African American prejudice against homosexuals by a margin of 3 to 1!!!

[Alien Allen]

You mean the unfairness doctrine? If that gets passed, there will be revolt. That's how the Nazi's took control of Germany--by controlling the press. The Liberal fascists arlready control the mainstream media--the Fairness Doctrine will allow them to control all relevant media and effectively put an end to the free speech of any one that disagrees with their communist agenda.

we have a society of apathetic idiots Mulder

doubt most would even pay any attention until it is too late.

 

[sierrabravo]

I knew he knew and knew you knew he knew.

i knew that...

 

[Fox Mulder]

You mean we can't be forced to choose what we want to listen too? We must listen to what our government considers best for us?.

Amazing, isn't it. The liberals--the so-called protectors of the Constitution (well their favored parts of it anyway) desire to control speech!

 

[Peter Parka]

Watched an interesting documentary just recently presented by a gay black comedian. It's quite shocking the widespread homophobia amonst black people. What it came down to though was the type of Christianity that is widespread among the black population, not the colour of their skin.

 

[Fox Mulder]

Watched an interesting documentary just recently presented by a gay black comedian. It's quite shocking the widespread homophobia amonst black people. What it came down to though was the type of Christianity that is widespread among the black population, not the colour of their skin.

The documentary makes my point. Blacks are NOT homophobics no more than most other people who want to define marriage as man and woman. The problem--there is an ASSUMPTION that homophobia is the reason for their opinions on marriage. Its the same bullshit that anyone who didn't vote for Obama was racist. This is precisey the kind of politically correct bullshit that I'm talking about. Simply because people want to define marriage as man and woman DOES NOT mean they are homophobic--to the contrary--most people in favor of protecting the definition of marriage are not.

 

[siasl]

The documentary makes my point. Blacks are NOT homophobics no more than most other people who want to define marriage as man and woman. The problem--there is an ASSUMPTION that homophobia is the reason for their opinions on marriage. Its the same bullshit that anyone who didn't vote for Obama was racist. This is precisey the kind of politically correct bullshit that I'm talking about. Simply because people want to define marriage as man and woman DOES NOT mean they are homophobic--to the contrary--most people in favor of protecting the definition of marriage are not.

this is an excellent point, fox :thumbup
what i don't get -and in spite of all apprearances to the contrary , i'm not very politically savvy when it comes to all this junk- what did political correctness have to do with a yes or no vote on proposition 8.....

i just voted my conscience...it was no more based on my belief in the bible than a your black folks's vote was based on homophobia

why do i get lumped into the politically correct, liberal "facist" group for voting against it?

 

[Fox Mulder]

this is an excellent point, fox :thumbup
what i don't get -and in spite of all apprearances to the contrary , i'm not very politically savvy when it comes to all this junk- what did political correctness have to do with a yes or no vote on proposition 8.....

i just voted my conscience...it was no more based on my belief in the bible than a your black folks's vote was based on homophobia

why do i get lumped into the politically correct, liberal "facist" group for voting against it?

I also voted against it--but for issues relating to the law and how it is applied rather than any moral issue.

The "homophobic" and "discrimination" cards were played heavily in the anti-Prop 8 campaign. That is they painted anyone in favor of it as being so for morally improper motives (i.e., anti-gay, homophobic). What I found ironic is that 3 out of 4 blacks voted for it--clearly they understand discrimination and I just thought it ironic that that political correctness crowd would accuse blacks of having discriminatory motives.

 

[Peter Parka]

I also voted against it--but for issues relating to the law and how it is applied rather than any moral issue.

What relating to the law surrounding it were you against?

 

[Fox Mulder]

What relating to the law surrounding it were you against?

I don't think it should be a Constitutional issue. Here in the states (unlike the UK) we have a Constitution that serves as an anchor in our legal system--you can provide more protection but you can't provide less. By necessity, the Constitution enunciates general principles. Nowhere in the Constitution does it hold that marriage (any marriage at all) is a Constitutional right. Never in the 200 plus year history of our country has any court held that (and in fact consistenly held the opposite). Only recently have some idiots on the Massachussets and California Supreme Courts decided that they need to change 200 plus years of precedent. So recently, a California Court held that gays have a Constitutional right to marriage. Prop 8 was to put an amendment to the California Constitution defining marriage as man and woman only. I do not believe it should be a Constitutional issue. I think the judges were wrong in the first place (and ulitmately they will be told they are wrong when the issue gets to the US Supreme Court). I think the people should decide how to define marriage, plain and simple. If there is a Contitutional Amendment, then that takes away the right of the people to decide.

 

[Peter Parka]

Not sure I fully follow you. I think that if a gay couple want to be married, they should be allowed to and have the same rights that a married opposite sex couple have, I dont really see what business it is of anyone else to deny them that seeing I dont see that it affects anyone else.

 

[Fox Mulder]

Not sure I fully follow you I think that if a gay couple want to be married, they should be allowed to and have the same rights that a married opposite sex couple have,

That is easily accomplished without calling it "marriage."

I dont really see what business it is of anyone else to deny them that seeing I dont see that it affects anyone else.

Well then what about two men and a woman or two women and a man or a man and his adult daughter or two cousins or brother and sister?

The problem is you are not following the legal ramifications. "Marriage" is a uniquely moral institution and morality should not be determined by judges. Gay couples can be (and are) given all the rights that married couples have. But that's not good enough for them--its a matter of political correctness much more than it is a matter of legal right and equal treatment.

 

[Peter Parka]

That is easily accomplished without calling it "marriage."

What does it matter what they call it, if they want to call it marriage, if you oppose that, arn't you interfering with their freedom of speech?

Well then what about two men and a woman or two women and a man or a man and his adult daughter or two cousins or brother and sister?

Up to them too except I'm opposed to close relations getting married because of the dangers to any offspring they might produce.

The problem is you are not following the legal ramifications. "Marriage" is a uniquely moral institution and morality should not be determined by judges. Gay couples can be (and are) given all the rights that married couples have. But that's not good enough for them--its a matter of political correctness much more than it is a matter of legal right and equal treatment.

If they are given the same rights then all this comes down to is you dont like them using a word to describe their relationship that you are happy with a man and woman using. How does them using a word to describe their relationship change anything to you? Personally I think it sounds much better that they can introduce their partner who they had made a legal and binding commitment to as their husband and much more accurate too. How would you like it if someone told you you just had to describe your wife as your girlfriend and that she wasn't your wife?

 

[siasl]

I don't think it should be a Constitutional issue. Here in the states (unlike the UK) we have a Constitution that serves as an anchor in our legal system--you can provide more protection but you can't provide less. By necessity, the Constitution enunciates general principles. Nowhere in the Constitution does it hold that marriage (any marriage at all) is a Constitutional right. Never in the 200 plus year history of our country has any court held that (and in fact consistenly held the opposite). Only recently have some idiots on the Massachussets and California Supreme Courts decided that they need to change 200 plus years of precedent. So recently, a California Court held that gays have a Constitutional right to marriage. Prop 8 was to put an amendment to the California Constitution defining marriage as man and woman only. I do not believe it should be a Constitutional issue. I think the judges were wrong in the first place (and ulitmately they will be told they are wrong when the issue gets to the US Supreme Court). I think the people should decide how to define marriage, plain and simple. If there is a Contitutional Amendment, then that takes away the right of the people to decide.

your legal arguement makes sense to me
what's ironic is that it bring us to the same "moral" result....

the truth is that in CA, at least, there are plenty of christain churches that will give gays a religious ceremony, and legistlation has already provided them the same benefits.....they and their friends, etc can call it anything they want, up to and including marriage.....

or at least they could, before proposition 8 passed
now i suppose the word is taboo in public, if you're gay....

the majority are happy, tho, i guess....and that's what the vote was all about.

 

[Fox Mulder]

What does it matter what they call it, if they want to call it marriage, if you oppose that, arn't you interfering with their freedom of speech?

Exactly--that argument applies to them much more--if they have the same legal rights why the fuck do they need to piss off more than half the polulation by forcing society to refer to it as "marriage." We live in a society of compromise--to date the politically correct left side has not made one fucking compromise and they won't because like I said its not a matter of equal rights its a matter of sticking it to the religious right, not about equality and that's a damn shame in my view because there is a very easy and fair compromise for everyone involved.

Freedom of Speech does not apply to this situation. In fact, much more applicable to this situation is Freedom of Religion, but that's an entirely different argument.

Up to them too except I'm opposed to close relations getting married because of the dangers to any offspring they might produce.

What about the danger of AIDS? Its much greater for homosexual males. But that's right there is the point, isn't it--society should have the right to define marriage as it sees fit. Again, you can have "family parnterships" or whatever the fuck you want to call them for anyone that wants the same rights as a man and woman that's "married."

If they are given the same rights then all this comes down to is you dont like them using a word to describe their relationship that you are happy with a man and woman using.

I don't give a fuck what they call themselves--my point is it should be up to the majority to define marriage the way it sees it. Why the fuck should you or any other minority opinion be able for force your definition of marriage on a majority of the citizens?

Personally I think it sounds much better that they can introduce their partner who they had made a legal and binding commitment to as their husband and much more accurate too. How would you like it if someone told you you just had to describe your wife as your girlfriend and that she wasn't your wife?

LOL!!! Yeah right--much more accurate for two men to introduce the other as each other's husband!!! That's really fucking accurate. Marriage has a wife and husband--how the fuck can it possibly be more accurate when you have two men or two women? And in fact that's the whole point, isn't it--right now if I talk about my "wife" I don't have to fucking explain to anyone that its a man I'm talking about--its understood when I say my "wife" that I mean a female!!!!

Seriously--how the fuck can can two women or two men with a straight face say my "wife" or my "husband"???

 

[Fox Mulder]

your legal arguement makes sense to me
what's ironic is that it bring us to the same "moral" result....

the truth is that in CA, at least, there are plenty of christain churches that will give gays a religious ceremony, and legistlation has already provided them the same benefits.....they and their friends, etc can call it anything they want, up to and including marriage.....

or at least they could, before proposition 8 passed
now i suppose the word is taboo in public, if you're gay....

the majority are happy, tho, i guess....and that's what the vote was all about.

Well again we live in a society of compromise. Right now the politically correct left have no fucking wish to compromise because its not about equality or the same rights--its about forcing this down the throats of the religious right. There are those on the left that absolutely despise the Christian views on this subject and they don't want to comrpromise. The are using the gay marriage argument as a platform to attack Chrisitanity, not to gain equal rights for gays because gays can have all the same benefits and rights without the need to call their union a marriage.

 

[Peter Parka]

Funny how earlier on you said this has nothing to do with morality but the only reasons you have shown for opposing it is that you personally dont like homosexuality morally, you have shown me no reason that hasn't to do with your personal morality. If you cant cope with a man introducing another man to you as his husband, that says more about you having a problem to me.

 

[Fox Mulder]

Funny how earlier on you said this has nothing to do with morality but the only reasons you have shown for opposing it is that you personally dont like homosexuality morally, you have shown me no reason that hasn't to do with your personal morality. If you cant cope with a man introducing another man to you as his husband, that says more about you having a problem to me.

Ummm--can you show me where I said I don't like homosexuality morally? I already told you I voted AGAINST Proposition 8. I really don't care who wants to fuck who or what. I would be perfectly fine with marriage including homosexuals if the people legislatively define it that way. My concern is with the bastardization of the legal process--that is judges legislating from the bench--they have no fucking right to do that and they abuse their power when doing it. Your problem is you really aren't following the arguments I am making and keep falling back on the same lame defense accusing me of be anti-gay or homophobic. Hell, your hero Barack Obama says he believes marraige is between a man and a woman--is he homophobic???

 

[Alien Allen]

Mulder I am curious as to why you think it would have been better to be legislated rather than via the change in the constitution??

I voted against stem cell research in MI this election because I think the constitution should be for a limited number of things.

Seems like though with both processes the people speak??

 

[Peter Parka]

Calm down dude, I'm not trying to accuse you of bashing gays though the way you talk about it seems to indicate you dont really aprove of homosexuality much to me. I guess you're right though, I'm really not following your reasons for it, it just seems to be like you think you should have the right in having a say in what two people do and call something which really dosent affect you or anyone else. Oh, and if Obama says that marriage is just between a man and a woman, I disagree with him, I'm not some sheep who blindly follows everything someone says unlike some people I've seen round here. Just because I think he was a better choise than McCain dosen't mean I think he's mr perfect you know.

 

[siasl]

Well again we live in a society of compromise. Right now the politically correct left have no fucking wish to compromise because its not about equality or the same rights--its about forcing this down the throats of the religious right. There are those on the left that absolutely despise the Christian views on this subject and they don't want to comrpromise. The are using the gay marriage argument as a platform to attack Chrisitanity, not to gain equal rights for gays because gays can have all the same benefits and rights without the need to call their union a marriage.

hmmm....i do have to wonder about that, fox....
it's not so much that i disagree entirely with your premise....we've both seen folks here and elsewhere that take as devout a stance against the religious right, as some on the religious right take against homosexuality.

it is a zealotry of verbage that i've come to discern because of posts from you fascist types :24:

but, while your own legal summary supports the validity of their pov, imo, you interpret the liberal stance to be an arguement for "everybody is equal"...hell, i'm not as well read as you -maybe the media talks about it as equality, as well...but i take it to mean freedom under the law....and by that i mean that a specific behavior that does no physical harm to another, nor inhibits another's social or economic opprotunities, is in keeping with the intent of the constitution.

the fact that one group finds another's freedom morally repugnant is their problem, not society's....leastways, not under the law

and the law, once it begins to adopt a moral view of behavior, should be considered unconstitutional, imo...and don't come back at me with "right and wrong" stuff.....that just your debating skills talking.....we both know what i'm talking about here.

i've witnessed debates about what the founding fathers "intended" for their baby country...they have always struck me as the attempt to second guess the document they hammered out.

imo, the only real issue for them was how big and powerful the central government should be, which is ultimately the issue of control...which, as i understand it, lead to the bill of rights becoming part of what is essentially a document establishing the rules of candidacy, a set of checks and balances, the separation of church and state, and a few economic necessities -all of which, it was hoped, would be enough to keep the states united.

so the central arguement behind those liberal "zealots" is basically about the separation of church and state, with the argument (rightfully, imo) being that political power used to push a moral agenda belonging to a specific religion is dangerous......

the fact that economically, that agenda doesn't inhibit on the basis of morality is not sufficient to allow it

and i may be wrong, but that is where you continue to tie your shoe laces together....i know you to be a social liberal (as being different from a "zealous" social liberal....more of a live and let live kinda guy ), but your arguements USUALLY approach topics from the pov of their impact on the economy......like here, where you've made the point several times that the benefits -primarily economic ones- that gay couples enjoy pretty much resolve the issue.