Another (Homosexual) domino falls

[MannyIsGod]

-- Gay couples have the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples under the New Jersey state constitution, the state Supreme Court rules.



Its only a matter of time until the rest follow suit.

[T Park]

Bravo.

Just let them be able to marry already.

[101A]

-- Gay couples have the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples under the New Jersey state constitution, the state Supreme Court rules.



Its only a matter of time until the rest follow suit.

This is why LEGISLATURES have been passing laws and ammendments defining what marriage is.

Republicans are going to use this ruling in there favor; good for them the Foley scandal has everybody plenty homophobic right about now.

[JoeChalupa]

Those damn liberals.

[101A]

...it certainly doesn't help Menedez's chances to keep his job. October surprise, indeed.

[MannyIsGod]

This is why LEGISLATURES have been passing laws and ammendments defining what marriage is.

Republicans are going to use this ruling in there favor; good for them the Foley scandal has everybody plenty homophobic right about now.Legislatures actions can and will be found unconstitutional.

[Spurminator]

What does a homosexual domino look like?


Edit... Found it :lol

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/CORPOD/CB040008~Red-Dominoes-Posters.jpg

[xrayzebra]

Happy Winter Holidays and May They Live Happy
Ever After. whatever their gender.

I wonder how they will fare under the Taliban, which
so many are fond of on this board.

And how do they figure out who wears the veil?

[xrayzebra]

What does a homosexual domino look like?


The look the same.

[ChumpDumper]

Happy Winter Holidays and May They Live Happy
Ever After. whatever their gender.

I wonder how they will fare under the Taliban, which
so many are fond of on this board.

And how do they figure out who wears the veil?Worst attempt to change the subject ever.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Happy Winter Holidays and May They Live Happy
Ever After. whatever their gender.

I wonder how they will fare under the Taliban, which
so many are fond of on this board.

And how do they figure out who wears the veil?WTF??

[FromWayDowntown]

It's an interesting constitutional issue -- just how far does equal protection of the law extend? I've been rooting for a few of these to percolate up through the courts so that the Supreme Court can take a look at it, but given the philosophical moorings of this Court, I think that there may be a greater concern for federalism than for examining the constitutional limits of the Equal Protection Clause.

The rubber will meet the road when a couple that is recognized as married in State A moves to State B, where such marriages are circumscribed, and tries to contend that they're married for all purposes. My hunch is that it will become an issue with insurers before it affects much of anything else.

[FromWayDowntown]

Happy Winter Holidays and May They Live Happy
Ever After. whatever their gender.

I wonder how they will fare under the Taliban, which
so many are fond of on this board.

And how do they figure out who wears the veil?

Wow -- a disgust for political correctness, homophobia, and partisan vitriol all rolled up into one completely disjointed non-sequitur.

I love this forum!!

[xrayzebra]

Worst attempt to change the subject ever.


What is changing the subject?

It is what is happening!

[xrayzebra]

Wow -- a disgust for political correctness, homophobia, and partisan vitriol all rolled up into one completely disjointed non-sequitur.

I love this forum!!

Yeah, don't you just love it. I'm really good!

[clambake]

First time I've ever seen Taliban and homosexuals linked as one.

[xrayzebra]

Try being one under their regime. Trying having a
man/man - woman/woman marriage. Just try doing
anything they don't approve of under their style of
religion or government. You will soon meet your
70 whatever or take your punishment in public.

[ChumpDumper]

What is changing the subject?

It is what is happening!Yeah, link that for us. Show us the Taliban stance on gay marriage and GLAD's pro-Taliban mission statement. Should be easy for you.

[clambake]

Are you maybe off your meds?

[ChumpDumper]

Try being one under their regime. Trying having a
man/man - woman/woman marriage. Just try doing
anything they don't approve of under their style of
religion or government. You will soon meet your
70 whatever or take your punishment in public.So the Taliban are against gays?

And gays are for the Taliban?

[xrayzebra]

So the Taliban are against gays?

And gays are for the Taliban?

Oh, I forgot, the Taliban are the good guys and
they love gays and love for women to show their
face and ankles. Thanks for reminding me.

It is us that is wrong. Especially us homophobes.
The set the example. How inconsiderate of me.

[Ocotillo]

Try being one under their regime. Trying having a
man/man - woman/woman marriage. Just try doing
anything they don't approve of under their style of
religion or government. You will soon meet your
70 whatever or take your punishment in public.

Are you saying we should be like the Taliban? That is the example we should follow?

[clambake]

We better find out just how big that community of Taliban is in New Jersey. They may be staking out the chapels.

[Crookshanks]

Interesting fact about the NJ Court. All the ones who voted in favor of homosexual marriage were appointed by... gay Governor McGreevey!!

Think maybe he stacked the court with people sympathetic to the gay agenda? Nah, a flaming homosexual liberal would never do that!

[clambake]

I guess you forgot he wasn't flaming. He was trapped in a closet.

[boutons_]

"WTF??"

Like MJ Fox, XZ goes of his meds just to post in this forum. :lol

[MannyIsGod]

"WTF??"

Like MJ Fox, XZ goes of his meds just to post in this forum. :lol:lmao x 3240738442390843290843432084390

[turambar85]

I have never seen anything more puzzling that Xrays apparant leap into insanity.

He has always been a little batty and dogmatic, but now he has left these characteristics behind and gone for bat shit crazy.

Are you saying the Taliban is bad for being anti-gay marriage while fighting against gay marriage yourself, or are you saying the Taliban is good for doing this to gays while saying that the Taliban is bad?

I am thoroughly confused.

Whoever is in charge of X-rays nursing home should have their license revoked. Allowing him free roam of the internet while completely bowled over on his pills. Thats just not cool.

[FromWayDowntown]

and, amazingly, rather than conversing about whether the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment should permit states to legalize same-sex marriage (or not be an impediment to outlawing same-sex marriage) we're talking about xray's odd rhetoric.

I love this forum!

[xrayzebra]

^^No, let me explain for all your youngn's. You support all this crap about gays
which ruined a very good word and support the Taliban, I guess, since you don't
really like what Bush is doing, so you keep ruining your own argument. Are you
for freedom or for what? Come on tell me.


Call me what you want but one thing for sure. You know where I stand. Where
do you stand?

[xrayzebra]

and, amazingly, rather than conversing about whether the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment should permit states to legalize same-sex marriage (or not be an impediment to outlawing same-sex marriage) we're talking about xray's odd rhetoric.

I love this forum!


Well dummy, if you would just watch a little news you find out that they
didn't legalize homosexual marriage, they just said they have the same
rights.......big difference..........live and learn......

[turambar85]

^^No, let me explain for all your youngn's. You support all this crap about gays
which ruined a very good word and support the Taliban, I guess, since you don't
really like what Bush is doing, so you keep ruining your own argument. Are you
for freedom or for what? Come on tell me.


Call me what you want but one thing for sure. You know where I stand. Where
do you stand?

Lol, to not support Bush is to support the Taliban???? Are you really that freaking senile old man?

What is your reasoning behind such an absurd claim?

[turambar85]

I love the ignorant all or nothing mentality. Kevin Tillman, and other Iraqi vets, don't agree with Bush or the war...are they supporting the Taliban too?

Is it not possible to get out of this petty, nationalistic worldview where we are forced to look at papa Bush as our great benevolent leader, acting as God's puppet?

[FromWayDowntown]

Well dummy, if you would just watch a little news you find out that they
didn't legalize homosexual marriage, they just said they have the same
rights.......big difference..........live and learn......

And curiously, my post didn't say one word about what the New Jersey court said in its opinion. I proposed a broader question, based on the principle of equal rights that the Jersey court articulated.

I love this forum!

[FromWayDowntown]

I love the ignorant all or nothing mentality. Kevin Tillman, and other Iraqi vets, don't agree with Bush or the war...are they supporting the Taliban too?

Is it not possible to get out of this petty, nationalistic worldview where we are forced to look at papa Bush as our great benevolent leader, acting as God's puppet?

No, Kevin Tillman just lost his mind. The rest who question the policies of this Administration are quasi-Taliban. (or is it quasi-al Queda?).

[xrayzebra]

And curiously, my post didn't say one word about what the New Jersey court said in its opinion. I proposed a broader question, based on the principle of equal rights that the Jersey court articulated.

I love this forum!

Well once again, read the title of the post. But typical of Liberal ramblings.

[FromWayDowntown]

Well once again, read the title of the post. But typical of Liberal ramblings.

What's incorrect about the title of the post? And why is correctly describing what the New Jersey court did and then asking broader questions about the implications of that decision "liberal ramblings?" I'm honestly curious why you say that. Is that just your boilerplate response to arguments that you disagree with?

[MannyIsGod]

So entertaining.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Well, at least we now know Xray has finally gone off the deep end.

[xrayzebra]

I love the ignorant all or nothing mentality. Kevin Tillman, and other Iraqi vets, don't agree with Bush or the war...are they supporting the Taliban too?

Is it not possible to get out of this petty, nationalistic worldview where we are forced to look at papa Bush as our great benevolent leader, acting as God's puppet?

I love the arrogance of you. You don't agree, then you are ignorant
or no mentality.

The problem with young people of this time, is that you never show any
common sense. You never put the equation in the most common form. Like
you know in math. Common sense trumps most things in you life.

I laugh, why? Because you keep outsmarting yourself. Common sense
is what pays the bills. Intellectual BS, is good conversation. (Don't
bother looking that up, that is my own words.)

Oh, by the way, Bush or any other politican is a passing thing. He doesn't
represent my views in all things. But I do consider the fact that he does
try to keep me safe and I feel he has the country's safety as his most
important issue. I can't say the same for the dimm-o-craps.

[FromWayDowntown]

er, double post.

[FromWayDowntown]

And with that exemplar of genuine frontier gibberish, Gabby Johnson, er xray is gone, having yet again avoided any substantive engagement with the issues.

*poof

[turambar85]

I love the arrogance of you. You don't agree, then you are ignorant
or no mentality.

The problem with young people of this time, is that you never show any
common sense. You never put the equation in the most common form. Like
you know in math. Common sense trumps most things in you life.

I laugh, why? Because you keep outsmarting yourself. Common sense
is what pays the bills. Intellectual BS, is good conversation. (Don't
bother looking that up, that is my own words.)

Oh, by the way, Bush or any other politican is a passing thing. He doesn't
represent my views in all things. But I do consider the fact that he does
try to keep me safe and I feel he has the country's safety as his most
important issue. I can't say the same for the dimm-o-craps.

Uhm, right....ok. :dizzy Yet again, you managed a complete post without saying anything. You mention my lack of common sense, but don't show me how I am lacking. You say I never finish the equation, but never tell me what I failed to solve. You say I outsmarted myself, but didn't even bother to tell me when.

And 1st, why are you so sure that Bush is protecting you? 2nd, how does starting a war in Iraq protect you? 3rd, why is your well-being worth more than innocent civilians of other countries?

[turambar85]

No, X-ray, I don't find you ignorant for disagreeing with me, I am fine with that.

I prefer to have people disagree with me because I have some sick love for arguing, so I would never look down on somebody for that. However, I will look down on people and think them ignorant for not being capable of providing me with this argument. I will think them foolish for simply spouting off random sentences without being able to be bothered to back them up.

[xrayzebra]

^^Then you really shouldn't bother reading them and answering them. I still
like you. I remember when we first met......sigh......we had such a nice conversation.

But what the hey......I have my views and you have yours. I am dumb and I say
just use a little common sense when going thru life....... I have a little experience in
life and you are just becoming a part of the adult life.. (by the way, how's the
lady of your life, I am serious). I keep referring people to my little tag line, signature,
it is really true.

[turambar85]

^^Then you really shouldn't bother reading them and answering them. I still
like you. I remember when we first met......sigh......we had such a nice conversation.

But what the hey......I have my views and you have yours. I am dumb and I say
just use a little common sense when going thru life....... I have a little experience in
life and you are just becoming a part of the adult life.. (by the way, how's the
lady of your life, I am serious). I keep referring people to my little tag line, signature,
it is really true.

I don't mean that you are dumb, I apologize. I am just tired of people not offering reasons for their opinions. I'm sure that youre not an ignorant guy, so just answer the questions I pose, give explanations for your comments. Truly use your common sense to see these things through to a logical conclusion.

And she is fine. We're having a hard semester, but its not that bad I suppose. Thanks for asking.

[PixelPusher]

What does a homosexual domino look like?


Edit... Found it :lol

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/CORPOD/CB040008~Red-Dominoes-Posters.jpg

I'll see your red, rounded-edge dominos and raise you...

http://www.outsidethemargins.com/abdominos.jpg

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Very simple question - someone please explain to me why two people who love each other, regardless of their sexuality (which is irrelevant given their love), can't marry each other? Where does sexuality even come into it? Isn't marriage about love, respect and commitment?

As for xray's lame attempt to link it to the Taliban...

Who loves the Taliban around here? I haven't seen any Taliban supporters. Oh, that's right, anyone who doesn't agree with you is a Taliban supporter. Sorry, mental lapse. :rolleyes

[boutons_]

"can't marry each other?"

Of course not. The Bible-bots have proven without any doubt that Christ hates gays and lesbians.

What they won't admit is that they are abusing the Bible and Christ as a pretext for their gay/lesbian discrimination and bashing.

They want to legislate morality for everyone, impinging on everyone's freedom, based on the weird, narrow-minded ideas of their particular fringe sect.

"marriage about love, respect and commitment?"

Current ideas such as those and about marriage as "romantic" love apparently go back only to the 19th century. For most of the history of humans and still now for much of the world, marriage is about the man getting sex and kids and social status (and workers) while the woman gets some "honor", food, protection, and some kids to take care of her when she old.

[Spurminator]

Very simple question - someone please explain to me why two people who love each other, regardless of their sexuality (which is irrelevant given their love), can't marry each other? Where does sexuality even come into it? Isn't marriage about love, respect and commitment?

Marriage, in the government sense, is not about any of those things. This is another instance where Liberals are on the right side of the argument but are making the WRONG argument.

When Marriage entitles someone to State and Federal benefits, then Marriage should be open to any two people regardless of gender. Otherwise, you show preference to one view of Marriage, a view founded on Religious or Moral ideals.

[cherylsteele]

All this stuff form these "bible-thumpers" on how gay mariage is immoral and yet we allow divorce in this country. Isn't that also immoral according to bible? Yet 50% of marriages end in divorce (so I have heard).

Instead of focusing on just gay marriage maybe these people should focus on this as well.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Current ideas such as those and about marriage as "romantic" love apparently go back only to the 19th century. For most of the history of humans and still now for much of the world, marriage is about the man getting sex and kids and social status (and workers) while the woman gets some "honor", food, protection, and some kids to take care of her when she old.

True, our conception of marriage being about "love" is very modern, a luxury of sorts arising out of our prosperity. However, since we live now, I will assume that most people, at least in the developed world, do marry for love.


Marriage, in the government sense, is not about any of those things. This is another instance where Liberals are on the right side of the argument but are making the WRONG argument.

When Marriage entitles someone to State and Federal benefits, then Marriage should be open to any two people regardless of gender. Otherwise, you show preference to one view of Marriage, a view founded on Religious or Moral ideals.

Well said, absolutely agree.

The Bible argument about immorality goes hand-in-hand with the "unnatural argument", which science has recently shot in the head by showing that homosexual sex is actually rampant throughout the animal kingdom.

I most enjoyed the case of the bird researcher and the male malard (duck) that smashed into his window, killing itself, and was then buggered by its male partner (who was obviously trying to wake it up) but only succeeded in further marginalising itself as a necrophile! :lol

[boutons_]

October 27, 2006

G.O.P. Moves Fast to Reignite Issue of Gay Marriage

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, Oct. 26 — The divisive debate over gay marriage, which played a prominent role in 2004 campaigns but this year largely faded from view, erupted anew on Thursday as President Bush and Republicans across the country tried to use a court ruling in New Jersey to rally dispirited conservatives to the polls.

Wednesday’s ruling, in which the New Jersey Supreme Court decided that gay couples are entitled to the same legal rights and financial benefits as heterosexual couples, had immediate ripple effects, especially in Senate races in some of the eight states where voters are considering constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage.

President Bush put a spotlight on the issue while campaigning in Iowa, which does not have a proposal on the ballot. With the Republican House candidate, Jeff Lamberti, by his side, Mr. Bush — who has not been talking about gay marriage in recent weeks — took pains to insert a reference into his stump speech warning that Democrats would raise taxes and make America less safe.

“Yesterday in New Jersey, we had another activist court issue a ruling that raises doubts about the institution of marriage,” Mr. Bush said at a luncheon at the Iowa State Fairgrounds that raised $400,000 for Mr. Lamberti.

The president drew applause when he reiterated his long-held stance that marriage was “a union between a man and a woman,” adding, “I believe it’s a sacred institution that is critical to the health of our society and the well-being of families, and it must be defended.”

( they NEVER explain how permitting same-sex marriage will destroy the already weakened, mythical heterosexual marriage or how same-sex marriage will force Rick Santorum to fuck animals. But let's not concern our selves with details or the truth. The Christ-bot rabble bigots will rally vigorously )



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/27/us/politics/27marriage.html?hp&ex=1162008000&en=bb70e8d08855d229&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[AFE7FATMAN]

All this stuff form these "bible-thumpers" on how gay mariage is immoral and yet we allow divorce in this country. Isn't that also immoral according to bible? Yet 50% of marriages end in divorce (so I have heard).

Instead of focusing on just gay marriage maybe these people should focus on this as well.

:tu

BTW are you the CS of the old WOAI Board? the Charlie D Fan?

[cherylsteele]

:tu

BTW are you the CS of the old WOAI Board? the Charlie D Fan?
What is the "CS"?
If by Charlie D fan you mean The Charlie Daniels Band....they yep.

[Extra Stout]

Marriage, in the government sense, is not about any of those things. This is another instance where Liberals are on the right side of the argument but are making the WRONG argument.

When Marriage entitles someone to State and Federal benefits, then Marriage should be open to any two people regardless of gender. Otherwise, you show preference to one view of Marriage, a view founded on Religious or Moral ideals.
DING! DING! DING!

Gay marriage becomes an easy wedge issue when it is about moral affirmation of the gay lifestyle rather than equal protection of citizens.

[George Gervin's Afro]

October 27, 2006

G.O.P. Moves Fast to Reignite Issue of Gay Marriage

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, Oct. 26 — The divisive debate over gay marriage, which played a prominent role in 2004 campaigns but this year largely faded from view, erupted anew on Thursday as President Bush and Republicans across the country tried to use a court ruling in New Jersey to rally dispirited conservatives to the polls.

Wednesday’s ruling, in which the New Jersey Supreme Court decided that gay couples are entitled to the same legal rights and financial benefits as heterosexual couples, had immediate ripple effects, especially in Senate races in some of the eight states where voters are considering constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage.

President Bush put a spotlight on the issue while campaigning in Iowa, which does not have a proposal on the ballot. With the Republican House candidate, Jeff Lamberti, by his side, Mr. Bush — who has not been talking about gay marriage in recent weeks — took pains to insert a reference into his stump speech warning that Democrats would raise taxes and make America less safe.

“Yesterday in New Jersey, we had another activist court issue a ruling that raises doubts about the institution of marriage,” Mr. Bush said at a luncheon at the Iowa State Fairgrounds that raised $400,000 for Mr. Lamberti.

The president drew applause when he reiterated his long-held stance that marriage was “a union between a man and a woman,” adding, “I believe it’s a sacred institution that is critical to the health of our society and the well-being of families, and it must be defended.”

( they NEVER explain how permitting same-sex marriage will destroy the already weakened, mythical heterosexual marriage or how same-sex marriage will force Rick Santorum to fuck animals. But let's not concern our selves with details or the truth. The Christ-bot rabble bigots will rally vigorously )



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/27/us/politics/27marriage.html?hp&ex=1162008000&en=bb70e8d08855d229&ei=5094&partner=homepage




Divide! Divide! Divide!...And then the talking heads of the GOP turn around and blame the Dems for creating the divide in our country...

caveat for the righties: yes both parties divide this country whenever they can but I am referring those who make the claim that it is only dems who do it..

[2centsworth]

The argument against Gay marriage is that it would be a destabilizing force in our country. A very strong argument can be made that gay marriage would hurt children.

That's the intellectual argument, but of course partisians will demagogue the issue as pro-gay vs anti-gay.


Equal Protection as FWD said is what should be discussed.

[101A]

Divide! Divide! Divide!...And then the talking heads of the GOP turn around and blame the Dems for creating the divide in our country...

caveat for the righties: yes both parties divide this country whenever they can but I am referring those who make the claim that it is only dems who do it..

A vast majority of Americans, far more than there are "Right Wing Religious Nut Zealots" oppose recognizing gay marriages. Every election on the subject, and poll, affirms this. Why is it wrong for a political party to point out that Democrat appointed judges (in this case 3/3) are more likely than Republican appointed judges (1/4) to find a constitutional right for it?

Is is devisive for a Democrat to rail on Republicans for passing tax cuts for the VERY RICH, as opposed to the "Working Class"? - As if all the "Rich" are pampered patricians?

How about the Stem Cell debate, don't the Democrats DIVIDE the country with that?

Damn near every issue has two, or more, sides. EVERY issue is "divisive". Only when the majority doesn't agree with your side of the divide, it seems, are you outraged at that.

[boutons_]

"A very strong argument can be made that gay marriage would hurt children."

Link?

Children in heterosexual marriages being hurt by a same-sex marriage somewhere?

Children adopted or brought into a same-sex marriage?

Like Saddam launching nukes against the USA, just more rabble-rousing fear-mongering.

[Extra Stout]

The argument against Gay marriage is that it would be a destabilizing force in our country. A very strong argument can be made that gay marriage would hurt children.

That's the intellectual argument, but of course partisians will demagogue the issue as pro-gay vs anti-gay.
I agree that affirming gay marriage could be culturally harmful. A lot of liberals would disagree with that and start a long discussion about how this study and that disproves it, and how all children need is love, and how closed-minded we are not to see that.

And of course then they lose elections.

[101A]

The ability to abuse the system when gay marriage is legalized could be amazing.

Cohabitation in many states, after a certain number of months can create a functioning common-law marriage - one partner (right now limited to opposite sex) can sue for property, alimony, child support, etc after that point. Will the same hold for same-sex roomates; One could claim the relationship was more than platonic....could be mighty lucrative if you happened to have a rich college roommate.

[Spurminator]

...Which makes a case for the government getting out of Marriage altogether.

[Extra Stout]

The ability to abuse the system when gay marriage is legalized could be amazing.

Cohabitation in many states, after a certain number of months can create a functioning common-law marriage - one partner (right now limited to opposite sex) can sue for property, alimony, child support, etc after that point. Will the same hold for same-sex roomates; One could claim the relationship was more than platonic....could be mighty lucrative if you happened to have a rich college roommate.
I'm not sure that is so realistic. I had female housemates for a while in college, and I seriously doubt gaming the system in that fashion could have been credible.

[George Gervin's Afro]

A vast majority of Americans, far more than there are "Right Wing Religious Nut Zealots" oppose recognizing gay marriages. Every election on the subject, and poll, affirms this. Why is it wrong for a political party to point out that Democrat appointed judges (in this case 3/3) are more likely than Republican appointed judges (1/4) to find a constitutional right for it?




Well I guess we could say the same thing about interracial marriages during the 50's and 60's... Look I don't care if gay people can marry or not I just don't see how it affects marriage in general. To me it seems like certain folks want to keep the institution status quo which I guess is their right.. but I have yet to ONE reason how this affects other people's marriages..


Is is devisive for a Democrat to rail on Republicans for passing tax cuts for the VERY RICH, as opposed to the "Working Class"? - As if all the "Rich" are pampered patricians?

How about the Stem Cell debate, don't the Democrats DIVIDE the country with that?

Damn near every issue has two, or more, sides. EVERY issue is "divisive". Only when the majority doesn't agree with your side of the divide, it seems, are you outraged at that.



I was very clear on this when I stated both parties do it. You only hear about THIS issue during election time and it seems to benefit one more than the other.

[101A]

...Which makes a case for the government getting out of Marriage altogether.

(shuddering); Insurance/banking industries, among others, would be sent into tailspin.

[Extra Stout]

The ability to abuse the system when gay marriage is legalized could be amazing.

Cohabitation in many states, after a certain number of months can create a functioning common-law marriage - one partner (right now limited to opposite sex) can sue for property, alimony, child support, etc after that point. Will the same hold for same-sex roomates; One could claim the relationship was more than platonic....could be mighty lucrative if you happened to have a rich college roommate.
Oh, also, by the way, gay partners already can and do successfully sue for palimony.

[101A]

I was very clear on this when I stated both parties do it. You only hear about THIS issue during election time and it seems to benefit one more than the other.

This issue has been pretty consistent for the past several years; politicians talk about it ALOT.

BTW; in THIS election cycle, more homophobia has been exploited by the Dems than Republicans (until this ruling, that is).

[101A]

Oh, also, by the way, gay partners already can and do successfully sue for palimony.

:lol ...instinctive, adolescent, immature laughter at "pal"imony

[George Gervin's Afro]

This issue has been pretty consistent for the past several years; politicians talk about it ALOT.

BTW; in THIS election cycle, more homophobia has been exploited by the Dems than Republicans (until this ruling, that is).


Foley's situation was about a grown man who served in the congress who tried to seduce an under age intern.. the GOP tried to make it seem like Dems were attacking gays but it didn't stick

[101A]

Foley's situation was about a grown man who served in the congress who tried to seduce an under age intern.. the GOP tried to make it seem like Dems were attacking gays but it didn't stick

The age of consent in DC is 16.

What did Foley do that was wrong, exactly? Please explain from an enlightened liberal's perspective, like yours?

[Spurminator]

(shuddering); Insurance/banking industries, among others, would be sent into tailspin.

Fine by me... (partially kidding)

[Extra Stout]

:lol ...instinctive, adolescent, immature laughter at "pal"imony
You'd never heard that before? It slides off the tongue easier than "implied non-marital relationship contract."

[101A]

Also, would there have been more (hard to imagine any more), or less, "outrage" and coverage from the media if the intern(s) had been young ladies?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Also, would there have been more (hard to imagine any more), or less, "outrage" and coverage from the media if the intern(s) had been young ladies?


He would have been viewed as a dirty old man..if his messages were in effect asking about their panties and getting them off.. yes I think there would have been outrage..

[Extra Stout]

The age of consent in DC is 16.

What did Foley do that was wrong, exactly? Please explain from an enlightened liberal's perspective, like yours?
Republican hypocrisy, of course.

Republicans are gay-bashing, so of course it is hypocritical to have a Republican doing gay things with teenagers.

On the other hand, having a party that is nominally supportive of gay rights go on a gay witch hunt in the succeeding weeks against folks like Larry Craig is activity full of integrity, and not hypocritical whatsoever. I half expected some Democratic Senator to hold up a sheet of paper and claim he had the names of 57 known Republican gays in Congress.

GGA's incessant moral bloviating aside, what Foley did was create a serious "ick" factor among likely Republican voters, which Democrats were able to exploit for a while. It's politics.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The age of consent in DC is 16.

What did Foley do that was wrong, exactly? Please explain from an enlightened liberal's perspective, like yours?


How about using Congressional computers to woo under age male interns? sending sexually explicit emails using his govt computer. how about abusing his position of power? How about not acting like a Congressman?


(Why do I get the feeling I will be hearing about Clinton soon..)

[101A]

How about using Congressional computers to woo under age male interns? sending sexually explicit emails using his govt computer. how about abusing his position of power? How about not acting like a Congressman?


(Why do I get the feeling I will be hearing about Clinton soon..)

Re: Clinton, I don't want to set off Bouton's auto-retort.

Regarding the other stuff; that's all well and good, but that's not the stuff they were talking about on CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC et al for 3 weeks! They talked about him preying on young men, and the cover-up of that!

He did nothing illegal per DC law.

[boutons_]

"nothing illegal per DC law."

Typical radical right rabble defense. If it ain't illegal, it's OK for the Repugs.
Ethics, civility, propriety, fairness don't even get on the radar.

Like HS coaches fucking legal players on their own teams,

Like HS teachers fucking legal students in their classes.

Like any mentor fucking their mentored, aka "proteges" (literally, "protected ones")

[101A]

"nothing illegal per DC law."

Typical radical right rabble defense. If it ain't illegal, it's OK for the Repugs.
Ethics, civility, propriety, fairness don't even get on the radar.

Like HS coaches fucking legal players on their own teams,

Like HS teachers fucking legal students in their classes.

Like any mentor fucking their mentored, aka "proteges" (literally, "protected ones")

B, read the thread. You're taking this out of context.

I AM NOT DEFENDING FOLEY!!! I am wondering why the liberals didn't; trying to point out that, from a lefties point of view: he didn't do anything wrong;

WE EVEN HAVE AN EXAMPLE - they applauded the last guy (who happened to be a Democrat) who fell for male paiges, AND who actually CONSUMATED the deal!!!

It is obvious why the Democrats and Liberal Elite media did this: to foment homophobia to dissuade conservative christians from turning out to vote.

I personally think Foley should be on Sexual Predator websites, and every stone should be overturned until we can find a reason to lock hiss ass up.

[Fabbs]

The Bible argument about immorality goes hand-in-hand with the "unnatural argument", which science has recently shot in the head by showing that homosexual sex is actually rampant throughout the animal kingdom

The previous "scientific" studies i read proved that animals only gayed up when put in unnatural environs. Case in point. A lion is supposed to have X# of square feet (or miles) to himself. In other words in one large plot of acreage there is only supposed to be X# of lions. Mankind imposes himself on wildlife and forces their space to be much smaller then what it was intended. It was only then that some animals gayed up. When left with proper amount of acreage they always stayed male-female.

I do not know about this current study.

"Science" has also proclaimed to have shot down Creation. Yet the Evolution theory has so many holes its a joke. It takes more *faith* to believe in Ev then Creation. True science does support creation.

[101A]

True science does support creation.

Do you have any idea what you just did to this thread?

[DarkReign]

The previous "scientific" studies i read proved that animals only gayed up when put in unnatural environs. Case in point. A lion is supposed to have X# of square feet (or miles) to himself. In other words in one large plot of acreage there is only supposed to be X# of lions. Mankind imposes himself on wildlife and forces their space to be much smaller then what it was intended. It was only then that some animals gayed up. When left with proper amount of acreage they always stayed male-female.

I do not know about this current study.

"Science" has also proclaimed to have shot down Creation. Yet the Evolution theory has so many holes its a joke. It takes more *faith* to believe in Ev then Creation. True science does support creation.

Scary part...youre a majority.

More faith to believe in evolution?! Are you serious?!

Right, because our feeble minds couldnt possibly understand the need for change. No, we need it all bundled into one statement "God did it."

Im out this thread. Gay to Taliban to Foley to Clinton to ID to Evolution to My Exit.

[boutons_]

uh oh! :lol :lol :lol

[Extra Stout]

"Science" has also proclaimed to have shot down Creation. Yet the Evolution theory has so many holes its a joke. It takes more *faith* to believe in Ev then Creation. True science does support creation.
Your first sentence there was grossly in error, and you went downhill from there.

[Zunni]

B, read the thread. You're taking this out of context.

I AM NOT DEFENDING FOLEY!!! I am wondering why the liberals didn't; trying to point out that, from a lefties point of view: he didn't do anything wrong;

WE EVEN HAVE AN EXAMPLE - they applauded the last guy (who happened to be a Democrat) who fell for male paiges, AND who actually CONSUMATED the deal!!!

It is obvious why the Democrats and Liberal Elite media did this: to foment homophobia to dissuade conservative christians from turning out to vote.

I personally think Foley should be on Sexual Predator websites, and every stone should be overturned until we can find a reason to lock hiss ass up.
That is completely and totally false. Both Studs and Frank were censured in front of the full House for their transgressions. The House Speaker at the time was Tip O'Neil. No one applauded anything, and at least the Democrats were willing to discipline their own, something sorely lacking in this crooked GOP Congress.

[Guru of Nothing]

And with that exemplar of genuine frontier gibberish, Gabby Johnson, er xray is gone, having yet again avoided any substantive engagement with the issues.

*poof

Gabby Johnson? or this guy ...

http://www.oldies.com/i/boxart/large/50/089218503091.jpg

[Guru of Nothing]

:lmao x 3240738442390843290843432084390

Ditto.

[Trainwreck2100]

NJ should expect a new migration of homos

[Guru of Nothing]

NJ should expect a new migration of homos

O RLY?

http://www.hbo.com/sopranos/img/cast/character/phil_leotardo.jpg

[Trainwreck2100]

Rly

[PixelPusher]

O RLY?

http://www.hbo.com/sopranos/img/cast/character/phil_leotardo.jpg

He'll be exhausted from busting out of so many motel closets.

[cherylsteele]

:tu

BTW are you the CS of the old WOAI Board? the Charlie D Fan?
Nevermind.....yes I am the same person from the old WOAI board.

[AFE7FATMAN]

never mind