Proposition 8

[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!!

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.

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...

[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.

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.