Voters Reject Gay Marriage

Question of IQ

Take morality out of this thread and it's still comes down to common sense. A square peg goes in a square hole, round peg in a round hole, triangle in a etc...

It does not take a brain surgeon to know that homosexuality is not correct.

How can anyone argue with these FACTS.

 

Good post Jimmy. I say this for the record: No amendment that has curtailed rights has ever been successful, and never will be. (prohibition was the only one). If anything, marriage should be a states rights issue. We are not, nor never have been a melting pot of ideas, we are very secular with various opinions and beliefs in given areas.

I believe that GW is touting a marriage amendment for two reasons

1. To divert attention from real issues (such as that little war in Iraq)
2. To appease the right wing of the party as payback for getting him re-elected.

These are my answers:


1. Same-sex civil unions (with nearly all legal rights and responsibilities largely similar to marriage):

Reasonable. Marriage should be a civil union under the government, a marriage under separate religious grounds

2a. Same-sex marriage (with legal rights and responsibilities identical to traditional marriage):

Civil unions

2b. Allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military?

Reasonable. If you are that unsure of your sexuality to be bothered by it, then you need to grow up.

3. Allow homosexual couples to adopt children (subject to the same background checks/concerns applied to all other potential adoptive parents)?

Reasonable. Although with controls.

4. Allow openly gay people to teach in the public schools?

Reasonable. Most pedophiles are white straight males. I would be more scared of this group.

5. Allow some form of governmental domestic partner registry to protect the rights of same-sex partners?

No - registries separate and allow more rights to one group or the other

6. Require that same-sex partners be automatically included for spousal coverage under any insurance policies that otherwise provide that for married spouses?

As long as they are in a legal civil union (see above)

7. Allow a surviving same-sex partner to inherit -- with the same tax protections as a married spouse -- when a partner dies intestate (without a will)?

In a civil union - yes. With no civil union, no

8. Allow a surviving same-sex partner to collect the same pension or Social Security spousal survivor benefits as would be provided to a married spouse?

In a civil union - yes. With no civil union, no

9. Authorize the FBI and state law enforcement authorities to keep statistics of anti-gay "hate crimes" as they do for race and religion based crimes?

All crimes are hate crimes. No

10. Adopt federal protections (similar to the Civil Rights Act) that would prohibit discrimination in employment and housing that was based solely on sexual orientation?

All discrimination is bad. Don't provide specific protections as everyone should be equally protected.

 

Re: Question of IQ

Because they are just your opinions. Never confuse your opinion with facts. (I won't)

 

If you meant to be sarcastic, you should have said as much. The killing of a human being - especially for no other reason than for what he was (whether it be gay, black, or bright aqua for that matter) is wrong. I would never equate child rape/incest/molesting with homosexuality. They are not the same thing. As stated previously, a pedophile is more likely to be a straight male between the ages if 20-35. Quite a few of these pedophiles seem like normal people (go to church, have their own families, jobs, etc). You never know..

 

Where did I equate homosexual sex with child rape? Just more exaggerations from the left...didn't the election teach you anything?

 

Wait a minute, you just said people who go to church are normal... Better not let your lib friends hear you say that.

 

Re: Question of IQ

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that there are no actual "facts" in your post. Are you strictly referring to anatomy and the fitting (or not) of anatomical parts? Is that your argument? I can't claim to have first hand experience here, but I don't think Gays have a problem in this area. Perhaps you'd like to start a sexual coaching clinic where you could instruct people on the correctness or incorrectness of their technique/anatomy.

Plus I've never seen anyone with a square peg. Have you?

 

You said:

"Being gay is no more genetic than pedophilia is, and they are both equally immoral."

For the sake of argument, I will agree that neither are genetic. But you said that they are equally immoral. That is clearly equating the two.

 

If you read the quote, my post was directed at grgrwll.

 

Re: Question of IQ

Wow! That is a thoroughly convincing argument -- for a fourth grader.

 

Re: Question of IQ

What does?

That square pegs fit in square holes?

I assume that you are making some kind of anatomical analogy. And I'll agree that if the intention is to produce children, homosexual sex is ineffective.

But is the production of children the only reason why people have sex? Is it the only reason why people so often pair up into couples?

It gets back to the earlier questions: If producing children is the only purpose of relationships, then why do so many people enjoy recreational sex? Why is use of contraception so widespread? Why are there so many childless heterosexual couples? Why do senior citizens routinely get married?

My point is that the reproductive biology fits into a much larger social and psychological context.

So if we emphasize the reproductive aspect to the exclusion of all else, then why not eliminate government recognition of marriage entirely and simply recognize parental responsibilities?

But if we extend our scope to include everything from community property to love itself, then why should government recognition only exend to heterosexual couples who are (supposedly) getting it on?

After all, from a biological perspective, heteosexual relationships, and obviously heterosexual sex acts, are ineffective and arguably "incorrect", if they don't result in the female being perpetually pregnant.

And in order to maximize his own reproductive efficiency, the male probably should be out impregnating additional females while his own mate is suffering pregnancy-related reproductive downtime.

So it would seem to me that marital fidelity, if not monogamous pair-marriage itself, is probably "incorrect" as well, from the "square peg" perspective.

 

What you folks are arguing about is exactly the point I've been trying to make.

It appears that the Mass. Supreme Court (and others) decided to require the licensing of same sex marriages on the basis of equal protection; that homosexuals as a group should be given the same right to a State sanctioned legal institution as the population as a whole.

Now, equal protection analysis is not an entirely theoretical exercise. In order to receive protection, the group complaining of discrimination must show that it is singled out due to an involuntary, immutable charactoristic, in this case, sexual orientation. This "fact" must be "found" one way or the other by a trial level Judge after hearing admissible evidence. I HAVE NOT SEEN THIS EVIDENCE. Neither, I suspect, have you all.