Maine shoots down same-sex marriage law

[MiamiHeat]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/maine-gay-marriage-law-repealed/story?id=8992720


Great news. Maine has spoken, I commend you guys.

[clambake]

you have a problem with same-sex marriage?

[balli]

Great news.
What would have been different about your life, had it gone the other way? Nothing? Oh, okay, you're just being an asshole then.

[MiamiHeat]

Spare me, you bleeding hearts, you tree hugging beatniks. This world needs masculine men pairing with feminine women. Are you cooperating? Have you your woman? Have you your common sense?

[clambake]

oh, i get it. without this, you'd have no shot at landing a woman.

why didn't you just say so?

[clambake]

oh, i get it. without this, you'd have no shot at landing a woman.

why didn't you just say so?

[clambake]

sorry. you shouldn't have to hear that twice.

[Winehole23]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/maine-gay-marriage-law-repealed/story?id=8992720


Great news. Maine has spoken, I commend you guys.From the mouth of the monkey man who said yesterday that porno is the "Holy Grail" of sex. :lol

[MiamiHeat]

I never said that. You lie.

You see, honesty, along with all other morals, goes out the window when you give in to hedonistic behavior such as same-sex coupling.

Stop lying, Winehole

[Wild Cobra]

I have a problem with people wanting to redefine what marriage is.

I'll bet Washington's "everything but marriage" passed.

[DarrinS]

So, that one gay couple in Maine can't get married now?

[DarkReign]

Not surprised. Homophobia is in style.

[Winehole23]

I never said that. You lie.

You see, honesty, along with all other morals, goes out the window when you give in to hedonistic behavior such as same-sex coupling.

Stop lying, WineholeMea culpa. I got it slightly wrong. You called the internet the Holy Grail of pr0n. I regret the error.

Though you did suggest -- hilariously -- that 13 year olds couldn't find their monkey meat without the internet.

[Höfner]

http://rlv.zcache.com/pickup_lines_i_support_gay_marriage_if_both_chi_bu mper_sticker-p128870256304712252trl0_400.jpg

[AussieFanKurt]

Wow MiamiHeat you have a very naive opinion on things. I mean youre opinion is that of someone living 20-30 years ago. Just a bigot

[jack sommerset]

I guess Maine hates the gays.

[admiralsnackbar]

What a paradox Maine is. They're liberal insofar as it behooves the welfare state they demand for their staggeringly vast under-educated, chronically under-employed polity, but are standard-issue rednecks in every other sense.

[doobs]

Well, at least they got to vote on it. Hopefully the voters will change their minds when this comes up again.

And hopefully the courts won't shove gay marriage down their throats in the meantime. (Unless, of course, there is adequate justification already in the state's constitution or laws mandating same-sex marriage. Somehow I doubt it, and the courts will look to the state's equal protection clause and interpret it far more broadly than its federal counterpart.)

[baseline bum]

I hope the Iraq war comes to a vote too.

[Marcus Bryant]

Those damn inbred Southern hicks.

[DarrinS]

Those damn inbred Southern hicks.


LOL.


You know, if it doesn't pass in liberal Mecca (CA.), why would it pass in other places?

[boutons_deux]

Maine, about 1 million people, is full of backwoods inbreds.

inbreeding, ok. Same sex marriage, not ok. got it.

I know a lady who wouldn't send her kids to public school there, the other students were too scary, so she home-schooled her 3 kids for many years.

[Marcus Bryant]

So the theory is that Maine is "full" of morons who can't figure out that their two GOP senators aren't conservatives. Sure.

[Wild Cobra]

Not surprised. Homophobia is in style.
It's not homophobia. It resisting the change of a definition, and an establishment of religion.

Understand the constitution by chance?

If states want to pass "civil union" laws, most of us are fine with that.

[possessed]

So, that one gay couple in Maine can't get married now?

pwnd

[baseline bum]

We should also put freedom of speech to a vote. Given Americans hatred of Rush Limbaugh and his retarded little brother Glenn Beck, I bet the Fairness Doctrine would be a resounding success should it come up to a vote.

[Wild Cobra]

We should also put freedom of speech to a vote. Given Americans hatred of Rush Limbaugh and his retarded little brother Glenn Beck, I bet the Fairness Doctrine would be a resounding success should it come up to vote.
And anyone voting YES to such legislation deserves to be shot.

Many people died in the revolutionary war. They would turn in their graves.

If you don't like our freedoms, then mobe to somelace like North Korea.

[baseline bum]

And anyone voting YES to such legislation deserves to be shot.

Many people died in the revolutionary war. They would all turn in their graves.

Who cares about the constitution when you have popular opinion on your side? Maine and California have set the precedent.

[Crookshanks]

We should also put freedom of speech to a vote. Given Americans hatred of Rush Limbaugh and his retarded little brother Glenn Beck, I bet the Fairness Doctrine would be a resounding success should it come up to a vote.

Except that freedom of speech is in the constitution - the right to marry is NOT. Big difference.

[Marcus Bryant]

How about we put the state regulation of marriage on the ballot?

[baseline bum]

Except that freedom of speech is in the constitution - the right to marry is NOT. Big difference.

Protection of civil rights is absolutely in the constitution. NO DIFFERENCE.

[jack sommerset]

Is this the only thing the fags can't have?

[I. Hustle]

Even though I am not for same-sex marriage I can't stand MiamiHeat even more. So eff you MH!

[I. Hustle]

lol

[Wild Cobra]

Protection of civil rights is absolutely in the constitution. NO DIFFERENCE.
A gay man can still marry a woman, and a gay woman can still marry a man. Where's the discrimination?

[I. Hustle]

Butch lesbos can still marry Fairy gay dudes. Where's the discrimination?

lol






What I don't get is how Chastity Bono was a woman in a lesbian relationship then changed over to a "man" and they are still together. Wouldn't the other chick be like "Eff that I want boobs and cooter"?

[baseline bum]

A gay man can still marry a woman, and a gay woman can still marry a man. Where's the discrimination?

It's like arguing with a third grader. Obviously it's discrimination in blocking a person's right to marry who he wishes to. Now take your ball and go home.

[spursncowboys]

Protection of civil rights is absolutely in the constitution. NO DIFFERENCE.
gay people not being able to marry is not a violation of their civil rights.

[spursncowboys]

We should also put freedom of speech to a vote. Given Americans hatred of Rush Limbaugh and his retarded little brother Glenn Beck, I bet the Fairness Doctrine would be a resounding success should it come up to vote.

It's like arguing with a third grader.

[Crookshanks]

Butch lesbos can still marry Fairy gay dudes. Where's the discrimination?

lol



What I don't get is how Chastity Bono was a woman in a lesbian relationship then changed over to a "man" and they are still together. Wouldn't the other chick be like "Eff that I want boobs and cooter"?

I don't get that either. First she says she's a lesbian because she's attracted to women. So now that she's a man - does that make her straight? And what about the partner - is she a lesbian, straight or bi? Waaaaay too confusing.

[spursncowboys]

You Don't Have a Right to Marry By Jeff Jackson (2/15/04)
www.thelandofthefree.net (http://www.thelandofthefree.net/)

The debate over marriage, what marriage is, and who can marry has come again to the forefront of political debate as gay rights groups struggle to encompass the recognitions that come with marriage to their same sex partners. They want the "right" to marry. However there is one problem. In America you don't have the right to marry.

The first knee-jerk reaction of many people reading that last statement is to say that it is just plain wrong; that anyone who would say such a thing is off one's rocker. So, now that you have gotten past that first reflexive action I will say it again. In America you don't have a right to marry.

Now that you have seen it twice and your heart has slowed down we can move on to show why this is true. Marriage is a side product of a right that we do indeed enjoy which is religious freedom; marriage being a religious institution. However it, in itself, is not a right.

Marriage is about more than just "love":

Homosexual couples argue that because they "love" their partners, they must be allowed to wed just as a heterosexual couple would to form a family unit. The problem is that marriage is not solely about "love". If marriage where solely about "love" then the state would be required to recognize the union of a man and his dog if such a thing was done because of "love". If the sole argument for marriage was "love" then would a bi-sexual woman who has "love" for both her female and male partner would be allowed to marry both.

"Love" for one's partner is not an argument for marriage.

Marriage is a religious institution:

There is a truth that marriage, in it's most basic form, is not a government institution; it is a religious institution. For thousands of years marriage has been the cornerstone of religions around the world for forming families and raising their children. But it has also been co-opted by governments around the world as a legally binding status that confers upon their people certain privileges (and in some instances punishments) once they enter into the bonds of matrimony.

And there is nothing wrong with that. Most governments are formed upon a base of religion and the United States is not different. So why shouldn't their laws and institutions encompass these religious standards. However when government begins to dictate back to religion what terms such as "marriage" mean there is a sticky situation that arises because the first amendment prohibits government from such interference.

To get "legally" married in the United States, you have obtain a license from the government. You cannot be "legally" married without the consent of the government and a marriage license. And once you are married, the government confers certain privileges such as visitation rights in the Emergency Room, inheritance rights and power of attorney when no Will is present, pension benefits and judicial protections and evidentiary immunity. Sometimes marriage has also been used to punish people as well such by altering how much in taxes you must pay by lowering deductions. This is the problem; government has adopted the institution of marriage for it's own means rather than accepting it as a strictly religious institution.

One does have a privilege to be married if the church they belong to chooses to marry them and that falls under their first Amendment rights to free religion. But the "right to marriage" only exists if their religion agrees that they can be married and someone is willing to wed them.

For government to consider defining the religious institution of marriage either as exclusively between a man and a woman or as between any number of people regardless of sex and for courts to rule that certain forms of marriage must be allowed infringes upon the freedom of religion. And our freedom of religion is clearly stated in our 1st Amendment as off limits to the hands of government. To define marriage "legally" means that churches would be required by law to wed anyone that came before them that met the legal criteria or be in violation of the law, regardless of the principles of the religion's core beliefs.

Marriage simply is not a right:

One complaint that is trumpeted by gay rights activists is that under equal protection they have a right to wed just as heterosexuals would. Even though shortly you will clearly see that marriage is not a right, we'll deal with this topic first.

The fact of the matter is that homosexual persons have the exact same (what they call) "right" to marry as their heterosexual counterparts do. It is true. A homosexual man has the "right" to marry a woman who desires to enter into marriage with him just like a heterosexual man does. Now while it is true that generally speaking a homosexual man would not want to marry a woman, but rather a man, it is really a moot point when talking about "equal protection". In the light of the more important fact that marriage is not a right, the equal protection argument, the "love" argument and all other arguments do not apply in the first place.

So why isn't marriage a right?

If marriage is a "right" in the same essence as equal creation, Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness then it is something that you are guaranteed to have. It is something that cannot be denied to you. It is something that belongs to all of us innately and an object that our government was instituted to protect and make sure that we all have. Knowing that, if someone wants to marry but cannot find someone to wed then what? If no one is willing to marry a person who wants to marry then where does that leave us? It's a right, isn't it?

If it is a right no one would be able to deny someone else the right to marry for any reason, including simply not wanting to. And if no one wants to marry someone who wants to marry then rights have been violated.

A person with the "right to marry" could say: "I want to marry. I have that right." and then use the legal system to uphold that right. But no one wants to marry them. But they have the right to marry. But no one wants to marry them. At this point we enter into a circular loop of argument. This person's "rights" with respect to marriage are not consistent with reality and at this point the only way to achieve their "right to marry" is to force someone who doesn't necessarily want to marry them to marry them.

That sure sounds like a violation of the unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness of the person forced to marry against their will. And it is.

Thus marriage is not a right, but as originally shown a privilege of one's religion.



So where does that leave us:

It leaves us at the only possible conclusion; marriage is not a right. Not only is it not a right, but government does not have the right to define "marriage" outside of religion's definition which is between a man and a woman. To do otherwise violates the free practice of religion by making the definition a legal one rather than a religious one.

It means that homosexuals don't have a claim to marriage unless they belong to a church that is going to accept and practice such a union.

It means that sometimes the things that we want so bad, and for whatever reason are not ours to be had
http://www.thelandofthefree.net/youdonthavearighttomarry.html

[Winehole23]

I'm against federalizing marriage law, for or against gay marriage. For better and for worse the states regulate it. It's a common law issue, not a civil rights issue IMO.

The various states will decide for themselves. Let the chips fall where they may.

[DarrinS]

We should also put freedom of speech to a vote. Given Americans hatred of Rush Limbaugh and his retarded little brother Glenn Beck, I bet the Fairness Doctrine would be a resounding success should it come up to a vote.


I have to admit, this made me laugh. Are you and boutons the same person?

[DarrinS]

If you pass a same-sex marriage law, you open the door to polygamy, brother-sister marriages, etc.

[spursncowboys]

i'm against federalizing marriage law, for or against gay marriage. For better and for worse the states regulate it. It's a common law issue, not a civil rights issue imo.

The various states will decide for themselves. Let the chips fall where they may.
+1

[doobs]

If you pass a same-sex marriage law, you open the door to polygamy, brother-sister marriages, etc.

Definitely not true. Polygamy and incest will still be against the law.

[spursncowboys]

Definitely not true. Polygamy and incest will still be against the law.
What he means is if the argument is prejudice, then when does it stop? If it is prejudicial for one life choice and not another?

[DarrinS]

Definitely not true. Polygamy and incest will still be against the law.


I guess you miss my point. If a brother and sister love each other (eww), why shouldn't they have "the right" to get married? Why not put that up for a vote? See where I'm going?

[coyotes_geek]

I guess you miss my point. If a brother and sister love each other (eww), why shouldn't they have "the right" to get married? Why not put that up for a vote? See where I'm going?

If we accept the premise that the government is only involved in marriage over taxes and property rights, then who's having sex with who shouldn't matter. If that's the case then there really isn't a reason to have laws prohibiting a brother and sister, or a man and multiple women from sharing their property and paying taxes in the same manner that one man and one woman do.

But then that's not what we really want is it? We want government sanctioning sexual behavior and the whole property/taxes bit is just the rouge the government uses to make it look like they're not trying to legislate religious ideals.

[doobs]

I guess you miss my point. If a brother and sister love each other (eww), why shouldn't they have "the right" to get married? Why not put that up for a vote? See where I'm going?

I do, and those have been put up for a vote (when legislators voted to outlaw them.) I do see what you're saying about the simplistic "discrimination is bad, love is good" argument.

You have to draw the line somewhere, and that line-drawing must be consistent with the Constitution. There's no question that defining marriage in a way that discriminates against gays and polygamists and incestuous couples is constitutional (under the federal constitution). The relevant question we have to ask is, is it right?

This is why I hope gay marriage is legalized by popular vote. It would enhance the legitimacy of the policy change. And it would reflect society's evolving view of what kinds of relationships are acceptable and deserving of endorsement. The expansive language in Lawrence gives some insight into why courts would be a bad way to go about this.

[ElNono]

I do, and those have been put up for a vote (when legislators voted to outlaw them.) I do see what you're saying about the simplistic "discrimination is bad, love is good" argument.

You have to draw the line somewhere, and that line-drawing must be consistent with the Constitution. There's no question that defining marriage in a way that discriminates against gays and polygamists and incestuous couples is constitutional (under the federal constitution). The relevant question we have to ask is, is it right?

This is why I hope gay marriage is legalized by popular vote. It would enhance the legitimacy of the policy change. And it would reflect society's evolving view of what kinds of relationships are acceptable and deserving of endorsement. The expansive language in Lawrence gives some insight into why courts would be a bad way to go about this.

Either that, or simply amend to remove the institution of marriage and the rights granted by it from the constitution entirely.

[Winehole23]

Is there any direct reference to marriage in the US Constitution?

[DarrinS]

Is there any direct reference to marriage in the US Constitution?

Evidently not.

rJhQBZ1La0w

[baseline bum]

So why isn't marriage a right?

If marriage is a "right" in the same essence as equal creation, Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness then it is something that you are guaranteed to have. It is something that cannot be denied to you. It is something that belongs to all of us innately and an object that our government was instituted to protect and make sure that we all have. Knowing that, if someone wants to marry but cannot find someone to wed then what? If no one is willing to marry a person who wants to marry then where does that leave us? It's a right, isn't it?

If it is a right no one would be able to deny someone else the right to marry for any reason, including simply not wanting to. And if no one wants to marry someone who wants to marry then rights have been violated.

A person with the "right to marry" could say: "I want to marry. I have that right." and then use the legal system to uphold that right. But no one wants to marry them. But they have the right to marry. But no one wants to marry them. At this point we enter into a circular loop of argument. This person's "rights" with respect to marriage are not consistent with reality and at this point the only way to achieve their "right to marry" is to force someone who doesn't necessarily want to marry them to marry them.

That sure sounds like a violation of the unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness of the person forced to marry against their will. And it is.

Thus marriage is not a right, but as originally shown a privilege of one's religion.



This is just the stupidest strawman I have ever heard on this forum, and no surprise it's spursncowboys-endorsed logic. Is this shit even worth a response? Instead of attacking the problem of the government taking away the rights of consenting adults who want to bind themselves in a legal union, he instead moves the goalposts to the ridiculous assertion that everyone has the right to force another to marry him. This is retarded even for you, spursncowboys. I mean, how do you even read that shit and think that sounded like a solid argument? Did you even read it before the copy and paste? I sincerely hope not.

[doobs]

Is there any direct reference to marriage in the US Constitution?

No.

There is no federal constitutional right to marry. There is, however, a federal constitutional right to equal protection. So when a state decides to grant marriage licenses and create rights in that relationship, the state must do so in a manner consistent with the equal protection clause.

There is a multi-tiered analysis to equal protection, but the basic point is this: the state has to justify its decisions to discriminate, and its burden is very low when discriminating against gays.

[ElNono]

Is there any direct reference to marriage in the US Constitution?

Not directly, no. But there's some interesting tangential constitutional issues here:

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_marr.html

[Winehole23]

Basically, I see things going this way: the more states vote to allow gay marriages and civil unions, the greater the momentum will be for comity. Allowing states to decide for themselves will tend to ensure popular legitimacy throughout the process, whereas a federally imposed solution will tend to create abiding resentments and resistance.

[panic giraffe]

If you pass a same-sex marriage law, you open the door to polygamy, brother-sister marriages, etc.

how do you even jump to so many crazy conclusions?

[spursncowboys]

This is just the stupidest strawman I have ever heard on this forum, and no surprise it's spursncowboys-endorsed logic. Is this shit even worth a response? Instead of attacking the problem of the government taking away the rights of consenting adults who want to bind themselves in a legal union, he instead moves the goalposts to the ridiculous assertion that everyone has the right to force another to marry him. This is retarded even for you, spursncowboys. I mean, how do you even read that shit and think that sounded like a solid argument? Did you even read it before the copy and paste? I sincerely hope not.
How was a right taken away? Also please do not assume that I am agreeing one hundred percent with an article because I post it. I don't believe, however, that you fully understood the post.
I do elieve marriage is a religious practice that is in our govt from our religious culture. Govt should not have the right to decide who gets married when no religious group believes in gay marriage. If our government wants to give all the benefits of being married to gay couples fine.

[panic giraffe]

How was a right taken away? Also please do not assume that I am agreeing one hundred percent with an article because I post it. I don't believe, however, that you fully understood the post.
I do elieve marriage is a religious practice that is in our govt from our religious culture. Govt should not have the right to decide who gets married when no religious group believes in gay marriage. If our government wants to give all the benefits of being married to gay couples fine.

Yes please, keep the religious context stay w/in the religion.

So what you are say is, that if a church approves a gay marriage you would be completely behind it, right? And the big bad nasty govt should just butt the fuck out, right?

And health benefits, hospital rights, POA, pensions, custody, &estates between two homosexuals are completely ok?

cause if that's what you're saying then i can finally agree with you on something.

[MiamiHeat]

how do you even jump to so many crazy conclusions?

Why? What's wrong with incestous relationships? or polygamy?

[clambake]

do you think your qualified to discuss relationships?

[MiamiHeat]

I've been married since I was 19. So yeah, marriage is important to me.

What's wrong with incestous relationships? or polygamy?

[clambake]

i remember reading some literature based solely on your personal relationships with women.

[baseline bum]

How was a right taken away? Also please do not assume that I am agreeing one hundred percent with an article because I post it. I don't believe, however, that you fully understood the post.
I do elieve marriage is a religious practice that is in our govt from our religious culture. Govt should not have the right to decide who gets married when no religious group believes in gay marriage. If our government wants to give all the benefits of being married to gay couples fine.

You post articles you don't agree with as the logic to support your view? :rollin

You really didn't read it, did you? Congrats on being a member of the mouse school of anti-intellectualism.

[panic giraffe]

Why? What's wrong with incestous relationships? or polygamy?

as long as they're consentual, and not forced on anyone, its a personal choice...nothing, i couldn't give a rat's ass what other people do in their own beds/cars/trailers.......

but, that's changing the subject really...


i don't see how one can equate same-sex marriage to incest or polygamy, thats all.

[jack sommerset]

Just let the fags get married. It's not a big deal.

[clambake]

i don't see how one can equate same-sex marriage to incest or polygamy, thats all.

he must think they don't exist, yet.

[LnGrrrR]

I love how gay people want a stable coupling, and conservatives are like "Hell no! You gays must live in sin with no official bonds!" :lol

[jack sommerset]

I love how gay people want a stable coupling, and conservatives are like "Hell no! You gays must live in sin with no official bonds!" :lol

Conservatives are not the only ones who don't want same sex marriage. In fact the big dog of the democratic party himself does not want it. Me, I am independent. Let them get married!!!!! How is that for someone (me) being accused of gay hating.

[clambake]

Conservatives are not the only ones who don't want same sex marriage. In fact the big dog of the democratic party himself does not want it. Me, I am independent. Let them get married!!!!! How is that for someone (me) being accused of gay hating.

you just made miamiheats shit list.

[MiamiHeat]

I love how gay people want a stable coupling, and conservatives are like "Hell no! You gays must live in sin with no official bonds!" :lol

actually, most people who oppose same sex-marriage will support a civil union or a new form of union for gays that is recognized by the government with all of the benefits

[panic giraffe]

he must think they don't exist, yet.

well that would be going too far, almost like saying that incestous relationships and polygimist don't exist...

and if incestous couples and polygimist stood up en masse and demanded equal rights, i would support them as well, and would commend anyone who claims to be a libertarian as not being 100% full of shit by doing the same thing...

the first problem with the question posed is that by saying the three are correlated is saying that two definite choices, incest and polygamy (which are not even debated as being biological by those who practice either), is the same as saying that something that is at the very least debated as being a biological characteristic.

the second problem is that its just attempting to skirt a issue by instilling fear on a completely unrelated issue. like telling someone on 9/12/01 to not ride a bike because someone just crashed a plane into a building and you don't know what they might hijack next.

but that all probably went over his head.

[MiamiHeat]

yeah of course, us dumb men of character and morals can't understand your beatnik tree hugging logic.

[clambake]

well that would be going too far, almost like saying that incestous relationships and polygimist don't exist...

and if incestous couples and polygimist stood up en masse and demanded equal rights, i would support them as well, and would commend anyone who claims to be a libertarian as not being 100% full of shit by doing the same thing...

the first problem with the question posed is that by saying the three are correlated is saying that two definite choices, incest and polygamy (which are not even debated as being biological by those who practice either), is the same as saying that something that is at the very least debated as being a biological characteristic.

the second problem is that its just attempting to skirt a issue by instilling fear on a completely unrelated issue. like telling someone on 9/12/01 to not ride a bike because someone just crashed a plane into a building and you don't know what they might hijack next.

but that all probably went over his head.

it's a perfect example of how they've trained him to argue.

[panic giraffe]

actually, most people who oppose same sex-marriage will support a civil union or a new form of union for gays that is recognized by the government with all of the benefits

do you?

whats so different from marriage then?

whats so scared about the word "marriage" that it must be protected as something that was defined the way we practice it only a few hundred years ago?

if its a case of only granting marrige to how YOU define it, do you then feel as if any marriage that came into place anyother way should not be considered legal in the US? should i then tell my hindu doctor that his marriage that was arranged by his parents in india is now null and void because since it was arranged and doesn't meet the christian definition of what marriage is, its not legal in the US?

[clambake]

yeah of course, us dumb men of character and morals can't understand your beatnik tree hugging logic.


i remember reading some literature based solely on your personal relationships with women.

[panic giraffe]

yeah of course, us dumb men of character and morals can't understand your beatnik tree hugging logic.

but i'm not even a beatnik or a tree hugger, quite far from it, texan through and through, just believe in logic. like common fucking sense logic. which can go hand in hand with morals and character.

i wish there was a party that shared all my views, but that should be a whole other thread..........

[spursncowboys]

You post articles you don't agree with as the logic to support your view? :rollin

You really didn't read it, did you? Congrats on being a member of the mouse school of anti-intellectualism.
Was a right taken away? I did read it. I don't think you understood it. I find it a little silly being called a name that a liberal authoritarian populist would fit the description so much easier. You are the one not wanting to discuss it. YOu are the one treating anyone with a different view as yours as evil or dimwitted. This isn't high school and we are not a bunch of school girls.

[MiamiHeat]

but i'm not even a beatnik or a tree hugger, quite far from it, texan through and through, just believe in logic. like common fucking sense logic. which can go hand in hand with morals and character.

i

How's this for some logic then

1) Homosexuality is a health hazard. Scientifically and medically proven.

2) Homosexual relationships cannot be a real family because they cannot produce any children of their own.

3) Homosexual males usually turn out to be effeminate. What a coincidence the high pitched 'girly' fags all talk the same.

4A) Homosexuality is still a sexual orientation. A source of pleasure. There has been no scientific evidence for being 'born different'

4B) If A was true, that they WERE 'born different', then that would mean it's a defect of nature, just like a mental illness, a chemical imbalance in the brain, a stunted leg, a third arm. Nature programmed us to mate male-female. If they were bi-sexual, then it would just be a perverse source of sexual pleasure, but at least they still enjoyed the opposite sex. Completely gay people though, are a walking contradiction.

5) There is evidence that a significant portion of homosexuals reject their own gender assigned by nature. Sometimes a male in a male-male coupling will behave like a female and even go so far as to get a sex change. or a Female in a Female-Female coupling goes for a sex change to be a man. There is a deeper psychological influence involved, a rejection of themselves, which is unhealthy.

6) There is evidence that environment influences who turns out to be 'gay'.

should I continue?

no, i don't think I won't.


Your only answer to all of this will be "but....but.. it's WRONG TO DENY THEM!!!! *cries* it's just not OK, i mean, it feels wrong. They just want to be together *cries* can't we just do whatever we want to do?"

No, we can't do whatever we want to do.

[spursncowboys]

sucks to be on the wrong side of history
Yeah because the advancement and normalcy of homosexuality is progressing our culture. Tell that to the Greeks.

[baseline bum]

Was a right taken away? I did read it. I don't think you understood it. I find it a little silly being called a name that a liberal authoritarian populist would fit the description so much easier. You are the one not wanting to discuss it. YOu are the one treating anyone with a different view as yours as evil or dimwitted. This isn't high school and we are not a bunch of school girls.

Your article is incredibly dimwitted. The right to not be discriminated against because of sexual orientation by the federal or any state government is being taken away. I call you an idiot because you're posting shit equating equal protection under law to forcing one person into marrying against his will; garbage that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. How the fuck are you going to call me an authoritarian when you think it's government's duty to push your goddamn religion down our throats? You don't even believe in the fucking first amendment and you're going to call me an authoritarian, you cocksucker?

[baseline bum]

Was a right taken away? I did read it. I don't think you understood it. I find it a little silly being called a name that a liberal authoritarian populist would fit the description so much easier. You are the one not wanting to discuss it. YOu are the one treating anyone with a different view as yours as evil or dimwitted. This isn't high school and we are not a bunch of school girls.

And no, I don't treat everyone with a different view as evil or dimwitted. There are lots of intelligent conservatives here like Phenomenaul, 101A, MarcusBryant, Winehole, Extra Stout, etc here. You're not one of them.

[panic giraffe]

How's this for some logic then

1) Homosexuality is a health hazard. Scientifically and medically proven.


my god man, i thought you said you were married at 19, not that you are 19...
by that logic sex is a health hazard, not just the kind of a homo-sexual variaty, did you know that something like 86% of the worlds population gets some sort of STD at one point in their life so if you use that, then NO ONE but a 14% can get married
fail.



2) Homosexual relationships cannot be a real family because they cannot produce any children of their own.


so if person a has a child, decides to become true to their self and tell their partner that they are gay with person b, then person a and b have no child?

by that logic, i hope you don't have any step kids you have to disown tonight...
fail.




3) Homosexual males usually turn out to be effeminate. What a coincidence the high pitched 'girly' fags all talk the same.

? what does this have to do with the question of marriage?
prejuduce much?
fail.




[QUOTE]
4A) Homosexuality is still a sexual orientation. A source of pleasure. There has been no scientific evidence for being 'born different'

never said there was either, said it was debated as opposed to the two other choices



4B) If A was true, that they WERE 'born different', then that would mean it's a defect of nature, just like a mental illness, a chemical imbalance in the brain, a stunted leg, a third arm. Nature programmed us to mate male-female. If they were bi-sexual, then it would just be a perverse source of sexual pleasure, but at least they still enjoyed the opposite sex. Completely gay people though, are a walking contradiction.


um, so do you read a lot of L.Ron or something? where is you're proof for this?




5) There is evidence that a significant portion of homosexuals reject their own gender assigned by nature. Sometimes a male in a male-male coupling will behave like a female and even go so far as to get a sex change. or a Female in a Female-Female coupling goes for a sex change to be a man. There is a deeper psychological influence involved, a rejection of themselves, which is unhealthy.


how is choosing to live your life different unhealthy? so by that logic, all people should just be some grey middle of everything...not a very fun world...
but very nazi of you indeed.
but once again, what the fuck does this have to do w/gay marriage?


6) There is evidence that environment influences who turns out to be 'gay'.

should I continue?

no, i don't think I won't.


Your only answer to all of this will be "but....but.. it's WRONG TO DENY THEM!!!! *cries* it's just not OK, i mean, it feels wrong. They just want to be together *cries* can't we just do whatever we want to do?"

No, we can't do whatever we want to do.

i never said that, i just said it doesn't affect me either way, so who am i to trample someones right to be happy? who am i to ask what other people do in their own homes...and the right has been saying the left has been facist as of late?.......

[iggypop123]

haha premature ejaculation from jefreey toobin at cnn. already saying this is a big deal even though its early that this won out. oops

[Spawn]

Im as conservative as it gets, but what is the big fucking deal about gays getting married? How on earth does that threaten the republic?

[Trainwreck2100]

lol @ teh gays pwned once more

[admiralsnackbar]

So the theory is that Maine is "full" of morons who can't figure out that their two GOP senators aren't conservatives. Sure.

Having lived there 3 years, I can assuredly say that's almost exactly the issue, ironic as it sounds. They are a conservative state, but only socially/morally speaking. Fiscally they have more in common with France than, say, the Southern states. Big government, socialized medicine, crushing taxes... it's the worst of both worlds, politically.

[Winehole23]

Im as conservative as it gets, but what is the big fucking deal about gays getting married? How on earth does that threaten the republic?It doesn't. It's sort of what people have instead of morality now. Hating teh gheys.

[Winehole23]

Or druggies. Or immigrants. Or minorities. Or any other convenient scapegoat for our collective decadence and failure.

[Jacob1983]

I think it's funny how there is video proof that Obama does not support gay marriage yet gays still support him.

The people of Maine should be happy. For one day, their state was in the news and was being talked about. Now it goes back into the abyss of states that people don't really care about or talk about that much.

[sabar]

I guess you miss my point. If a brother and sister love each other (eww), why shouldn't they have "the right" to get married? Why not put that up for a vote? See where I'm going?

The state should have no role in joining people together other than a bureaucratic one as far as paperwork for taxes/etc is concerned.

The slippery slope argument not only in and of itself but also because it assumes that the current situation is correct, which it is not (that being the government having a direct role in marriage).

You will also find that incest and 'one man-many women' hook-ups occur outside of marriage regularly. Aside from a rise in genetic defects due to recessive trait emergence and women being put in a submissive role while passing around STDs, there is nothing wrong with those scenarios.


1) Homosexuality is a health hazard. Scientifically and medically proven.As are smoking, heterosexuality, driving, drinking, and stepping outside a bunker. Society does not forbid things on their minuscule inherit danger alone.


2) Homosexual relationships cannot be a real family because they cannot produce any children of their own. Consider the millions of foster parents and infertile heterosexual couples that consider themselves to be a real family. The fertility of a couple plays no bearing in marriage after 4000 BC.


3) Homosexual males usually turn out to be effeminate. What a coincidence the high pitched 'girly' fags all talk the same.Ad hominem


4A) Homosexuality is still a sexual orientation. A source of pleasure. There has been no scientific evidence for being 'born different'Yes there is. There is also evidence for it arising from social constructs. Homosexuality obviously has multiple factors as to its origin.


4B) If A was true, that they WERE 'born different', then that would mean it's a defect of nature, just like a mental illness, a chemical imbalance in the brain, a stunted leg, a third arm. Nature programmed us to mate male-female. If they were bi-sexual, then it would just be a perverse source of sexual pleasure, but at least they still enjoyed the opposite sex. Completely gay people though, are a walking contradiction."Defects of nature" as you put it have the same standing as everyone else. What instinct does plays no role in anything of importance, because nature programmed us with free will to override it. Our duty to reproduce is of no significance in an overpopulated world in which technology allows us to artificially select ourselves.


5) There is evidence that a significant portion of homosexuals reject their own gender assigned by nature. Sometimes a male in a male-male coupling will behave like a female and even go so far as to get a sex change. or a Female in a Female-Female coupling goes for a sex change to be a man. There is a deeper psychological influence involved, a rejection of themselves, which is unhealthy. It is a rejection of a part of oneself which is not consistent with what the brain expects itself to be. You also assert that it is unhealthy, yet all people reject aspects of themselves over their development.


6) There is evidence that environment influences who turns out to be 'gay'.

See 4A.


MiamiHeat[/b]]How's this for some logic then

Almost your entire argument consists of straw men that are not even correct in themselves and ad hominem attacks against gays. Honestly, I hope that was some kind of failure of a troll job.

This is correct logic:

1. All Lakerfans deny collusion
2. Bob is a Lakerfan
3. From 1 and 2, Bob denies collusion

You might want to practice before bothering to reply with another army of straw men. Your goal should also be to tie your point into gay marriage instead of stating random factoids about homosexuality in order to show some non-existent chain of logic that "refutes" the last three words that someone posted in a sentence about themselves that had little to do with the topic.

[symple19]

It's so ridiculous that gay people can't marry. Religion is at the root of it, as usual. Religion is the single largest barrier to social progression, always has been, always will be

[Wild Cobra]

I love how gay people want a stable coupling, and conservatives are like "Hell no! You gays must live in sin with no official bonds!" :lol
If they want contractual bonds, then let them draw them up through lawyers or go for civil unions. I will vote for civil unions, but not to change the definition of marriage.

Washington state passed a "Everything but Marriage (http://www.seattlepi.com/local/411801_gayrights03.html)" act Tuesday.

[spursncowboys]

Having lived there 3 years, I can assuredly say that's almost exactly the issue, ironic as it sounds. They are a conservative state, but only socially/morally speaking. Fiscally they have more in common with France than, say, the Southern states. Big government, socialized medicine, crushing taxes... it's the worst of both worlds, politically.

Sounds like John McCain.

[spursncowboys]

If they want contractual bonds, then let them draw them up through lawyers or go for civil unions. I will vote for civil unions, but not to change the definition of marriage.

Washington state passed a "Everything but Marriage (http://www.seattlepi.com/local/411801_gayrights03.html)" act Tuesday.

That's a good idea.

[Spurminator]

Freedom is just a word.

[admiralsnackbar]

Freedom is just a word.

And the constitution ain't nothin' but a gott-damn piece of paper.

[EmptyMan]

They should just get rid of the "e" if they want to be taken serious.

[EmptyMan]

It's so ridiculous that gay people can't marry. Religion is at the root of it, as usual. Religion is the single largest barrier to social progression, always has been, always will be


To be fair, Politicians are just using the "Social Progression" as a means of gaining more power. They don't really care about you.

[hope4dopes]

To be fair, Politicians are just using the "Social Progression" as a means of gaining more power. They don't really care about you. True words..Gay marriage is just the cause du jour of the american left, once their transient moral outrage losses it's sound bite attention span, or a group with deeper pockets comes along ,willing to donate to the DNC. Gay marriage will be put on the back burner.

[hope4dopes]

If they want contractual bonds, then let them draw them up through lawyers or go for civil unions. I will vote for civil unions, but not to change the definition of marriage.

Washington state passed a "Everything but Marriage (http://www.seattlepi.com/local/411801_gayrights03.html)" act Tuesday.
Gay activists don't want civil unions, they want "marriage" they're not interested in all the rights extended to them that married couples have, and which most straight people are more than happy to extend. What they want is to have homosexual unions elevated to the same cultural, and social plane as marriage, to co-opt the institution, so they don't have to feel like deviates in the eyes of society.

[Wild Cobra]

What they want is to have homosexual unions elevated to the same cultural, and social plane as marriage, to co-opt the institution, so they don't have to feel like deviates in the eyes of society.
Are there some really that dumb, that the think a change in status by law and word will change what people think of them?

[hope4dopes]

Are there some really that dumb, that the think a change in status by law and word will change what people think of them?It's not dumb, it's a step toward a cultural legitamicy, they don't have now. Once you destory a cultures institutions the void is filled by the state.

[Winehole23]

Not everyone believes culture is based on who you fuck, micca.

[hope4dopes]

Not everyone believes culture is based on who you fuck, micca. Yes well what you and chimp do is of no concern, but marriage is a little bit more than "who you fuck"

[Homeland Security]

What's funny is how people strive and strive to repress other people they don't even know for no other reason than to beat down the cognitive dissonance in their own head about their worldview.

What's funny is how people will be so hateful to maintain their illusion of what love and compassion are supposed to be.

Just put aside the facade and embrace the animal within.

[Winehole23]

marriage is a little bit more than "who you fuck"Granted, but culture includes much besides marriage, and you haven't even begun to make the case that gay marriage is deleterious to the institution per se, much less to the broader culture.

[Homeland Security]

Look, the only reason there is any hubbub about gay marriage is because of the religions that say homosexuality is a sin. All this stuff about how anthropological structures of families, blah blah blah, is totally based upon the worldviews of those religions.

The biggest fear people have is that gay marriage will get implemented and it won't be a big deal at all. It won't make any difference. Life in America will just go on, and they'll have to come up with some other construct to convince themselves that their religious worldview makes any difference whatsoever and their life has any meaning.

[admiralsnackbar]

Are there some really that dumb, that the think a change in status by law and word will change what people think of them?
I'm sure gay people are used to being marginalized and mistreated by individuals, but when you're a citizen and tax-payer and the state does the same to you? :nope

[admiralsnackbar]

Look, the only reason there is any hubbub about gay marriage is because of the religions that say homosexuality is a sin. All this stuff about how anthropological structures of families, blah blah blah, is totally based upon the current worldviews of those religions.

The biggest fear people have is that gay marriage will get implemented and it won't be a big deal at all. It won't make any difference. Life in America will just go on, and they'll have to come up with some other construct to convince themselves that their religious worldview makes any difference whatsoever and their life has any meaning.

Fixed

[hope4dopes]

I'm sure gay people are used to being marginalized and mistreated by individuals, but when you're a citizen and tax-payer and the state does the same to you? :nope believe me a rich gay man is mistrested and marginalized far less than any poor man in america.

[hope4dopes]

Personally I'd think most gay people would be somewhat insulted that their unions would somehow have to ape the traditions of straight people, and not reflect their unique place in the cosmos.

[admiralsnackbar]

believe me a rich gay man is mistrested and marginalized far less than any poor man in america.

By life being a bitch? Yeah. But explicitly in the laws? No. Nowhere does the law record say a poor man isn't entitled to equal treatment under the law as a rich person.

[MiamiHeat]

Gays don't want equalized benefits.

This is about society accepting them.

That's what this is about.

Well, news flash gay people : We don't accept you. I can be your friend, everything, but don't for one second think that I believe you are normal. that will never change.

[admiralsnackbar]

Gays don't want equalized benefits.

This is about society accepting them.

That's what this is about.

Well, news flash gay people : We don't accept you. I can be your friend, everything, but don't for one second think that I believe you are normal. that will never change.

With all due respect, MH, over the course of this thread, you've demonstrated you don't know anything about gay people or what they want. Given how skeeved out you are every time you say anything about them, and how utterly unsympathetic these statements invariably are, I'd go so far as to wager that you haven't got one gay friend that you actually talk to about real shit.

[DarkReign]

With all due respect, MH, over the course of this thread, you've demonstrated you don't know anything about gay people or what they want. Given how skeeved out you are every time you say anything about them, and how utterly unsympathetic these statements invariably are, I'd go so far as to wager that you haven't got one gay friend that you actually talk to about real shit.

Bingo.

[EmptyMan]

Homosexuality has been around ever since humans could draw on caves. That makes it pretty normal.

People just need to chill and quit caring really. I doubt it'll become the norm. The idea of a man sticking his waahooo in another man's yooohooo is pretty gross to most males. Natural design intended it to be so reproduction would occur. For most life will continue on the same as usual.

[Jacob1983]

People just aren't ready for gay marriage. Gays and lesbians need to realize that. Some states might be ready and okay with it but there are a lot of states that aren't fans of gay marriage. That's the truth. And homosexuality especially gay marriage is a deviant behavior. That's one reason why people aren't fans of gay marriage. It deviates from the norms of society. I once posted on another message board which was extremely liberal that homosexuality was a deviant behavior. You should have seen the reaction. It was like I killed a dozen gay people or something. Deviant does not always mean bad. It just means that it deviates from the norms of society.

[DarkReign]

And homosexuality especially gay marriage is a deviant behavior

:lmao

Yeeeah, according to whom?

[Crookshanks]

:lmao

Yeeeah, according to whom?

God Almighty - the creator of the universe.

[Warlord23]

MiamiHeat, WildCobra, DarrinS and co ... I assume that your objection to gays getting married like their heterosexual counterparts is based on the potential ill effects that the spectacle of such a ceremony can have on "normal" people, especially kids, right? Since you don't have any problems with civil unions and legal/financial rights, and since you don't have any problems with gay couples living like straight couples privately, surely it's the public aspect of this matter that bothers you.

If that is the case, what would you say if a majority of people voted for Evangelical Christians to stop practicing/preaching/recruiting in public? Consider the similarities ...

1. Both gays and Evangelicals are a minority in society
2. It can be argued that Evangelicals are deviants from other religions, since they possess unique beliefs that are not shared by the majority
3. Just like you do not want your kids to see an openly gay wedding, I'm sure there are a lot of people out there who don't want a fervent, bible-thumping Evangelical influencing their children.
4. Being an Evangelical is also a matter of choice

So if a majority of people in a certain state voted to force Evangelicals to practice their faith privately, would you be in favor of enforcing such a law?

At what point does all this infringe upon the basic freedom to choose how you want to live your life?

[admiralsnackbar]

God Almighty - the creator of the universe.

It's a tired argument, but I never get an answer from literalist fundamentalists: If you spent so much time studying God's word, why don't you believe in polygamy, slavery, and all the other things the Old Testament celebrated or condemned? And if Jesus was the Christ, why would you bend his message of love into a justification for bigotry?

But beyond the old arguments, I just wonder how you make sense of gay people in order to assure yourself that they choose to be the way they are. You're saying God made a creature who chooses to be miserable and ostracized, who chooses to be attracted to -- and fall in love with -- the wrong gender, procreationally speaking. Why would somebody do this? What's the end game? And before you answer with some checkout-counter psychology old saw about distant father figures and what-not, realize that you also need to account for homosexuality in most other species, as well. Species which presumably don't have daddy issues, even.

Have you ever been attracted to anyone, I wonder? While you were in the grips of this attraction, was choice ever a part of it for you? Or was it just a visceral feeling?

[baseline bum]

God Almighty - the creator of the universe.

So I assume you don't eat shellfish too.

[Supergirl]

Look, the only reason there is any hubbub about gay marriage is because of the religions that say homosexuality is a sin. All this stuff about how anthropological structures of families, blah blah blah, is totally based upon the worldviews of those religions.

The biggest fear people have is that gay marriage will get implemented and it won't be a big deal at all. It won't make any difference. Life in America will just go on, and they'll have to come up with some other construct to convince themselves that their religious worldview makes any difference whatsoever and their life has any meaning.

+1

which, by the way, is precisely what has happened in CT, MA, IA, and NH. Same gender couples marry, no one else is really affected unless they're invited to another wedding. Which they can attend or not attend, as they choose.

[Homeland Security]

Hey, Crookshanks, remind me, how many people have you been married to?

[Homeland Security]

+1

which, by the way, is precisely what has happened in CT, MA, IA, and NH. Same gender couples marry, no one else is really affected unless they're invited to another wedding. Which they can attend or not attend, as they choose.

Oh god, stop it with the "same gender" nonsense. Words have gender; people have sexes.

[admiralsnackbar]

Hey, Crookshanks, remind me, how many people have you been married to?

And while we're quizzing you, why have the username Crookshanks? Isn't that a character in one of those witchcraft-indoctrination Harry Potter books?

[coyotes_geek]

People just aren't ready for gay marriage. Gays and lesbians need to realize that. Some states might be ready and okay with it but there are a lot of states that aren't fans of gay marriage. That's the truth. And homosexuality especially gay marriage is a deviant behavior. That's one reason why people aren't fans of gay marriage. It deviates from the norms of society. I once posted on another message board which was extremely liberal that homosexuality was a deviant behavior. You should have seen the reaction. It was like I killed a dozen gay people or something. Deviant does not always mean bad. It just means that it deviates from the norms of society.

Heterosexuals can engage in deviant behavior too, yet we don't seem to be concerned about keeping them from getting married. Why is that?

[spursncowboys]

MiamiHeat, WildCobra, DarrinS and co ... I assume that your objection to gays getting married like their heterosexual counterparts is based on the potential ill effects that the spectacle of such a ceremony can have on "normal" people, especially kids, right? Since you don't have any problems with civil unions and legal/financial rights, and since you don't have any problems with gay couples living like straight couples privately, surely it's the public aspect of this matter that bothers you.

If that is the case, what would you say if a majority of people voted for Evangelical Christians to stop practicing/preaching/recruiting in public? Consider the similarities ...

1. Both gays and Evangelicals are a minority in society
2. It can be argued that Evangelicals are deviants from other religions, since they possess unique beliefs that are not shared by the majority
3. Just like you do not want your kids to see an openly gay wedding, I'm sure there are a lot of people out there who don't want a fervent, bible-thumping Evangelical influencing their children.
4. Being an Evangelical is also a matter of choice

So if a majority of people in a certain state voted to force Evangelicals to practice their faith privately, would you be in favor of enforcing such a law?

At what point does all this infringe upon the basic freedom to choose how you want to live your life?
Evangelicals are people who feel god wants them to preach the word.
1. You can switch gay with any word.
2. Are we talking protestants? Protestants do not go against the Lord's commandments. Protestants also do not go against the Natural law.
3. Now we are talkin real rghts. speech and assembly are god given constitutional rights. People wanting to change the definition of marriage are not constitutionally protected to do so.

It is not the ill effects I am worried about. The problem is marriage is not a right. It is not a Govt. entity that is distributed evenly. This is a religious custom. The one man, one woman marriage in our society comes from our Judeo-Christian background. Some Followers of Jesus believe that when married you are both giving your life to Abbah and becoming one. Marriage is a pact with god. This cannot be possible since a homosexual couple are living in sin. Don't get me wrong - it is a sin among sins. Sorry I do not mean to get into religion. I am not telling someone how to live their life, unless it involves them forcing their beliefs on me. I hope they find something appropriate like giving the union.

[baseline bum]

Evangelicals are people who feel god wants them to preach the word.
1. You can switch gay with any word.
2. Are we talking protestants? Protestants do not go against the Lord's commandments. Protestants also do not go against the Natural law.
3. Now we are talkin real rghts. speech and assembly are god given constitutional rights. People wanting to change the definition of marriage are not constitutionally protected to do so.

It is not the ill effects I am worried about. The problem is marriage is not a right. It is not a Govt. entity that is distributed evenly. This is a religious custom. The one man, one woman marriage in our society comes from our Judeo-Christian background. Some Followers of Jesus believe that when married you are both giving your life to Abbah and becoming one. Marriage is a pact with god. This cannot be possible since a homosexual couple are living in sin. Don't get me wrong - it is a sin among sins. Sorry I do not mean to get into religion. I am not telling someone how to live their life, unless it involves them forcing their beliefs on me. I hope they find something appropriate like giving the union.

No one's forcing your fucking church to accept it.

[Homeland Security]

Constitution schmonstitution. We don't have a constitutional form of government. We have a cobbled-together common law just like the British. Except that ours consists or two centuries of Supreme Court decisions interpreting and re-interpreting an eighteenth-century text to say whatever the contemporary intelligentsia want it to say.

Gay marriage is on the docket now because that's what the universities were debating 40 years ago. That's about how long it takes to filter down to the hoi polloi.

Want to change the government? Change the intelligentsia. Or better yet -- liquidate it.

[Winehole23]

People wanting to change the definition of marriage are not constitutionally protected to do so.Yes, they are. Read the 1st amendment lately?

[Winehole23]

You can switch gay with any word. I'm not sure what this means, but it's probably sigworthy.

[coyotes_geek]

It is not the ill effects I am worried about. The problem is marriage is not a right. It is not a Govt. entity that is distributed evenly. This is a religious custom. The one man, one woman marriage in our society comes from our Judeo-Christian background. Some Followers of Jesus believe that when married you are both giving your life to Abbah and becoming one. Marriage is a pact with god. This cannot be possible since a homosexual couple are living in sin. Don't get me wrong - it is a sin among sins. Sorry I do not mean to get into religion. I am not telling someone how to live their life, unless it involves them forcing their beliefs on me. I hope they find something appropriate like giving the union.

I get that arguement. I truly do. However, where that arguement falls apart, at least in terms of whether or not government should be in the marriage business, is that those people who feel that way don't seem to have a problem with heterosexual couples of different religions make pacts with their own gods, or when heterosexual couples who don't believe in God make a pact strictly between themselves.

[hope4dopes]

No one's forcing your fucking church to accept it.



Ake Green, pastor of a Pentecostal congregation in Kalmar, Sweden, was sentenced to one month in prison on a charge of inciting hatred against homosexuals. Pastor Green was prosecuted for his sermon in a January hearing, where he was found guilty of "hate speech against homosexuals" for a sermon preached in 2003.

According to press reports, Pastor Green condemned homosexuality as "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society." His comments were delivered as part of a sermon, drawn from biblical texts, dealing with the sin of homosexuality. In Sweden, biblical preaching is now a crime.

The prosecution of a Christian pastor for the crime of preaching a biblical sermon sets a new low for the culture of political correctness. Evangelical Christians--and all those who cherish civil liberties--should observe this case with great interest and concern. Those who reject biblical truth are now set on silencing Christian pulpits--all in the name of tolerance, acceptance, and diversity.

The logic of this prosecution is driven by the ardent determination of homosexual activists to make all criticism of homosexuality illegal. The logic of many hate crimes statutes plays right into this ideological strategy. By silencing all opposition, advocates for the normalization of homosexuality have the public square entirely to themselves, with defenders of biblical sexuality and the traditional family left without a voice and risking prosecution for any language or argument deemed offensive by the guardians of political correctness.

In response to the protest by the Slovakian Interior Minister, Cecilia Julin, the Swedish ambassador to Slovakia, explained: "Swedish law states that public addresses cannot be used to instigate hatred towards a certain group." So much for free speech and religious liberty.

Sweden passed its hate speech statute in 2002, explicitly including "church sermons" as subject to the law's restrictions. As the Riksdag, Sweden's parliament, debated the legislation, the nation's chancellor of justice released a public note stating that a church sermon characterizing homosexual behaviors as sinful "might" be considered a criminal offense. That "might" must now be replaced with "will," proved by Pastor Green's conviction and jail term.

[Winehole23]

Want to change the government? Change the intelligentsia. Or better yet -- liquidate it.Worked for Pol Pot.

[hope4dopes]

Constitution schmonstitution. We don't have a constitutional form of government. We have a cobbled-together common law just like the British. Except that ours consists or two centuries of Supreme Court decisions interpreting and re-interpreting an eighteenth-century text to say whatever the contemporary intelligentsia want it to say.

Gay marriage is on the docket now because that's what the universities were debating 40 years ago. That's about how long it takes to filter down to the hoi polloi.

Want to change the government? Change the intelligentsia. Or better yet -- liquidate it. start our own little cultural revolution Huh...... I dunno

[Winehole23]

Those who reject biblical truth are now set on silencing Christian pulpits--all in the name of tolerance, acceptance, and diversity.In Sweden.

[Homeland Security]

Worked for Pol Pot.
Once you get over the quaint notion that each individual matters, you can start to achieve great things.

[coyotes_geek]

Ake Green, pastor of a Pentecostal congregation in Kalmar, Sweden, was sentenced to one month in prison on a charge of inciting hatred against homosexuals. Pastor Green was prosecuted for his sermon in a January hearing, where he was found guilty of "hate speech against homosexuals" for a sermon preached in 2003.

According to press reports, Pastor Green condemned homosexuality as "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society." His comments were delivered as part of a sermon, drawn from biblical texts, dealing with the sin of homosexuality. In Sweden, biblical preaching is now a crime.

The prosecution of a Christian pastor for the crime of preaching a biblical sermon sets a new low for the culture of political correctness. Evangelical Christians--and all those who cherish civil liberties--should observe this case with great interest and concern. Those who reject biblical truth are now set on silencing Christian pulpits--all in the name of tolerance, acceptance, and diversity.

The logic of this prosecution is driven by the ardent determination of homosexual activists to make all criticism of homosexuality illegal. The logic of many hate crimes statutes plays right into this ideological strategy. By silencing all opposition, advocates for the normalization of homosexuality have the public square entirely to themselves, with defenders of biblical sexuality and the traditional family left without a voice and risking prosecution for any language or argument deemed offensive by the guardians of political correctness.

In response to the protest by the Slovakian Interior Minister, Cecilia Julin, the Swedish ambassador to Slovakia, explained: "Swedish law states that public addresses cannot be used to instigate hatred towards a certain group." So much for free speech and religious liberty.

Sweden passed its hate speech statute in 2002, explicitly including "church sermons" as subject to the law's restrictions. As the Riksdag, Sweden's parliament, debated the legislation, the nation's chancellor of justice released a public note stating that a church sermon characterizing homosexual behaviors as sinful "might" be considered a criminal offense. That "might" must now be replaced with "will," proved by Pastor Green's conviction and jail term.

His conviction was overturned and he was acquitted. So basically one district court went overboard and got overruled. Hardly a sign of some mass movement to force the Church to accept homosexuality.

[hope4dopes]

His conviction was overturned and he was acquitted.so having the state jail you, and being forced to fight them is what you call freedom?

[hope4dopes]

Once you get over the quaint notion that each individual matters, you can start to achieve great things.Yeah well you achieve things I don' know about great.

[coyotes_geek]

so having the state jail you, and being forced to fight them is what you call freedom?

No, it's what I call wrongful prosecution. Something which the higher court acknowledged, and something for which I hope the good Pastor received some kind of restitution.

[Homeland Security]

Evangelical Christians in this country are too wedded to the established order and to the vestiges of their turn-the-other-cheek moral code. They might bitch and moan about being oppressed and villify people, but when push comes to shove, they will neither push nor shove.

And so they will fail.

If you want to take control of a society, you must do it by force. You can do it slowly, as the liberals have, by infiltrating institutions and gradually taking them over, or you can do it more quickly through violence.

The liberals already have the slow method 90% accomplished, and Christians won't resort to violence, so either we will have a left-wing order, or some other right-wing group not so shackled by scruples will need to assert itself.

[hope4dopes]

No, it's what I call wrongful prosecution. Something which the higher court acknowledged, and something for which I hope the good Pastor received some kind of restitution.No it wasn't some clerical error it was the bootheel of the state coming down on a guys neck.

[spursncowboys]

Worked for Pol Pot.
Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Saddam, (insert Commie dictator)

[Spurminator]

Hopeless.

[spursncowboys]

Evangelical Christians in this country are too wedded to the established order and to the vestiges of their turn-the-other-cheek moral code. They might bitch and moan about being oppressed and villify people, but when push comes to shove, they will neither push nor shove.

And so they will fail.

If you want to take control of a society, you must do it by force. You can do it slowly, as the liberals have, by infiltrating institutions and gradually taking them over, or you can do it more quickly through violence.

The liberals already have the slow method 90% accomplished, and Christians won't resort to violence, so either we will have a left-wing order, or some other right-wing group not so shackled by scruples will need to assert itself.
You like to state your opinions as facts without any citing.

[coyotes_geek]

No it wasn't some clerical error it was the bootheel of the state coming down on a guys neck.

No, it wasn't the bootheel of the state coming down on a guys neck. It was one court making a bad ruling and the state coming down on the court. Just like how when that judge in Louisiana decided he didn't want to marry an interracial couple it was simply one judge being a dumbass and did not mean that United States of America was trying to outlaw interracial marriage.

[Homeland Security]

Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Saddam, (insert Commie dictator)
Did or did not Lenin successfully overthrow the Czar?

Did or not did not Stalin win World War II?

Did or did not Castro successfully overthrow Cuba and keep the U.S. at bay for 40 years?

Did or did not Saddam run a regime hardly any worse and certainly more modern than what Iraq has today (notwithstanding his failure to fall in line with U.S. interests)?

Hey, if you'd rather lose than go to extreme measures, then go ahead and learn to enjoy your socialism and your eventual bankruptcy.

[Winehole23]

You like to state your opinions as facts without any citing.Hi-skool Security's too busy getting ready for the pogrom. For types like him, force is its own justification.

[hope4dopes]

Evangelical Christians in this country are too wedded to the established order and to the vestiges of their turn-the-other-cheek moral code. They might bitch and moan about being oppressed and villify people, but when push comes to shove, they will neither push nor shove.

And so they will fail.

If you want to take control of a society, you must do it by force. You can do it slowly, as the liberals have, by infiltrating institutions and gradually taking them over, or you can do it more quickly through violence.

The liberals already have the slow method 90% accomplished, and Christians won't resort to violence, so either we will have a left-wing order, or some other right-wing group not so shackled by scruples will need to assert itself. Nah you can just stand up to the institutions and take them back gradually, or you can do what happened in Russia, after the communists destroyed the pillars of the society and culture, the Church or God, the family or marriage and family,and the russian soul through repression of "counter revolutionary" books, thought,and art and exprsssion,
After they did all that and made a right bloody mess of Russia, once the STATE fell, these institutions flowered again.They flowered because on some level they feed the people.

[Homeland Security]

You like to state your opinions as facts without any citing.
Oh, did I miss something? Did this forum turn into a scholarly journal or something? Are all your posts fastidiously footnoted?

[hope4dopes]

No, it wasn't the bootheel of the state coming down on a guys neck. It was one court making a bad ruling and the state coming down on the court. Just like how when that judge in Louisiana decided he didn't want to marry an interracial couple it was simply one judge being a dumbass and did not mean that United States of America was trying to outlaw interracial marriage. Yeah you wanna believe that shit.....how many gay activists do you think went down and demanded the good pastors release?
bullshit, it was a political shot fired over the bow.

[hope4dopes]

Hi-skool Security's too busy getting ready for the pogrom. For types like him, force is its own justification.Well he's gotta a point history is more often determined on battlefields than, in banquet halls.

[Homeland Security]

Hi-skool Security's too busy getting ready for the pogrom. For types like him, force is its own justification.

It was a revelation for me when I realized that the Homeland Security troll I created as a lampoon of a bloodsucking right-winger at some level reflected what I really believe deep down, and that the thoughtful Christian "smart conservative" was just who my erstwhile value system taught me I was supposed to strive to be.

But it is not who I am.

Eventually the dichotomy broke down. Extra Stout is dead.

[Homeland Security]

Anyway there's little point in discussing these things on an internet forum. Doing is better than talking. Ta ta.

[Winehole23]

Nice. :lol

[Winehole23]

Well he's gotta a point history is more often determined on battlefields than, in banquet halls.

http://www.stevenlehrer.com/images/Burger2.jpg

[Winehole23]

Extra Stout is dead. Long live Extra Stout!

[Winehole23]

...still distinctively bitter.

[hope4dopes]

No, it wasn't the bootheel of the state coming down on a guys neck. It was one court making a bad ruling and the state coming down on the court. Just like how when that judge in Louisiana decided he didn't want to marry an interracial couple it was simply one judge being a dumbass and did not mean that United States of America was trying to outlaw interracial marriage.



As the Riksdag, Sweden's parliament, debated the legislation, the nation's chancellor of justice released a public note stating that a church sermon characterizing homosexual behaviors as sinful "might" be considered a criminal offense. That "might" must now be replaced with "will," proved by Pastor Green's conviction and jail term.


The very fact the PARLIAMENT was debating wether or not churches teaching homosexuality was a sin could be seen as a hate crime, suggest that there are lots and lots of people that as baseline bum denies. Do in fact want to" force your fucking church to accept it."

[Winehole23]

Do in fact want to" force your fucking church to accept it."In Sweden. Generalize from the particular much?

[hope4dopes]

In Sweden. Generalize from the particular much? The american left has always looked to Europe to try and adopt some threadbare cloak of cosmopolitain intelligensia, and so we have european social democracy begin hoisted upon us by the left despite the fact europe is quickly trying to abandon it, and voting more and more conservative politicans into power.

[baseline bum]

Ake Green, pastor of a Pentecostal congregation in Kalmar, Sweden, was sentenced to one month in prison on a charge of inciting hatred against homosexuals. Pastor Green was prosecuted for his sermon in a January hearing, where he was found guilty of "hate speech against homosexuals" for a sermon preached in 2003.

According to press reports, Pastor Green condemned homosexuality as "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society." His comments were delivered as part of a sermon, drawn from biblical texts, dealing with the sin of homosexuality. In Sweden, biblical preaching is now a crime.

The prosecution of a Christian pastor for the crime of preaching a biblical sermon sets a new low for the culture of political correctness. Evangelical Christians--and all those who cherish civil liberties--should observe this case with great interest and concern. Those who reject biblical truth are now set on silencing Christian pulpits--all in the name of tolerance, acceptance, and diversity.

The logic of this prosecution is driven by the ardent determination of homosexual activists to make all criticism of homosexuality illegal. The logic of many hate crimes statutes plays right into this ideological strategy. By silencing all opposition, advocates for the normalization of homosexuality have the public square entirely to themselves, with defenders of biblical sexuality and the traditional family left without a voice and risking prosecution for any language or argument deemed offensive by the guardians of political correctness.

In response to the protest by the Slovakian Interior Minister, Cecilia Julin, the Swedish ambassador to Slovakia, explained: "Swedish law states that public addresses cannot be used to instigate hatred towards a certain group." So much for free speech and religious liberty.

Sweden passed its hate speech statute in 2002, explicitly including "church sermons" as subject to the law's restrictions. As the Riksdag, Sweden's parliament, debated the legislation, the nation's chancellor of justice released a public note stating that a church sermon characterizing homosexual behaviors as sinful "might" be considered a criminal offense. That "might" must now be replaced with "will," proved by Pastor Green's conviction and jail term.

So because Sweden doesn't protect ignorant speech like we are bound to do by our constitution, America would be forcing churches to accept gay marriage? What exactly is your point here?

[coyotes_geek]

Yeah you wanna believe that shit.....how many gay activists do you think went down and demanded the good pastors release?
bullshit, it was a political shot fired over the bow.

The Green case is almost 5 years old now. How many Pastors has Sweden locked up since then? Any laws directing the church to start marrying gays? I eagerly await your next example documenting a pattern of this state sanctioned persecution.

[coyotes_geek]

As the Riksdag, Sweden's parliament, debated the legislation, the nation's chancellor of justice released a public note stating that a church sermon characterizing homosexual behaviors as sinful "might" be considered a criminal offense. That "might" must now be replaced with "will," proved by Pastor Green's conviction and jail term.


The very fact the PARLIAMENT was debating wether or not churches teaching homosexuality was a sin could be seen as a hate crime, suggest that there are lots and lots of people that as baseline bum denies. Do in fact want to" force your fucking church to accept it."

So how are those people any different from people like yourself who believe that government has a duty to force people to "fucking accept" that they can't get married because you believe that God doesn't like it?

[hope4dopes]

So how are those people any different from people like yourself who believe that government has a duty to force people to "fucking accept" that they can't get married because you believe that God doesn't like it?exactlly when were people put in jail like the good pastor for getting a gay marriage.

[hope4dopes]

The Green case is almost 5 years old now. How many Pastors has Sweden locked up since then? Any laws directing the church to start marrying gays? I eagerly await your next example documenting a pattern of this state sanctioned persecution.Perhaps you could tell me how many gays have been put in jail for advocating same sex marriages..in the same time period........

[coyotes_geek]

exactlly when were people put in jail like the good pastor for getting a gay marriage.

There are exactly as many criminal convictions in the U.S of people getting gay marriages as there are criminal convictions in Sweden of pastors giving sermons on homosexuals.

Still waiting on your additional "shot across the bow" evidence btw..........

[Jacob1983]

Read any sociology or psychology book and check under deviant behavior. You will find that homosexuality is a deviant behavior. And yes, heterosexuals can participate in deviant behavior. Anyone can. And like I said before, deviant behavior isn't always bad. It's just behavior that deviates away from the norms of society. So before you point your finger at me and judge me, look up the fucking definition of deviant behavior.

[coyotes_geek]

Perhaps you could tell me how many gays have been put in jail for advocating same sex marriages..in the same time period........

Zero.

Your additional documentation please.

[coyotes_geek]

Read any sociology or psychology book and check under deviant behavior. You will find that homosexuality is a deviant behavior. And yes, heterosexuals can participate in deviant behavior. Anyone can. And like I said before, deviant behavior isn't always bad. It's just behavior that deviates away from the norms of society. So before you point your finger at me and judge me, look up the fucking definition of deviant behavior.

Okay, it's deviant. Now will you tell me why that one specific deviant behavior should disqualify people from getting married when no other deviant behavior between two consenting adults does?

[hope4dopes]

There are exactly as many criminal convictions in the U.S of people getting gay marriages as there are criminal convictions in Sweden of pastors giving sermons on homosexuals.

Still waiting on your additional "shot across the bow" evidence btw.......... Oh really and what is the name of the gay activist who was arrested for advocating gay marriage or jailed for saying christianity was a blight on society, during the same time the pastor was put in jail.

[hope4dopes]

Okay, it's deviant. Now will you tell me why that one specific deviant behavior should disqualify people from getting married when no other deviant behavior between two consenting adults does? excuse me but why are you drawing the line at just two consenting adults is it some magic number.

[hope4dopes]

There are exactly as many criminal convictions in the U.S of people getting gay marriages as there are criminal convictions in Sweden of pastors giving sermons on homosexuals.

Still waiting on your additional "shot across the bow" evidence btw.......... hate crime legislation has been used throughout europe by the left to silence all kinds of political dissent.

[coyotes_geek]

Oh really and what is the name of the gay activist who was arrested for advocating gay marriage or jailed for saying christianity was a blight on society, during the same time the pastor was put in jail.

The operative word from my post was "conviction". The pastor's conviction was overturned and he was acquitted. I've already said that the pastor was wrongfully prosecuted. Higher courts in Sweden agreed.

[coyotes_geek]

excuse me but why are you drawing the line at just two consenting adults is it some magic number.

Good point. I don't draw the line at two. If three people want to get married, I'm fine with that too. Basically, I don't give a shit what consenting adults do amongst themselves.

[coyotes_geek]

hate crime legislation has been used throughout europe by the left to silence all kinds of political dissent.

Then you should have no trouble providing me an additional example of Sweden's effort to force the church into accepting homosexuality.

[hope4dopes]

Then you should have no trouble providing me an additional example of Sweden's effort to force the church into accepting homosexuality. You are being purposely obtuse. The fact that a PARLIMENT in a republic would EVEN CONTEMPLATE jailing some one for esposing politically incorrect speech should be alarming.We're not talking about an overzealous queer on the police force here.We are talking a parliment pondering making it a crime for a pastor to call homosexuality a sin.
The only thing stopping them from making it a law was not some sense of justice but the peoples reaction.

[hope4dopes]

Good point. I don't draw the line at two. If three people want to get married, I'm fine with that too. Basically, I don't give a shit what consenting adults do amongst themselves.I don't care what they do either, but I do care when they try and co-opt the institution of marriage.Start your own institutions.
I find it ironic that most the people who support gay marrige, including gays themselves, as some sort of "right".Get outraged and disgusted about closet polygamists, funny but I've never seen a gay marriage activist at the trial of a polyigamist crying for justice.

[elbamba]

I hope the Iraq war comes to a vote too.

I think that it has twice in 2004 and 2008.

[Winehole23]

You are being purposely obtuse.Well, you are being unintentionally obtuse.

[Blake]

the only argument I can make against homosexuality is that I think that kids being raised by two adults of the same gender will be at a social disadvantage at some point later on.

It's a flimsy argument though because there is no evidence to back it up with so really, there is no good reason not to allow gay marriage.

There's also really no good reason not to allow polygamist marriage, incestual marriage or bestial marriage.

[Jacob1983]

I never said that homosexuality being a deviant behavior should disqualify gays from being able to get married. I was just stating that's a big reason why people haven't accepted gay marriage as being normal. Gays can get married if they want to. It doesn't matter to me. For me, I don't give a fuck about gay rights. Gays can do whatever they want. I'm not the type of person that's going to being waving a rainbow flag at a gay pride parade or the type of person that has signs that say shit like "Gods hate fags".

[Winehole23]

There's also really no good reason not to allow polygamist marriage, incestual marriage or bestial marriage.With incest and bestiality questions of consent may arise in addition to the passion that ordinarily confronts the tabooed. Apples and oranges IMO.

But I agree with you that there's basically no good reason to disallow polygamy.

[Winehole23]

POLYGAMY, n. A house of atonement, or expiatory chapel, fitted with several stools of repentance, as distinguished from monogamy, which has but one.

[ploto]

I am not telling someone how to live their life, unless it involves them forcing their beliefs on me.

:lol

[ploto]

People just aren't ready for inter-racial marriage. African Americans and whites need to realize that. Some states might be ready and okay with it but there are a lot of states that aren't fans of inter-racial marriage. That's the truth... It deviates from the norms of society.


the only argument I can make against inter-racial marriage is that I think that kids being raised by two adults of different races will be at a social disadvantage at some point later on.

[spursncowboys]

ploto: there is no parallel between someone born of a certain race, and some one's sexual preference.

[spursncowboys]

:lol

Looking back I realize there was a better way of writing what I meant. It's funny how trolls scan posts for these, instead of commenting on anything else.

[coyotes_geek]

I don't care what they do either, but I do care when they try and co-opt the institution of marriage.Start your own institutions.

Did you care when government co-opted the institution of marriage by requiring people to pay for marriage licenses in order to have their union legally recognized? Did you care when atheists co-opted the institution of marriage by forming unions in non-religous ceremonies? Why is it just the gays who need to go "start their own institutions"?

[MiamiHeat]

Evangelicals are people who feel god wants them to preach the word.
1. You can switch gay with any word.
2. Are we talking protestants? Protestants do not go against the Lord's commandments. Protestants also do not go against the Natural law.
3. Now we are talkin real rghts. speech and assembly are god given constitutional rights. People wanting to change the definition of marriage are not constitutionally protected to do so.

It is not the ill effects I am worried about. The problem is marriage is not a right. It is not a Govt. entity that is distributed evenly. This is a religious custom. The one man, one woman marriage in our society comes from our Judeo-Christian background. Some Followers of Jesus believe that when married you are both giving your life to Abbah and becoming one. Marriage is a pact with god. This cannot be possible since a homosexual couple are living in sin. Don't get me wrong - it is a sin among sins. Sorry I do not mean to get into religion. I am not telling someone how to live their life, unless it involves them forcing their beliefs on me. I hope they find something appropriate like giving the union.
:toast

[MiamiHeat]

my god man, i thought you said you were married at 19, not that you are 19...
by that logic sex is a health hazard, not just the kind of a homo-sexual variaty, did you know that something like 86% of the worlds population gets some sort of STD at one point in their life so if you use that, then NO ONE but a 14% can get married
fail.



so if person a has a child, decides to become true to their self and tell their partner that they are gay with person b, then person a and b have no child?

by that logic, i hope you don't have any step kids you have to disown tonight...
fail.


? what does this have to do with the question of marriage?
prejuduce much?
fail.

[QUOTE]


never said there was either, said it was debated as opposed to the two other choices

um, so do you read a lot of L.Ron or something? where is you're proof for this?



how is choosing to live your life different unhealthy? so by that logic, all people should just be some grey middle of everything...not a very fun world...
but very nazi of you indeed.
but once again, what the fuck does this have to do w/gay marriage?


i never said that, i just said it doesn't affect me either way, so who am i to trample someones right to be happy? who am i to ask what other people do in their own homes...and the right has been saying the left has been facist as of late?.......

None of your rebuttals inspires a response from me.

They did not directly refute anything I said.

So they still stand, so I will just be repeating myself.

[MiamiHeat]

Ake Green, pastor of a Pentecostal congregation in Kalmar, Sweden, was sentenced to one month in prison on a charge of inciting hatred against homosexuals. Pastor Green was prosecuted for his sermon in a January hearing, where he was found guilty of "hate speech against homosexuals" for a sermon preached in 2003.

According to press reports, Pastor Green condemned homosexuality as "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society." His comments were delivered as part of a sermon, drawn from biblical texts, dealing with the sin of homosexuality. In Sweden, biblical preaching is now a crime.

The prosecution of a Christian pastor for the crime of preaching a biblical sermon sets a new low for the culture of political correctness. Evangelical Christians--and all those who cherish civil liberties--should observe this case with great interest and concern. Those who reject biblical truth are now set on silencing Christian pulpits--all in the name of tolerance, acceptance, and diversity.

The logic of this prosecution is driven by the ardent determination of homosexual activists to make all criticism of homosexuality illegal. The logic of many hate crimes statutes plays right into this ideological strategy. By silencing all opposition, advocates for the normalization of homosexuality have the public square entirely to themselves, with defenders of biblical sexuality and the traditional family left without a voice and risking prosecution for any language or argument deemed offensive by the guardians of political correctness.

In response to the protest by the Slovakian Interior Minister, Cecilia Julin, the Swedish ambassador to Slovakia, explained: "Swedish law states that public addresses cannot be used to instigate hatred towards a certain group." So much for free speech and religious liberty.

Sweden passed its hate speech statute in 2002, explicitly including "church sermons" as subject to the law's restrictions. As the Riksdag, Sweden's parliament, debated the legislation, the nation's chancellor of justice released a public note stating that a church sermon characterizing homosexual behaviors as sinful "might" be considered a criminal offense. That "might" must now be replaced with "will," proved by Pastor Green's conviction and jail term.

usee

[MiamiHeat]

from an article :

Homosexuality is unnatural.

Genetic traits are passed on hereditarily. All that we are is a result of our ancestors. Sex is primarily a biological function designed for procreation. Homosexuality would have to be passed on by recessive genes, like forms of blindness, dwarfism and retardation. If gay genes exist, a pattern for that recessive trait could be established as it would require both parents to be carriers. If one claims to be "born gay," one is claiming to be a biological mistake, a freak of nature.

Homosexuality is unhealthy.

A brief search of medical journals found:

The Archives of Internal Medicine, "Homosexually active men are significantly more likely to report syphilis and less likely to present with primary syphilis than heterosexual men."

New England Journal of Medicine, "At least 80 percent of homosexual men presenting to our sexually transmitted disease clinic with anorectal or intestinal symptoms were infected with one or more sexually transmissible anorectal or enteric pathogens. Such infections were also found in 39 percent of homosexual men presenting to the clinic without intestinal symptoms."

Harrisonís Principles of Internal Medicine, "In one New York Study, all nontraveled immunocompetent males with giardiasis were, in fact, homosexual."

New England Journal of Medicine, "Anal intercourse may predispose to anal cancer through the transmission of an infection, most probably infection with human papillomavirus."

The Journal of the American Medical Association, "among men, report of any lifetime homosexual activity was associated with an elevated risk for HSV-2 [herpes simplex virus - 2]."

American Journal of Medicine,"... heterosexual men in a sexually transmitted disease clinic have a substantially lower prevalence of cytomegalovirus seropositivity than do homosexual men."

The Centers for Disease Control reveal that homosexuals make up 80 percent of all AIDS cases in America. Heterosexual contact accounts for only 8 percent of the cases.

In addition, the rate of suicide attempts among homosexuals is three times higher than that of normal males.

Homosexuality is immoral.

My morals have no more validity than those of the relativist, because we are both human, both fallible and of a limited perspective. Nor do the shared beliefs of a majority of people dictate morality. If nine of ten people find murder an acceptable practice, that does not make it so. The source of moral judgment must lie outside of humanity, it must be changeless, and of an infinite perspective.

For the Christian, that authority is the God whose will is expressed through the Bible and the traditions of the Church — both of which expressly condemn homosexuality. Indeed, none of the world's major religions approve of homosexuality. For the nonreligious, the highest source of authority is the natural law. Homosexuality transgresses natural law by subverting the propagation of the species. The consequences of transgressing natural law are often obvious; if you touch fire, you will be burned. Surely, the long list of diseases associated with homosexuality is evidence of causation.

America must never allow this unnatural, unhealthy and immoral life style to become normalized. Consider the example of the Catholic Church. In the 1950's, the Church in America began welcoming homosexuals into the priesthood. It was believed that their sexual orientation was unimportant because they would take vows of chastity. The results have been disastrous; over ten thousand young boys have been sexually abused by priests. The Catholic Church has been devastated by failing to recognize the destructive nature of homosexuality. Our nation must not make the same mistake. We must have the courage to stand on this principle, regardless of the names we are called.

[EmptyMan]

If you're that freaked out, just have two sons and hedge your bets.

[MiamiHeat]

The illusion that the homosexual lifestyle is a normal way of living has been successfully propagated by promoting a "victim" image for homosexual persons, and by the pseudo-science alleging a ‘gay" gene.

Of the reports alleging, or promising soon down the road, a "gay" gene, not a single one has survived scientific peer review. There is no "gay" gene.

On the other hand, the evidence does show that homosexual persons are indeed victims -- but overwhelmingly of their own behavior, not that of others.

Typical homosexual behavior includes regular contact with fecal matter from oneself and from sexual partners, tragically reversing several centuries of learning about cleanliness, and thus several centuries of growing lifespan. Homosexual behavior makes no more sense than playing in the toilet.

All available evidence indicates that the lifespan of practicing homosexual persons is drastically shortened by their behavior. No reliable study indicates otherwise. The lifespan topic is taboo among homosexual advocates because the evidence is so damaging to their case.

The following information has been adapted from website: http://www.cprmd.org/ (Sorry, link gone.) References are cited in chronological order. This information represents a fair summary of the available evidence concerning homosexual lifespan. It indicates that on average, even apart from AIDS, homosexual persons will probably not live past their 40’s, an appalling loss of about 30 years, or nearly 40% of normal American lifespan.

Just some food for thought. Few straight people stop to consider exactly what homosexuals are actually doing. It is actually very unhealthy and abnormal. You might argue that some heterosexuals also engage in unhealthy abnormal sexual behavior. That is true, but they are a small minority and they too will suffer the health consequences of their abnormal sexual behaviors.

[Shastafarian]

Over/under on number of years before MiamiHeat comes out to his family:

I'll set the line at 6 years.

[MiamiHeat]

Over/under on number of years before MiamiHeat comes out to his family:

I'll set the line at 6 years.

The rallying cry of all dumbfucks.

"He must be hiding that he is gay!!"

Nice one. It's not possible to be against homosexuality without hiding secret fag tendencies, apparently.

You're a genius

[MiamiHeat]

If you're that freaked out, just have two sons and hedge your bets.

lol

won't be long until two brothers fall in love with each other.

Then we can have our first incestous homosexual relationship marriage.

After all, we should be able to do whatever we want. Who is it hurting?

[MiamiHeat]

I never said that homosexuality being a deviant behavior should disqualify gays from being able to get married. I was just stating that's a big reason why people haven't accepted gay marriage as being normal. Gays can get married if they want to. It doesn't matter to me. For me, I don't give a fuck about gay rights. Gays can do whatever they want. I'm not the type of person that's going to being waving a rainbow flag at a gay pride parade or the type of person that has signs that say shit like "Gods hate fags".

The fact of the matter is

our youth in today's schools are morally confused. They all parrot and sound like each other. They THINK they are being a good person, by being part of a 'new movement' of our era, doing the right thing.

it's a selfish passive ambition that they never really sat down and scrutinized inbetween watching Twilight and twittering.

[MiamiHeat]

Looking back I realize there was a better way of writing what I meant. It's funny how trolls scan posts for these, instead of commenting on anything else.

This country has a SILENT MAJORITY.

They speak out all the time in the voting booths.

but don't waste their time trying to explain reality to idealistic morally confused modern hippies who don't understand what's good for them yet.

[Shastafarian]

The rallying cry of all dumbfucks.

"He must be hiding that he is gay!!"

Nice one. It's not possible to be against homosexuality without hiding secret fag tendencies, apparently.

You're a genius

It is possible. It's just more likely that someone as vehemently and outspoken against it, as you are, is hiding something...in your butt.

[MiamiHeat]

I don't care what they do either, but I do care when they try and co-opt the institution of marriage.Start your own institutions.
I find it ironic that most the people who support gay marrige, including gays themselves, as some sort of "right".Get outraged and disgusted about closet polygamists, funny but I've never seen a gay marriage activist at the trial of a polyigamist crying for justice.

Exactly.

[MiamiHeat]

It is possible. It's just more likely that someone as vehemently and outspoken against it, as you are, is hiding something...in your butt.

by posting on an internet forum?

I don't spend 1 second on this issue aside from a forum or in the voting booth. so there goes your theory.

[Winehole23]

Bullshit. You've obviously been giving it a lot of consideration in your spare time.

[MiamiHeat]

v0USy81U-sI

023UEqSbzsE

ATepjTFZuiw

[MiamiHeat]

did you know that the FDA bans all homosexuals from donating blood?

The blood of male homosexuals tends to be so contaminated with various viruses and bacteria, and have such a high risk of STD's such as HIV, that all male homosexuals who have been sexually active since 1977 are barred from donating blood.

Before you blame the USA, this is the policy in Europe too. The UK says if any man has ever had sex with another man, even if it was only oral sex with a condom, you cannot donate blood.

[rjv]

fired over the bow.

i think there are some latent tones in this vernacular

[Ignignokt]

Bullshit. You've obviously been giving it a lot of consideration in your spare time.

Then that means Baseline Bum is a total fag too, he gets butthurt whenever this issue comes up and strives night and day to protect their honor.

You've outnumbered the post of MH in this thread which is all about fagdom, no doubt you like getting plumbed.

Thanks for the sound logic.

[Winehole23]

Then that means Baseline Bum is a total fag too, he gets butthurt whenever this issue comes up and strives night and day to protect their honor.

You've outnumbered the post of MH in this thread which is all about fagdom, no doubt you like getting plumbed.

Thanks for the sound logic.I only questioned MH's claim that he spends no time on the subject, except in the voting booth or wherever it comes up here. Any other conclusion you drew from my post was your own.

[rjv]

did you know that the FDA bans all homosexuals from donating blood?

The blood of male homosexuals tends to be so contaminated with various viruses and bacteria, and have such a high risk of STD's such as HIV, that all male homosexuals who have been sexually active since 1977 are barred from donating blood.

it they could, they would ban teenage to college aged students as well.

[MiamiHeat]

people want to talk about common sense

You'd have to be a fucking idiot to think being gay is common sense. health risks, hazards, no ability to have your own biological children, etc and etc

but hey ,it's a trend nowadays to hear young people all sound alike.

It's "cool" to be accepting of EVERYTHING nowadays.

[Ignignokt]

I only questioned MH's claim that he spends no time on the subject, except in the voting booth or wherever it comes up here. Any other conclusion you drew from my post was your own.

You don't know the guy personally. BS.

You were flaming at him. no pun intended.

[MiamiHeat]

I don't give a shit if gays can be together with all the benefits as heterosexuals

just don't try and redefine marriage

[baseline bum]

Then that means Baseline Bum is a total fag too, he gets butthurt whenever this issue comes up and strives night and day to protect their honor.

You've outnumbered the post of MH in this thread which is all about fagdom, no doubt you like getting plumbed.

Thanks for the sound logic.

Fuck you, you ignorant fuck.

[Ignignokt]

Fuck you, you ignorant fuck.

lol. thanks for looking like your own statement. I know sarcasm is hard for you buddy.

Maybe i will use blue font for you from now on.

You're not slow... just different.

[Blake]

I felt the need to change Blake's post to look smart, only now I look really stupid.

seeing as how a child of an interracial couple was voted in as President of the US, I'd say that is more than a huge fail.

[Blake]

:toast

you can thank the Bible beaters in this country for keeping us behind the times.

be sure to thank God.

[Blake]

lol

won't be long until two brothers fall in love with each other.

Then we can have our first incestous homosexual relationship marriage.

After all, we should be able to do whatever we want. Who is it hurting?

You tell us. Who is it hurting?

[Blake]

With incest and bestiality questions of consent may arise in addition to the passion that ordinarily confronts the tabooed. Apples and oranges IMO.

But I agree with you that there's basically no good reason to disallow polygamy.

If the incest is between two consenting adults, then I don't see much difference...

and since we don't really get consent from cows before we kill them and enjoy them as a burger, I don't think the consent argument works either, imo.

[baseline bum]

lol. thanks for looking like your own statement. I know sarcasm is hard for you buddy.

Maybe i will use blue font for you from now on.

You're not slow... just different.

You stupid fuck, are you 12, with the way you're hung up on calling anyone who disagrees with you a fag? Your answer is people should shut up about things that are blatantly unconstitutional. Well, kindly go fuck yourself; go move to Iran if you want to live in your conservative theocracy paradise.

[Ignignokt]

You stupid fuck, are you 12, with the way you're hung up on calling anyone who disagrees with you a fag? Your answer is people should shut up about things that are blatantly unconstitutional. Well, kindly go fuck yourself; go move to Iran if you want to live in your conservative theocracy paradise.

:rollin

Wow, you're too stupid.
Shasta and winehole made a point that Miami heat was closet gay because he spends too much time hating homos. I posted what i posted to illustrate that absurdity.

But.. nm. You're dumber than rocks. Please always be on the opposite side of the argument with me, that's a sure fire way to know whether one's right.

[baseline bum]

:rollin

Wow, you're too stupid.
Shasta and winehole made a point that Miami heat was closet gay because he spends too much time hating homos. I posted what i posted to illustrate that absurdity.

But.. nm. You're dumber than rocks. Please always be on the opposite side of the argument with me, that's a sure fire way to know whether one's right.

Seriously, go play in the highway or something dumbass.

[Winehole23]

If the incest is between two consenting adults, then I don't see much difference...Sure.


and since we don't really get consent from cows before we kill them and enjoy them as a burger, I don't think the consent argument works either, imo.Everybody draws the line somewhere. Kids, family and animals are not on the menu for me. And I'm ok with the social mores that stigmatize these activities and the laws that punish them.

For some people, homosexuality still carries a social stigma, and believe it or not, I'm alright with that too. I just don't agree with it.

[Blake]

But.. nm. You're dumber than rocks. Please always be on the opposite side of the argument with me, that's a sure fire way to know whether one's right.

good point. Anyone that is on the same side as you must not be right.

[hope4dopes]

you can thank the Bible beaters in this country for keeping us behind the times.

be sure to thank God. The obamatrons refuse to dea lwith reality. They have to make white christians into the bogeyman rather than deal with the truth. 70% of blacks that voted for Obama in Oakland Ca. also voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman.Not a lotta bunchee bible beaters in Oakland.

[cherylsteele]

How's this for some logic then

1) Homosexuality is a health hazard. Scientifically and medically proven.

2) Homosexual relationships cannot be a real family because they cannot produce any children of their own.

3) Homosexual males usually turn out to be effeminate. What a coincidence the high pitched 'girly' fags all talk the same.

4A) Homosexuality is still a sexual orientation. A source of pleasure. There has been no scientific evidence for being 'born different'

4B) If A was true, that they WERE 'born different', then that would mean it's a defect of nature, just like a mental illness, a chemical imbalance in the brain, a stunted leg, a third arm. Nature programmed us to mate male-female. If they were bi-sexual, then it would just be a perverse source of sexual pleasure, but at least they still enjoyed the opposite sex. Completely gay people though, are a walking contradiction.

5) There is evidence that a significant portion of homosexuals reject their own gender assigned by nature. Sometimes a male in a male-male coupling will behave like a female and even go so far as to get a sex change. or a Female in a Female-Female coupling goes for a sex change to be a man. There is a deeper psychological influence involved, a rejection of themselves, which is unhealthy.

6) There is evidence that environment influences who turns out to be 'gay'.

should I continue?

no, i don't think I won't.


Your only answer to all of this will be "but....but.. it's WRONG TO DENY THEM!!!! *cries* it's just not OK, i mean, it feels wrong. They just want to be together *cries* can't we just do whatever we want to do?"

No, we can't do whatever we want to do.
1) Where did you come up with that malarky?

2) MY brother's wife is medically unable to bear children due to a problem with narrow tubes, they have treid all sorts of procedures and have had no success. They have adopted to children but are not a real family?

3) Again, Where did you come up with that malarky? Does Elton John have a high pitched voice or Rod Halford of Judas Priest?

4a) So is hetrosexuality a sexual orientation.

4b) Nature mad a mistake so you want to be predjudice against gays. Nature made a mistake, it is not there fault.

5) Again, Where did you come up with that malarky? You're just pulling statements out of your ass.

6) If there is evidence then show it please.


Please don't continue, you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Wild Cobra]

1) Where did you come up with that malarky?

2) MY brother's wife is medically unable to bear children due to a problem with narrow tubes, they have treid all sorts of procedures and have had no success. They have adopted to children but are not a real family?

3) Again, Where did you come up with that malarky? Does Elton John have a high pitched voice or Rod Halford of Judas Priest?

4a) So is hetrosexuality a sexual orientation.

4b) Nature mad a mistake so you want to be predjudice against gays. Nature made a mistake, it is not there fault.

5) Again, Where did you come up with that malarky? You're just pulling statements out of your ass.

6) If there is evidence then show it please.


Please don't continue, you have no idea what you are talking about.
There are studies and evidence out there. I take it you're yound enough to go to school in our indocrtination establishments.

The intestines are designed to absorb nutrients. They also absorb bacteria and desease. Anal sex is very unhealthy compared to hetrosexual sex. Now what is left out is that hetrosexual couples who practice anal sex also have increased risks.

[Shastafarian]

by posting on an internet forum?

I don't spend 1 second on this issue aside from a forum or in the voting booth. so there goes your theory.

hmmmm interesting evidence....

I'll take the under.

[BacktoBasics]

I don't give a shit if gays can be together with all the benefits as heterosexuals

just don't try and redefine marriageActually modern day religion is what redefined marriage. I don't know what makes them think it was theirs in the first place (actually I do).

[BacktoBasics]

I also find it ironic how Miami Heat can get up on his high horse and denounce the validity of religion but then turn around and preach the very union they themselves corrupted.

[Jacob1983]

Let's say that starting today, gays receive the same rights that straight people do. Do you think gays would be happy and satisfied with that or would they still bitch about how they're treated? If gay people were allowed to get married in America and basically have the same rights as straight people, what would the gay movement/community do after that? What would they fight for? Isn't marriage and the rights that come with marriage like the most important thing to them right now? So if they were given that, what would do they do next? Would they be satisfied finally or would they still bitch?

[BacktoBasics]

Let's say that starting today, gays receive the same rights that straight people do. Do you think gays would be happy and satisfied with that or would they still bitch about how they're treated? If gay people were allowed to get married in America and basically have the same rights as straight people, what would the gay movement/community do after that? What would they fight for? Isn't marriage and the rights that come with marriage like the most important thing to them right now? So if they were given that, what would do they do next? Would they be satisfied finally or would they still bitch?Its not all they're fighting for. You can't just toss them a bone and expect them to go away. How incredibly insensitive. They want equal treatment. They're deserved the same rights and same respect as every other human being out there. Until the fight continues.

[admiralsnackbar]

Let's say that starting today, gays receive the same rights that straight people do. Do you think gays would be happy and satisfied with that or would they still bitch about how they're treated? If gay people were allowed to get married in America and basically have the same rights as straight people, what would the gay movement/community do after that? What would they fight for? Isn't marriage and the rights that come with marriage like the most important thing to them right now? So if they were given that, what would do they do next? Would they be satisfied finally or would they still bitch?

So is the logic "don't give them marriage because what will the uppity bastards want next?"

[hope4dopes]

Its not all they're fighting for. You can't just toss them a bone and expect them to go away. How incredibly insensitive. They want equal treatment. They're deserved the same rights and same respect as every other human being out there. Until the fight continues. they'd probalbly find people would treat them with more respect if they talked straight to them instead of talking through this trumpted up bullshit about wanting their unions to be called marrigae.

[BacktoBasics]

they'd probalbly find people would treat them with more respect if they talked straight to them instead of talking through this trumpted up bullshit about wanting their unions to be called marrigae.The only thing that defines marriage as being between a man and a women is religion. Which ultimately has nothing to do with marriage or its creation. They should be able to have the same ability to marry as any other couple. This about legal rights under the laws will all it benefits and what not.

It doesn't get more fucking straight than "treat me equally".


"trumpted up bullshit"

Disgusting.

[hope4dopes]

The only thing that defines marriage as being between a man and a women is religion. Which ultimately has nothing to do with marriage or its creation. They should be able to have the same ability to marry as any other couple. This about legal rights under the laws will all it benefits and what not.

It doesn't get more fucking straight than "treat me equally".



Disgusting.

I don't think straight people have any problem extedning equal benefits to gay couples. they have a problem having their culture and traditions used as a political chessboard so the DNC can cobble together a political coalition.
Californians regected same sex marriage? It's not about religon.California is not the bible belt.A whole lotta democrats in California voted agianst it.
And what's with this couple shit,polygamy has a long history on this planet, why not allow polygamy, why aren't gays supporting polygamy if it's just about people"being treated equal"

[MiamiHeat]

Actually modern day religion is what redefined marriage. I don't know what makes them think it was theirs in the first place (actually I do).

Adolf Hitler defined our view of modern freeways.

It works, and it's beneficial. I don't care where it came from.

[spursncowboys]

The only thing that defines marriage as being between a man and a women is religion. Which ultimately has nothing to do with marriage or its creation. They should be able to have the same ability to marry as any other couple. This about legal rights under the laws will all it benefits and what not.

It doesn't get more fucking straight than "treat me equally".



Disgusting.

How was marriage created then? Where do we get our legal rights from? If the "all benefits" idea was true, would tax money go toward everyone and not just a few?

[Shastafarian]

Adolf Hitler defined our view of modern freeways.

It works, and it's beneficial. I don't care where it came from.


According to divorce statistics, it is estimated that between 40 percent and 50 percent of first marriages end in divorce in the United States. In some countries, divorce rates for first marriages exceed 50 percent. Second and third marriages in the United States have even higher divorce rates. According to statistics, second marriages fail at a rate of 60-67 percent, and third marriages fail at a rate of 73-74 percent.It works does it?

[Jacob1983]

I will ask the question again. What will gays do when they have accomplished their mission of equality and being treated the same way as straight people? Actually, wouldn't gay people want to be treated like gay people instead of straight people? Because gay people are gay. They aren't straight. The gay movement/cause will have no purpose once gays have equality and all the rights that straight people have.

I know that hippies and liberals don't like hearing this but equality is just a dream or fantasy. I will explain. In order for everyone to be truly equal, you would have to brainwash everyone to believe that everyone is basically equal and no one is better or worse than anyone. And if we're really going to talk about equality, then what about the gap between the rich and poor in America? It keeps getting bigger and bigger yet no one is bitching about that.

[Spawn]

I will ask the question again. What will gays do when they have accomplished their mission of equality and being treated the same way as straight people? Actually, wouldn't gay people want to be treated like gay people instead of straight people? Because gay people are gay. They aren't straight. The gay movement/cause will have no purpose once gays have equality and all the rights that straight people have.

I know that hippies and liberals don't like hearing this but equality is just a dream or fantasy. I will explain. In order for everyone to be truly equal, you would have to brainwash everyone to believe that everyone is basically equal and no one is better or worse than anyone. And if we're really going to talk about equality, then what about the gap between the rich and poor in America? It keeps getting bigger and bigger yet no one is bitching about that.

I kinda wanna draw the line at state sanctioned inequality though.

[Blake]

The obamatrons refuse to dea lwith reality. They have to make white christians into the bogeyman rather than deal with the truth. 70% of blacks that voted for Obama in Oakland Ca. also voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman.Not a lotta bunchee bible beaters in Oakland.

Wrong. There is a sizable number of Black Bible beaters in the Bay area.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20060605/ai_n16453691/

Either way, nice job of trying to shove Obama into a thread he has no business being in, micca.

you continue to unimpress everyone.

[Blake]

How's this for some logic then

1) Homosexuality is a health hazard. Scientifically and medically proven.

how exactly has lesbian dildo sex proven to be a health hazard?


should I continue?

no, i don't think I won't.

I don't hope you won't.

Do you still have me on ignore? I don't think you don't.

[Blake]

I will ask the question again. What will gays do when they have accomplished their mission of equality and being treated the same way as straight people?

They will go get married.


Because gay people are gay. They aren't straight.

Are straight people straight?


I know that hippies and liberals don't like hearing this but equality is just a dream or fantasy. I will explain. In order for everyone to be truly equal, you would have to brainwash everyone to believe that everyone is basically equal and no one is better or worse than anyone. And if we're really going to talk about equality, then what about the gap between the rich and poor in America? It keeps getting bigger and bigger yet no one is bitching about that.

Are poor people not allowed to marry each other? That's the first I've heard of that.

[hope4dopes]

Wrong. There is a sizable number of Black Bible beaters in the Bay area.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20060605/ai_n16453691/

Either way, nice job of trying to shove Obama into a thread he has no business being in, micca.

you continue to unimpress everyone. Nice job of trying to keep the illusion up but the idea that oakland Ca. the murder capital of the westeren U.S. is full of bible thumpers is laughable. Obviously you've never been there.

[Blake]

Nice job of trying to keep the illusion up but the idea that oakland Ca. the murder capital of the westeren U.S. is full of bible thumpers is laughable. Obviously you've never been there.

Terrible job of trying to create the illusion that murderers vote against same sex marriage. Do you live there? Are you one of these murderers? No, I've never been there.