Suck it, haters.

1356712

Comments

  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by marvfox View Post


    I am for minorities and truthfully speaking I am for a man and a woman as a couple when they are married.To me this is not right when 2 men or women are married especially when children are involved. Psychologically this screws up the child's mind in my opinion.



    There are plenty of studies that show that this is wrong thinking.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,265member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    There are plenty of studies that show that this is wrong thinking.





    A bit more about why you are talking out your ass.




    Quote:

    Amendments and revisions

    See also: California ballot proposition



    The constitution of California distinguishes between constitutional amendments and revisions, the latter of which is considered to be a "substantial change to the entire constitution, rather than ... a less extensive change in one or more of its provisions".[17] Both require passage of a California ballot proposition by voters, but they differ in how they may be proposed. An amendment may be placed on the ballot by either a two-thirds vote in the California State Legislature or signatures equal to 8% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election, among the lowest thresholds for similar measures of any U.S. state.[18] As of 2008, this was 694,354 signatures[19] compared to an estimated 2007 population of 36,553,215.[20] Revisions originally required a constitutional convention but today may be passed with the approval of both two-thirds of the legislature and a majority of voters; while simplified since its beginnings, the revision process is considered more politically charged and difficult to successfully pass than an amendment.[21]



    The exact distinction between an amendment and a revision has never been clear, as highlighted by Proposition 8 in 2008.[citation needed] Passed as an initiative amendment in response to the California Supreme Court's finding that same-sex marriage was allowed under the constitution, the proposition defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Opponents argued that Proposition 8 constituted a revision, and was thus beyond the scope of the initiative process. However, the California Supreme Court eventually ruled that it was in fact an amendment, and within the rights of the voters to add to the constitution.



  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    we have a group of people who are treated as second class citizens.



    If the government is treating them like second class citizens then my point is validated! You cannot trust the government to protect the rights you arr seeking permission to exercise.



    But let's get more specific: In what specific ways are people being treated like second class citizens?
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    In terms of the law, this is completely untrue. We need a constitution and laws to clarify what rights we have. Without that we may have rights by moral standards, but those rights would not be enforceable in court.



  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,202member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    I see someone is in the second phase of the death of their ideology.



    Tell me, tonton, what is my ideology?
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,202member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    There are plenty of studies that show that this is wrong thinking.



    I agree with you, but only in terms of children not being psychologically "screwed up." Obviously that is not the case. However, I also think that the downfall of the traditional, nuclear family is a major problem in our society (or has caused major problems). One of the issues with same sex couples with children is their understanding of gender roles and having positive role models within those roles. I believe this is beneficial to children.



    For example, I often open doors for my daughter. Why? One reason is that I want her to understand how men should treat her. She witnesses interaction between my wife and I, which reinforces her perception of how men and women in a relationship act, the roles they play, etc. Her understanding of a supportive mother and father is key as well. A child of a same-sex household does not see these roles and interactions...they have no role models in this regard. Of course, this does not mean they aren't loved and well cared for or that some harm will come to them because they are in that situation. However, I do think that if all things are equal, children benefit more from a traditional family arrangement.



    So what does that mean, legally speaking? I believe that opposite sex couples should have priority over same sex couples when it comes to adoption (again, if all things are equal). This is the most beneficial environment for children on the whole.
  • sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Two words: that typify the "Christian Taliban" religious right's bigotry, duplicity, hypocrisy and bloodymindedness on the matter.



    Then, consider that much of the bile against gay marriage/civil unions spews from the supposedly 'moral' (!) "Bible Belt". ... the region with generally the highest rates of divorce, child abuse/child sex offenders, domestic violence, etc...
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,202member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post


    Two words: that typify the "Christian Taliban" religious right's bigotry, duplicity, hypocrisy and bloodymindedness on the matter.



    Then, consider that much of the bile against gay marriage/civil unions spews from the supposedly 'moral' (!) "Bible Belt". ... the region with generally the highest rates of divorce, child abuse/child sex offenders, domestic violence, etc...



    Bigot.
  • e1618978e1618978 Posts: 6,052member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Hmmm. This seems like you're way over-thinking this. First of all most of that would become standardized right away. It would just be a standard part of getting "married." There wouldn't be much to it.



    Exactly what rights do you feel need guaranteeing here?



    Contacts can't help you with the estate tax marriage deduction, it only works for the rights and privileges that a couple give each other, not the rights and privileges that marriage gives you wrt the IRS or other parts of the government.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post


    Contacts can't help you with the estate tax marriage deduction, it only works for the rights and privileges that a couple give each other, not the rights and privileges that marriage gives you wrt the IRS or other parts of the government.



    I think you're looking at it backwards. The problem there is the existence of the tax itself not that select people are given an exemption from it. Eliminate the tax, eliminate the need to write all sorts of special exemptions for certain favored classes of people or situations. At the very least lower it and eliminate exemptions. Treat everyone equally this way.
  • brbr Posts: 8,253member
    Yes, promote the further expanding American aristocracy.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Bigot.



    Why is she a bigot? The statistics prove her assertion. For instance, a study was published quite recently that showed that 'red states' with more conservative sex education policies had a higher rate of teen pregnancy. There are studies that show that evangelicals have a higher divorce rate. The per capita molestation numbers are higher in more religious areas.



    Is that bigotry?
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Tell me, tonton, what is my ideology?



    http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/2008platform.pdf
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    Yes, promote the further expanding American aristocracy.



    What?
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,265member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Why is she a bigot? The statistics prove her assertion. For instance, a study was published quite recently that showed that 'red states' with more conservative sex education policies had a higher rate of teen pregnancy. There are studies that show that evangelicals have a higher divorce rate. The per capita molestation numbers are higher in more religious areas.



    Is that bigotry?



    Is it bigotry if studies show black IQ is as a group lower than other racial groups and you begin assigning conclusions based on those studies? What if the rate of illegitimacy, divorce, incarceration, etc are all higher for that community and I start assigning labels that "typify" that community?



    The same answer applies to both criteria.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Is it bigotry if studies show black IQ is as a group lower than other racial groups and you begin assigning conclusions based on those studies? What if the rate of illegitimacy, divorce, incarceration, etc are all higher for that community and I start assigning labels that "typify" that community?



    The same answer applies to both criteria.



    You're confusing biological effects with behavioral effects. Calling blacks dumber than whites and making changes based on such assertions is bigotry. Calling conservative and religious policies counterproductive and making changes based on such an assertion is absolutely not.
  • marvfoxmarvfox Posts: 2,275member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    There are plenty of studies that show that this is wrong thinking.



    If you have children and when they grow up to be adults would you want your son or daughter to not marry the same gender?
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,265member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    You're confusing biological effects with behavioral effects. Calling blacks dumber than whites and making changes based on such assertions is bigotry. Calling conservative and religious policies counterproductive and making changes based on such an assertion is absolutely not.



    I'm not confusing it. Multiple leftists on these forums have claimed conservatism IS biological. They've linked to studies on IQ and on the size of certain regions of the brain. In short, they contend that conservatives are born that way.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,202member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    I'm not confusing it. Multiple leftists on these forums have claimed conservatism IS biological. They've linked to studies on IQ and on the size of certain regions of the brain. In short, they contend that conservatives are born that way.



    <makes popcorn>
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,265member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    <makes popcorn>



    Don't worry, he'll ignore it. Just like he did the bit above where he claimed prop 8 was overturned in part because it wasn't an amendment. Then I linked to where the court ruled it was and asked how it can be unconstitutional to amend your constitution and well... we've got crickets, not fireworks.
Sign In or Register to comment.