Am I a Homphobe?

[R8ers]

We have a vote coming up on May 8 it is a vote to put in the Constitution of the state of NC That Marriage is to be between one man and one woman.

I don't care what gay people do in their bedrooms, it's none of my business but on the same token I think only a man and woman should be able to legally marry... I really don't even care if Gay people want civil unions....

I am a Conservative .... and I will be voting FOR the amendment.

[BucEyedPea]

More on gay marriage by Justin Raimondo who is a gay libertarian.

Which brings us to the central argument against gay marriage, which is that it is based on a heterosexual model of sexual and emotional relationships, one that just doesn’t fit the gay lifestyle. The whole idea of getting gays hitched is derivative of the central error of egalitarianism, the counter intuitive conception of human beings as being “equal” and, therefore, interchangeable—and therefore one-size-fits-all. Egalitarianism isn’t really a political ideology: it’s a religion, one quite capable of withstanding a sustained assault of clear evidence to the contrary.

The very phrase “gay marriage” is an oxymoron. Homosexuality, after all, is really all about the avoidance of marriage – and the responsibility of raising a family. It is the embrace of sensuality for its own sake, as an instrument of pure pleasure rather than procreation. Do gay guys really want to give up what is most attractive – to males, at any rate – about their recreational activities, the tremendous sense of freedom it implies?

He does mention that it appeals to gay women more along with some jokes in the link about them bringing a moving van to the second date and a turkey baster to the third.

Marriage, in the context of male homosexuality, isn’t just a contradiction: the very idea of two males getting “married” evokes such protest precisely because it parodies heterosexual unions...

With gay marriage comes the inevitable gay divorce—and, believe you me, it’s going to be ugly. ...Indeed, I predict that, given the nature of the male animal, the gay male divorce rate will soon outstrip the rate of new gay male marriages. Gay marriage—in the gay male community, that is—is prone to self-abolition...

In yet another irony, it looks like the gay “liberation” movement has turned into its opposite. Instead of rebelling against the bourgeois social order, and asserting and celebrating their “liberation” from legalistic and moral norms, gay activists seek to reinforce those norms by “broadening” them. What started out as a movement for “gay liberation” has turned into a campaign to make gay society as restrictive of sexuality (particularly male sexuality) as the straight world – and even more boring.

http://takimag.com/article/gay_marri...#axzz1sYFRK3vb


Not all gays want it.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

I would probably categorize it as a right to privacy (government stay the hell out of my family business).

Then why were you advocating putting the federal govt into it if it is a right to privacy?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

I've heard that before about this being due to not being accepted but clinical studies show the same pattern in the Netherlands where they are accepted. So "I" am not buyin' it. I'm not just using my own experience. It confirms studies I've seen long after my own experience which matched what I saw. Just read some Gay magazines and see for yourself. It's about cruisin in a meat market especially for the males. I remember after Vermont legalized it and there were lots of gay marriages. Many of them sought divorce in the courts a year later.

It makes sense that males would be more like that. Even in heterosexual relationships, males are typically the aggressive pursuers. Having male vs. male just amps up the hunt. But that doesn't mean that they can't fall in love and be faithful. I suspect that there is a combination of factors at work here, some intrinsic and some cultural.

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Then why were you advocating putting the federal govt into it if it is a right to privacy?

I'm advocating the exact opposite. The federal government is already in it, we are all equals in the eyes of the law...

I'm saying the federal government should leave it alone, EXCEPT if any state makes a law that TAKES AWAY freedoms that people already have.

In that case it is the duty of the federal government to step in and protect our rights to privacy and freedom. As it should be the duty of any real conservative to speak up against taking away of freedoms. Fake conservatives feel free to justify hypocrisy and silence though, and feel free to only demand freedoms for things that you agree with. Just like the 1st amendment, sometimes freedoms allow people to do things we don't agree with...but we have to step up and defend true freedom regardless.

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

I'm advocating the exact opposite. The federal government is already in it, we are all equals in the eyes of the law...

I'm saying the federal government should leave it alone, EXCEPT if any state makes a law that TAKES AWAY freedoms that people already have.

In that case it is the duty of the federal government to step in and protect our rights to privacy and freedom. As it should be the duty of any real conservative to speak up against taking away of freedoms. Fake conservatives feel free to justify hypocrisy and silence though, and feel free to only demand freedoms for things that you agree with. Just like the 1st amendment, sometimes freedoms allow people to do things we don't agree with...but we have to step up and defend true freedom regardless.

Isn't that what most if not all new laws do? Take away existing freedoms?

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by vailpass

Isn't that what most if not all new laws do? Take away existing freedoms?

You are brilliant. You are definitely the Sarah Palin of CP. Dumb as rocks, but doesn't keep lil' Sarah from trying. Keep on, Sarah.

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by vailpass

Isn't that what most if not all new laws do? Take away existing freedoms?

I would actually say yes....Most laws do this. But A lot of freedoms are not protected under the constitution / federal law. Like the freedom to hurt other people or **** with their property etc...

Problems happen when there is a conflict between what freedom the state(s) want(s) to take away, and the freedoms that are granted by federal law.

The system isn't always perfect but it will most likely work itself out in the long run..
......or we are d0000med.

I personally believe the constitution is the highest law in the land, and think that this thread is a perfect example of the debate that is happening around the nation. Eventually plain logic will triumph, and people willrealize that separate is NOT equal and that whatever rights we extend to the majority, must be extended to minorities as well. Whatever percent you assign to homos (5%, 10%, 12%) I think it is fairly established that homos are a part of society and are not going away any time soon. It isn't a choice, it isn't a lifestyle...it is just how some people are. We shouldn't deny two of these people the right to marry each other if they want. There is no point, except to 'not offend' some people. Well, sorry if freedom offends a few people...but it isn't HURTING you in any way so....mind your own business..is what we have to tell these busy bodies.....Basically.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

I would actually say yes....Most laws do this.

So a law giving gays the same rights as heteros takes away what existing freedom?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

So a law giving gays the same rights as heteros takes away what existing freedom?

A law wouldn't take away any freedoms, but a
Constitutional interpretation requiring the government to extend marriage to gay couples would take away the freedom of the people to decide how to distribute government benefits as the majority sees fit by passing laws like they do with so many other benefits (e.g. tax benefits for people with children or for blind people).

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

You are brilliant. You are definitely the Sarah Palin of CP. Dumb as rocks, but doesn't keep lil' Sarah from trying. Keep on, Sarah.

Logical fallacy. Epic FAIL!

[Bowser]

Originally Posted by R8ers

We have a vote coming up on May 8 it is a vote to put in the Constitution of the state of NC That Marriage is to be between one man and one woman.

I don't care what gay people do in their bedrooms, it's none of my business but on the same token I think only a man and woman should be able to legally marry... I really don't even care if Gay people want civil unions....

I am a Conservative .... and I will be voting FOR the amendment.

I haven't read the thread, so I don't know if the obvious point has been made, but if you have to ask, or either make a statement like "I don't hate the gays and what they do, BUT.....", it probably means you're a homophobe at some level. If you WEREN'T, you wouldn't care one way or another if gay people were allowed to marry or not.

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

So a law giving gays the same rights as heteros takes away what existing freedom?

Read what I said. I said STATE LAW takes away rights from existing freedoms that FEDERAL LAWS give. It is my opinion that federal law already does (broadly, by way of the constitution etc.) provide for homosexuals to be equals, and will very specifically (by the same way that race, gender, and religion are protected) provide this freedom. We shoudln't need state laws giving gay rights (although more than 25 states do have such laws, since the feeds have fumble ****ed this whole issue).

Look at it this way, prior to the Brown versus Board of education ruling, was the concept of 'separate but equal' in line with the constitution? NO. However separate but equal was the law...it just took some fighting and some eyes opening to make people see that the spirit of the constitution was totally in opposition with this concept.

What I am saying is that in the future this issue will be looked back on much as Brown VS. Board of education is looked back on today.......as in the people who fought against it look like fools and those who fought for it look like heroes. That is how history will be written, by the winners.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

Read what I said. I said STATE LAW takes away rights from existing freedoms that FEDERAL LAWS give. It is my opinion that federal law already does (broadly, by way of the constitution etc.) provide for homosexuals to be equals, and will very specifically (by the same way that race, gender, and religion are protected) provide this freedom. We shoudln't need state laws giving gay rights (although more than 25 states do have such laws, since the feeds have fumble ****ed this whole issue).

Nope

Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Federalist # 45

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The 14th Amendment was written for the new freed blacks—NOT to override community standards. The expansion of the incorporation doctrine is judicial activism because the Bill of Rights was added in order to get the Constitution ratified as many delegates feared the EXACT thing you are recommending. The document was written primarily to restrain the new Federal govt to be, not the states. And the BoRs was added for added protection from that new govt. In fact the whole idea of a BoR's came from the states who had that first.


Also you don't speak for "we." You're the one trying to over ride the American people by using the national govt.

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Also you don't speak for "we." You're the one trying to over ride the American people by using the national govt.

You completely misunderstood what I said, maybe you misread it or maybe you just want to argue for arguments sake...

I'll try and make this simple...

We SHOULDNT need laws to do obvious things that are ALREADY a part of the constitution (or its amendments etc...or federal law) (in a perfect world)....Like protect the rights we already have.

But, apparently since people are so ****ign stupid they need their hand held (like you) thats why we end up with a million extra and un-needed laws.

The one person who I would think would be against un-needed laws would be you, based on your rants about how much of a libertarian you are, but I guess youre just a troll....

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

The 14th Amendment was written for the new freed blacks—NOT to override community standards.

Are you trying to say that the 14th Amendment did not supercede community standards?

Are you really suggesting that a community could make a law that violated the 14th Amendment?

It is in the ****ing TEXT of the 14th Amendment that it in fact DOES override community standards...in the very first section.

LOL...Moron....