"Gay Marriage" defeated in all 11 states

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

But JP, don't you know gay people don't have to pay taxes? Why should the government recognize the rights of people who don't contribute to the economy?

Whoops, I'll shut up now. Those Commie bastards skipping out on paying taxes! Fuck no we shouldn't let them have a small peice of happieness afforded to EVERY OTHER PAIR of Americans who choose to live together in a legal sense.

Based on the logic I've seen in this thread as well as the thread drift I can prove:

a) gay people are Commies
b) Sponge Bob is gay
c) American turkey pot pies are nowhere near as good as as a nice Steak and Mushroom pie from New Zealand.
d) I should shut up and jump.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Quote

But JP, don't you know gay people don't have to pay taxes? Why should the government recognize the rights of people who don't contribute to the economy?

Whoops, I'll shut up now. Those Commie bastards skipping out on paying taxes! Fuck no we shouldn't let them have a small peice of happieness afforded to EVERY OTHER PAIR of Americans who choose to live together in a legal sense.

Based on the logic I've seen in this thread as well as the thread drift I can prove:

a) gay people are Commies
b) Sponge Bob is gay
c) American turkey pot pies are nowhere near as good as as a nice Steak and Mushroom pie from New Zealand.
d) I should shut up and jump.

But what about Donuts and that Krispy Kream is discriminating against donut holes!?

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[Ripple 0]

Quote

No, we aren't. But we weren't with incest either.
You said as long as it is love it is OK.... Your words not mine.

Ah, sorry, I obviously haven't expressed myself clearly enough. I was trying to say that everyone should be treated equally. I don't believe that NAMBLA is relevant to the discussion as the p word is illegal across the board for reasons that I am not allowed to go into because it would mean discussing something against the rules, as you previously, so rightly, stated.

Quote

As far as your question, it was answered. You took it out of context.

Quote

What I think you fail to realize is the difference in the population of gays vs other minority groups. It wouldn't be "Normal...."

I said difference in population. As in the magnitude of the minority. We can not appease everyone. We can't make laws to include Everyone. We have Inalienable rights... those are designed for everyone.

Oh, I see. You're right, I misunderstood it and did take it out of context.

However, as an example of the size of the minority not mattering, black children and disabled children are still a very small minority in many schools in the country I live, but they are no longer bullied for the colour of their skin or their impairment because it is now considered 'normal' to be a different colour to white it is now considered 'normal' to not be non-disabled. So that argument doesn't reallly stand up, in my opinion.

Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

FYI - This is an analogy... I have no Kids.

Everyone thank their deity (or lack of) of choice.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[Ripple 0]

Quote

So, Ripple wouldn't be invited into my house to discuss his sexual theory or beliefs....that's all..

Actually, that's 'her' not 'his'. I may not be picky about people thinking I'm gay, but I have issues about being thought a man

Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

[wmw999 2,456]

Ah, but that would require actually looking at your profile to see your name (it's a fairly gender-specific one, folks), rather than just making assumptions.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Ripple 0]

Quote

Ah, but that would require actually looking at your profile to see your name (it's a fairly gender-specific one, folks), rather than just making assumptions.

Wendy W.

Good point. Maybe I'll just put an image up of me in my S&M gear?

Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

[Frenchy68 0]

So, contagious or not, I can protect my children from what i want. There will come a time when they will be free of me and allowed to do what ever they want and explore what ever they want. But They will be protected under my watch. So, Ripple wouldn't be invited into my house to discuss his sexual theory or beliefs....that's all***
And you definitely have the right to do so. But why deny a certain status to some people to protect your familly? As you stated: do not invite someone whom you feel would have a negative influence into your house; don't let your kids play with these people; do whatever you may deem necessary. But denying them a certain form of existence because they may be offensive to you is downright dictatorial.

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[weegegirl 2]

If "marriage" is for one man and one woman, why can't there be something similar, but with a different name, to honor and bind the love of one man and one man, or one woman and one woman? So call it "homomarriage" or something. I'm serious. In a world full of so much hate, anger, greed, coruption, etc... why must we deny someone the right to commit their full-on-mad love to another human being?

I'm as straight as they come. And I believe in marriage and everything sacred it has to offer. But I just hate that their is so much negativity. Why must we judge others with such black and white vision?

[PhreeZone 20]

Actually domestic partner was eliminated too, even for Man/woman relationships it turns out. Want your fiance to be covered under your health insurance? Too bad.. get married first! Want her name to be on a mortage or car loan? That ring needs to be on her finger to get that to happen

The supporters in Ohio came out last week and were urging people to vote it down since there were unthought of consiquences that will end up in getting the admendment ruled unconstitutional anyways so they wanted to eliminate the court battles.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[dubbayab 0]

The argument I make about gay marriage is how do you define it? The church says a man and a woman and now the courts will also define that way.
What is to stop gay peoply from having sex with animals and call that a union? If we allow men to marry men then why not let them marry a three way or have severial partners all married to someone else. Have you ever seen gay dogs? birds? fish?
Being gay is only in humans, and I'm not so sure that is a minority, or a civil right. I am not screaming here, or a homophobe, i just don't understand how this has anything to do with civil rights. If your gay then your gay, you can still marry a woman, and sneak around commiting on how sexy that man's hairy ass is. If you want to walk down Burbon st. in New Orleans with only a set of chaps, and a bow tie, you can, and maybe your wife will understand, so how is that taking away your rights.
the reason we were born with sexual organs was to procreate (breed) gay people can still do this just not with each other. $.02

[wmw999 2,456]

What's to stop straight people from having sex with animals and call that a union? Or is it OK as long as the animal is another gender.

Being gay is not only in humans.

And if you were only allowed to marry someone who had no physical attraction for you, would you do it anyway? Where's the honor in that.

Marriage is in great part about making a commitment to the life and long-time welfare of another person. It's not about regular access to sex.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Actually domestic partner was eliminated too, even for Man/woman relationships it turns out. Want your fiance to be covered under your health insurance? Too bad.. get married first! Want her name to be on a mortage or car loan? That ring needs to be on her finger to get that to happen

The supporters in Ohio came out last week and were urging people to vote it down since there were unthought of consiquences that will end up in getting the admendment ruled unconstitutional anyways so they wanted to eliminate the court battles.

Well, that is the fair way to do it, deny one - deny all.

Maybe those politicians in Ohio are smarter than they look? By removiing the right from everyone, and they get a feel for the reality of their bigotry, they may change their minds just to get the amendments off the books.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

What is to stop gay peoply from having sex with animals and call that a union? If we allow men to marry men then why not let them marry a three way or have severial partners all married to someone else. Have you ever seen gay dogs? birds? fish?

Nothing is to stop either them or you. But I would venture into stating that would enjoy it as much as you would.

Quote

If your gay then your gay, you can still marry a woman, and sneak around commiting on how sexy that man's hairy ass is.

Agreed. That definitely would reinforce unions and be a great vicotory for the "American familly".

Quote

the reason we were born with sexual organs was to procreate (breed)

...then try banning oral sex on "non-reproductive" grounds. And you'll be dealing with one pissed off Frenchman

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[Gravitymaster 0]

How come you never answered my question?

[storm1977 0]

Quote

Marriage is in great part about making a commitment to the life and long-time welfare of another person. It's not about regular access to sex.

Wendy W.

Seriously???
Damn, I am getting married in March. Is it too late to back out?

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

If we allow men to marry men then why not let them marry a three way or have severial partners all married to someone else.

Welcome to Utah. Seriously go look at the Code in Utah, it's pretty twisted.

Quote

Have you ever seen gay dogs? birds? fish?

Homosexuality in the animal Kingdom is not unknown, it just doesn't reproduce because of the biological asepects.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[wmw999 2,456]

Quote

Just checking to see where your values are.
You would really call bi-sexual bigamist hedonism a marriage? And you think this would instill proper values into children? Is this correct?

I missed this earlier, but since my opinion is obviously important, here it is.

If bisexual bigamists supported each other, made a stable household, showed love for each other, and taught children about values like kindness, love, toughness, and fairness, then yes.

If they're all about sex in the open with whatever doesn't fight back, then no. Of course, I know "traditional" couples who are pretty inappropriate too, but I guess that's OK in some worlds, as long as it's one man and one woman.

To me, a strong family is people who support each other, teach each other the meaning of unconditional love and striving, and who teach children what it means to be a good person.

Even in the Bible it says that of faith, hope, and love, love is the greatest of them. I didn't see war listed in that grouping, so I'm assuming it was not as important.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Being gay is not only in humans.

Neither is canibalism but I wouldn't recommend that as an acceptible "normal" practice among humans.

Added: Neither is incest. Neither is having multiple sexual partners. Animals sometimes eat their own feces. Just because an animal does it doesn't make it justifiable or healthy for humans. It definitely doesn't make it "normal."

[Falko 0]

Quote

What is to stop gay peoply from having sex with animals and call that a union? If we allow men to marry men then why not let them marry a three way or have severial partners all married to someone else.

Are you trying to suggest that being gay is a "perversion" like sodomy?

Quote

Have you ever seen gay dogs? birds? fish?

We are humans. Not animals. Simple as that. I don't care what dogs, birds, or fish do.

Quote

Being gay is only in humans, and I'm not so sure that is a minority, or a civil right. I am not screaming here, or a homophobe, i just don't understand how this has anything to do with civil rights.

You sound like one... especially with this statement:

Quote

If your gay then your gay, you can still marry a woman, and sneak around commiting on how sexy that man's hairy ass is.

... I'm pretty sure you're just that. Relax. Gay people won't hurt you. They won't go for your ass. They won't even ask you for a b*** j**, so no need for you to worry. Let them go about loving hairy asses. Ouch there's that bad word again... "hairy ass" YUCK... how disgusting is that?

Quote

the reason we were born with sexual organs was to procreate (breed) gay people can still do this just not with each other.

Maybe we should go and knock on every door and ask married couples if they still use these sexual organs of theirs to BREED. And if their answer is "no", we officially dissolve their marriage. Because a marriages only justification is breeding.

Ich betrachte die Religion als Krankheit, als Quelle unnennbaren Elends für die menschliche Rasse.
(Bertrand Russell, engl. Philosoph, 1872-1970)

[windcatcher 0]

I for one am glad to see "Gay Marriage" defeated. If gay marriage is legalized, think about all the other things that could happen. When marriage is defined as something other than between a man and a woman, people could want to have polygamy, be married to children, trust me on that one. If marriage constitutes a union between 2 people of the opposite sex, if they screw around w/ the marriage definition, think of all other ways they'll want to "add" onto that definition!

Mother to the cutest little thing in the world...

[winsor 236]

Quote

What's to stop straight people from having sex with animals and call that a union? Or is it OK as long as the animal is another gender.

"I say, what's become of Chumley? Haven't seen him around the club."

"I'm afraid he was kicked out for having sex with a sheep."

"Oh, really? Ram or a ewe?"

"Ewe, of course. Nothing queer about old Chumley!"

[lewmonst 0]

This, as with all other prejudices in this country, will eventually be overcome. All humans deserve the same rights as all other humans. What saddens me most, as Phree stated, is the loss of rights and benefits allowed by domestic partner laws. This is truly unfair and discriminatory.

Define marriage however you want. If you're so insecure with your own relationships and family that you have to define it by a "man and a woman" then so be it. But don't take away the rights of others. Like weegegirl said, why can't we have equal rights for a monogomous relationship between two people, no matter what their gender. Who cares if we call it "marriage", but it should be recognized and given the same benefits that are given to any other married couple. The domestic partner law was a step in the right direction. It's tragic that we are now stepping backwards.

For those of you that voted against gay marriage, shame on you for taking away equal rights to another human being, rights that have nothing to do with your family. It is selfish, insecure and closeminded. I still don't understand why you "traditionalists" feel so threatened. Allowing gay marriage would not effect your family. I would wish that you would know such prejudices first hand, but I am not as evil as you, and I sincerely don't wish that upon anyone.

This country still has a lot of evolving to do.

peace
lew

ps - I can't believe I agree with JPF on something. See, why can't we all just get along...

http://www.exitshot.com

[Guest]

Quote

Quote

Homophobia - Prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality.

Just want to be clear. My opinion isn't homophobic as I have no "fear" or "dislike" of homosexuals. I dislike their lifestyle. I don't dislike the person based on that. They have every bit as much a basic right to pursue their relationship as I do.

This is always misused. "Homophobia" means "Fear of Mankind", anyway.

That's the question, though, isn't it? The dividing line between individual rights and social or collective rights.

Peculiar how some rights are seen as individual, others as collective, and in a highly selective manner (witness the 1st vs 2nd Amendments).

With common sense getting less common every day, it unfortunately becomes necessary to spell it out for some people.

There are a couple of things that bother me.

First, I find the term "Gay Marriage" offensive.

I really have no argument with the concept.

Looking past this term to the idea it allegedly represents (ultimately, legal protections and property rights), I would find it far less offensive if it were couched in less offensive terms to begin with, starting with that ridiculous phrase.

But that's not how the game is played.

Second, it almost always seems that stuff like this is presented as largesse oblige; id est, that it's a setting aside of social constructs to make an extraordinary condition for a unique, special, and (according to a recent federal judge's ruling) "protected class".

All this for a tiny (but very well-connected, financed and LOUD) minority.

Where does the line between the individual and society get drawn?

Don't bigamy, paedophilia and the rest of it also fit into this same category?

I think these referenda can sum up another concept, one which some may also find difficult to grasp:

Tolerance <> Approval

mh

Edit to add: I think what bothers me most is that "Gay Marriage" (ick) goes far beyond a simple, polite request for "tolerance", and becomes a shrill demand for "approval"...sorry, I'm very tolerant, but when it comes to society's approval (or mine) you'll see hell first.

.

• Quote

[billvon 3,006]

>if they screw around w/ the marriage definition, think of all other
>ways they'll want to "add" onto that definition!

Racists said exactly the same thing about interracial marriages. "If a white woman can marry an african man, what's to stop her from marrying a monkey?" Yet interracial marriages are now legal (after years of fighting) and no monkeys yet.