How to Stop Homophobic Behaviour

Why by encouraging it to occur within the optimal enviroment, a stable home made up of the mother and father of the child working together to provide and care for the product of that procreation. Of course. Extending marriage to couples of a type where procreation is a physical impossibility would not serve that purpose

 

All your definitions confirm the same meaning I have for the word. You ever going to develope the nads to actually string together a few word explaining why you dont think I understand the meaning of the word. Youve only confirmed it here.
I dont fear you ***** ****** ***, I pity you. But my pity wont get you the tax breaks and governmental entitlements you demand.

 

yet the government extends marriage to couples for whom it's physically impossible to procreate all the time. sterile, geriatric, paralyzed couples. so much for that argument.

 

So, do you think "homophobia" is an okay thing? Or should it be promoted in people?

LOL!! I'm not playing this by YOUR silly rules. You either 'converse' (say what you mean and stand by it), or I talk right pass your foolishness.

Do you think "homophobia" is a 'good' thing (or something else)?

I can start and carry this conversation further than you would ever imagine; but you are too busy playing 'games' to really say anything meaningful.

Thanks for the thought. I appreciate it.

I intend to make your "opinion" as inconsequential as possible; and right now... that is essentially a done deal.

 

Even so, he and others will make that STUPID argument again and again; they are desperately hysterical about the truth being expressed.

 

So much for your uninformed opinion of that argument. Easily refuted with legal precedent.

 

And legal precedent is in many cases being transformed in real time; even now.

 

one day, you might be intelligent enough to understand 6th grade civics. FEDERAL>state.


I doubt it though

 

That's an oversimplification. Which body of government has the greater power is a matter of jurisdiction. The power to regulate marriage was not given by the Constitution to the federal government, which means it's reserved to the states (or the People).

The use of the 14th amendment's due process clause to incorporate portions of the Bill of Rights against a state's exercise of power, while considered settled law, is still contested by many conservatives, since it would seem to override state jurisdiction on matters reserved to the states.

In other words, just because something is settled law, that doesn't make it uncontroversial.

Saying that federal > state is a misrepresentation.

 

oversimplification and irrelevant since the state court applied US Federal Constitutional analysis to make its determination. The decision didnt rely upon Washington State Constitution to uphold its constitutionality. It relied upon the US constitution.

 

What did you want me to understand?

 

Actually, it relied on the state constitution and refused to regard the plaintiff's as a suspect class in considering whether the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause would apply. It's the level of judicial scrutiny that this case turns on.

 

made their "conclusion above under a federal constitutional analysis" Many state constitutions are apllied using the same constitutional analysis as is used in federal constitutional analysis.

 

An analysis conducted by applying the lowest level of scrutiny. It would be ridiculous to pretend that the Washington Supreme Court's decision is in any way equivalent to a federal court ruling on federal law. When it comes to an analysis of the federal DOMA, Walker's ruling at the District Court Level matters more than Washington's state court statements that it was applying a federal constitutional analysis.

Save me your shouts of "strawman!" and "no one said that". It's plain to see what you want people to take away from your posts, regardless of how cagey and clever you think you are in setting yourself up for plausible deniability.

 

Never claimed it was. Simply stated that they used federal constitutional analysis to reach their conclusion. The other case, Baker v Nelson is considered a US Supreme court precedent because they dismissed the case "for want of a substantial federal question" in a mandatory appellate review.

????? I made no reference between the cases cited and Judge Walkers decision. Run for them tangents, thats what you do here to avoid the real topics. And in his decision it was revealing that he didnt even mention, let alone address, the only authoritative precedent on the topic of gay marriage in Federal Court, Baker v Nelson.

 

that FEDERAL>state. you love to ignore federal courts which strike down laws prohibiting same sex couples from marrying. you cite state courts, but ignore FEDERAL courts.

 

Ive addressed Walkers decisions dozens of times and have never ignored it. And in case you didnt know, Walkers decision has had no effect whatsover and Californias marriage laws remain as they were before the decision.

 

And still, that "process has had no effect. Marriage in California, limited to a man and a woman, is still in place and constitutional. So are the same limits in 44 states.

 

Just the first 7 on a search of my posts with "walker" somewhere in the post. I could easily provide 20 more, none of which even mention Walkers sexuality. As well, Walker uses every argument you people use advocating for gay marriage. All of which Ive directly addressed repeatedly. Those arguments of mine apply equally well to Walkers decision.

 

What is "every argument"? What is it that "you people" as you refer to them, argue?

(Go ahead, pick a couple of things directly.)

You have? Even so, you've been nicely refuted many times, by "you people". And while you claim that you've refuted virtually every argument FOR same-sex marriage, you surely haven't.

Well, it is apparent that you haven't exactly laid this issue to rest. You've participated in the debate (as millions have already), but the arguments and discussions aren't resolved. So, be careful in imagining that your arguments are so resolute or final, that you should exhibit such certitude in your overall position.

While you've certainly made some 'points' in your discussions, that doesn't mean that others have not rightly challenged them.

 

The legal designation of "hate crimes" is a symptom of the continuing erosion of our dignity and liberty as a free society. When the state begins to criminalize "thoughts" we are not well on the way to a police state, we are already there. When we allow the state to legislate what are acceptable and not acceptable thoughts, through the threat of violence - we are no longer a free thinking, much less free speaking society.

Think it through. We no longer have free speech or thoughts, we have regulated speech and thoughts.

Do any of use really trust our politicians with this power?

Do Democrats trust Republicans with this type of legislative tool?
Do Republicans trust Democrats with this type of legislative tool?
Do libertarians and Independents trust anyone with this type of legislative tool?

Some parents values are contrary to your values. For religious or secular reasons they believe homosexuality is at worst morally wrong and at best hedonistic or self-indugent. I'm not saying these beliefs are right or wrong, I'm saying they exist and in a free societly parents have a right to teach children their values.

Again, parents are the primary influence on children, especially young children. Teachers are outside influences, to unconsciously allude that teachers, or employees of a state institution, are the equivalent of parents illustrates a social statist mentality which again is antithesis to a free society.

Comfort as in acceptance and understanding is not synonymous with endorsement or approval.

I appreciate that you offer a definition for homophobia. It provides a frame of reference for understanding. I would however like to note that your definition itself is often misused to vilify and discredit those who don't agree with anothers point of view.

A response is often influenced by the way someone is approached.

I believe when we allow or endorse the state to pick and choose groups to bestow priveleges under the guise of rights, we actually surrender our rights as individuals. This does not mean I don't agree with many of the issues gay advocates support, but I definitely have reservations about the stridently militant and victim attitude many advocates promote.

I also believe children, which is a topic the OP spent the majority of this post addressing should be off limits and the rights and authority of parents should never be usurped by the state or any political group.

 

Procreation isnt a requisite of marriage, so therefore has nothing to do with marriage, and homosexuals are just as capable of raising children as heterosexuals.

Your opinions dont refute my court precedent that directly refute your opinions.

Ive quoted and linked to authoritative sources. You have only your opinion.

 

No, it isn't. You are correct.

Incorrect. Reasonable people realize that children often (not always) come with marriage. However, marriage is not 'contingent' upon children being produced. I think I agree with what you said above, but you didn't use the proper words to describe what is true. Do we agree?

Research has shown/proven, that is true.

You are interpreting things here (whether you site cases or not). In fact, not all have agreed (certainly not 'I') with exactly how you interpret the things you've quoted. And try to accept, that as RIGHT as any of us think/believe we are... we can be 'challenged' by others. So, while you/I (or anyone) presents an argument, it CAN be opposed by the views of others. And homosexual people are especially well-aware of that reality.

No, I've linked to many authoritative views and opinions in these discussions. So no, you aren't the only person among us all to provide third-party support of a particular view. I've seen you and many others reject or ignore such support readily. And while that is your prerogative... that does not necessarily justify your implication that I've shared 'nothing' which is authoritative.

So, what do you have to say about stopping "homophobic behavior"?

 

That's easy. Accept others as human beings, even if they disagree with your alternative lifestyle.
Just because people don't see it your way doesn't mean they are homophobes.
Simple, isn't it?