Curious...do homophobes think they're going to "bring it all back"?

C'mon Dix, admit it to yourself...you hate gays.

 

Yeah, thats about the extent of "argument" you guys can muster in response to my claims of perversion of the constitution. Typical for the gays and their supporters.

 

Aaand thank you...another little nugget.

To you...gays are not the same kind of human being as straight people.

So let's review...you think they're sub human perverts.

Great Dxi!....woohoo!

 

I addressed every one of your "points" a few pages back.

 

What silliness. My insistance that our constitution be followed, EVEN when gays are concerned, and my opposition to "gay marriage", has nothing to do with my views of gays. Just as my opposition to affirmative action on the basis of race has nothing to do with my views of those of other races. You simply arent capeable of formulating a rational argument regarding the topic of discussion so all you have left is your views of me. All which have nothing to do with the topic of discussion. Are you like... 12 yrs old?

 

Of course you did, indeed. But to many displaying a homophobic mindset, actual 'reason' seems untenable when anything which defends or humanizes homosexuals is presented to them.

They'll make up ANY excuse or expound upon ANY delusional perception in their mind... to keep homosexuals in a different place than other human beings. This forum has taught me that, more than anything else.

 

I think you have an animus against gays. Looking at your posting history almost all of your attentions are focused on same-sex marriage/gay issues and this forum. How much time do you devote to debating Affirmative Action, or the countless other issues and cases that could be seen as twisting the Constitution? Not much I'm guessing.

Add to that your constant homophobic rhetoric... "the lady doth protest", "you're all emotions and hormones", "heterosexuals produce children, gays produce HIV", and other statements, I find it hard when imagining you as an actual person to think you don't have something against gay people.

 

Dodges distractions and strawmen primarily that didnt address any of my points. I will respond to one

Since you and a couple other posters have glomed onto as somehow relevant to the gay marriage debate. Safley v is irrelevant here. That decision held

Had the regulation been reasonably related to legitimate penological objectives, it would have been upheld as valid. Really has no applicability to gay marriage. Had nothing to do with the issue of a right to marriage and instead only pointed to that right established by other precedent.

Which is one of the cases cited in the other quotes that said

" the foundation of the family in our society" Marriage between a man and a woman, raising their children together. The governmental preference for biological parents implemented through marriage. Gay marriages have never been the foundation of the family in our society. The concept was unheard of until the 70s and never existed until 2004

 

I ignored that....because it's so STANDARD for the anti-gay bigot. The use of "feminine" or even homosexual attacks on an opponent, the "questioning of manhood". At one level, one could put it down to "Nobody who's not one of THEM would support equal rights for them"....which means that only women support equal rights for women and only blacks support equal rights for blacks, in their mind.

But the main thing is that powerful desire to paint themselves as "macho" or "manly"....which clearly shows a fear they themselves have of appearing "sissy" or "qwair".

 

How many times has the Government without demand from the couple annulled a marriage that failed to lead to procreation? if none....then the question of annulment is left to the couple...which means the question of remaining together as a couple is left to the couple....which means the original idea of the marriage is left to the couple.....which means NONE of that can be denied by the Government forcibly....

which completely undercuts what you just said as an argument against Government PREVENTION of a same sex couple from marrying, doesn't it????

 

Notice how he can't even remember a CONSISTANT reason for his opposition?

Originally Posted by dixon76710
"I'm pro nuclear family which doesn't involve homosexual couples in their formation."


So which is it? Opposition to "affirmative action"...or opposing nuclear families that involve homosexual couples in their formation???

 

Proportional to the # of threads on affirmative action. Very few in comparison to the HUNDREDS of threads on GAY marriage. I would have the same animus towards any identity group demanding special privileges or their advocates who do so on their behalf.

 

My reasons are consistant. Your ability to comprehend seems to vary from one moment to the next

 

Not "dodges, distractions and strawmen" at all. Your dismissive attitude when confronted with a full-scale refutation of your notepad-ready copy-and-paste, dare I say... "research", is revealing to say the least.

I agree - it doesn't have any applicability to same-sex marriage in and of itself, it only serves to remind us that procreation isn't a valid argument against SSM when opponents cite it as their "rational basis" for denying equal protection to same-sex couples.

And once again, you act as thought we pulled the Prisoner issue out of thin air, when in fact Justice Ginsberg was the one who mentioned it when the lawyer arguing against SSM mentioned procreation. Not our logic - a Supreme Court Justice's....

 

But blacks probably don't disgust you like gays do. Whether or not your views ARE consistent (we'll probably never know) I think there's a special motivation behind the amount of time you spend on this issue and little else.

 

"Full scale refutation" LOLOL!! Just the first two points-

No one claimed all heterosexual couples have the potential of procreation and I and the courts quite clearly said heterosexual couples are the ONLY couples with the potential of procreation.

Thats because eligibility is assigned to the CLASS of people, all heterosexual couples as opposed to assignment to each individual couple. Like ALL governmental tax breaks and governemtal entitlements are assigned.
Yep, dodges distractions and strawmen.

 

Whatever helps you rationalize that world in your own mind.

 

LOL. Getting there aren't we? Slowly but surely...

Again, ONLY fertile couples and those entitled to sexual relationships have the potential of procreation. Why is marriage a fundamental Constitutional right for ALL heterosexual couples when there are many notable "classes" who have no potential to do so - post-menopausal, infertile and those on death row/serving life? Despite what your 1971/2005 decisions say, this kind of blatant over-inclusion does NOT provide equal protection among identically situated couples.

Who is to say infertile couples aren't a class? Post-Menopausal couples? Prisoner couples?

All those classifications become relevant if the sole reason same-sex couples are denied marriage is because they lack the potential to procreate.

 

Well I'm hardly alone in thinking it, but I honestly doubt gays are your favourite people. Based on the derogatory things you've said in the past.

 

LOL!! It's not hard to take a person's commentary as prove what they are "against".

dixon, isn't someone I would trust or consider an ally as a gay person. In fact, I KNOW that his mindset is the main type I'm actually fighting against.

But he and others wishing to deny homosexuals "marriage" are steadily losing the legal and moral battles. They are losing because there has been too much hype, too many lies and irrational animus fueled by abject homophobia.

After all, for how long can human beings be discriminated against and/or mistreated, before they and their advocates demand that it cease? This anti-gay stuff cannot go on forever, without someone justifying it with something valid or substantial; it's obvious.

 

Nonsense. First because nobody is prevented from marrying anyone. It's only certain marriages that government licenses and regulates. And secondly because the governmental interes isn't served by excluding gay, closely related or any couple of the same sex. It is instead served by including heterosexual couples. The governmental interest served by giving those over 65 certain tax breaks and entitlements, is not served by excluding those under 65. The interest served in giving owners of "small" businesses loans, isn't served by denying them to large businesses.

Husbands and wives, fathers and mothers. NOT to exclude homosexuals but instead to include heterosexuals. The only couples with a potential of procreation.

 

But for their demands for marriage, they really wouldn't even cross my mind.

 

That mindset alone, motivates myself and millions of others to FIGHT in the courts and at the polls.

We know better than to sit back and hope for enlightenment in the minds of those who are ultimately as homophobic and hostile as human beings can possibly be.

 

I am not the topic of discussion. You only try to make me the topic because you can't get anywhere with the actual topic.

 

I hate loaded questions.

I hate this thread.