USA "democarcy": Gays & lesbians are forcing majority to love them again!

You said "Equal rights for all". Who are "all"? Prisoners too?

What kind of rights? You have equal rights right now. Regarding the marriage you simply don't deserve it.

Yes, Arabs will be procreating, Chinese, ect, were homosexuality is a crime. Whites have a negative birth race already due to many factors, including gay issue. I believe you are white. Do you care about your race? I do. It's my race, like for Arab it's his race and like for Black it's his race and they are all liking their race. Why I should not?

 

Then why the hell your government accusing Russia, Belarus, also attacked Iraq, etc for lack of democracy???
I don't believe it's right when 1 man decided for majority(98%) what should they study in a school, in favor of 2%.

I don't see any hate. It's a nature law. Does wolf hates a goat when he attacks it for survival?

Your true colors are shining brightly now!

I guess you should fart in a face of your boyfriend, to spice up you nasty sex life, he-heh.

 

This is one of the most stupid responses that I have received on any forum.

Let me know when you see one of the 1500 animals that engage in homosexual behavior walks into an 7-11 and buys a condom.

C'mon, how stupid does one have to be to being up condoms? WTF does condoms have to do with natures way of insuring a specie of not over populating itself?

And what is this: Good gene variations, when you don't mix with people who are historically stupid???? Shows a complete lack of understanding of what gene variation even is.

Genetic variation

This has nothing to do with someones intelligence.

Wow is all I can say.

 

Awesome translation!

 

"Closely associated"? So it's not about giving benefits to folks who do more, just folks who are closely associated with those who do more?

Being male is closely associated with being a veteran... giving special benefits to and only to people who have a mixed sex marriage is like giving veteran's benefits to men and only men.

And didn't we have this debate already when folks argued men should receive higher pay than women doing the same job, because being male was closely associated with being the sole earner in a family?

Look if you honestly think we need to somehow reward Americans for being parents, then do the work. Pass a law to identify parents and police those benefits for parents -- don't use it as an excuse to deny the separate and distinct right to marry to a a different group of citizens.

 

Hardly understand what you are tying to say here.
My point was that benefit of the marriage is given to people for a reason, because people marry predominately to have a family and give a birth to a kid, which requires a lot of effort. Thus, these people deserve it.
I used veterans, because they also have more benefits & rights, then other people and there is an underlying reason - they did more and deserve more.

 

I now realize, that I can see your posts, when I'm not logged-in. (Arrgghh/Sigh.) I might as well address your homophobia and bigotry.

The above is absolutely HILARIOUS!! It's like... the "homosexuals" are after YOU (per se). LOL!!!

No one is trying to 'finish' you off from any thread. (You just cannot be serious. Are you?) You say some of the most ridiculously bigoted stuff, and seemingly do not wish to receive 'negative' feedback. Are you serious about that? You're anti-gay without a doubt; and it's funny that you don't seem to expect homosexual people to call you out and challenge you. Honestly, I just cannot take you seriously. LOL!!

LOL!! The "Daily Show" is still funnier, but your posts are running a close 2nd right now.

 

Let me translate: I understand what you say, but I will not accept what you say.

 

Same to you - let me translate: I understand what you say, but I will not accept what you say.
No, I don't understand you at all and of course I will not accept you. Remember, people also have a right what they want to accept and what they don't. Seems like you don't realize it, since you think that you are a gay, thus above others, and you everybody should accept you by default.

Administrators, where did you see insult in my previous post?
Because I think that gays are psychological mutants? Like do we have bad mutations in the nature, like cancer? Or psychological impact on a kid, when it's raised by 2 fathers?
Or when I said that USA is a constitutional democracy and in a reality we see how 1 man decided for 98% what they should study in favor of 2%, without asking?
http://www.answers.com/topic/constitutional-democracy

Or when I said what you call "homosexuality" in animals couldn't not be indication of homosexuality, like when 2 male penguins are taking care of their eggs, when his female partner dies? Like it can be simple cooperation?

Well, yes, you are definitely proving that freedom of speech in USA is a big problem. Tyranny, see? Why don't you just delete me for not supporting your precious gays!
Don't ask then where all this hatred is coming from. You know that I am right, then and you are left with nothing then imposing on straight people your tyrannic ways! Create prison camps for these who doesn't like gays!

 

<<<MOD EDIT: YOU CANNOT COMPLAIN ABOUT THE MODS IN A THREAD LIKE THIS>>>

Of course I understand what you are trying to mess up my mind, because your mind is already messed up - you are a useless for a nature physiological mutant. Yes, you are like a cancer, attempting to justify your worthiness from the point of natural order. We all know, that cancer also fights and often wins, killing whole organism.

BTW, about the nature, if homosexuality would be natural, then your rectum would have a natural lubrication, like vagina, while it's not. Animals too, it's impossible for them to pump the ass, due to absence of lubrication. So, your article is fake and part of your gay propaganda, due to these simple evidences. Other types of "homosexual behavior" could be interpreted differently. We have for example some creatures which don't have a sexes or some of them can change sexes, like be a male and them become a female. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. When 2 male penguins are taking care of the eggs(when his female died) - it's not a homosexual behavior, it's cooperation. Or when female antelope puts her nose under another peeing antelope doesn't prove anything, there could be some other reasons why they do it. Like for example some parrots eat clay to neutralize the toxins. Do you know that urine has a natural healing wounds power? So, each of these cases should be considered individually and not just grabbed blindly into a bundle and scream "they are homosexuals"!

What I see in the nature for many species is a high competition for a female. Often they fight with each other in order to copulate with all the remaining females in their community.

And regarding the raising a kid with 2 fathers and 2 mothers.
I personally can't imagine how I would perceive a world without feeling mother's and father's love and care. It's simply 2 different worlds! We all know that when a kid raised only by a mother or by a father feels very unfortunate. He/she feels likes something is missing in their life. Man and woman are 2 parts of 1 coin - humanity. When a baby is risen by only 1 parent he doesn't get full spectrum of the relationship between man and woman. And this is when a child mind is forming. I personally met people who was risen only by 1 parent, l met women, who were risen only by a father and I can see clearly a man in her. It's not attractive at all and she suffers from that, without knowing it. Same, I've met guys, risen by a mother only and I see a "p*ussy" in them, meaning that they use female ways of survival. They tend to scream, cry, can't fight with other guys, if attacked, etc. So, I am not ignorant, I have a critical approach to the information I was submitted and you are humiliating me + cowardly forcing me to accept the information I don't want to accept, so I don't believe this gay propaganda, sorry. Kid, seeing 2 fathers or 2 mothers - it will be even worse. This will be totally screwed up child.
People lived like that for 1000 years and they where executing homosexuals or considering it as a crime.

If you believe that homosexuality is a part of natural population control - you are obviously wrong. Homosexuality is predominantly white and we see nothing but negative birth rate. Why then mother nature creating them predominantly among Europeans and not among arabs, hispanics, chinese?

So, your arguments don't hold the ground and this why I neither understand you, nor accept you.

 

From the article linked to in the OP:

I reviewed the article upon which your initial argument is based, and I see no problem with what is about to be taught.

It is time to be realistic about the HUMAN BEINGS who happen to be homosexual; they are all around us and a part of our lives (whether we like it or not).

I would never demand that one MUST approves of homosexuality... but I would challenge ANYONE who says that they must not be reasonable and humane toward other human beings. We cannot continue to "institutionalize" hatred/bigotry, and it appears the governor of California has done the proper thing; thank God.

 

You said that you are going to ignore me, so I am really touching your nerves, you are weak, you can't resist a power of my mind and do nothing but trolling, trolling, trolling...

http://www.answers.com/topic/constitutional-democracy

So, where did we get a consent of 98% of none-gay people? Have we been asked? No. So, it's a tyrannic order in USA and I stand for democracy and freedom.

We have 2% of HUMAN BEINGS and 98% of HUMAN BEINGS, totaling 100% of HUMAN BEINGS and 1 HUMAN BEING. Why 1 HUMAN BEING, should impose 98% what is in favor of only 2%???
I am more for American people of California, then you, since I support 98% and you only 2%. I am a true democrat and I am a freedom fighter, because people should be free to choose what they want to study in the schools.
Do you get it now?

 

I din't say that I would for ALL time; so stop assuming so much. That is could get tired of your rhetoric, should not be shocking to you. I had you on "ignore", but later realized I could see you posts, when I wasn't logged-in.

So, instead of ignoring you, I'll answer you as I see fit.

I don't see where the governor was wrong to do what he did. Is this going to court? (So be it.)

That is irrelevant. As I see it, you and others do not have the right to ignore history.

I don't think that you really do; your definition of those things is tentative at best.

You keep making that silly argument; honestly, it is fruitless and I'm virtually certain you won't change your mind. Even so, others see readily the flaws in what you are claiming.

Okay.

I got it, about 30+ of your posts ago; we disagree, and that is about the size of things. We'll see if this gets taken to court; the outcome will remain as it is for now.

 

If you are tired of me, then why you are talking with me? Maybe you need to see a doctor, it maybe you are forgetting what you said and keep repeating yourself over and over?
You can't ignore me because you know that I am right and you just want to troll me out. This truth hurts you and this truth is against your interests.

Yes, you don't see it, because its in your favor. I see wrong it because it's not just because in my favor, it's not in favor of 98% of Californian Americans and most of all, they were not even asked. This is where I see it wrong. Where do you see in constitution that you can simply ignore your people? Rather you see the opposite!

It's irrelevant? For Governor not to ask people of your state what they would want? It's 100% relevant. He spited into faces of people of his state!

Read what democracy really means and come back. I don't call "freedom" when 98% of the CA people are forced to study something they might not want.

I always see that you are treating 2% of people (gays) as "HUMAN BEINGS", ignoring wishes of remaining 98% of people, who are also HUMAN BEINGS. It's a very fair and right argument.

It's dishonest first to make an undemocratic decision and then expect others to go to court. He should never do it at the first place, if he cares about all people of CA, not just 2% of the population.
You you it's like when I buy some stuff on the internet, leave them my email and then I start getting some junk mail and spam. They do leave me an option to unsubscribe sometimes, but why they didn't ask me first, whether I want to receive their advertisement or not? They impose me something and I have to take an action to stop it!!!

Do you get it now?

PS. Rhetoric, silly, irrelevant - you know, too many words, many accusations, very little ground.

 

You are very wrong. I won't use anymore time trying to prove it to you.

That's meaningless, martin.

You 'believe' that he needed to "ask" about that? You miss the point completely.

I'm here, and I already know what "democracy" means. To me, the story isn't about that at all. You are trying to make democracy an issue here, and it just doesn't work.

Well, everyone else can't help the way you think. I DO see the need to teach the very things you'd have people remain ignorant about. We disagree, but I'm not taking away your right to express your opinion; that's for certain.

That 2% are a HUMAN as you. Just because YOU do not wish to know about them, does not mean that others shouldn't know.

No, it isn't dishonest. The Governor and many others have been very straightforward about this... nothing deceptive whatsoever.

You don't understand this at all.

Wow... if you think that is an accurate analogy of the situation being discussed, I suppose there is little that anyone could explain to you here.

Nothing is being "imposed", but you insist that it is. Oh well.

I get it AND challenge it. No problem.

P.S. You really don't know what you're talking about here.

 

Wrong. Californians were asked, when they voted for the representatives that wrote and passed this law.

People did choose. They chose representatives in the legislature and a governor. Those elected officials properly passed this law. If "98%" of the population is truly against this (which is obviously a ridiculous thought), they are free to vote out those elected representatives and vote in new ones who will repeal it.

That's the way democracy works. Clearly, you are unable to grasp the concept of democracy, since, by your "logic", every law ever passed by representatives in a democratically-elected legislature is "tyranny."


Yes or no: Do you think that every law passed by a legislature and signed into effect by a governor is tyranny?

 

WTF? Which rights? LOL. The rights to discriminate homosexuals? :-S No comments.

 

In fact, you never trying to prove anything.

Why?

Yes, I do believe that, otherwise, how will he know what people of CA want?
Where do I miss the "point"?

No, Jonny-C, you don't and your bare worded statements don't work.

They are "ignorant", because they find homosexuality as disgusting phenomenon. I find it disgusting too. Why force people to respect something what they find disgusting?

It doesn't justify to force 98% to do something they don't want and not even ask them.

1 man and 2% are forcing to study 98% what they might not want to? It's dishonest. Why it's honest?

Yes, you don't understand this at all.

Yes, it's similar how some dishonest companies are trying to hook you on their products without asking you fist.

These issues are imposed.

Your challenge don't hold a ground and you repeating yourself over and over.

Did you talk to a doctor as I told you?

 

Where did he say during his campaign that he will force 98% of people to study about 2% homosexuals? Where did he say "I will act only in favor of homosexuals and I will be disregarding others?" It's obvious that he never said that, otherwise he would be never elected. If new issue will come up, which he didn't mention during elections, then what? Hmm...

They didn't choose to have a "gay classes", they choose a guy.
Selecting 1 from only 2 available you call it "a choice?" Due to poor choice you always electing a "least evil" in USA, not the one you really support.
Why it's obviously a ridiculous thought - can he know what people want without asking? There could be new issues coming up -what's then?

And it's not canceling the fact, that he didn't ask people of his state what do they want in their schools. He was chosen to serve his people. Voting out requires good organization, money, time, efforts. So, imposing tyrannic order little by little will make it work.

Put here tyranny and you will get the same idea:
Mark Levin

Hitler was democratically elected too. Was he voted out? He and small number of people, his supporters, with help of propaganda and coercion forced German people to obey his order.
A true democrat acts in the interest of majority of his nation or state, not only for 2%. True democrat is a servant of his people, not master.

The law passed in the interest of his state, what represented by the interest of majority is not tyrannic. The law passed in interest of only 2% of people, without even asking all, its tyrannic, no matter if the guy was elected by these people. It's very obvious and I am surprised that you don't understand it.
Democratically electing a guy doesn't mean that whatever he will do will be democratic and in the interest of people of the state. If people elected him it doesn't mean that they will accept everything he will do. You missing this point.

 

Who talked about discriminating homosexuals? Don't understand what you are talking about. 98% of people in CA are discriminated, because they were never asked whether they want to have homosexual classes in their schools or not. 1 guy acted in a favor of only 2%. Clear discrimination and ignorance.

 

Here is a good example for you, that US electorate system is a joke and has little to do with representation of full spectrum of people's interest. Having a poor choice of candidates is already quite tyrannic. From 2 it's very easy to come to 1, like it was in USSR, communist party was the only 1. US is not too far. US has 2 candidates because it's also easier to control the outcome and at the same time it does look somewhat democratic, since it's not just 1. Also competition is very weak, because you need to beat just 1, instead of 10 for example. Also, if 1 guy fails, say they found some bad criminal records about him or something like that, the remaining guy automatically wins. Poor choice, poor quality, involvement of huge sums of money...


Let's imagine we have 2 guys: 1 guy for a war and against gays and another one is for gays, but against war.
What kind of choice I should make? I hate war and I don't support gays. So, I choose a "least evil", I will vote against the guy who wants a war, but it doesn't mean that I support gays at all. I can't find 3rd guy, who is against a war and not for gays. So, I do it because I have no choice. Got it?


So, this is where your logic fails. Obviously, we can't call this system "democratic". It's rather tyrannic.

 

You don't get to vote for a candidate based upon their sworn committment to vote a certain way on certain issues.

In our system, you vote for a candidate whom you think will best represent your interests.

Whom they thought would best represent their interests. If they now disagree, they can vote for someone else next time. Even better, California has recall for elected officials that don't do their job in accordance with the people's wishes.

I think if 98% of the people were that bothered by this - which is one of the most ridiculous distortions of the facts any homo-bigot has ever presented me - there would obviously be a call for recalling Governor Brown.

A Google News search for stories about such an initiative came up empty:
Google News

Well, first of all, there are often more than 2 candidates in elections. The fact people don't vote for others is only their own stupidity.

Again, the way a representative democracy works is that you don't get to vote on individual issues. You vote for representatives who vote on individual issues.

How do you know he didn't ask? Because you didn't get to go into a booth and pull a lever on this issue?

YOU DO NOT GET TO VOTE ON EVERY SINGLE ISSUE IN A REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT NOT A DEMOCRACY. IT MAKES IT A REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY INSTEAD OF A DIRECT DEMOCRACY.

Read that statement before each post from now on, please. I have a feeling I'll be repeating it often.

Hitler was not democratically elected. That's a myth.

He thought he was acting in the interests of the majority, and you have absolutely no evidence that he was not.

What's not obvious is that only 2% of the people were in favor of this law. It's not obvious because it's you, lying, like all homo-bigots lie.

Provide me some proof that only 2% of Californians were in favor of this law. Proof.

No, you're missing the point: You don't get to vote on every issue. That's the way representative democracy works.

And there's another point you're missing: No one is upset about the passage of this bill except homo-bigots. It barely made a blip on the radar of most Californians.

 

In fact, I'm ignoring your BS, because you start out with a stupid exaggeration. (It's not the first time you've done that, martin.)

-Later-

 

Ok, you elect a guy, he can say one thing during elections and then, after being elected, do something completely different. With poor choice of 2 I guess I will never see whom I really want to see. And as I proved you here, electing a guy don't mean supporting him completely. You do it out of no better choice. Excellent!

In 4 years, putting effort, money, time to correct an error? Why not ask first and be sure that people are not going to hate you?
If “wishes” were not defined, who do you know what people wished for? Were did he say that “I will force 98% of people to study about 2% of homosexuals”?

Here is a another good example from life, how to force people to your will.
Do you get a letter from banks, like saying "We are going to share your financial information, but if you want to opt out, you send us a letter?"
Do you see a difference between "We want to share financial information about you. Please send us a letter if you agree or not."
Their interest to sell your information to the other banks, etc. So in which case you will get more permissions to sell? Obviously in 1 case.

We see exactly the same with forcing people to study homosexual matters in school - they have to do an action to protest their decision, which requires more effort from people.
So, who is imposing things has more advantage in achieving his goals, comparing to a kind guy, who asks first for a permission to impose. See?

First of all, it’s not right to do something first on your solo opinion and then wait for protests, don’t you think?
Secondly, people with families are more busy with raising their kids and struggling for their life, then gay people, who don’t have kids. If they didn’t go to protest – it doesn’t mean that they agree with you.
Thirdly, they didn’t start these classes yet and many people probably don't know about it. Time will show.

I’ve heard only about 2 candidates for Governor of California, including their debates. I know that there are more, but you will never hear about them. If people never hear about them on Mass Mesia it’s equals that there are no more then 2. 2 totalitarian parties usually suppress them with their money. “Watch money flow!” – it’s your American saying, isn’t it?

And he should act in the best interest of his state. To know the best interest of his state – is to ask people – what do you want? Do you mind if I will force your kids to study homosexual matters? Since he didn’t ask them, then he was not interested and ignored the population of his state.

Was he asking me that at the booth? Did he say during his campaign that “I will force your kids to study homosexuals at the school”?

Then it’s not a democracy. Rather it’s a fake type of democracy, illusion, as I proved in this example.

This source does state that he was elected democratically.

Add to that, that Hitler came from people. He’s held a lot of speeches in front of German people, like in a Breweries. I admire the way he came to power, from a very bottom. I do admire how he fixed a German economy. But I don’t approve his attacks on other nations.

Prove me that majority of Californians were supporting this law. There was no poll to ask how people are feeling about it. Since there is something about 2% of homosexuals, so Brown acted in the interest of only 2% and ignored the interest of 98%. Maybe some of these 98% support this teaching, maybe not. But it’s not canceling the fact that they were simply ignored.

But the representative should act in favor of his people, while he didn’t even ask them. He supported 2%, but ignored 98%. And this is not the way it’s should work.

Again, first of all, it’s not right to do something first on your solo opinion and then wait for protests, don’t you think?
Secondly, people with families are more busy with raising their kids and struggling for their life, then gay people, who don’t have kids. If they didn’t go to protest – it doesn’t mean that they agree with you.
Thirdly, they didn’t start these classes yet and many people probably don't know about it. Time will show.
And fourthly, add mass media hammering to love homosexuals and stigmatization for not loving them. I see it right in your answer – I am not for imposing homosexual classes on kids and who I am? homo-bigot? See?

 

...discriminate against homosexual people, should not do so.