Support for gay marriage may be leveling off

[Texashiker]

Nope! Just people who do so ignorantly and dishonestly like you do.

I have no reason to be dishonest.

Yeah. I don't like people that make offensive false equivalencies in an attempt to justify their bigotry,

You are getting dislike confused with bigotry. There is in fact a difference.

Do you like screaming kids while you are trying to eat? If you get aggravated about a baby screaming at the top of its lungs, you are a bigot.

How dare you expect a child to keep quiet. Babies cry, deal with it.

You may not like babies screaming and crying in public.

I do not like gays.

Get over it already.

 

[werepossum]

Obviously you missed the fact that gay people are "born that way" and therefore know from an early age they are gay.

So clearly the answer would be zero.

Besides if there was "no special societal stigma" to gay sex why not bang your high school buddies. If you really think about it a hole is a hole, so gay sex is really just an advanced fleshlight.

Supposedly there is a lot of gay sex in prisons and segregated Catholic schools (but I repeat myself) just for that reason - lack of other opportunity overcomes stigma. Where there is other opportunity, we don't bang our high school buddies because there's no sexual attraction and even the hunt for hetero partners is more appealing.

I haven't known that many gay people in my life, but of the ones I've known only a couple stand out as knowing very young. The others began hetero and moved to homo relationships, including several who were married before going gay.

(asterisk) Unless that definition involves marrying a toaster. Because that would be flat out impossible

lol This actually will be an issue at some point. So far sex robots seem intentionally brainless, but at some point robots will have a fair amount of autonomy. At that point someone will undoubtedly combine an intelligent robot and a sex robot, if only to have it clean up afterward. And soon after that, someone will want to marry one. At that point it will be a joke to everyone else, of course, but the Japanese are already working on companion robots, and at some point it's going to be difficult to determine if robots can qualify for marriage. Not toasters, but toasters' big sisters.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Tex, you must be terrified. If you do not like the gays, then how can you ever leave your home! Many of them are covert, and you may never know who is or is not a gay. Maybe your best friend is a gay!

I think perhaps the truth is, you dont care about if somebody is gay or not, I suspect you just think male on male intamacy is "yucky" or gross and it makes you squeamish.

A gay is just a regular person, they just happen to like those who are the same as them instead of opposites.

Anyhow, people are people, everybody should have the same right to whatever makes them happy provided that their happiness does not impede or harm the happiness of others. The conservative argument has been "everybody has the same right, gay men have the same right to marry a woman as straight men." and that is obviously a very obtuse way to look at things.

 

[fskimospy]

I have no reason to be dishonest.

All the more reason to stop doing it then!

 

[Texashiker]

I think perhaps the truth is, you dont care about if somebody is gay or not, I suspect you just think male on male intamacy is "yucky" or gross and it makes you squeamish.

As stated in several threads I know gay people, they are on my facebook feed, we talk, everything is fine between us.

But I still get called names.

I do not which is more hateful, being falsely accused of something, or all the hateful names.

Anyhow, people are people, everybody should have the same right to whatever makes them happy provided that their happiness does not impede or harm the happiness of others. The conservative argument has been "everybody has the same right, gay men have the same right to marry a woman as straight men." and that is obviously a very obtuse way to look at things.

As I have stated in numerous threads over several years, I feel any law that targets a certain demographic is in itself a form of discrimination.

I feel the support for gay marriage is dropping off because people are starting to see the movement is a farce.

In general, gays are not interested in true marriage equality. They want special laws to protect their demographic.

I can not support a movement that discriminates against others.

The marriage equality movement needs to be for "all" marriages, and not just the ones we agree on.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Tell me about the civil rights acts. Did those laws address "just" blacks, or all minorities?

Gays are not working to promote civil rights. They want laws that protect just them.

Tell you what, sit at your computer and hold your breath until you start to turn blue then, let it out again. Repeat.

Now you have a hobby that is just as fulfilling as posting crap like this on an internet forum.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Support for same sex marriages will continue to grow as older people die off as most young people do not see it as an immoral or evil thing.

Soon it will be allowed in all 50 states.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Are you going to insult or debate?

What? There's a debate going on here?

Seems more like the usual Texashiker and nehalem repetition of the same tired crap that you guys repeat in every single thread you participate in.

liberals bad, gays bad, women bad, pregnant women REALLY bad, toasters good, ad nauseam.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

In general, gays are not interested in true marriage equality. They want special laws to protect their demographic.

I can not support a movement that discriminates against others.

The marriage equality movement needs to be for "all" marriages, and not just the ones we agree on.

So if a bill was introduced to extend government recognition of marriages to include same-sex unions you would vote against it because it is not universally inclusive of all marriages that are currently not allowed? Or would you vote for it because extending the benefits of marriage to a traditionally disenfranchised group, even if it doesn't correct all the inequities of how the government recognizes marriage, is still a step in the direction of getting all marriages recognized?

 

[Victorian Gray]

You do realize that Canada declares people to married without their consent right?

Canada does no such thing.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Doctor: Toaster, I have some bad news for you. Nehalem was in a bad wreck and is on life support. Did Nehalem ever tell you what he would want if this happened?

Toaster:

Doctor: Toaster, are you even listening?

Toaster:

Doctor: Damnit Toaster, you must have the same IQ as T.H.

Toaster:

Doctor: Fuck it <pulls the plug>

You killed the toaster as well?! Damn that's cold. :biggrin:

 

[BurnItDwn]

As stated in several threads I know gay people, they are on my facebook feed, we talk, everything is fine between us.

But I still get called names.

I do not which is more hateful, being falsely accused of something, or all the hateful names.

As I have stated in numerous threads over several years, I feel any law that targets a certain demographic is in itself a form of discrimination.

I feel the support for gay marriage is dropping off because people are starting to see the movement is a farce.

In general, gays are not interested in true marriage equality. They want special laws to protect their demographic.

I can not support a movement that discriminates against others.

The marriage equality movement needs to be for "all" marriages, and not just the ones we agree on.

Lets focus on getting rid of laws that restrict specific demographics then, like laws that ban people from marrying the same gender.

As far as possible reasons to not expand it beyond that, is the amount of change involved.

Every law that works for man + woman would also work the same for man + man or woman + woman.

Situation of man + woman + woman would require additional changes to law as far as handling things like power of attorney, death benefits, parental rights, etc.

So, for that reason, it seems logical to me that something that will cost nothing to change, something that will improve the quality of life for a number of people, and something that will likely not affect or impact the majority of us in any way at all, should be allowed to pass simply because it does more good than harm. Anyhow, hope you are having a good day over there. Did you hear any news about the job? We can be civil.

 

[MrPickins]

Lets focus on getting rid of laws that restrict specific demographics then, like laws that ban people from marrying the same gender.

As far as possible reasons to not expand it beyond that, is the amount of change involved.

Every law that works for man + woman would also work the same for man + man or woman + woman.

Situation of man + woman + woman would require additional changes to law as far as handling things like power of attorney, death benefits, parental rights, etc.

So, for that reason, it seems logical to me that something that will cost nothing to change, something that will improve the quality of life for a number of people, and something that will likely not affect or impact the majority of us in any way at all, should be allowed to pass simply because it does more good than harm. Anyhow, hope you are having a good day over there. Did you hear any news about the job? We can be civil.

Logic is not allowed in TH's arguments.

 

[Victorian Gray]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2309111&highlight=

I even started a thread on it.

Except for the small fact that they aren't actually married. You may have started a thread on it but, as usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

A common-law relationship in Canada is not considered as legal marriage. It simply confers *some* of the rights and protections that married people have to those in common-law relationships. That also varies from province to province as it's the provincial governments who regulate the laws in this matter (with BC coming the closest to providing similar rights as to those who are legally married).

 

[BurnItDwn]

Logic is not allowed in TH's arguments.

Ehh, trying something different. Being patient with people...

 

[MrPickins]

Ehh, trying something different. Being patient with people...

You're a better man than I. :|

(I've lost patience with him a long time ago)

 

[z1ggy]

Except for the small fact that they aren't actually married. You may have started a thread on it but, as usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

A common-law relationship in Canada is not considered as legal marriage. It simply confers *some* of the rights and protections that married people have to those in common-law relationships. That also varies from province to province as it's the provincial governments who regulate the laws in this matter (with BC coming the closest to providing similar rights as to those who are legally married).

Pshhh what do you know???? You're only from Canada. Nehalem is the all knowing overlord of everything, including law.

 

[BurnItDwn]

You're a better man than I. :|

(I've lost patience with him a long time ago)

I don't think I am better than you man. I am a rotten bastard in many ways. I think I have given up on a lot of things due to frustration, and have decided that maybe its best to just say fuck it, and give people the benefit of the doubt and let them take their time to make their point, even if it is not very coherent or clear.

 

[alzan]

I have no reason to be dishonest.

So why are you?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Pshhh what do you know???? You're only from Canada. Nehalem is the all knowing overlord of everything, including law.

The reply was aimed at anyone else reading his crap and thinking it might be true. I know that it's a waste of effort to point facts in his general direction.

 

[SlickSnake]

(This is something I just posted in the Texas textbook topic, feel free to visit it there. But the observations seem especially pertinent here, concerning several posters obvious afflictions as well.)

Brainwashing using continous rote indoctrination (or any religious dogma, political ideology or even familial teachings) creates the same exact effects on the brain regardless of race, religion or political affiliation. Brainwashing afflicted brains literally shut down and shut off when responding to anything that remotely conflicts with their preprogramed reasoning abilities, making them irrational and utterly incapable of seeing anyone else's viewpoints what so ever.

And keep in mind, there are various degrees of brainwashing, too. And it seems the majority of the population worldwide is also under the effects of brainwashing to some extent. Independent thinking is largely shunned in favor of the hive mind brainwashing that never questions anything outside its ideology.

Which is why all religions (and even disparate political factions) ultimately either need to combine all their best attributes, or go away entirely. Otherwise, humanity is doomed to war and global failure and will never be saved by these global ideology brainwashing cults. Because those who are brainwashed and programmed can never come to terms or even learn to accept someone else's independent point of view over their own.

 

[SlickSnake]

You dislike anyone who disagrees with you.

I can respect that.

Everyone has something they do not like.

I have no reason to be dishonest.

You are getting dislike confused with bigotry. There is in fact a difference.

Do you like screaming kids while you are trying to eat? If you get aggravated about a baby screaming at the top of its lungs, you are a bigot.

How dare you expect a child to keep quiet. Babies cry, deal with it.

You may not like babies screaming and crying in public.

I do not like gays.

Get over it already.

As stated in several threads I know gay people, they are on my facebook feed, we talk, everything is fine between us.

But I still get called names.

I do not which is more hateful, being falsely accused of something, or all the hateful names.

As I have stated in numerous threads over several years, I feel any law that targets a certain demographic is in itself a form of discrimination.

I feel the support for gay marriage is dropping off because people are starting to see the movement is a farce.

In general, gays are not interested in true marriage equality. They want special laws to protect their demographic.

I can not support a movement that discriminates against others.

The marriage equality movement needs to be for "all" marriages, and not just the ones we agree on.

Obviously you have pretty severe personal and emotional issues, and the whole gay marriage issue is really just a red herring for you to try to make yourself feel superior to a group who is often used as a scape goat for any convenient problem society might have at the moment, especially by conservative fundies like yourself.

And since you would never admit to yourself your mental problems are severe enough you need to seek professional help, you instead somehow feel the need to work those personal emotional problems out in a public forum. So it's pretty obvious what you are doing and why you are doing it, don't even bother to deny it. Your posts already say it all about you, and much more than you obviously realize.

I also pretty much doubt the wife/girlfriend has read most of your assinine posts, because if she had, she probably would'nt put up with your views or even likely feel safe with you around, unless she is some mentally challenged girl you found on Craig's list for 20 dollars and decided to take advantage of and hooked up with.

By the way, when closeted gay men are conflicted about gay feelings, demeaning women and gays are one of the sure fire signs you are really in denile about your sexuality. I just hope you get the professional help you obviously need at some point, and you aren't abusive to the wife/girlfriend just because you can't cope with your own sexual attraction to men.

You might even be bisexual, but ultimately, that is for you to decide. And if you don't want to be publicly judged, then please stop posting in gay topics where you are clearly out of your element and unable to even form a coherent argument against gays or gay marriages.

And since you have all this misplaced gay rage and aggression, and you enjoy demeaning women, all my comments are probably right on the money about you and your motivations for posting and it's all certainly fair game since you simply can't stop yourself from posting your insane ranting and raving for all the world to see.

 

[SMOGZINN]

The marriage equality movement needs to be for "all" marriages, and not just the ones we agree on.

Deciding what 'marriages' are allowed is a problem of definition. Before we can make it legal we have to agree on a definition of it. That must be done iteratively. We decide on one inclusion or exclusion at a time, simply because there are too many possible definitions to be sure we are fully inclusive, and because it is possible to find contradictory definitions that have to be chosen between.

Do we allow Same Sex marriage?
What about plural marriage? If so, what type of plural marriage? Line marriage, Group marriage, split marriage, single head hierarchical?
Can two people that are already married marry each other, if so is their spouses married to each other as well? Do those spouses need to consent, either way?
Is there a limit to how many people can be married, or could a US citizen marry 1.2 million people from Mexico (who now get US citizenship)? Do we allow incestual marriage?
Does everyone in a marriage need to be alive (BTW this is not a current requirement)?
Does everyone in a marriage need to be real, or could I marry my imaginary friend?
Do they need to be able to consent, or could a person in a coma be married?
Can a person be forced to marry via Court order?
Can a guardianship or Power of Attorney consent for a person?
Can a person be married in absentia?
Do we need to meet in person, or could we get married over IRC and never meet (this is currently allowed)?

This is just some of the questions. I could write literally hundreds more, just on plural marriage, given time. These are not easy issues, and it makes no sense to say that we have to have them all figured out before we do any of them.

If you are going to advocate for that position I hope you are also advocating for revoking all marriage until we are ready to make a comprehensive marriage law.