriage. Please, as a personal favor, read the 2009 Iowa Supreme Court Decision. I will link to the full document, which is 70 pages, and a summary as well. To sum it up, a group of Iowan judges, who were as far from pro gay as you could ever imagine, took a look at the letter of the law and concluded unaminously that under the concept of equal protection that civil marriage could not be restricted to a man and a woman. They then collectively wrote a truly eloquent decision in which they went one by one through potential objections people might have and what the logical and legal response was.

here is the summary, 6 pages and perfect: http://www.iowacourts.gov/wfData/files/V...ummary.pdf

here is the full text :http://data.lambdalegal.org/in-court/dow...-court.pdf

[speakeasy]

(05-11-2012 06:25 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

So how much discrimination the blacks still faced in 1967 when the interracial marriage was finally decided? How many of the items you listed were still applicable in 1967? Could you go to jail because you're black having consensual sex with another black? Do you remember that the statutes criminalizing a typical gay behavior were struck down by the SCOTUS as recently as 2003?

I'm aware that they were struck down in 2003. But still, it's not like anyone in recent history has gone to jail for consensual sodomy. It was simply an archaic law that was still on the books. Let me also reiterate that opposition to interracial marriage and opposition to gay marriage are different things. For example, polls show that nearly everyone that's opposed to gay marriage is simultaneously in favor of civil unions that offer basically the same benefits as marriage. However nobody that's opposed to interracial marriage ever offered civil unions between blacks and white. Even if you don't like those that oppose SSM, you must acknowledge by this fact that it's coming from a fundamentally different place than those that opposed IRM. Bigots didn't want IRM nor did they want IR civil unions, or IR dating, or IR sex or IR ANYTHING. There is no analog for gays in this regard. That's why I think it's overly-simplistic for gay marriage proponents to dismiss their detractors as a bunch of bigots. If they were merely bigots, they'd be against civil unions as well. Homosexual marriage changes the definition of marriage in a fundamental way that interracial marriage doesn't even come close to. And as I've said before, banning interracial marriage had more to do with keeping blacks as an under caste than it did with any philosophical opposition to interracial marriage itself. Whites and Native Americans often married during this time. As did blacks and Native Americans. Some Chinese railroad workers even married black women. Why weren't these marriages halted under the law? A black marrying a Chinese is every bit as much an IRM as between a black and white. The main goal was keeping blacks(who they viewed as incapable of being civilized) completely separated from whites. And this separation wasn't limited to marriage but life in general. Nobody has advocated such a scenario for gays. So that's why I get annoyed when people keep comparing interracial to homosexual. They are TOTALLY different animals.

When you scratch the surface, what the opponents of SSM don't like is the social normalization of homosexuality and all that comes along with it(such as teachers reading stories like this to kids). Most Americans(myself included) are rather tolerant towards gays, but stop short of promoting it as something equal in all ways to heterosexuality.

Quote:

Of course. Every discrimination has some rational reasons behind that. Otherwise the majority would not support it as they're mostly rational people. Just above I quoted a typical example of a "rational reason" behind the U.S. court decision prohibiting the interracial marriage. Doesn't sound too rational to you? Well it surely did for that judge and for the majority of the American population (the polls said up to 70% of Americans opposed decriminalization of interracial marriage).

In twenty years the kids would look at your arguments and wonder how the one could be so ridiculously brainwashed - the same way we're looking at the arguments made by the Loving v Virginia judge.

I don't have to wait 20 years. They already do. Hell, sometimes I feel like Rip Van Winkle. 8 years ago if I said marriage should be between men and women, it was considered a perfectly normal and reasonable opinion. Now you are a Nazi for saying that. My opinion basically has been the same for the last 8 years, but everyone around me as changed theirs, and now I'm the bad guy, even though they had the same opinion just a couple years ago. It's crazy how quickly people have flipped on the gay marriage bandwagon. I've really never seen anything like this in my life.