Proposition 8

[HowardRoark]

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

QFT

[Deputy Nutz]

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

One question. Why?

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

What do you feel will be the outcome?

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

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

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

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

It remains unnatural any way you want to spin it.

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

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

Aren't you dead yet?

[Tarlam!]

Aren't you dead yet?

Whew. I thought you were still mad at me!

[Deputy Nutz]

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

[Cy]

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

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

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

Did you vote against that amendment?

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

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

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

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

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

[SkinBasket]

I prefer cum dispenser.

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

[Cy]

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

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

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

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

Huh?

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

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

White penis in white rectum = NOTHING

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

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

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

[falco]

psst.

cy.

your hate is showing

[SkinBasket]

[MJZiggy]

Downsize, dude...

[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?