---------------------->http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...nanadoggie.gif<-----------------------Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Bigguns
Printable View
---------------------->http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...nanadoggie.gif<-----------------------Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Bigguns
The Jews did it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Bigguns
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: Has nothing to do with God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunakor
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by falco
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.
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.
luckily my children are none of your concernQuote:
Originally Posted by Partial
Sounds like you figured it out. I stayed home for that vote. I didn't want all the homos to think I cared.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby
Obviously a state that has selected Clinton, Kerry, and Obama isn't as progressive as all that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby
I voted for civil unions. God knows my own hasn't been very civil.
AND THEN.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Partial
You're contradicting yourself, P.Quote:
Originally Posted by Partial
a first time for everything ballhawk...lay off the young manQuote:
Originally Posted by BallHawk
I solved this problem on page 5 and introduced the real issue. Why are we still discussing this?
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby
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, "[quote]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]
Mycomment is important - I don't care whether or not people want a union/marriage/whatever. Acquiesce = AgreementQuote:
bold
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.
Dude, those are questions the very confused, very disturbed child is asking...Quote:
Originally Posted by BallHawk
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cy
Did you vote against that amendment?
I'm impressed. At least one conservative is walking the talk.Quote:
Originally Posted by swede
Again with this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby
Blame the libs! They run this state.
I voted for civil unions. I have a hard time disapproving of caring and supportive relationships.
I think that was a reasonable choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinBasket
Let me put it this way. If youre a fucking parent, turn the fucking TV off. Is that clear enough?Quote:
Originally Posted by Partial
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.