Proposition 8

[arcilite]

The gay marriage ban. As of typing this It looks like it will pass.

Ugh, this is absurd.


Why do people think that something other people do that HAS NOTHING TO DEAL WITH THEM AT ALL....is wrong

Why do you need to be involved in something that does not effect you or your interests.

Man, America can be inspiring and troubling at the same time.

[Partial]

I think it will be far more troubling when I have to explain to my young children what is wrong with those two men walking down the street holding hands...

Please think before you speak.

[Joemailman]

What will they think when they see you and Skinbasket holding hands?

[bobblehead]

The gay marriage ban. As of typing this It looks like it will pass.

Ugh, this is absurd.


Why do people think that something other people do that HAS NOTHING TO DEAL WITH THEM AT ALL....is wrong

Why do you need to be involved in something that does not effect you or your interests.

Man, America can be inspiring and troubling at the same time.

well...marriage has a definition, and gay isn't in it. That being said I am all for civil unions to allow gays every right a "traditional" couple has....except where it DOES affect others, like adoption.

[Kiwon]

The gay marriage ban. As of typing this It looks like it will pass.

Why do you need to be involved in something that does not effect you or your interests.

So why do you care? What's it have to do with you? Answer your own question.

You call the ban "absurd" and "wrong." Those are value judgments based upon what exactly?

[Tarlam!]

I'm with Bobblehead. I can't stand the thought of gay adoptions. Any second now HH will pipe in with his "but gays are sooo loving" theme and the argument will start over.

My views are often stated on this so it's best I shut my piehole.

[SkinBasket]

What bobblehead said is the crux of the matter. Believe it or not, there are still people that believe in the whole sacred union part of marriage - that it's not just a civil service or a joining of health care benefits, but a religious vow. Those people want to protect that definition for themselves more than they want to stop a couple of queers from wearing matching wedding dresses, holding hands, and being recognized as a joined couple. They can call it whatever they want, but it's not marriage.

[MJZiggy]

Question though, by passing this law, does it prevent gay couples from the joining health benefits and other civil benefits of marriage.

Actually, there's a modicum of truth in what Skin is saying. If you look at marriage as a religious vow, then there should be no marriage for anyone in any state and it should be a purely religious institution. If however you look to marriage to be more than that and have any state involvement whatsoever, then any two consenting adults should be able to enter into the contract. The state should not be telling the church what to do and the church should stay out of what the state does. But it does seem like a lexicon issue more than an issue issue.

And P, you don't tell your kids anything about it. If you don't make it a big deal, it isn't. They see two men holding hands and you tell them that the two men are gay and that 10% of our population has always been gay and that there are gay animals and that's just how it is.

[SkinBasket]

Actually, there's a modicum of truth in what Skin is saying.

Oh, gee. Thanks.

[MJZiggy]

You know what I meant. Many people are biased enough on the issue not to think there was any truth in your post at all.

[HowardRoark]

Gay people can get married.

[sheepshead]

The gay marriage ban. As of typing this It looks like it will pass.

Ugh, this is absurd.


Why do people think that something other people do that HAS NOTHING TO DEAL WITH THEM AT ALL....is wrong

Why do you need to be involved in something that does not effect you or your interests.

Man, America can be inspiring and troubling at the same time.

The real point here is, it was voted on. What ever the outcome. It becomes up to the people. NOT JUDGES.

[falco]

I think it will be far more troubling when I have to explain to my young children what is wrong with those two men walking down the street holding hands...

Please think before you speak.

i might ask you to do the same

[sheepshead]

It should also tell us that any sort of liberal "shift" is bunk.

[falco]

It should also tell us that any sort of liberal "shift" is bunk.

i disagree on some level - i don't think pro-gay marriage is a mainstream democratic stance - not yet at least

[sheepshead]

It should also tell us that any sort of liberal "shift" is bunk.

i disagree on some level - i don't think pro-gay marriage is a mainstream democratic stance - not yet at least

I said liberal...with all due respect, there's a significant difference.

[Zool]

What bobblehead said is the crux of the matter. Believe it or not, there are still people that believe in the whole sacred union part of marriage - that it's not just a civil service or a joining of health care benefits, but a religious vow. Those people want to protect that definition for themselves more than they want to stop a couple of queers from wearing matching wedding dresses, holding hands, and being recognized as a joined couple. They can call it whatever they want, but it's not marriage.

I seem to recall something in there about til death, but thats pretty much out the fucking window too for like 55% of the marriages.

I don't give 2 shits if "the gays" want to get married, but I'll vote on anything that says they shouldn't be allowed to adopt. I don't care how loving the household is. Lets maybe put some more money into stopping these pregnancies in the first. Pass out condoms daily in high school. Its not going to make kids have sex more. Put condom vending machines in the bathrooms too. Make kids watch the "miracle" of child birth at a young age. Give them the class where they have to take care of a baby for a week.

[SkinBasket]

What bobblehead said is the crux of the matter. Believe it or not, there are still people that believe in the whole sacred union part of marriage - that it's not just a civil service or a joining of health care benefits, but a religious vow. Those people want to protect that definition for themselves more than they want to stop a couple of queers from wearing matching wedding dresses, holding hands, and being recognized as a joined couple. They can call it whatever they want, but it's not marriage.

I seem to recall something in there about til death, but thats pretty much out the fucking window too for like 55% of the marriages.

The success rate doesn't change the definition. Especially for those who are more likely to believe in their vows and to be in the 45%.

[packinpatland]

I think it will be far more troubling when I have to explain to my young children what is wrong with those two men walking down the street holding hands...

Please think before you speak.

Why feel the need to explain anything? Why say it's wrong? Let them come to their own conclusions.
As to the notion of adoption. My kids have plenty of friends with two moms or two dads. We went to these kid's weddings (3 this summer) They had gay parents, they chose straight partners. They grew up in loving homes....the alternative could have been orphanages or foster homes.
On this particular issue, where there really is no bearing on anyone other than those directly involved, why should it bother you so much?

[Zool]

What bobblehead said is the crux of the matter. Believe it or not, there are still people that believe in the whole sacred union part of marriage - that it's not just a civil service or a joining of health care benefits, but a religious vow. Those people want to protect that definition for themselves more than they want to stop a couple of queers from wearing matching wedding dresses, holding hands, and being recognized as a joined couple. They can call it whatever they want, but it's not marriage.

I seem to recall something in there about til death, but thats pretty much out the fucking window too for like 55% of the marriages.

The success rate doesn't change the definition. Especially for those who are more likely to believe in their vows and to be in the 45%.

Then let the gays have a crack at it. Maybe they're better at it.

[LL2]

The gay marriage ban. As of typing this It looks like it will pass.

Ugh, this is absurd.


Why do people think that something other people do that HAS NOTHING TO DEAL WITH THEM AT ALL....is wrong

Why do you need to be involved in something that does not effect you or your interests.

Man, America can be inspiring and troubling at the same time.

The real point here is, it was voted on. What ever the outcome. It becomes up to the people. NOT JUDGES.

Yes, you are correct, but I'm sure we will see this challenged in court and some liberal judges will throw it out....for the second time.

If the majority of the people feel there should be no gay marriage, and I believe this thing needed 60% to pass, then the judges and politicians need to respect the vote of the majority. Obviously with this thing passing most people do not share Arcilite's views.

[3irty1]

We're just looking to regulate everything these days aren't we?

[HarveyWallbangers]

I'm Christian and Libertarian. On this issue, the clear answer to me is civil unions. They can have their own weddings. They can get all of the same benefits that a married couple get. I think it's a good compromise, but there are some that want to spit in the face of our foundation, ideals, traditions, or whatever you want to call it.

[SkinBasket]

What bobblehead said is the crux of the matter. Believe it or not, there are still people that believe in the whole sacred union part of marriage - that it's not just a civil service or a joining of health care benefits, but a religious vow. Those people want to protect that definition for themselves more than they want to stop a couple of queers from wearing matching wedding dresses, holding hands, and being recognized as a joined couple. They can call it whatever they want, but it's not marriage.

I seem to recall something in there about til death, but thats pretty much out the fucking window too for like 55% of the marriages.

The success rate doesn't change the definition. Especially for those who are more likely to believe in their vows and to be in the 45%.

Then let the gays have a crack at it. Maybe they're better at it.

I agree, let them have a crack at "it," but calling "it" marriage doesn't fit the definition of marriage. Most queers I've known didn't want it called marriage either and you'll only be offending those who believe in the more religious aspects. Gays for the most part are clever. Let them come up with their own term. I'm sure it'll be fabulous.

[mraynrand]

The real cool thing is that proposition 10 passed in Ohio. I am now officially a Golden Retriever. You cannot, by force of law, say that I am not. You must also change print and other media to say that some humans are born as Goldens. To do otherwise is to discriminate against me, and is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Unfortunately, according to local laws I must remain on a leash and be neutered.

[sheepshead]

I think it will be far more troubling when I have to explain to my young children what is wrong with those two men walking down the street holding hands...

Please think before you speak.

Why feel the need to explain anything? Why say it's wrong? Let them come to their own conclusions.
As to the notion of adoption. My kids have plenty of friends with two moms or two dads. We went to these kid's weddings (3 this summer) They had gay parents, they chose straight partners. They grew up in loving homes....the alternative could have been orphanages or foster homes.
On this particular issue, where there really is no bearing on anyone other than those directly involved, why should it bother you so much?

Again with all due respect it's called "parenting". Liberalism is popular because it's easy. This is another example.

[packinpatland]

I think it will be far more troubling when I have to explain to my young children what is wrong with those two men walking down the street holding hands...

Please think before you speak.

Why feel the need to explain anything? Why say it's wrong? Let them come to their own conclusions.
As to the notion of adoption. My kids have plenty of friends with two moms or two dads. We went to these kid's weddings (3 this summer) They had gay parents, they chose straight partners. They grew up in loving homes....the alternative could have been orphanages or foster homes.
On this particular issue, where there really is no bearing on anyone other than those directly involved, why should it bother you so much?

Again with all due respect it's called "parenting". Liberalism is popular because it's easy. This is another example.

All due respect to you, I know alittle bit about parenting. I have 3 very successful daughters. My husband and I were, still are, very good parents. Letting children form their own opinions is alot harder than trying to mold them into thinking the way you want them to.

[falco]

I think it will be far more troubling when I have to explain to my young children what is wrong with those two men walking down the street holding hands...

Please think before you speak.

Why feel the need to explain anything? Why say it's wrong? Let them come to their own conclusions.
As to the notion of adoption. My kids have plenty of friends with two moms or two dads. We went to these kid's weddings (3 this summer) They had gay parents, they chose straight partners. They grew up in loving homes....the alternative could have been orphanages or foster homes.
On this particular issue, where there really is no bearing on anyone other than those directly involved, why should it bother you so much?

Again with all due respect it's called "parenting". Liberalism is popular because it's easy. This is another example.

All due respect to you, I know alittle bit about parenting. I have 3 very successful daughters. My husband and I were, still are, very good parents. Letting children form their own opinions is alot harder than trying to mold them into thinking the way you want them to.

I agree 100% PIP - I am very grateful that my parents believed in my ability to make my own decisions about the world.

[HowardRoark]

I think it will be far more troubling when I have to explain to my young children what is wrong with those two men walking down the street holding hands...

Please think before you speak.

Why feel the need to explain anything? Why say it's wrong? Let them come to their own conclusions.
As to the notion of adoption. My kids have plenty of friends with two moms or two dads. We went to these kid's weddings (3 this summer) They had gay parents, they chose straight partners. They grew up in loving homes....the alternative could have been orphanages or foster homes.
On this particular issue, where there really is no bearing on anyone other than those directly involved, why should it bother you so much?

Again with all due respect it's called "parenting". Liberalism is popular because it's easy. This is another example.

All due respect to you, I know alittle bit about parenting. I have 3 very successful daughters. My husband and I were, still are, very good parents. Letting children form their own opinions is alot harder than trying to mold them into thinking the way you want them to.

Do you guys at least acknowledge that being a Lefty in today’s day is the easiest thing in the world to do? If you really want to show how “open” and “diverse” you are, become a Conservative. The irony of all ironies is that all the Baby Boomers who have been fighting the “man” are the “man.”

Celebrate Diversity!!!!!!! Of thought.

By the way, it’s a lot, not alot.

[mraynrand]

Letting children form their own opinions is alot harder than trying to mold them into thinking the way you want them to.

And of course, those are the only two mutually exclusive options. Either you are 'letting them form their own opinions' or you are 'molding them to your own thinking.' Is 'letting them form their own opinions' your own thinking?

[sheepshead]

I think it will be far more troubling when I have to explain to my young children what is wrong with those two men walking down the street holding hands...

Please think before you speak.

Why feel the need to explain anything? Why say it's wrong? Let them come to their own conclusions.
As to the notion of adoption. My kids have plenty of friends with two moms or two dads. We went to these kid's weddings (3 this summer) They had gay parents, they chose straight partners. They grew up in loving homes....the alternative could have been orphanages or foster homes.
On this particular issue, where there really is no bearing on anyone other than those directly involved, why should it bother you so much?

Again with all due respect it's called "parenting". Liberalism is popular because it's easy. This is another example.

All due respect to you, I know alittle bit about parenting. I have 3 very successful daughters. My husband and I were, still are, very good parents. Letting children form their own opinions is alot harder than trying to mold them into thinking the way you want them to.


You're off the point here but - whatever. You questioned whether anything should be explained... as a parent everything needs to be explained. Conclusions are then drawn. I have 3 kids also and they couldnt be more different. My oldest son goes to the Art Institute of Chicago on a scholarship and was in Grant Park yesterday and we texted back and forth. Does that sound like I have forced my will on him?

[packinpatland]

How am I 'off point'?

Partial's post was " think it will be far more troubling when I have to explain to my young children what is wrong with those two men walking down the street holding hands... :


That is not 'explaining', that's telling them what you think and how they should think.

[packinpatland]

I think it will be far more troubling when I have to explain to my young children what is wrong with those two men walking down the street holding hands...

Please think before you speak.

Why feel the need to explain anything? Why say it's wrong? Let them come to their own conclusions.
As to the notion of adoption. My kids have plenty of friends with two moms or two dads. We went to these kid's weddings (3 this summer) They had gay parents, they chose straight partners. They grew up in loving homes....the alternative could have been orphanages or foster homes.
On this particular issue, where there really is no bearing on anyone other than those directly involved, why should it bother you so much?

Again with all due respect it's called "parenting". Liberalism is popular because it's easy. This is another example.

All due respect to you, I know alittle bit about parenting. I have 3 very successful daughters. My husband and I were, still are, very good parents. Letting children form their own opinions is alot harder than trying to mold them into thinking the way you want them to.


You're off the point here but - whatever. You questioned whether anything should be explained... as a parent everything needs to be explained. Conclusions are then drawn. I have 3 kids also and they couldnt be more different. My oldest son goes to the Art Institute of Chicago on a scholarship and was in Grant Park yesterday and we texted back and forth. Does that sound like I have forced my will on him?

As to your son.........sounds like you did a good job as a parent. He thinks on his own, yet respects your opinion.

[sheepshead]

How am I 'off point'?

Partial's post was " think it will be far more troubling when I have to explain to my young children what is wrong with those two men walking down the street holding hands... :


That is not 'explaining', that's telling them what you think and how they should think.

I took that as his kids reaction to what they saw. Instinctively concluding that it doesnt look right, because they have only seen men and women do that. Not addressing it actually only reinforces their initial reaction. If you just smile and go on your way, I'm afraid we havent accomplished anything as a parent.

[sheepshead]

I think it will be far more troubling when I have to explain to my young children what is wrong with those two men walking down the street holding hands...

Please think before you speak.

Why feel the need to explain anything? Why say it's wrong? Let them come to their own conclusions.
As to the notion of adoption. My kids have plenty of friends with two moms or two dads. We went to these kid's weddings (3 this summer) They had gay parents, they chose straight partners. They grew up in loving homes....the alternative could have been orphanages or foster homes.
On this particular issue, where there really is no bearing on anyone other than those directly involved, why should it bother you so much?

Again with all due respect it's called "parenting". Liberalism is popular because it's easy. This is another example.

All due respect to you, I know alittle bit about parenting. I have 3 very successful daughters. My husband and I were, still are, very good parents. Letting children form their own opinions is alot harder than trying to mold them into thinking the way you want them to.


You're off the point here but - whatever. You questioned whether anything should be explained... as a parent everything needs to be explained. Conclusions are then drawn. I have 3 kids also and they couldnt be more different. My oldest son goes to the Art Institute of Chicago on a scholarship and was in Grant Park yesterday and we texted back and forth. Does that sound like I have forced my will on him?

As to your son.........sounds like you did a good job as a parent. He thinks on his own, yet respects your opinion.


The highest of compliments--thank you

[arcilite]

I think it will be far more troubling when I have to explain to my young children what is wrong with those two men walking down the street holding hands...

Please think before you speak.

You won't have much explaining to do because nothing is wrong.


A good parent would explain not all people are the same. While it is 'normal' for men and women to be together, some prefer to be with those of the same sex.

No biggie.

[Harlan Huckleby]

well...marriage has a definition, and gay isn't in it.

The definition used to be between people of the same race. And that definition was supported by over 90% of the population as recently as the early 1960's.

[falco]

well...marriage has a definition, and gay isn't in it.

The definition used to be between people of the same race. And that definition was supported by over 90% of the population as recently as the early 1960's.

and that is really the "last laugh" of this whole thing - american attitudes are changing, and barring any massive shifts, gay marriage will most likely become acceptable and commonplace within the next few decades as demographics shift

[Harlan Huckleby]

Believe it or not, there are still people that believe in the whole sacred union part of marriage - that it's not just a civil service or a joining of health care benefits, but a religious vow.

This is exactly right. So what business does the government have in conferring religious sacraments? The gov should ONLY be authorized to do civil unions. "Marriage" should be conferred by your priest or witch doctor.

Back to arclite's original point: there is no barrier to gay acceptance that can't be overcome by heart disease. People under the age of 40 are cool with gay couples, older people are squeemish and aren't going to change. Its a generalization, but backed-up starkly by statistics. Death is the answer.

You can see the change happening right here in this forum. Madtown came out of the closet (indirectly) within the past year, it wasn't a big deal. FavreChild recently stepped up to the plate (pun intended), most people would be happy to see her get married.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Gays for the most part are clever.

No, you're thinking of the asians, they are the clever ones - they can make a TV into a watch. They used to be inscrutible, now they are clever. Whites are good with money. Indians can sneak up on ya. What was the other one.... mexicans have the gift of family, they can get along even if you put 100 relatives in one house. (that would be two familes) The gays, they're just really, really dirty, they never met an orifice they didn't like.

[hoosier]

Gays for the most part are clever.

No, you're thinking of the asians, they are the clever ones - they can make a TV into a watch. They used to be inscrutible, now they are clever. Whites are good with money. Indians can sneak up on ya. What was the other one.... mexicans have the gift of family, they can get along even if you put 100 relatives in one house. (that would be two familes) The gays, they're just really, really dirty, they never met an orifice they didn't like.

Wow, gay indians must have it rough. Imagine Pigpen from Charlie Brown trying to sneak up on people but his lingering stink cloud always gives him away.

[mraynrand]

well...marriage has a definition, and gay isn't in it.

The definition used to be between people of the same race. And that definition was supported by over 90% of the population as recently as the early 1960's.

and that is really the "last laugh" of this whole thing - american attitudes are changing, and barring any massive shifts, gay marriage will most likely become acceptable and commonplace within the next few decades as demographics shift

I think you're right about this. But think carefully to the next step. What this means is that we don't need the supreme court to help 'redefine' marriage. And we don't need to 'redefine' marriage. If gay couples will become increasingly more accepted, what is the purpose of trying to force people to accept that they are 'the same' as hetero couples, when clearly they are not? They are different, but I think as an increasingly secular society that will look more like Western Europe (at least for the next couple of decades, until Europe become majority muslim), why do we have to alter the reality of language and concepts to be accepting (or at least tolerant) of different behaviours?

[arcilite]

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/9893/gay000306marriageed01darl3.jpg

[mraynrand]

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/9893/gay000306marriageed01darl3.jpg

I'm sure that in 40 more years they will be trying to protect the sanctity of marriage by preventing me from marrying my owner. I am, of course, against it. Dogs are people too, especially after the passage of issue #10.

[falco]

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/9893/gay000306marriageed01darl3.jpg

I'm sure that in 40 more years they will be trying to protect the sanctity of marriage by preventing me from marrying my owner. I am, of course, against it. Dogs are people too, especially after the passage of issue #10.

right...because as black is to white, and man is to woman, man is to dog

[SkinBasket]

right...because as black is to white, and man is to woman, man is to dog

his point is that due to recent passage of legislation, yes. At least in Ohio.

[Zool]

Better stop judging the gays as being wrong in their opinions and ideas....lest ye be judged.

[falco]

right...because as black is to white, and man is to woman, man is to dog

his point is that due to recent passage of legislation, yes. At least in Ohio.

ahh, then someone will have to fill me in as i am uninformed as to contemporary politics in ohio

[SkinBasket]

Better stop judging the gays as being wrong in their opinions and ideas....lest ye be judged.

I've certainly been judged by more gays than I've judged. At one point 22% of my fellow employees were gay. Thank god most of them were skinny lesbians. They smell better than the others. That's a factual statement, not a judgment of their poopy penises.

[Zool]

Better stop judging the gays as being wrong in their opinions and ideas....lest ye be judged.

I've certainly been judged by more gays than I've judged. At one point 22% of my fellow employees were gay. Thank god most of them were skinny lesbians. They smell better than the others. That's a factual statement, not a judgment of their poopy penises.

Well its not a line of pissed off dykes standing at the gate that you need to worry about.

[sheepshead]

Blacks approved the ban 70-30 in both CA and FL. Just an FYI.

[mraynrand]

right...because as black is to white, and man is to woman, man is to dog

his point is that due to recent passage of legislation, yes. At least in Ohio.

No new legislation has been passed. That was a joke. But at least falco understands that black to white, man to woman, and man to dog have fundamental differences. Woof!

[Gunakor]

I think it will be far more troubling when I have to explain to my young children what is wrong with those two men walking down the street holding hands...

Please think before you speak.

Let me trouble you now then to explain to me what is wrong with two men walking down the street holding hands.

[SkinBasket]

Better stop judging the gays as being wrong in their opinions and ideas....lest ye be judged.

I've certainly been judged by more gays than I've judged. At one point 22% of my fellow employees were gay. Thank god most of them were skinny lesbians. They smell better than the others. That's a factual statement, not a judgment of their poopy penises.

Well its not a line of pissed off dykes standing at the gate that you need to worry about.

Oh, please. Even gays know god hates them.

[SkinBasket]

I think it will be far more troubling when I have to explain to my young children what is wrong with those two men walking down the street holding hands...

Please think before you speak.

Let me trouble you now then to explain to me what is wrong with two men walking down the street holding hands.

It's gross. You gays can just keep your gayness to the gay approved areas, like gay bars and horse shows.

[Gunakor]

I think it will be far more troubling when I have to explain to my young children what is wrong with those two men walking down the street holding hands...

Please think before you speak.

Let me trouble you now then to explain to me what is wrong with two men walking down the street holding hands.

It's gross. You gays can just keep your gayness to the gay approved areas, like gay bars and horse shows.

First off, I am not gay. Secondly, "It's gross" is a personal opinion and shouldn't be forced on everyone. Not everyone believes as you do, nor do they have to. Your opinion is no better or more important than thiers.

Besides, it's only gross if you pay attention to it. Even if you feel that way, you can just look at something else.

[mraynrand]

Your opinion is no better or more important than thiers.

Are all opinions identical - no better or worse than any other? If an opinion is better than another, how do we know? Who decides?

[Zool]

Better stop judging the gays as being wrong in their opinions and ideas....lest ye be judged.

I've certainly been judged by more gays than I've judged. At one point 22% of my fellow employees were gay. Thank god most of them were skinny lesbians. They smell better than the others. That's a factual statement, not a judgment of their poopy penises.

Well its not a line of pissed off dykes standing at the gate that you need to worry about.

Oh, please. Even gays know god hates them.

Yes but you cannot. Human.

[Gunakor]

Your opinion is no better or more important than thiers.

Are all opinions identical - no better or worse than any other? If an opinion is better than another, how do we know? Who decides?

Nobody decides for everybody, that is the point I'm making. Everyone decides for themselves. Perhaps I worded it wrong... Your opinion is no better or more important to them than theirs is to you. Make more sense?

[Kiwon]

I think it will be far more troubling when I have to explain to my young children what is wrong with those two men walking down the street holding hands...

Please think before you speak.

Let me trouble you now then to explain to me what is wrong with two men walking down the street holding hands.

It's gross. You gays can just keep your gayness to the gay approved areas, like gay bars and horse shows.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c5/Zoobig.jpg/200px-Zoobig.jpg

Zoo, a film by The Stranger columnist Charles Mudede and director Robinson Devor, and executive producers Garr Godfrey and Ben Exworthy, is a documentary on the life and death of Kenneth Pinyan, a Seattle area man who died unusually after engaging in sex with a horse. The film's public debut was at the Sundance Film Festival in January 2007, where it was one of 16 winners out of 856 candidates, and played at numerous regional festivals in the USA thereafter.

The Sundance judges called it a "humanizing look at the life and bizarre death of a seemingly normal Seattle family man who met his untimely end after an unusual encounter with a horse".
.................................................. ..............

Stop the hate, people! Anal equally for all!

We need federal protection for people who are genetically predisposed to put a horse's phallus into their anus. They are people too.....strange people, but people nonetheless. Keep your hands out of their lower intestines! It's their rectums and you have no right to dictate to them how they are used!

:evil: :evil: :evil:

[swede]

I've always thought civil unions were a decent compromise and never understood the desperate psychological need for gay marriage.

I tried the "sanctity of marriage" argument for a while, but after Carmen Electra and Dennis Rodman tied the knot I couldn't see how Bruce marrying Tyrone was somehow any less degrading to the institution.

I don't know about the slippery slope argument. Are children, pets, household objects or the UW Marching Band on the "I should be allowed to marry who or what I want" radar?

[SkinBasket]

I think it will be far more troubling when I have to explain to my young children what is wrong with those two men walking down the street holding hands...

Please think before you speak.

Let me trouble you now then to explain to me what is wrong with two men walking down the street holding hands.

It's gross. You gays can just keep your gayness to the gay approved areas, like gay bars and horse shows.

First off, I am not gay. Secondly, "It's gross" is a personal opinion and shouldn't be forced on everyone. Not everyone believes as you do, nor do they have to. Your opinion is no better or more important than thiers.

Besides, it's only gross if you pay attention to it. Even if you feel that way, you can just look at something else.

First off, congratulations on being normal. Secondly, that is my opinion, and just as it should not be forced on anyone, which it isn't, it also shouldn't be stifled out of fear of appearing like a homohater. My opinion is not any better or more important. It is also no worse or less important.

Re: the bold. So you admit it's gross. But it's not gross because they're gay, it's gross because it's two guys holding hands. Even if it was two straight guys holding hands, it would be gross.

[mraynrand]

Your opinion is no better or more important than thiers.

Are all opinions identical - no better or worse than any other? If an opinion is better than another, how do we know? Who decides?

Nobody decides for everybody, that is the point I'm making. Everyone decides for themselves. Perhaps I worded it wrong... Your opinion is no better or more important to them than theirs is to you. Make more sense?

Yes

[Gunakor]

I think it will be far more troubling when I have to explain to my young children what is wrong with those two men walking down the street holding hands...

Please think before you speak.

Let me trouble you now then to explain to me what is wrong with two men walking down the street holding hands.

It's gross. You gays can just keep your gayness to the gay approved areas, like gay bars and horse shows.

First off, I am not gay. Secondly, "It's gross" is a personal opinion and shouldn't be forced on everyone. Not everyone believes as you do, nor do they have to. Your opinion is no better or more important than thiers.

Besides, it's only gross if you pay attention to it. Even if you feel that way, you can just look at something else.

First off, congratulations on being normal. Secondly, that is my opinion, and just as it should not be forced on anyone, which it isn't, it also shouldn't be stifled out of fear of appearing like a homohater. My opinion is not any better or more important. It is also no worse or less important.

Re: the bold. So you admit it's gross. But it's not gross because they're gay, it's gross because it's two guys holding hands. Even if it was two straight guys holding hands, it would be gross.

I'm not encouraging anyone to stifle your opinion either. But laws that apply to everyone shouldn't be made out of personal opinions. The question is whether or not gay marriage should be allowed by law. If you think it's gross, you are entitled to that opinion but you shouldn't expect the government to pass a law saying such unions are illegal just because some people think it's gross. Just the same, I respect your opinion and your right to have it even though I disagree. As far as the law is concerned, this should be a non issue because there is nothing about it that would warrant a legal ban. "I think it's gross" is not legal justification for an outright ban. Wouldn't you agree?

[swede]

First off, I am not gay. Secondly, "It's gross" is a personal opinion and shouldn't be forced on everyone. Not everyone believes as you do, nor do they have to. Your opinion is no better or more important than thiers.

A common fallacy is for people to believe that opinions are of equal value.

It IS true that everyone has the right to hold an opinion; its value depends upon whether or not the opinion can be rationally defended.

AND btw I think the right to gay marriage can be rationally defended, but only if we are negotiating differences between a civil union and the legal status of holy matrimony.

[Fosco33]

Similar prop passed 8 years ago.

SF mayor and CA supreme court went against the spoken will of the majority.

Prop 8 passes again - despite near record low turnout in Orange County (very right of center).

If gay rights activists wanted change, they should propose their own measure and not hide behind appeals, lawyers and judges that don't speak for the people.

(Note - I don't really care if/when it actually passes - it's more about the process of initiating change).

[Gunakor]

First off, I am not gay. Secondly, "It's gross" is a personal opinion and shouldn't be forced on everyone. Not everyone believes as you do, nor do they have to. Your opinion is no better or more important than thiers.

A common fallacy is for people to believe that opinions are of equal value.

It IS true that everyone has the right to hold an opinion; its value depends upon whether or not the opinion can be rationally defended.

AND btw I think the right to gay marriage can be rationally defended, but only if we are negotiating differences between a civil union and the legal status of holy matrimony.

But even in a civil union, I feel as if gay couples should be entitled to every legal benefit a traditional couple is entitled to. Because in my eyes anyway, I don't see a fundamental difference. It's two people who fall in love and want to get married. How is it any different if it's two men versus a man and a woman (from a legal perspective anyway, as I understand the fundamental differences from a religious perspective)? I guess I just don't understand why or how people think that two men who they don't even know or associate with getting married is going to negatively affect their own lives. Are your taxes going to go up because gays can get married? Is the value of your home going to decrease? Is your job in jeopardy? Your safety? When I posed my original question to Partial, this is what I was getting at.

[Partial]

I think it will be far more troubling when I have to explain to my young children what is wrong with those two men walking down the street holding hands...

Please think before you speak.

Why feel the need to explain anything? Why say it's wrong? Let them come to their own conclusions.
As to the notion of adoption. My kids have plenty of friends with two moms or two dads. We went to these kid's weddings (3 this summer) They had gay parents, they chose straight partners. They grew up in loving homes....the alternative could have been orphanages or foster homes.
On this particular issue, where there really is no bearing on anyone other than those directly involved, why should it bother you so much?

Then you have to say they're gay... they ask whats that... then you have the whole birds and the bees at an age far too young. No innocence left in children these days and the liberal media is to blame for it.

[Partial]

I agree, let them have a crack at "it," but calling "it" marriage doesn't fit the definition of marriage. Most queers I've known didn't want it called marriage either and you'll only be offending those who believe in the more religious aspects. Gays for the most part are clever. Let them come up with their own term. I'm sure it'll be fabulous.

:lol:

[Zool]

No innocence left in children these days and the liberal media is to blame for it.

Well...you've once again said the stupidest thing I've read from you.

Kudos in your never ending quest.

[SkinBasket]

I think it will be far more troubling when I have to explain to my young children what is wrong with those two men walking down the street holding hands...

Please think before you speak.

Let me trouble you now then to explain to me what is wrong with two men walking down the street holding hands.

It's gross. You gays can just keep your gayness to the gay approved areas, like gay bars and horse shows.

First off, I am not gay. Secondly, "It's gross" is a personal opinion and shouldn't be forced on everyone. Not everyone believes as you do, nor do they have to. Your opinion is no better or more important than thiers.

Besides, it's only gross if you pay attention to it. Even if you feel that way, you can just look at something else.

First off, congratulations on being normal. Secondly, that is my opinion, and just as it should not be forced on anyone, which it isn't, it also shouldn't be stifled out of fear of appearing like a homohater. My opinion is not any better or more important. It is also no worse or less important.

Re: the bold. So you admit it's gross. But it's not gross because they're gay, it's gross because it's two guys holding hands. Even if it was two straight guys holding hands, it would be gross.

I'm not encouraging anyone to stifle your opinion either. But laws that apply to everyone shouldn't be made out of personal opinions. The question is whether or not gay marriage should be allowed by law. If you think it's gross, you are entitled to that opinion but you shouldn't expect the government to pass a law saying such unions are illegal just because some people think it's gross. Just the same, I respect your opinion and your right to have it even though I disagree. As far as the law is concerned, this should be a non issue because there is nothing about it that would warrant a legal ban. "I think it's gross" is not legal justification for an outright ban. Wouldn't you agree?

Who's talking about laws? We're talking about two doods holding hands and Partial feeling all homophobic about it. He's one of those guys that thinks all the gays are looking at him because they want him.

As far as the legal side goes, I've staked my position earlier in this thread.

[Partial]

Then you have to say they're gay... they ask whats that... then you have the whole birds and the bees at an age far too young. No innocence left in children these days and the liberal media is to blame for it.

Well...you've once again said the stupidest thing I've read from you.

Kudos in your never ending quest.

How so? You're telling me if you were with your daughter and she saw two fruit cakes holding hands and kissing eachother it wouldn't perplex her? She's probably say, "what are those guys doing daddy".

You'd say, "they're trying to defy genetics and do their own thing" or "they're gay".

She says... "whats gay, daddy".

You say ... "its when a man likes another man instead of girls"

daughter asks why, when all she sees are men married to women..

and so on and so forth.

Christ Zooly... That is dead on balls accurate, wheres the beef?

[SkinBasket]

Then you have to say they're gay... they ask whats that... then you have the whole birds and the bees at an age far too young. No innocence left in children these days and the liberal media is to blame for it.

Well...you've once again said the stupidest thing I've read from you.

Kudos in your never ending quest.

How so? You're telling me if you were with your daughter and she saw two fruit cakes holding hands and kissing eachother it wouldn't perplex her? She's probably say, "what are those guys doing daddy".

You'd say, "they're trying to defy genetics and do their own thing" or "they're gay".

She says... "whats gay, daddy".

You say ... "its when a man likes another man instead of girls"

daughter asks why, when all she sees are men married to women..

and so on and so forth.

Christ Zooly... That is dead on balls accurate, wheres the beef?

Partial, I've said it before and I'll say it again. DO. NOT. HAVE. KIDS.

They hate you already.

[Gunakor]

Who's talking about laws? We're talking about two doods holding hands and Partial feeling all homophobic about it. He's one of those guys that thinks all the gays are looking at him because they want him.

As far as the legal side goes, I've staked my position earlier in this thread.

The topic of this thread is a legal ban on gay marriage. I had just assumed that we were all talking about laws... My bad.

If Partial wants to be homophobic, that is his right. He just shouldn't expect the government to pass laws prohibiting gays from walking down the street holding hands. If he's got some problem with it, it's his own problem to deal with, not America's.

Besides, what pray tell do you think the gays are thinking when Partial can't simply look away from them holding hands as they walk down the street?

[Zool]

Then you have to say they're gay... they ask whats that... then you have the whole birds and the bees at an age far too young. No innocence left in children these days and the liberal media is to blame for it.

Well...you've once again said the stupidest thing I've read from you.

Kudos in your never ending quest.

How so? You're telling me if you were with your daughter and she saw two fruit cakes holding hands and kissing eachother it wouldn't perplex her? She's probably say, "what are those guys doing daddy".

You'd say, "they're trying to defy genetics and do their own thing" or "they're gay".

She says... "whats gay, daddy".

You say ... "its when a man likes another man instead of girls"

daughter asks why, when all she sees are men married to women..

and so on and so forth.

Christ Zooly... That is dead on balls accurate, wheres the beef?

How the fuck can you blame the media for anything? Turn off the TV. If the kids are watching too much TV, do we blame NBC or possibly their parents?

Think....type...think some more.....type some more....go for a walk...come back. If it still seems like a good post, push submit.

[Kiwon]

Then you have to say they're gay... they ask whats that... then you have the whole birds and the bees at an age far too young. No innocence left in children these days and the liberal media is to blame for it.

Well...you've once again said the stupidest thing I've read from you.

Kudos in your never ending quest.

How so? You're telling me if you were with your daughter and she saw two fruit cakes holding hands and kissing eachother it wouldn't perplex her? She's probably say, "what are those guys doing daddy".

You'd say, "they're trying to defy genetics and do their own thing" or "they're gay".

She says... "whats gay, daddy".

You say ... "its when a man likes another man instead of girls"

daughter asks why, when all she sees are men married to women..

and so on and so forth.

Christ Zooly... That is dead on balls accurate, wheres the beef?

How the fuck can you blame the media for anything?

Ahem......bad timing award goes to...

Teen Pregnancy Linked to Watching Sexy TV Shows

Monday, November 03, 2008

(AP) CHICAGO — Groundbreaking research suggests that pregnancy rates are much higher among teens who watch a lot of TV with sexual dialogue and behavior than among those who have tamer viewing tastes.

"Sex and the City," anyone? That was one of the shows used in the research.

The new study is the first to link those viewing habits with teen pregnancy, said lead author Anita Chandra, a Rand Corp. behavioral scientist. Teens who watched the raciest shows were twice as likely to become pregnant over the next three years as those who watched few such programs.

Previous research by some of the same scientists had already found that watching lots of sex on TV can influence teens to have sex at earlier ages.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,446085,00.html

[SkinBasket]

Who's talking about laws? We're talking about two doods holding hands and Partial feeling all homophobic about it. He's one of those guys that thinks all the gays are looking at him because they want him.

As far as the legal side goes, I've staked my position earlier in this thread.

The topic of this thread is a legal ban on gay marriage. I had just assumed that we were all talking about laws... My bad.

If Partial wants to be homophobic, that is his right. He just shouldn't expect the government to pass laws prohibiting gays from walking down the street holding hands. If he's got some problem with it, it's his own problem to deal with, not America's.

Besides, what pray tell do you think the gays are thinking when Partial can't simply look away from them holding hands as they walk down the street?

Well our conversation was all quoted from the two guys holding hands, so I assumed we were talking about guys holding hands.

I don't think we need laws preventing them from holding hands. Giving them their own little fenced-in communes should do the trick. Then we don't have to see them, and we wouldn't have to answer such difficult questions. I bet we could even send them food once a week.

[Partial]

Then you have to say they're gay... they ask whats that... then you have the whole birds and the bees at an age far too young. No innocence left in children these days and the liberal media is to blame for it.

Well...you've once again said the stupidest thing I've read from you.

Kudos in your never ending quest.

How so? You're telling me if you were with your daughter and she saw two fruit cakes holding hands and kissing eachother it wouldn't perplex her? She's probably say, "what are those guys doing daddy".

You'd say, "they're trying to defy genetics and do their own thing" or "they're gay".

She says... "whats gay, daddy".

You say ... "its when a man likes another man instead of girls"

daughter asks why, when all she sees are men married to women..

and so on and so forth.

Christ Zooly... That is dead on balls accurate, wheres the beef?

How the fuck can you blame the media for anything? Turn off the TV. If the kids are watching too much TV, do we blame NBC or possibly their parents?

Think....type...think some more.....type some more....go for a walk...come back. If it still seems like a good post, push submit.

Let me put it this way....

Shows like Will and Grace or the L Word weren't on twenty years ago before everything on television wasn't so scandalous. You didn't have "the 40 year old virgin" on NBC on a Saturday and Sunday evening as the featured family movie...

See Kiwons post. *DX crotch chop*

[falco]

god if only partials parents were gay, then we wouldn't be hear listing to this bullshit right now

[SkinBasket]

god if only partials parents were gay, then we wouldn't be hear listing to this bullshit right now

Maybe you assume too much.

[falco]

god look at all the typos in that sentence...that what happens when i type angry... :D

sort of like how mraynrand has been since the election was called for obama... :lol:

[Gunakor]

Who's talking about laws? We're talking about two doods holding hands and Partial feeling all homophobic about it. He's one of those guys that thinks all the gays are looking at him because they want him.

As far as the legal side goes, I've staked my position earlier in this thread.

The topic of this thread is a legal ban on gay marriage. I had just assumed that we were all talking about laws... My bad.

If Partial wants to be homophobic, that is his right. He just shouldn't expect the government to pass laws prohibiting gays from walking down the street holding hands. If he's got some problem with it, it's his own problem to deal with, not America's.

Besides, what pray tell do you think the gays are thinking when Partial can't simply look away from them holding hands as they walk down the street?

Well our conversation was all quoted from the two guys holding hands, so I assumed we were talking about guys holding hands.

I don't think we need laws preventing them from holding hands. Giving them their own little fenced-in communes should do the trick. Then we don't have to see them, and we wouldn't have to answer such difficult questions. I bet we could even send them food once a week.

My original post was a question posed to Partial asking him to explain what is wrong with two guys holding hands, and it just spiraled from there.

Great, even more ghettos. And more welfare. Great plan.

I say we just man up and answer the difficult questions rather than herd groups of people we don't like into tiny little fenced in communities. The questions aren't all that difficult anyhow.

[Tarlam!]

I am with Partial. He has a pretty naive way of trying to get his message across for many of you intellectuals, but me being an Aussie, I seem to understand his basics better.

I was revolted the first time I saw two men dancing in public. Revolted. I am definitely homophobic when it comes to public gestures of affection between two males. And, I don't want to have to explain it to my kids any more than Partial.

And PIP, I really couldn't give a toss about how many gay parented kids' weddings you've been to. God didn't want it that way. He or She made us like we are and who are we to challenge Divine Design?

Look, if Gays wanna "marry" and have the same legal benefits concerning rights in visiting hospitals etc, go ahead. But, keep it outta my face and don't try and adopt my kid if something happens to me.

I am offended by it and I hate the AIDS/HIV epidemic you as a minority spread in the Western World. I despise Bi-Sexual men even more for that last claim.

[Tarlam!]

Oh and one more thing, Gun: I can fucking well expect Government to install laws based upon MY opinions if I vote them in based on policies that reflect my opinions.

[HowardRoark]

Gays are allowed to marry. As long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. Nobody has ever made it illegal for gays to marry.

The question is whether or not we should redefine marriage.

[Gunakor]

I am with Partial. He has a pretty naive way of trying to get his message across for many of you intellectuals, but me being an Aussie, I seem to understand his basics better.

I was revolted the first time I saw two men dancing in public. Revolted. I am definitely homophobic when it comes to public gestures of affection between two males. And, I don't want to have to explain it to my kids any more than Partial.

And PIP, I really couldn't give a toss about how many gay parented kids' weddings you've been to. God didn't want it that way. He or She made us like we are and who are we to challenge Divine Design?

Look, if Gays wanna "marry" and have the same legal benefits concerning rights in visiting hospitals etc, go ahead. But, keep it outta my face and don't try and adopt my kid if something happens to me.

I am offended by it and I hate the AIDS/HIV epidemic you as a minority spread in the Western World. I despise Bi-Sexual men even more for that last claim.


Tarlam, I respect your opinions and fully believe you should have the right to them. But, from a legal perspective, where is the justification for a ban on gay unions? Where is the justification for a LEGAL ban against gay couples walking down the street? Just so you don't have to explain that everyone is different to your children?

If straight people have a homophobia, they need to either a) learn to be more accepting of different cultures, or b) take it upon themselves to find their own quiet corner of society where they won't have to deal with this issue. It is not the government's problem. I would expect that the government has more important issues to focus on right now. Gay unions pose no structural or economical or terrorist threat to this country. They are merely an annoyance to some. This is one of the most unimportant issues on the ballot this year.

[Gunakor]

Oh, and please leave God out of it. Not everyone in this country is Christian, or religious for that matter. And, unless I missed something in American History class, God didn't write our Constitution or make any of the amendments to it. I do recall learning something about separation of church and state. Unless I was seeing that in my daydreams while the teacher was telling us how God made this wonderful country, I don't think it matters what is said in the Bible. Homosexuality may be a Christian sin, but it is not an American crime to be homosexual - even in public.

[mraynrand]

god look at all the typos in that sentence...that what happens when i type angry... :D

sort of like how mraynrand has been since the election was called for obama... :lol:

Geezus u r a basterd. ALL,l I hav to sey to u is faqk u. U wul hafve a hard tyum typing with paws like theses. Woof.

[SkinBasket]

The questions aren't all that difficult anyhow.

Anything past 3 pages is officially difficult.

[Gunakor]

The questions aren't all that difficult anyhow.

Anything past 3 pages is officially difficult.

LOL, agreed.

If you can make the font bold and big enough to turn "Daddy, what are those two guys over there doing?" into a 3 page question, maybe it's best to just leave it alone.

Or were we talking about something else again?

[SkinBasket]

Or were we talking about something else again?

We could talk about Partial's latent gayness.

[hoosier]

Let's talk about why Tarlam!!!!! is so easily offended. I know, it's unpopular to pick on Tarlam!, but inquiring minds really want to know.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I think it will be far more troubling when I have to explain to my young children what is wrong with those two men walking down the street holding hands...

Please think before you speak.

Why don't you think before you speak? How do you tie in holding hands and marriage?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

And PIP, I really couldn't give a toss about how many gay parented kids' weddings you've been to. God didn't want it that way. He or She made us like we are and who are we to challenge Divine Design?



So, God didn't make all the gay animals?

Gay men and women have chosen this lifestyle throughout the centuries? They choose to be ostracized, killed humiliated, etc.

Being gay is part of nature.

[MJZiggy]

Look at what you people have done!! One thread and I have to agree with Harlan, Skinbasket AND Tyrone? Yeesh. First off to the question that started the whole thing.

Partial. Have a little imagination and learn to think on your feet. It comes in very handy in parenting. Until then, go with Skin's advice and DO. NOT. HAVE. CHILDREN. You do not explain the birds and bees to little kids. It is unnecessary. Give them a simple answer and it will be fine.

As to the question of gay marriage, I have to agree with Harlan. I think I probably even said so earlier in the thread, but if there are consenting adults that we are willing to legislate should not be married, then that's fine. Get the government out of the marriage business and put it in church where it belongs. Make a legal union between two people (gay or straight) called a civil union and leave God's definition to his church. Same rights apply to all in a civil union by the way.

Lastly, Tar, much as I love ya, and I think you are entitled to your own views, if we should accept that God made us like we are, then you have to accept that God made about 10% of us gay for whatever reason. Maybe he did it as a test to see how his children treated their fellow humans, you know that first stone and judgment stuff Zool was talking about.

There. Problem solved. Now can we please find an easier source of geothermal heat rather than core drilling or something so we can solve an actual problem? You're worried about what to tell your kids, P, think about how you're going to explain to them that their parents generations ran them out of oil when there were renewable options that weren't properly pursued. You'll find two guys holding hands a much easier conversation.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If gay rights activists wanted change, they should propose their own measure and not hide behind appeals, lawyers and judges that don't speak for the people.

The consitution has more force than the popular will.

appeals, lawyers and judges determine if laws are constitutional.

Maybe we should not have a constitution or bill of rights, just let the people decide everything. or not. there's some wisdom behind setting some principles above the sway of popular opinion.

[Harlan Huckleby]

So, God didn't make all the gay animals?

God didn't make, all the gay animals,and it don't rain, in indianapolis in the summer time.
And there's no such thing as dr. seuss or disney land and mother goose, no nursery rhymes.
God didn't make little green apples, and it don't snow in minneapolis when the winter comes.
And there's no such thing as make-believe, puppy dogs or autumn leaves, no bb guns.

[Harlan Huckleby]

That being said I am all for civil unions to allow gays every right a "traditional" couple has

Two years ago, WI passed an amendment prohibiting civil unions.

Did you vote for or against it?

[Harlan Huckleby]

What bobblehead said is the crux of the matter. Believe it or not, there are still people that believe in the whole sacred union part of marriage - that it's not just a civil service or a joining of health care benefits, but a religious vow. Those people want to protect that definition for themselves more than they want to stop a couple of queers from wearing matching wedding dresses, holding hands, and being recognized as a joined couple. They can call it whatever they want, but it's not marriage.

Sounds like you are OK with civil unions, too. Put your cock where your mouth is: Did you vote for or against the amendment two years ago that banned civil unions?

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm Christian and Libertarian. On this issue, the clear answer to me is civil unions. They can have their own weddings.

Another conservative for civil unions! This is better than Jews for Jesus.

How did that amendment pass by such a huge majority that banned gay marriage (which was already illegal) and made it impossible to allow civil unions?

[Kiwon]

Being gay is part of nature.

---------------------->http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v24/numbnutz/smilies/smilie_bananadoggie.gif<-----------------------

[hoosier]

I'm Christian and Libertarian. On this issue, the clear answer to me is civil unions. They can have their own weddings.

Another conservative for civil unions! This is better than Jews for Jesus.

How did that amendment pass by such a huge majority that banned gay marriage (which was already illegal) and made it impossible to allow civil unions?

The Jews did it.

[Partial]

I think it will be far more troubling when I have to explain to my young children what is wrong with those two men walking down the street holding hands...

Please think before you speak.

Why don't you think before you speak? How do you tie in holding hands and marriage?

Homosexuals outwardly expressing their unnatural nature (genetic defect) is very traumatizing to children. I have a serious problem with it. I have a cousin who is gay. He's a totally great guy. But, I will never take my kids over to his and his partners house until they're older and will understand.

I get that its "expressing who they are" in public, but so what? I'm not expected or allowed to go and yell "F you" in public in front of children for obvious reasons. Same thing imo.

[Cy]

Oh, and please leave God out of it. Not everyone in this country is Christian, or religious for that matter. And, unless I missed something in American History class, God didn't write our Constitution or make any of the amendments to it. I do recall learning something about separation of church and state. Unless I was seeing that in my daydreams while the teacher was telling us how God made this wonderful country, I don't think it matters what is said in the Bible. Homosexuality may be a Christian sin, but it is not an American crime to be homosexual - even in public.

Cy: Has nothing to do with God.

It has to do with language. Up until the rise of deconstructistic linguistic theory, we could assume that words in our language had universal meaning. If I, say, said, "Bring your family over for dinner," I should not expect you to bring your union family, or your church family.

Society, if it is exist peacefully, must have a shared understanding of its most basic means of communication, the word.

Language is unarguably a product of nothing less than tradition. Laws did not put language into effect. Progressive elites did not bestow upon the humble masses the gift of language. Even Obama did not give us language. It is the product of tradition.

"Marriage" has a specific, traditional meaning in our language. And that meaning is "One man, one woman, for the general and usually typical purposes of producing children and thus creating a family." As my son said, "how can two men have a baby?"

Now, what is exactly is meant by the assumption that two men ought to be allowed to marry?

a.) That one man ought to be able to drive his penis into the rectum of another, and that be sanctified by the state? But most of our Sodomy laws have been overturned. That's not an issue.

b.) That one man ought to be able to love another man? But that's never been an issue. I love lots of men.

c.) 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.

Really now, think about it.

What if I began a movement to redefine the word "race" in all our laws (and in our constitution) to mean, "the human race," so that the issue of such laws is not to protect the rights of blacks vis a vis whites, but rather the rights of animals vis a vis the rights of those in the human race?

My opponents would rightly conclude that I was being more of an iconoclast than actually contributing to the useful advancement of our Republic.

And they'd be right.

[Partial]

god if only partials parents were gay, then we wouldn't be hear listing to this bullshit right now

Dude, you know what? This post is a bunch of BS. Would you really feel comfortable explaining to your young 4 year old little girl what homosexuality is, why they're different, why they want to be that way, etc.

I'm not some freak for not wanting to have to have that conversation and confuse a child. I'd say my response is pretty normal.

I realize most of you guys get all uppity about being politically correct, but if you answer yes that you're comfortable having that discussion... well, then I'm sincerely concerned for your children.

[MJZiggy]

Obviously, you've missed the story I told about the gay couple in the PTA of my son's school. They actively participated in school activities from kindergarten up. It's really not that confusing to them. The hard part is that the daddy is so confused. My kid has been around these people since he was 5, and I nor anyone I know has had this in depth conversation you see as so inevitable.

[falco]

well, then I'm sincerely concerned for your children.

luckily my children are none of your concern

[SkinBasket]

What bobblehead said is the crux of the matter. Believe it or not, there are still people that believe in the whole sacred union part of marriage - that it's not just a civil service or a joining of health care benefits, but a religious vow. Those people want to protect that definition for themselves more than they want to stop a couple of queers from wearing matching wedding dresses, holding hands, and being recognized as a joined couple. They can call it whatever they want, but it's not marriage.

Sounds like you are OK with civil unions, too. Put your cock where your mouth is: Did you vote for or against the amendment two years ago that banned civil unions?

Sounds like you figured it out. I stayed home for that vote. I didn't want all the homos to think I cared.

[swede]

I'm Christian and Libertarian. On this issue, the clear answer to me is civil unions. They can have their own weddings.

Another conservative for civil unions! This is better than Jews for Jesus.

How did that amendment pass by such a huge majority that banned gay marriage (which was already illegal) and made it impossible to allow civil unions?

Obviously a state that has selected Clinton, Kerry, and Obama isn't as progressive as all that.

I voted for civil unions. God knows my own hasn't been very civil.

[BallHawk]

Homosexuals outwardly expressing their unnatural nature (genetic defect) is very traumatizing to children.

AND THEN.....


Would you really feel comfortable explaining to your young 4 year old little girl what homosexuality is, why they're different, why they want to be that way, etc.

You're contradicting yourself, P.

[falco]

You're contradicting yourself, P.

a first time for everything ballhawk...lay off the young man

[MJZiggy]

I solved this problem on page 5 and introduced the real issue. Why are we still discussing this?

[Fosco33]

If gay rights activists wanted change, they should propose their own measure and not hide behind appeals, lawyers and judges that don't speak for the people.

The consitution has more force than the popular will.

appeals, lawyers and judges determine if laws are constitutional.

Maybe we should not have a constitution or bill of rights, just let the people decide everything. or not. there's some wisdom behind setting some principles above the sway of popular opinion.

Good points, HH. But you do know that to approve an amendment it has to go through a process of being ratified by majorities of representatives (Congress/state legislatures). Those people are supposed to act in the will of their constituents (citizens).

But that's for the US process... and I'm not quite sure of the CA process (doh, I'm a resident by definition of residence only).

I was only partially quoted above, I said, "
Similar prop passed 8 years ago.

SF mayor and CA supreme court went against the spoken will of the majority.

Prop 8 passes again - despite near record low turnout in Orange County (very right of center).

If gay rights activists wanted change, they should propose their own measure and not hide behind appeals, lawyers and judges that don't speak for the people.

(Note - I don't really care if/when it actually passes - it's more about the process of initiating change)"[/quote]

My [quote]bold comment is important - I don't care whether or not people want a union/marriage/whatever. Acquiesce = Agreement

My point was that the way it was implmented went against most CA residents wishes. Obviously there will be ongoing legal battles and ultimately CA will 'officially' allow gays to marry.

[Partial]

Homosexuals outwardly expressing their unnatural nature (genetic defect) is very traumatizing to children.

AND THEN.....


Would you really feel comfortable explaining to your young 4 year old little girl what homosexuality is, why they're different, why they want to be that way, etc.

You're contradicting yourself, P.

Dude, those are questions the very confused, very disturbed child is asking...

[Fosco33]

Here's CA constitutional amendment process (i.e., the electors can vote to alter our constitution):

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION


SEC. 3. The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.



CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION


SEC. 4. A proposed amendment or revision shall be submitted to the
electors and if approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect
the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. If
provisions of 2 or more measures approved at the same election
conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote
shall prevail.

[Harlan Huckleby]

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?

[Harlan Huckleby]

I voted for civil unions. God knows my own hasn't been very civil.

I'm impressed. At least one conservative is walking the talk.

[swede]

Did you vote against that amendment?

Again with this?

Blame the libs! They run this state.

I voted for civil unions. I have a hard time disapproving of caring and supportive relationships.

[Harlan Huckleby]

What bobblehead said is the crux of the matter. Believe it or not, there are still people that believe in the whole sacred union part of marriage - that it's not just a civil service or a joining of health care benefits, but a religious vow. Those people want to protect that definition for themselves more than they want to stop a couple of queers from wearing matching wedding dresses, holding hands, and being recognized as a joined couple. They can call it whatever they want, but it's not marriage.

Sounds like you are OK with civil unions, too. Put your cock where your mouth is: Did you vote for or against the amendment two years ago that banned civil unions?

Sounds like you figured it out. I stayed home for that vote. I didn't want all the homos to think I cared.

I think that was a reasonable choice.

[Zool]

Then you have to say they're gay... they ask whats that... then you have the whole birds and the bees at an age far too young. No innocence left in children these days and the liberal media is to blame for it.

Well...you've once again said the stupidest thing I've read from you.

Kudos in your never ending quest.

How so? You're telling me if you were with your daughter and she saw two fruit cakes holding hands and kissing eachother it wouldn't perplex her? She's probably say, "what are those guys doing daddy".

You'd say, "they're trying to defy genetics and do their own thing" or "they're gay".

She says... "whats gay, daddy".

You say ... "its when a man likes another man instead of girls"

daughter asks why, when all she sees are men married to women..

and so on and so forth.

Christ Zooly... That is dead on balls accurate, wheres the beef?

How the fuck can you blame the media for anything? Turn off the TV. If the kids are watching too much TV, do we blame NBC or possibly their parents?

Think....type...think some more.....type some more....go for a walk...come back. If it still seems like a good post, push submit.

Let me put it this way....

Shows like Will and Grace or the L Word weren't on twenty years ago before everything on television wasn't so scandalous. You didn't have "the 40 year old virgin" on NBC on a Saturday and Sunday evening as the featured family movie...

See Kiwons post. *DX crotch chop*

Let me put it this way. If youre a fucking parent, turn the fucking TV off. Is that clear enough?

Last I knew, there was no one with a gun forcing anyone to watch anything on TV. Is it Miller or Busch's fault that people are alcoholics? Scandal sells because stupid people buy into it. Blaming the media is just passing the buck for someone else being too lazy or stupid to monitor their own children.

[Tarlam!]

Let's talk about why Tarlam!!!!! is so easily offended. I know, it's unpopular to pick on Tarlam!, but inquiring minds really want to know.

Pick on my views all you want! Exchanging our sometimes differing thoughts is why we're here. A lot of times I post utter garbage, but usually that's early morning syndrome.

My main issue is Gay adoption. God, Allah, Nature whomever saw fit that both sexes are required to reproduce. That is a fundamental truth. I don't accept that "All Men Were Created Equal" trumps that card.

Indeed, the same powers that be "created" gays. I am not Adloph Hitler and suggesting we incarcerate them and experiment on their brains. I am merely saying I don't want them rearing children

I know a lot of children get born into homes that are not ideal child rearing environments. That's why we have youth authorities.

My other main issue is publicly flaunted gestures of affection. I am not homophobic per sé. I have the same problem with heteros BTW. I will also admit to feeling very uncomfortable if I was in a sauna with men I knew that are Gay.

I have zero problems with Gay unions otherwise.

One more time for Gun: If a political party, as part of their platform, promises, if elected to pass a law to paint all statues in the country green, then I expect them to do so, if I vote for that party and they win. As such, I am entitled to expect that my opinions are passed into law.

I think Harlan said he finds it wrong for courts to overturn minorities issues that were passed by means of a popular vote. I fully agree. By all means, minorities should be protected from persecution. But that shouldn't mean minority rule.

[Tarlam!]

And for the record, my better half completely disagrees with my views and finds the idea of Gays adopting children oustanding. Just goes to show you I am capable of undyingly loving someone and still fundamentally disagree on some issues.

Her best friend, on the other hand, is fully in line with my thinking. Just goes to show, you might agree with me on something, but that doesn't mean I have to like you!!

:D

[bobblehead]

And for the record, my better half completely disagrees with my views and finds the idea of Gays adopting children oustanding. Just goes to show you I am capable of undyingly loving someone and still fundamentally disagree on some issues.

Her best friend, on the other hand, is fully in line with my thinking. Just goes to show, you might agree with me on something, but that doesn't mean I have to like you!!

:D

I tend to base all of my beliefs off of one rule. My rights end where yours begin. I think a childs right to be raised in the standard setting trumps gays rights to adopt. If anyone on this forum ever sees me contradict this fundamental belief please point it out as I will gladly think my position over and decide if I'm wrong.

[mraynrand]

Did you vote against that amendment?

Again with this?

Blame the libs! They run this state.

I voted for civil unions. I have a hard time disapproving of caring and supportive relationships.

Voting against gay adoption is like voting against the person who takes home a dog from an animal shelter.

[th87]

I think it will be far more troubling when I have to explain to my young children what is wrong with those two men walking down the street holding hands...

Please think before you speak.

1. Two men could hold hands regardless of the status of gay marriage.

2. If you have kids, do your job. You can't keep them in a bubble.

3. Marriage is kinda dumb anyway - not sure why gay people would want it.

[Deputy Nutz]

The gay marriage ban. As of typing this It looks like it will pass.

Ugh, this is absurd.


Why do people think that something other people do that HAS NOTHING TO DEAL WITH THEM AT ALL....is wrong

Why do you need to be involved in something that does not effect you or your interests.

Man, America can be inspiring and troubling at the same time.

well...marriage has a definition, and gay isn't in it. That being said I am all for civil unions to allow gays every right a "traditional" couple has....except where it DOES affect others, like adoption.

Gay people don't have to be married to adopt, great to hear someone speak up on something they know so little about.

[Deputy Nutz]

I think it will be far more troubling when I have to explain to my young children what is wrong with those two men walking down the street holding hands...

Please think before you speak.

Why don't you think before you speak? How do you tie in holding hands and marriage?

Homosexuals outwardly expressing their unnatural nature (genetic defect) is very traumatizing to children. I have a serious problem with it. I have a cousin who is gay. He's a totally great guy. But, I will never take my kids over to his and his partners house until they're older and will understand.

I get that its "expressing who they are" in public, but so what? I'm not expected or allowed to go and yell "F you" in public in front of children for obvious reasons. Same thing imo.

You are a fucking idiot.

I have a response for you, but I really don't think I want to waste it on you. Sometimes you can be a big fucking moron.

[hoosier]

Homosexuals outwardly expressing their unnatural nature (genetic defect) is very traumatizing to children.

AND THEN.....


Would you really feel comfortable explaining to your young 4 year old little girl what homosexuality is, why they're different, why they want to be that way, etc.

You're contradicting yourself, P.

Dude, those are questions the very confused, very disturbed child is asking...

I think you need to spend a bit of time around children before anyone here even thinks about taking seriously your opinion on kids and homosexuality. Most kids I've been around, including my own two children, don't have anything like the "confused, very disturbed" reaction you're describing. My guess is that the confusion and disturbance is your own, and that you're projecting it onto the kids.

[th87]

So what if a gay couple adopted kids? Why is that automatically bad?

Is it the fear that they'd "turn" the kids gay? If so, that's moronic.

[Deputy Nutz]

Funny, I did have a 4 year old daughter and a 1 year old son around a gay couple for two weeks straight. They were nice enough to invite the family down for a wonderful vacation, and shockingly enough not once was my daughter or son traumatized. Not once did her curious mind want to know what a homosexual was. her only question was why the two men lived together, and simply answer was given, because they love each other. She was able to understand that concept. Shocking to wrap your mind around.

but I still think this forum needs to seek out Partial's expertise on raising children and all the pitfalls of homosexuality in relation to small defensless children.

Carry on Partial.

[Deputy Nutz]

And for the record, my better half completely disagrees with my views and finds the idea of Gays adopting children oustanding. Just goes to show you I am capable of undyingly loving someone and still fundamentally disagree on some issues.

Her best friend, on the other hand, is fully in line with my thinking. Just goes to show, you might agree with me on something, but that doesn't mean I have to like you!!

:D

I tend to base all of my beliefs off of one rule. My rights end where yours begin. I think a childs right to be raised in the standard setting trumps gays rights to adopt. If anyone on this forum ever sees me contradict this fundamental belief please point it out as I will gladly think my position over and decide if I'm wrong.

Does a child have the right to grow up in an orphanage without anyone to rain down love?

[texaspackerbacker]

It should also tell us that any sort of liberal "shift" is bunk.

True. When you get down to clear cut issue by issue discussion, the core values and views of good normal Americans are intact--apparently even in California.

The Obamaphilia phenomenon, however, shows exactly how easy it is for leftists wanting to tear down everything that makes America great to get their own trash candidate elected--SIMPLY AVOID THE ISSUES/divert attention with a trumped up bogus economic "crisis"--the whole big con greased by the complicity of the horrendously leftist mainstream media.

As I've been saying all along, THE BAD GUYS PLAYED THE GAME MUCH MORE EFFECTIVELY THAN THE GOOD GUYS THIS TIME AROUND. Hopefully, our side will learn, and not let a disaster like this happen again. Hopefully, we will have a country left by that time--not destroyed by terrorist hits, etc. that are the obvious bi-product of elected a charismatically evil shithead like Obama.

For now, this small victory for sanity and normalcy in California is about the only bright spot.

With Obama packing the courts with likeminded (to himself) leftist assholes, it's just a matter of time until the will of sane normal people gets circumvented on the issue of homosexuality too.

Oh yeah, one more thing, I ask AGAIN, why is it exclusively our forum leftists--with unanimity in their ranks--that approve of same sex ass-fucking, of promoting same sex ass-fucking in schools, right down to kindergarten, apparently, and of allowing same sex ass-fuckers to adopt children, presumably raising them with the family value that same sex ass-fucking is OK?

[falco]

Oh yeah, one more thing, I ask AGAIN, why is it exclusively our forum leftists--with unanimity in their ranks--that approve of same sex ass-fucking, of promoting same sex ass-fucking in schools, right down to kindergarten, apparently, and of allowing same sex ass-fuckers to adopt children, presumably raising them with the family value that same sex ass-fucking is OK?

because ass-fucking rocks, why else

[Deputy Nutz]

Oh yeah, one more thing, I ask AGAIN, why is it exclusively our forum leftists--with unanimity in their ranks--that approve of same sex ass-fucking, of promoting same sex ass-fucking in schools, right down to kindergarten, apparently, and of allowing same sex ass-fuckers to adopt children, presumably raising them with the family value that same sex ass-fucking is OK?

because ass-fucking rocks, why else

He must want to get ass fucked. I am sure he wouldn't say no if a nice strapping cowboy came in from the range.

[SkinBasket]

Oh yeah, one more thing, I ask AGAIN, why is it exclusively our forum leftists--with unanimity in their ranks--that approve of same sex ass-fucking, of promoting same sex ass-fucking in schools, right down to kindergarten, apparently, and of allowing same sex ass-fuckers to adopt children, presumably raising them with the family value that same sex ass-fucking is OK?

because ass-fucking rocks, why else

At least he's down with lesbians. It's only the ass fuckers that are evil.

[Deputy Nutz]

Oh yeah, one more thing, I ask AGAIN, why is it exclusively our forum leftists--with unanimity in their ranks--that approve of same sex ass-fucking, of promoting same sex ass-fucking in schools, right down to kindergarten, apparently, and of allowing same sex ass-fuckers to adopt children, presumably raising them with the family value that same sex ass-fucking is OK?

because ass-fucking rocks, why else

At least he's down with lesbians. It's only the ass fuckers that are evil.

Well I am sure he isn't popping in Lesbian Ass Reamers part 2.

Which in my opinion offers the insight to the best lesbian love making possible. Dildo up lesbian asian girls ass

[arcilite]

What about guys who do anal on their girls? They are ass-fuckers.

They should not be allowed to marry.

[Gunakor]

One more time for Gun: If a political party, as part of their platform, promises, if elected to pass a law to paint all statues in the country green, then I expect them to do so, if I vote for that party and they win. As such, I am entitled to expect that my opinions are passed into law.


There is a big difference between paining the statues green and imposing on people's personal liberties. People might still be offended, but they aren't going to feel discriminated against. Persecuting gays by forcing them into thier own fenced in communities and forcing them to refrain from physical contact while in public (even though the straight couple walking right behind them are kissing and holding hands) reeks of discrimination and thus seems highly unconstitutional. Even if a law is passed, if it is deemed unconstitutional, the High Court could still overrule the law.

That wasn't the proposition however. The proposition was strictly limited specifically to gay marriages. It does not extend to gay couples showing outward physical affection in public. The proposition will likely pass, with gay unions still being allowed but not using the term "marriage". That I would have no problem with whatsoever, so long as the gay unions carry the same benifits as a traditionally married couple. This proposition is not unconstitutional, and I would expect it to pass.

But that's not what I've been arguing. Partial's statement, echoed by yourself, that laws should be passed to restrict gay couples ability to show affection for one another in public IS unconstitutional. The only way to do it is to also restrict straight couples ability to show public affection twoards each other as well. Otherwise you are being discriminatory, and no law that discriminates against a person or a people solely because of race, gender, sexual preference, marital status, social status, etc. could be passed in this country per our constitution. What makes this proposition okay is that only the term "marriage" is being replaced, not the ability to have gay unions and not the benefits that come with a legal union.

I have no problem with changing the termonology to something else in an effort to protect Christian beliefs, so long as the legal definiton and the benefits that come with it remain the same. It sounds like you agree for the most part. The only disagreement we seem to have is the legality of passing an unconstitutional law, and I can assure you that a law discriminating against homosexuals has the same chance of passing as a law discriminating against African-Americans - which is zero. Regardless of anyone's opinion.

[SkinBasket]

Persecuting gays by forcing them into thier own fenced in communities... reeks of discrimination and thus seems highly unconstitutional. Even if a law is passed, if it is deemed unconstitutional, the High Court could still overrule the law.

Oh goodness, he took that seriously. Not that it's a bad idea.

[Tony Oday]

I say let them get married its not like the traditional ways of marriage are very strong right now! :)

[Tarlam!]

Gun, I am not arguing the pro's and cons of the proposition in my reply to you. i am merely challenging your position that people shouldn't expect personal preferences/ opinions to become law. Laws have a habit of stemming from opinions...



()But laws that apply to everyone shouldn't be made out of personal opinions. The question is whether or not gay marriage should be allowed by law. If you think it's gross, you are entitled to that opinion but you shouldn't expect the government to pass a law saying such unions are illegal just because some people think it's gross. Just the same, I respect your opinion and your right to have it even though I disagree. As far as the law is concerned, this should be a non issue because there is nothing about it that would warrant a legal ban. "I think it's gross" is not legal justification for an outright ban. Wouldn't you agree?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I think it will be far more troubling when I have to explain to my young children what is wrong with those two men walking down the street holding hands...

Please think before you speak.

Why don't you think before you speak? How do you tie in holding hands and marriage?

Homosexuals outwardly expressing their unnatural nature (genetic defect) is very traumatizing to children. I have a serious problem with it. I have a cousin who is gay. He's a totally great guy. But, I will never take my kids over to his and his partners house until they're older and will understand.

I get that its "expressing who they are" in public, but so what? I'm not expected or allowed to go and yell "F you" in public in front of children for obvious reasons. Same thing imo.

Hmm.

Traumatizing: You have some proof of that? If not, please STFU.

Genetic Defect: Again, some proof that it is a defect. Until them, STFU.

Your kids: Agreed. They will be far too traumatized by you to endure further trauma.

fuck you: Who is preventing..more to the point..most kids already know that word long before you think they do.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Homosexuals outwardly expressing their unnatural nature (genetic defect) is very traumatizing to children.

AND THEN.....


Would you really feel comfortable explaining to your young 4 year old little girl what homosexuality is, why they're different, why they want to be that way, etc.

You're contradicting yourself, P.

Dude, those are questions the very confused, very disturbed child is asking...

Sounds more like questions from a very confused and very disturbed college student.

No child is going to ask "why they wnat to be that way."

[Gunakor]

Gun, I am not arguing the pro's and cons of the proposition in my reply to you. i am merely challenging your position that people shouldn't expect personal preferences/ opinions to become law. Laws have a habit of stemming from opinions...

I hear where you are coming from Tarlam, but if it contradicts the personal liberties guaranteed to all Americans in our Constitution, you need more than a strong opinion to change the constitution to allow it. Sometimes a strong opinion leading to a majority vote isn't enough. Even if a law is passed in state government, and cleared by the President (if required), it still must comply with what is and is not allowed by our Constitution. I hope you can understand where I'm coming from here. The Constitution very clearly prohibits any form of discrimination based on a list of things including sexual preference. To amend it you need a much better reason for doing so than "I think it's gross". You would have to prove that there is an imminent threat posed, and present it as fact rather than opinion. Until that happens, if it happens, discrimination against gays simply because you think homosexuality is gross is illegal in this country. Therefore it doesn't matter what people's opinions are or who or what they voted for. Discrimination is not allowed. And people who are of the opinion that discrimination SHOULD be allowed should not expect thier opinion to become law simply because they voted for it. I hope that clears things up.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Oh yeah, one more thing, I ask AGAIN, why is it exclusively our forum leftists--with unanimity in their ranks--that approve of same sex ass-fucking, of promoting same sex ass-fucking in schools, right down to kindergarten, apparently, and of allowing same sex ass-fuckers to adopt children, presumably raising them with the family value that same sex ass-fucking is OK?

because ass-fucking rocks, why else

ROFLMAO

[Tarlam!]

[I hope that clears things up.

Indeed, it does.

[bobblehead]

The gay marriage ban. As of typing this It looks like it will pass.

Ugh, this is absurd.


Why do people think that something other people do that HAS NOTHING TO DEAL WITH THEM AT ALL....is wrong

Why do you need to be involved in something that does not effect you or your interests.

Man, America can be inspiring and troubling at the same time.

well...marriage has a definition, and gay isn't in it. That being said I am all for civil unions to allow gays every right a "traditional" couple has....except where it DOES affect others, like adoption.

Gay people don't have to be married to adopt, great to hear someone speak up on something they know so little about.

Uhhh....I didn't say they did, I expressed my opinion that they should not be allowed to adopt...married or otherwise. I expressed that I thought that gays should have all the rights others have except the right to adopt....never said it should in anyway matter if they are married or otherwise. I'm glad you spoke up on something you didn't bother to read and insulted me while displaying your ignorance of my stance.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Ok. I'm going to acknowledge the elephant in the room. We all are afraid to say it, but not Ty.

Gay people should just be killed.

[Tarlam!]

Ok. I'm going to acknowledge the elephant in the room. We all are afraid to say it, but not Ty.

Gay people should just be killed.

That's been tried, Ty. They keep coming back.

[bobblehead]

And for the record, my better half completely disagrees with my views and finds the idea of Gays adopting children oustanding. Just goes to show you I am capable of undyingly loving someone and still fundamentally disagree on some issues.

Her best friend, on the other hand, is fully in line with my thinking. Just goes to show, you might agree with me on something, but that doesn't mean I have to like you!!

:D

I tend to base all of my beliefs off of one rule. My rights end where yours begin. I think a childs right to be raised in the standard setting trumps gays rights to adopt. If anyone on this forum ever sees me contradict this fundamental belief please point it out as I will gladly think my position over and decide if I'm wrong.

Does a child have the right to grow up in an orphanage without anyone to rain down love?

can you show me all the examples of gay couples that adopted kids out of an orphanage...and if you read my past posts you would know where I stand on this. I think the best interest of a child up for adoption is to grow up with a mommy and a daddy. In cases where that can't be accomplished and orphanage is the alternative then a stable gay couple would get to adopt. I believe it is our DUTY to give a child the best possible chance at a normal childhood with as little chance of instability as possible. Statistics prove that a traditional 2 parent heterosexual couple is best...its simply science. Now, if the choice is a couple where the old man is a drunk who beats the wife or a stable gay couple....yes, allow the gays to adopt, BUT as the country currently stands there are more stable traditional couples wanting to adopt babies than there are babies to adopt.

I LOVE THE GAY MAN!!!! But his ability to adopt should be down the list behind traditional families....and at present situation that doesn't allow for enough babies to be adopted by gays. Perhaps if we outlawed abortion there would be a surplus of babies up for adoption, but as it stands there is not.

Is that clear enough for everyone, or is gex/tank gonna post a short rebuttal...like, "your a homophobe dude!!!"

[bobblehead]

Ok. I'm going to acknowledge the elephant in the room. We all are afraid to say it, but not Ty.

Gay people should just be killed.

Again with painting conservs with that intolerant brush....Its really not conducive to "bipartisinism". You will never change hearts and minds by throwing this stone. Besides, democrats voted in favor of that marriage amendment by a pretty heavy percentage as well...those hateful motherfuckers!!!

[MJZiggy]

You're worried about gays adopting babies and I think quite a few are talking about the gay couple's willingness to adopt the older children that the hetero couples don't adopt as frequently. It actually IS harder for them to adopt babies, because quite often, the birth mother chooses the parents for her baby which takes decisionmaking out of the hands of the agencies.

But a 7-year-old is not as "adoptable" as an infant.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Ok. I'm going to acknowledge the elephant in the room. We all are afraid to say it, but not Ty.

Gay people should just be killed.

Again with painting conservs with that intolerant brush....Its really not conducive to "bipartisinism". You will never change hearts and minds by throwing this stone. Besides, democrats voted in favor of that marriage amendment by a pretty heavy percentage as well...those hateful motherfuckers!!!

Dude, you need to relax. There was nothing partisan in my post. Ty is a uniter not a divider..and ty realizes that killing all gays is something we all can get behind.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Ok. I'm going to acknowledge the elephant in the room. We all are afraid to say it, but not Ty.

Gay people should just be killed.

That's been tried, Ty. They keep coming back.

Nobody likes a quitter, Tar. :wink:

[HowardRoark]

gays is something we all can get behind.

Speak for yourself.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

gays is something we all can get behind.

Speak for yourself.


Poor attempt. Would be funny if it didn't come from the guy who constantly corrects grammar. The sentence is barely functional.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I heard two Republican pundits on the radio today say that the passing of Prop 8 is the silver lining of the 2008 election. Mexicans and Blacks are very anti-gay, and the theory is this issue demonstrates how Republicans can widen their base. I assume they meant social conservativism in general, not just this issue.

Maybe the Republicans will continue to get some mileage out of being against gays. WI is a state that went strongly for Obama, yet WI passed an amendment barring civil unions for gays by a wide margin.

I think the Republicans wish to become the champions of backwardness.

[swede]

I heard two Republican pundits on the radio today say that the passing of Prop 8 is the silver lining of the 2008 election. Mexicans and Blacks are very anti-gay, and the theory is this issue demonstrates how Republicans can widen their base. I assume they meant social conservativism in general, not just this issue.

Maybe the Republicans will continue to get some mileage out of being against gays. WI is a state that went strongly for Obama, yet WI passed an amendment barring civil unions for gays by a wide margin.

I think the Republicans wish to become the champions of backwardness.

Look, dude, California voted for Obama and defeated the marriage prop. It is the African American vote both there and in Wisconsin that keeps holding gay marriage back.

Take your complaint to them.

A lot of Republicans from the libertarian wing support civil unions/gay marriage.

[Joemailman]

If gay marriage is outlawed, only outlaws will have gay marriage.

[Harlan Huckleby]

A lot of Republicans from the libertarian wing support civil unions/gay marriage.

yes. the issue doesn't really cut along party lines; Obama is against gay marriage. (at least his black half, anyway.) I am reacting to Republican strategists (full disclosure: one of them was Rush Limbaugh) talking about how this issue is going to be a winner for the party in the future. Probably so.

my own view is that civil unions are just fine. but the partisians on BOTH sides of the issue are not willing to accept such a compromise for emotional or strategic reasons.

So the battle will play-out on the issue of marriage, and the gays will lose for the forseeable future. And the Republicans platform will be hitched to a backward-looking position that will evenutally catch up with them. ( Just as soon as the country runs out of Mexicans.)


(sorry for using so many parenthesis in this post. (IT seemed like thing to do at the time.) )

[LL2]

Ok. I'm going to acknowledge the elephant in the room. We all are afraid to say it, but not Ty.

Gay people should just be killed.

Again with painting conservs with that intolerant brush....Its really not conducive to "bipartisinism". You will never change hearts and minds by throwing this stone. Besides, democrats voted in favor of that marriage amendment by a pretty heavy percentage as well...those hateful motherfuckers!!!

Dude, you need to relax. There was nothing partisan in my post. Ty is a uniter not a divider..and ty realizes that killing all gays is something we all can get behind.

Say what?

[bobblehead]

You're worried about gays adopting babies and I think quite a few are talking about the gay couple's willingness to adopt the older children that the hetero couples don't adopt as frequently. It actually IS harder for them to adopt babies, because quite often, the birth mother chooses the parents for her baby which takes decisionmaking out of the hands of the agencies.

But a 7-year-old is not as "adoptable" as an infant.
again, show me all the examples of gays adopting children over the age of one. Just like hetero couples, gay couples want to adopt infants. If a stable gay couple wants to adopt a 3 year old out of an orphanage I am all for it. Problem is that it just isn't happening and as such its an invalid arguement.

[MJZiggy]

I don't even see evidence of gays adopting infants. It's cheaper and easier to use a surrogate.

[texaspackerbacker]

Oh yeah, one more thing, I ask AGAIN, why is it exclusively our forum leftists--with unanimity in their ranks--that approve of same sex ass-fucking, of promoting same sex ass-fucking in schools, right down to kindergarten, apparently, and of allowing same sex ass-fuckers to adopt children, presumably raising them with the family value that same sex ass-fucking is OK?

because ass-fucking rocks, why else

I'm not disputing that. Perhaps you didn't notice, I specified SAME SEX ass-fucking.

And as for your "Lesbian ass-fuckers", arcilite, I've always thought of myself as fairly sophisticated, but I can't quite picture the mechanics of that sort of behavior. Would you care to explain the "how" of it?

As for Lesbians in general, yes, I would certainly acknowledge a double standard. And it is well grounded theologically. While the Bible clearly condemns "men lying with men" as abomination, it says nothing (as far as I know) about "women lying with women".

The point of my previous post--which seems to have gone right over the heads of forum leftists--is that people will invariably reject leftist crap like homosexual marriage--even in a place like California--when the issue is presented as a clear cut yes or no--instead of being "back-doored" (no pun intended--well, maybe a little bit) by leftist assholes like Obama, who avoid the discussion, then proceed to try and inflict the crap on America against the will of the people. That is true for pretty much every type of shit the leftists like to promote.

[mraynrand]

then proceed to try and inflict the crap on America against the will of the people.


Did someone mention my name?
http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/images/sunstein.gif

[mraynrand]

I

I think the Republicans wish to become the champions of backwardness.

Go back and read the post by Cy on this subject.

[Deputy Nutz]

And for the record, my better half completely disagrees with my views and finds the idea of Gays adopting children oustanding. Just goes to show you I am capable of undyingly loving someone and still fundamentally disagree on some issues.

Her best friend, on the other hand, is fully in line with my thinking. Just goes to show, you might agree with me on something, but that doesn't mean I have to like you!!

:D

I tend to base all of my beliefs off of one rule. My rights end where yours begin. I think a childs right to be raised in the standard setting trumps gays rights to adopt. If anyone on this forum ever sees me contradict this fundamental belief please point it out as I will gladly think my position over and decide if I'm wrong.

Does a child have the right to grow up in an orphanage without anyone to rain down love?

can you show me all the examples of gay couples that adopted kids out of an orphanage...and if you read my past posts you would know where I stand on this. I think the best interest of a child up for adoption is to grow up with a mommy and a daddy. In cases where that can't be accomplished and orphanage is the alternative then a stable gay couple would get to adopt. I believe it is our DUTY to give a child the best possible chance at a normal childhood with as little chance of instability as possible. Statistics prove that a traditional 2 parent heterosexual couple is best...its simply science. Now, if the choice is a couple where the old man is a drunk who beats the wife or a stable gay couple....yes, allow the gays to adopt, BUT as the country currently stands there are more stable traditional couples wanting to adopt babies than there are babies to adopt.

I LOVE THE GAY MAN!!!! But his ability to adopt should be down the list behind traditional families....and at present situation that doesn't allow for enough babies to be adopted by gays. Perhaps if we outlawed abortion there would be a surplus of babies up for adoption, but as it stands there is not.

Is that clear enough for everyone, or is gex/tank gonna post a short rebuttal...like, "your a homophobe dude!!!"

First off, little White American babies are really hard to adopt, there are very few out there. Most gay couples choose to go over seas and adopt children from "Mother Russia" where they get fucked up babies from all the radiation. These babies are found in orphanages, by the hundreds where there is simply not enough love for these kids to go around, in fact this causes attatchment dissorders, and autism is rampant.

The gay couples that I know either do above, or they are part of the foster care system and end up adopting kids that are placed in their custody. This kids usually have issues as well, autism, learning disabilities, emotional dissorders....

My argument with you is that you believe that gay couple are cutting in line stepping infront of those traditional white families for little new born infants, and it is simply not the case.

Most adoption for little white babies have to go through private means, simply because the restrictions and the waiting list is just so damn long.

A mommy and daddy would be perfect, but mommies and daddies seem to be picky and only want a certain baby that looks like them, and is perfectly healthy.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I

I think the Republicans wish to become the champions of backwardness.

Go back and read the post by Cy on this subject.

The only point Cy made in this thread that I see is that marriage is defined to be between a man and woman, which therefore ends the debate.

(Cy and Wist advocate a government shaped similar to the 1790 model. I'm not being a wise guy, that pretty much is their position. I'm not sure you want to call Cy to the stand as a character witness for the Republican Party on the subject of backwardness.)

[arcilite]

Oh yeah, one more thing, I ask AGAIN, why is it exclusively our forum leftists--with unanimity in their ranks--that approve of same sex ass-fucking, of promoting same sex ass-fucking in schools, right down to kindergarten, apparently, and of allowing same sex ass-fuckers to adopt children, presumably raising them with the family value that same sex ass-fucking is OK?

because ass-fucking rocks, why else

I'm not disputing that. Perhaps you didn't notice, I specified SAME SEX ass-fucking.

And as for your "Lesbian ass-fuckers", arcilite, I've always thought of myself as fairly sophisticated, but I can't quite picture the mechanics of that sort of behavior. Would you care to explain the "how" of it?

As for Lesbians in general, yes, I would certainly acknowledge a double standard. And it is well grounded theologically. While the Bible clearly condemns "men lying with men" as abomination, it says nothing (as far as I know) about "women lying with women".

The point of my previous post--which seems to have gone right over the heads of forum leftists--is that people will invariably reject leftist crap like homosexual marriage--even in a place like California--when the issue is presented as a clear cut yes or no--instead of being "back-doored" (no pun intended--well, maybe a little bit) by leftist assholes like Obama, who avoid the discussion, then proceed to try and inflict the crap on America against the will of the people. That is true for pretty much every type of shit the leftists like to promote.


I think you misunderstood me. You said those 'ass fuckers' shouldn't be allowed to marry. I was just making a joke that guys who bang their girlfriend in the ass are also 'ass fuckers' so maybe they shouldnt be allowed to marry either.

[mraynrand]

I

I think the Republicans wish to become the champions of backwardness.

Go back and read the post by Cy on this subject.

The only point Cy made in this thread that I see is that marriage is defined to be between a man and woman, which therefore ends the debate.

(Cy and Wist advocate a government shaped similar to the 1790 model. I'm not being a wise guy, that pretty much is their position. I'm not sure you want to call Cy to the stand as a character witness for the Republican Party on the subject of backwardness.)

Cy's post on issue 8 was the clearest of anything here. There are no restrictions on anyone who displays gay behaviour. If there are, they can easily be addressed as individual rights. Calling the union between two men or two women 'marriage' is an assault on language and meaning. While I personally don't support gay behaviour, I am completely opposed to restrictions on the rights of people who display gay behaviour. Maintaining the definition of marriage as it is understood does nothing to restrict the rights of those who choose to engage in gay behaviour.

[Harlan Huckleby]

what the hell is issue 8? Are you drinking before 11 AM?

[Harlan Huckleby]

You just repeated my 1 sentence summary of his position with 12 sentences that say nothing more.


Maintaining the definition of marriage as it is understood does nothing to restrict the rights of those who choose to engage in gay behaviour.

"Marriage" was understood to be a bond between people of the same race in 1958. And there was an even greater consensus on that question. Your logic would have prevented the expansion of "marriage" to include mixed couples.

I think you are comfortable with Cy and Wist in a world frozen in time at 1790. I bet you'll be fetching in your powdered wig and leggings.

[mraynrand]

Oh yeah, one more thing, I ask AGAIN, why is it exclusively our forum leftists--with unanimity in their ranks--that approve of same sex ass-fucking, of promoting same sex ass-fucking in schools, right down to kindergarten, apparently, and of allowing same sex ass-fuckers to adopt children, presumably raising them with the family value that same sex ass-fucking is OK?

because ass-fucking rocks, why else

I'm not disputing that. Perhaps you didn't notice, I specified SAME SEX ass-fucking.

And as for your "Lesbian ass-fuckers", arcilite, I've always thought of myself as fairly sophisticated, but I can't quite picture the mechanics of that sort of behavior. Would you care to explain the "how" of it?

As for Lesbians in general, yes, I would certainly acknowledge a double standard. And it is well grounded theologically. While the Bible clearly condemns "men lying with men" as abomination, it says nothing (as far as I know) about "women lying with women".

The point of my previous post--which seems to have gone right over the heads of forum leftists--is that people will invariably reject leftist crap like homosexual marriage--even in a place like California--when the issue is presented as a clear cut yes or no--instead of being "back-doored" (no pun intended--well, maybe a little bit) by leftist assholes like Obama, who avoid the discussion, then proceed to try and inflict the crap on America against the will of the people. That is true for pretty much every type of shit the leftists like to promote.


I think you misunderstood me. You said those 'ass fuckers' shouldn't be allowed to marry. I was just making a joke that guys who bang their girlfriend in the ass are also 'ass fuckers' so maybe they shouldnt be allowed to marry either.

This reminds me of a joke.

A very naive newlywed couple is just starting to enjoy the marital privileges and start to experiment with other means of intercourse. Since they don't want to get pregnant yet, they carefully follow birth control instructions they received from friends. One night they get a little drunk and carried away and worry they might get pregnant, so they go talk to their doctor. They say to the Doctor that they are worried they might have done something unusual and might get pregnant, but are embarrassed to admit what it was. The doctor tries to guess and assures them they can't get pregnant from oral sex, or other practices. Finally the wife blurts out "We had unprotected anal sex! Can we get pregnant from that?" The doctor says "of course, where do you think lawyers come from?"

[Tarlam!]

These babies are found in orphanages, by the hundreds where there is simply not enough love for these kids to go around, in fact this causes attatchment dissorders, and autism is rampant.

The gay couples that I know either do above, or they are part of the foster care system and end up adopting kids that are placed in their custody. This kids usually have issues as well, autism, learning disabilities, emotional dissorders....

My argument with you is that you believe that gay couple are cutting in line stepping infront of those traditional white families for little new born infants, and it is simply not the case.

Most adoption for little white babies have to go through private means, simply because the restrictions and the waiting list is just so damn long.

A mommy and daddy would be perfect, but mommies and daddies seem to be picky and only want a certain baby that looks like them, and is perfectly healthy.

Biggest crock of shit you ever posted. You're being influenced by that nice gay couple that had you over. I'm really surprised that you are so easily influenced by a coupla ass fucking brain washers.

There is no shortage of "love to go around" with heteros. and your claim that mommy and daddy want adoptive kids to look "just like them" is totally absurd.

I can't speak for the USA, but in this country, poofters ARE stepping in line on adoptions and I find that revolting.

Again, if you are a poof, good luck to you. I'll be your friend, but if you try and adopt my son or daughter I will haunt you from my grave.

[mraynrand]

You just repeated my 1 sentence summary of his position with 12 sentences that say nothing more.


Maintaining the definition of marriage as it is understood does nothing to restrict the rights of those who choose to engage in gay behaviour.

"Marriage" was understood to be a bond between people of the same race in 1958. And there was an even greater consensus on that question. Your logic would have prevented the expansion of "marriage" to include mixed couples.

I think you are comfortable with Cy and Wist in a world frozen in time at 1790. I bet you'll be fetching in your powdered wig and leggings.

Your referral back to 1958 is absurd. Marriage between men and women of different races still took place and was sanctioned (or not). It was long recognized by many that restricting marriage to single races was a racist practice. Still, what people recognized was that they were restricting marriage - not restricting something other than marriage. They didn't redefine marriage, they restricted it. Despite your attempt to confuse the issue, 'marriage' - regardless of any restrictions placed upon it due to racism, religion, public policy or anything else still means a union between man and woman, and obvious expectations for the formation of a family. Recognizing this definition does nothing to restrict the right of people wanting to engage in gay behaviour.

[Harlan Huckleby]

It was long recognized by many that restricting marriage to single races was a racist practice.
How inventive of you.


They didn't redefine marriage, they restricted it.
:lol:


You're doing some fancy tap dancing this morning.

[Fosco33]

I

I think the Republicans wish to become the champions of backwardness.

Go back and read the post by Cy on this subject.

The only point Cy made in this thread that I see is that marriage is defined to be between a man and woman, which therefore ends the debate.

(Cy and Wist advocate a government shaped similar to the 1790 model. I'm not being a wise guy, that pretty much is their position. I'm not sure you want to call Cy to the stand as a character witness for the Republican Party on the subject of backwardness.)

Man & woman union = marriage...

But just to be a prick...

Would society condone a woman marrying her male dog (loyal, neutered, etc). Heck, they can adopt little puppies and we can debate what a dependent really means (after all, you have to feed them, bathe them, take care of them when they're sick).

Or a male farmer and a female sheep (pretty common in crazy, oldschool Europe).

Or if we're just debating the word, marriage, can gays come up with a different word and run that through the legal process...

Also, I wonder why gays hate the Mormons so much... they've really screwed up my drive from Westwood to the valley. Definitely an interesting approach - piss off the people that voted against the prop... :roll:

[mraynrand]

It was long recognized by many that restricting marriage to single races was a racist practice.
How inventive of you.


They didn't redefine marriage, they restricted it.
:lol:


You're doing some fancy tap dancing this morning.


It's not my fault that you seem to know nothing about the history of anti-miscegenation laws in the U.S.

[texaspackerbacker]

Oh yeah, one more thing, I ask AGAIN, why is it exclusively our forum leftists--with unanimity in their ranks--that approve of same sex ass-fucking, of promoting same sex ass-fucking in schools, right down to kindergarten, apparently, and of allowing same sex ass-fuckers to adopt children, presumably raising them with the family value that same sex ass-fucking is OK?

because ass-fucking rocks, why else

I'm not disputing that. Perhaps you didn't notice, I specified SAME SEX ass-fucking.

And as for your "Lesbian ass-fuckers", arcilite, I've always thought of myself as fairly sophisticated, but I can't quite picture the mechanics of that sort of behavior. Would you care to explain the "how" of it?

As for Lesbians in general, yes, I would certainly acknowledge a double standard. And it is well grounded theologically. While the Bible clearly condemns "men lying with men" as abomination, it says nothing (as far as I know) about "women lying with women".

The point of my previous post--which seems to have gone right over the heads of forum leftists--is that people will invariably reject leftist crap like homosexual marriage--even in a place like California--when the issue is presented as a clear cut yes or no--instead of being "back-doored" (no pun intended--well, maybe a little bit) by leftist assholes like Obama, who avoid the discussion, then proceed to try and inflict the crap on America against the will of the people. That is true for pretty much every type of shit the leftists like to promote.


I think you misunderstood me. You said those 'ass fuckers' shouldn't be allowed to marry. I was just making a joke that guys who bang their girlfriend in the ass are also 'ass fuckers' so maybe they shouldnt be allowed to marry either.

This reminds me of a joke.

A very naive newlywed couple is just starting to enjoy the marital privileges and start to experiment with other means of intercourse. Since they don't want to get pregnant yet, they carefully follow birth control instructions they received from friends. One night they get a little drunk and carried away and worry they might get pregnant, so they go talk to their doctor. They say to the Doctor that they are worried they might have done something unusual and might get pregnant, but are embarrassed to admit what it was. The doctor tries to guess and assures them they can't get pregnant from oral sex, or other practices. Finally the wife blurts out "We had unprotected anal sex! Can we get pregnant from that?" The doctor says "of course, where do you think lawyers come from?"

Good One, Aynrand. That reminds me of another newly wed joke.

There was this very naive and inexperienced couple. The guy talked his friend into standing outside the honeymoon bedroom in case he needed advice. Well, the groom was in the bathroom, showering. The bride really and to take a shit, but she didn't want to go into the bathroom while her new husband was showering--so she crapped in a shoe box. Well, the guy came out, ready to get down to business, but he smelled something coming from the shoe box. He looked inside and yelled. "Eeoowww, this box is full of shit!" His buddy outside heard that and yelled back, "Turn her over, stupid".

Arcilite, I guess you missed the words "SAME SEX ass-fuckers" also.

[hoosier]

Personally I can only hope that the Right in this country spends the next four years obsessing over homosexuality and gay adoption.

[mraynrand]

Personally I can only hope that the Right in this country spends the next four years obsessing over homosexuality and gay adoption.


Interesting. It raises a question: Is it a concerted strategy of the left to advance some of these social issues to distract the conservatives from battles on the economic and foreign policy front? i doubt it, but it is interesting, since the 'conservative obsession' tends to be a reaction to extremism from the left. If it hadn't been for Roe v. Wade and school prayer type decisions, the 'religious right'/moral majority type groups probably wouldn't have emerged the way they did.

[Harlan Huckleby]

It was long recognized by many that restricting marriage to single races was a racist practice.
How inventive of you.


They didn't redefine marriage, they restricted it.
:lol:

You're doing some fancy tap dancing this morning.

It's not my fault that you seem to know nothing about the history of anti-miscegenation laws in the U.S.
anti-miscegenation laws made interracial marriage illegal. They were never completely overturned by popular will, the Supreme Court ended them in the late 60's.

you are playing a ridiculous word game by saying that anti-miscegenation laws merely restricted marriage rather than defined marriage.

[mraynrand]

It was long recognized by many that restricting marriage to single races was a racist practice.
How inventive of you.


They didn't redefine marriage, they restricted it.
:lol:

You're doing some fancy tap dancing this morning.

It's not my fault that you seem to know nothing about the history of anti-miscegenation laws in the U.S.
anti-miscegenation laws made interracial marriage illegal. They were never completely overturned by popular will, the Supreme Court ended them in the late 60's.

you are playing a ridiculous word game by saying that anti-miscegenation laws merely restricted marriage rather than defined marriage.

Not at all. The laws were passed following the Civil war in the South, repealed by Repubs, then passed again when Dems took back control. in most new states there were some misceg. laws, but in other states, including in the north there were not. It was openly contested whether blacks and whites should be allowed to marry. Eventually an activist Supreme court, improperly ruling based on the equal protection clause, supported the marriage bans. But through it all, they knew what marriage was - between a man and a women. In none of the cases was there any mention of two men or two women. That was never understood to be a form of marriage - until recently. It is a form of relationship and it is not within the government's right to prevent men and women from expression of gay behavior, but I don't think securing their freedoms requires the redefining of marriage.

[Harlan Huckleby]

why are you arguing that miscenegation had nothing to do with homosexuality? Nobody suggested that gay marriage was contemplated 50 years ago. Its simply a comparison.

You are spewing nonsense.

[texaspackerbacker]

Thank you, Harlan. I learned a new word today--miscenegation.

There is a colossal difference between homosexuality/gay marriage and miscenegation/interracial marriage. That difference is that the Christian Bible, not to mention teachings of virtually every other major and minor religion consider homosexuality a sinful and abominable behavior. Mixing of the races, on the other hand, has little or no religious foundation, Christian or otherwise.

As for those of us of the conservative persuasion being preoccupied with the gay marriage issue, I don't think so. It's more like you lefties are preoccupied that way. The status quo, after all, is still with us, as is the bulk of public opinion--based on the Prop 8 results.

Liberals can whine all they want about separation of church and state, but the fact that homosexuality is an abomination according to Christianity is NOT a church/state issue. It is a matter of the will of the majority being supreme in a democracy--representative or not. And that will clearly opposes gay marriage.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Thank you, Harlan. I learned a new word today--miscenegation.

thanks, but I can't take credit, AynRand threw out the word. (and he introduced "Quod volumus facile credimus" in another thread. :D )



There is a colossal difference between homosexuality/gay marriage and miscenegation/interracial marriage. That difference is that the Christian Bible, not to mention teachings of virtually every other major and minor religion consider homosexuality a sinful and abominable behavior. Mixing of the races, on the other hand, has little or no religious foundation, Christian or otherwise.

Actually, the bible was used to justify the prohibition of interracial marriage.

They seem like vastly different issues today because mixed-race marriages have become acceptable.

[mraynrand]

why are you arguing that miscenegation had nothing to do with homosexuality? Nobody suggested that gay marriage was contemplated 50 years ago. Its simply a comparison.

You are spewing nonsense.

I understand your point. I wasn't trying to say it was an issue back then. 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. The useful comparison to me seems to be the support for individual liberty, which allows for all freedoms for couples that want to engage in gay behaviour but doesn't necessitate corrupting language to achieve that end result.

[Fosco33]

If you watched the news, they protested the LDS church. ScottC - your take?

I don't care if they wanna get hitched or not - but messin with my commute is - well - gay. 8-)

And it's odd, because the people they impact are mostly supportive of their cause. It'd be more exciting if they protested somewhere like the OC where it'd be a little more relevant.

I drove right by the guy with the huge 'EQUAL RIGHTS' sign - then saw him on TV later. Thanks to all those whirly birds and plenty of tv coverage.

[texaspackerbacker]

Thank you, Harlan. I learned a new word today--miscenegation.

thanks, but I can't take credit, AynRand threw out the word. (and he introduced "Quod volumus facile credimus" in another thread. :D )



There is a colossal difference between homosexuality/gay marriage and miscenegation/interracial marriage. That difference is that the Christian Bible, not to mention teachings of virtually every other major and minor religion consider homosexuality a sinful and abominable behavior. Mixing of the races, on the other hand, has little or no religious foundation, Christian or otherwise.

Actually, the bible was used to justify the prohibition of interracial marriage.

They seem like vastly different issues today because mixed-race marriages have become acceptable.

That may be true, but unlike the "a man lying with a man--homosexuaiity--is an abomination" concept--which is clear and obvious, the anti-miscenegation materiall cited in the Bible is vague and generally unfounded.

The OTHER major difference is that people are born whatever race they are. Homosexual behavior, on the other hand, is a choice of sexual preference that the same sex ass-fuckers make.

[Harlan Huckleby]

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.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The OTHER major difference is that people are born whatever race they are. Homosexual behavior, on the other hand, is a choice of sexual preference that the same sex ass-fuckers make.

Most people who study the issue don't believe homosexuality is a choice, but rather biology.

Maybe you have some experience that indicates homosexuality is a choice. The gay people I know are just that way.

[Deputy Nutz]

These babies are found in orphanages, by the hundreds where there is simply not enough love for these kids to go around, in fact this causes attatchment dissorders, and autism is rampant.

The gay couples that I know either do above, or they are part of the foster care system and end up adopting kids that are placed in their custody. This kids usually have issues as well, autism, learning disabilities, emotional dissorders....

My argument with you is that you believe that gay couple are cutting in line stepping infront of those traditional white families for little new born infants, and it is simply not the case.

Most adoption for little white babies have to go through private means, simply because the restrictions and the waiting list is just so damn long.

A mommy and daddy would be perfect, but mommies and daddies seem to be picky and only want a certain baby that looks like them, and is perfectly healthy.

Biggest crock of shit you ever posted. You're being influenced by that nice gay couple that had you over. I'm really surprised that you are so easily influenced by a coupla ass fucking brain washers.

There is no shortage of "love to go around" with heteros. and your claim that mommy and daddy want adoptive kids to look "just like them" is totally absurd.

I can't speak for the USA, but in this country, poofters ARE stepping in line on adoptions and I find that revolting.

Again, if you are a poof, good luck to you. I'll be your friend, but if you try and adopt my son or daughter I will haunt you from my grave.

I think everything that comes out of your mouth about this subject is a crock of fucking shit, so next time you want to offend some of my dearest friends you can go ahead and drink your self to death as far as I am concerned. I thought you would have a little more respect for at least me, but whatever.

What the fuck would I want with one of your fucking kids? Hopefully your a better fucking parent than some of this people with kids that have to be put in foster homes because the neglect is something that will make you puke. And the only thing you can be concerned about is a man sticking his cock in another man's asshole.

Grow the fuck up.

[MJZiggy]

These babies are found in orphanages, by the hundreds where there is simply not enough love for these kids to go around, in fact this causes attatchment dissorders, and autism is rampant.

The gay couples that I know either do above, or they are part of the foster care system and end up adopting kids that are placed in their custody. This kids usually have issues as well, autism, learning disabilities, emotional dissorders....

My argument with you is that you believe that gay couple are cutting in line stepping infront of those traditional white families for little new born infants, and it is simply not the case.

Most adoption for little white babies have to go through private means, simply because the restrictions and the waiting list is just so damn long.

A mommy and daddy would be perfect, but mommies and daddies seem to be picky and only want a certain baby that looks like them, and is perfectly healthy.

Biggest crock of shit you ever posted. You're being influenced by that nice gay couple that had you over. I'm really surprised that you are so easily influenced by a coupla ass fucking brain washers.

There is no shortage of "love to go around" with heteros. and your claim that mommy and daddy want adoptive kids to look "just like them" is totally absurd.

I can't speak for the USA, but in this country, poofters ARE stepping in line on adoptions and I find that revolting.

Again, if you are a poof, good luck to you. I'll be your friend, but if you try and adopt my son or daughter I will haunt you from my grave.

Actually, Tar, in this county at least, he's right. Before a certain young gentleman was born his parents planned to adopt. There are a ton of kids available for adoption, unless you're looking for a healthy white infant. Then you can forget it and it is now normal practice to leave it up to the birth mother to choose who gets her baby. You can do an overseas adoption from an orphanage, but the kids are a year or two old by the time you get through the red tape. And then you have to start doing the research on the psychological problems, and there are usually physical problems as well.

[LEWCWA]

Gun, I am not arguing the pro's and cons of the proposition in my reply to you. i am merely challenging your position that people shouldn't expect personal preferences/ opinions to become law. Laws have a habit of stemming from opinions...



()But laws that apply to everyone shouldn't be made out of personal opinions. The question is whether or not gay marriage should be allowed by law. If you think it's gross, you are entitled to that opinion but you shouldn't expect the government to pass a law saying such unions are illegal just because some people think it's gross. Just the same, I respect your opinion and your right to have it even though I disagree. As far as the law is concerned, this should be a non issue because there is nothing about it that would warrant a legal ban. "I think it's gross" is not legal justification for an outright ban. Wouldn't you agree?




and there is the big problem. Legislating opinion! This is how we get into trouble, like slavery, segregation, etc......Just because I hate DOGS, doesn't mean we should ban them.....Just because I hate blacks doesn't mean they should be slaves......

[Tarlam!]

These babies are found in orphanages, by the hundreds where there is simply not enough love for these kids to go around, in fact this causes attatchment dissorders, and autism is rampant.

The gay couples that I know either do above, or they are part of the foster care system and end up adopting kids that are placed in their custody. This kids usually have issues as well, autism, learning disabilities, emotional dissorders....

My argument with you is that you believe that gay couple are cutting in line stepping infront of those traditional white families for little new born infants, and it is simply not the case.

Most adoption for little white babies have to go through private means, simply because the restrictions and the waiting list is just so damn long.

A mommy and daddy would be perfect, but mommies and daddies seem to be picky and only want a certain baby that looks like them, and is perfectly healthy.

Biggest crock of shit you ever posted. You're being influenced by that nice gay couple that had you over. I'm really surprised that you are so easily influenced by a coupla ass fucking brain washers.

There is no shortage of "love to go around" with heteros. and your claim that mommy and daddy want adoptive kids to look "just like them" is totally absurd.

I can't speak for the USA, but in this country, poofters ARE stepping in line on adoptions and I find that revolting.

Again, if you are a poof, good luck to you. I'll be your friend, but if you try and adopt my son or daughter I will haunt you from my grave.

I think everything that comes out of your mouth about this subject is a crock of fucking shit, so next time you want to offend some of my dearest friends you can go ahead and drink your self to death as far as I am concerned. I thought you would have a little more respect for at least me, but whatever.

What the fuck would I want with one of your fucking kids? Hopefully your a better fucking parent than some of this people with kids that have to be put in foster homes because the neglect is something that will make you puke. And the only thing you can be concerned about is a man sticking his cock in another man's asshole.

Grow the fuck up.

I offended your dearest friends by calling them ass-fuckers? OK. Sorry. But, that's what they are. And sorry, but I attacked your position, not you or your ass-fucking friends, which you didn't defend in your tirade.

It was my mistake to not write "If one is a Poofter and one wants to adopt my kids". You took that it to mean "you", when indeed I meant "one" I apologize for that.

You point out the key issue and that is, hetero couples need educatrion on raising foster kids and my belief is, that should be a priority over giving ass-fuckers adoptions. Hey, but that's just me.

BTW, I have a lot of gay friends and I call them ass-fuckers and they find it "charmin". (bullshit they do, but heck, I'm homophobic. I'm still in the majority)

And, if you think I don't respect you, well, then, you are a fucking idiot. You are a dear, valued friend to me. I just happen to feel you have been brainwashed on this subject, much the same way the love of my life has been. I still want to marry her and I still hope we are mates.

[Tarlam!]

Actually, Tar, in this county at least, he's right. Before a certain young gentleman was born his parents planned to adopt. There are a ton of kids available for adoption, unless you're looking for a healthy white infant. Then you can forget it and it is now normal practice to leave it up to the birth mother to choose who gets her baby. You can do an overseas adoption from an orphanage, but the kids are a year or two old by the time you get through the red tape. And then you have to start doing the research on the psychological problems, and there are usually physical problems as well.

So now the argument is, heteros don't love kids as much as poofters? Gimme a break!

[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?

[Tarlam!]

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...

[MJZiggy]

Actually, Tar, in this county at least, he's right. Before a certain young gentleman was born his parents planned to adopt. There are a ton of kids available for adoption, unless you're looking for a healthy white infant. Then you can forget it and it is now normal practice to leave it up to the birth mother to choose who gets her baby. You can do an overseas adoption from an orphanage, but the kids are a year or two old by the time you get through the red tape. And then you have to start doing the research on the psychological problems, and there are usually physical problems as well.

So now the argument is, heteros don't love kids as much as poofters? Gimme a break!

Where do you read THAT? I said that birth mothers choose the adoptive parents. And there are LOTS of parents to choose from. Which are you gonna choose? Do you really think a pregnant girl at an adoption agency is going to look at 100 hetero couples and choose the gay guys?

[Tarlam!]

Actually, Tar, in this county at least, he's right. Before a certain young gentleman was born his parents planned to adopt. There are a ton of kids available for adoption, unless you're looking for a healthy white infant. Then you can forget it and it is now normal practice to leave it up to the birth mother to choose who gets her baby. You can do an overseas adoption from an orphanage, but the kids are a year or two old by the time you get through the red tape. And then you have to start doing the research on the psychological problems, and there are usually physical problems as well.

So now the argument is, heteros don't love kids as much as poofters? Gimme a break!

Where do you read THAT? I said that birth mothers choose the adoptive parents. And there are LOTS of parents to choose from. Which are you gonna choose? Do you really think a pregnant girl at an adoption agency is going to look at 100 hetero couples and choose the gay guys?

Your initial discription leads me to the conclusion that the "left-over" kids need to be adopted by queers or suffer, according to you. The defacto verdict is that heteros go shopping for their adoptive offspring while poofters buy lottery tickets. Laughable.

[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

:oops:

[SkinBasket]

http://www.exploits.com/blog/trip/homo-monument-small.JPG

[MJZiggy]

Downsize, dude...

[SkinBasket]

Now you want to minimize the only homomonument in the world? You disgust me.

[mraynrand]

Now you want to minimize the only homomonument in the world? You disgust me.

She wasn't talking about the monument.

[Tarlam!]

Now you want to minimize the only homomonument in the world? You disgust me.

She wasn't talking about the monument.

Here Boy - fetch the sarcasm! Atta Boy!

[packinpatland]

Loving v. Virginia 1967
Even tho this case was about interracial marriage,
Mildred Loving's statement holds very true today.

"My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God's plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone, they have a right to marry.

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about."

[HowardRoark]

Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others.

I agree. Who's talking about religion?

[packinpatland]

Those who use the bible as the 'truth'......and by 'those' I do not mean PR's.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Thank you, Harlan. I learned a new word today--miscenegation.

There is a colossal difference between homosexuality/gay marriage and miscenegation/interracial marriage. That difference is that the Christian Bible, not to mention teachings of virtually every other major and minor religion consider homosexuality a sinful and abominable behavior. Mixing of the races, on the other hand, has little or no religious foundation, Christian or otherwise.

As for those of us of the conservative persuasion being preoccupied with the gay marriage issue, I don't think so. It's more like you lefties are preoccupied that way. The status quo, after all, is still with us, as is the bulk of public opinion--based on the Prop 8 results.

Liberals can whine all they want about separation of church and state, but the fact that homosexuality is an abomination according to Christianity is NOT a church/state issue. It is a matter of the will of the majority being supreme in a democracy--representative or not. And that will clearly opposes gay marriage.

Quite funny Tex. As the bible was used extensively to show that interacial marriage was bad.

Exodus 34:10-16 and 2 Corinthians 6:14 were used.

And, even today you will find Christians who oppose it and can give you bible quotes.

http://www.thekingdomnow.org/content/RacialMixing.htm

[Tarlam!]

And the KKK claim blacks have racially specific diseases, Ty. That's one of their reasons for propagating racial segregation. I saw it on Donavan (is that what that program was called?).

Extremists will always think up ways to twist their message. I only take extremists seriously when they try and kill and mame people that other beliefs than their own. Otherwise, I just view them as mental ballast.

[packinpatland]

My favorite West Wing episode:

The atmosphere was electric. The president of the United States was about to address a gathering of radio talk show hosts in the White House. As the president entered the hall, they all stood and applauded. All, that is, except one — a woman with strikingly blond hair, wearing a bright green suit. At first, her presence rattled the president. He lost his train of thought several times before he finally spoke directly to the sitting talk show host.

“Excuse me, doctor,” the president said to her. “It’s good to have you here. Are you an M.D.?”

“A Ph.D.,” she retorted smartly.

“In psychology?” he pursued.

“No, sir,” she said.

“Theology?”

“No.”

“Social work?”

“I have a Ph.D. in English literature,” she replied.

“I’m asking,” continued the president, “because on your show people call in for advice and you go by the title ‘doctor,’ and I didn’t know if maybe your listeners were confused by that and assumed you had advanced training in psychology, theology, or health care.”

“I don’t believe they are confused. No, sir,” she responded.

“Good,” said the president, raising his voice sarcastically. “I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.”

“I don’t say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President,” she replied haughtily. “The Bible does.”

“Yes, it does!” he shouted. “Leviticus 18:22.” The president was just warming up. “I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I’m interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She’s a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?”

After a brief moment, he continued: “While thinking about that, can I ask another? My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it OK to call the police?”

Now on a roll, the president steamed on triumphantly. “Here’s one that’s really important, ‘cause we’ve got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean, Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?

“Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side?

“Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?

“Think about those questions, would you? One last thing. While you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the ignorant tight-a** club, in this building when the president stands, nobody sits.”

The president paused to catch his breath. The silence that invaded the room was deafening. The once self-assured talk show host slowly rose to her feet, her face reddened with shame. Her quick come-backs and commanding presence wilted away. She had no response. The president of the United States had left her speechless. The very Bible that she had used to beat up on homosexuals had now beaten her into submissive silence.

[Fosco33]

I propose that gay marriage activists get a skywriter to make huge rainbow flags all over the sky - every day until the populace gets to reconsider this issue for the 3rd time in CA.

At least it wouldn't mess with traffic and would cause a decent disturbance/interest.

Then someone would come along and paint over their skywriting and we'd have a court decision for who own's the sky. When the price of sky starts to get cheaper, we'll really be able to say, "the sky is falling."
:lol:

:roll:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I've changed my mind. I'm with Tex. Homosexuality is an abomination. And as it says in Leviticus 20:13 "they shall surely be put to death."

But, before we get to the stoning....we should do as Heysus said.."Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone." So before we pick a starting hurler, we have to sort out anyone who has committed one or more of the other abominations, and who, if sincere, will take their rightful place alongside homosexuals.

Of course, adultery (Lev 18:20), sex with animals (Lev 18:23), remarrying one's wife after she's had another husband in between (Deut 24:4), or approaching any woman during the time of her "uncleanness" (Lev 18:19). Cross-dressing is out (Deut 22:5), and that includes Halloween costumes, slacks on women, bib overalls on little girls, or a wife wearing her husband's favorite Oxford buttondown.

Other abominations include tarot readings, glancing at your horoscope, trimming one's beard, and getting a tattoo, even if it says, "Mom" (Lev 19:26-28). Haughty eyes (Prov 6:17) and telling lies (Prov 6:17, 12:22) are big abominations. Being untruthful also includes false weights and measures (Prov 11:1), or any other dishonesty in business. "Everyone who acts unjustly is an abomination to the LORD your God" (Prov 11:16).

What do abominators have for dinner? Rare steaks off the grill (Lev 17:10), No more surf and turf and crab cakes in Baltimore (Lev 11:10), a rack of ribs at the Bar-B-Que (Lev 11:7).

But abominations are not just about bodily functions. Charging or paying interest are abominations. Bankers and anyone with a mortgage, car loan or credit card debt will be unavailable to throw the first stone, regardless of the interest rate (Psalm 15:1-5, Jeremiah 15:10).

Graven images of other gods are an abomination (Deut 7:25). Thus the Happy Buddha on my dresser and the postcards of the Great Buddha at Kamakura that my friend sent me would excuse me from taking the lead in rock throwing, if I hadn't already fallen by the wayside.

My personal favorite abomination is wearing blended fabrics. Deuteronomy 22:11 forbids wearing a material made of wool and linen, but Leviticus 19:19 says it's an abomination to wear any blended material, period. Hence a woman in a man's buttondown can be doubly abominable if it's a no-iron, easy care blend of cotton and polyester.

I am sure that people of integrity, once informed of their own abominable behavior, will step into the circle and accept for themselves whatever punishment they were going to hand out to others.

Tex, when should we schedule your stoning?

[falco]

I've changed my mind. I'm with Tex. Homosexuality is an abomination. And as it says in Leviticus 20:13 "they shall surely be put to death."

But, before we get to the stoning....we should do as Heysus said.."Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone." So before we pick a starting hurler, we have to sort out anyone who has committed one or more of the other abominations, and who, if sincere, will take their rightful place alongside homosexuals.

Of course, adultery (Lev 18:20), sex with animals (Lev 18:23), remarrying one's wife after she's had another husband in between (Deut 24:4), or approaching any woman during the time of her "uncleanness" (Lev 18:19). Cross-dressing is out (Deut 22:5), and that includes Halloween costumes, slacks on women, bib overalls on little girls, or a wife wearing her husband's favorite Oxford buttondown.

Other abominations include tarot readings, glancing at your horoscope, trimming one's beard, and getting a tattoo, even if it says, "Mom" (Lev 19:26-28). Haughty eyes (Prov 6:17) and telling lies (Prov 6:17, 12:22) are big abominations. Being untruthful also includes false weights and measures (Prov 11:1), or any other dishonesty in business. "Everyone who acts unjustly is an abomination to the LORD your God" (Prov 11:16).

What do abominators have for dinner? Rare steaks off the grill (Lev 17:10), No more surf and turf and crab cakes in Baltimore (Lev 11:10), a rack of ribs at the Bar-B-Que (Lev 11:7).

But abominations are not just about bodily functions. Charging or paying interest are abominations. Bankers and anyone with a mortgage, car loan or credit card debt will be unavailable to throw the first stone, regardless of the interest rate (Psalm 15:1-5, Jeremiah 15:10).

Graven images of other gods are an abomination (Deut 7:25). Thus the Happy Buddha on my dresser and the postcards of the Great Buddha at Kamakura that my friend sent me would excuse me from taking the lead in rock throwing, if I hadn't already fallen by the wayside.

My personal favorite abomination is wearing blended fabrics. Deuteronomy 22:11 forbids wearing a material made of wool and linen, but Leviticus 19:19 says it's an abomination to wear any blended material, period. Hence a woman in a man's buttondown can be doubly abominable if it's a no-iron, easy care blend of cotton and polyester.

I am sure that people of integrity, once informed of their own abominable behavior, will step into the circle and accept for themselves whatever punishment they were going to hand out to others.

Tex, when should we schedule your stoning?

Tyrone since when do you cut and paste?

http://home.earthlink.net/~ggghostie/abominations.html

[HowardRoark]

I've changed my mind. I'm with Tex. Homosexuality is an abomination. And as it says in Leviticus 20:13 "they shall surely be put to death."

But, before we get to the stoning....we should do as Heysus said.."Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone." So before we pick a starting hurler, we have to sort out anyone who has committed one or more of the other abominations, and who, if sincere, will take their rightful place alongside homosexuals.

Of course, adultery (Lev 18:20), sex with animals (Lev 18:23), remarrying one's wife after she's had another husband in between (Deut 24:4), or approaching any woman during the time of her "uncleanness" (Lev 18:19). Cross-dressing is out (Deut 22:5), and that includes Halloween costumes, slacks on women, bib overalls on little girls, or a wife wearing her husband's favorite Oxford buttondown.

Other abominations include tarot readings, glancing at your horoscope, trimming one's beard, and getting a tattoo, even if it says, "Mom" (Lev 19:26-28). Haughty eyes (Prov 6:17) and telling lies (Prov 6:17, 12:22) are big abominations. Being untruthful also includes false weights and measures (Prov 11:1), or any other dishonesty in business. "Everyone who acts unjustly is an abomination to the LORD your God" (Prov 11:16).

What do abominators have for dinner? Rare steaks off the grill (Lev 17:10), No more surf and turf and crab cakes in Baltimore (Lev 11:10), a rack of ribs at the Bar-B-Que (Lev 11:7).

But abominations are not just about bodily functions. Charging or paying interest are abominations. Bankers and anyone with a mortgage, car loan or credit card debt will be unavailable to throw the first stone, regardless of the interest rate (Psalm 15:1-5, Jeremiah 15:10).

Graven images of other gods are an abomination (Deut 7:25). Thus the Happy Buddha on my dresser and the postcards of the Great Buddha at Kamakura that my friend sent me would excuse me from taking the lead in rock throwing, if I hadn't already fallen by the wayside.

My personal favorite abomination is wearing blended fabrics. Deuteronomy 22:11 forbids wearing a material made of wool and linen, but Leviticus 19:19 says it's an abomination to wear any blended material, period. Hence a woman in a man's buttondown can be doubly abominable if it's a no-iron, easy care blend of cotton and polyester.

I am sure that people of integrity, once informed of their own abominable behavior, will step into the circle and accept for themselves whatever punishment they were going to hand out to others.

Tex, when should we schedule your stoning?

Why do always bring up religion?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

When it is good i will cut and paste. I use to have that email about stoning women and what to do about a coworker that shaved his beard..but, i couldn't find it. THis seemed to do just fine.

When will we be commencing your stoning....i see you as a "unclean" kinda perv!

[HowardRoark]

My favorite West Wing episode

Neat-o.

[Tarlam!]

Tyrone since when do you cut and paste?

http://home.earthlink.net/~ggghostie/abominations.html

Ty obviously authored the piece. Ty does not plagiarize!

[falco]

When it is good i will cut and paste. I use to have that email about stoning women and what to do about a coworker that shaved his beard..but, i couldn't find it. THis seemed to do just fine.

When will we be commencing your stoning....i see you as a "unclean" kinda perv!

ahh - if you are going to be perv, take it all the way I say...i have had my eye on mraynrand ever since his species conversion :P

[mraynrand]

That's beautiful stuff PIP and Ty. Of course, we know that a blow hard radio commentator would never be shouted into silence by the president (that pretty much kill the authenticity of that fiction!)

Consider: 1 Corinthians also says about the sexually immoral: "But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the spirit of God"

Leviticus also commands that you should not lie with your father's wife, that you should not withhold wages from your workers, and you should not defraud your neighbor or rob him. You should not pervert justice, should not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great (standing for a president, say), but judge your neighbor fairly.

Looks like our tidy little liberal fictional president (who seems a lot like our not so fictional president elect) was choosing passages a la carte - as is Ty Bigguns. Not to mention out of historical context.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Thanx for making my point for me Rand. Using the bible in today's society is foolish at best.

Game. Set. Match.

[mraynrand]

Thanx for making my point for me Rand. Using the bible in today's society is foolish at best.

Game. Set. Match.

It is if you don't understand it.

Down, Set, Hut.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Thanx for making my point for me Rand. Using the bible in today's society is foolish at best.

Game. Set. Match.

It is if you don't understand it.

Down, Set, Hut.

I completely understand it. But, since i'm not a christian, it holds no value for me. Oops. Yep, i'm sure a muslin, hindu or buddhist is very interested in know his/her "sins" will be absolved if they accept Christ. :oops:

My god, you are really dense.

[HowardRoark]

I completely understand it.

You have absolutely no understanding of Christianity.

[falco]

I completely understand it.

You have absolutely no understanding of Christianity.

why bring religion into it?

[HowardRoark]

I completely understand it.

You have absolutely no understanding of Christianity.

why bring religion into it?

I didn't.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I completely understand it.

You have absolutely no understanding of Christianity.

Keep telling yourself that. It is so ridiculously hard to comprehend. :roll:

[falco]

I completely understand it.

You have absolutely no understanding of Christianity.

Keep telling yourself that. It is so ridiculously hard to comprehend. :roll:

not when you can directly channel the voice of jesus apparently :shock:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I completely understand it.

You have absolutely no understanding of Christianity.

why bring religion into it?

I didn't.

Who did Howard?

[HowardRoark]

I completely understand it.

You have absolutely no understanding of Christianity.

why bring religion into it?

I didn't.

Who did Howard?

Hell if I know. Am I my PackerRats brother's keeper?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I completely understand it.

You have absolutely no understanding of Christianity.

why bring religion into it?

I didn't.

Who did Howard?

Hell if I know. Am I my PackerRats brother keeper?

Exactly, but you appear to be mine.

It is just amazing how you can always manage to critique my usage of the bible/religion.

[HowardRoark]

I completely understand it.

You have absolutely no understanding of Christianity.

why bring religion into it?

I didn't.

Who did Howard?

Hell if I know. Am I my PackerRats brother keeper?

Exactly, but you appear to be mine.

It is just amazing how you can always manage to critique my usage of the bible/religion.

Whether or not you believe in Christianity is not the issue with your lack of knowledge on the subject. You are unaware of one of the cornerstones of the religion; that being the Trinity.

It’s OK to once and a while admit you are not an expert on a subject.