Pray for California

[rossum]

That is not proof he is unbiased.

Do you not read links? I have also linked to the Appeal Court decision which decided that Judge Walker did not have to recuse himself.

What part of Judge Walker’s decision is incorrect in law because of bias? The Appeal Court could not find anything. Can you?

rossum

 

[Giants]

Like the use of the term “gay”.

Correct. “Gay” is a real word, with an actual meaning. “Homosexualist” is some silly nonsense word that homophobes created to put gay people and straight people who support gay people in a box together. Obviously, its use betrays an unwitting subtext. To tar all people who support gay rights with the same ‘homosexual’ brush - under the mistaken assumption that even people who support gay rights are as frightened of the word “homosexual” as are actual homophobes

Personally, I think we should appropriate it for our own purposes. The League of Women Voters did it with “suffragette” - which started as a term of derision. As did “The Big Bang” - also coined for the purposes of ridicule, but still employed as a term by respected cosmologists.

 

[fix]

Correct. “Gay” is a real word, with an actual meaning.

“Gay” is a contrived political term like homophobe. Both words are used to obfuscate.

“Homosexualist” is some silly nonsense word that homophobes created to put gay people and straight people who support gay people in a box together.

It is used to denote those who advocate for the “gay” agenda. The real nonsense word is straight.

Obviously, its use betrays an unwitting subtext. To tar all people who support gay rights with the same ‘homosexual’ brush - under the mistaken assumption that even people who support gay rights are as frightened of the word “homosexual” as are actual homophobes

It is not used to scare but to be exacting.

Personally, I think we should appropriate it for our own purposes. The League of Women Voters did it with “suffragette” - which started as a term of derision. As did “The Big Bang” - also coined for the purposes of ridicule, but still employed as a term by respected cosmologists.

The homosexual lobby uses these words to cover up what is really being agitated for. Misusing words like “rights”, “gay”, and all the rest are part of a political movement that wants to disassemble authentic morality.

 

[fix]

Do you not read links? I have also linked to the Appeal Court decision which decided that Judge Walker did not have to recuse himself.

What part of Judge Walker’s decision is incorrect in law because of bias? The Appeal Court could not find anything. Can you?

rossum

Legal decisions only find what any particular judge finds at that point in time. It is not evidence of no bias.

 

[Stephen168]

Correct. “Gay” is a real word, with an actual meaning. “Homosexualist” is some silly nonsense word that homophobes created to put gay people and straight people who support gay people in a box together. Obviously, its use betrays an unwitting subtext. To tar all people who support gay rights with the same ‘homosexual’ brush - under the mistaken assumption that even people who support gay rights are as frightened of the word “homosexual” as are actual homophobes

Homophobe is a nonsense word used by homosexualist against people who they have an irrational disagreement with. Homosexualist is used more accurately than homophobe.

 

[Giants]

Homophobe is a nonsense word used by homosexualist against people who they have an irrational disagreement with. Homosexualist is used more accurately than homophobe.

There’s nothing particularly irrational about the disagreement.

 

[rossum]

Legal decisions only find what any particular judge finds at that point in time. It is not evidence of no bias.

You have presented no evidence of bias. No evidence of bias was presented in the appeal case. There is no evidence of bias. Hence it is reasonable to take it that there was no bias, unless you can actually present some evidence to support your claim of bias. Alternatively you can show us what was legally incorrect about Judge Walker’s decision.

So far all you have presented is personal opinion. That is insufficient for civil law.

rossum

 

[Faithdancer]

There’s nothing particularly irrational about the disagreement.

Yet why is “homophobic!” so often the accusation whenever anyone same sex “marriage?” It seems pretty irrational to conclude that anyone who is against same sex “marriage” is therefore afraid of homosexuals. Many people just don’t want marriage redefined, plain and simple. And there is no real reason why it should be, anymore than anyone should be able to put a badger in a bassinet and call it their baby, then write it off as a dependent.

 

[fix]

You have presented no evidence of bias. No evidence of bias was presented in the appeal case. There is no evidence of bias. Hence it is reasonable to take it that there was no bias, unless you can actually present some evidence to support your claim of bias. Alternatively you can show us what was legally incorrect about Judge Walker’s decision.

So far all you have presented is personal opinion. That is insufficient for civil law.

rossum

Again the law is decided by humans. Legal justification is not always sufficient. They may have the power but that does not make it right.

Any law that would justify homosexual marriage is no true law.

 

[Bradski]

Homophobe is a nonsense word used by homosexualist against people who they have an irrational disagreement with. Homosexualist is used more accurately than homophobe.

Maybe we could start using ‘heterosexualist’ for those who don’t support same sex marriages. I think the gay term is ‘breeders’.

 

[Faithdancer]

Maybe we could start using ‘heterosexualist’ for those who don’t support same sex marriages. I think the gay term is ‘breeders’.

Well look who’s here! Hey everybody, it’s Bradski! Hi Bradski!

 

[Giants]

Yet why is “homophobic!” so often the accusation whenever anyone same sex “marriage?” It seems pretty irrational to conclude that anyone who is against same sex “marriage” is therefore afraid of homosexuals. Many people just don’t want marriage redefined, plain and simple. And there is no real reason why it should be, anymore than anyone should be able to put a badger in a bassinet and call it their baby, then write it off as a dependent.

Nobody ever wants anything for no reason, so there is no “not wanting marriage redefined, plain and simple.” The basis for objections to SSM for most people is homophobia - an aversion to homosexuals and homosexuality, which is itself sometimes based in an irrational fear of those things.

 

[Giants]

Maybe we could start using ‘heterosexualist’ for those who don’t support same sex marriages. I think the gay term is ‘breeders’.

I second this. Especially the ‘breeders’ part. And as a breeder, I’m allowed to use that word.

 

[Stephen168]

Maybe we could start using ‘heterosexualist’ for those who don’t support same sex marriages. I think the gay term is ‘breeders’.

We don’t think of homosexualists as not-supporters, so I would say a heterosexualist would be a supporter of marriage. I thought a breeder was a heterosexual and I know a few heterosexuals who are homosexualist. I kind of liked the name breeder because it is the foundation of marriage.

 

[Stephen168]

Nobody ever wants anything for no reason, so there is no “not wanting marriage redefined, plain and simple.” The basis for objections to SSM for most people is homophobia - an aversion to homosexuals and homosexuality, which is itself sometimes based in an irrational fear of those things.

This is an example of an irrational use of the word homophobe; a pergorative used against someone you disagree with not based on fact. That is why I said Homosexualist is used more accurately than homophobe.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The basis for objections to SSM for most people is

is a rational understanding of the absolute category of marriage, as defined by natural law and enforced by the State (when carrying out the correct nature of the law), not by the Gay Lobby.



Have a nice day.

 

[Giants]

This is an example of an irrational use of the word homophobe; a pergorative used against someone you disagree with not based on fact. That is why I said Homosexualist is used more accurately than homophobe.

Homophobe is like “Racist” - in a vacuum, the word itself doesn’t need to be loaded one way or another. Racists once ran political campaigns touting themselves as “racists” before society caught up to it.

If you have negative attitudes towards homosexuals and homosexuality, be they feelings of contempt, or hatred, or prejudice, or antipathy, or inherent superiority, then you are a homophobe.If you have a problem with being called a homophobe, despite meeting the plain text definition of being one, that is, by definition, your problem. It’s not a pejorative term because I’m intending it to be one. It’s pejorative because you are supplying the negativity that follows the word around. And you can put it an end to it, simply by owning it. In some circles, “hacker” is considered a negative thing. In others, it’s a positive thing, and computer nerds are quick to own it. You can do the same thing with homophobe. You know, if not feeling an aversion to homosexuality is too tall an order.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

Nobody ever wants anything for no reason, so there is no “not wanting marriage redefined, plain and simple.” The basis for objections to SSM for most people is homophobia - an aversion to homosexuals and homosexuality, which is itself sometimes based in an irrational fear of those things.

Homophobia = Fear of sameness.

Nothing about anti-gay there.

Maybe the basis for all the support for SSM for most people is heterophobia - an aversion to heterosexuals and tradition, based on irrational fear.

 

[Giants]

is a rational understanding of the absolute category of marriage, as defined by natural law and enforced by the State (when carrying out the correct nature of the law), not by the Gay Lobby.



Have a nice day.

“Natural law” does not define marriage, and the State’s definition of marriage also includes impotent couples and couples who have no intention of having children.

 

[Stephen168]

Homophobe is like “Racist” - in a vacuum, the word itself doesn’t need to be loaded one way or another. Racists once ran political campaigns touting themselves as “racists” before society caught up to it.

If you have negative attitudes towards homosexuals and homosexuality, be they feelings of contempt, or hatred, or prejudice, or antipathy, or inherent superiority, then you are a homophobe.If you have a problem with being called a homophobe, despite meeting the plain text definition of being one, that is, by definition, your problem. It’s not a pejorative term because I’m intending it to be one. It’s pejorative because you are supplying the negativity that follows the word around. And you can put it an end to it, simply by owning it. In some circles, “hacker” is considered a negative thing. In others, it’s a positive thing, and computer nerds are quick to own it. You can do the same thing with homophobe. You know, if not feeling an aversion to homosexuality is too tall an order.