Proposition 8

[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.

[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?