From wiki: "For eight years, Californiaâs 2000 ballot initiative Proposition 22 (or Prop 22) prevented California from recognizing same-sex marriages. Voters adopted the measure on March 7, 2000 with 61.4% approval and 38.6% against. This large margin of victory surprised many, since a Field Poll immediately prior to the election estimated support at only 53%, with 40% against and 7% undecided. (see Social desirability bias). On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court struck down this initiative and related California law in a 4-3 decision, giving same-sex couples the right to marry. ... "Despite the act's brevity â 14 words â its effect provoked debate long after its passage. Proposition 8, an amendment to the state constitution with identical wording, was passed by voters in the November 4, 2008 general election." I voted against Prop 22 in 2000 and for Prop 8 in 2008. Schizophrenia? Hardly. While I confess to some homophobia, I am not a gay basher and I do believe in live and let live. But once the people spoke by passing Prop 22, the court doesn't have the power to come in declare a "right" that doesn't exist. Hence my vote for Prop 8. Marriage is not a right. A right is something that everybody has, within reasonable age restrictions. Sorry but if you are physically or otherwise repulsive, there is no law that compels a member of the opposite sex to marry you. If you are married and subsequently convicted of a crime and sent to jail, there is no law that prevents your spouse from divorcing you. Marriage is not a right. If it is, then I vote for polygamy and polyandry to be legalized as well.
It's well known that men who vocally and violently denounce homosexuals are often those who have had feelings of attraction to males, and are unable to deal with it for whatever reason, usually because of exposure to virulently anti-gay rhetoric as young people.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that it minimizes dislike based on real differences. Is a Klan member secretly attracted to Blacks? Almost certainly not. Is a Nazi secretly afraid he might be a Jew. Again, almost certainly not. Most people have no problem forming dislikes based on real differences, they don't need some "forbidden attraction" to set them off. Of course there are self-hating gays (Hi, Senator Toilet Sex! ) but the notion that they make up most of the gay bashers is simplistic -- and self-serving for gays to perpetuate that myth. Like the myth that they make up 10% of the population, which was clearly pulled out of some gay ass.
and which part of it is "Hate" ? "Fags" ? Do you know that the Lesbian community has reclaimed the word "Dyke" as an empowered can do woman. "Fag" is not too far from being rehabilitated, artard
The problem with this line of reasoning is that it assumes that 'differences' which are attributable to an individual's membership in a group are generalizable across all members of the group. This is known as 'discrimination'. You may observe members of a certain group exhibiting certain behaviours which, to use your description, you dislike. In fact, the behaviours you observe may be absolutely worthy of your rationally considered dislike (take your pick: 3 young men in hip-hop gear emerging in front of you from an alley at night. Chinese drivers. Stinky East Indian cabbies. Proselytizing Christians etc etc). However, it takes a lot of effort to remind oneself that any particular member of the group may not exhibit these behaviours. The only other point would be this - you are suggesting that I am saying 'Oh, your statements about gays must be based on your own homosexuality because it's not possible that gays exhibit behaviours which are objectively worthy of censure'. Please note I said objectively. There is nothing objectively dislikable about a person based on their sexual preference. If you personally, for your own psycho-social reasons, don't like the idea of gay sex, that has nothing to do - nothing to do with the fact that members of other groups exhibit behaviours which are objectivelyworthy of dislike. We can all agree that there exist Oriental drivers who are a menace to others. That's objectively true. We can all agree that Nazi skinheads who publicly state their hatred of Jews and blacks are evil. That's objectively true. The OP has posted quite a bit here, and we can reasonably guess that he is a very young male (he apparently loves the television show 'South Park'). My comment was a bit over the top, sure, but it was meant to point out the stupidity and juvenille nature of his posts.
I can deduct from this single sentence that you're a Vancouverite. I used to live in Vancouver, BC. I'll go as far as say you may be a resident of Kitsilano I'm 35, married. Thanks. South Park is the most sophisticated critique of omdern society that I know of. If you think discussing Dostoevsky and Albert Camus is a sign of *maturity & scholarship*, you're deluding yourself
You misunderstand, I said nothing about the dislikes being objective, merely that they are real and more often than not, they are based on real differences, not some secret desire to be like "the other." Incredibly, i find myself agreeing in large part with what AAA wrote. :eek:
You can 'deduct', can you? Too bad you can't claim a typo on that one, huh? By the way, you dodn't mean 'deduce', you meant 'induce', you just didn't know you meant it. Thread closed.