Reply With Quote
Really? That surprises me more than I thought it would. Damn.
I took a glance at the county by county results of the gay marriage proposition....pretty much every county but Travis was overwhelmingly in favor of voting to ban gay marriage.
Are there really that many blind christians here? I learned something today. Call me slow. But I really did learn something about the people around me today.
Really? That surprises me more than I thought it would. Damn.
I knew it would be banned. What surprised me is how incredibly lopsided the results were.
Yeah, me too. Only ONE country? Go Austin.
not sure on that officially, i looked at the news 8 austin results, and tried to watch all counties
only one i noticed was travis, and it was about 60-40 in rejecting it.
for the most part, other counties were approx 80-20 in approving ban on gay marriage.
80/20??? Holy crap. I obviously need to get out more. I know my friends are fairly liberal in their thinking, but I didn't think we were in this small of a minority.
Luckily the voting machines are owned by conservative-supporting private companies, so like yonivore always says, "electronic will always be safer than paper"
Do that many gay people live in this state for it to not be lopsided. Also look at the highest demographic, old people. Of course they would go against it. I bet if every gay person and supporter got out and voted it would have been close.
I dont think you have to be gay to realize how fascist it is to ban it.
All it requires is human decency.
Plus, wouldnt more marriages = more taxes for the state? Just wondering.
Legislating Christian morals, Texas becomes a theorcracy. Probably over 50% of the 80% voting against gay marriage are fall into one or more of these categories:
1) hetero and cheating on their spouse
2) divorced (many more more than once)
3) unhappy as in their marriage
4) beating their spouse
5) abusing their children
6) abusing substances
7) gay but in the closet
Kansas repeats its rejection of evolution, confirming its role as harbinger of the Christian Dark Ages.
boutons is right
its not just texas either
if the conservatives have their way, RvW will be overturned. They want this nation to become a theocracy so badly. I swear jesus christ would be a demanded figure in all classrooms and people like gtownspur would still have sticks up their asses.
this is why civil liberties shouldn't be put to a vote. the people simply can't be trusted. How many states do you think would overturn womans suffrage or vote for segreation?
Texas and Kansas come to mind. After all, those black people wouldn't be black if they stayed out of the sun. Activating pigment is a CHOICE, because I've said so.
Black people are descendants of Cain. God marked them so they would be easily identified. As such they shouldn't have the same rights as God's chosen people.Texas and Kansas come to mind. After all, those black people wouldn't be black if they stayed out of the sun. Activating pigment is a CHOICE, because I've said so.
________
Illegally_Sexy
Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 08-23-2011 at 06:46 PM.
yes yes yes!!! no more gay marriage! I'm gonna go celebrate tonight, thank the lord!
The TX family code has always banned gay marriage in TX by statute. The cons utional amendment was basically overkill.
I was scared that the amendment wouldn't pass. Now I don't have to worry about being tempted to divorce my wife and run off and marry another man.
My marriage is so much more secure now!!!!
You Christians have done it again!
Kudos, to you, fine sirs.
________
condos Pattaya
Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 08-23-2011 at 06:47 PM.
It was necessary to prevent activist judges from legislating from the bench.
Oh and to keep s from getting married too.
________
Buy E Cigarettes
Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 08-23-2011 at 06:47 PM.
Ah, so you would be in favor of the following then':
Marry Anything Day
By Mike S. Adams
Nov 9, 2005
Almost every time I speak on a college campus, a field representative from The Leadership Ins ute is listening in the audience. That’s always good because, after the speech, the representative usually shares great ideas for campus conservative activism. Recently, in Athens, Ohio, I heard an especially good idea that will drive liberal administrators – former hippies who stopped supporting campus protest shortly after becoming administrators – absolutely crazy. That idea is called “Marry Anything Day.”
The idea behind “Marry Anything Day” is to bring an ordained minister to campus to perform marriage ceremonies. But the ceremonies are not limited to unions between a man and a woman, or even a man and a man, for that matter. On “Marry Anything Day” you can choose your own definition of marriage based upon the most important of all legal doctrines; your personal feelings. (For further elaboration see the opinions of Justice Anthony Kennedy).
For liberal administrators who never really considered the implications of changing the definition of marriage – because they suffer from a fear of campus gay activists, which they say is outside the normal definition of phobia – this should be a long overdue wake-up call.
Imagine the reaction of administrators when they see the minister performing a ceremony between a man and several women, or a woman and her cat. Of course, the ceremonies will not be restricted to living en ies because that would discriminate against someone who really loves his favorite lamp.
By the end of the day, some administrators will be sorry they ever supported the student protest movement. And some, wondering whether they are having a flashback, will be sorry they dropped acid in graduate school.
The idea is great but, of course, it must be tried in the proper venue. Today, I propose that a “Marry Anything Day” should take place on the campus of Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Duquesne University has a policy prohibiting “Harassment or discrimination based on race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin or citizenship status, age, disability, or veteran status.”
Under that policy, Duquesne student Ryan Minor was recently punished by the university - for allegedly referring to sexuals as “subhuman” - at the insistence of four “offended” students. But Minor insists that he was referring to sexual acts, not sexuals themselves, as “subhuman.” He also says that his motivation for writing the remarks was a proposed Gay Straight Alliance at Duquesne, which is, of course, a Catholic school.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Minor’s case is that the controversial reference was made on the 0ff-campus website www.facebook.com. Minor’s punishment for this off-campus expression of opinion included removing the offensive material from the site and writing a ten-page essay regarding the Catholic Church’s “official teaching related to the dignity and respect to be shown for all human beings.”
In his defense, Minor has referred to the Catholic Catechism, which, in turn, refers to sexual acts as “acts of grave depravity,” which are “intrinsically disordered,” and “contrary to natural law.”
Nonetheless, President Dougherty has convened a “special committee” to examine the issue of bringing the Gay Straight Alliance to Duquesne. Father Tim Hickey is leading the committee examining the issue, which the university refers to on its website as “complex” and “sensitive.”
Regardless of what Father Hickey finds, I would urge Catholics to follow the advice of the late Pope John Paul II who urged Catholics not to be afraid to publicly defend traditional family values in modern society.
By holding my proposed gay marriage protest at Duquesne, students, faculty, and staff have a chance to force administrators to make an important choice between two alternatives. Will they 1) bow down and worship the Gods of Diversity, or 2) grant their Catholic students the same freedoms of religious expression they would experience outside the walls of a Catholic university.
If “Marry Anything Day” is a success, officials at Duquesne University should next be forced to write an essay. In no less than ten pages, they should discuss the dignity and respect to be shown to all orthodox Catholics.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point being, why stop at man/man, woman/woman. Why not let everyone marry what they want. Yeah, now that is what I call real freedom!
TX and activist judges are mutually exclusive terms. And the gays prefer to be called butt pirates since pirates are so cool these days
I wrote this in the thread in The Club but I thought Prop 2 was going to fail. People can justify being against same sex marriage with their moral beliefs all they want. But let's be honest here. The basic problem is the psychological aversion to the thought of two guys fudgepacking. Even my religiously conservative 77 year old mom has said "two women aren't that bad - but two men? Yuk!"
When my grandfather immigrated to this great land from Mexico in the 1930's, he didn't have a penny to his name. He had a wife and 11 kids and struggled just to get by. He lived hand to mouth and often didn't know how he would feed his family.I wrote this in the thread in The Club but I thought Prop 2 was going to fail. People can justify being against same sex marriage with their moral beliefs all they want. But let's be honest here. The basic problem is the psychological aversion to the thought of two guys fudgepacking. Even my religiously conservative 77 year old mom has said "two women aren't that bad - but two men? Yuk!"
One day Everett Livingston of the E.L. Fudge Factory offered my grandfather a job packing-fudge. It was hard work, with minimal pay, but my grandfather was happy to be a fudgepacker. It was good, honest work and in those days, it paid enough to raise a family on. He packed Everett Livingston's fudge for about 40 years before he retired.
Nowadays, my grandfather is a bitter old man, but when I ask him about his days as a fudgepacker, he can't help but smile.
It's a shame that fudge-packing is so out-of-vogue these days.
________
tiny s Webcam
Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 08-23-2011 at 06:47 PM.
Gay's need to get there own term for the union....
If they can come up with these crazy parades and stuff you telling me the gay community lacks the ablity to make a new name for there unions??
Marriage is for a man and a woman. It's about compromise. And that applies to all relationships.. including communities.
So that's all they need....a new name for their unions. , that's easy enough.
We should have a contest -- Name the Gay Union Contest
I'll go first. Gays should be "En-Gay-ged"
Someone call the legislature and tell them we worked it out. No gay marriages, just en-gay-gements.
________
VAPORIZER REVIEW
Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 08-23-2011 at 06:47 PM.
Well, gays already use those "ze" and "hir" pronouns which nobody else will ever use.
This assumption by liberals that 80% of Texans must be knuckle-dragging bigots is just typical leftie self-righteous navel gazing.
To many voters, the sexual marriage movement makes about as much sense as a movement to affirm that a Honda Accord is a type of bicycle.
There are relationships. There are committed relationship. There are committed lifetime relationships. There are committed lifetime intimate relationships.
And then there are marriages.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
