Gays blaming blacks for gay marriage ban in California

[eots]

happy world aids day to all !!..and to all a goodnight...

World AIDS Day 2008

 

[Cecilie1200]

Who is trying to get it overturned? I've never met them nor heard of them.

You didn't know that there are people out there who want the laws against bestiality struck down?

I'm not posting links on here to that kind of stuff. Google "zoophilia" and help yourself, if you really want to know more about it.

Once again please knock off the straw men. Your question was what I thought government should be protected from. That's my answer, please don't pretend it's something else.

I never asked you anything of the sort. My best view of government is as a necessary evil, and I have no interest in or concern for protecting it from anything. Methinks you need to track this conversation back and refresh your memory.

Late night, not enough sleep. Fine why should we keep these laws just for you then?

Once again, I never asked to keep anything "just for me". My position is, and always has been, that the majority of voters have clearly stated that THEY do not want the government's criteria on what is and isn't recognized as a marriage changed. It is THEM for whom we should keep the laws as they are, and THEY are also the reason why.

If you're so concerned about people having beliefs "forced" on them, how come you have no outrage whatsoever at the idea of the majority of the American public having the beliefs of the homosexual community and its supporters forced on them?

Because saying straight couples can marry and gay couples can't is discrimination and wrong minded. People should have the right to marry whoever they want. You disagrre with me and haven't given me a good reason why it should be your way (and please don't bother bringing up the majority).

No, it is NOT discrimination, at least not the way you mean. Nor is it wrong-minded. Let me quote Thomas Sowell on this, because he says it better than I can:

"The argument that current marriage laws "discriminate" against homosexuals confuses discrimination against people with making distinctions among different kinds of behavior.

All laws distinguish among different kinds of behavior. What other purpose does law have?

While people may be treated the same, all their behaviors are not. Laws that forbid bicycles from being ridden on freeways obviously have a different effect on people who have bicycles but no cars. But this is not discrimination against a person. The cyclist who gets into a car is just as free to drive on the freeway as anybody else.

Marriage is not a right but a set of legal obligations imposed because the government has a vested interest in unions that, among other things, have the potential to produce children, which is to say, the future population of the nation.

Gays were on their strongest ground when they said that what they did was nobody else's business. Now they are asserting a right to other people's approval, which is wholly different.

None of us has a right to other people's approval."

NO ONE has the right to "marry whomever they want". The privilege of having your relationship sanctioned and recognized by the government is hemmed in by all manner of restrictions, and always has been. In truth, most rights and privileges are.

And this whole "give me a reason, and it can't be THIS reason. You have to have ANOTHER reason, because I get to decide what reasons you can and can't base your opinions on" bullshit is exactly that: bullshit. How would you like it if I said, "You haven't given me a good reason why we should change the law to let homosexuals marry, and please don't bother bringing up discrimination"?

It's called debating if you don't like the process you can go to the rest of the internet.

Nice try at deliberate obtuseness, but not going to work. The point is that you don't apply the same standards of behavior to yourself that you demand with great outrage from everyone else. You holler about ME interfering in the privacy of people's homes, even though no one has done anything of the sort, and then turn around do exactly the same thing by dictating what I should and shouldn't consider to affect my family.

The question still stands: who died and left YOU arbitrator of what's right for my family? If, as you say, I don't have the right to tell homosexuals how to live their lives - and I haven't even tried to - then why do YOU have the right to tell ME what does and doesn't affect my family?

Marraige between two people involves the government but beyond that how is it a public thing. You won't even have to know about it?

Why does it have to be "beyond that"? THAT is the issue. It involves the government. They have deliberately MADE it involve the government. That is as much as it NEEDS to be a public thing right there. I'M not the one who said, "Hey, let's make this a public and political issue. Let's drag that puppy out here and argue about it." I was perfectly happy to let them go on about their lives, having relationships with whomever they wanted and not knowing about it. But THEY couldn't leave it at that. They INSISTED that I HAD to know about it. Don't blame ME if I dare to have an opinion about something that someone else was bound and determined to make a public issue.

Yes I know but they shouldn't. Yes all laws involve morality but it should only go to a point.

According to whom?

You can argue objectively the drawbacks of allowing murder or sex with minors but if you can't argue objectively the benefits of a law and you only have morality to back it up then you're forcing morality on to everyone else.

First of all, I never said I only had morality to back it up. Second of all, you can't argue ANY of those things objectively until everyone involved with the argument FIRST accepts the moral premise of right and wrong as it relates to the subject. Think you'd have much luck objectively arguing the drawbacks of murder with Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy? I don't think so, because they don't accept the basic moral premise that killing is a bad thing. Or they didn't, before they themselves were kakked. Would you like to try objectively arguing the drawbacks of pedophilia with NAMBLA? Let me know how that works out for you.

Please stop framing me as an anarchist just because I think demanding everyone follow every insignificant bit of the subjective morality of the majority is bad.

Actually, what I'm framing you as is someone who's blindly taking political positions based on a vague desire to be "nice" and "fair" without having ever really thought through the philosophical ramifications of what he's saying. You should probably consider yourself flattered, in all honesty, that I think you're interesting enough to warrant this much detail and effort.

It doesn't really matter if you think the morality of the majority is bad or not, because YOU aren't in charge. You don't suddenly get to chuck the system and arbitrarily impose YOUR subjective morality on everyone else because you've decided that the masses are just too stupid for words and should be silenced.

Or to put it another way, I think demanding everyone follow every insignificant bit of the subjective morality of the MINORITY is a lot worse.

Ok fine bad argument, I don't know the whole history of the war but wasn't he becoming a threat to international allies? Never mind forget that war.

Hitler? Well, he was a threat to Great Britain, and to France for the whole two seconds they actually fought him. Didn't mean he was a threat to US, though, or ever would be. In fact, I believe that was a major argument at the time. The opposing argument, of course, was that he was an evil bastard who was a threat to all moral, upstanding, and freedom-loving people, and should be put down like a rabid dog.

Okay, we'll forget WWII, but I don't know what war you're going to find that demonstrates that our foreign policy and decisions to go to war aren't based at least partially on a sense of right and wrong, aka a national moral standard.

Yeah but you get the added objective benefit of safety for citizens who follow rules. Heck even that wikipedia article I gave you showed why traffic laws don't really count for what you're arguing.

I never said there wasn't a good reason for holding moral standards. In fact, YOU were the one implying that there was something wrong with them, not me. I firmly believe that moral standards have very good and logical reasons for existing, which certainly in no way detracts from the stone fact that our laws are STILL based on moral standards.

And no, your Wikipedia article wasn't actually relevant to the topic at all, completely aside from being Wikipedia.

I DON'T CARE IF THEY DECIDE TO LIVE IN A CRACKHOUSE. I don't care if they start running a whorehouse. Hell I wouldn't even rat them out. I firmly believe prostitution should be legalized and I don't think having a bunch of crackhouses around will all of a sudden turn our neighborhood into a slum.

I didn't say you cared if THEY lived in a crackhouse or a whorehouse. I said you cared if they brought it to YOUR neighborhood. I would never DREAM of accusing you of giving a rat's ass about anyone who was not you or part of your inner circle. My entire point was that people do not live isolated from and unaffected by the other people in their societies, so it is silly to say, "None of my business, doesn't affect me" simply because you don't personally know the people involved.

That is bullshit. You do not have the right to demand that everyone here live by whatever morals you have just because you want the place to be 'clean and moral'. This is supposed to be a free country so if I do something that you don't like but doesn't actually affect you otherwise then that's too bad.

I, personally, do NOT have that right, you are correct. The majority, however, DOES have that right. And no, "free country" does NOT mean that. Anarchy does. Nowhere does our law say, "If it doesn't actually affect you, then you can't make a law about it." With the exception of a limited number of rights protected in the Constitution, the majority has every legal right to make a law about anything it wants.

Take Prohibition, for example. Was it a good idea to outlaw alcohol? Debatable. Did it personally affect the people who supported Prohibition if other people drank? Probably not. Did the People have the legal right to outlaw alcohol, regardless of whether or not it was a good idea or had any personal affect on them? Yes, which is why the law stood for approximately a decade before the people themselves changed their minds and scrapped it.

Well they usually attract addicts and desperate men.

No argument, but again, I did specify that in that example, they were behaving themselves, and that you still would not want to live in that sort of neighborhood.

How does gay marraige affect you? I've asked you that question umpteenth times and yet you still refuse to answer me.

No, I've answered you every time. You've just refused to see the answer, because it's not what you want to hear.

One more time. This is a society. The laws and mores of this society dictate what kind of society it is, and that affects everyone in it. These people are seeking the sanction and legal approval of the government for their relationships. This is the United States, and in the United States, I and all of the other citizens ARE the government. So it affects me that they are asking for my sanction and approval for their relationships.

Do I have other reasons? Yes, lots of them. Are any of them religious? No, although I do happen to be religious and also consider homosexual behavior immoral on those grounds. Do I need to list any of them for you? No, because the fact that they want my approval, I don't want to give it, and the majority of voters have said very clearly that they agree is enough.

We don't wanna, and you don't have the right to force us. Period.

Neither am I, you mentioned two specific scenarios that's it.

We don't have the time or the space or the patience to be all-inclusive with scenarios.

How the hell could you possibly know that without ever meeting me in person? I'd really LOVE to know about your psychic powers that can detect whether someone is lying through text.

Mostly because I know people, and I can apply logic. As I said, I'm assuming you don't live in a slum where crack houses and prostitution are common. I'm guessing you make the effort to live in a reasonably nice neighborhood because you want good property values and decent, upstanding neighbors and low crime rates. If I'm mistaken and you actually live in a ghetto surrounded by drug addicts, please correct me.

I wouldn't expect everyone to be a good example to kids nor would I demand through force that they be. There's no reason why the world around you needs to be kid friendly (nor would you ever actually accomplish that). Also you can act as a good example to your kids, I'm sure that you'd be a bigger influence than one 'bad' house.

While I don't think it's possible to ever accomplish a perfect, kid-friendly world, I can't see a single reason why I shouldn't expect and demand that the effort be made. And only a complete dumbass would say, "It's okay if I take my kids and live in the worst part of town with all the drug dealers and gangs, because all they really need for a good example is me." More importantly, AS their primary example, I consider it incumbent upon me to take my kids to a good neighborhood with good people in it, and then fight like hell to keep it that way instead of letting it become another slum because "it's none of my business what other people do". I don't know if you have kids, and maybe I'm crediting you with being a better parent than you are, but I really doubt that your personal attitude toward child-rearing is any different.

How does it affect you? Why do you care that other people are getting married? Please answer me this damn question. Is it because the government is now catering to two types of marraiges instead of one? What?

Been there, answered that. I don't approve, I don't agree that homosexual relationships are equivalent to heterosexual relationships, and the majority of the country thinks the same. They asked me to approve, and I refuse. They told me they were the same as heterosexuals, and I disagreed. I won, they lost. And I can tell you right now that "What business is it of yours?" isn't going to convince many people to join your side, especially when the whole point of getting government sanction is to MAKE it other people's business.

It's past midnight we've been talking in damn circles all day I'm going to leave now.

You keep saying that. Just go. The posts'll still be here tomorrow.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ma has screwy laws that as you said were unconstitutional. CA does not have the same laws.

Everything else is 'was sued' 'was investigated' Did they win did they lose? If it was a frivolous lawsuit that resulted in a loss than you can't really count it. Stuff like that happens all the time and the ones who were sued can get back legal fees from the people who sued to even out the cost of lawyers.

I didn't say Massachusetts' laws are Unconstitutional. Their actual LAWS are just fine. It's their court decisions that are Unconstitutional, not to mention contrary to the written state laws. And it's the courts that are the major problem here. They are the reason that states keep amending their Constitutions to be more specific on the issue: to ward off some wackjob judge arbitrarily imposing his own subjective morality over the stated will of the people.

Some lost and some are still wending their way through the system. And when I say "lost", I mean the people who were just exercising their alleged right to freedom of religion and belief lost. Like I said, feel free to look them up. They're all easily available. Off the top of my head, I can't recall any of the ones I cited where those being oppressed won, but I could be wrong.

I know the first one, eHarmony, lost, because I stated specifically that they were now being forced to offer a service they had never wanted to offer. I believe I also stated that the counselor who referred a patient was fired. The wedding photographer in New Mexico lost and was forced to pay fines and all the legal and court fees, despite the fact that the lesbian couple went right ahead and hired a different photographer and were quite happy with their services.

 

[sealybobo]

Neo-liberals normally are hypocrites, just like you are.

Hey Charlie! I have been waiting all weekend to tell you about the two black guys at the gym. I went to my locker, and there were two feminine black guys in their low 20's hanging around my locker. So I grabbed a towel and went to take my shower, thinking they'd be gone when I got back.

But nooooooo!!!! The one was not changing. He was already dressed and just sitting there talking to his little lover and text messaging on the phone. His face 6 inches from my fucking crotch. I had to slip on the boxers under my towel. It was so obvious he was hoping to see sausage.

So he tells his lover to go shower. His lover says, "don't tell me what to do", and he says, "you are dismissed", and his lover gives him this look of death, like you don't tell me what to do!!

Or like, "on no he didn't".

So I'm in the middle of this gay lovers quarell and the one is looking at the other as if waiting for an apology and then I yell, "HE SAID YOU ARE DISMISSED!".

They both laughed and so did I. The one guy went and took his shower and the one who was waiting to see my package went about his business.

I'm not homophobic, but they were really bugging the hell out of me. If you aren't changing, get the fuck moving! The lockers are really close together. There is no room to sit and mingle.

Anyways, 2 black fagolas. Just wanted to let you know they do exist.

 

[Truthspeaker]

wow

 

[glockmail]

Hey Charlie! I have been waiting all weekend to tell you about the two black guys at the gym. I went to my locker, and there were two feminine black guys in their low 20's hanging around my locker. So I grabbed a towel and went to take my shower, thinking they'd be gone when I got back.

But nooooooo!!!! The one was not changing. He was already dressed and just sitting there talking to his little lover and text messaging on the phone. His face 6 inches from my fucking crotch. I had to slip on the boxers under my towel. It was so obvious he was hoping to see sausage.

So he tells his lover to go shower. His lover says, "don't tell me what to do", and he says, "you are dismissed", and his lover gives him this look of death, like you don't tell me what to do!!

Or like, "on no he didn't".

So I'm in the middle of this gay lovers quarell and the one is looking at the other as if waiting for an apology and then I yell, "HE SAID YOU ARE DISMISSED!".

They both laughed and so did I. The one guy went and took his shower and the one who was waiting to see my package went about his business.

I'm not homophobic, but they were really bugging the hell out of me. If you aren't changing, get the fuck moving! The lockers are really close together. There is no room to sit and mingle.

Anyways, 2 black fagolas. Just wanted to let you know they do exist.

I think you made some nasty assumptions about these guys. Perhaps you're just homophobic.

 

[eots]

I think you made some nasty assumptions about these guys. Perhaps you're just homophobic.

or fantasizing....

 

[Sunni Man]

Anyways, 2 black fagolas. Just wanted to let you know they do exist.

Not for long though. They will be dead from AIDS in a few years. Good riddance!!!

 

[FireGod]

Not for long though. They will be dead from AIDS in a few years. Good riddance!!!

You are truly mind blowing, in your apparent lack of respect for your fellow man.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Not for long though. They will be dead from AIDS in a few years. Good riddance!!!

Same question that you ask me regularly Sucking Moron.........

Is it hard running around your life with that much hate?

 

[sealybobo]

or fantasizing....

They talked like the black dude in Revenge of the Nerds.

I have also known some other gay men in my lifetime, not biblically, but I know them, and they talk/act the same way.

Trust me, they were gay. And not hiding it.

You guys are just busting my balls.

 

[sealybobo]

I think you made some nasty assumptions about these guys. Perhaps you're just homophobic.

I did get homophobic at one point, and when discussing this with my parents, they said, "RELAX", because I was a bit mad about it, but then I told them, "oh trust me, i defend gays, so I'm not going to hit anyone or even say anything, but it does make it hard for me to defend them when conservatives say, "i just don't want them throwing it in my face".

Normally I would say they never throw it in anyones face, but now these two did throw it in my face. Trust me, they were gay and they were not giving me my space.

PS. I go to the gym by myself. It is a Lifetime Fitness. It has all the weights and treadmills but also a Pool, spa, hot tub, sauna, steam room included. Has everything. Great gym.

I think gays use this place to pick up other gays. It isn't the first time there a gay has acted really gay/obvious in front of me. No one else in the room type situation. Probably putting it out there just hoping I'm gay too.

I wanted to warn them that they might do that to the wrong guy and get their asses kicked in the locker room, but then it's none of my business and they would have to touch me inappropriately before I would ever say anything. Or, if they kept virbally hitting on me and didn't take no for an answer, that might cause them problems. But I doubt that would happen.

 

[sealybobo]

Same question that you ask me regularly Sucking Moron.........

Is it hard running around your life with that much hate?

Something bad always happens to people who wish that on others.

If they don't already live a miserable existence.

 

[eots]

They talked like the black dude in Revenge of the Nerds.

I have also known some other gay men in my lifetime, not biblically, but I know them, and they talk/act the same way.

Trust me, they were gay. And not hiding it.

You guys are just busting my balls.

it all sounds entertaining...maybe if your nice or a least not to much of a meanie you could be flower boy at the wedding...

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know.....I've known a few gays in my lifetime, and have never had any except one come close to having me kick their ass.

From what I've seen, most are polite, and when you tell them that you don't swing that way, most back off and say sorry.

Besides.......have you noticed that the people that are the most homophobic, and scared that the gay person is going to bone them right there and then (when in reality they really aren't, they're just testing the waters like dudes do when they're trying to pick up women), are generally the people that no sane or self respecting woman would have sex with ANYWAY?

I mean face it.......most homophobes are big fat rednecks with bald heads and sweat stained wife beaters.

No self respecting woman would fuck that for less than a LOT of money.

 

[Sunni Man]

You are truly mind blowing, in your apparent lack of respect for your fellow man.

Fellow Man????

They aren't really men. How could they be considered men when they engage in sick subhuman sex acts.

No, in NO way are they men!!!!

 

[ABikerSailor]

Fellow Man????

They aren't really men. How could they be considered men when they engage in sick subhuman sex acts.

No, in NO way are they men!!!!

Okay asshole.....let's hear YOUR definition of "man".

I'm betting that it comes out more like a boy.............

I'll wait......

 

[sealybobo]

You know.....I've known a few gays in my lifetime, and have never had any except one come close to having me kick their ass.

From what I've seen, most are polite, and when you tell them that you don't swing that way, most back off and say sorry.

Besides.......have you noticed that the people that are the most homophobic, and scared that the gay person is going to bone them right there and then (when in reality they really aren't, they're just testing the waters like dudes do when they're trying to pick up women), are generally the people that no sane or self respecting woman would have sex with ANYWAY?

I mean face it.......most homophobes are big fat rednecks with bald heads and sweat stained wife beaters.

No self respecting woman would fuck that for less than a LOT of money.

You're right. And I didn't get that uncomfortable about that guy sitting right in front of me waiting for me to change. I just put my underwear on while the towel was still on. But it was weird because no straight guy would sit there while dudes were all around him changing. He'd get up and move for sure.

But it isn't like either/any of these gay guys have ever hit on me and not taken no for an answer. Someone was telling me about a guy who had a guy stalker. Now that would make me really uncomfortable. And if you beat him up, you'd get charged with a hate crime.

The first time it happened at the gym, it was a guy in the sauna. Just he and I were in there and he called his lover. I wouldn't have known it was a guy except he put the dude on speaker phone. It was the gayest conversation I ever heard. LOL.

He too was throwing it in my face. Lucky for him I don't care. Because if I were a homophobe and I later saw him staring in the locker room, he could have some trouble.

I'm just saying. This is where I sort of see the homophobes side of the argument. Like, maybe they should have a gay bathroom?

 

[Father Time]

Cecilie1200 we're arguing in freaking circles so I'll just try to start it over here.

Please read the whole thing before you respond though.

If you want to ban something give a good reason.

The fact that you personally think it's immoral and disgusting alone is not good enough. Not even if you and 99% of everyone else agreed.

You said

"Did the People have the legal right to outlaw alcohol, regardless of whether or not it was a good idea or had any personal affect on them? Yes"

You're basically arguing tyranny of the majority to the letter. You're basically saying that whatever the majority decides the rest of the people have to go along with it, no ifs ands or buts about if (unless they can become the majority). I can argue all day that those schmucks had no right to demand everyone follow their twisted morality of 'though shalt not drink' just because they had strength in numbers. Why bother even having a freaking bill of rights if you think the majority can decide everything? Although if you want to talk bill of rights how about the ninth amendment.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Translated into modern English this means that the people have more rights than guaranteed in the constitution. This has been used amongst other thing to guarantee the right of privacy (and based off that the right to sodomy). Why shouldn't the right to marry whoever you want be one of them?

That's why I kept asking how it affects you, if it affected you a lot than that might be a good reason to ban something. But if it doesn't and can't affect you or a nonconsenting 3rd party in any way then you need to think of a good logical reason to ban it.

Murder, bestiality, theft, child porn, inciting a riot, lying on taxes all have good logical reasons to make them crimes (under pretty much any definition). I've never heard of a good one to ban gay marriage. None of those cases you cited (save the MA ones) would've been affected by gay marriage. They are discrimination laws which is another story (honestly some of those cases didn't even happen in states that have gay marriage).

I hate to break this to you but you're not the government. You're a citizen, you pay taxes, you follow the letter of the law (hopefully) etc. Just because you're a citizen doesn't mean that everything the government does means you are therefore are approving of it. The government exists to serve the people, and I see no reason why it shouldn't serve gay couples.

The government allows all sorts of things. Like flag burning for one. It doesn't matter if you or 99% of the people thought that it was disgusting and immoral we'd still have that right, because our country was founded on the notion that every citizen has rights that the majority can never take away. I could write a book full of the most sickening disgusting thoughts I could find, and if it doesn't cross into libel slander hate speech plagiarism, or the very loose definitions of obscenity (fun fact, if my book as a whole had literary value than it automatically is not obscenity) then it gets to published, and the government has to allow that, although you don't have to approve it. It's because this country wasn't founded on the idea of tyranny by the majority. It was founded on majority rules, minority rights.

"I can't see a single reason why I shouldn't expect and demand that the effort be made [to make it as kid friendly as possible]."

How about the fact that children are the minority? How about the fact that people should have a right to behave in a kid-friendly manner? Just because you let people do adult things doesn't mean you have to "take my kids and live in the worst part of town with all the drug dealers and gangs, because all they really need for a good example is me."

You're argument is essentially 'the majority gets to force the minority to behave in manners the majority finds acceptable, with possibly the exception of the bill of rights' which I find sickening. Our country wasn't founded on life, limited liberty, and the pursuit of happiness so long as the majority finds it acceptable.

Although let's have a little quiz. If the majority wanted to overturn the first amendment would you protest? Would you think that 'they have no right to do this'?

If the answer is no you're argument is truly tyranny by the majority and if we followed that than the bill of rights would not be worth jack. So much for a free country.

If you're answer is yes than at what point do you decide that the freedom of majority to control society needs to be limited?

 

[ABikerSailor]

You're right. And I didn't get that uncomfortable about that guy sitting right in front of me waiting for me to change. I just put my underwear on while the towel was still on. But it was weird because no straight guy would sit there while dudes were all around him changing. He'd get up and move for sure.

But it isn't like either/any of these gay guys have ever hit on me and not taken no for an answer. Someone was telling me about a guy who had a guy stalker. Now that would make me really uncomfortable. And if you beat him up, you'd get charged with a hate crime.

The first time it happened at the gym, it was a guy in the sauna. Just he and I were in there and he called his lover. I wouldn't have known it was a guy except he put the dude on speaker phone. It was the gayest conversation I ever heard. LOL.

He too was throwing it in my face. Lucky for him I don't care. Because if I were a homophobe and I later saw him staring in the locker room, he could have some trouble.

I'm just saying. This is where I sort of see the homophobes side of the argument. Like, maybe they should have a gay bathroom?

No.....what you ought to do is start chuckling to yourself and talking to yourself about the sweet piece that you carved off the other day. If they don't get the message about not putting their stuff in your face, put some of yours in theirs. Ask 'em if they eat pussy and what their favorite angles are for stabbing a woman in the crotch are.

Trust me......they'll back off quick.