I made no assertion regarding the gay community and we can see where the ignorance resides.
Seems to me that among gay men in their 40s-50s, or at least the small number I have become acquainted with, that a prior marriage with children seems to be the norm as opposed to the exception. Most gays and their advocates will insist that this was societal oppression that pushed them into a marriage and kids. I think its instead men in their younger days valuing starting a family over sexual gratification, and now in their 40s and 50s with the family raised, sexual gratification rises on the value scale.
Yes, you did. I'll quote you.
If you can locate your nads, quote and respond to MY posts you believe is rooted in ignorance and state why.
I think (could be wrong) Dixon was saying that the whole thing is not strictly about constitutional rights for gays. Gays simply want to have things their way and if they dont get their way, they throw temper tantrums and shriek "we have been discriminated against".
Not a problem people just pointing out the fact that theres no support for your claim and how you apply it nor for you irrationally singling out homosexuality.
But we all know its simply based on your bigoted views and no logic hence why we mock it.
Anecdotes aren't evidence. If you want to know what the norm is, maybe you could ask a gay person, who has spent years or decades in the gay community. I'm pretty sure they'll tell you you're wrong.
I don't want to deny any benefits or rights to gay couples. I simply want to point out that their usage of the word "marriage" is incorrect. Of course, not saying this would impact them in any way, but here I am.
Dont like calling married homosexual unions marriage dont do it. I sincerely doubt there are many holding such a view who will have any occasion to use another term though.
Read carefully
"had", past tense, being the operative word. Back when the Federal DOMA was in place California same sex marriages were identical to California same sex unions. Its like you dont even read what you choose to respond to. You just blurt out "false" or "no its not" when you havent even a clue as to what you are babbling on about.
People do not have a "natural" aversion to gays.
I see. So you don't debate, you just want to annoy people by rubbing it in people's faces. I hear you.especially when they come into a forum designed specifically to talk about same-sex marriage and say how it's not marriage. I love rubbing it in people's faces like that. If you don't want it rubbed in your face get your face out of here.
Lol, you just insinuated that I am a closet homosexual like it's a bad thing. This is further proof that deep down, you know being gay is shameful and bad.no honestly with people like you I think it titillates you. That's why you're in here jamming your face and everything. You just want to talk about it without letting on that it trips your trigger.
My point was that this whole gay marriage issue is not simply a matter of gays choosing to use a word in a certain way. It goes beyond that.I don't deny that gay people wanted their MARRIAGE equal to heterosexual couples.
So I don't know what you're talking about
I am not going to go back to the previous pages and look for your posts, but I am quite sure I did not seek you out. I believe I was talking to Jasper and then you started to chime in and responded to me.Fine, think what you want.
Okay, but if you're so bothered by same-sex marriage and gay people why in the hell are you talking to me?
I don't want to stop talking to you. You usually have good posts and you are civil (well, most of the times).If you don't want it rub it in your face, and I'm going to around every corner from now on, stop talking to me.
This titillates me. Please tell me more.If you have subbed the deep-seated desire to hear about my sex life then keep talking to me.
I dont need to "thicken my skin" because that personal attack was not directed at me. I am just pointing out the fact personal attacks are not debating. Sorry you don't see this.Oh spare me, personal attack? LOL. Thicken your skin.
I would not call it societal "oppression". Societal pressure, yes.One gay person does not speak for the entire group, but it doesn't change the fact that a lot of gay people got into straight relationships due to societal pressure against being gay. Yes, that is a result of societal oppression, because intolerance bred that kind of result. Which is why it's much more beneficial that gay people are able to come out more freely.
Anecdote is a story. What I related was a personal experience. These two are not synonymous just because they are both personal in nature.If it's personal, it is therefore anecdotal.
Thank you for sharing your opinion.i don't mind gay people i would prefer not see people like you
Oh, how DARE THEY!!! Gay people having independent political preferences, and wanting to change (unknown) laws in (unknown) ways, and publicly expressing their political views!! THIS SHALL NOT STAND!!
But after this part, you said you'd rather trust a gay person over Dixon (slightly paraphrasing). You did not outright state it but your post implied that the reason you rejected Dixon's view was precisely because he is not gay. You did not say anything about the sample size being too small.No, not just because he is straight. "Seems to me that among gay men in their 40s-50s, or at least the small number I have become acquainted with, that a prior marriage with children seems to be the norm as opposed to the exception."
I see. So you don't debate, you just want to annoy people by rubbing it in people's faces. I hear you.
Secondly, when I say "rubbing it in people's faces", I dont mean just here. I mean out there in real life, too. Gays constantly shriek and wail when they don't get their way.
Lol, you just insinuated that I am a closet homosexual like it's a bad thing. This is further proof that deep down, you know being gay is shameful and bad.
My point was that this whole gay marriage issue is not simply a matter of gays choosing to use a word in a certain way. It goes beyond that.
I am not going to go back to the previous pages and look for your posts, but I am quite sure I did not seek you out. I believe I was talking to Jasper and then you started to chime in and responded to me.
I don't want to stop talking to you. You usually have good posts and you are civil (well, most of the times).
This titillates me. Please tell me more.
I dont need to "thicken my skin" because that personal attack was not directed at me. I am just pointing out the fact personal attacks are not debating. Sorry you don't see this.
I would not call it society "oppression". Social pressure, yes.
Anecdote is a story. What I related was a personal experience. These two are not synonymous just because they are both personal in nature.
Thank you for sharing your opinion.
I never said gays could not try to change laws. What I was saying is that you are wrong when you said this was simply a matter of gays choosing to ouse a
word in a certain way. It's not. What they are doing has real-life consequences.
But after this part, you said you'd rather trust a gay person over Dixon(slightly paraphrasing). You did not outright state it but your post implied that the reason you rejected Dixon's view was precisely because he is not gay. You did not say anything about the sample size being too small.
Yes, when unequal treatment is applied.
Point to one single diference other than the word marriage. Because the only difference youve identified was based upon your mistaken belief that the federal govenment recognized California same sex marriages at the time when in fact they did not.
If they were "identical" civil unions would have been recognized like "marriages" in all 50 states, but were not.
OK, so we don't have kids, and we're "discriminated!" against because I cannot take claim deductions or credits for children we don't have! I'm a victim of DISCRIMINATION!!
The estate tax is intended to tax the transfer of wealth, so it's not "discrimination" when that tax is levied and payable at death. Congress wrote an exception to the law for spouses, so I guess if people think they are entitled under the constitution to marry their brothers, they should attempt to marry their brother, then file a lawsuit when they are denied that opportunity. Has nothing to do with SSM.
If the word is so inconsequential...why are you and Wan making such a fuss over the word?
In California they had same sex unions identical to same sex marriages and the gays and their advocates boo hooed our constitutional rights are violated if we don't get the word marriage.
Good god this is getting old. There was a short period in California where gay marriages were legal, bunch of gays got married and then a court decision overuled what the legislature had done. Those gay marriages were left in place. Before all of this California already had same sex unions. These gay marriages were identical to California same sex unions. the Federal government didnt recognise either of them. A california same sex union was identical to a California same sex marriage. NOT identical to a california opposite sex marriage. No one claimed they were. AND THEN we got the federal case before the gay california judge for discrimination on the basis of the difference in labels used, marriage or union. And he decided gays needed more "respect and dignity" and that the word union doesnt cut it.
In California they had same sex unions identical to same sex marriages and the gays and their advocates boo hooed our constitutional rights are violated if we don't get the word marriage.
His discussion has gone from discrimination in a right to legal marriage to discrimination for anyone not getting the same benefits as married Americans.
Im not. Just simply pointed out
then you all been responding claiming this isnt true.
It was always both
Still factually wrong, you can post with honesty and integrity and admit that fact or keep denying it and people will keep pointing it out and mocking it.
so you choose to deny it and further our entertainment AWESOME!As opposed to presenting even a shred of evidence to dispute it. Ive noticed. Seems to be common here. You should start a "mocking" forum, I think this is a debate forum.
For the record I call BS but you know I'm not going to go back and check the 1st 50 or so pages....
Equal protection presents a good argument as to why discrimination betwen the married and unmarried is unconstitutional. You dont want equality. You want the INEQUALITY by design that discriminates between the married and unmarried.
That would be a good argument that any two consenting adults should be able to marry. Instead they only extended marriage to gays, because its not about equality and is instead inequality by design for the benefit of gays.
so you choose to deny it and further our entertainment AWESOME!
Theres nothing to debate, we simply pointed out a fact like 2+2=4, if you disagree simply support YOUR claim, it cant be done hence why you avoid it.
You jumped in a conversation that had context, spouted off something that is factually wrong and it got called out by multiple posters. if the fact bothers theres a VERY simply solution to your issue, simply dont make retarded false claims in the future that you cant back up. You're welcome.
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?