So, What Is It That The Anti-Gay Groups Actually Fear?

[Lacez]

Tom wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree

I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure you were so clear on it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I got from what you said is that religion still does influence the government. It does so because the higher ups can't separate their beliefs from government matters sometimes. That while it SHOULD be a secular government, people still get what they want through religion sometimes.

Am I right to say that this was the gist of what you were saying?

[Lacez]

Jerald wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey, that's great.
But to characterize me as a "passive antagonist" when you're the one who was disagreeing with me (you even stated "I would disagree") and appearing to attribute to me claims that I never made is somewhat humorous. Perhaps if you would have taken the time to scroll up or back and read the thread in its context and the claims to which I was responding (the person named Pattiecake in particular) you would have has a better frame in which to comment.

Calm down, please read my previous comment to understand where he was coming from (although I may be mistaken).
I believe he is not a bigot, out to take away our rights, and not saying that it SHOULDN'T be a secular government, but just there to say that the influence is still there.

[Religionthebigli e]

Nice nice wrote:

<quoted text>
No, you compared your posts to the farts of others. I just agreed.
As far as fallacies go, you accused someone of using a fallacy argument when you consistently attack the person instead of their augment.
In our case, you have been the topic from the beginning.
I read the posts because I enjoy it.

It had nothing to do with farts or posts. It was a numbers comparison. It could have been jelly beans and gumdrops. It was a way for you to sneak in your own ad-hominem, while accusing me of personal attacks. Logical fallacy as well as hypocritical. <Tsk tsk>

The fact that you think I really give a shit about your opinion, or that I might change my posting style based on that opinion, is a logical fallacy in itself.

Carry on nice nice, or Tom, or whatever other name you come up with next.

[Jerald]

Lacez wrote:

<quoted text>
Calm down,

Does my characterization of his calling me a "passive antagonist" as being humorous mean that I need to "calm down"? I assure you that any appearance of impatience, irrationality or anger is an inference you've drawn, not an implication on my part.

Lacez wrote:

<quoted text>please read my previous comment to understand where he was coming from (although I may be mistaken).
I believe he is not a bigot, out to take away our rights, and not saying that it SHOULDN'T be a secular government, but just there to say that the influence is still there.

Did I call him a bigot? Did I claim that he is "out to take away our rights"?

In posts he made to me, not you, he disagreed with some statements that I made, and apparently he's now clear on my position after I responded. That's all.

[Lacez]

Jerald wrote:

<quoted text>
Does my characterization of his calling me a "passive antagonist" as being humorous mean that I need to "calm down"? I assure you that any appearance of impatience, irrationality or anger is an inference you've drawn, not an implication on my part.
<quoted text>
Did I call him a bigot? Did I claim that he is "out to take away our rights"?
In posts he made to me, not you, he disagreed with some statements that I made, and apparently he's now clear on my position after I responded. That's all.

Sorry, I just meant that he didn't seem out to hate anyone, he was only trying to make a certain point. And by calm down, I just meant to read his statements over again, not in a patronizing way or anything. I am sorry if I offended you in any way, and I just want you to know that I never intended to insult you.

[killa]

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>You're too cute.

You've just admitted your original argument was faulty, and you say mine is weak?

And I quote:

"So if Gay Marriage is Constitutional, why didn't gay marriage start back in 1776 Einstein?"

No mention of amendments there, Kiddo. Changing your original argument doesn't improve it.

So, why was the Constitution ever amended in the first place?

And why was no amendment required end the ban on interracial marriage? The courts did that. And how, you may ask?

By ruling that a law created only in animus, and targeting a disliked group in a discriminatory way is unconstitutional.

Sound familiar?

That was so weak again. Stop playing gotcha because you are embarrassing yourself. Start by learning. Then you can teach like me.

Read my past posts. I already spoke of an amendment in 1868 and how gay marriage didn't start then either. Did you expect me to list every year each amendment passed? I thought you could extrapolate the argument. I was wrong.

You will have to look it up if you don't know why the Constitution was ever amended. It's a little elementary and there are plenty of good sources available to you.

Separate but equal was passed by the courts as well. We may agree with some things the court passes and other laws we may not. But it is unconstitutional either way. It's up to the legislature to pass the laws because we can throw them the hell out if we disagree.

I don't believe ending the ban on interracial marriage was writing law. That was simply enforcing the Constitution. Not everything they do is bad. The amendment of equal protection was clearly being violated.

[Frank]

killa wrote:

<quoted text>
That was so weak again. Stop playing gotcha because you are embarrassing yourself. Start by learning. Then you can teach like me.
Read my past posts. I already spoke of an amendment in 1868 and how gay marriage didn't start then either. Did you expect me to list every year each amendment passed? I thought you could extrapolate the argument. I was wrong.
You will have to look it up if you don't know why the Constitution was ever amended. It's a little elementary and there are plenty of good sources available to you.
Separate but equal was passed by the courts as well. We may agree with some things the court passes and other laws we may not. But it is unconstitutional either way. It's up to the legislature to pass the laws because we can throw them the hell out if we disagree.
I don't believe ending the ban on interracial marriage was writing law. That was simply enforcing the Constitution. Not everything they do is bad. The amendment of equal protection was clearly being violated.

As is the equal rights clause is clearly being violated when it comes to gay Americans and marriage equality! Glad you can see this!No special rights involved at all,only equal one's! LOL

[killa]

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>They set the foundations for the freedom from religious persecution. Freedom of and from religion affiliation. They set the foundation for equal representation and equality under the law.

Do you have a problem with those most basic American ideals?

If you choose to discriminate against a group, and strip away basic civil and human rights, then there MUST be a valid state reason. Religious belief isn't enough. Finding them "icky' isn't enough.

You need more than that.

Do you have a valid state reason for preventing gay married couples from receiving civil and legal recognition for their marriages?

If so, let's hear it.

It's a lifestyle that is difficult on children. Children seek and Mother and a Father. The gay lifestyle is not overwhelming accepted and those problems will be visited on the child. I also have a problem with the term marriage as I believe it devalues the word. Marriage is something to be aspired to and promoted because it creates a stable environment for kids. That can't be said about a 'gay marriage'.

My other problem is gays are typically liberal. You vote against my causes, I vote against yours.

[Peace-Love-Happi ness]

Religionthebiglie wrote:

<quoted text>
She doesn't know them. I like the way she tried to cover that up by saying she didn't want to be off-topic. Like that ever stopped her. LOL

I am willing to hear her argument on something other than ssm.

[KiMare]

Lacez wrote:

<quoted text>
Obviously a man loving a man, woman loving a woman or woman loving a man is different from loving your son. Not the brightest of the bunch, are you?

You mean like the difference between a man loving a woman and a man loving a man.

Not too bright, are you?

[killa]

Jerald wrote:

<quoted text>For the very same reason that, despite the clear language in the 14th Amendment itself, legal segregation and discrimination in education, housing, employment, and a slew of economic and social conditions.

The generation that passed the 14th Amendment continued to treat Blacks as second-class citizens because they believed in notions of black inferiority and white supremacy, notions that are racist and ignorant.

It took a Supreme Court ruling to say "no."

The 14th Amendment's equal protections are for ALL citizens. That's what it says.

It's not limited by race. It's not limited by gender.

Someday, a Supreme Court majority will join those other federal courts that have already recognized that there remains no rational basis, let alone a compelling governmental interest, in denying citizens the right to obtain a civil marriage solely because of the gender of the partners.

That's the role of the judiciary; that's the way our constitutional system works, whether you like it or not.

I apologize for the long answer; I know that you've stated that substantive or lengthy responses tax your ability to follow an argument.

Quantity hasn't always equaled quality on your posts, or I would read the whole thing.

You actually brought up a good argument on this post though, so I read it in whole. If the amendment wasn't intended to include blacks, it should have read that way. The activist courts would have been the ones allowing interracial marriage bans to stand.

[ELH]

Laquesha Jefferson, PhD:

Laquesha removed her goggles and surgical mask as I sat down at her desk. She turned towards me as her unpinned hair fell into a raven black mane. As she walked towards me she slowly unbutton the manly starched shirt that was hiding her large sensuous breasts until she was hovering over me completely naked from the waist up. Her short tight skirt hiked up her coco colored thighs as she straddled my legs and whispered in my ear,“Why Professor Marvelous, didn’t you know that Rocket Science isn’t my only talent?”

[ELH]

killa wrote:

<quoted text>
It's a lifestyle that is difficult on children. Children seek and Mother and a Father. The gay lifestyle is not overwhelming accepted and those problems will be visited on the child. I also have a problem with the term marriage as I believe it devalues the word. Marriage is something to be aspired to and promoted because it creates a stable environment for kids. That can't be said about a 'gay marriage'.
My other problem is gays are typically liberal. You vote against my causes, I vote against yours.

You were raised by two heterosexual parents and yet you turned out to be an ignorant azzhole. Go figure.

[ELH]

KiMare wrote:

I have a penis and a vagina!

What in God’s name was I looking at ...?

It stood just under five-foot, slender, and covered with a coat of hair. Its face was an unholy mix of human and ape. It was making a soft sound that could have been growling, but I hardly noticed...

because my eyes were glued to a part of her I could couldn’t believe -- BREASTS!

from "The Last Missing Link"

[KiMare]

Lacez wrote:

<quoted text>
If you look at my wording and don't ignore the comment, I was commenting on how Galileo was imprisoned and they threatened to torture him. Simply for a theory (which was later proven) that oppose the belief of the church.
Read.
Understand.
Reply appropriately.
I don't care about his views on religion, the point of the matter is that the religion he supported had prosecuted him for believing other than what they said. Even though he was right. Most religious nuts are like those who imprisoned Galileo. They refuse to see the TRUTH because the bible says otherwise, and the content of the bible is therefore lying.
I can not learn how to stop being an "idiot moron" from someone who is one themselves. Anyone who has different views from you is actually being smart, because you obviously think of yourself as a god in your own eyes.
Learn the English language as well. Saying someone is an "idiot moron" is like saying they're a stupid stupid. Like calling your cat a feline cat. It's redundant, stupid, and grammatically incorrect.
I'm just trying to help you to not be an "idiot moron."

No, you are mocking things you don't understand and denying things you do. Then you lie about it.

I called you on one, and I could have on all your statements. This happens over and over. Aren't you embarrassed?

[KiMare]

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
So, gay people don't pay taxes or insurance premiums?
Where marriage is the same, divorce is the same.
When will people get around to deciding that they can't afford YOUR equal Citizenship, eh?

It's the difference between diverse and redumdant couples.

Smirk.

[killa]

Frank wrote:

<quoted text>As is the equal rights clause is clearly being violated when it comes to gay Americans and marriage equality! Glad you can see this!No special rights involved at all,only equal one's! LOL

That's all been addressed. Reread my brilliant comments to understand why that's silly.

[killa]

ELH wrote:

<quoted text>You were raised by two heterosexual parents and yet you turned out to be an ignorant azzhole. Go figure.

Oh snap

[snyper]

Jerald wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey, that's great.
But to characterize me as a "passive antagonist" when you're the one who was disagreeing with me (you even stated "I would disagree") and appearing to attribute to me claims that I never made is somewhat humorous. Perhaps if you would have taken the time to scroll up or back and read the thread in its context and the claims to which I was responding (the person named Pattiecake in particular) you would have has a better frame in which to comment.

"Passive antagonist" is a strategy developed on political panel discussion shows.

[Lacez]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
No, you are mocking things you don't understand and denying things you do. Then you lie about it.
I called you on one, and I could have on all your statements. This happens over and over. Aren't you embarrassed?

You keep trying to use confusion to prove that you really have nothing to prove without proving anything. You didn't even reply properly to this, you aren't proving anything by...not proving anything.