Re: The thinking behind Bruce's prop



"Bill C" <tritonrider@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1ad512b5-69c5-4aa4-b49e-3c45aebe0494@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Nov 28, 7:18 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ted van de Weteringe wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
> > You don't even know what Prop 8 is. You think it will somehow > > prevent gay
> > people from getting hitched (civil unions).

> No he doesn't think that.
>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/search?q=%22civil+...

But then if you look at his reason for voting for Prop 8, it's because he says he doesn't support
the gay lifestyle and doesn't want it taught in PUBLIC schools that it's okay for gay people to
get together. Prop 8 will have no effect on that.

Sure he acknowledges civil unions, but then doesn't appear to acknowledge that Prop 8 will not
remedy the things he claims caused him to vote for Prop 8 - i.e. teaching that it's okay for gay
people to get together and that having gay "values" - whatever that means - is okay.

The reason for this disconnect is because he doesn't want to come out and state that his real
motivation for voting for Prop 8: simple hatred towards gays and any law that will harm them is
a good law. So instead, he fabricates other reasons as a cover story to mask what is sinister
hatred that has no other basis in logic than pure hatred.

That's what I was getting at. His logic as to why he CLAIMS to have voted for Prop 8 does not
eradicate any of the problems he CLAIMS would come have come into fruition had he not voted in
favor Prop 8. Now that Prop 8 has passed, there's nothing to stop teachers from teaching in
public schools that it's okay for gays to be in a relationship or that it's okay to have gay
values. So his logic for voting for Prop 8 doesn't make any sense - it's just a big lie because
he doesn't want to come out and say he hates gay people.

You need to pay attention to the details, Euro-boy..

Magilla

Both sides are totally fucking idiotic in this. They've pissed away
millions of dollars that could've gone to help people over a fucking
word. Ideology, tunnel vision, and winning at all costs triumph over
people every time for these nutjob wingers, both right and left. As
long as they get guaranteed equal protection, and responsibility how
the *** is it worth even one single dollar that could've bought
someone a can of soup to fight over a word?
To inject some religion here:

http://www.dogchurch.org/scriptorium/reduced.html
Quoted:

So you liberals and conservatives out there, get a clue. If you can't
constructively engage each other on public policy matters, if all you
can do is shout and accuse and evade each other's arguments, then you
are bound to be missing something in your mental models. You need to
build an addition to your model, or maybe to revise the whole thing.
An unbending liberalism or conservatism is a sign of mental laziness
and cowardice. It is a sign that you are willing to let your politics
be determined more by your genetics than by your reason.

Hope everyone had a great Holiday.
Bill C

Hey, Bill, happy Thanksgiving to you too. I just haven't a clue - maybe you can help - why there is all the hubbub about marriage? After all, for those who marry with a religious conviction, the civil ceremony and certificate are quite secondary. For those having no religious belief, I suspect that a prime motivator is tax benefit. For other purposes, one can establish a civil union with contractual rights and privileges that emulate the married state. For hospital visitation, the confirmation in a living will gets you in the door all the time. Is it the fun half-hour spent in private (one would hope) in an intimate embrace that is sought after? The US constitution guarantees the freedom of association, no? Even polygamists (or polyandrists, or group marriages) are protected that way, as the invalidity of a purported marriage does not mean people can't live together and share body fluids.

What, do you think, is left? Is it also really necessary to endorse the homoSEXUAL activity that occurs at home in school curricula, since the only issue is procreation, and that simply doesn't happen without opposite sex consummation. What is left? Could it be that the establishment of legal homosexual marriage will deny validity to heterosexual marriage? I have SOOOOOOOOO much to learn! I'll bet it relates in some confused and tortured way to doping. [This brought in to bear some slim relation to cycling, no offense.]
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

.

Loading