Judicial Activism Loves The Gays

[ploto]

So many who claim religious reasons for their positions on these issues seem to ignore the incest and polygamy of the very book upon which they claim to base their values.

Gen 20:12 Besides, she is in truth my sister, but only my father's daughter, not my mother's; and so she became my wife.

[spursncowboys]

try the new testament.

[ploto]

try the new testament.

You do realize that the verse people most often use against homosexuality is from Leviticus.

2 Peter 2:7

"...He rescued Lot, a righteous man oppressed by the licentious conduct of unprincipled people "

The NT calls Lot a righteous man and he slept with his daughters.

[ChuckD]

Well I hope they find the proof. It will be funny to watch the gay community celebrate when scientists find the biological cause of homosexuality and then watch them protest when scientists discover a cure for it.

If they find it, it won't be any more "curable" than eye color or height or being straight.

[clambake]

try the new testament.

you mean the friendly version that ignores the original prick?

[spursncowboys]

You do realize that the verse people most often use against homosexuality is from Leviticus.

2 Peter 2:7

"...He rescued Lot, a righteous man oppressed by the licentious conduct of unprincipled people "

The NT calls Lot a righteous man and he slept with his daughters.

how did you get that quote?

[ChumpDumper]

a proposition voted on by the citizens of cali.
this is the first judge to disregard the legal definition of marriage.Um, this isn't what was being asked about.

You said homosexuality is exclusively a choice.

I said prove it.

You changed the subject.

[ChumpDumper]

this is a great point. Then why not unions which allow the same benefits as marriage?http://www.photosfan.com/images/black-and-colored-drinking-water1.jpg
It's the same water!

[ChumpDumper]

try the new testament.Is the Old Testament not the word of God?

Did you decide this?

[Jacob1983]

How does the gay community and movement feel about Obama? Do they know the truth about where he stands on gay marriage? The man has publicly stated that does not support gay marriage and believes that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. That being said, why did gay people vote for Obama?

[ChumpDumper]

How does the gay community and movement feel about Obama?Ask them. I imagine feelings are mixed.
Do they know the truth about where he stands on gay marriage? The man has publicly stated that does not support gay marriage and believes that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.In that case I would say the answer to your question on whether they know is "yes."
That being said, why did gay people vote for Obama?I would guess it was a lesser of evils thing. At best, they would be looking at nationally recognized civil unions with Obama, and perhaps a repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell.

[MiamiHeat]

So when do we legalize incest and polygamy?

Consenting adults. Why can't they be married too?

[MiamiHeat]

http://www.photosfan.com/images/black-and-colored-drinking-water1.jpg

That's not a legitimate counter to that argument.

Racism and sexual orientation have nothing to do with each other.

If faggots wanted to marry a woman, they could.

If blacks wanted to be white, they can't.

Enough with the logical fallacy. Faggots and faggot supporters love to invoke the black civil rights issues, when it's completely stupid to do so.

[boutons_deux]

"incest and polygamy"

"Enough with the logical fallacy"

... proves yet again how ignorant, stupid, and prejudiced HM is.

Why not trot the other Repug/"Christian" "logical fallacies" of sames-sex marriage leading to the destruction of hetero marriages and bestiality? Gotta be logical. GFY

[ChuckD]

That's not a legitimate counter to that argument.

Racism and sexual orientation have nothing to do with each other.

If faggots wanted to marry a woman, they could.

If blacks wanted to be white, they can't.

Enough with the logical fallacy. Faggots and faggot supporters love to invoke the black civil rights issues, when it's completely stupid to do so.

You're REALLY, REALLY late to the party, and it's obvious you haven't read the thread, so I'll synopsize it for you. We've (your opposition) decided that it doesn't matter if the behavior is voluntary or not. LGBT people are being treated as a class of people, and denied rights in the same way, specifically, the right to marry the adult human consenting individual of their choice. If you want to get involved in the incest/polygamy discussion, you'll have to bring yourself up to speed.

Why are you so angry about this, MH? Does it personally affect you if some man marries a man in California?

[spursncowboys]

How does the gay community and movement feel about Obama? Do they know the truth about where he stands on gay marriage? The man has publicly stated that does not support gay marriage and believes that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. That being said, why did gay people vote for Obama?
i don't think anyone knows obama's stand.

[spursncowboys]

You do realize that the verse people most often use against homosexuality is from Leviticus.

2 Peter 2:7

"...He rescued Lot, a righteous man oppressed by the licentious conduct of unprincipled people "

The NT calls Lot a righteous man and he slept with his daughters.
ANyways. You are taking this out of context


False Prophets and Teachers

2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell [1] (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=2+Peter+2#f1) and committed them to chains [2] (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=2+Peter+2#f2) of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; [3] (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=2+Peter+2#f3) 7 and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked 8 (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard); 9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, [4] (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=2+Peter+2#f4) and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority.

Bold and willful, they do not tremble as they blaspheme the glorious ones, 11 whereas angels, though greater in might and power, do not pronounce a blasphemous judgment against them before the Lord. 12 But these, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed, blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant, will also be destroyed in their destruction, 13 suffering wrong as the wage for their wrongdoing. They count it pleasure to revel in the daytime. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their deceptions, [5] (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=2+Peter+2#f5) while they feast with you. 14 They have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts trained in greed. Accursed children! 15 Forsaking the right way, they have gone astray. They have followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved gain from wrongdoing, 16 but was rebuked for his own transgression; a speechless donkey spoke with human voice and restrained the prophet's madness.

17 These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm. For them the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved. 18 For, speaking loud boasts of folly, they entice by sensual passions of the flesh those who are barely escaping from those who live in error. 19 They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves [6] (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=2+Peter+2#f6) of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved. 20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21 For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22 What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.”

[boutons_deux]

American govt is intentionally not a Christian or any brand of theocracy, so legally imposing "Christian" morals and cosmology from ancient fairy tales of uncertain and at best questionable origin is just bullshit. America is full of bullshit.

[johnsmith]

American govt is intentionally not a Christian or any brand of theocracy, so legally imposing "Christian" morals and cosmology from ancient fairy tales of uncertain and at best questionable origin is just bullshit. America is full of bullshit.

Man Boutons, your takes on everything are so original and fresh.

[boutons_deux]

nothing fresh about the same old bullshit from the "Christians" and their pandering, hypocritical Repugs.

[MannyIsGod]

How does the gay community and movement feel about Obama? Do they know the truth about where he stands on gay marriage? The man has publicly stated that does not support gay marriage and believes that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. That being said, why did gay people vote for Obama?

They'd vote for Obama because he's obviously the best option. Obama has pretty much tried to have his cake and eat it too in regareds to gay issues and its a crock of shit compared to what most of the gay community expected.

I'd say a large percentage of them are disappointed with his public statements on the issue.

But as I said before, the options were worse. McCain and Palin on gay rights? Just LOL.

[MannyIsGod]

So when do we legalize incest and polygamy?

Consenting adults. Why can't they be married too?

Whenever someone brings a court case along these same grounds, I would imagine. Are you scared?

[MannyIsGod]

That's not a legitimate counter to that argument.

Racism and sexual orientation have nothing to do with each other.

If faggots wanted to marry a woman, they could.

If blacks wanted to be white, they can't.

Enough with the logical fallacy. Faggots and faggot supporters love to invoke the black civil rights issues, when it's completely stupid to do so.

Completely stupid yet the court just applied the 14th amendment to the situation as I've been saying for years it was going to. Completely stupid yet in many other aspects of our society discrimination based upon sexual orientation is completely forbidden due to legislation.

Completely stupid? Your ignorance on how federal law views sexual orientation much in the same manner as it views race is definitely completely stupid.

[spursncowboys]

I think viewing sexual orientation in the same manner as it views race is defenitely completely stupid.
the court didn't apply it, this judge did. we will see if it is upheld.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh, so you think it should be ok to fire people based on them being gay?

[spursncowboys]

Should it be ok to fire someone for being a vocal member of NAMBLA?

[MannyIsGod]

And please don't act as if this is the first judge in this country to make a ruling of this nature. There have been countless judges on the state level who have ruled the same thing regarding their state constitutions. This is merely the first federal judge to apply the fourteenth amendment but most if not all state constitutions seek to protect the same rights the federal constitution does.

There is a reason gay marriage almost always wins court battles. What do you think that is?

[MannyIsGod]

Should it be ok to fire someone for being a vocal member of NAMBLA?

:lol @ comparing something illegal to homosexuality. And then you guys wonder why many of you are considered bigots?

In any event, all things being equal, no. If the person is breaking laws then thats a different story.

[spursncowboys]

:lol@ thinking people shouldn't be fired unless they break the law.

[spursncowboys]

And please don't act as if this is the first judge in this country to make a ruling of this nature. There have been countless judges on the state level who have ruled the same thing regarding their state constitutions. This is merely the first federal judge to apply the fourteenth amendment but most if not all state constitutions seek to protect the same rights the federal constitution does.

There is a reason gay marriage almost always wins court battles. What do you think that is?
NO there is a reason that they pick certain COA and judges.

[MannyIsGod]

On what basis should a vocal member of NAMBLA be fired if they aren't breaking the law and they have acceptable job performance?

[MannyIsGod]

NO there is a reason that they pick certain COA and judges.

Oh, I see. The only reason homosexual marriage wins is because of certain judges.

Gotcha.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Should it be ok to fire someone for being a vocal member of NAMBLA?

why do you keep comparing NAMBLA and gay people? Do you equate the two groups?

[spursncowboys]

On what basis should a vocal member of NAMBLA be fired if they aren't breaking the law and they have acceptable job performance?
the same basis that companies can fire a celebrity that screws up and does something they don't want their company to be associated with.

[spursncowboys]

If I had an employee who at the job, representing my company, did a homosexual act (kisses someone of the same-sex for ex) than I should be able to fire that person. I don't think the govt. should be involved in my company. Since it is the act that they were fired for and not their state of being, that they have no control over, it should not be civil rights violation.

[boutons_deux]

"If I had an employee who at the job, representing my company, did a homosexual act (kisses someone of the same-sex for ex) than I should be able to fire that person"

many companies forbid and fire employees of different sexes for being involved sexually/romantically.

Are you talking about homo/lesbo acts off your company premises? If yes, how do you reconcile keeping the govt out of your company with your "right" to interfere in adults' private lives outside of your company?

"I don't think the govt. should be involved in my company."

employees certainly lose many "God-given unalienable rights" when they join a company or any org. But you're "thinking" violates the "synthetic" USA right that citizens will not be subject to discrimination, so your prejudiced, bigoted, narrow-minded self is unAmerican.

[George Gervin's Afro]

If I had an employee who at the job, representing my company, did a homosexual act (kisses someone of the same-sex for ex) than I should be able to fire that person. I don't think the govt. should be involved in my company. Since it is the act that they were fired for and not their state of being, that they have no control over, it should not be civil rights violation.

So as an employer you will dsicriminate based on sexual orientation.

:toast

you're ok with your heterosexual employees public displays of affection but not ok with icky homos kissing..

[spursncowboys]

So as an employer you will dsicriminate based on sexual orientation.

:toast

you're ok with your heterosexual employees public displays of affection but not ok with icky homos kissing..
I didn't say I would but I should be able to.

[jack sommerset]

I didn't say I would but I should be able to.

You can fire an employee for smooching on the job.

[spursncowboys]

GGA sounds like Michael Scott.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I didn't say I would but I should be able to.

In the state of TX you can fire anyone without cause so yes you could still legally fire an icky homo for kissing his boyfriend in public.

Isn't that grand!

[jack sommerset]

GGA sounds like Michael Scott.

No way in hell this guy has ever been the manager of anything.

[clambake]

comparing this to nambla is epic stupid.

congratulations. another bad thread for you.

[George Gervin's Afro]

comparing this to nambla is epic stupid.

congratulations. another bad thread for you.

He still hasn't answered why he compares the two.

[spursncowboys]

I was using an example of a more extreme lifestyle choice that 99% of people disagree with-NAMBLA. If I knew an employee of a company was a NAMBLA member they would lose my business. That could be the way of thinking with homosexual PDA.

[clambake]

terrible example

[George Gervin's Afro]

I was using an example of a more extreme lifestyle choice that 99% of people disagree with-NAMBLA. If I knew an employee of a company was a NAMBLA member they would lose my business. That could be the way of thinking with homosexual PDA.

I don't think 99% of the public views homosexualtiy as extreme so this is a terrible example.

[spursncowboys]

I don't think 99% of the public views homosexualtiy as extreme so this is a terrible example.
no. Being a member of a group with supports grown men having sex with younger boys is the extreme example. i hope 99% are against NAMBLA.

[clambake]

one is a crime. the other isn't.

[spursncowboys]

being a member of NAMBLA is not a crime.

[MannyIsGod]

the same basis that companies can fire a celebrity that screws up and does something they don't want their company to be associated with.

We're not talking about terminating contracts for public relations which have termination clauses built in for that specific situation. We're talking about regular employees.

The two situations are very different and there are reasons the contracts have those clauses put in.

[MannyIsGod]

If I had an employee who at the job, representing my company, did a homosexual act (kisses someone of the same-sex for ex) than I should be able to fire that person. I don't think the govt. should be involved in my company. Since it is the act that they were fired for and not their state of being, that they have no control over, it should not be civil rights violation.

Oh hi there bigot.

[clambake]

being a member of NAMBLA is not a crime.

i didn't say it was.

[spursncowboys]

Oh hi there bigot.
How so?

[jack sommerset]

How so?

He doesn't know what a bigot is. If he did he would clearly see you are not from your post.

[MannyIsGod]

Yes, I was wrong. You're not a bigot. I don't know why I would have ever thought that from you wanting the ability to fire people for kissing a member of the same sex. Perhaps you can expand that to kissing members of another race or attending a church of a different religion to prove how much of a bigot you aren't.

Those are just acts, after all. Not states of being.

[jack sommerset]

Yes, I was wrong. You're not a bigot. I don't know why I would have ever thought that from you wanting the ability to fire people for kissing a member of the same sex. Perhaps you can expand that to kissing members of another race or attending a church of a different religion to prove how much of a bigot you aren't.

Those are just acts, after all. Not states of being.

It's not everyday someone admits they are wrong here. :toast

[spursncowboys]

I'm proud MIG. I think you should avoid doing this too much, since you would be spending your entire time admitting your wrong.

[clambake]

an unmatched level of stupid.

[George Gervin's Afro]

It's not everyday someone admits they are wrong here. :toast

it's quite common for some to be wrong all of the time..

:stupid:

[jack sommerset]

it's quite common for some to be wrong all of the time..

You would know dumbass.

LOL@ you saying you were going to vote for McCain but didn't because he picked Palin and then on top of it supporting every lie Obama told you. Fucking classic, you loser.

[George Gervin's Afro]

You would know dumbass.

LOL@ you saying you were going to vote for McCain but didn't because he picked Palin and then on top of it supporting every lie Obama told you. Fucking classic, you loser.

what's classic about it dummy?

[jack sommerset]

what's classic about it dummy?

Your lies and reasoning are you fucking idiot!

[George Gervin's Afro]

Your lies and reasoning are, you fucking idiot!

Sincerely,

the guy who just realized polticians don't keep all campaign promises

[jack sommerset]

the guy who just realized polticians don't keep all campaign promises

No hope for this one. You have embraced Barry and sucked down his load like you did your daddys. BUT you would have done the same for McCain if he didn't pick that walking sound clip. :lmao:lmao:lmao

[clambake]

is that cruiser a convertible?

[George Gervin's Afro]

No hope for this one. You have embraced Barry and sucked down his load like you did your daddys. BUT you would have done the same for McCain if he didn't pick that walking sound clip. :lmao:lmao:lmao

For those keeping score..jack hated obama because he was a liar (the bigeest one EVER)..he then proceeds to tell people he'd vote for Palin. When it was pointed out that she was a liar also jack then admitted that he would vote for a liar just not obama the lair..

he's come along way. first he was just a dumbass but now he has managed to add hypocrite and illogical thinking to his message board resume.

he has admitted to double standards and has an irrational hatred for obama


here's to you jack

[CosmicCowboy]

Yes, I was wrong. You're not a bigot. I don't know why I would have ever thought that from you wanting the ability to fire people for kissing a member of the same sex. Perhaps you can expand that to kissing members of another race or attending a church of a different religion to prove how much of a bigot you aren't.

Those are just acts, after all. Not states of being.

Basically what SNC advocated concerning PDA is the exact policy of the US Military as put in place by Bill Clinton as I remember. Is Bill Clinton a bigot?

[clambake]

you know you don't need to explain, right?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Basically what SNC advocated concerning PDA is the exact policy of the US Military as put in place by Bill Clinton as I remember. Is Bill Clinton a bigot?

Is the US military and public or privately owned company?

[CosmicCowboy]

Is the US military and public or privately owned company?

Of course it's not, dumbass. It just illustrates the hypocrisy of the Federal government.

So you advocate holding private companies to a higher standard of gay tolerance than the US government holds itself to?

[jack sommerset]

For those keeping score..jack hated obama because he was a liar (the bigeest one EVER)..he then proceeds to tell people he'd vote for Palin. When it was pointed out that she was a liar also jack then admitted that he would vote for a liar just not obama the lair..

he's come along way. first he was just a dumbass but now he has managed to add hypocrite and illogical thinking to his message board resume.

he has admitted to double standards and has an irrational hatred for obama


here's to you jack

That is one crazy dream Barry has put in your head. Enjoy the day of spewing more nonsense.

[MannyIsGod]

Basically what SNC advocated concerning PDA is the exact policy of the US Military as put in place by Bill Clinton as I remember. Is Bill Clinton a bigot?

Don't ask don't tell is an extremely bigoted policy. Had Clinton put that policy in from a situation where gays were allowed to serve openly then of course he would be a bigot.

Now was that the case?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Of course it's not, dumbass. It just illustrates the hypocrisy of the Federal government.

So you advocate holding private companies to a higher standard of gay tolerance than the US government holds itself to?

the fed govt or the military?

I am not sure the govt can fire a gay attorney in the justice dept for simply kissing his boyfriend in public. Is that what you're trying to imply? it woul be wrong for the govt to fire the person for this reason alone just as it would be for a private business. how's that?

[MannyIsGod]

Of course it's not, dumbass. It just illustrates the hypocrisy of the Federal government.

So you advocate holding private companies to a higher standard of gay tolerance than the US government holds itself to?

I advocate the repeal of DADT and for the private sector and the government to be held to a standard where no discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is allowed.

[George Gervin's Afro]

That is one crazy dream Barry has put in your head. Enjoy the day of spewing more nonsense.

translation

you're right...:lmao

[CosmicCowboy]

the fed govt or the military?

I am not sure the govt can fire a gay attorney in the justice dept for simply kissing his boyfriend in public. Is that what you're trying to imply? it woul be wrong for the govt to fire the person for this reason alone just as it would be for a private business. how's that?

:lmao

So the US Military is not part of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, and the President of the United States is not the Commander In Chief of the US Military?

[George Gervin's Afro]

:lmao

So the US Military is not part of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, and the President of the United States is not the Commander In Chief of the US Military?

so you can't answer if it would be right or not.

[Marcus Bryant]

Message Board Thread on Gay Marriage Court Ruling Turns Out Pretty Much As Expected. (http://www.heyitcouldbefromtheonion.com) - The Onion

[spursncowboys]

the fed govt or the military?

I am not sure the govt can fire a gay attorney in the justice dept for simply kissing his boyfriend in public. Is that what you're trying to imply? it woul be wrong for the govt to fire the person for this reason alone just as it would be for a private business. how's that?

You are changing the description. Not public but when representing the company (at work, in uniform)

[CosmicCowboy]

so you can't answer if it would be right or not.

do I think it would be OK to fire 2 gay guys for swapping spit right there in the workplace?

Hell yeah, I think it would be OK.

[spursncowboys]

I think a company the freedom to decide who they want to represent their company. What they do in their public life was not brought up.

[CosmicCowboy]

And I could also make a good case for firing a heterosexual couple doing the same thing.

[Marcus Bryant]

And I could also make a good case for firing a heterosexual couple doing the same thing.

Of course. This is a non-issue and has no bearing on the legal definition of marriage. But it provided an opportunity for someone to reference NAMBLA and another to condemn "bigots" from their WiFi throne.

[CosmicCowboy]

Of course. This is a non-issue and has no bearing on the legal definition of marriage. But it provided an opportunity for someone to reference NAMBLA and another to condemn "bigots" from their WiFi throne.

Manny calling us bigots on a daily basis is nothing new. This gay marriage issue seems especially important to him, though. Maybe he wants to be the one in white at his wedding?

[rjv]

really, i still am so baffled at the "biological" and "genetic" arguments being made here. with all that is going on with brain mapping, neuroscience studies and the discoveries we are making about the brain regarding behavior, including such attributes of the brain referred to as 'plasticity', how can anyone create any sort of definitive premise one way or the other. the fluidity of behavior is not so black and white and so to make it that way, for the sake of convenience in an argument, is just erroneous. still, the complexity of behavior appears to be too much for some, who would rather just confine the brain and mind to narrow and atavisitic perceptions of the world.

[George Gervin's Afro]

really, i still am so baffled at the "biological" and "genetic" arguments being made here. with all that is going on with brain mapping, neuroscience studies and the discoveries we are making about the brain regarding behavior, including such attributes of the brain referred to as 'plasticity', how can anyone create any sort of definitive premise one way or the other. the fluidity of behavior is not so black and white and so to make it that way, for the sake of convenience in an argument, is just erroneous. still, the complexity of behavior appears to be too much for some, who would rather just confine the brain and mind to narrow and atavisitic perceptions of the world.

The primary reason these facets of the argument came about is because conservatives need a reason to dislike homosexuality. If they were to accept that people are actually born gay then they come accross as bigots. So now they are hanging on to the "prove it's biological" schtick to give them cover.

[CuckingFunt]

It was easy for me. I said to myself "Jack, do you want to stick your dick in shit and have your own shit pushed back into your stomach or do you want to do what nature intended you to do with your kawk, stick it is some sweet wet cunt" I picked the pussy.

Firstly, no, you didn't. That scenario is an obvious work of fiction.

Secondly, anal sex, giving and receiving, is not a uniquely homosexual male practice. Deciding that you don't want to engage in anal sex is not the same thing as deciding that you aren't attracted to other men. Plenty of heterosexual men fuck women in the ass and/or are fucked in the ass by their wives/girlfriends. And plenty of homosexual men find anal sex as unappealing as you apparently do. Homosexuality (or heterosexuality, or bisexuality) is NOT about sex.

Lastly, even if the above scenario were remotely true, that would be an example of recognizing your existing motivations, not of making a conscious choice in determining those motivations.

[CuckingFunt]

"Having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted."


I really disagree with this part of Judge Walker's ruling.

Good for you.

You also disagree with empirical research.

[Wild Cobra]

Firstly, no, you didn't. That scenario is an obvious work of fiction.

Secondly, anal sex, giving and receiving, is not a uniquely homosexual male practice. Deciding that you don't want to engage in anal sex is not the same thing as deciding that you aren't attracted to other men. Plenty of heterosexual men fuck women in the ass and/or are fucked in the ass by their wives/girlfriends. And plenty of homosexual men find anal sex as unappealing as you apparently do. Homosexuality (or heterosexuality, or bisexuality) is NOT about sex.

Lastly, even if the above scenario were remotely true, that would be an example of recognizing your existing motivations, not of making a conscious choice in determining those motivations.
Jack...

Have to say I agree here. Some men do it to women also, I find that disgusting as I bet you do to.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Dubya did it to all of us for 8 years

[xrayzebra]

Could a board conservative sum up the arguments presented for the ban in this particular case?

Thanks in advance.

The next in line for "human rights" as defined in the Constitution by a
Liberal judge.

"Man/Boy Love: Propaganda versus reality"


To explain man/boy love today, one must first explain what it is not: It is not what you view on television or read in newspapers. It’s not what you hear on Oprah or Geraldo, nor is it the propaganda put out by police and politicians.

It’s the love of a man for a boy, and of a boy for a man. Enjoyable, consensual, beautiful.

http://www.nambla.org/

[Oh, Gee!!]

xray's late too the party and showed up emtpy-brained as usual.

[xrayzebra]

xray's late too the party and showed up emtpy-brained as usual.

Oh, Gee! Really?:depressed

[balli]

Jack...

Have to say I agree here. Some men do it to women also, I find that disgusting as I bet you do to.

Jack does not find anal sex disgusting. He says he does because he's super ashamed of the fact that when he closes his eyes at night, he can't help but dream of big dicks and leather collars.

[MannyIsGod]

CC you can try to compare what you guys want to DADT but the context is completely different. If Clinton today advocated keeping DADT instead of repealing it then yes, he would be a bigot too.

If you don't like being called a bigot, don't hold bigot views.

[ChumpDumper]

The next in line for "human rights" as defined in the Constitution by a
Liberal judge.

"Man/Boy Love: Propaganda versus reality"Was that actual testimony for the ban in this specific case?

RIF


http://www.nambla.org/Why are you visiting the NAMBLA site and encouraging others to, x?

[ChumpDumper]

Seriously, why are you opponents so afraid of gays' getting married?

[xrayzebra]

Seriously, why are you opponents so afraid of gays' getting married?


Why are you so in favor of it. Are you in love? :lol

[MannyIsGod]

Why are you so in favor of it. Are you in love? :lol

I'm in favor of equality across the spectrum. That is why I'm for it.

[johnsmith]

I honestly don't know a single person outside of the internet that is anti-gay marriage. I don't understand why anyone GIVES A FUCK.

[ChumpDumper]

Why are you so in favor of it.If the government is going to be in the business of marriage, I don't see a good reason to forbid it -- you and the other opponents here certainly haven't presented anything resembling a case; all you do is try to call people homosexuals. I would prefer the government remove itself from the business of marriage as much as possible rather than further impose itself upon it.

Why are you for more government regulation of people's lives?

[ChumpDumper]

I honestly don't know a single person outside of the internet that is anti-gay marriage. I don't understand why anyone GIVES A FUCK.I think the opponents here are just angry their gay jokes and graphic depictions of homosexual sex are losing their inflammatory effectiveness.

[johnsmith]

I think the opponents here are just angry their gay jokes and graphic depictions of homosexual sex are losing their inflammatory effectiveness.

I'm as conservative as the next guy, but I try to stick to issues that affect me in any way, shape, or form. They should do the same.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm as conservative as the next guy, but I try to stick to issues that affect me in any way, shape, or form. They should do the same.

Thats why I said earlier in this thread that true conservatives should have no problems with this ruling. Of course, if you're a conservative who wants to legislate your morality then you're not really a true conservative, are you?

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm in favor of equality across the spectrum. That is why I'm for it.

Manny, tolerance is a relative thing. You might want to be a little more careful throwing out the bigot card just because someone might agree with civil unions and not full blown marriage. The NAMBLA example is not as extreme as you may think. For someone that is pro NAMBLA you would be a bigot because you don't include them in your "spectrum".

[ChumpDumper]

Manny, tolerance is a relative thing. You might want to be a little more careful throwing out the bigot card just because someone might agree with civil unions and not full blown marriage.Why would someone want to make that distinction?


The NAMBLA example is not as extreme as you may think. For someone that is pro NAMBLA you would be a bigot because you don't include them in your "spectrum".Oh, it's quite extreme. The general and legal concept of consent can't be ignored.

[MiamiHeat]

You're REALLY, REALLY late to the party, and it's obvious you haven't read the thread, so I'll synopsize it for you. We've (your opposition) decided that it doesn't matter if the behavior is voluntary or not. LGBT people are being treated as a class of people, and denied rights in the same way, specifically, the right to marry the adult human consenting individual of their choice. If you want to get involved in the incest/polygamy discussion, you'll have to bring yourself up to speed.

Well, we've decided that they do not deserve a special categorization of a "class of people". Sexual orientation is a choice based on physical desire and lust. It's purely hedonistic. It is NOT about "emotional connections" because emotions could mean faggots could fall in love with a woman too.

1) It is a choice, and nobody on this earth has been able to prove that it isn't.

That is not grounds to give them special privileges.

When do we stop? If the simple fact that fags want special laws created for them because of their perversion of sex, then why not polygamy and incest?

2) I don't want fags being "normalized" by muddying up an ANCIENT HUMAN TRADITION.

The family is THE SACRED TRINITY (no, i'm not religious). The Father, the Mother, and the Child/Son/Daughter.

I do not want to live in a world where children think it's normal to be a confused, self-loathing human being who cannot accept their gender, and who cannot accept their responsibilities as that gender.



Why are you so angry about this, MH? Does it personally affect you if some man marries a man in California?

Yes, it absolutely affects me. It is the world I live in.

I do not want to live in a world where it's OK for MEN behave like women. Where it's normal for MEN to enjoy taking it up the ass and getting spanked, or wearing feminine clothing and behaving like a woman. A MAN does not do that. A MAN is a strong, dominant, NEVER TO BE CONQUERED gender.

One who ACCEPTS his truth instead of trying to change the world like a little fucking bitch. Like a fairy.
"Oh boohoo, I was born a man but I don't really like it =( Can I be a woman now? YAY!!"

These people have mental illnesses. Period.

[johnsmith]

^^You're an idiot.^^^

[MiamiHeat]

^^You're an idiot.^^^

Since you gave no argument and just a one liner, like a little baby child, then you don't matter.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, we've decided that they do not deserve a special categorization of a "class of people". Sexual orientation is a choice based on physical desire and lust. It's purely hedonistic. It is NOT about "emotional connections" because emotions could mean faggots could fall in love with a woman too.

1) It is a choice, and nobody on this earth has been able to prove that it isn't.

That is not grounds to give them special privileges.

When do we stop? If the simple fact that fags want special laws created for them because of their perversion of sex, then why not polygamy and incest?Do people who marry have to have sex?


Yes, it absolutely affects me. It is the world I live in.

I do not want to live in a world where MEN behave like women. Where MEN enjoy taking it up the ass and getting spanked. A MAN does not do that. A MAN is a strong, dominant, NEVER TO BE CONQUERED gender.What does that have to do with you? Does that make you feel like you are taking it up the ass, being spanked and conquered?


One who ACCEPTS his truth instead of trying to change the world like a little fucking bitch. Like a fairy.
"Oh boohoo, I was born a man but I don't really like it =( Can I be a woman now? YAY!!"Do all gay men want to change their gender?

Link?


These people have mental illnesses. Period.I think you just proved one need not be gay to have a mental illness.

[MannyIsGod]

Manny, tolerance is a relative thing. You might want to be a little more careful throwing out the bigot card just because someone might agree with civil unions and not full blown marriage. The NAMBLA example is not as extreme as you may think. For someone that is pro NAMBLA you would be a bigot because you don't include them in your "spectrum".

LOL its quite different. You're not doing yourself any favors by posting. I am a bigot to members of NAMBLA and I don't doubt that. I'm also OK with that.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Well, we've decided that they do not deserve a special categorization of a "class of people". Sexual orientation is a choice based on physical desire and lust. It's purely hedonistic. It is NOT about "emotional connections" because emotions could mean faggots could fall in love with a woman too.

1) It is a choice, and nobody on this earth has been able to prove that it isn't.

That is not grounds to give them special privileges.

When do we stop? If the simple fact that fags want special laws created for them because of their perversion of sex, then why not polygamy and incest?

2) I don't want fags being "normalized" by muddying up an ANCIENT HUMAN TRADITION.

The family is THE SACRED TRINITY (no, i'm not religious). The Father, the Mother, and the Child/Son/Daughter.

I do not want to live in a world where children think it's normal to be a confused, self-loathing human being who cannot accept their gender, and who cannot accept their responsibilities as that gender.



Yes, it absolutely affects me. It is the world I live in.

I do not want to live in a world where it's OK for MEN behave like women. Where it's normal for MEN to enjoy taking it up the ass and getting spanked, or wearing feminine clothing and behaving like a woman. A MAN does not do that. A MAN is a strong, dominant, NEVER TO BE CONQUERED gender.

One who ACCEPTS his truth instead of trying to change the world like a little fucking bitch. Like a fairy.
"Oh boohoo, I was born a man but I don't really like it =( Can I be a woman now? YAY!!"

These people have mental illnesses. Period.

gay people say it's not a choice rather it's how they are born..

next. I'll side with people who are actually gay to tell what it is and not some homophobe on the internet.



These people have mental illnesses. Period.

I guess we could apply your logic and make the claim no one has proved it's a mental illness so you're wrong.

[MiamiHeat]

Do people who marry have to have sex?

Yes, all husband and wives should have sex.



What does that have to do with you? Does that make you feel like you are taking it up the ass, being spanked and conquered?

I already told you what it has to do with me.



Do all gay men want to change their gender?

Link?

Not all. Some do. Others want to remain male, but behave like a woman. The whole thing is enough for me to reject it.



I think you just proved one need not be gay to have a mental illness.

Are you a licensed psychiatrist? Show me your credentials.

[CosmicCowboy]

LOL its quite different. You're not doing yourself any favors by posting. I am a bigot to members of NAMBLA and I don't doubt that. I'm also OK with that.

And I'm OK with you thinking I am a bigot for supporting civil unions.

[Ignignokt]

I agree with Miami Heat here.

Homosexuality is repulsive and is anathema to the concept of the evolution of manhood.

But, i'm all for them having their rights. The govt can give them the right to have civil unions. I don't think the govt should redefine a sacrament by the name of "Marriage" . You can call what couples did before monotheism anything you want, but "marriage" is a holy sacrament.

[johnsmith]

Since you gave no argument and just a one liner, like a little baby child, then you don't matter.

Yes, and the level of respect you are deserving of in this thread is completely obvious.


I go back to my original point.........you're an idiot.

[MiamiHeat]

gay people say it's not a choice rather it's how they are born..

next. I'll side with people who are actually gay to tell what it is and not some homophobe on the internet.

Nobody on this earth has been able to prove that SEXUAL PREFERENCE is something you are born with.

They are sexual TASTES. This is why we call them PREFERENCES in this first place. WE CHOOSE. Our tastes CHANGE WITH TIME.

but let's ignore that for the sake of argument.

Then if they are "born that way", then how does that make it OK? Child molesters are born that way too. Being "born that way" doesn't make it acceptable to be a faggot.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I agree with Miami Heat here.

Homosexuality is repulsive and is anathema to the concept of the evolution of manhood.

But, i'm all for them having their rights. The govt can give them the right to have civil unions. I don't think the govt should redefine a sacrament by the name of "Marriage" . You can call what couples did before monotheism anything you want, but "marriage" is a holy sacrament.

I don't find it repulsive considering God did create gay people.

[ChumpDumper]

Yes, all husband and wives should have sex.That wasn't the question.

Do all married couples have sex?


I already told you what it has to do with me.Not at all. You just said how you think men should be. How would gay marriage affect you personally?


Not all. Some do. Others want to remain male, but behave like a woman. The whole thing is enough for me to reject it.So what? No one is asking you to be gay.


Are you a licensed psychiatrist? Show me your credentials.Are you a licensed psychiatrist? Show me your credentials.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Nobody on this earth has been able to prove that SEXUAL PREFERENCE is something you are born with.

They are sexual TASTES. This is why we call them PREFERENCES in this first place. WE CHOOSE. Our tastes CHANGE WITH TIME.

but let's ignore that for the sake of argument.

Then if they are "born that way", then how does that make it OK? Child molesters are born that way too. Being "born that way" doesn't make it acceptable to be a faggot.

You don't have to accept it..but others do so you will have to learn how to live with it...

Why don't you ask gay people if they are born like that?

[ChumpDumper]

I agree with Miami Heat here.

Homosexuality is repulsive and is anathema to the concept of the evolution of manhood.

But, i'm all for them having their rights. The govt can give them the right to have civil unions. I don't think the govt should redefine a sacrament by the name of "Marriage" . You can call what couples did before monotheism anything you want, but "marriage" is a holy sacrament.Should there be a United States government definition of a holy sacrament?

[johnsmith]

You don't have to accept it..but others do so you will have to learn how to live with it...

Fuck that, let him kill himself.

[spursncowboys]

Manny, tolerance is a relative thing. You might want to be a little more careful throwing out the bigot card just because someone might agree with civil unions and not full blown marriage. The NAMBLA example is not as extreme as you may think. For someone that is pro NAMBLA you would be a bigot because you don't include them in your "spectrum".

he does include them

[Ignignokt]

Should there be a United States government definition of a holy sacrament?

There already is, it's recognized, but the govt didn't define it or create it.

[ChumpDumper]

he does include themLink.

[ChumpDumper]

There already is, it's recognized, but the govt didn't define it or create it.It is recognized as holy?

Show me the statute. I'm interested to read that.

[CosmicCowboy]

Should there be a United States government definition of a holy sacrament?

The US government does use marriage (as defined and sanctioned by state law currently) as a legal definition.

[MiamiHeat]

That wasn't the question.

Do all married couples have sex?

No idea. Go find out.

What I believe is that all married couples should have sex.






Are you a licensed psychiatrist? Show me your credentials.

Easy. The US military deems homosexuality as a mental illness. There's your credentials.


also,
The American Psychiatric Association also had homosexuality as a mental illness until around the 1970's, when this whole "politically correct" garbage became the cancer of the United States. They removed homosexuality from there due to avoid backlash. They said they won't list sexual lifestyles. This means child molesters aren't mentally ill, either.

but anyway, fuck political correctness. It's ruining this country.

[ChumpDumper]

The US government does use marriage (as defined and sanctioned by state law currently) as a legal definition.As a holy sacrament?

[spursncowboys]

I don't find it repulsive considering God did create gay people.
as weill as giving them free will. I agree, however, with you that I don't find them repulsive but disagree with their homosexual acts.

[Jekka]

I agree with Miami Heat here.

Homosexuality is repulsive and is anathema to the concept of the evolution of manhood.

But, i'm all for them having their rights. The govt can give them the right to have civil unions. I don't think the govt should redefine a sacrament by the name of "Marriage" . You can call what couples did before monotheism anything you want, but "marriage" is a holy sacrament.

WTF does monotheism have anything to do with any of this?

[MiamiHeat]

I don't find it repulsive considering God did create gay people.

I'm atheist, but if you believe in God, you can't use that argument.

Otherwise, you could say that you don't find the Devil repulsive, because God created him. You don't find child molesters repulsive, because God created them.

Nope. The fact is, in Christianity, God created man with free will. He created you, but what you DO after he created you, meaning how you live your life, puts all the blame on you.

[MiamiHeat]

also,

I don't care if homosexuals have a NEW type of civil union, one that has ALL the same rights as married couples.

but I do not want them bunched in with marriage.

[ChumpDumper]

No idea. Go find out.

What I believe is that all married couples should have sex.So not all married couples have sex.

Thanks.


Easy. The US military deems homosexuality as a mental illness. There's your credentials.So you aren't a licensed psychiatrist.

Thanks.

And the military no longer deems homosexuality a mental disorder. Haven't for years.

There's your credentials.


also,
The American Psychiatric Association also had homosexuality as a mental illness until around the 1970's, when this whole "politically correct" garbage became the cancer of the United States. They removed homosexuality from there due to avoid backlash.Backlash from whom?


They said they won't list sexual lifestyles. This means child molesters aren't mentally ill, either.Most aren't. They are just bad people.


but anyway, fuck political correctness. It's ruining this country.In what way?

[ChumpDumper]

also,

I don't care if homosexuals have a NEW type of civil union, one that has ALL the same rights as married couples.

but I do not want them bunched in with marriage.It's the same water!

[MiamiHeat]

Backlash from whom?

Faggots who cry victim. They use political correctness to sway public opinion. Look up the articles on who were behind the changes to the American Psychiatric reversal and others.

We can't have any meanies telling anyone what is normal anymore. I want to do what I WANT TO DO!! WAAAHHH!!!! I'M BEING OPPRESSED!!!




Most aren't. They are just bad people.


ChumpDumper, defending child molesters.

"They aren't mentally ill", says Chumpy.

[MiamiHeat]

It's the same water!

Can faggots marry a woman? Yes

Can blacks choose to be white? No

Thank you, come again

[ChumpDumper]

Faggots who cry victim. They use political correctness to sway public opinion. Look up the articles on who were behind the changes to the American Psychiatric reversal and others.Sure, provide me some link.


We can't have any meanies telling anyone what is normal anymore. I want to do what I WANT TO DO!! WAAAHHH!!!! I'M BEING OPPRESSED!!!Yes, you do whine about being oppressed in this thread. Teh gheys are clearly out to get you.



ChumpDumper, defending child molesters.

"They aren't mentally ill", says Chumpy.Most aren't.

They are just bad people.

What part of that do you not understand?

I don't think you know the actual meaning of the words "mental illness." That make more sense than what you are posting.

[johnsmith]

Using the word 'faggot' makes you sound smart and really adds legitimacy to your argument.

[ChumpDumper]

Can faggots marry a woman? Yes

Can blacks choose to be white? No

Thank you, come againCan a lesbian marry a woman she loves?

No.

Thank you, come again.

[johnsmith]

Imma tell it like it is, them faggots can hang with the rest of those nigga boys, jews, and spics.

[Jekka]

Can faggots marry a woman? Yes

Can blacks choose to be white? No

Thank you, come again

Does that mean that you are okay with homosexuals being included in marriage as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex? You should really try to make your points in coherent English before you sound off like that - it just looks bad when you have to come back in and explain.

[johnsmith]

MH, you are hillbilly trash.

[MiamiHeat]

Can a lesbian marry a woman she loves?

No.

Thank you, come again.


Can an brother marry his sister?

No.

Thank you, come again.

[MiamiHeat]

Does that mean that you are okay with homosexuals being included in marriage as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex? You should really try to make your points in coherent English before you sound off like that - it just looks bad when you have to come back in and explain.

Wait, did you just ask me if I would support a man marrying a woman?

lolwut?

[ChumpDumper]

Can an brother marry his sister?

No.

Thank you, come again.True.

That might be next, if people really believe in the Constitution.

Thank you, come again.

Unless you don't believe in the Constitution.

[Jekka]

If they are marrying women, they wouldn't be homosexuals.

Not necessarily. They don't HAVE to be.

[ChumpDumper]

Not necessarily. They don't HAVE to be.No, marriage is a magic sexual orientation changer. MH said so.

[Oh, Gee!!]

what's next? marrying oneself? a cat?

sincerely,

xray

[LnGrrrR]

NO there is a reason that they pick certain COA and judges.

Who is "they"? And you do know that judge was a Republican appointee, right? Reagan IIRC.

[Oh, Gee!!]

why should the gays complain? they're free to marry anybody but the person they love. that's a bunch of people, like half the earth's population.

[Jekka]

No, marriage is a magic sexual orientation changer. MH said so.

ZOMG get out the magic glitter - heterosexuality for everyone!!

[MiamiHeat]

True.

That might be next, if people really believe in the Constitution.

Thank you, come again.

Unless you don't believe in the Constitution.

Exactly.

Why stop at fags?

What's wrong with polygamy if everyone is a consenting adult?

What's wrong with incest if everyone is a consenting adult?

I mean, really. There is something to be said of humanity creating an IDEAL, a way of life that has worked for millenia.

The path we are on now, faggots, daughters marrying their dads, sisters marrying brothers, if we truly want all this "do whatever you want because I tell you that I was born this way" attitude, we are going to live in a disgusting, sick, backward society.

[Oh, Gee!!]

that's exactly what will happen and within 6 months I bet. book it. the end of civilization as we know it.

[LnGrrrR]

MiamiHeat now: Look, if gays want to marry, they can marry the opposite gender!

MiamiHeat then: Look, if blacks want to get a job/vote/live normally, they can just move to another state!

Freedom!

[LnGrrrR]

What's wrong with polygamy if everyone is a consenting adult?

What's wrong with incest if everyone is a consenting adult?


What's wrong with it socially? Or constitutionally? You are aware there's a difference in supporting the right to do something, and supporting the thing itself.

I mean, I'm not a fan of KKK rallies, but I would defend their right to have them. Would you?

[ChumpDumper]

Exactly.

Why stop at fags?

What's wrong with polygamy if everyone is a consenting adult?

What's wrong with incest if everyone is a consenting adult?Indeed -- if one believes government should be in the business of marriage and believes in equality, what are the legal reasons against it?


I mean, really. There is something to be said of humanity creating an IDEAL, a way of life that has worked for millenia.Ideal according to whom?


The path we are on now, faggots, daughters marrying their dads, sisters marrying brothers, if we truly want all this "do whatever you want because I tell you that I was born this way" attitude, we are going to live in a disgusting, sick, backward society.You still haven't said how all this is going to affect you personally.

[MiamiHeat]

ZOMG get out the magic glitter - heterosexuality for everyone!!

Freedom for everyone
or
keep our way or life.

If someone wants to marry their sister, father, or mother, why not?

Wait, if sexual preference is valid grounds for special privileges, then why stop there?

What other places of preference can we change with new laws for these special peoples?

[Marcus Bryant]

What would be that wrong with living in a country so absurdly free that a man could legally marry another man? You're still free to disagree that it is right, as maintaining one's own conscience has not been outlawed. Yet.

[MiamiHeat]

MiamiHeat now: Look, if gays want to marry, they can marry the opposite gender!

MiamiHeat then: Look, if blacks want to get a job/vote/live normally, they can just move to another state!

Freedom!

Can blacks choose to be white?

Can faggots choose to love a woman?

[MiamiHeat]

What would be that wrong with living in a country so absurdly free that a man could legally marry another man? You're still free to disagree that it is right, as maintaining one's own conscience has not been outlawed. Yet.

I don't care what they do if they create a NEW institution for it.

Just don't muddy up marriage with that garbage.

Marriage = Man and woman

New institution = same sex couples

[ChumpDumper]

Wait, if sexual preference is valid grounds for special privileges, then why stop there?

What other places of preference can we change with new laws for these special peoples?Why would allowing gays to marry be a special privilege?

Please explain.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't care what they do if they create a NEW institution for it.

Just don't muddy up marriage with that garbage.

Marriage = Man and woman

New institution = same sex couplesSo it's not "separate but equal."

It's "equal but separate."

I see what you did there.

[MiamiHeat]

What's wrong with it socially? Or constitutionally? You are aware there's a difference in supporting the right to do something, and supporting the thing itself.

I mean, I'm not a fan of KKK rallies, but I would defend their right to have them. Would you?

No, they should not have the right to do them.

It incites violence and instability within the population.

Protesting peacefully, holding rallys for productive, positive efforts should be completely supported and protected.

Holding rallys out of hatred for another citizen, no matter the reason, incites violence and should not be allowed.

[clambake]

shouldn't you go ahead and explain how you have zero respect for women, too?

[Marcus Bryant]

I don't care what they do if they create a NEW institution for it.

Just don't muddy up marriage with that garbage.

Marriage = Man and woman

New institution = same sex couples

Are you not free to regard the first definition as the one and true definition if you so desire?

[ChumpDumper]

No, they should not have the right to do them.

It incites violence and instability within the population.The content of their speech has been pretty clearly circumscribed by the courts over the centuries. If they are not violating those precedents, they are free to rally as they please.

[MiamiHeat]

So it's not "separate but equal."

It's "equal but separate."

I see what you did there.

Marriage is not a publicly funded institution. It is entirely up to the couples, the people to decide if they want their institution changed.

[clambake]

how would it change their marriage?

[MiamiHeat]

Are you not free to regard the first definition as the one and true definition if you so desire?

Once you muddy up the waters, you can't tell the difference anymore. The power of suggestion is strong.

I don't want the idea it's OK to be a faggot spreading to impressionable people and children.

Mixing them in with the ancient human institution of marriage "normalizes" them.

I don't want that. They are asking for a rare and unique situation in human history, and it should be noted as so.

[ChumpDumper]

Marriage is not a publicly funded institution.Wrong. It is a publicly recognized institution that gives those who marry special benefits. I'm all for government getting out of that game.


It is entirely up to the couples, the people to decide if they want their institution changed.Then you agree individuals should marry whomever they wish.

Great.

[LnGrrrR]

Marriage is not a publicly funded institution. It is entirely up to the couples, the people to decide if they want their institution changed.

That would be true if marriage had nothing to do with the government. But since marriage DOES afford certain privileges, that argument is moot.

If you want to argue the government shouldn't have anything to do with marriages, and it should just be a civil ceremony, feel free.

[ChumpDumper]

Once you muddy up the waters, you can't tell the difference anymore. The power of suggestion is strong.

I don't want the idea it's OK to be a faggot spreading to impressionable people and children.

Mixing them in with the ancient human institution of marriage "normalizes" them.

I don't want that. They are asking for a rare and unique situation in human history, and it should be noted as so.Why is it so rare and unique?

Why do teh gheys scare you so?

[LnGrrrR]

I don't want the idea it's OK to be a faggot spreading to impressionable people and children.

Mixing them in with the ancient human institution of marriage "normalizes" them.

I don't want that. They are asking for a rare and unique situation in human history, and it should be noted as so.

You know what else is rare and unique? Women suffrage. Guess we should start pointing that out too.

You can have your opinion all day; others think the idea of a homosexual being "normal" is fine, like myself. Again, there's a difference between supporting something and supporting the right to do something.

[Oh, Gee!!]

apparently, obama and liberal activist judges won't be happy until everybody is gay

[LnGrrrR]

Can blacks choose to be white?

No.


Can faggots choose to love a woman?

No.

Can you choose to start liking men MH?

[LnGrrrR]

No, they should not have the right to do them.

It incites violence and instability within the population.

Ah, so you're just a pussy. Freedom involves some people saying some scary words sometimes. But I guess as long as you feel safe, you don't care what freedoms we don't have. :tu


Protesting peacefully, holding rallys for productive, positive efforts should be completely supported and protected.

Holding rallys out of hatred for another citizen, no matter the reason, incites violence and should not be allowed.

So you disagree with the First Amendment then? Not sure if you're aware, but alot of Founding Fathers said alot of disagreeable things.

[MiamiHeat]

Can you choose to start liking men MH?

What does the word choose mean?

choose/CHo͞oz/Verb
1. Pick out or select (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives: "he chose a seat facing the door"; "many versions to choose from".
2. Decide on a course of action, typically after rejecting alternatives


That should answer your question.

Anyone can choose anything. I can choose to fuck goats. Doesn't mean I should.

[ChumpDumper]

What does the word choose mean?

choose/CHo͞oz/Verb
1. Pick out or select (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives: "he chose a seat facing the door"; "many versions to choose from".
2. Decide on a course of action, typically after rejecting alternatives


That should answer your question.

Anyone can choose anything. I can choose to fuck goats. Doesn't mean I should.So MiamiHeat is a possible homosexual and cannot be trusted.

[spursncowboys]

Not necessarily. They don't HAVE to be.

right. because it's an act and nothing more.

[CosmicCowboy]

Are you not free to regard the first definition as the one and true definition if you so desire?

I would like to think so but doubt that would be the case.

Example:

I pay 100% of employee and family health insurance. I don't want them worrying about affording healthcare for their wife/kids or choosing to go without.

At the same time, I would not want to recognize a gay partner as a legitimate spouse and pay for his health care coverage.

It's my fucking money and I don't want to spend it that way.

The way this is going, I would be forced into the moral choice of either being forced to pay for the gay spouses health care or deciding not to pay for ANY spouses. I couldn't choose to do one and not the other but I could legally choose not to do either.

[LnGrrrR]

What does the word choose mean?

choose/CHo͞oz/Verb
1. Pick out or select (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives: "he chose a seat facing the door"; "many versions to choose from".
2. Decide on a course of action, typically after rejecting alternatives

That should answer your question.

Anyone can choose anything. I can choose to fuck goats. Doesn't mean I should.

So you can choose to start liking men, if you wish? Try to then, I dare ya. Try to go a week finding men sexually attractive.

You don't have to act on it. Just start liking them, and tell us how it worked for you.

[MiamiHeat]

Ah, so you're just a pussy. Freedom involves some people saying some scary words sometimes. But I guess as long as you feel safe, you don't care what freedoms we don't have. :tu

Calling me a pussy. Ha. Far from it.

You don't understand what I said, maybe I should write it better.

Holding rallys for the hatred of a person based solely on something they cannot change, is wrong. It serves no purpose. An artificial superiority complex, and it's something that can never achieve balance or equilibrium because blacks can't magically turn white. It never ends.

Holding a rally to shit on a politician for his beliefs or actions, is completely fine with me.

Can you tell the difference?


So you disagree with the First Amendment then? Not sure if you're aware, but alot of Founding Fathers said alot of disagreeable things.

Yeah, you clearly didn't get what I meant.

[clambake]

I would like to think so but doubt that would be the case.

Example:

I pay 100% of employee and family health insurance. I don't want them worrying about affording healthcare for their wife/kids or choosing to go without.

At the same time, I would not want to recognize a gay partner as a legitimate spouse and pay for their health care coverage.

It's my fucking money and I don't want to spend it that way.

The way this is going, I would be forced into the moral choice of either being forced to pay for the gay spouses health care or deciding not to pay for ANY spouses. I couldn't choose to do one and not the other but I could legally choose not to do either.

so, you don't respect that employee like you would the others.

[boutons_deux]

What if you knew one of your married male employees was fucking every lady in his neighborhood, or your right-hand man and his wife were polyamorous or very busy swingers.

Would your Holy Roller morals make you fire them, or quit paying their health insurance?

[LnGrrrR]

It's my fucking money and I don't want to spend it that way.

The way this is going, I would be forced into the moral choice of either being forced to pay for the gay spouses health care or deciding not to pay for ANY spouses. I couldn't choose to do one and not the other but I could legally choose not to do either.

Do pacifists get to choose not to pay taxes for the Defense Department?

There's alot of things that people pay for that they don't agree to.

[MiamiHeat]

So MiamiHeat is a possible homosexual and cannot be trusted.

Anyone is a possible anything. You are a possible terrorist who secretly posts on Al-Qaeda websites.

[ChumpDumper]

Calling me a pussy. Ha. Far from it.

You don't understand what I said, maybe I should write it better.

Holding rallys for the hatred of a person based solely on something they cannot change, is wrong. It serves no purpose. An artificial superiority complex, and it's something that can never achieve balance or equilibrium because blacks can't magically turn white. It never ends.The KKK regularly rally against Jews too. Since a person's religion can be changed, you approve of such rallies.


Yeah, you clearly didn't get what I meant.He pretty much nailed it. You want to be the arbiter of free speech rights in the US.

[MiamiHeat]

so, you don't respect that employee like you would the others.

You act like that's new.

Ever had a co-worker or employee who you didn't like?

Heck, you don't like me. Let's say I was your employee. Hi. You wouldn't respect like you would the others.

Pot meet kettle.

[CosmicCowboy]

Do pacifists get to choose not to pay taxes for the Defense Department?

There's alot of things that people pay for that they don't agree to.

I'm not talking about what the government does with my tax money. I'm talking about the government mandating what I do with MY money.

Understand...I don't have to pay for ANYONES insurance if I don't want to.

[ChumpDumper]

Anyone is a possible anything. You are a possible terrorist who secretly posts on Al-Qaeda websites.OK, potential homosexual.

[LnGrrrR]

Holding rallys for the hatred of a person based solely on something they cannot change, is wrong. It serves no purpose. An artificial superiority complex, and it's something that can never achieve balance or equilibrium because blacks can't magically turn white. It never ends.

I agree that it's wrong to support such a cause. However, I believe they have the RIGHT to say what they wish. That's an American ideal. Why?

Let's say a member of the KKK comes to power somehow. Would you want him to detail what you could and coulnd't say? Of course not.

Besides, letting people say stupid things is a good way to find who the stupid people are. :)

As I've been saying, surely you can see the difference between supporting the actions of a person, and supporting their right to do.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm not talking about what the government does with my tax money. I'm talking about the government mandating what I do with MY money.

Understand...I don't have to pay for ANYONES insurance if I don't want to.

Ok, I get where you're coming from now, but I still don't see a big distinction. After all, tax money is technically "your" money too, isn't it?

[MiamiHeat]

The KKK regularly rally against Jews too.

but they were big on the whole racism against blacks thing, right? I was referring to that.

Can't you try harder, ChumpDumper? That was weak on the logic front. Very weak.



He pretty much nailed it. You want to be the arbiter of free speech rights in the US.

Say whatever you want about others on the grounds of their actions, their words, their beliefs, their ideals, their character, whatever.

Inciting hatred over something that is impossible to change or improve, such as color of skin, your height, your facial features, color of your hair, or your mental illness, should be disallowed.

[clambake]

You act like that's new.

Ever had a co-worker or employee who you didn't like?

Heck, you don't like me. Let's say I was your employee. Hi. You wouldn't respect like you would the others.

Pot meet kettle.

you're all over the place. did you forget what i asked CC?

[ChumpDumper]

but they were big on the whole racism against blacks thing, right? I was referring to that.But they are also big on the whole antisemitic thing too. I was referring to that.


Can't you try harder, ChumpDumper? That was weak on the logic front. Very weak.It's your logic -- why don't you own it?

Since a person's religion can be changed, you approve of KKK rallies against Jews.

Yes or no?


Say whatever you want about others on the grounds of their actions, their words, their beliefs, their ideals, their character, whatever.

Inciting hatred over something that is impossible to change or improve, such as color of skin, your height, your facial features, color of your hair, or your mental illness, should be disallowed.But religion is ok.

You want to be the arbiter of free speech in the US. You just posted your manifesto.

And since you consider homosexuality a mental illness, you just committed a hate crime in this thread according to your criteria.

Good job :tu

[MannyIsGod]

You see, its OK if we force gay business owners to pay for hetero spouses but god forbid CC be told to pay for homo spouses.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh and LOL @ MH accusing anyone else of weak logic.

[spursncowboys]

Do pacifists get to choose not to pay taxes for the Defense Department?

There's alot of things that people pay for that they don't agree to.

thats different since everyone benefits from that. There is no free lunch here. A better example, if using the govt., would be paying school taxes if you don't have children who go to school.

[ChumpDumper]

thats different since everyone benefits from that. There is no free lunch here. A better example, if using the govt., would be paying school taxes if you don't have children who go to school.But everyone benefits from an educated population.

[LnGrrrR]

thats different since everyone benefits from that. There is no free lunch here. A better example, if using the govt., would be paying school taxes if you don't have children who go to school.

Yes, but my point is that pacifists are MORALLY opposed to war, and yet have to fund the effort anyways. I don't think many childless parents are morally opposed to sending children to school. :)

[spursncowboys]

You see, its OK if we force gay business owners to pay for hetero spouses but god forbid CC be told to pay for homo spouses.

who's forcing people to pay for healthcare for anyone? cowboys clearly sees that by taking care of his workforce's family, he is investing in them and will likely get a better and more productive worker. also with that incentive he will have an easier time of getting a better caliber worker.

[MannyIsGod]

thats different since everyone benefits from that. There is no free lunch here. A better example, if using the govt., would be paying school taxes if you don't have children who go to school.

:lmao

Fucking socialist.

[MiamiHeat]

Since a person's religion can be changed, you approve of KKK rallies against Jews.

Yes or no?
I don't approve of it, but I would allow it if it's only because of their religion.

Bashing religion is fine with me.





And since you consider homosexuality a mental illness, you just committed a hate crime in this thread according to your criteria.

Good job :tu

Thanks for falling in my trap :)

So we agree homosexuals are mentally ill?

Thanks.

[MannyIsGod]

who's forcing people to pay for healthcare for anyone? cowboys clearly sees that by taking care of his workforce's family, he is investing in them and will likely get a better and more productive worker. also with that incentive he will have an easier time of getting a better caliber worker.

Ask CC. Someone's forcing him to pay for gay insurance.

[Blake]

Kudos to the OP for starting this ghey thread.

Instead of clicking back and forth through different threads in this forum to see the usual idiots get pwned by the usual regulators, it's all here in one convenient thread.

Thanks again. :tu

[MiamiHeat]

Oh and LOL @ MH accusing anyone else of weak logic.

Puhlease. I know myself. I am strong in that department.

Try to laugh less and give reasons more.

Otherwise, with no rebuttals and just "lols", you're not important.

Thx

[spursncowboys]

Yes, but my point is that pacifists are MORALLY opposed to war, and yet have to fund the effort anyways. I don't think many childless parents are morally opposed to sending children to school. :)
maybe i missed it. i've been reading fm's for a while now at starbucks and feel a lil burned.

[Blake]

Oh and LOL @ MH accusing anyone else of weak logic.

[spursncowboys]

Kudos to the OP for starting this ghey thread.

Instead of clicking back and forth through different threads in this forum to see the usual idiots get pwned by the usual regulators, it's all here in one convenient thread.
:lol
I can imagine who you think the regulators are. I bet it is not coincidental that they are all believers of your socialist nonsense.


Thanks again. :tu

[ChumpDumper]

I don't approve of it, but I would allow it if it's only because of their religion.

Bashing religion is fine with me.So you are for some KKK rallies and against others. Do they need to give you a topic list before the rally?



Thanks for falling in my trap :)

So we agree homosexuals are mentally ill?

Thanks.No, you fell into your own trap :)

I never said anything about agreeing with your stupid contention.

You admitted you were being a hypocrite speaking out against people you consider mentally ill.

Thanks.

[LnGrrrR]

So we agree homosexuals are mentally ill?

What does that have to do with their right to marry?

[LnGrrrR]

maybe i missed it. i've been reading fm's for a while now at starbucks and feel a lil burned.

It happens. It is Friday. :lol

[MiamiHeat]

Yes, but my point is that pacifists are MORALLY opposed to war, and yet have to fund the effort anyways. I don't think many childless parents are morally opposed to sending children to school. :)

They can claim conscientous (sp?) objector status and not participate in the war.

As for their taxes, well, this is the same issue with faggots.

You cannot have a safe and secure country to live in without a standing army to defend it.

Anyone morally opposed to having to fund the army is in the same category as homosexuals - fucking stupid and need to stfu.

[clambake]

homosexuals are protecting your weak ass right now.

[ChumpDumper]

Puhlease. I know myself. I am strong in that department.

Try to laugh less and give reasons more.It's difficult not to laugh when you owned yourself so completely by violating your own speech edict.

[MiamiHeat]

So you are for some KKK rallies and against others. Do they need to give you a topic list before the rally?

More weak fail attempts =( ChumpDumper, please pick up your game cause it's sad to watch

No, they can use the guidelines I previously described.



You admitted you were being a hypocrite speaking out against people you consider mentally ill.
Thanks.

I only said they should have their own institution and not be combined with marriage. That's far from "hate crime" in my book.

and,

I said holding rallys to incite violence and hatred is wrong. I am not holding any rallys or organized meetings to hate anyone, but merely just voicing my individual opinion, something which I support. thanks :lol

Thank you, come again with better attempts

[Blake]

I failed at submitting my reply

The idiots are the ones that think people like me post socialist nonsense.

[MiamiHeat]

homosexuals are protecting your weak ass right now.

Who said I am weak, and what do homosexuals in the military have to do with homosexuals wanting marriage to be changed?

[Blake]

Who said I am weak?

intellectually.

:toast

[ChumpDumper]

More weak fail attempts =( ChumpDumper, please pick up your game cause it's sad to watch

No, they can use the guidelines I previously described. So you are for some KKK rallies and against others. How would you know if they broke your rules?


I said holding rallys to incite violence and hatred is wrong. I am not holding any rallys or organized meetings to hate anyone, but merely just voicing my individual opinion, something which I support. thanks :lolSo individuals can incite hatred against those you consider mentally ill, but not two people?

[MiamiHeat]

intellectually.

:toast

I'm among the strongest in this thread, so let's see you have a go at me.

I challenge you to prove it.

and please, no childish, "lol i won" garbage.

[ChumpDumper]

and please, no childish, "lol i won" garbage.


I'm among the strongest in this thread

Hypocrite.

[MiamiHeat]

So you are for some KKK rallies and against others. How would you know if they broke your rules?

So individuals can incite hatred against those you consider mentally ill, but not two people?

Yes, individuals can hate whatever they want. That's their right.

Just don't organize large meetings and rallys to organize their efforts and spread the mindset. It's wrong.

Thanks :)

[LnGrrrR]

I'm still waiting to see if anyone who thinks gender preference is a choice will take my "Be gay for a week" challenge. Remember, you don't have to ACT on these desires, you just have to start finding men sexually attractive for a week, then you can switch right back. Any takers?

[spursncowboys]

I'm among the strongest in this thread, so let's see you have a go at me.

I challenge you to prove it.

and please, no childish, "lol i won" garbage.
aww. you took his whole game plan.

[MiamiHeat]

Hypocrite.

I said I am among the strongest, meaning there are other posters I deem to be at least of equal strength. Didn't claim victory.

reading fail comprehension

[ChumpDumper]

Yes, individuals can hate whatever they want. That's their right.

Just don't organize large meetings and rallys to organize their efforts and spread the mindset. It's wrong.

Thanks :)How large?

Two people?

Is a message board a meeting if enough people are present? A chat room?

[ChumpDumper]

I said I am among the strongest. Didn't claim victory.

reading fail comprehensionSo, one could say "lol I am among those who won."

[Blake]

I'm among the strongest in this thread, so let's see you have a go at me.

I challenge you to prove it.

and please, no childish, "lol i won" garbage.

you have put me on ignore in the past.

Putting people on ignore when they can't handle arguments any more is weak.

You are intellectually weak.

lol I win.

[MannyIsGod]

Looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooool

[MiamiHeat]

How large?

Two people?

Is a message board a meeting if enough people are present? A chat room?

Organized meetings and rallys like the KKK, is what I am referring to.

Two friends shooting the shit on their porch, it's their right.

[MannyIsGod]

God damn on some days Spurstalk just plain delivers.

[clambake]

I'm still waiting to see if anyone who thinks gender preference is a choice will take my "Be gay for a week" challenge. Remember, you don't have to ACT on these desires, you just have to start finding men sexually attractive for a week, then you can switch right back. Any takers?

no one will take that challenge......because they know thats not how it works.....but are too weak to admit it.

[MiamiHeat]

So, one could say "lol I am among those who won."

or you could say "I need to think more before I post because my attempts are laughably weak"

[ChumpDumper]

Organized meetings and rallys like the KKK, is what I am referring to.

Two friends shooting the shit on their porch, it's their right.How many friends can meet on the porch to incite hate?

[ChumpDumper]

or you could say "I need to think more before I post because my attempts are laughably weak"No need. I am among those who won.

[MiamiHeat]

you have put me on ignore in the past.

Putting people on ignore when they can't handle arguments any more is weak.

You are intellectually weak.

lol I win.


Go ahead and stop dodging the subject.

I challenged you, can you stand up to the task or just watch, act scared, throw some jokes around and be a pussy?

[LnGrrrR]

Organized meetings and rallys like the KKK, is what I am referring to.

Two friends shooting the shit on their porch, it's their right.

So, you're worried about them spreading their message, correct? Certainly then, to be logically consistent you would have to ban any racist messageboards. Right? And any other sort of forum where one could possibly share their racist views with the general public?

[MannyIsGod]

No need. I am among those who won.

LOL I too am among those who won.

I'm literally LOLing right now.

[MiamiHeat]

How many friends can meet on the porch to incite hate?

As long as it's not a KKK type of organization, with weekly meetings and all that, it's fine with me.

[clambake]

As long as it's not a KKK type of organization, with weekly meetings and all that, it's fine with me.

:lmao

[MannyIsGod]

Whats your stance on biweekly meetings?

[Marcus Bryant]

What is it about the law that gives credence to homosexual marriage, for sides pro or con? The law stipulates that we have freedom of expression. Does that mean we agree with everything said by another? That something is legal, does not mean that it is necessarily accepted by a majority, let alone all. If you believe gay marriage is a right and just thing, then the illegality of that does not change that. If you believe it is wrong, then legality will not change that.

Sure, one could try this with murder or any other activity, but the difference is that this is an act which involves consenting adults. And, I will say, compared to the million other abuses of the state, this isn't high on that list.

I don't know, at the end of the day, I don't wake up every morning worried about this one way or the other. The institution of marriage isn't what it once was. Homosexuals are generally free to live as they wish in the US moreso than in many parts of the world (which, if you think about it, isn't a bad thing, as it ensures the rest of us are less likely to run into trouble with the law in our lives). I regret that marriage is no longer what it was, simply because I believe that in the absence of a society with stable families that the state is looked to fill the gap, and expands unnecessarily.

A lot of sins are legal, if that's your gripe. And we're all sinners anyways.

[ChumpDumper]

As long as it's not a KKK type of organization, with weekly meetings and all that, it's fine with me.How would you determine whether it is a KKK type of organization?

Are biweekly meetings OK?

[MannyIsGod]

Or with if there's punch and cake at the meetings. Everyone likes punch and cake, right?

[Blake]

aww. you took his whole game plan.

aww, you are still dumbfuckingly butthurt after watching your whole hyphen usage game plan disintegrate.

[MiamiHeat]

LOL I too am among those who won.

I'm literally LOLing right now.

Sad little human

you are way too arrogant for your own good. I've seen your posting many times, and while you do have an education, you never say anything original or thought provoking. Much of it is regurtitated information I heard somewhere else.


You can't stand up to the challenge, don't get in the way of those participating

Thanks

[MiamiHeat]

How would you determine whether it is a KKK type of organization?

Are biweekly meetings OK?

Nope, that would be organized, now wouldn't it