Dumping gay marriage prop in California is getting intense

[Alcon]

Look... I don't want to be a enemy of homosexuals, but when it comes to the marriage issue, I'm pretty much set unless theres evidence to show otherwise. Franzl seems to want to attack me for being religious?? when I'm not even a big fan of the religious right , nor have I used the bible in this debate. The race baiting and name calling and lies being used in here was un- called for.

Evidence to show what, dude?  At what point would your criteria be met for supporting gay marriage?

Fifth time you've said I race-baited you.  I didn't.  What in my explanation of that don't you understand/agree with?  You attacked me for "lying" about your position, so what exactly are you doing about mine when you say I race-baited you?

[Lincoln Republican]

It is clear that positions on the gay marriage issue, certainly on this forum, and in the population at large, are pretty well set in stone on both sides.

If the pro gay marriage side has a problem with people's religious objections to gay marriage, because God has decreed that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman, that is their problem.  They are under no obligation to accept that.  However, the breaking of God's laws will come, at some point, with consequences.

If the pro gay marriage side has a problem with people's statements that gay marriage is not a civil rights issue, they are under no obligation to accept that.

If the pro gay marriage side has a problem with people's statements that the radical gay movement has hijacked the civil rights movement, they do not have to accept that.

If the pro gay marriage side has a problem with people's statements that marriage itself is not a right, rather it is a union between one man and one woman, they do not have to accept that.

If the pro gay marriage side has a problem with those who support equal rights for everyone, i.e. in employment, tax, etc, but who draw the line at marriage, they do not have to accept that.

[Earth]

Bigoted?  You were race baiting when trying to compare gay rights to AA civil rights...

How the hell is comparison to the civil rights movement in the 60s "race baiting"? Besides, no one was comparing gay civil rights to the civil rights era.

[Alcon]

Bigoted?  You were race baiting when trying to compare gay rights to AA civil rights...

How the hell is comparison to the civil rights movement in the 60s "race baiting"? Besides, no one was comparing gay civil rights to the civil rights era.

LOL

Mike, as I said, I'm not comparing the two.  I'm trying to show that the argument you're using against gay marriage could defend anti-miscegenation laws too.  That's not "race-baiting," and I think you know it isn't.

Here's a parallel example.  Someone opposes gun control, and doesn't care if it's constitutional.  On the other hand, they strongly support free speech laws.  You could point out that their position is logically inconsistent, because the arguments they're using to support gun control could also be used to support free speech limitations.  Unless they can find a meaningful distinction between the two (not just any distinction, but one pertinent to ignoring the constitutionality of one but not the other) their argument is logically inconsistent.  That's not "free speech baiting," that's testing for logical consistency.

It does not make a claim that one is more important than the other (free speech and gun rights).

It does not make the claim that they are equally important.

It does not make a claim that the person supports free speech restrictions.

It simply draws a parallel to test for consistency.  It is not "baiting."

I'm sorry if I failed to make my intent clear.  But now I've clarified it.  Will you stop accusing me of "race-baiting" me now, and reply to my arguments?  Please?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Bigoted?  You were race baiting when trying to compare gay rights to AA civil rights...

How the hell is comparison to the civil rights movement in the 60s "race baiting"? Besides, no one was comparing gay civil rights to the civil rights era.

LOL

Mike,

What you have to understand is that the contentions of the supporters of 'gay marriage' merely amount to a smoke screen, which they will promptly drop when it is pointed out that such arguments can be made with as great (or greater) validity to support expansion to multiple marriages.

Pragmatically (their term) they are for 'gay marriage' and opposed to other forms of marriage because they are merely supporters of 'gay marriage,' not the of the principles they espouse.

[Alcon]

What you have to understand is that the contentions of the supporters of 'gay marriage' merely amount to a smoke screen, which they will promptly drop when it is pointed out that such arguments can be made with as great (or greater) validity to support expansion to multiple marriages.

Pragmatically (their term) they are for 'gay marriage' and opposed to other forms of marriage because they are merely supporters of 'gay marriage,' not the of the principles they espouse.

People responded to your point about polygamy -- all of us, in fact, I believe.

I also think it's weird how you're telling him to ignore our "your logic would provide a 'slippery slope' to acceptance of anti-miscegenation laws" point...because you say our logic would be a slippery slope to polygamy.

[Earth]

...What you have to understand is that the contentions of the supporters of 'gay marriage' merely amount to a smoke screen, which they will promptly drop when it is pointed out that such arguments can be made with as great (or greater) validity to support expansion to multiple marriages.

Pragmatically (their term) they are for 'gay marriage' and opposed to other forms of marriage because they are merely supporters of 'gay marriage,' not the of the principles they espouse.

You probably couldn't have written greater bullshìt even if you were paid. Haha, "smoke screen".

How the hell is comparison to the civil rights movement in the 60s "race baiting"? Besides, no one was comparing gay civil rights to the civil rights era.

LOL

Can you answer at all? You're beginning to become a troll.

[Franzl]

Bigoted?  You were race baiting when trying to compare gay rights to AA civil rights...

How the hell is comparison to the civil rights movement in the 60s "race baiting"? Besides, no one was comparing gay civil rights to the civil rights era.

He doesn't understand the difference between comparing something based on the underlying theory and actually implying that the two things are equal. And "race baiting" is Keller's "get-out-of-jail-free" card that he is constantly using because he can't think of any arguments for his position.

[CARLHAYDEN]

What you have to understand is that the contentions of the supporters of 'gay marriage' merely amount to a smoke screen, which they will promptly drop when it is pointed out that such arguments can be made with as great (or greater) validity to support expansion to multiple marriages.

Pragmatically (their term) they are for 'gay marriage' and opposed to other forms of marriage because they are merely supporters of 'gay marriage,' not the of the principles they espouse.

People responded to your point about polygamy -- all of us, in fact, I believe.

I also think it's weird how you're telling him to ignore our "your logic would provide a 'slippery slope' to acceptance of anti-miscegenation laws" point...because you say our logic would be a slippery slope to polygamy.

It won't work Alcon.

It the principle is the thing, then it must apply universally, nor merely selectively.

You are selectively for 'gay marriage,' but the principles you pretend to espouse as a rationale for thoat purpose do not apply when you don't want them to apply.

You are for 'gay marriage' because you are for 'gay marriage,' not for any principle.

You have no right to impune the motives of others as your own have been exposed.

[Alcon]

What you have to understand is that the contentions of the supporters of 'gay marriage' merely amount to a smoke screen, which they will promptly drop when it is pointed out that such arguments can be made with as great (or greater) validity to support expansion to multiple marriages.

Pragmatically (their term) they are for 'gay marriage' and opposed to other forms of marriage because they are merely supporters of 'gay marriage,' not the of the principles they espouse.

People responded to your point about polygamy -- all of us, in fact, I believe.

I also think it's weird how you're telling him to ignore our "your logic would provide a 'slippery slope' to acceptance of anti-miscegenation laws" point...because you say our logic would be a slippery slope to polygamy.

It won't work Alcon.

It the principle is the thing, then it must apply universally, nor merely selectively.

You are selectively for 'gay marriage,' but the principles you pretend to espouse as a rationale for thoat purpose do not apply when you don't want them to apply.

You are for 'gay marriage' because you are for 'gay marriage,' not for any principle.

You have no right to impune the motives of others as your own have been exposed.

You missed my point twofold.

First, when I said I much prefer universal civil unions (keep government out of marriage) and don't really personally object to polygamy (even if I think it's a bad idea), you took that to mean what?

You've impugned a strawman.  And unless someone is arguing that marriage is a right, your slippery slope argument is nonsense.  Someone can believe that marriage should be between two people.  Other than not being traditional, how is that view differ any from "marriage is between a man and a woman" in reasonability/consistency? 

Especially since you argued that marriage is for child-rearing, and that sure isn't what it has been traditionally, most of the time...obviously you're open to contemporary definitions.

[Sbane]

Bigoted?  You were race baiting when trying to compare gay rights to AA civil rights...

How the hell is comparison to the civil rights movement in the 60s "race baiting"? Besides, no one was comparing gay civil rights to the civil rights era.

LOL

Mike,

What you have to understand is that the contentions of the supporters of 'gay marriage' merely amount to a smoke screen, which they will promptly drop when it is pointed out that such arguments can be made with as great (or greater) validity to support expansion to multiple marriages.

Pragmatically (their term) they are for 'gay marriage' and opposed to other forms of marriage because they are merely supporters of 'gay marriage,' not the of the principles they espouse.

Polygamy is a choice while homosexuality is certainly not. Thus in my eyes a homosexual relationship is basically the same as a heterosexual relationship, made up of two humans who love each other. Polygamy is on another plane of existence. I don't quite have a problem with it but it ridiculous to compare it with gay marriages.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Bigoted?  You were race baiting when trying to compare gay rights to AA civil rights...

How the hell is comparison to the civil rights movement in the 60s "race baiting"? Besides, no one was comparing gay civil rights to the civil rights era.

LOL

Mike,

What you have to understand is that the contentions of the supporters of 'gay marriage' merely amount to a smoke screen, which they will promptly drop when it is pointed out that such arguments can be made with as great (or greater) validity to support expansion to multiple marriages.

Pragmatically (their term) they are for 'gay marriage' and opposed to other forms of marriage because they are merely supporters of 'gay marriage,' not the of the principles they espouse.

Polygamy is a choice while homosexuality is certainly not. Thus in my eyes a homosexual relationship is basically the same as a heterosexual relationship, made up of two humans who love each other. Polygamy is on another plane of existence. I don't quite have a problem with it but it ridiculous to compare it with gay marriages.

Sorry, but homosexuality is NOT involuntary, and as such in a large sense is a choice!

I'm sorry your eyes are so defective.

You are the one being ridiculous. 

Oh, and just how many planes of existence do you believe exist?

[Alcon]

Sorry, but homosexuality is NOT involuntary, and as such in a large sense is a choice!

If something is not involuntary, how could it not be a choice, in a large sense or otherwise?

Did you mean to say that the practice of homosexuality is a choice?  Because that is non-point to sbane's argument.  It may be true, but the distinction he's trying to make -- I think -- is that no one is "born-in" with an orientation toward polygamy that renders two-person relationships unsustainable, as homosexuality does with heterosexual relationships.  In essence, it is an individual preference, not a biological pre-determination.

There is a logically sound argument, therefore, that there is a "right" to a two-person relationship with someone you love.  Gay marriage proponents who oppose polygamy could argue that this is no more of an arbitrary line than "marriage between a man and a woman," perhaps even less of an arbitrary line.  You're also ignoring that there are gay marriage supporters who don't universally agree with the statement "marriage should require consenting parties and nothing else."

Either way, what you posted is not a rebuttal of what sbane said.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Sorry, but homosexuality is NOT involuntary, and as such in a large sense is a choice!

If something is not involuntary, how could it not be a choice, in a large sense or otherwise?

Did you mean to say that the practice of homosexuality is a choice?  Because that is non-point to sbane's argument.  It may be true, but the distinction he's trying to make -- I think -- is that no one is "born-in" with an orientation toward polygamy that renders two-person relationships unsustainable, as homosexuality does with heterosexual relationships.  In essence, it is an individual preference, not a biological pre-determination.

There is a logically sound argument, therefore, that there is a "right" to a two-person relationship with someone you love.  Gay marriage proponents who oppose polygamy could argue that this is no more of an arbitrary line than "marriage between a man and a woman," perhaps even less of an arbitrary line.  You're also ignoring that there are gay marriage supporters who don't universally agree with the statement "marriage should require consenting parties and nothing else."

Either way, what you posted is not a rebuttal of what sbane said.

Alcon,

No one is "born-in" with a homosexual proclivity, hence your distinction is false.

What you posted is not a rebuttal of what I said, merely evidence that you choose to try to change the subject.

[Alcon]

Alcon,

No one is "born-in" with a homosexual proclivity, hence your distinction is false.

What leads you to this conclusion?

The rest of my post was addressed as a follow-up to my response to your last post.  It was the one where I corrected you after you accused me of holding a position I don't hold, again, using the narrative voice thing you use.  You may recall having never replied to it.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Alcon,

Its really very simple.

The fase distinction you tried to offer between homosexual 'marriages' and plural marriages is a false one, as neither is "in born."

What we have is a simple case of those favor 'gay marriage' because they favor 'gay marriage,' and who abandon the supposed principles they espouse for supporting 'gay marriage' when it applies to other groups.

[Verily]

Alcon,

Its really very simple.

The fase distinction you tried to offer between homosexual 'marriages' and plural marriages is a false one, as neither is "in born."

What we have is a simple case of those favor 'gay marriage' because they favor 'gay marriage,' and who abandon the supposed principles they espouse for supporting 'gay marriage' when it applies to other groups.

You are continuing to make the assertion that homosexuality is not "in born" without providing any evidence or basis for this claim. Please do so, or your argument is irrelevant as it is based on an unsupported premise.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Alcon,

Its really very simple.

The fase distinction you tried to offer between homosexual 'marriages' and plural marriages is a false one, as neither is "in born."

What we have is a simple case of those favor 'gay marriage' because they favor 'gay marriage,' and who abandon the supposed principles they espouse for supporting 'gay marriage' when it applies to other groups.

You are continuing to make the assertion that homosexuality is not "in born" without providing any evidence or basis for this claim. Please do so, or your argument is irrelevant as it is based on an unsupported premise.

If you had bothered to read far back in the thread, I did offer such evidence.

Generally, the other posters have accepted that homosexuality is not "in  born."

[Alcon]

Alcon,

Its really very simple.

The fase distinction you tried to offer between homosexual 'marriages' and plural marriages is a false one, as neither is "in born."

What we have is a simple case of those favor 'gay marriage' because they favor 'gay marriage,' and who abandon the supposed principles they espouse for supporting 'gay marriage' when it applies to other groups.

I showed other distinctions, too, in the post you're replying to.  You didn't reply to them.

Perhaps I shouldn't have said "in-born," much like I now remember you admitted you shouldn't have used "choice of 'lifestyle.'"  But how does the distinction change if it's environmental, instead of genetic (I think it's a bit of both)?

Either way, you didn't post any evidence that it doesn't have a strong genetic component, which is generally what science suggests is likely -- much like most any behavior out there.

Here, I'll just repost what I said with that correction, so you can respond to my argument:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You didn't respond to my last paragraph at all, you just repeated the statement it was an attempt to rebut.

[Sbane]

Bigoted?  You were race baiting when trying to compare gay rights to AA civil rights...

How the hell is comparison to the civil rights movement in the 60s "race baiting"? Besides, no one was comparing gay civil rights to the civil rights era.

LOL

Mike,

What you have to understand is that the contentions of the supporters of 'gay marriage' merely amount to a smoke screen, which they will promptly drop when it is pointed out that such arguments can be made with as great (or greater) validity to support expansion to multiple marriages.

Pragmatically (their term) they are for 'gay marriage' and opposed to other forms of marriage because they are merely supporters of 'gay marriage,' not the of the principles they espouse.

Polygamy is a choice while homosexuality is certainly not. Thus in my eyes a homosexual relationship is basically the same as a heterosexual relationship, made up of two humans who love each other. Polygamy is on another plane of existence. I don't quite have a problem with it but it ridiculous to compare it with gay marriages.

Sorry, but homosexuality is NOT involuntary, and as such in a large sense is a choice!

I don't think people should repress their feelings, unlike you.

So who is the victim if gay people get married? Is it the "children"? LOL. Who gets harmed or even affected in the least by it?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Bigoted?  You were race baiting when trying to compare gay rights to AA civil rights...

How the hell is comparison to the civil rights movement in the 60s "race baiting"? Besides, no one was comparing gay civil rights to the civil rights era.

LOL

Mike,

What you have to understand is that the contentions of the supporters of 'gay marriage' merely amount to a smoke screen, which they will promptly drop when it is pointed out that such arguments can be made with as great (or greater) validity to support expansion to multiple marriages.

Pragmatically (their term) they are for 'gay marriage' and opposed to other forms of marriage because they are merely supporters of 'gay marriage,' not the of the principles they espouse.

Polygamy is a choice while homosexuality is certainly not. Thus in my eyes a homosexual relationship is basically the same as a heterosexual relationship, made up of two humans who love each other. Polygamy is on another plane of existence. I don't quite have a problem with it but it ridiculous to compare it with gay marriages.

Sorry, but homosexuality is NOT involuntary, and as such in a large sense is a choice!

I don't think people should repress their feelings, unlike you.

So who is the victim if gay people get married? Is it the "children"? LOL. Who gets harmed or even affected in the least by it?

First, unlike others on this thread, I have not tried to silence your opinion.  You can express your feelings as much as your like, but I would hope within civilized limits.

Second, what's wrong with a civil union? 

Third, the whole impetus behind 'gay marriage' as opposed to civil union is to compel exaltation of homosexuality.  I'm for tolerance, but NOT exalting homosexuality.

[Sbane]

Bigoted?  You were race baiting when trying to compare gay rights to AA civil rights...

How the hell is comparison to the civil rights movement in the 60s "race baiting"? Besides, no one was comparing gay civil rights to the civil rights era.

LOL

Mike,

What you have to understand is that the contentions of the supporters of 'gay marriage' merely amount to a smoke screen, which they will promptly drop when it is pointed out that such arguments can be made with as great (or greater) validity to support expansion to multiple marriages.

Pragmatically (their term) they are for 'gay marriage' and opposed to other forms of marriage because they are merely supporters of 'gay marriage,' not the of the principles they espouse.

Polygamy is a choice while homosexuality is certainly not. Thus in my eyes a homosexual relationship is basically the same as a heterosexual relationship, made up of two humans who love each other. Polygamy is on another plane of existence. I don't quite have a problem with it but it ridiculous to compare it with gay marriages.

Sorry, but homosexuality is NOT involuntary, and as such in a large sense is a choice!

I don't think people should repress their feelings, unlike you.

So who is the victim if gay people get married? Is it the "children"? LOL. Who gets harmed or even affected in the least by it?

First, unlike others on this thread, I have not tried to silence your opinion.  You can express your feelings as much as your like, but I would hope within civilized limits.

Second, what's wrong with a civil union? 

Third, the whole impetus behind 'gay marriage' as opposed to civil union is to compel exaltation of homosexuality.  I'm for tolerance, but NOT exalting homosexuality.

I'm not trying to silence anyone so I don't know what you are talking about. I think the bolded statement shows the difference between us. I know that gay marriages will not increase the "incidence" of homosexuality. It will be something like 5-10% of the human population like it always has been. So in that sense I really don't see how you can "exalt" homosexuality. It is not a lifestyle choice, it is just how some people feel and we should respect it. They aren't trying to impose anything on us, rather they are just asking for equal rights. Granting them a piece of paper saying they have been married does not change the status of your marriage. And there is nothing wrong with civil unions, as long as everyone else gets it. And then you can get married at your house of worship.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First of all, you have your "facts" a little confused.  If you check, the best estimates of the homosexual population in the United States at this time. it is between three and four per cent (not the 5 - 10 per cent you alledged) of the population.

Second, if you check back on this thread, Afleitch tried to tell me what I could and could not post.  I did not accuse you of trying to silence others.

Third, I don't have a crystal ball and don't know whether 'gay marriage' will increase the incidence of homosexuality.  BTW, where did you get you crystal ball?

Fourth, you don't seem to understand.  I do NOT need to respect homosexuality.  You support 'gay marriage' because you want to impose official state sanction of such relationships as equivalent to real marriage. 

Fifth, you still have not answered my question.  why not civil union, other than an attempt to force others to 'respect' your arrangement?

[Sbane]

Well 3-4% have come out the closet and then you can add a couple percentage points for the closeted ones. In a conservative country like India the percentage of gays would be something like 1-2%..you catch my drift? Now I strongly believe homosexuality is in-born since I never had to make a choice to be heterosexual. I INSTINCTIVELY like girls. I can't help it, that is how it is. Now the only reason I support gay marriage is because I want to make sure gay people get the same rights as me when they choose to settle down with their partner. I couldn't care less whether the government called it marriage, civil union, or something else. As long as everyone gets treated the same.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, if you check both the polls and election returns you will see that the key position of the electorate is to support civil unions but oppose 'gay marriage.'   When you push for marriage you merely antagonize those who are perfectly willing to to support the civil unions.

Second, you may believe that homosexuality is "in born," but that simply isn't the case.  I have previously offered several examples demonstrating this contention is false. 

Third, I don't pretend to know what percentage of the population of India is homosexual.

In conclusion, lets try tolerance, rather than trying to force others to endorse your 'sexual orientation.'