Prop 8 Overturned :: Free Realms

Scholar

15,787 posts

Almalieque wrote:

First, I didn't say that people aren't scared, I said most people aren't.

Those types of beat-downs with responses like "He came on to me" is not from fear, but ignorance, prejudice and/or hatred.

Whoa, it's homophobia!

Edit: Belky beat me too it. Here's a citation.

Edited, Aug 23rd 2010 1:46pm by Codyy

#1428 Aug 23 2010 at 1:18 PM Rating: Good

Elinda

Skelly Poker Since 2008

16,781 posts

Almalieque wrote:

I'll respond to the rest later, but I had to single this out. Evidence of poor comprehension and lack of reading at it's finest.

Elinda wrote:

You're claiming it's acceptable to treat a group of individuals unfairly because you find their lifestyle disgusting. Sounds like homophobia to me.

Almalieque, The all knowing wrote:

As for me, I can, have and will talk to homosexual males and disregarded the fact that I think that is utterly disgusting. But when they start to get a little too friendly, i.e jokes with innuendos, etc. that makes me uncomfortable.

Really? Did you even bother to read or comprehend that or is it written too poorly for you to understand?

Not only did I say the exact opposite of what you said, I didn't even mention anything about SSM. You just through that in as some fictional argument...

sheesh.. pure nonsense.. I'll be back later

Edited, Aug 23rd 2010 7:50pm by Almalieque

But still not presenting the flip side of the argument that you keep disputing. Instead you hide behind miss-meanings. If you're not for SSM then you're against it. Why?

I'm the queen of poorly written, but if it's understandable, I'll get it - so will you.

____________________________

Alma wrote:

I lost my post

#1429 Aug 23 2010 at 1:38 PM Rating: Good

Sage

21,262 posts

You can find something disgusting and still accept that there's a constitutional right to do it anyway.

I find Scientology vile and disgusting, but freedom of religion means that it can't be outlawed in the US (as it has been in many countries now.) Thankfully, freedom of speech means that Anonymous can protest it and call it a dangerous cult.

And really, if you're getting hit on by gay guys, it possibly means you're triggering their gaydar somehow. Most gay men I know are pretty keen on avoiding hitting on straights and all the awkwardness it entails. Something to think about there.

#1430 Aug 23 2010 at 1:46 PM Rating: Good

Elinda

Skelly Poker Since 2008

16,781 posts

catwho wrote:

You can find something disgusting and still accept that there's a constitutional right to do it anyway.

I find Scientology vile and disgusting, but freedom of religion means that it can't be outlawed in the US (as it has been in many countries now.) Thankfully, freedom of speech means that Anonymous can protest it and call it a dangerous cult.

And really, if you're getting hit on by gay guys, it possibly means you're triggering their gaydar somehow. Most gay men I know are pretty keen on avoiding hitting on straights and all the awkwardness it entails. Something to think about there.

Gaydar?

____________________________

Alma wrote:

I lost my post

#1431 Aug 23 2010 at 1:48 PM Rating: Excellent

Samira

Will swallow your soul

29,360 posts

Yeah, that's one of those cringe-inducing concepts that I wish would go away.

____________________________

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#1432 Aug 23 2010 at 1:55 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1649636418093

Sage

30,646 posts

Samira wrote:

Yeah, that's one of those cringe-inducing concepts that I wish would go away.

Seriously.

Also, the idea that a homosexual has to watch what he or she says and not make any jokes that might in some way be sexual in nature around a group of friends seems sad.

#1433 Aug 23 2010 at 2:10 PM Rating: Good

Sage

21,262 posts

My point is that if Alma thinks that his/her gay friends are hitting on him/her, then said gay friends are probably not the one with the problem.

#1434 Aug 23 2010 at 2:10 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1630282721753

Sage

14,174 posts

Samira wrote:

Yeah, that's one of those cringe-inducing concepts that I wish would go away.

Amen.

It's always struck me as one of those concepts that appeal to people who are uncomfortable talking about homosexuality, either because they're gay and they're worried their friends aren't as free from prejudice as they claim or because they're friends with someone who's gay and they aren't as free from prejudice as they claim (or, more charitably, they're worried that their friend thinks they aren't as free from prejudice as they claim). It makes the whole thing a half-joke, and thus safe and socially un-awkward. Maybe I'm wrong, though; it's an entirely unsubstantiated theory. Either way, it's pretty annoying.

Quote:

My point is that if Alma thinks that his/her gay friends are hitting on him/her, then said gay friends are probably not the one with the problem.

You were suggesting he was gay. Being gay is a problem now, is it? Wow, catwho, I am shocked at you. Shocked and disgusted.

Maybe a little outraged, too.

Edited, Aug 23rd 2010 8:11pm by Kavekk

#1435 Aug 23 2010 at 2:16 PM Rating: Good

Elinda

Skelly Poker Since 2008

16,781 posts

Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:

Maybe a little outraged, too.

Edited, Aug 23rd 2010 8:11pm by Kavekk

I'm disappointed.

____________________________

Alma wrote:

I lost my post

#1436 Aug 23 2010 at 2:23 PM Rating: Good

Sage

21,262 posts

No, I'm saying Alma's problem is that he's in the closet.

#1437 Aug 23 2010 at 2:29 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1649636418093

Sage

30,646 posts

It's also frustrating that people will be against homosexual men, but lesbians are just peachy keen. Smiley: rolleyes

#1438 Aug 23 2010 at 2:41 PM Rating: Excellent

Samira

Will swallow your soul

29,360 posts

Belkira the Tulip wrote:

It's also frustrating that people will be against homosexual men, but lesbians are just peachy keen. Smiley: rolleyes

But only the pretty ones.

____________________________

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#1439 Aug 23 2010 at 2:47 PM Rating: Decent

Sage

21,262 posts

There's a certain subsect of anime fandom that finds pretty gay men acceptable.

#1440 Aug 23 2010 at 3:23 PM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

Posting in a 30+ page thread on the 29th page.

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#1441 Aug 23 2010 at 3:24 PM Rating: Default

__DEL__1630282721753

Sage

14,174 posts

Lastâ„¢.

#1442 Aug 23 2010 at 3:27 PM Rating: Decent

Sage

21,262 posts

Congrats on Last.

#1443 Aug 23 2010 at 3:50 PM Rating: Decent

gbaji

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

Belkira the Tulip wrote:

Looking up the actual word, it has three meanings. The first is unreasonable fear or antipahty of homosexuality. The second is intense hatred or fear of homosexuality. The third (which says it's a medical definition) is irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.

Honestly, it's usually a word I try to steer clear of, but apparently it really is acceptable in any and all of these situations.

The larger question is whether or it's reasonable to assume that every single person who opposes any aspect of same sex marriage must be a "homophobe". That was the original question being asked, right? To which at least two people answered with an unqualified "yes".

I disagree strongly, and furthermore suspect that the reason people say that is specifically to dismiss and attack anyone who questions any aspect of the same sex marriage argument. It's counterproductive to any sort of real debate on the subject, and is thus suspect. Calling someone a homophobe because they don't agree with you about SSM is a cheap way to avoid the argument IMO.

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

#1444 Aug 23 2010 at 3:56 PM Rating: Decent

gbaji

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

And since you gave the only decent post since Friday:

Belkira the Tulip wrote:

Here you go, Alma.

The SCOTUS wrote:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

There you have it. Marriage is a right, and denying marriage based on race is unequal. And, I believe we will find, as is denying marriage based on sexual orientation.

Yup. I already linked and quoted this case. And it includes the test I mentioned way back on like page 3 of this thread:

Quote:

At the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the "most rigid scrutiny," Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 216 (1944), and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate.

This is why I've attempted to make this debate about determining what the "state objective" for creating marriage statutes is. Without establishing that, we're all just flailing our arms at each other meaninglessly. And Jophs "There is none!" isn't really a good answer btw...

Quote:

Unless you'd like to argue with the Supreme Court.

Can't speak for Alma, but I'm not arguing with the Court. I'm arguing that the Courts own words suggest both that discrimination on the grounds of a status protected in the 14th amendment is not always unconstitutional *and* provides us a test to determine whether it is. Thus, I argue that we should focus on determining whether or not said statutes meet said test instead of making the argument about whether we like or hate gays.

The latter may be more satisfying for most people. It's comfortable and easy to just attack the other guy for disagreeing with you. I just don't find it's terribly productive though.

Edited, Aug 23rd 2010 3:00pm by gbaji

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

#1445 Aug 23 2010 at 4:03 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1596990078323

Sage

19,727 posts

Almalieque wrote:

As for me, I can, have and will talk to homosexual males and disregarded the fact that I think that is utterly disgusting. But when they start to get a little too friendly, i.e jokes with innuendos, etc. that makes me uncomfortable. You can't possibly label that as a homophobia.

No, I can label that homophobia, and you a homophobe.

Christ, and then you go on for a page about how non-afraid you are? Alma, why are so disgusted by their sex acts?

There are two options:

One, you are afraid of having those acts perpetrated upon you.

Two, you are afraid of the way you get a ***** when you think about having those acts perpetrated upon you.

I'm guessing the latter. You keep it on the down low, homie?

Personally, I'm so straight nothing about gays fUcking skeeves me. Hell, I've accidentally jerked it to gay **** before, because all I saw was penetration, and afterward I just pretended that little guy just had a big ol' **** and disappointing ********

Edited, Aug 23rd 2010 3:09pm by Barkingturtle

#1446 Aug 23 2010 at 4:09 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1596990078323

Sage

19,727 posts

gbaji wrote:

The latter may be more satisfying for most people. It's comfortable and easy to just attack the other guy for disagreeing with you. I just don't find it's terribly productive though.

You don't find it productive because you're a homophobic bigot, and eventually the fact that the people in your camp are at their core all homophobic bigots will be the reason you lose this one. Eventually the stigma of being homophobic will be worse than being gay, and then people like you will have to meet privately, probably in bathhouses. This is how civil rights are advanced.

#1447 Aug 23 2010 at 4:16 PM Rating: Default

__DEL__1630282721753

Sage

14,174 posts

[quote]Personally, I'm so straight nothing about gays ******* skeeves me. Hell, I've accidentally jerked it to gay **** before, because all I saw was penetration, and afterward I just pretended that little guy just had a big ol' **** and disappointing ****************

Had a pretty feminine ***** did he?

#1448 Aug 23 2010 at 4:21 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1596990078323

Sage

19,727 posts

Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:

[quote]Personally, I'm so straight nothing about gays @#%^ing skeeves me. Hell, I've accidentally jerked it to gay **** before, because all I saw was penetration, and afterward I just pretended that little guy just had a big ol' **** and disappointing ****************

Had a pretty feminine ***** did he?

Well yeah. It had a ***** in it.

#1449 Aug 23 2010 at 4:49 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1681085903309

Scholar

21,720 posts

gbaji wrote:

Yup. I already linked and quoted this case. And it includes the test I mentioned way back on like page 3 of this thread:

Quote:

At the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the "most rigid scrutiny," Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 216 (1944), and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate.

This is why I've attempted to make this debate about determining what the "state objective" for creating marriage statutes is. Without establishing that, we're all just flailing our arms at each other meaninglessly.

Boy are you stupid. Does your head hurt all the time? Lookie here, numb nuts (from your own damn quote):

Quote:

racial classifications...be subjected to the "most rigid scrutiny,"...and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective

Since you're obviously too damn thickheaded to interpret your own quoted references properly, let me rephrase that in layman's terms:

Quote:

Any classification based on race (i.e. something that generates a race-based inequality) must be shown to be absolutely necessary to accomplish a state objective if they are to be upheld. Otherwise, they are invalid under the equal protection clause.

Now, I don't think anybody here is arguing that marriage is really the government's business anyway, but what is being argued is that denying state recognized marriage (a previously declared "fundamental right") based on race serves no specific state objective and was therefore invalidated by the SC. The same can be said for denying state recognized marriage based on sexual orientation.

Got it? Nah, didn't think so. Carry on, idiot.

#1450 Aug 23 2010 at 4:55 PM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

gbaji wrote:

Yup. I already linked and quoted this case. And it includes the test I mentioned way back on like page 3 of this thread:
[...]
This is why I've attempted to make this debate about determining what the "state objective" for creating marriage statutes is.

lolwut?

He's saying that racial classification, if it is to be upheld, must have a permissible state objective in order for it to be legal. The entire paragraph is about when it's legal to classify people racially and has nothing directly to do with the "purpose" of marriage.

The entire paragraph wrote:

There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. The statutes proscribe generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races. Over the years, this Court has consistently repudiated "distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry" as being "odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality." At the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the "most rigid scrutiny," Korematsu v. United States (1944), and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate. Indeed, two members of this Court have already stated that they "cannot conceive of a valid legislative purpose . . . which makes the color of a person's skin the test of whether his conduct is a criminal offense."

Yeah, I know you found a little catch phrase in there with "state objective" and thought you really had a zinger but reading the paragraph with any measure of comprehension kind of deflates your balloon. The notion of a "state objective" for marriage is not even explored (no doubt because "It's just obvious!!", right?) The paragraph is roughly equal to the already agreed upon statement that the right to marry should not be infringed upon unless there was some major overriding reason to do so (i.e. "state objective" for racial discrimination). Again, the question becomes whether or not there's a good enough reason to deny homosexuals protection under the Equal Protection Clause to deny them their fundamental right to marry.

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#1451 Aug 23 2010 at 5:03 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1716164190383

Sage

19,999 posts

catwho wrote:

I find Scientology vile and disgusting, but freedom of religion means that it can't be outlawed in the US (as it has been in many countries now.) Thankfully, freedom of speech means that Anonymous can protest it and call it a dangerous cult.

I find it to not be an actual religion, merely a means of separating stupid people from their money.