Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

[Farnhamia]

This is not trolling, flamebaiting, or spamming because I am simply non-violently stating what I believe. I find it interesting when those who support things like homosexuality ask people like me for an explanation, and once we give you that those people cannot attack, they attack us personally of hating when we actually just give our opinion as they asked.

You're argument has no basis in logic, sense or reality. And it's what we're attacking

Oh, I sense trolling here, I am being attacked for my explanation and opinion.

Then report us. Your opinion of what it means to be homosexual, the very definition you're using, is, simply put, wrong.

[Bottle]

How dare they? It's not like gays are people with basic human rights. OH FUCKING WAIT...they are.

No, no they're not

How are they not?

Because, if you are born a man, than you are a man. If you are born a woman, than you are a woman. Therefore, if you switch over to the other gender, you are denying the fact of which you were born a certain gender as a person. Therefore, you give up those rights by denying what you were born as.

I've been away for a while...is this a known troll, or a new one?

Newish. Not sure if this is a disguise for one of the Ancient Ones.

Gotcha.

I just can't take anybody seriously when they pretend to believe that homosexual = transgender or whatever, at least not on the internet, because I simply don't think it's possible to remain that clueless about sex while also being on the internet. I think it's feigned ignorance that is used to stir up forums and make people debate irrelevant side issues instead of sticking to the actual topics.

[Unhealthy2]

Good to know your mind can't comprehend basic concepts.

Anyway, obvious troll is obvious.

Also, turning around and accusing everyone else of all being the trolls is classic troll behavior.

[Rolling squid]

How dare they? It's not like gays are people with basic human rights. OH FUCKING WAIT...they are.

No, no they're not

How are they not?

Because, if you are born a man, than you are a man. If you are born a woman, than you are a woman. Therefore, if you switch over to the other gender, you are denying the fact of which you were born a certain gender as a person. Therefore, you give up those rights by denying what you were born as.

You do realize gay != transsexual, right?

[Arborlawn]

Good to know your mind can't comprehend basic concepts.

Anyway, obvious troll is obvious.

Also, turning around and accusing everyone else of all being the trolls is classic troll behavior.

I did not accuse anyone of BEING a troll, I said I SENSED trolling

Interesting

[Deus Malum]

Can we please get off the subject of whether or not he is a troll so that he no longer has an excuse regarding responding to our counter arguments? Because he still hasn't explained whether or not he is actually cognizant of the difference between transgendered and homosexual, and has instead spend the past few posts on the trolling topic.

As I said earlier, it's a VERY slow work day.

[Unhealthy2]

Nonsense. If you are attracted to a woman, you have to be a man. My mind can't comprehend a woman being attracted to a woman, so if you're a woman attracted to a woman, you are automatically a man attracted to a woman. And since you willingly changed from a woman to man, you're not human anymore.

Can't you see my clear, concise, and coherent logic?

I can

Okay, I'll bite. (Arbor, I know B&C is satirizing)

Macho gay men.

Feminine lesbians.

Your argument? Dead.

[Bottle]

Can we please get off the subject of whether or not he is a troll so that he no longer has an excuse regarding responding to our counter arguments? Because he still hasn't explained whether or not he is actually cognizant of the difference between transgendered and homosexual, and has instead spend the past few posts on the trolling topic.

As I said earlier, it's a VERY slow work day.

I'd say it's more interesting to address the underlying sexism in his claim. Who cares whether or not he can grasp that gay =/= transsexual? He's asserting that people who don't adhere to certain gender roles have given up any claim to human rights. So, let's have a list of these rules.

As a female person, am I allowed to wear "men's" clothing, or does wearing trousers mean that I have given up my claim to human rights?

My partner is a male person who enjoys shoe shopping. Does this treason against his male gender role mean that he should stop expecting to be regarded as a legal citizen?

I work outside the home, despite the fact that I have a vagina. Does this mean I should be barred from getting married?

My father did not force my mother to change her name when they married. Should their 30+ year union be annulled, or should they simply be deported?

[Farnhamia]

Can we please get off the subject of whether or not he is a troll so that he no longer has an excuse regarding responding to our counter arguments? Because he still hasn't explained whether or not he is actually cognizant of the difference between transgendered and homosexual, and has instead spend the past few posts on the trolling topic.

As I said earlier, it's a VERY slow work day.

"We are the Bored. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile."

So, Arborlawn, do you understand that not all homosexuals are transgendered people, and that not all transgendered people are homosexual? Or do you not really care?

[Unhealthy2]

So, Arborlawn, do you understand that not all homosexuals are transgendered people, and that not all transgendered people are homosexual? Or do you not really care?

If he's serious, the former. If he's trolling, the latter.

[Muravyets]

How dare they? It's not like gays are people with basic human rights. OH FUCKING WAIT...they are.

No, no they're not

How are they not?

Because, if you are born a man, than you are a man. If you are born a woman, than you are a woman. Therefore, if you switch over to the other gender, you are denying the fact of which you were born a certain gender as a person. Therefore, you give up those rights by denying what you were born as.

You have no understanding of what it is to be gay. I'm a woman and, honey, and trust me, all woman, I'm just sexually attracted to other women and not to men.

Nonsense. If you are attracted to a woman, you have to be a man. My mind can't comprehend a woman being attracted to a woman, so if you're a woman attracted to a woman, you are automatically a man attracted to a woman. And since you willingly changed from a woman to man, you're not human anymore.

Can't you see my clear, concise, and coherent logic?

I can

So you're saying that Buffy actually did sum up your argument correctly? Wow.

[Deus Malum]

Can we please get off the subject of whether or not he is a troll so that he no longer has an excuse regarding responding to our counter arguments? Because he still hasn't explained whether or not he is actually cognizant of the difference between transgendered and homosexual, and has instead spend the past few posts on the trolling topic.

As I said earlier, it's a VERY slow work day.

I'd say it's more interesting to address the underlying sexism in his claim. Who cares whether or not he can grasp that gay =/= transsexual? He's asserting that people who don't adhere to certain gender roles have given up any claim to human rights. So, let's have a list of these rules.

As a female person, am I allowed to wear "men's" clothing, or does wearing trousers mean that I have given up my claim to human rights?

My partner is a male person who enjoys shoe shopping. Does this treason against his male gender role mean that he should stop expecting to be regarded as a legal citizen?

I work outside the home, despite the fact that I have a vagina. Does this mean I should be barred from getting married?

My father did not force my mother to change her name when they married. Should their 30+ year union be annulled, or should they simply be deported?

That's actually a good point I hadn't considered. It may very well be (almost seems more likely to be) a case of a rigid view on gender roles rather than an inability to comprehend the difference between transgendered and gay/lesbian/bi.

[Unhealthy2]

So you're saying that Buffy actually did sum up your argument correctly? Wow.

What do you expect? His brain's totally religed the fuck out.

[Muravyets]

This is not trolling, flamebaiting, or spamming because I am simply non-violently stating what I believe. I find it interesting when those who support things like homosexuality ask people like me for an explanation, and once we give you that those people cannot attack, they attack us personally of hating when we actually just give our opinion as they asked.

You're argument has no basis in logic, sense or reality. And it's what we're attacking

Oh, I sense trolling here, I am being attacked for my explanation and opinion.

And I enjoy how every time someone who clearly doesn't know the first thing about sex, gender, civil rights or anything else relating to the topic gets called on their ignorance, they call that trolling.

And then they claim that we're the one's not debating properly.

[Tekania]

How dare they? It's not like gays are people with basic human rights. OH FUCKING WAIT...they are.

No, no they're not

How are they not?

Because, if you are born a man, than you are a man. If you are born a woman, than you are a woman. Therefore, if you switch over to the other gender, you are denying the fact of which you were born a certain gender as a person. Therefore, you give up those rights by denying what you were born as.

First off, you mean "then" not "than". Secondly, you're confusing gender identity with sexuality. We're talking same-sex marriage here, with has absolutely nothing to do with what a persons gender identity.

[Bottle]

How dare they? It's not like gays are people with basic human rights. OH FUCKING WAIT...they are.

No, no they're not

How are they not?

Because, if you are born a man, than you are a man. If you are born a woman, than you are a woman. Therefore, if you switch over to the other gender, you are denying the fact of which you were born a certain gender as a person. Therefore, you give up those rights by denying what you were born as.

First off, you mean "then" not "than". Secondly, you're confusing gender identity with sexuality. We're talking same-sex marriage here, with has absolutely nothing to do with what a persons gender identity.

If we want to play along and assume we're not talking to a troll, then (based on his own statements) he simply doesn't agree with your definition of gender. To many people, gender is not something that one has, but rather is something that one performs. Thus, their notion that men don't possess manliness by virtue of, you know, being men...instead, men must perform maleness sufficiently or else they are non-men. Likewise, a woman must perform femaleness appropriately or else she is not, by definition, a woman. This conveniently leads to the designation of non-gender-conforming individuals as unpersons and subhumans, who clearly do not deserve to share in basic civil and human rights because, DUH, they're not actual people.

[Unhealthy2]

If we want to play along and assume we're not talking to a troll, then (based on his own statements) he simply doesn't agree with your definition of gender. To many people, gender is not something that one has, but rather is something that one performs. Thus, their notion that men don't possess manliness by virtue of, you know, being men...instead, men must perform maleness sufficiently or else they are non-men. Likewise, a woman must perform femaleness appropriately or else she is not, by definition, a woman. This conveniently leads to the designation of non-gender-conforming individuals as unpersons and subhumans, who clearly do not deserve to share in basic civil and human rights because, DUH, they're not actual people.

Isn't circular logic great, Bottle?

[Tekania]

How dare they? It's not like gays are people with basic human rights. OH FUCKING WAIT...they are.

No, no they're not

How are they not?

Because, if you are born a man, than you are a man. If you are born a woman, than you are a woman. Therefore, if you switch over to the other gender, you are denying the fact of which you were born a certain gender as a person. Therefore, you give up those rights by denying what you were born as.

First off, you mean "then" not "than". Secondly, you're confusing gender identity with sexuality. We're talking same-sex marriage here, with has absolutely nothing to do with what a persons gender identity.

If we want to play along and assume we're not talking to a troll, then (based on his own statements) he simply doesn't agree with your definition of gender. To many people, gender is not something that one has, but rather is something that one performs. Thus, their notion that men don't possess manliness by virtue of, you know, being men...instead, men must perform maleness sufficiently or else they are non-men. Likewise, a woman must perform femaleness appropriately or else she is not, by definition, a woman. This conveniently leads to the designation of non-gender-conforming individuals as unpersons and subhumans, who clearly do not deserve to share in basic civil and human rights because, DUH, they're not actual people.

Bet "maleness" and "femaleness" does not really have any bearing on the issue. Masculinity and Femininity (Gender identity) is not equivocal to ones sexual attractions. So even assuming his position, itself it does not apply in a real world dynamic, because a homosexual man is not necessarily effeminate; and yet it is quite possible for a heterosexual male to be somewhat effeminate.

[The Resurgent Dream]

Bet "maleness" and "femaleness" does not really have any bearing on the issue. Masculinity and Femininity (Gender identity) is not equivocal to ones sexual attractions. So even assuming his position, itself it does not apply in a real world dynamic, because a homosexual man is not necessarily effeminate; and yet it is quite possible for a heterosexual male to be somewhat effeminate.

Unless attraction to men is itself defined as feminine and attraction to women as masculine. Then otherwise masculine gay men and effeminate straight men alike would be non-persons.

[NZ Rugby]

Is there an economic argument against same-sex marriage? Langbein and Yost (2009, Same-Sex Marriage and Negative Externalities, Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 90 Issue 2, pp 292-308 ) test for that possibility by investigating externality effects.

The argument is straight forward and used tacitly by right wing politicians. By allowing same-sex marriage there can be numerous social damage that impinge on society. The authors use Hatzis (2006, The Negative Externalities of Immorality: The Case for Same-Sex Marriage, Skepsis 17) to sum it up:

The externality argument against same-sex marriage (and against any "immoral" activity for that matter) goes like this: A part of the cost of the voluntary but "immoral" activity spills over onto "moral" people, who are annoyed by the way of life of "immoral" people … . Then, the way of life or the acts of some people can be said to offend the majority. Their acts or transactions have negative external effects of such magnitude that they can have detrimental effects to the social order itself …

Using US state data from 1990 to 2004, they test the hypothesis that same sex marriage generates social harm. This includes 'marriage, divorce, abortion rates, the proportion of children born to single women, and the percent of children in female-headed households'. Not surprisinly, there find no statistically significant adverse effect from allowing gay marriage.

This type of analysis shows two aspects. First, we can see how there is no limit to economic analysis. The tools can be used for all social policies. Second, we can see the inconsistency of the morality coercers. Their perceptions are not consistent with the available data!

[Unhealthy2]

Is there an economic argument against same-sex marriage? Langbein and Yost (2009, Same-Sex Marriage and Negative Externalities, Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 90 Issue 2, pp 292-308 ) test for that possibility by investigating externality effects.

The argument is straight forward and used tacitly by right wing politicians. By allowing same-sex marriage there can be numerous social damage that impinge on society. The authors use Hatzis (2006, The Negative Externalities of Immorality: The Case for Same-Sex Marriage, Skepsis 17) to sum it up:

The externality argument against same-sex marriage (and against any "immoral" activity for that matter) goes like this: A part of the cost of the voluntary but "immoral" activity spills over onto "moral" people, who are annoyed by the way of life of "immoral" people … . Then, the way of life or the acts of some people can be said to offend the majority. Their acts or transactions have negative external effects of such magnitude that they can have detrimental effects to the social order itself …

Using US state data from 1990 to 2004, they test the hypothesis that same sex marriage generates social harm. This includes 'marriage, divorce, abortion rates, the proportion of children born to single women, and the percent of children in female-headed households'. Not surprisinly, there find no statistically significant adverse effect from allowing gay marriage.

This type of analysis shows two aspects. First, we can see how there is no limit to economic analysis. The tools can be used for all social policies. Second, we can see the inconsistency of the morality coercers. Their perceptions are not consistent with the available data!

Plus, their argument is "Well, we have to put up with people we don't like, and that annoys us so much that it hurts society." Really? You hate gay people so much that your productivity in the workplace or your marriage is noticeably damaged just by being made aware of the fact that gay people exist, or that they exist and aren't treated badly? Yeah, that sounds like YOUR problem, not a problem with gays. Honestly, it sounds like a serious psychological malady, if it's actually true. The alternative is that it isn't really true, and it's just an excuse to persecute teh dirty ghez.

[Tekania]

Plus, their argument is "Well, we have to put up with people we don't like, and that annoys us so much that it hurts society." Really? You hate gay people so much that your productivity in the workplace or your marriage is noticeably damaged just by being made aware of the fact that gay people exist, or that they exist and aren't treated badly? Yeah, that sounds like YOUR problem, not a problem with gays. Honestly, it sounds like a serious psychological malady, if it's actually true. The alternative is that it isn't really true, and it's just an excuse to persecute teh dirty ghez.

Well, it's really nothing but a ruse to cover their actual problem with same-sex marriage... It it were legalized then their secret homosexual lover-affair partner would start hounding them about leaving their wife and getting married, and they just can't have that kind of hassle.

[Bottle]

Is there an economic argument against same-sex marriage? Langbein and Yost (2009, Same-Sex Marriage and Negative Externalities, Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 90 Issue 2, pp 292-308 ) test for that possibility by investigating externality effects.

The argument is straight forward and used tacitly by right wing politicians. By allowing same-sex marriage there can be numerous social damage that impinge on society. The authors use Hatzis (2006, The Negative Externalities of Immorality: The Case for Same-Sex Marriage, Skepsis 17) to sum it up:

The externality argument against same-sex marriage (and against any "immoral" activity for that matter) goes like this: A part of the cost of the voluntary but "immoral" activity spills over onto "moral" people, who are annoyed by the way of life of "immoral" people … . Then, the way of life or the acts of some people can be said to offend the majority. Their acts or transactions have negative external effects of such magnitude that they can have detrimental effects to the social order itself …

Using US state data from 1990 to 2004, they test the hypothesis that same sex marriage generates social harm. This includes 'marriage, divorce, abortion rates, the proportion of children born to single women, and the percent of children in female-headed households'. Not surprisinly, there find no statistically significant adverse effect from allowing gay marriage.

This type of analysis shows two aspects. First, we can see how there is no limit to economic analysis. The tools can be used for all social policies. Second, we can see the inconsistency of the morality coercers. Their perceptions are not consistent with the available data!

Plus, their argument is "Well, we have to put up with people we don't like, and that annoys us so much that it hurts society." Really? You hate gay people so much that your productivity in the workplace or your marriage is noticeably damaged just by being made aware of the fact that gay people exist, or that they exist and aren't treated badly? Yeah, that sounds like YOUR problem, not a problem with gays. Honestly, it sounds like a serious psychological malady, if it's actually true. The alternative is that it isn't really true, and it's just an excuse to persecute teh dirty ghez.

If they want to make that argument then I'm all for it, because it leads me to the conclusion that homophobes make poor employees and thus employers have a sound reason to refuse to hire homophobes. (After all, if homophobes are so easily distracted and harmed by the knowledge that somebody somewhere is probably doing something gay right this minute, then homophobes will be less efficient and valuable to the company. That's a perfectly legitimate reason to decline to hire them, just as it would be valid to refuse to hire somebody who insisted that seeing a bird fly past the window makes them unable to perform their job.) It also sounds to me like they are arguing that homophobia makes marriages weaker, something to which I wholeheartedly agree.

[Tekania]

Hmm, on application questionairs maybe I'll start putting this question in:

Q: You find out that one of your follow workers is a homosexual. What do you do?

A: Turn them in.
B: Hassle them at work about their homosexuality
C: Keep working as usual.

Any answer but C leads to not being hired. And if they answer C and later engage in one of the other two I can terminate them for lying on their application.

[Unhealthy2]

Well, it's really nothing but a ruse to cover their actual problem with same-sex marriage...

Well yeah, but I like to take what my opponents say at face value to give them the most honest chance.

It it were legalized then their secret homosexual lover-affair partner would start hounding them about leaving their wife and getting married, and they just can't have that kind of hassle.

Lulz.