Vote yes to Prop 8.......or at least donate.

[cool hand]

http://www.protectmarriage.com/

[clambake]

you mean yes on h8?

[Drachen]

at work, what is this about?

[cool hand]

its for cali folk.

[cool hand]

but anyone can donate to the cause.

[clambake]

at work, what is this about?

yes on hate is for fag bashing.

anyone that votes yes on this has questions about themselves.

[cool hand]

not really, I think wanting marriage to be between a man and a women is a very christian belief is it not?

[cool hand]

http://www.realmcollections.com/images/p/_Richard_the_Lionheart_Shield_PS3212_5798.jpg

[cool hand]

http://www.einstorm-xp1.com/knights_templarHORSE.jpg

[clambake]

fag bashing=christian fun.

[cool hand]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/Capilla_real.jpg

[cool hand]

fight the good fight.


sad thing is the Catholic Church and their pedophile/gay priests probably contributed to the gay proliferation more than any one group has ever done......time to get the genie back in that bottle.

[Findog]

Dear anybody planning to vote Yes on Prop 8:

Go fuck yourselves. And then fuck yourselves again.

[clambake]

you have anything contemporary? the house is mid-century modern.

[romad_20]

not really, I think wanting marriage to be between a man and a women is a very christian belief is it not?

Did Christians invent marriage? No

Marriage is a social, religious, spiritual, or legal union of individuals. This union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is usually called a wedding and the married status created is sometimes called wedlock.

Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are acknowledged by the state or by religious authority. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction. If recognized by the state, by the religion(s) to which the parties belong or by society in general, the act of marriage changes the personal and social status of the individuals who enter into it.

[clambake]

all houses with mccain posters also have yes on 8 posters.

[romad_20]

I could care less about the marriage thing. If a church doesn't want to marry gay people then don't, but gay people should at least have some sort of legal union for the obvious reasons i.e. hospital visitation rights, home ownership, inheritance and so on.

[clambake]

I could care less about the marriage thing. If a church doesn't want to marry gay people then don't, but gay people should at least have some sort of legal union for the obvious reasons i.e. hospital visitation rights, home ownership, inheritance and so on.

then you're the anti-christ. where's angel luv?

[FromWayDowntown]

I'm pretty sure that if you tell homosexuals that they can't marry each other, it will pretty much ensure that homosexuality will go away. I suspect that nobody will be gay anymore if there's no possibility of marrying the person you love.

[FromWayDowntown]

not really, I think wanting marriage to be between a man and a women is a very christian belief is it not?

What about Americans who aren't Christians?

[romad_20]

I'm pretty sure that if you tell homosexuals that they can't marry each other, it will pretty much ensure that homosexuality will go away. I suspect that nobody will be gay anymore if there's no possibility of marrying the person you love.

Why hasn't anyone thought of this before? :lol

[cool hand]

I'm pretty sure that if you tell homosexuals that they can't marry each other, it will pretty much ensure that homosexuality will go away. I suspect that nobody will be gay anymore if there's no possibility of marrying the person you love.

:lol:toast

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

Did Christians invent marriage? No

If only we could pound that into more heads.

The argument against gay marriage is the stupidest agenda of the fundamentalist right (and that's saying something) if only because we have over two thousand years of evidence proving it wrong. People have been marrying for over two thousand years. Homosexual relationships and same-sex unions predate Christianity and yet Christians and heterosexual marriage are still here.

They need to get over it already.

[PM5K]

Lucky for the OP I'm not in California....

[dg7md]

Gays have just the same right as heterosexuals do, I wish that people would see through this and realize it's a clear form of fascism to deny them rights that heterosexuals have.

Marriage is, as already mentioned, a socially defined thing.

[Trainwreck2100]

marriage--no
civil union--yes

[CuckingFunt]

Dear anybody planning to vote Yes on Prop 8:

Go fuck yourselves. And then fuck yourselves again.

As a Californian, ditto. Due to my state's reliable blueness, voting No on this hateful proposition is about 83% of the reason I'm making time to hit the polls on Tuesday.

[Trainwreck2100]

Why not just make being gay a crime and send them to jail. Why pussy foot around with it.

cause then who will do women's hair, or interior design?

[Findog]

As a Californian, ditto. Due to my state's reliable blueness, voting No on this hateful proposition is about 83% of the reason I'm making time to hit the polls on Tuesday.

It infuriates me

[CuckingFunt]

It infuriates me

The commercials that I have to see every day disgust me. They don't even try to hide the fact that they're ignoring the civil rights issues in favor of blatant homophobia.

[doobs]

I support gay marriage. One thing, though . . . I think states should be allowed to discriminate slightly against gays when it comes to adoption. California's Supreme Court decided that gays are a protected class under the state constitution, thereby subjecting any discrimination against them to strict scrutiny. In effect, it is unlawful for the state of California to EVER discriminate against gays.

Put in perspective . . . discrimination based on gender is now more permissible than discrimination based on sexuality, in California. (Actually, I don't for sure what California's constitution says about gender discrimination; I'm talking about the federal constitution). I know, it's considered taboo to consider sexuality a choice; but to me, in some cases it is. Gender, on the other hand, is something you're born with, but the courts offer women less protection from discrimination. That doesn't seem fair.

Anyway, no to Prop 8. No to judicial activism, as well.

[CuckingFunt]

I support gay marriage. One thing, though . . . I think states should be allowed to discriminate slightly against gays when it comes to adoption. California's Supreme Court decided that gays are a protected class under the state constitution, thereby subjecting any discrimination against them to strict scrutiny. In effect, it is unlawful for the state of California to EVER discriminate against gays.

Put in perspective . . . discrimination based on gender is now more permissible than discrimination based on sexuality, in California. (Actually, I don't for sure what California's constitution says about gender discrimination; I'm talking about the federal constitution). I know, it's considered taboo to consider sexuality a choice; but to me, in some cases it is. Gender, on the other hand, is something you're born with, but the courts offer women less protection from discrimination. That doesn't seem fair.

Shouldn't the goal, then, be to eliminate all forms of discrimination, rather than simply balance it out so that everyone is getting equally fucked?

Also, I'm curious to know a) what you consider to be gender, and b) in which cases sexuality is a choice.

[doobs]

Shouldn't the goal, then, be to eliminate all forms of discrimination, rather than simply balance it out so that everyone is getting equally fucked?

Also, I'm curious to know a) what you consider to be gender, and b) in which cases sexuality is a choice.

Like I said, I think states should be allowed to discriminate slightly against gays in adoption. So, no, I don't think all discrimination should be eliminated. A better example, maybe: I think states should be allowed to establish single-sex public universities. That's discrimination based on gender. But the Supreme Court found that such discrimination was unconstitutional. What about forcing men, but not women, to register for selective service?

More fundamentally, pretty much any law classifies people or treats them differently in some way. What do you think about the drinking age being 21? That's discrimination based on age. Look, line-drawing just happens, and the courts have taken it upon themselves to interpret the constitution as forbidding certain types of line-drawing. I guess that's fine. But each time the courts decide a new group is entitled to constitutional protection, the more constrained states are in passing laws. I think we can all agree that racial discrimination is absolutely repugnant. But, gender, sexuality, age . . . I can see why discrimination may be in order from time to time.

Sorry for the long post. To answer your questions: (a) I know you're hinting at transsexuals with this question, and my answer is I don't know; 99% of people are easily classified as men or women, and it's my view that the remaining 1% should be classified depending on their, um, physical attributes; (b) sexuality can be a choice for bisexuals who choose to live as either gay or straight; thus, a bisexual man can commit to living with his boyfriend and raising a family together as gay men.

[MannyIsGod]

WTF? Isn't the OP continuously ranting for smaller government and other libertarian talking points? Except when it doesn't align with your bigoted views though, huh?

[PixelPusher]

Re: Vote yes to Prop 8.......or at least donate.
Are you a Mormon perchance?

[Flight3107]

http://i.pbase.com/o5/22/431122/1/69499459.bE5tKoJ9.IMGP1216_resize.JPG


If you want to be a fag, move to europe.

[SnakeBoy]

Shouldn't the goal, then, be to eliminate all forms of discrimination, rather than simply balance it out so that everyone is getting equally fucked?


:lmao at Obama supporters trying to take the high road on sexism.

[CuckingFunt]

Like I said, I think states should be allowed to discriminate slightly against gays in adoption. So, no, I don't think all discrimination should be eliminated. A better example, maybe: I think states should be allowed to establish single-sex public universities. That's discrimination based on gender. But the Supreme Court found that such discrimination was unconstitutional. What about forcing men, but not women, to register for selective service?

More fundamentally, pretty much any law classifies people or treats them differently in some way. What do you think about the drinking age being 21? That's discrimination based on age. Look, line-drawing just happens, and the courts have taken it upon themselves to interpret the constitution as forbidding certain types of line-drawing. I guess that's fine. But each time the courts decide a new group is entitled to constitutional protection, the more constrained states are in passing laws. I think we can all agree that racial discrimination is absolutely repugnant. But, gender, sexuality, age . . . I can see why discrimination may be in order from time to time.

I... don't agree with any of this. At all.


Sorry for the long post. To answer your questions: (a) I know you're hinting at transsexuals with this question, and my answer is I don't know; 99% of people are easily classified as men or women, and it's my view that the remaining 1% should be classified depending on their, um, physical attributes;

I actually wasn't hinting at anything. I was curious as to your guidelines for determining gender -- social construct, identity, physical structure, or something else. Your percentages are a bit off, though. There are far less than 99% of people in this country that can be easily classified as men or women in terms of identity.


(b) sexuality can be a choice for bisexuals who choose to live as either gay or straight; thus, a bisexual man can commit to living with his boyfriend and raising a family together as gay men.

Again, I disagree, but appreciate your answer.

[ratm1221]

Homos are gay. :king

[Xylus]

I've never understood how someone who considers himself a true libertarian, somehow who believes the government should stay out of the lives of its citizens, would promote the continued governmental imposition on marriage.

This particular issue is always a dealbreaker with me. If you oppose gay marriage, you automatically need a kick to the balls.


If you oppose gay marriage, that's gay.

[tp2021]

If you oppose gay marriage, that's gay.

I agree, but also: what would gay people think of that sentence? :lol

[Findog]

http://i.pbase.com/o5/22/431122/1/69499459.bE5tKoJ9.IMGP1216_resize.JPG


If you want to be a fag, move to europe.

If you want to be a fucking moron, move to Waco.

[Supergirl]

all houses with mccain posters also have yes on 8 posters.

actually there was an interesting, disturbing article yesterday about how the good turnout for Obama may both put him in office and allow this bit of fear-filled, hateful propaganda to pass --- because of the large turnout of African-Americans.

[implacable44]

Dear anybody planning to vote Yes on Prop 8:

Go fuck yourselves. And then fuck yourselves again.

Retard. So those with different opinions then yours should go f- themselves ?
Marraige = Man and a woman. - you change the definition to suit all of you "secular progressives" and where does it stop ? Man and boy ? etc.. etc.. but then - none of you folks believe in the slippery slope.

[MannyIsGod]

Retard. So those with different opinions then yours should go f- themselves ?
Marraige = Man and a woman. - you change the definition to suit all of you "secular progressives" and where does it stop ? Man and boy ? etc.. etc.. but then - none of you folks believe in the slippery slope.

And all of you "folks" used the same argument with interracial marriage. Progressives move societies forward and people like you simply hold them back. Congrats Mr. Anchor.

[implacable44]

I guess we differ on what the term "move societies forward"

[MannyIsGod]

Natrually. Its an extreme radical opinion today that people of 2 different races should be allowed to marry. Or that we have civil rights in this country to begin with. I mean damn, the bible says a woman's role is to honor and obey her husband why the hell are we allowing them to vote?

Damn progressives tearing apart the fabric of our society.

[doobs]

I guess we differ on what the term "move societies forward"

Societies draw lines. It's not helpful when supporters of gay marriage just bash traditionalists by calling them bigots or idiots or that they should just fuck themselves. You see, even supporters of gay marriage draw lines. Should 10 year olds be able to get married to one another? Surely not, and that's age discrimination. Should a brother and sister be allowed to marry each other? What about lesbian or gay siblings who want to marry each other? What about a woman who wants to marry her cat? What about a man who wants to marry a second wife?

Presently, we generally draw the line as follows: marriage is between one man and one woman, and they must be unrelated and of a certain age. This is changing in some places to include same-sex couples, as it should. But to say that any discrimination in the area of marriage is bigoted or closed-minded . . . that's just wrong. I don't think less of people simply because they show some reluctance to significantly alter an institution that's been around for thousands of years.

[MannyIsGod]

Last time I checked no one is seeking to alter religious marriage one bit. That may be an institution that has been around for a long time, but government marriage is far from the same institution in any shape or form. Much of the problem is based upon one side of the disagreement refusing to acknowledge the difference between government marriage and marriage by the church. Equality is only ensured in one of those and its the only one where equality is being sought.

[Kriz-Maxima]

Societies draw lines. It's not helpful when supporters of gay marriage just bash traditionalists by calling them bigots or idiots or that they should just fuck themselves. You see, even supporters of gay marriage draw lines. Should 10 year olds be able to get married to one another? Surely not, and that's age discrimination. Should a brother and sister be allowed to marry each other? What about lesbian or gay siblings who want to marry each other? What about a woman who wants to marry her cat? What about a man who wants to marry a second wife?

Presently, we generally draw the line as follows: marriage is between one man and one woman, and they must be unrelated and of a certain age. This is changing in some places to include same-sex couples, as it should. But to say that any discrimination in the area of marriage is bigoted or closed-minded . . . that's just wrong. I don't think less of people simply because they show some reluctance to significantly alter an institution that's been around for thousands of years.

Drawing the line is pretty easy, two non related consenting human adults.

[implacable44]

Natrually. Its an extreme radical opinion today that people of 2 different races should be allowed to marry. Or that we have civil rights in this country to begin with. I mean damn, the bible says a woman's role is to honor and obey her husband why the hell are we allowing them to vote?

Damn progressives tearing apart the fabric of our society.

Is that all the Good Book says about women ? or is it just a piece you choose to pull out and exploit ? Yeah -- the slippery slope Manny -- you whine for those who feel discriminated against .. well -- will you feel the same for those old guys who have a "natural desire" to be with 10 year old little boys or girls ? I mean it is natural to them - they were born this way and they cannot control it. Or how about that fellow out on the farm who has this natural desire to love his horse ? Can he be discriminated against -- are his civil liberties being tarnished ?

[Supergirl]

I would like anyone supporting Prop 8 to give me one way in which it affects you negatively to have same-sex couples be able to have equal access to marriage rights? One way it affects you negatively, please.

It doesn't. That's the point, BTW, in case you missed it. If anything, it will affect you positively because it could bring in more revenue (weddings are big money, folks) to your state, which could affect you positively. Maybe.

If it's just a moral superiority thing, well, get your morality out of my bedroom. It's no business of yours or anyone else's what people do behind closed doors, and who's to say that your morality is any more right than my morality? This is why we shouldn't be trying to legislate morality.

But marriage rights isn't about morality. It's about equal access to legal, civil rights. No one is compelling the Catholic Church, or Sarah Palin's wackjob evangelical church, to marry same-sex couples. It's their right not to. Just as it's the right of Reform Judaism, Recontructionist Judaism, the UCC church, the Unitarian church, and other religious branches to perform same-sex marriage. None of this has anything to do with the legal, civil right which is currently being denied to couples who happen to have the same genitalia. And yes, it's still being denied in Massachusetts and California, because it's being denied at the federal level.

[doobs]

Last time I checked no one is seeking to alter religious marriage one bit. That may be an institution that has been around for a long time, but government marriage is far from the same institution in any shape or form. Much of the problem is based upon one side of the disagreement refusing to acknowledge the difference between government marriage and marriage by the church. Equality is only ensured in one of those and its the only one where equality is being sought.

No, I know. But like it or not, marriage is a traditional relationship that precedes our country, and the states choose to recognize marriage, even though they're under no obligation to do so.

It is altering the institution, if only because it changes how people view the relationship. Because if the states choose to accord marriage a special status, by extending that status to gays, they're changing what that status means to traditionalists. The more permissive we are about marriage, the less special it becomes to many. It's kind of like it gets watered down. Surely, you have to admit that if we become too permissive, marriage is robbed of a great deal of its meaning.

Let me just reiterate, I'm in support of gay marriage. I just think: (1) it's bullshit that we rely on guys in black robes to enact their political preferences; and (2) not all opponents of gay marriage are bigots.

[MannyIsGod]

Is that all the Good Book says about women ? or is it just a piece you choose to pull out and exploit ? Yeah -- the slippery slope Manny -- you whine for those who feel discriminated against .. well -- will you feel the same for those old guys who have a "natural desire" to be with 10 year old little boys or girls ? I mean it is natural to them - they were born this way and they cannot control it. Or how about that fellow out on the farm who has this natural desire to love his horse ? Can he be discriminated against -- are his civil liberties being tarnished ?

Equating homosexual marriage with pedophilia is a sure sign of a bigot.

[doobs]

Drawing the line is pretty easy, two non related consenting human adults.

Right. That's the line I'd draw. But at least I can acknowledge that that has to do with my own biases. That's discrimination, man.

Why not three non-related consenting human adults?

Why not two consenting human adults, regardless of whether or not they're related?

You have to come up with some justification for any exclusions. Can't you see that future generations may decide that polygamy is OK or that incest is OK? Does that make you or me bigoted idiots who should go fuck themselves? I think not.

[MannyIsGod]

No, I know. But like it or not, marriage is a traditional relationship that precedes our country, and the states choose to recognize marriage, even though their under no obligation to do so.

It is altering the institution, if only because it changes how people view the relationship. Because if the states choose to accord marriage a special status, by extending that status to gays, they're changing what that status means to traditionalists. The more permissive we are about marriage, the less special it becomes to many. It's kind of like it gets watered down. Surely, you have to admit that if we become too permissive, marriage is robbed of a great deal of its meaning.

Let me just reiterate, I'm in support of gay marriage. I just think: (1) it's bullshit that we rely on guys in black robes to enact their political preferences; and (2) not all opponents of gay marriage are bigots.

Marriage has meaning still? Thats not hyperbole because the truth is that society has already greatly devalued marriage and thats evident in so many ways. I understand what your saying, but it simply doesn't carry much weight with me because the bottom line for me is that once government stepped into the marriage business pandora's box was opened.

Ideally government would not be in that business at all, but good luck getting that genie back in the bottle. Therefor you have to apply it equally and denying 2 people that right based on gender is definetly discrimination.

I realize that you don't like the judiciary of this country deciding this, but their jobs are to do so. Civil rights issues are fought in the courts and thats one of their main funcitons. Judicial activism or whatever the right wants to call it today is one of the greatest myths of all time in today's political world.

[MannyIsGod]

Right. That's the line I'd draw. But at least I can acknowledge that that has to do with my own biases. That's discrimination, man.

Why not three non-related consenting human adults?

Why not two consenting human adults, regardless of whether or not they're related?

You have to come up with some justification for any exclusions. Can't you see that future generations may decide that polygamy is OK or that incest is OK? Does that make you or me bigoted idiots who should go fuck themselves? I think not.

I don't see a problem with 2 related consenting adults getting married and I don't have a problem with 3 people entering into a marriage either. I think its weird as hell and may point to psychological issues but it should not be the governments job to stop people from doing these things.

[FromWayDowntown]

Is that all the Good Book says about women ? or is it just a piece you choose to pull out and exploit ? Yeah -- the slippery slope Manny -- you whine for those who feel discriminated against .. well -- will you feel the same for those old guys who have a "natural desire" to be with 10 year old little boys or girls ? I mean it is natural to them - they were born this way and they cannot control it. Or how about that fellow out on the farm who has this natural desire to love his horse ? Can he be discriminated against -- are his civil liberties being tarnished ?

You're not talking about a slippery slope -- you're talking about a slide into absurdity.

Defining a marriage as between a man and a woman could, arguably, support the same slippery slope nonsense that you're spewing here. If the law allows a man to marry a woman, why not a child? or a dog? The line you're drawing is equally arbitrary -- it's just more palatable to you because it has some basis in Christian scripture and western tradition.

In truth, the protections that you're concerned about -- polygamy, minority, bestiality -- are all adequately ensured by laws concerning who can marry and whom they can marry. There's no need to change any of those laws in order to allow couples of the same sex to enter into cognizable legal unions. As far as I know, nobody is realistically arguing that any of those ancillary laws should be changed in any way.

This is simply a matter of denying a fundamental right, marriage, to people simply because of their gender (it's not even about sexuality; two heterosexual men couldn't marry each other if they chose to, either). Gender discrimination is generally subject to intermediate constitutional scrutiny, but it's getting harder and harder to identify an important governmental interest served by laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. Tradition, as Manny appropriately points out, sometimes must give way to the needs of masses -- particularly in a pluralistic society.

[Spurminator]

I still don't see why government has to be involved in marriage at all.

[doobs]

Marriage has meaning still? Thats not hyperbole because the truth is that society has already greatly devalued marriage and thats evident in so many ways. I understand what your saying, but it simply doesn't carry much weight with me because the bottom line for me is that once government stepped into the marriage business pandora's box was opened.

Ideally government would not be in that business at all, but good luck getting that genie back in the bottle. Therefor you have to apply it equally and denying 2 people that right based on gender is definetly discrimination.

I realize that you don't like the judiciary of this country deciding this, but their jobs are to do so. Civil rights issues are fought in the courts and thats one of their main funcitons. Judicial activism or whatever the right wants to call it today is one of the greatest myths of all time in today's political world.

I don't want to get sidetracked here, but I only dislike what the judiciary does in this area precisely because I don't think it's their job. And when the government recognizes a relationship like marriage and accords it certain rights and responsibilities, it isn't the government's duty to apply it "equally"--or at least in the sense that most people understand the word. The government's duty is to apply it without violating equal protection. That's a little different. You don't have to let 10 year olds get married. Right?


I don't see a problem with 2 related consenting adults getting married and I don't have a problem with 3 people entering into a marriage either. I think its weird as hell and may point to psychological issues but it should not be the governments job to stop people from doing these things.

That's beside the point. Look, some people opposed to gay marriage are hateful bigots, but some aren't. I think it's unfair how some supporters of gay marriage can just dismiss opponents as bigoted idiots who can fuck themselves.

[implacable44]

Equating homosexual marriage with pedophilia is a sure sign of a bigot.

calling someone on a message board a bigot is the sure sign of an ignorant bigot.

[implacable44]

I would like anyone supporting Prop 8 to give me one way in which it affects you negatively to have same-sex couples be able to have equal access to marriage rights? One way it affects you negatively, please.

It doesn't. That's the point, BTW, in case you missed it. If anything, it will affect you positively because it could bring in more revenue (weddings are big money, folks) to your state, which could affect you positively. Maybe.

If it's just a moral superiority thing, well, get your morality out of my bedroom. It's no business of yours or anyone else's what people do behind closed doors, and who's to say that your morality is any more right than my morality? This is why we shouldn't be trying to legislate morality.

But marriage rights isn't about morality. It's about equal access to legal, civil rights. No one is compelling the Catholic Church, or Sarah Palin's wackjob evangelical church, to marry same-sex couples. It's their right not to. Just as it's the right of Reform Judaism, Recontructionist Judaism, the UCC church, the Unitarian church, and other religious branches to perform same-sex marriage. None of this has anything to do with the legal, civil right which is currently being denied to couples who happen to have the same genitalia. And yes, it's still being denied in Massachusetts and California, because it's being denied at the federal level.


I don't care what you do in your bedroom... I am not in favor of changing the definition of marraige

[MannyIsGod]

I don't want to get sidetracked here, but I only dislike what the judiciary does in this area precisely because I don't think it's their job. And when the government recognizes a relationship like marriage and accords it certain rights and responsibilities, it isn't the government's duty to apply it "equally"--or at least in the sense that most people understand the word. The government's duty is to apply it without violating equal protection. That's a little different. You don't have to let 10 year olds get married. Right?



That's beside the point. Look, some people opposed to gay marriage are hateful bigots, but some aren't. I think it's unfair how some supporters of gay marriage can just dismiss opponents as bigoted idiots who can fuck themselves.

The judiciary's job - or one of their jobs - is to ensure that the law of the land is abiding with the state (or federal) constitutions. When lower laws violate those documents, the judiciary is obligated to act; whether or not it has to do with marriage is irrelevant. This is a matter of fact and not opinion.

Obviously not everyone opposing gay marriage is a bigot. That should go without saying.

[FromWayDowntown]

I still don't see why government has to be involved in marriage at all.

I think there have to be some laws concerning marriage to ensure that the sort of slippery slope arguments that implausible has set out are avoided. It probably is a worthwhile thing to ensure that adults aren't marrying young children or to prohibit people who are blood relatives from marrying one another.

[implacable44]

Equating homosexual marriage with pedophilia is a sure sign of a bigot.

or dropping attacks against Christians or people with a different moral compass than you is a sure sign of a bigot ....

[FromWayDowntown]

I don't want to get sidetracked here, but I only dislike what the judiciary does in this area precisely because I don't think it's their job. And when the government recognizes a relationship like marriage and accords it certain rights and responsibilities, it isn't the government's duty to apply it "equally"--or at least in the sense that most people understand the word. The government's duty is to apply it without violating equal protection. That's a little different. You don't have to let 10 year olds get married. Right?

Sure. What important governmental interest is served by such gender-based discrimination?

[implacable44]

I think there have to be some laws concerning marriage to ensure that the sort of slippery slope arguments that implausible has set out are avoided. It probably is a worthwhile thing to ensure that adults aren't marrying young children or to prohibit people who are blood relatives from marrying one another.

as soon as you open the doors -- everyone will be crying discriination for their particular fetish -- little boy -- animals - book drelatives - little girls and the list goes on and on and on

[doobs]

The judiciary's job - or one of their jobs - is to ensure that the law of the land is abiding with the state (or federal) constitutions. When lower laws violate those documents, the judiciary is obligated to act; whether or not it has to do with marriage is irrelevant. This is a matter of fact and not opinion.

Obviously not everyone opposing gay marriage is a bigot. That should go without saying.

The judiciary's job is interpret the law. And yes, the judiciary is obligated to act from time to time. But what you said doesn't change anything. From Brown v. Board of Education, to Roe v. Wade, to Lawrence v. Texas, the judiciary has been "making it up as it goes along" when it comes to Equal Protection or Substantive Due Process. It's amazing, really, when you read the text of the 14th Amendment and realize the body of constitutional law that has resulted from those simple, vague words. The judiciary is a political body now, and it makes me sick.

[FromWayDowntown]

as soon as you open the doors -- everyone will be crying discriination for their particular fetish -- little boy -- animals - book drelatives - little girls and the list goes on and on and on

Why doesn't defining marriage as an institution between a man and a woman do exactly the same thing? There's nothing, short of some arbitrary attachment to history and tradition and a deep-seeded distaste for homosexuals, to support that kind of leap.

[MannyIsGod]

The judiciary's job is interpret the law. And yes, the judiciary is obligated to act from time to time. But what you said doesn't change anything. From Brown v. Board of Education, to Roe v. Wade, to Lawrence v. Texas, the judiciary has been "making it up as it goes along" when it comes to Equal Protection or Substantive Due Process. It's amazing, really, when you read the text of the 14th Amendment and realize the body of constitutional law that has resulted from those simple, vague words. The judiciary is a political body now, and it makes me sick.

NOW? The judiciary has always been political. Its completely unreasonable to expect the constitution to lay out what to do in every single possible case. They have to interpret meanings. Its just the way things are.

I understand if you don't like it even if I don't necessarily agree with it, but I don't understand the romanticizing of a mythical judiciary who didn't have to do the things today's judges have to do or interpret the laws the best they can. They've always been political in that sense and there's a reason for their life long appointments.

[FromWayDowntown]

The judiciary's job is interpret the law. And yes, the judiciary is obligated to act from time to time. But what you said doesn't change anything. From Brown v. Board of Education, to Roe v. Wade, to Lawrence v. Texas, the judiciary has been "making it up as it goes along" when it comes to Equal Protection or Substantive Due Process. It's amazing, really, when you read the text of the 14th Amendment and realize the body of constitutional law that has resulted from those simple, vague words. The judiciary is a political body now, and it makes me sick.

So when the lawmakers in a state doesn't afford equal protection of the laws to its citizens, where would you suggest that the disenfranchised citizens turn?

It's not as if the courts are making equal protection cases out of wholecloth. There is a constitutional provision that explicitly says that citizens of the states shall be afforded equal protection of the law. When the families of children in Kansas brought their case in Brown, it was abundantly clear that there was no such thing as separate but equal facilities for education in that state (and many others). The families challenged the law in courts -- most of which rejected their contentions. The Supreme Court, however, recognized that if equal protection was to mean anything, it couldn't mean separate but unequal. It also decided, based on existing social science data, that there was no way to ensure separate but equal anything. As such, it concluded that the Kansas law violated the Equal Protection Clause and struck it down. If the Court hadn't decided that case, we might still live in a world where public education is provided separately and unequally, which strip the meaning away from the Equal Protection Clause. Nothing about Brown is making it up anymore than Plessy or Strauder or Wick Yo before it was "making it up" as the Court went along

Personally, I don't think that there can be an equal protection jurisprudence without a coordinate recognition of the fact that people have substantive due process rights.

[romad_20]

as soon as you open the doors -- everyone will be crying discriination for their particular fetish -- little boy -- animals - book drelatives - little girls and the list goes on and on and on

Little boys, animals, and little girls are not consenting adults. How hard is this to understand? :huh

[Spurminator]

I think there have to be some laws concerning marriage to ensure that the sort of slippery slope arguments that implausible has set out are avoided. It probably is a worthwhile thing to ensure that adults aren't marrying young children or to prohibit people who are blood relatives from marrying one another.

I think those laws would have more to do with the sexual nature of the relationship than the idea of simply calling a child, or your daughter, your "wife," etc.

[MannyIsGod]

So when the lawmakers in a state doesn't afford equal protection of the laws to its citizens, where would you suggest that the disenfranchised citizens turn?

It's not as if the courts are making equal protection cases out of wholecloth. There is a constitutional provision that explicitly says that citizens of the states shall be afforded equal protection of the law. When the families of children in Kansas brought their case in Brown, it was abundantly clear that there was no such thing as separate but equal facilities for education in that state (and many others). The families challenged the law in courts -- most of which rejected their contentions. The Supreme Court, however, recognized that if equal protection was to mean anything, it couldn't mean separate but unequal. It also decided, based on existing social science data, that there was no way to ensure separate but equal anything. As such, it concluded that the Kansas law violated the Equal Protection Clause and struck it down. If the Court hadn't decided that case, we might still live in a world where public education is provided separately and unequally, which strip the meaning away from the Equal Protection Clause.

Personally, I don't think that there can be an equal protection jurisprudence without a coordinate recognition of the fact that people have substantive due process rights.

This is what happens when you get so much talk of "legislating for the bench". It seems that every time someone sees a ruling they disagree with they assume the judge was working with a specific agenda and combing the laws to find a way to rule the way they wish to achieve their goal.

I guess in this sense I'm annoyed that the judiciary has been politicized too. But lets be clear on who is playing politics here because its not the judiciary.

[MannyIsGod]

Little boys, animals, and little girls are not consenting adults. How hard is this to understand? :huh

Its not about understanding, its about making an indefensible position defensible.

[implacable44]

Little boys, animals, and little girls are not consenting adults. How hard is this to understand? :huh

how hard is what to understand ? gays want marraige rights and cry discrimination and prejudice -- that their civil liberties are being denied... what is to stop NMBLA folks from doing the same ? Being that their desire is natural and they were "born" that way ?

On a side not -- how come the civil liberties of the Christian are never defended?

[doobs]

NOW? The judiciary has always been political. Its completely unreasonable to expect the constitution to lay out what to do in every single possible case. They have to interpret meanings. Its just the way things are.

I understand if you don't like it even if I don't necessarily agree with it, but I don't understand the romanticizing of a mythical judiciary who didn't have to do the things today's judges have to do or interpret the laws the best they can. They've always been political in that sense and there's a reason for their life long appointments.

The judiciary has not always been political, or at least not the extent they are today. The executive and the legislative branches are the political branches. The judiciary is supposed to be different. They have lifelong appointments precisely because they're not political--that is, they're not accountable to the people.

There's a huge difference between making law and interpreting law. If Congress passed a law allowing for slavery, the judiciary would have a proper role in striking down the legislation because such a law clearly violates an unambiguous constitutional provision. But when states outlaw abortion, the Supreme Court invents a quasi-fundamental right to abortion for women, with basically no textual justification? Looks, the politicized judiciary is a recent phenomenon in America--you can trace it to the mid-twentieth century. For our first 150 years, the judiciary was remarkably restrained.

[FromWayDowntown]

This is what happens when you get so much talk of "legislating for the bench". It seems that every time someone sees a ruling they disagree with they assume the judge was working with a specific agenda and combing the laws to find a way to rule the way they wish to achieve their goal.

I guess in this sense I'm annoyed that the judiciary has been politicized too. But lets be clear on who is playing politics here because its not the judiciary.

Oh, I think political and social philosophies have something to do with how these cases are decided -- particularly at the Supreme Court level (Bush v. Gore, anyone?). But I absolutely agree with you that "legislating from the bench" has to be about the most inane term I've ever heard. If a Court rules as you would like it to, it's strictly applying the law; if a Court rules against the position you would prefer, it's going out of its way to read the law in a manner that the law was never intended to be applied. It's all utter nonsense.

[MannyIsGod]

how hard is what to understand ? gays want marraige rights and cry discrimination and prejudice -- that their civil liberties are being denied... what is to stop NMBLA folks from doing the same ? Being that their desire is natural and they were "born" that way ?

On a side not -- how come the civil liberties of the Christian are never defended?

First of all, the argument for homosexual marriage has nothing to do with whether or not they were born that way or if it is natural. You keep bringing it up and I'd love to see a court ruling in favor of gay marriage that is based on the naturalness of homosexuality. You miss the whole point.

Second of all, children can't marry because it takes a consenting adult. Thats whats going to stop NMBLA.

and :lol @ your implication of persecuted Christians. Why are they never defended? Lets deal with specifics, where exactly are they under attack?

[MannyIsGod]

The judiciary has not always been political, or at least not the extent they are today. The executive and the legislative branches are the political branches. The judiciary is supposed to be different. They have lifelong appointments precisely because they're not political--that is, they're not accountable to the people.

There's a huge difference between making law and interpreting law. If Congress passed a law allowing for slavery, the judiciary would have a proper role in striking down the legislation because such a law clearly violates an unambiguous constitutional provision. But when states outlaw abortion, the Supreme Court invents a quasi-fundamental right to abortion for women, with basically no textual justification? Looks, the politicized judiciary is a recent phenomenon in America--you can trace it to the mid-twentieth century. For our first 150 years, the judiciary was remarkably restrained.

The courts do not invent anything. A case is argued in front of them and then they courts decided the merrit of said case. Courts do not "invent rights". They rule because the rights are there. I think there's a severe lack of understanding from you in just how the court system works.

[FromWayDowntown]

The judiciary has not always been political, or at least not the extent they are today. The executive and the legislative branches are the political branches. The judiciary is supposed to be different. They have lifelong appointments precisely because they're not political--that is, they're not accountable to the people.

So when the people believe they've been denied equal protection of the law by the political branches in some novel way that isn't expressly covered by the text of the Constitution, where is their recourse -- the very political branches that have denied them that right?


There's a huge difference between making law and interpreting law. If Congress passed a law allowing for slavery, the judiciary would have a proper role in striking down the legislation because such a law clearly violates an unambiguous constitutional provision. But when states outlaw abortion, the Supreme Court invents a quasi-fundamental right to abortion for women, with basically no textual justification? Looks, the politicized judiciary is a recent phenomenon in America--you can trace it to the mid-twentieth century. For our first 150 years, the judiciary was remarkably restrained.

I think you're naive to think that a politically motivated judiciary is some sort of modern development in the law. You might read Marbury v. Madison, for instance.

[romad_20]

how hard is what to understand ? gays want marraige rights and cry discrimination and prejudice -- that their civil liberties are being denied... what is to stop NMBLA folks from doing the same ? Being that their desire is natural and they were "born" that way ?

On a side not -- how come the civil liberties of the Christian are never defended?

Gays want to have civil liberties because of the legal implications of marriage. I said earlier in the thread there are issues of home ownership, hospital visitation, insurance polices among other things. They also want to validate their relationship. If a religion was created for just gay people and they wanted to marry what ground would you have to stand on then?

What Christian civil liberties are being denied? Who is keeping Christians from doing anything except trying to legislate their morals on others that don't share their views.

[doobs]

The courts do not invent anything. A case is argued in front of them and then they courts decided the merrit of said case. Courts do not "invent rights". They rule because the rights are there. I think there's a severe lack of understanding from you in just how the court system works.

Are you a lawyer?

[doobs]

I think you're naive to think that a politically motivated judiciary is some sort of modern development in the law. You might read Marbury v. Madison, for instance.

Marbury v. Madison is good constitutional law. A clear constitutional provision had been violated. That's not what I'm talking about. In fact, Marbury v. Madison is textbook of what courts should be doing.

Are you a lawyer?

[implacable44]

Courts / judges interpret and based on their interpretation laws are estasblished. The "rights" are there because Judge X said they are there.

[MannyIsGod]

So when the people believe they've been denied equal protection of the law by the political branches in some novel way that isn't expressly covered by the text of the Constitution, where is their recourse -- the very political branches that have denied them that right?



I think you're naive to think that a politically motivated judiciary is some sort of modern development in the law. You might read Marbury v. Madison, for instance.

Exactly. The brilliance of the constitution is in how flexible of a document it is and thats why the rulings that have taken place are completely justified. A more rigid document would not have survived to be as completely relevant today as it was when it was initially drafted. This was not done by accident.

[romad_20]

Marbury v. Madison is good constitutional law. A clear constitutional provision had been violated. That's not what I'm talking about. In fact, Marbury v. Madison is textbook of what courts should be doing.

Are you a lawyer?


I do believe he is.

[MannyIsGod]

Are you a lawyer?

No - I just play one on the internet :lol

[MannyIsGod]

And yeah, FWDT is a lawyer.

[doobs]

And yeah, FWDT is a lawyer.

I am, too, and I think he's wrong about Marbury v. Madison. I'm an appellate lawyer, in fact, so constitutional law is something I actually think about on a daily basis.

[MannyIsGod]

I still say I know more about the law than you!!!!

I kid, I was 90% sure you were going to say that when you asked if I was a lawyer. Its always good to have people like yourself posting here even if I don't understand how you've come to your viewpoints.

[doobs]

I still say I know more about the law than you!!!!

I kid, I was 90% sure you were going to say that when you asked if I was a lawyer. Its always good to have people like yourself posting here even if I don't understand how you've come to your viewpoints.

But it's not good to tell someone that they lack understanding or are naive, though. Especially when they actually understand the issues better than you do. I'm serious. I appreciate your insight, but it's not a lawyer's insight, it's a layman's insight. It's almost necessarily a political insight. I've been making a legal argument this whole time. Just sayin'.

[MannyIsGod]

Nah you're right. It was a pretty stupid statement by me.

[implacable44]

the judiciary is VERY political and it is obscene to believe otherwise

[Findog]

Retard. So those with different opinions then yours should go f- themselves ?

People who would discriminate and deny people their civil rights can go fuck themselves, yes.



Marraige = Man and a woman. - you change the definition to suit all of you "secular progressives" and where does it stop ? Man and boy ? etc.. etc.. but then - none of you folks believe in the slippery slope


I support the ability of gays in committed relationships to qualify for health benefits under the partner's insurance plan, to have hospital visitation rights, to be able to pass on property in their inheritance wills just like married heterosexual couples. Call it "civil unions" or "marriage," I just don't give a fuck. Why do you support discrimination? Why do you equate homosexuality with pedophilia? You've got to be the dumbest poster in the political forum, even dumber than whottt and AggieHoopsFan.

[Findog]

how hard is what to understand ? gays want marraige rights and cry discrimination and prejudice -- that their civil liberties are being denied... what is to stop NMBLA folks from doing the same ? Being that their desire is natural and they were "born" that way ?

Oh the dumb! It burns! It burns!

Just to spell it out for you: Homosexuality is not a crime. Pedophilia is. That you seem to equate the two is sad.

[Findog]

Little boys, animals, and little girls are not consenting adults. How hard is this to understand? :huh

It's very hard if you're a freeptard.

[implacable44]

Oh the dumb! It burns! It burns!

Just to spell it out for you: Homosexuality is not a crime. Pedophilia is. That you seem to equate the two is sad.

its a crime right now.. what will happen when we adopt Sharia law like GB ? when the ACLU decides to defend NMBLA and their civil liberties ? you know -- like someone said earlier - stay out of my bedroom

[romad_20]

its a crime right now.. what will happen when we adopt Sharia law like GB ? when the ACLU decides to defend NMBLA and their civil liberties ? you know -- like someone said earlier - stay out of my bedroom

As far as I know, GB doesn't have the US Constitution as its law.

Keywords for you to remember CONSENTING ADULTS. Your NMBLA argument is out the window.

[implacable44]

no it isnt out the window. IT has come up -- it will come up again and again and again.

[romad_20]

no it isnt out the window. IT has come up -- it will come up again and again and again.

Yes it is. Marriage or civil union would be a contract, right? Can children enter into contracts?

[implacable44]

dude -- the law will be challenged again and again and again because someone civil liberties are being denied - someone's rights -

[implacable44]

Well, first of all dont ask a question and then give the answer to that question with your own shallow mind.

Here are my reasons it will affect me negatively.

1. It wont stop with marriage. They are already trying to force religious groups to accept their moral indecency.

2. Once it is accepted by the law, the tv and radio waves will be flooded with gay propaganda.

3. It gives them a legal right to adopt children.

4. Any employer that opposes this choice of lifestyle can be sued in court.

5. Its no longer in the bedroom, its right in our fucking face.

Now, I remember being in the 9th grade and the counselor gave me Sex Ed. for my third period. My parents had no problem with that and neither did I. I remember Mrs. Green teaching us about the different types of birth control and contraceptives to use. She explained in detail about the different types of sex acts such as kissing, finger banging/fondling, breast sucking, and then finally entercourse. I loved that teacher for the way she explained entercourse because she gave real life stories of how her and her husband had sex.

What she didnt mention was all the other lewd acts of sex that people choose to do in the privacy of their bedroom. Eating pussy, sucking dick and balls, licking ass, fucking in the ass, threesomes, gangbangs, trains, golden showers, allowing someone to shit on your face, allowing someone to regurgitate and you eat it, snowballing, and some of you bastards even love sex with animals...:wow

Now, supergirl, Im sure you feel that just because you choose to do these things in the privacy of your bedroom then it should be no problem. But what if that teacher had permission to teach those 9th graders some of those fetishes? As a parent, would you want your children learning some of those acts in school? I know my parents would have taken me out of school and home schooled me. The same precausion should be taken against homosexuality!!! Not to mention that homosexuality is worse than any of the acts that I mentioned above. It should be against the law for men to fuck each other. I dont give two cents about the bible so this is not a biblical thing, its a common sense thing. You do know that men shouldnt fuck each other in the ass, right supergirl?

A wise man once told me that you can sell people shit on a stick... literally. Ive lived long enough to realize that there is not one thing that people will not do... literally.

Having said all that, Im voting yes on this prop because there are no restrictions to it. I believe in equality under the law for all, but not for those who choose to live an abnormal life. You see... thats the difference between gays and blacks (for those of you that like to compare the two). I would rather give gays a tax credit than to legitimize their abnormal way of life in the name of REVENUE for my state.

the biggest issue being #1 on that list.. as any religious group who opposes it will be sued -lose their tax status and be a hate group.

nice description of various sex acts... people don't actually do that stuff towards the end of your list do they ?

[romad_20]

What she didnt mention was all the other lewd acts of sex that people choose to do in the privacy of their bedroom. Eating pussy, sucking dick and balls, licking ass, fucking in the ass, threesomes, gangbangs, trains, golden showers, allowing someone to shit on your face, allowing someone to regurgitate and you eat it, snowballing, and some of you bastards even love sex with animals...

:lol:lmao I just burst into laughter after reading this

[romad_20]

Can I ask where religious groups are being made to accept gay marriage?

44, are you saying that if we allow gays to have a legal union that children will be able to enter into contracts?

[implacable44]

Can I ask where religious groups are being made to accept gay marriage?

44, are you saying that if we allow gays to have a legal union that children will be able to enter into contracts?

No -- I didn't say that. It is the first step towards heading that way --it opens the door. but then you libtards don't believe in the slippery slope..

Religious groups that oppose gay marraige will be hate groups - they will be sued and lost their tax status - - but then you dont believe in the slope and are too short sighted to see where things might lead or what might evolve.

[Shastafarian]

No -- I didn't say that. It is the first step towards heading that way --it opens the door. but then you libtards don't believe in the slippery slope..

Religious groups that oppose gay marraige will be hate groups - they will be sued and lost their tax status - - but then you dont believe in the slope and are too short sighted to see where things might lead or what might evolve.

I wanna go marry a farm animal. It's ok because there was a slippery slope created when it was made legal for two humans to get married. I like to call that slippery slope Mt. Everest.

[romad_20]

No -- I didn't say that. It is the first step towards heading that way --it opens the door. but then you libtards don't believe in the slippery slope..

Religious groups that oppose gay marraige will be hate groups - they will be sued and lost their tax status - - but then you dont believe in the slope and are too short sighted to see where things might lead or what might evolve.


Listen dumbfuck, I'm not a libtard and you still haven't explained yourself. All I here is slippery slope (code word for I don't know but its going to get worse, I swear)

The second paragraph is straight bullshit.

[implacable44]

Listen dumbfuck, I'm not a libtard and you still haven't explained yourself. All I here is slippery slope (code word for I don't know but its going to get worse, I swear)

The second paragraph is straight bullshit.

hey anus - I can't help you develop a sense of what this decision or that decision might lead to. You are short sighted.

the 2nd is straight BS ? If the law is to recognize same-sex marraige -- and a church preaches it as sin and condemns it - you can bet -- shortly thereafter a lawsuit will be brought on that organization's tax exempt status as either "hate speech" or politics from the pulpit.

[Shastafarian]

hey anus - I can't help you develop a sense of what this decision or that decision might lead to. You are short sighted.

the 2nd is straight BS ? If the law is to recognize same-sex marraige -- and a church preaches it as sin and condemns it - you can bet -- shortly thereafter a lawsuit will be brought on that organization's tax exempt status as either "hate speech" or politics from the pulpit.

Do you have a crystal ball or are you just Nostradamus reincarnate?

[FromWayDowntown]

I wanna go marry a farm animal. It's ok because there was a slippery slope created when it was made legal for two humans to get married. I like to call that slippery slope Mt. Everest.

Precisely. Why is it that two men getting married augers the fall of society by opening the door to all kinds of relationships, but a man and a woman getting married has no similar effect? The distinction is totally partisan and entirely doctrinal at that point -- it has no real basis in actual logic; it entirely boils down to a religious and traditional view of the latter relationship being palatable and the former being an abomination.

[Bartleby]

hey anus - I can't help you develop a sense of what this decision or that decision might lead to. You are short sighted.


translation: I can't prove it or back it up. I'm just talking out my ass.


the 2nd is straight BS ? If the law is to recognize same-sex marraige -- and a church preaches it as sin and condemns it - you can bet -- shortly thereafter a lawsuit will be brought on that organization's tax exempt status as either "hate speech" or politics from the pulpit.

Past examples?

[Findog]

its a crime right now.. what will happen when we adopt Sharia law like GB ? when the ACLU decides to defend NMBLA and their civil liberties ? you know -- like someone said earlier - stay out of my bedroom

Sorry, but there's no helping you here. Pedophilia is an entirely different realm than what consenting adults do. There's no slippery slope. NAMBLA isn't even around anymore. Pedophiles have First Amendment rights, and those rights should be defended, no matter how unpopular and distasteful. I would hope the ACLU defends their First Amendment rights vigorously. That said, child pornography is not protected speech, and molestation is a crime.

I feel like I'm playing T-Ball.

[KenMcCoy]

I wanna go marry a farm animal.

FINALLY!!! Something Shastafarian and I agree on!!!

[Findog]

Sorry, but there's no way gays can hurt the institution of marriage anymore than Britney Spears and Madonna have.

[Shastafarian]

FINALLY!!! Something Shastafarian and I agree on!!!

Did you go to Texas A&M?

[implacable44]

Sorry, but there's no helping you here. Pedophilia is an entirely different realm than what consenting adults do. There's no slippery slope. NAMBLA isn't even around anymore. Pedophiles have First Amendment rights, and those rights should be defended, no matter how unpopular and distasteful. I would hope the ACLU defends their First Amendment rights vigorously. That said, child pornography is not protected speech, and molestation is a crime.

I feel like I'm playing T-Ball.

No helping me where? I guess we will know once or if the law changes to include same-sex and then we will see the lawsuits pour in from there in attempts to expand the definition or make it all inclusive.

NAMBLA isn't around anymore ? Check again ... that would be news to NAMBLA

[implacable44]

translation: I can't prove it or back it up. I'm just talking out my ass.



Past examples?

let me get this straight... you want past examples on something that hasn't happened yet ?

[romad_20]

http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/imageBank/cache/o/odd_e_b531446b815d841fa57ff7ac29559923.jpg

If this didn't kill marriage nothing will.

[Bartleby]

let me get this straight... you want past examples on something that hasn't happened yet ?

No, past examples of churches losing their tax exempt status due to lawsuits related to hate speech or politics from the pulpit.

[Shastafarian]

let me get this straight... you want past examples on something that hasn't happened yet ?

You really suck at arguing your points.

[Spurminator]

No helping me where? I guess we will know once or if the law changes to include same-sex and then we will see the lawsuits pour in from there in attempts to expand the definition or make it all inclusive.


Do you have any objection to gay marriage other than your assertion that it is a step closer to legalized pedophilia? What are some examples of current U.S. laws that are in place solely to protect against abuse beyond what is actually prohibited under that law?

[romad_20]

let me get this straight... you want past examples on something that hasn't happened yet ?


Well, you're so damn sure of what will happen, we're trying to be converted by the overwhelming precedent that has convinced you.

You act as if they will have gay people having sex in public and children will have to watch if they are allowed to have legal civil union. Gay people are not going away, no matter what your feelings are. One day they are going to be able to get married

Still, I’ll ask again, if gay civil unions are made legal will children be able to enter into a legal contract?

[implacable44]

No, past examples of churches losing their tax exempt status due to lawsuits related to hate speech or politics from the pulpit.

google it dude -- there are lots of stories -- or you can just look up the tax code and have someone interpret it for you - :

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

page 5 of the code to save you some time.

[FromWayDowntown]

Marbury v. Madison is good constitutional law. A clear constitutional provision had been violated. That's not what I'm talking about. In fact, Marbury v. Madison is textbook of what courts should be doing.

Are you a lawyer?

My education and experience aside, I would respectfully disagree with you both about the textual certainty of Marbury -- notwithstanding its nearly-universal acceptance as an appropriate principle -- and, more significantly, about its use as proof of political motivation in judicial action (which was my real point to begin with).

Marshall's view of judicial review stemmed from his belief that the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with the Constitution, that the Constitution should be deemed superior to the legislation (arguably, an application of the Supremacy Clause), and that the act could not stand if it violated the Constitution. Clearly that approach works -- though it does seem that you're suggesting that where the conflict is even slightly more ambiguous, courts act inappropriately to strike down legislation. But Marshall's ultimate decision -- for that matter, his involvement in the case at all -- had clear political motivation. After all, it was Marshall's duty to deliver Marbury's commission and Marshall had failed to accomplish that task. When President Adams (who had been Marshall's boss) was succeeded by President Jefferson, and competing political philosophies were at stake in terms of ensuring Marbury's service as a Justice of the Peace, the legal question really boiled down to whether Adams' act was voided by Marshall's failure. Clearly, Marshall desired that Marbury obtain his commission and the decision in the mandamus proceeding against Madison saw to it that the desire was fulfilled (and that the competing political views of President Jefferson were undermined, to some small extent).

Accordingly, I'd vehemently disagree with your view that politically-motivated decisional law is somehow only a modern phenomenon.

Even if Marbury lacked any political motivation, I can't more fundamentally disagree with the notion that politically-motivated decision making by courts is either: (1) somehow demonstrative of "judicial activism"; or (2) a 20th century phenomenon. What passes as judicial activism at this point is largely nonsense, in my estimation. Where a legislative or executive body makes a policy judgment that is violative of the Constitution, either expressly or in terms of how that document is commonly-understood, the role of the Courts (as Marshall noted in Marbury) is to strike down that legislation. That's not making policy and it's not an infringement upon the rule-making powers of the executive or legislative branches -- it's the functional application of the checks and balances that our Constitution ensures (particularly, as Marshall explained those things to apply to the judiciary).

[implacable44]

Well, you're so damn sure of what will happen, we're trying to be converted by the overwhelming precedent that has convinced you.

You act as if they will have gay people having sex in public and children will have to watch if they are allowed to have legal civil union. Gay people are not going away, no matter what your feelings are. One day they are going to be able to get married

Still, I’ll ask again, if gay civil unions are made legal will children be able to enter into a legal contract?

i dont act s if gay or straight people will have sex in public or any of those other acts dude listed above...

if the definition of marraige is altered - it will open the door for lawsuits galore -- one of which will be joe bob the 50 year old - wants to be married to stevie the 11 year old kid. - -yes I assure you that will happen along with many other lawsuits... IMO

[Spurminator]

If we let women vote, soon illegal immigrants and children will want to vote too.

[Shastafarian]

i dont act s if gay or straight people will have sex in public or any of those other acts dude listed above...

if the definition of marraige is altered - it will open the door for lawsuits galore -- one of which will be joe bob the 50 year old - wants to be married to stevie the 11 year old kid. - -yes I assure you that will happen along with many other lawsuits... IMO

:lol

What's stopping that from happening now with an 11 year old girl? I'm really interested to see how you answer this one.

[implacable44]

If we let women vote, soon illegal immigrants and children will want to vote too.

they already vote -- and dead people and cartoon characters too -- don't you keep up with Acorn ?

[Spurminator]

This wouldn't even be an issue if we hadn't decided to let whites and negros intermarry.

[Trainwreck2100]

If we let women vote, soon illegal immigrants and children will want to vote too.

after women got the vote, the voting age got dropped so yes

[Spurminator]

Gays are extremely proactive

They're also fantastic dressers.

[Trainwreck2100]

Have you even bothered to read the constitution?

A church that took out newspaper ads criticizing President Bill Clinton in 1992 lost its federal tax exemption.

Gays are extremely proactive and will stop at nothing to use the law to force people to accept their abnormal way of life. Marriage is the chosen platform for gays to use the law to force people to view their behavior as normal. Gay people dont give a shit about a marriage certificate. The defeat of this prop is just a way to use the law to force people to accept their chosen lifestyle.

Its not their fault they are not supposed to reproduce.

[romad_20]

they already vote -- and dead people and cartoon characters too -- don't you keep up with Acorn ?

:rolleyes
Great point. Way to stay on topic.


A church that took out newspaper ads criticizing President Bill Clinton in 1992 lost its federal tax exemption.


Did they use tax-exempt money to play politics? Hmmm and that would be who's fault? Theirs

[Spurminator]

Sure, thats if you like men that dress like women. Are you gay?

What if I am, bitch?

[Spurminator]

Sure, thats if you like men that dress like women.

I don't even know where to begin with this.

[Trainwreck2100]

Also if you are for gay marriage then you are also for sterile siblings getting married, cause if not you are a hypocrite.

The reasoning for this being the only way to justify outlawing sibling marriages is because their kids will grow up retarded. But if one is sterile, then there is no real legitimate reason to not let them marry.

:toast

[Spurminator]

No problem, I suppose you can't be expected to know my sexuality because you can't see if I'm wearing men's or women's clothing.

[DarkReign]

2 Unapologetic Bigots and a Thread.

Goddamn, I love this site.

[DarkReign]

My reason for asking was not to make fun of, or bash you. I wanted to make a point thats all. This Bill is a big deal for both sides, but I find it strange that not one gay person will come out and admit that they are Gay and give their reasons as to why this Bill should be defeated.


When you say "come out and admit they are gay", do you mean here at ST?

[Spurminator]

:lmao

[doobs]

Also if you are for gay marriage then you are also for sterile siblings getting married, cause if not you are a hypocrite.

The reasoning for this being the only way to justify outlawing sibling marriages is because their kids will grow up retarded. But if one is sterile, then there is no real legitimate reason to not let them marry.

:toast

This is an interesting thing to say. I was trying to make a similar point earlier. Any time the state excludes some people from marriage, the state must furnish some justification. Presently, under the federal constitution, forbidding polygamy, incest, and gay marriage are all subject to rational basis review--in essence, the state just needs SOME reason that isn't absolutely nutty. With sterile siblings, there's no compelling reason like birth defects to justify exclusion. It's just gross.

I am for gay marriage. I am against sterile siblings marrying. You know why? Because it's gross, that's why. Call me a bigot.

I disagree with your "hypocrite" statement, though.

[DarkReign]

I am for gay marriage.

Yaaaaaaay!


I am against sterile siblings marrying. You know why? Because it's gross, that's why. Call me a bigot.

Boooooooo!


I disagree with your "hypocrite" statement, though.

Um...

Kind oooooooooof!

[Spurminator]

Count me as undecided on sterile siblings who want to marry. All two examples in the history of human civilization.

[doobs]

Count me as undecided on sterile siblings who want to marry. All two examples in the history of human civilization.

What about adopted siblings getting married? It's illegal in Texas.

[romad_20]

What about adopted siblings getting married? It's illegal in Texas.


What about adopted, gay, albino siblings?

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2008-02-06-scanners.jpg

[Trainwreck2100]

Count me as undecided on sterile siblings who want to marry. All two examples in the history of human civilization.

There are matters of insurance. If your sibling had a disease and no insurance then another sibling who maybe had it could "marry" them to give them their benefits. But not actually live that married lifestyle.

[romad_20]

There are matters of insurance. If your sibling had a disease and no insurance then another sibling who maybe had it could "marry" them to give them their benefits. But not actually live that married lifestyle.

Good point. That may be a better route to argue against gay marriage than the destruction of the institution of marriage.

[romad_20]

"You cant marry more than one woman, but you can go marry a man"...lol.

Who the hell wants to marry more than one woman? I say go for it if you got the balls :lol

[doobs]

Who the hell wants to marry more than one woman? I say go for it if you got the balls :lol

Are they really hot with low self-esteem?

[romad_20]

Are they really hot with low self-esteem?


Does it matter? Maybe you got the money and patience? Not me. Just remember they won't be hot when they're 45 and taking equal amounts out of your ass for alimony. :lol

[CuckingFunt]

My reason for asking was not to make fun of, or bash you. I wanted to make a point thats all. This Bill is a big deal for both sides, but I find it strange that not one gay person will come out and admit that they are Gay and give their reasons as to why this Bill should be defeated.

I'm openly bisexual and was one of the first people to post in this thread.

I don't think I count, though, since all of your vitriol seems to be squarely aimed at gay men. In a very "someone once tickled me in the ass and I liked it more than I should have" way.

[Shastafarian]

I'm openly bisexual and was one of the first people to post in this thread.


I refuse to believe this until you provide photo evidence...


You're a woman right?

[FromWayDowntown]

No you count alright...:lol, And Im not bitter at all. Like I said before, what people do in their own bedroom is their business, but I have a problem when its forced down my throat... no pun intended.

Nobody's making you marry a guy (if you're a guy). Nobody's making you think it's a better choice to marry a guy (if you're a guy). What people are saying is that if government is going to give certain rights to certain people, it shouldn't be okay to deny those same rights to others just because they want to marry someone of the same sex. You won't even have to associate with those people -- believe it or not.

[PixelPusher]

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/children-and-ma.html

A reader writes:

My 7 year old just learned about gay marriage. Not form his school or teacher, but by the Yes on Prop 8 ad on radio while carpooling to school. He asked me about it and I gave an age appropriate answer. I have no doubt that many other kids will learn about the gay marriage thanks to prop 8 ads. I hope the theocrats realize the irony ...

Irony isn't their strong point.

[CuckingFunt]

No you count alright...:lol, And Im not bitter at all. Like I said before, what people do in their own bedroom is their business, but I have a problem when its forced down my throat... no pun intended.

Kind of like the way heterosexuality is forced down everyone else's throat?

[CuckingFunt]

They want the whole stigma of being abominations removed.

How dare they!

[CuckingFunt]

Not the same thing. There was never a time when heterosexuals hid their sexual behavior, and came out of the closet and expected people to just accept it as normal.

The only difference is the fact that someone, somewhere, arbitrarily decided that one lifestyle was more appropriate than the other. "Normal" is social construct, not biological fact.

[Anti.Hero]

Kind of like the way heterosexuality is forced down everyone else's throat?

It's bullshit that humans didn't evolve to be capable of asexual reproduction!

How biased!

Mother Nature you bigoted bitch!

[Tully365]

Hilarious. I like the reference in the video to the parents in San Francisco who don't want their children exposed to homosexuality. What happened? Those parents couldn't find jobs in Key West, Greenwich Village, or Palm Springs?! Believe me, if you live in S.F., your children are going to find out about gay people.

[CuckingFunt]

It's bullshit that humans didn't evolve to be capable of asexual reproduction!

How biased!

But we have evolved to be capable of non-reproductive sexuality. Unless you're planning on starting a family every time you fuck, don't even give me the reproduction bullshit.


Mother Nature you bigoted bitch!

I'm bigoted?

[Anti.Hero]

nah, Mother Nature.

[CuckingFunt]

nah, Mother Nature.


"Normal" is social construct, not biological fact.

[timvp]

Did CuckingFunt just admit to being Mother Nature?

Does this mean I was right when I had female in the SpursTalk pool?

[CuckingFunt]

Did CuckingFunt just admit to being Mother Nature?

No. Just thought I saw a comma where there wasn't one and read that statement wrong.

My bad, and all that rot.

[timvp]

:depressed

[CuckingFunt]

:depressed

You were/are still correct in the gender pool, but proof has not yet been provided.

[CuckingFunt]

There is no gay gene, just people submitting to their lower nature. I guess savages have an argument too? How about canabolism? Necrophilia anyone?

According to you, "The only difference is the fact that someone, somewhere, arbitrarily decided that one lifestyle was more appropriate than the other."

The continued comparison of a loving relationship between two adults to sexual deviancy and/or predatory power relationships is horribly inaccurate, and more than a little insulting.

Also... what's canabolism? Sounds like a blood vessel being blocked by a tall, brightly colored flowering plant.

[ChumpDumper]

Homphobes crack me up.

[Findog]

Forgive my spelling...:lol

Predatory power relationship, no. But sexual deviant, yes. This is where we will remain at odds. Im voting yes, and hopefully this measure passes and not get tied up in courts.

Question? If gay sex is not being a sexual deviant, then what is? Just curious...

It's a naturally occurring behavior with a genetic basis. Even if it were "deviant," should shiteaters be discriminated against?

[Findog]

Homphobes crack me up.

They must think teh gay is contagious.

[ChumpDumper]

Are you gay?Are you coming on to me?

[Anti.Hero]

This proposition is just too hard to swallow.

[Tully365]

Depends on if you female or not. Trust me, its hard to be homophobic in Cali, its everywhere... especially with the women... they dont give a fuck!!! I frequently travel to where your Hawks play and man on man is it bad down there too.

Maybe you'd feel more comfortable living in Saudi Arabia.

[Findog]

Initially no, but as soon as you try and force me or my children to accept it as normal behavior, then yes.

How does gay marriage "force you to accept it?" In what way does your life materially change via gay marriage?

[Findog]

It wont stop with marriage. They are already trying to force religious groups to accept their moral indecency.

How so? Specific, concrete examples.



Once it is accepted by the law, the tv and radio waves will be flooded with gay propaganda.

No, it wouldn't. Program directors wouldn't go for "gay propaganda."


It gives them a legal right to adopt children.

Gay people already have the legal right to adopt children. They have the same capacity to be good or bad parents as straight people...oops, my bad. Homosexuality = Pedophilia. Silly me.


Any employer that opposes this choice of lifestyle can be sued in court.

Any employer that practices discrimination can be sued in court. Name me a job that a gay person is automatically unqualified for on the basis of their gender.



Its no longer in the bedroom, its right in our fucking face.

Oh the dumb! It burns! It burns!


I believe in equality under the law for all

No, you don't, because you're voting Yes on Prop 8.

[Findog]

Yes I am voting on prop 8. And if we disagree thats fine.

Can't defend your arguments when held up to scrutiny. :tu

[DarkReign]

No its not that. Its a discrimitive argument. I have that right, and so do you. Im not interested in supprting gay political causes. Keep that shit in the closet... there.

Good. Then keep your bigotry and close-mindedness to yourself as well when it passes with over 60% approval, k?

Great, thanks.

[clambake]

discrimination is a low moral standard.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol lakaluva is afraid of teh gheys.

[ChumpDumper]

I would say that it's not so much support for the movement as it is bemusement at the opposition.

[clambake]

Hypocrisy is even lower...:toast

you have alot on your mind. did you ever go to a gas station with yoni?

[tp2021]

Good luck arguing with a homophobe, or anybody that discriminates for that matter. It's the same as arguing with a religious zealot.

[ChumpDumper]

"They're going to have gay sodomy in front of my children!"

[smeagol]

Equating homosexual marriage with pedophilia is a sure sign of a bigot.

I've heard equating pedophilia to celibacy, but hey, good judgement and common sense has never stopped the anti-Catholics (and anti-Christians) to use that line over and over . . .

[ChumpDumper]

Gee, now all the children who read this forum have been exposed to graphic pictures of anuses.

Here's to protecting the family!

:toast

[TheMadHatter]

Lakaluva represents the worst kind of hypocrisy there is, I'm ashamed that he is a Laker fan.

I will wholeheartedly vote NO on this proposition.

[CuckingFunt]

I wonder if lakaluva knows that ladies can be gay, too. He seems far more focused on male-on-male ass pounding.

[ChumpDumper]

I wonder if lakaluva knows that ladies can be gay, too. He seems far more focused on male-on-male ass pounding.His research is suspiciously extensive.

[LnGrrrR]

Homosexuals are using the institution of marriage to cover of their filthy and unnatural behavior, just as religious people use their religion to cover up their sins.

Shut up, please. Marriage has nothing to do with whether or not gay people have sex.

Also, who cares what gay people do in the privacy of their own homes? I mean, are they breaking into your house to perform these "indecent" acts?

I sure hope that you've never had oral sex either. The mouth wasn't designed for that either.

[Findog]

I wonder if lakaluva knows that ladies can be gay, too. He seems far more focused on male-on-male ass pounding.

You might say he's obsessed with male on male action.

[xrayzebra]

fag bashing=christian fun.

Hey clam, don't take it personally.:lol

[ChumpDumper]

You can always count on xray to show up in the homosexuality threads.

It's his lifestyle choice.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol Im just the messenger...:lolWho has anal fissure pictures saved in an internets account.


Or at least is so interested in the subject of anal sex that he actively sought out such pictures and couldn't wait to distribute them when he saw the chance.

[Shastafarian]

I took care of you earlier Ms. Funt. The majority of the people on this board are male, but I told you that you are gay for sure. You call it bisexual, but its confused gayism.

:lol

Gayism?

[jochhejaam]

I think there have to be some laws concerning marriage to ensure that the sort of slippery slope arguments that implausible has set out are avoided. It probably is a worthwhile thing to ensure that adults aren't marrying young children or to prohibit people who are blood relatives from marrying one another.
Only read up to post #65 so if this has already been addressed, ignore it.
I'm not going to touch on the gay marriage issue, devout Christians usually are ardent supporters of traditional marriage only, others fervently support gay marriage, and "never the twain shall meet"

But on the issue of blood relatives marrying, we may both be in for an education FWD. Here's the article that proved to me to be enlightening;

Expert says

Not to kiss and tell, but if you wanna get your nuptial on with your first cousin, you can do it full-on legally in 19 states, including Florida and Georgia. Another six states allow it with preconditions, like Maine, where you need genetic counseling first. Another 25 flat-out say "Nope, ain't gonna happen here."

Medically speaking, there's a myth that having first-cousin sex means Earth will be running amok with banjo-playing, blank-eyed trolls. Yes, there's a slightly greater risk a child born of first cousins will have birth defects, like spina bifida or cystic fibrosis. But we emphasize "slightly." Scientists reported in The Journal of Genetic Counseling in 2002 that while the risk in the general population of having a child with a serious problem is about 3 to 4 percent, first-cousin biblical acts increase that by another 1.7 to 2.8 percentage points. That's about the same risk level as for a woman who gives birth after age 40.

The small risk increase from kin coupling is due to a stronger likelihood that bad recessive genes will pair up, but that's not because the breeders are first cousins, researchers say; it's because there may be bad genes in their family pool overall.

So why is much of America still creeped out by first-cousin marriage when most other developed nations aren't?

First, there was some lousy evolutionary science in the late 1800s that scared folks about cousin marriages, said Martin Ottenheimer, retired Kansas State University anthropology professor and author of Forbidden Relatives: The American Myth of Cousin Marriage. Though it was later discredited, it took hold in the U.S. more than in Europe.

Second, as new territories wanted to become part of the growing Union, they wanted to impress the colonies with their upright ways, so they passed anti-cousin marriage laws.

"At the time, there was concern that people would become savages," Ottenheimer said. "We wanted to appear civilized to ourselves and to Europeans - even though Europeans were having cousin marriages!"

The issue remains emotional, said Ottenheimer, who questions laws outlawing such marriages.

"I still get negative reaction. One woman on a talk show said I was going to hell. But, it's not even prohibited in the Bible."

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/102908/enm_348830570.shtml


Edit: FWD, Checked with my wife and she was not enlightened by this info, so regarding receiving an education, it may just be me. I'm guessing that you were probably referring to sibling marriage.

[ChumpDumper]

lakaluva will be a volunteer sodomy sheriff. His uniform is très butch.

[ChumpDumper]

So there is a way you would prefer my being on your ass.

[Shastafarian]

Chumper you on my ass too tight. I barely finished this post and you already replied.

It's like you were trying to set him up with a good joke.

[ChumpDumper]

Hey, it's Saturday night and he's on the internets. Let's just all be happy he hasn't reached Chris Cooper on American Beauty status.


Yet.

[LnGrrrR]

Another confused humanoid. You literally disagreed and agreed with me in the same quote.:toast

Uhm... how? If you acknowledge that marriage has nothing to do with sex, and your problem is with the 'deviancy' that homosexual sex is, then why do you care if they get married?

[ploto]

According to religious folk, being gay is punishable by death!
Wow- I guess they forgot to tell me this in church.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

http://www.einstorm-xp1.com/knights_templarHORSE.jpg

you find yourself a fine representation of the old chivalrous tradition do you? saving the world from the moral damnation of homosexual intercourse?

[baseline bum]

But we do know that the Christian and Jewish God destroyed a whole city of Sodomites for their unnatural sex acts. Grow up and stop being a sheep.

Didn't god also say anyone who works on Saturday should be put to death?

[Spurminator]

No, No, No, those crusaders were the biggest hypocrites known in history, and were very active in homosexuality, rape, and child molestation right along with their Pope. This is about protecting the sacred values of marriage, which happens to be the cornerstone of any sane society. Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Athiests, all condemn Gay marriage, and 40 countries would punish you with death for such acts.

This has not been a good thread for you, so I have to ask, are you being sarcastic here?

[Shastafarian]

But we do know that the Christian and Jewish God destroyed a whole city of Sodomites for their unnatural sex acts. Grow up and stop being a sheep.

Do I need to point out the irony in this post?

[Spurminator]

What I'm asking is are you claiming the fact that 40 countries punish homosexuality by death is evidence that heterosexual marriage is the cornerstone of sane societies?

[Spurminator]

Holy shit I just realized lakaluva is doing a bit. This whole time. Well done.

[baseline bum]

Didn't god also say one should be put to death for eating blood sausage?

[Spurminator]

No, I was replying to ploto who claims to be a religious person but doesnt know that his God condemns homosexuality. You dont need religion to understand that marriage is the cornerstone of any sane society... thats between man and woman slick.:toast

Yeah, including all those sane societies who execute gays.

:lol Good take.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Top Ten Reasons to Make Gay Marriage Illegal


01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

[PixelPusher]

Top Ten Reasons to Make Gay Marriage Illegal


01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
:lobt2:

[dg7md]

Top Ten Reasons to Make Gay Marriage Illegal


01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Everyone should read this.

[romad_20]

Top Ten Reasons to Make Gay Marriage Illegal


01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

I made point number 3 about 10 times in this thread and the only response I ever got was the ol' "slippery slope"

Great points BTW

[tp2021]

Some of you have commited the same verbal hate crimes against me for defending the moral rights of our children. Shame on you!!!

WLHWBWSaW-4

The woman's complaint is that the children shouldn't be taught adult issues while they are still young children. That has nothing to do with gay marriage. It is just spun that way. If she doesn't want children dealing with adult issues, then they shouldn't be reading stories about heterosexual marriage either, for example. The issue should be taken with the level of maturity needed to understand the subject matter, not with trying to fight homosexuality. They wouldn't want a story about heterosexual sex read to a 2nd grade class. And that has nothing to do with sexual orientation, instead it has to do with at what age should children begin learning about such things.

I understood her reasoning at the end of the video entirely, then almost laughed at the words on the screen at the end. It was such a huge jump. What does protecting childhood innocence have to do with stopping gay people from getting married?

Homophobes are using this situation as an excuse to get rid of all the homosexuality that they can. Which is stupid.

You can call me childish, lakaluva. But at least I'm not a moronic bigot.

[tp2021]

Another hypocrite. You mean to tell me that you like everything? The male anus was not made to be pounded like a womans vagina. Have you ever heard of anal fissures? Judging by your childish sig, probably not.
When did I say I liked everything? You assume that after 1 post in this thread?

Since when does wanting all people to be treated as equals in this country mean that I like them all? Do I like all white people? Do I like all black people? Mexican people? No, but I don't deserve to be treated any worse or better than them.

A woman's vagina is made to be pounded? Of course, you mean only after marriage and strictly for procreational reasons, right? :rolleyes

Being gay isn't defined by the kind of sex you have. It's defined by the gender you look for in a partner. Because marriage is about more than just sex, right lakaluva?

Or does the sanctity of marriage mean that only a vagina is allowed to be "pounded"?

Besides, vaginas can have problems related to sex, too. Have you heard of a urinary tract infection?

[ploto]

Thats your fucking problem. You have had the scripture your entire life, yet you wait on people to tell you something. And come out of that small box you live in. Religious folk could mean the 1 billion muslims who would behead your ass in a heartbeat for your lewd acts. But we do know that the Christian and Jewish God destroyed a whole city of Sodomites for their unnatural sex acts. Grow up and stop being a sheep.

:lmao Guess some people can't understand sarcasm.

Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.

And early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came unto Him; and He sat down, and taught them.

And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto Him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

This they said, tempting Him, that they might have to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down, and with His finger wrote on the ground, as though He heard them not.

So when they continued asking Him, He lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

And again He stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

When Jesus had lifted up Himself, and saw none but the woman, He said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

[tp2021]

Being gay isn't immoral.

[byrontx]

Just saw that National Geographical clip about there being five recognized genders in an area of Indonesia. What impressed me was how laid back everyone was about it. That's what I want for us here in the good ol' USA.

[jochhejaam]

So when they continued asking Him, He lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

And again He stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

When Jesus had lifted up Himself, and saw none but the woman, He said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

You didn't expound so your point is left to interpretation.
We can gather from the "words" of Christ that; sexual immorality is sin, and that we are to refrain from such sin (all sin).

That's a nice little story, but I don't believe I've read a version of the Bible that doesn't issue a caveat at the end of this particular story, To wit: It's not an original manuscript, it was not part of the Gospel of John.


My Favorite Passage that’s Not in the Bible
By: Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D.

One hundred and forty years ago, conservative biblical scholar and Dean of Canterbury, Henry Alford, advocated a new translation to replace the King James Bible. One of his reasons was the inferior textual basis of the KJV. Alford argued that “a translator of Holy Scripture must be…ready to sacrifice the choicest text, and the plainest proof of doctrine, if the words are not those of what he is constrained in his conscience to receive as God’s testimony.” He was speaking about the Trinitarian formula found in the KJV rendering of 1 John 5:7–8. Twenty years later, two Cambridge scholars came to the firm conclusion that John 7:53–8:11 also was not part of the original text of scripture. But Westcott and Hort’s view has not had nearly the impact that Alford’s did.

For a long time, biblical scholars have recognized the poor textual credentials of the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53–8:11). The evidence against its authenticity is overwhelming: The earliest manuscripts with substantial portions of John’s Gospel (P66 and P75) lack these verses. They skip from John 7:52 to 8:12. The oldest large codices of the Bible also lack these verses: codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, both from the fourth century, are normally considered to be the most important biblical manuscripts of the NT extant today. Neither of them has these verses. Codex Alexandrinus, from the fifth century, lacks several leaves in the middle of John. But because of the consistency of the letter size, width of lines, and lines per page, the evidence is conclusive that this manuscript also lacked the pericope adulterae. Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, also from the fifth century, apparently lacked these verses as well (it is similar to Alexandrinus in that some leaves are missing). The earliest extant manuscript to have these verses is codex Bezae, an eccentric text once in the possession of Theodore Beza. He gave this manuscript to the University of Cambridge in 1581 as a gift, telling the school that he was confident that the scholars there would be able to figure out its significance. He washed his hands of the document. Bezae is indeed the most eccentric NT manuscript extant today, yet it is the chief representative of the Western text-type (the text-form that became dominant in Rome and the Latin West).

When P66, P75, Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus agree, their combined testimony is overwhelmingly strong that a particular reading is not authentic. But it is not only the early Greek manuscripts that lack this text. The great majority of Greek manuscripts through the first eight centuries lack this pericope. And except for Bezae (or codex D), virtually all of the most important Greek witnesses through the first eight centuries do not have the verses. Of the three most important early versions of the New Testament (Coptic, Latin, Syriac), two of them lack the story in their earliest and best witnesses. The Latin alone has the story in its best early witnesses.

Even patristic writers seemed to overlook this text. Bruce Metzger, arguably the greatest textual critic of the twentieth century, argued that “No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it” (Textual Commentary, 2nd ed., loc. cit.).

It is an important point to note that although the story of the woman caught in adultery is found in most of our printed Bibles today, the evidence suggests that the majority of Bibles during the first eight centuries of the Christian faith did not contain the story. Externally, most scholars would say that the evidence for it not being an authentic part of John’s Gospel is rock solid.

(There's much more at the original link for those that may be interested)
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=5987



We gone over this many times, but here's an over simplification of Gods view on homosexuality, adultery, theft, murder, etc...

We are born sinners.
Sin separates us from God.
God sent Jesus Christ into the World to separate man from sin.
If you accept the Christ as your Saviour, that is, acknowledge that he died for the sin of man, that separation is then bridged, and eternity with God is achieved.


It's simple, and I'm not sure why more Christians don't come out and call it what it is, it seems as if many believe it to be "in vogue" to have one foot in the secular world and one foot in Christ's Kingdom, this lukewarmness equates to being of the secular World.
There are good friendships with those who are or are not Christians, but there is no spiritual affinity between the two.
That gap is bridged, and affinity realized only when Christ is pronounced as Saviour and Lord.

It's really quite a good deal.



Have to cut my thoughts short, as once again, work calls.

[DarkReign]

What, exactly, does religion have to do with Prop 8, again?

Oh...thats right, NOTHING.

[baseline bum]

Rock solid evidence isn't exactly the bible's strong suit.

[ploto]

The point is simple-- everyone sins. Period. And I know I have asked this a thousand times, but why the obsession with this particular one? I continue to believe that far more damage has been done by heterosexual adultery than by homosexuality. Apparently, Christians can cheat and that is forgiven but not this- huh?

[DarkReign]

To be clear, this is a free country.

You want to vote with the Bible in your back pocket? Thats cool, fine.
You want to vote "yes" on Prop 8 because youre the bigot the Bible tells you to be about homosexuality...thats cool too.


Moreover, even if youre not religious and the Bible means nothing to you, but youre just a homophobe that hates things that arent like himself, welcome to America! Here is your vote!

Even further down the irony trail, you could feign the importance of the Bible in your life but just have a strange fascination with male anuses. You have a weird fetish wherein you post pictures of broken anal tracts as evidence against homosexuality, although no one else ever thought to go to such lengths to argue their side because broken ass has nothing to do with this argument. But you, in your higher moral judgement, thought it best to introduce family values and possible sex education consequences for the youth of America as reason to vote "Yes" on Prop 8, then go about posting male anuses for anyone to see, yes there are 15 year olds on this board (few, but they are there).

So congratulations! You have a vote too!

But here is the rule....



When your opinion is crushed under the sheer weight of those who think youre an ignorant, hateful, small-minded fucking homophobe who must have serious daddy-issues to be posting broken male ass all over the internet in some weird attempt at changing the opinions of others, wherein the leap of logic required to understand how in your twisted view of things, a convincing argument starts and ends with the constant repitition of the "Bible" and pics of broken male ass.

Not only are you weird and under suspicion from this day forth to have those sort of things in your favorites list just waiting to bust out your fetishes at the very moment someone writes "Prop 8", but youre also a seriously disturbed and self-deluded person who couldnt define the word "irony" any better than he/she has in this thread.

Here is a tip for you, lakaluva...

Dont bring up the Bible as a source of criticism for homosexuality. Yes it condemns it.

But more importantly its preaches tolerance and love. Especially for sinners.

Youre fall very short of your self-induced Christian goals. So keep on hating, keep on posting broken male ass and shut your fucking mouth when Prop 8 is struck down by a VAST majority of the people in your state.

You had your vote, your say.....you lost, STFU from now on, k? Take your kids out of school if youre worried about what theyll learn in sex education, you coward. You should be teaching your kids about the world, not being worried about what bullshit theyll hear at school from some moronic teacher. Beyond that point, you just want more moral legislation to fit what your worldview tells you it should be, its just in this case it suits your Biblical side.

Always picking, always choosing. Fucking hypocrite, fucking bigot....I hope you spend the rest of your life hating, its a fitting punishment that you waste this much time in your life trying to control things you were never meant to. Please, keep trying.....the gay sites are loving your subscription fees.

[implacable44]

To be clear, this is a free country.

You want to vote with the Bible in your back pocket? Thats cool, fine.
You want to vote "yes" on Prop 8 because youre the bigot the Bible tells you to be about homosexuality...thats cool too.


Moreover, even if youre not religious and the Bible means nothing to you, but youre just a homophobe that hates things that arent like himself, welcome to America! Here is your vote!

Even further down the irony trail, you could feign the importance of the Bible in your life but just have a strange fascination with male anuses. You have a weird fetish wherein you post pictures of broken anal tracts as evidence against homosexuality, although no one else ever thought to go to such lengths to argue their side because broken ass has nothing to do with this argument. But you, in your higher moral judgement, thought it best to introduce family values and possible sex education consequences for the youth of America as reason to vote "Yes" on Prop 8, then go about posting male anuses for anyone to see, yes there are 15 year olds on this board (few, but they are there).

So congratulations! You have a vote too!

But here is the rule....



When your opinion is crushed under the sheer weight of those who think youre an ignorant, hateful, small-minded fucking homophobe who must have serious daddy-issues to be posting broken male ass all over the internet in some weird attempt at changing the opinions of others, wherein the leap of logic required to understand how in your twisted view of things, a convincing argument starts and ends with the constant repitition of the "Bible" and pics of broken male ass.

Not only are you weird and under suspicion from this day forth to have those sort of things in your favorites list just waiting to bust out your fetishes at the very moment someone writes "Prop 8", but youre also a seriously disturbed and self-deluded person who couldnt define the word "irony" any better than he/she has in this thread.

Here is a tip for you, lakaluva...

Dont bring up the Bible as a source of criticism for homosexuality. Yes it condemns it.

But more importantly its preaches tolerance and love. Especially for sinners.

Youre fall very short of your self-induced Christian goals. So keep on hating, keep on posting broken male ass and shut your fucking mouth when Prop 8 is struck down by a VAST majority of the people in your state.

You had your vote, your say.....you lost, STFU from now on, k? Take your kids out of school if youre worried about what theyll learn in sex education, you coward. You should be teaching your kids about the world, not being worried about what bullshit theyll hear at school from some moronic teacher. Beyond that point, you just want more moral legislation to fit what your worldview tells you it should be, its just in this case it suits your Biblical side.

Always picking, always choosing. Fucking hypocrite, fucking bigot....I hope you spend the rest of your life hating, its a fitting punishment that you waste this much time in your life trying to control things you were never meant to. Please, keep trying.....the gay sites are loving your subscription fees.


And if you choose to be that supporter of homosexuality under the guise that you are progressive and cutting edge then here is your vote too.. and everything that comes along with that support -- funny how you like to call everyone a bigot when the biggest bigot you will ever meet is looking back at you in the mirror every morning. You are a bigot.

You must be stupid to think it doesn't matter that some teacher is telling my kids about sex - between a man and a woman and then with gay rights - about man and man - woman and woman and who knows where it will end... see the recent study about the increase in teen sexual activity and its link to the internet - sex and the city - TV shows with sexual natures ...

Idiot and a bigot

[FromWayDowntown]

You must be stupid to think it doesn't matter that some teacher is telling my kids about sex - between a man and a woman and then with gay rights - about man and man - woman and woman and who knows where it will end... see the recent study about the increase in teen sexual activity and its link to the internet - sex and the city - TV shows with sexual natures ...

So wait -- are schools showing Sex and the City and other TV shows with sexual nature or is it teachers who are responsible for increased promiscuity. In either event, it's interesting to note that its neither the responsibility of the children or the parents -- it must be someone else who is making those kids do it!

[implacable44]

Are you a complete product of your parents ? Nobody else -- no other thing had any influence on you ? No music ? No Movie star? No teacher ? None of your friends ? It was all your parents and you ?

[implacable44]

So wait -- are schools showing Sex and the City and other TV shows with sexual nature or is it teachers who are responsible for increased promiscuity. In either event, it's interesting to note that its neither the responsibility of the children or the parents -- it must be someone else who is making those kids do it!

well with something like porp 8 not passing and you will have gay sex taught in schools - and then people like me who will opt to take my kids out of school and home school or send them to a private school will be hate mongers - bigots.

[Spurminator]

I don't know what bubble you were raised in but by the time we got to sex ed in school, we already knew about gays.

And sex education is taught from a reproductive standpoint, so your fear that teachers would suddenly start giving your son instructions on how to take his buddy in the ass is just as irrational and unfounded as fearing teachers might give him instructions on how to make his girlfriend achieve an orgasm.

[implacable44]

I don't know what bubble you were raised in but by the time we got to sex ed in school, we already knew about gays.

And sex education is taught from a reproductive standpoint, so your fear that teachers would suddenly start giving your son instructions on how to take his buddy in the ass is just as irrational and unfounded as fearing teachers might give him instructions on how to make his girlfriend achieve an orgasm.

You knew about gays in elementary school ? Man I went to Crestview and I didnt know about gays until Kitty Hawk.
You are silly to think that the gay community will not push for gay sex to be taught in school as "natural" so that they can be more accepted and not discriminated against.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I don't know what bubble you were raised in but by the time we got to sex ed in school, we already knew about gays.

And sex education is taught from a reproductive standpoint, so your fear that teachers would suddenly start giving your son instructions on how to take his buddy in the ass is just as irrational and unfounded as fearing teachers might give him instructions on how to make his girlfriend achieve an orgasm.

you're just intolerant of intolerance, and that makes you today's worst person in the world,

[CuckingFunt]

You knew about gays in elementary school ? Man I went to Crestview and I didnt know about gays until Kitty Hawk.
You are silly to think that the gay community will not push for gay sex to be taught in school as "natural" so that they can be more accepted and not discriminated against.

It's part of our recruitment efforts.

[Oh, Gee!!]

so that they can be more accepted and not discriminated against

why would any group want that?

[Spurminator]

You knew about gays in elementary school ? Man I went to Crestview and I didnt know about gays until Kitty Hawk.

Kids were calling each other "fag" as early as second grade. I remember because that's when I asked what it meant.


You are silly to think that the gay community will not push for gay sex to be taught in school as "natural"

They can push all they want, it's America. But like I said it's not really relevant to the sex education curriculum. Besides, it's not like teachers right now aren't allowed to comment on it if a question comes up.


so that they can be more accepted and not discriminated against.

The horror!

[FromWayDowntown]

What fun will life be if it's no longer legal to discriminate against gays?

[LnGrrrR]

And the list can go on an on. The difference between me and some others is, I refuse to try and convince people that Im not wrong with this behavior. You have people out there that will do anything and claim that its natural.

1) Who defines what is 'natural'?

2) What makes things that are 'unnatural' wrong?

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

What fun will life be if it's no longer legal to discriminate against gays?

Pretty gay.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Pretty gay.

I couldn't let that fastball go by.

[Anti.Hero]

Just keep it in Cali plz.

[Shastafarian]

Just keep it in Cali plz.

Keep what in Cali?

[DarkReign]

And if you choose to be that supporter of homosexuality under the guise that you are progressive and cutting edge then here is your vote too.. and everything that comes along with that support -- funny how you like to call everyone a bigot when the biggest bigot you will ever meet is looking back at you in the mirror every morning. You are a bigot.

You must be stupid to think it doesn't matter that some teacher is telling my kids about sex - between a man and a woman and then with gay rights - about man and man - woman and woman and who knows where it will end... see the recent study about the increase in teen sexual activity and its link to the internet - sex and the city - TV shows with sexual natures ...

Idiot and a bigot

This post made no sense whatsoever. Maybe it did to you, but it sure didnt to me.

[Shastafarian]

This post made no sense whatsoever. Maybe it did to you, but it sure didnt to me.

You can't blame him. With all the voices in his head, it's gotta be hard to put coherent thoughts together.

[romad_20]

This post made no sense whatsoever. Maybe it did to you, but it sure didnt to me.

I think he was trying to say you are a bigot against bigots.

[smeagol]

DR is many things. Hypocrite is not one of them.

[DarkReign]

DR is many things. Hypocrite is not one of them.

Thanks, Smeag. Youre still a pussy about guns, though. :toast

[clambake]

DR is many things. Hypocrite is not one of them.

i recently heard its because of people like him that michigan sucks, and something about michigan deserving it.

[DarkReign]

i recently heard its because of people like him that michigan sucks, and something about michigan deserving it.

:lmao Sad but true.

[clambake]

:lmao Sad but true.

and your so fucking stupid for not wanting to bomb spain.

[smeagol]

Thanks, Smeag. Youre still a pussy about guns, though. :toast

If you say so, hypocrite :tu

[clambake]

we're called people sympathizers.