How to Stop Homophobic Behaviour

Okay then... YOU advocate for people within those particular familial relationships to marry. Most reasonable homosexuals realize the reasons you won't likely get very far.

Most homosexual people realize very readily what they mean by same-sex couples. Only those (like you) with some silly purpose for obscuring the meaning of that, entertain the things you do above.

 

did he say ONLY gay couples? when your done with your strawman, please rejoin the rest of us.

 

Now would have been the time to tell us those reasons. You sure like telling us about all these arguments you have that you just cant seem to get around to sharing with us, but youll devote 5 posts telling us of there existance.

Yeah, the meaning is "gay marriage". Thats what I was saying

 

I mean unrelated same-sex couples. It should be obvious that most of those couples would be comprised of people who are gay or bisexual. While that's an obvious fact, if two unrelated men (or two unrelated women) want to get married, they should be able to in my judgment, regardless of their orientation. I would not be in favor of a law that requires the potential spouses to declare or demonstrate that they're both gay. That would be rather ridiculous.

I'm not opposed to a parent and child having a legally recognized contract between them to provide reciprocal benefits. If we end up calling that marriage for such a civil purpose, fine.

My point has been, and continues to be, that the legal recognition of a same-sex couple as married does not obligate government to provide that title to any other arrangement, unless it can be shown that: 1) the class of people excluded are similarly situated to those whose unions already enjoy legal recognition, and 2) there is no compelling government interest in preventing the legal recognition of those unions.

 

Only comes into play After the marriage if one of the couple were to seek an annulment or dissolution of the marriage for a failure to consumate the relationship.

 

Actually it does. You take away procreation from the equation, youve just lost any justification you had for excluding them.

 

The OP says effectively, what needs to be said about improving things, as it relates to "homophobia". And those who don't want to improve things, show it in what they say.

 

In other words, you found nothing to dispute in my reply to your red herring claim about "gay marriage" vs. same-sex couples marrying, so you've introduced something utterly irrelevant to troll for a response that you can dispute.

Not going to oblige you. No fish in this pond taking your bait.

 

Can't take away what never existed.

Since procreation or the intent to procreate are not requisites of marriage, it doesn't function as a justification for excluding anyone in the first place. So you're asserting a falsehood. The legal recognition of same-sex couples marriages doesn't obligate the government to recognize any other form of asserted union; those unions would need to demonstrate their similar situation under the law and the government's obligation to recognize them - on their own merits.

And you're missing the point - - - that government may not have any justification for holding on to these exclusions, period. Go ahead and try to present one, forewarned that the trap has been set.

 

Actually, that is exactly what you are responding to in your next post.

 

And then there is the real world.

 

No, your missing the point. In court case after court case, across the country, the government has showed the justification for holding on to these exclusions. And the courts have agreed.

Heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple.
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341opn.pdf

We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=316&invol=535

The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis...

"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm

i]t is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships. . . .

t would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=434&invol=374

In addition, within limits, a statute generally does not fail rational basis review on the grounds of over- or under-inclusiveness; “[a] classification does not fail rational-basis review because ‘it is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequity.’”...

Under this standard, DOMA is constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not, in the legislature’s view, further these purposes.....

Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to fundamental rights of procreation, childbirth, abortion, and child-rearing....

But as Skinner, Loving, and Zablocki indicate, marriage is traditionally linked to procreation and survival of the human race. Heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple....

And the link between opposite-sex marriage and procreation is not defeated by the fact that the law allows opposite-sex marriage regardless of a couple’s willingness or ability to procreate. The facts that all opposite-sex couples do not have children and that single-sex couples raise children and have children with third party assistance or through adoption do not mean that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples lacks a rational basis. Such over- or under-inclusiveness does not defeat finding a rational basis....
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341opn.pdf

Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm

In substance, the relationship proposed by the appellants does not authorize the issuance of a marriage license because what they propose is not a marriage.
http://ky.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.\SAC\KY\1973\19731109_0040029.KY.htm/qx

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

 

One thing that can be done to combat homophobic behavior, is to teach the young and older to accept themselves. Homophobes will always be with us on this planet.

Another thing that can be promoted, is for homosexual people and those who advocate for them, to be less-tolerant of those who DO exhibit homophobic behaviors.

It doesn't have to be 'pleasant' for the jerks out here, to be homophobic.

 

And by "homophobic" you mean any one who opposes ANY right desired by the homosexuals.

 

The definition of "homophobic" or "homophobia" is common knowledge. If I use either word... then a dictionary will likely answer questions about that you might likely present.

 

Like I said in the other thread, it is your delusions that lead you to believe that anyone fears you. Anyone who opposes any right desired by homosexuals, you simply label as homophobic. Perhaps it helps you get through your days to believe that we fear you, but that is all going on in your own head, having nothing to do with the real world around you.

 

Well the legislature is entitled to believe anything it wants. The problem comes when they have to prove using actual evidence the relevance of their "belief".

How can limiting marriage to opposite-sex couple further procreation?

Consequent Federal cases in both Prop 8 and DOMA have shown this to be a specious claim. Heterosexuals are going to continue to marry and have children regardless of whether same sex couples can marry. Homosexuals aren't going to suddenly become heterosexuals and start procreating because the law bars them from marriage. If marriage declines it will be because heterosexuals don't want it, not because gays do.

Well that's circular logic of the finest quality. Which of Einstein's intellectual peers came up with that slice of genius?

 

Was no problem for them at all. Psychologists and sociologists have studied the benefits of the nuclear family for decades. Children raised by both their biological parents in a marriage have less poverty, less juvenile delinquincy, less mental disorders, less drug and alchohol abuse, less teenage pregnancy, lower HS drop out rates and higher post secondary education when compared to children who are not.

 

Which has exactly squat to do with the notion that limiting same-sex couples right to marry somehow furthers procreation.

 

dixon isn't likely listening or learning; I have accepted that.

If I (or perhaps anyone else) answers him, it is to present opposing views of what he's offering, so that those who visit or lurk within the forum might consider something other than what he's saying.

I could ignore dixon, but the battle has gone beyond arguing directly with 'him' (per se).

 

Yes, okay... I'm 'delusional'; now then, go look up the words I mentioned in my last response to you.

If you're going to claim that you know what I meant by using those words, you need to show that you really do know. So far, I don't think you understand the actual meaning of "homophobia" or "homophobic".

And I'll say again, that homosexuals and those who advocate for them having equal rights/dignity within this society, need not be particularly tolerant of the same. If people intend to be 'bigots', then there should be consequences for that.

No, that is NOT (absolutely) how I apply that label. Sad thing is, 95%+ of the people I see wishing to DENY homosexuals EQUAL rights, are either bigoted or phobic (or BOTH).

You really do need to check the definition of the term "homophobia" and its origin. You should not talk about what you don't actually know.

Okay. You keep thinking that; it is likely helpful to the equal gay rights agenda.

 

Yeah! I know. When you say homophobia you dont mean phobia, you mean anyone who opposes ant rights the gays desire.

 

You don't want a real argument; you just play games.

 

George Weinberg (who coined the term "homophobia") says the following about it (in part), :

 

The first step toward ending homophobia is to get rid of all the gay Frankensteins.





They tend to scare the crap out of people.​