Proposition 8

[MJZiggy]

Heteros who adopt are usually infertile and are desperate for babies.

Our foster care system has a serious backlog. Let me repeat that. Our foster care system has a SERIOUS backlog. They have started taking out classifieds, paying the parents and they show up at the farmers markets and book fairs trying to talk people into becoming fosters. It is a problem here.

[SkinBasket]

Heteros who adopt are usually infertile and are desperate for babies.

Source? And we prefer the term vagina fucker, not the derogatory "hetero."

[Zool]

I prefer cum dispenser.

[MJZiggy]

Heteros who adopt are usually infertile and are desperate for babies.

Source? And we prefer the term vagina fucker, not the derogatory "hetero."

Trust me, making your own is a hell of a lot simpler and faster.

[LEWCWA]

I think fat chicks in tummy shirts is fucking gross....can we vote to have it outlawed....I'm sure a majority would agree with me. Is this how we make law?

Oh, you are just hilarious...

Thing is it isn't supposed to be funny, just ludicrous. Many here and abroad believe that because a majority find this to be "gross" it is ok to legislate against it. That is where you are all wrong...legislating by majority gets us in trouble,,,ie,,,,slavery, mixed couples, gays, segregation..etc. By your standards something as ludicrous as this could be legislated as long as I have a majority to agree with me! Sometimes it is easier to see when the subject isn't something you care about or seems ludicrous!

[mraynrand]

While there are some useful comparisons between gay rights issues and mixed marriages, there are also enough differences to avoid using the acceptance of interracial marriages as a justification for redefining marriage.

I see no signficant difference. You have two adults wishing to form a family partnership in either case. At one time, it was thought to be wrong for mixed races to marry. The EXACT same arguments were made against mixed marriages as are made today against gays, and those arguments have no more validity now than they did then.

Well, I guess if you say so. Except that there are no laws preventing gays from being together.

[Tarlam!]

It is a problem here.

I fully agree. And the current solution is for gays to be able to adopt. IMO, wrong solution.

And in this country it has gone so far that infants DO go to gay couples and I find that appalling. Especially after the rigorous testing people need to go through just to be acceepted as adoptive parents.

What really set me off on this subject was when a German folk music star and his "friend" were able to adapt an infant, what 13 years ago? The tabloids were full of the story and it made me sick.

I don't "hate" too many things in life. I'm usually really "live and let live" sort of. But I am so staunchly against Gay adoption, I can't even be reasonable.

Must be the voices in my head.

[Tarlam!]

By your standards something as ludicrous as this could be legislated as long as I have a majority to agree with me! Sometimes it is easier to see when the subject isn't something you care about or seems ludicrous!

I am capable of following and understanding your arguments, but I just need to look at school child behaviour in the ghetto areas of the USA to demonstrate that not all of the freedoms you have legislated are good for society.

I don't even need to look that far. We have similar issues in Germany. Teachers are helpless. It's not yet as bad as what some American cities deal with, but it won't be long. We changed our legislation, too.

Gay adoptions are, in my mind, unnatural and should be a major exception rather than being accepted everyday practice. I honestly have ZERO issues with two consenting adults doing what they love to do with eaachother and ZERO on them uniting in the eyes of the State and whatever God/Deity condones their behavious. ZERO. I find it unnatural, but they aren't hurting anyone, other than potentially themselves.

Throw a child into the mix and I become homophobic. No amount of freedoms guaranteed by any consitution on earth will change my opinion on this. In fact, constitutions should be amended to prohibit this.

It's like the celebacy deal for catholic priests. You wanna be a priest because that's your calling? Fine. But the Pope has a constitution that says you will be celebate.

You wanna follow your biological sexual preferences and live in a union where it is impossible biologically to produce a child even if all your body parts function perfectly within that union? Fine. But the constitution says you will remain childless.

That's how it should be, IMO.

[th87]

Throw a child into the mix and I become homophobic. No amount of freedoms guaranteed by any consitution on earth will change my opinion on this. In fact, constitutions should be amended to prohibit this.

One question. Why?

What happens if a child is adopted by a gay couple?

What do you feel will be the outcome?

[Tarlam!]

Throw a child into the mix and I become homophobic. No amount of freedoms guaranteed by any consitution on earth will change my opinion on this. In fact, constitutions should be amended to prohibit this.

One question. Why?

What happens if a child is adopted by a gay couple?

What do you feel will be the outcome?

Well, that's actually 3 questions, but semantics aside, I am happy to answer them.

1. Why? = Because God, Divinity Nature saw fit to have to sexes necessary to produce.

2. What if? = The child has no chance at being adopted by a hetero couple, which I feel, is a bad thing.

3. Outcome = The big unknown. At best, they will spread the word that being Gay is a nice thing. At worst, they will be taught that being Gay is the ONLY thing.

It remains unnatural any way you want to spin it.

I might lose any credibility I ever had here on this forum over this issue. I might lose all of my friends. That would really sadden me a great deal. But I will defend my position irrationally until I die. And that position is very very clear.

"Gays should never be entrusted with the rearing of our offspring. Ever"

[HowardRoark]

Gays should never be entrusted with the rearing of our offspring.

QFT

[Deputy Nutz]

Throw a child into the mix and I become homophobic. No amount of freedoms guaranteed by any consitution on earth will change my opinion on this. In fact, constitutions should be amended to prohibit this.

One question. Why?

What happens if a child is adopted by a gay couple?

What do you feel will be the outcome?

Well, that's actually 3 questions, but semantics aside, I am happy to answer them.

1. Why? = Because God, Divinity Nature saw fit to have to sexes necessary to produce.

2. What if? = The child has no chance at being adopted by a hetero couple, which I feel, is a bad thing.

3. Outcome = The big unknown. At best, they will spread the word that being Gay is a nice thing. At worst, they will be taught that being Gay is the ONLY thing.

It remains unnatural any way you want to spin it.

I might lose any credibility I ever had here on this forum over this issue. I might lose all of my friends. That would really sadden me a great deal. But I will defend my position irrationally until I die. And that position is very very clear.

"Gays should never be entrusted with the rearing of our offspring. Ever"

Aren't you dead yet?

[Tarlam!]

Aren't you dead yet?

Whew. I thought you were still mad at me!

[Deputy Nutz]

I ain't mad at you. Hell I am not even disappointed in you. After all you are Austrialian

[Cy]

That one man ought to have rights in terms of hospital visits, etc. with regard to another man? It would seem that this issue is something that any number of reasonable laws could allow, for friends, for father/son, for two males who happen to love each other or ram their penises into each other's rectums. Whatever, that ought not be an issue.

But why marriage? What is the end purpose of changing the traditional meaning of the word "marriage"? Unless it is to fundamentally destabalize a traditional and historical institution.

Except it is an issue. The people of WI passed a constitutional amendment banning the creation of a status similar to marriage for gays. You are suggesting an equal status.

Did you vote against that amendment?

Cy: Right, and this is exactly the problem. When traditions break down, legalese has to fill in the blanks. We used to be able to trust our traditions, our shared heritage, to guide us.

But after the iconoclastic '60's, when everything was "questioned," and tradition was thrown out, now we have to revisit every last issue and apply the force of law to it.

It's like the "no tolerance" laws at schools. In the past, kids could play cops and robbers. They could bring toy guns to school, or make a toy gun, or a rubber band gun, or some such thing. Teachers and principles could make wise judgments as to which sorts of toys were crossing the line.

But now that all judgment and wisdom -- based as it is on tradition and generally shared vales -- has been ejected, we have to reinsert draconian legalese micromanaging every last detail of our lives. Now principles can't think, or teachers, but anything that smacks of looking like a gun, even the letter "L" must be eliminated from school property.

Unfortunately, the need for a constitutional amendment is indeed a sign of the degeneration of our times, but it is a degeneracy that began with the corrosion of our language by the left wing.

[SkinBasket]

I prefer cum dispenser.

You should change your rat name from Commissioner Rat to Cum Dispensing Rat

[Cy]

While there are some useful comparisons between gay rights issues and mixed marriages, there are also enough differences to avoid using the acceptance of interracial marriages as a justification for redefining marriage.

I see no signficant difference. You have two adults wishing to form a family partnership in either case. At one time, it was thought to be wrong for mixed races to marry. The EXACT same arguments were made against mixed marriages as are made today against gays, and those arguments have no more validity now than they did then.

Well, I guess if you say so. Except that there are no laws preventing gays from being together.

Cy: No difference between allowing for mixed marriages and allowing for gay marriages?

Huh?

Let's go back to elementary sex ed. Black penis in white vagina = (well, Barack Obama), that is, it actually produces something.

Black penis in black rectum = (well, I guess that would metaphorically be the black leadership vis a vis the black American populace) but literally it equals NOTHING.

White penis in white rectum = NOTHING

Black/White vagina rubbed on Black/White vagina = NOTHING.

Call gay unions whatever you want, but don't call them marriages. Marriage is society's traditional institution (for the history of this plantet) for institutionalizing the bearing and raising of children.

You homos. It's real simple. You put your seed into a woman, and it grows into a child. You don't have to take someone else's child. So you're not attracted to the woman in whom you would put your seed. So what? Get off yourselves. Stop being vain. Grow up and get past your abandonment issues with your fathers.

[falco]

psst.

cy.

your hate is showing

[SkinBasket]

[MJZiggy]

Downsize, dude...