You mean when my grandparents were slaves? Those days?
You sure you wanna keep going down this road?
Yeah, really. It's a Libbo flaw. They can't help it.
So, since I call bull****, bull****, I must be a racist? That's the second time you've tried to call me a racist. Why would you calla black guy a racist? Is it because I'm not falling in line with my Libbo massa?
It's crazy to think it's a good thing to go from a few people being to everyone being poor. We're in real trouble if the Libbos ever get an solid power.
If Libbos couldn't scream, "racist", or, "homophobe", they wouldn't have an argument.
Homophobia is a term for a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality and people identified or perceived as being homosexual. Definitions[1][2][3] of the term refer variably to antipathy, contempt, aversion, and (irrational) fear. Based on prejudice and similar to racism, xenophobia, anti-semitism, and sexism[4], homophobia as motivation is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination[1][2] and violence on the basis of a non-heterosexual orientation.
Homophobia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm not going down any road. I asked if you were.
Do you want to go back to the days of apartheid in SA? Just clarify your meaning.
Well, apdst, we sure as hell can't call you a tolerant Christian. The word Homophobe means what it means. And when your views fit that meaning, that's what you get called. Pretty damn simple.
Yeah, really. It's a Libbo flaw. They can't help it.
Moderator's Warning: |
So, since I had the unmidigated gaul to suggest that things are no better in SA now than they were during Apartheid and in fact they're worse, you automatically assume that 1) I want to go back to Apartheid and see a return of slavery in America and 2) I'm a racist?
Attorney Cleta Mitchell said that after Fenty signs the bill and it goes to Congress, the group will ask a district elections board to put a referendum on the ballot asking voters to overturn it. She said in a statement before the vote that the law is a "decision for the people, not a dozen people at city hall."
Absolutely right.
If the people vote it in, no problem but circumventing the people is the only way this has passed any state so far.
This is just another incident where activists try and circumvent the will of the people......As soon as a vote is taken it will be overturned again as it has every time when the people speak........
This is just another incident where activists try and circumvent the will of the people......As soon as a vote is taken it will be overturned again as it has every time when the people speak........
Moderator's Warning: |
Moderator's Warning: Let's cease with the innuendo and use of terms like "racist", "libbo" and others intended to be derogatory. This thread is about gay marriage in Washington DC, not slavery, apartheid in South Africa or someone's religion. I suggest everyone stop with the side banter and return to topic or thread bans will be issued.
Perhaps you'd be happier in a Direct Democracy rather than a Republic.
The Will Of the People??Did the DC City Council elect themselves into office?
Just as they did with slavery and segregation. The "will of the people" isn't always right.
We live in a Republic, not a Democracy. Get used to it.This is just another incident where activists try and circumvent the will of the people
That does not take away the fact that when the people voted gay marriage was shot down every single time........
That does not take away the fact that when the people voted gay marriage was shot down every single time........
That does not take away the fact that when the people voted gay marriage was shot down every single time........
This is just another incident where activists try and circumvent the will of the people
Appeal to the majority is not a logical argument.
Prop 8 is on its way to Federal Court.
and the only reason I would support a federal amendment. Normally, I'd land on the policy of states rights on this issue, but then, some radicals..as we can plainly see here....would like to see the feds step all over a voter decision o marriage in any particular state. And if the courts don't get it, I'd support a federal amendment that cannot be misinterpreted, any court doing what they're supposed to be doing...interpreting rather than making law...wouldn't have difficulty making a ruling.
I'm just curious, what would be the basis for a federal amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman?
I can only see five ways that you could answer such a question. Not a single one is consistent with reason.
1. An appeal to tradition fallacy. (marriage has always been between a man and a woman)
2. Ignoring the countries that have legalized same sex marriage and making a fallacious argument that it would be somehow harmful to this country.
3. An appeal to the majority fallacy. (most people don't agree with same sex marriage)
4. A slippery slope fallacy. (if we allow same sex marriage then we have to allow polygamy)
5. Religious condemnation. (its a sin)
Please prove me wrong and provide some rational that isn't listed above for why a federal amendment banning same sex marriage would be a good idea.
I think you just summarized the flaws in the "opposition's" argument from A to Z. This is why their position is invalid.
Good post.
It really is sad you continue to deny the very basics in introducing a new law and supporting it with facts to support your argument to change the law.
Lesson #1 Traditional marriage has been between a man and woman throughout the history of this country. It is a fact not a fallacy.
Lesson #2 Laws passed in other countries are inconsequential since we do not live under a world government. We use our own Constitution and require people like you who want to change the law to back it up with a factual argument. That is the logical fallacy of your side since you have failed repeatedly to do so.
Lesson #3 It is not a fallacy to vote as a majority on a ballot issue. The very fact you cannot understand that simply shows you do not understand how state government functions. The fallacy is for officials to deny the vote once the signatures were given by the people to vote on the law. You really need to do a little research on what propositions are and how they are lawful.
Lesson #4 It is a slippery slope argument and a factual one when you claim it is a "rights" issue to allow gay marriage. If you call it a rights issue it is a fallacy to believe you can restrict other alternative lifestyles when they use the same argument you are making. A "rights" argument does not end with homosexuality.
Until you can provide factual studies not based on filled out unsurpervised questionaires that actually prove a genetic link that you claim exists, you have no basis to change the law to only narrowly allow gay marriage while excluding all other alternative lifestyles when you cannot even prove it isn't a choice which flies in the face of what we know of people who live one way then change their mind decades later or go to jail and engage in homosexual sex after being lifelong heterosexuals or finally, how some church groups have people who claimed to be gay only to be "cured". These are real life examples not theories or flawed studies. Its funny how so many people on your side flock to someone who comes out of the closet in their adult life but I wonder what you say to the people who claim they are gay only to renounce it later in life. Would you support their decision as well?
Its why this fails every single time it is brought forth to let the people decide. They understand you have no basis other than your belief in homosexuality being something you are born with and as #5 correctly points out, belief is not a argument to change the law.
Civil unions are the compromise for everyone but the zealotry your side has in pretending gay marriage is equal to heterosexual marriage without evidence to support it will only result in more failed votes by the people.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?