Today is a great day for the oppresed: PROP 8 STRUCK DOWN

[~~whimsy~~]

Wasn't it the people of California that voted no on gay marriage in the first place? After it became ok that is when you saw a lot of gay celebrities get married as well as the citizens? About a month or so later there was an actual election and the majority of the California citizens voted no?

How does this judge come in and completely overturn what the majority of the people of California voted no on in the first place?

The people have voted no and this judge should never have overturned that in the first place, nor allowed this case to continue. Elections are coming up and they can allow the people to vote again. Not one judge representing people and able to overturn their vote.

One person = one vote. Not One judge = no voice for the people despite what the voting numbers show.

 

[Friday on my mind]

In some cases votes (or what the majority wants) is not the deciding factor.Thats what this judge said, that the people do not have the right to vote on this issue as it is in his opinion a right protected by the constitution.Thats why if this decision is upheld ,the other 40 or so states with laws protecting so called traditional marriage will have those laws invalidated as unconstitutional.

The majority once thought segragation was the way to go in schools in many states.It took the courts to overturn that (brown vs board of education).Or abortion was once illegal in many states and there are states where the majority would like it that way again but they are prevented from that by the supreme court and the roe V wade decision.

Just because the majority wants something does not mean that makes it right or legal.

Thats what the bill of rights and our constitution is about,making rights not subject to the whims of the majority.

 

[meesterperfect]

I'm pretty sure I'll call you an idiot to your face as well.

Yes, they should be recongized as a lawful couple and in most states they are.

As for the name calling...sorry you got your panties in a twist over being called an idiot. I will no longer call your names seeing that it hurt your feeling. Please PM me a list of names that you find are offensive and I will try to not hurt your feeling anymore.

what are you a jerk off?
asshole statements like your an idiot and panties in a twist.

You got something to debate, then debate it.
This board doesn't need simple minded people just flat out name calling because they don't agree. Only fags do that.
If everybody started doing that it would become pretty boring here.

We agreed on the thing here.
So why the name calling?
thats not my panties in a bunch, thats just a question.

 

[mrtrebus]

what are you a jerk off?
asshole statements like your an idiot and panties in a twist.

You got something to debate, then debate it.
This board doesn't need simple minded people just flat out name calling because they don't agree. Only fags do that.
If everybody started doing that it would become pretty boring here.

We agreed on the thing here.
So why the name calling?
thats not my panties in a bunch, thats just a question.

Are you being sarcastic? Bemoaning name calling & then, er, name calling?
Oh & only gay people do it?!? :dunno:

 

[meesterperfect]

This board really needs to get over this sentiment. It's completely irrelevant whether a gay person is flamboyant, it affects absolutely nothing about their right to marry. If extremism is such a problem, why haven't we banned convicted domestic abusers, murderers, or the like from marrying?



You're completely missing what's going on here. No one is debating the right to be gay, rather how anyone could legally justify barring gay people from marrying in the United States. I don't see why you seem to think this ruling is an attempt to inure you to homosexuality, because it isn't.



Why should they not be able to? This is like elementary stuff we're talking about. Again you're arguing whether the state of being gay adversely effects our society, and the answer is no.

shayd i agreed that they should be recognized as a legal couple.
my statements about how some homosexuals behave was not an argument against the bills.
it was maybe to show why some people think that many have problems. many are strange and why many people respond to them in a negative way.
In my opinion these feelings and responses are justified.

Like I said if you want to be gay thats no problem for most people who aren't.
If you want to show it, display it, advertise it in every move you make, every step you take, every word you say, every game you play.........well thats just ridiculous , annoying and weird.
people will respond negatively.

 

[mrtrebus]

shayd i agreed that they should be recognized as a legal couple.
my statements about how some homosexuals behave was not an argument against the bills.
it was maybe to show why some people think that many have problems. many are strange and why many people respond to them in a negative way.
In my opinion these feelings and responses are justified.

Like I said if you want to be gay thats no problem for most people who aren't.
If you want to show it, display it, advertise it in every move you make, every step you take, every word you say, every game you play.........well thats just ridiculous , annoying and weird.
people will respond negatively.

But where are you getting the information that many have 'problems'? What problems? How are they strange?
We all express our sexuality all the time, whether consciously or not. Why should gay people be seen as strange for celebrating their sexuality when for so long they have been forced to keep it hidden for fear of discrimination. I see this as the main reason for Gay Pride marches etc. Of course there is a bit of showing off about it, but it's a big FUCK YOU to the bigots. On the downside some people may have a negative reaction, but once sexuality is no longer an issue for society, & I doubt that day will ever come, these sort of marches may no longer be necessary.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Uh, what the hell does your aunt being gay have to do with anything? Knowing someone who is gay is completely irrelevant. Have whatever opinion you want on people being gay, but Constitutionally speaking, you can't deny them the right to marry, it's that simple. So why bother using that opinion as justification?

You people are just plain scary. I don't just know a gay person I know a lot of gay people. My aunt isn't just gay she's married to another woman.

You know what I'm not typing the same thing all over again. Fuck it.

 

[1ManRevolution]

what are you a jerk off?
asshole statements like your an idiot and panties in a twist.

You got something to debate, then debate it.
This board doesn't need simple minded people just flat out name calling because they don't agree. Only fags do that.
If everybody started doing that it would become pretty boring here.

We agreed on the thing here.
So why the name calling?
thats not my panties in a bunch, thats just a question.

I guess we don't need another you...do we now.

I have told you before...PM me a list of names that you do not want to be called and I will do it. Untill then, but your big boy pants on and deal with it.

Please try and have a more tolerable day!

 

[Baill Inneraora]

what are you a jerk off?
asshole statements like your an idiot and panties in a twist.

You got something to debate, then debate it.
This board doesn't need simple minded people just flat out name calling because they don't agree. Only fags do that.
If everybody started doing that it would become pretty boring here.

We agreed on the thing here.
So why the name calling?
thats not my panties in a bunch, thats just a question.

You are crying about the word "idiot", but you think it perfectly acceptable to use the word "fag"?

 

[CurtJa]

So you're in agreement that it's best to accidentally knock up 3 or 4 women and then pay child support for the rest of your life while the children you helped to create (more than likely) grow up without a father figure in their lives. That's awesome! High five! :thumbsup:

Alert the Internets, folks! We've found somebody who clearly hasn't heard of prophylactics or safe sex. :1orglaugh

 

[1ManRevolution]

You are crying about the word "idiot", but you think it perfectly acceptable to use the word "fag"?

To paraphrase Val Kilmer for Tombstone...his hypocrisy knows no bounds.

 

[Baill Inneraora]

Actually, I was thinking for different reasons. How about if somebody wants to marry animals? I mean, if a man is in love with his goat, who are we to stop him? :dunno:

Really? You are comparing a gay person with an animal? You’re sick.

 

[1ManRevolution]

Really? You are comparing a gay person with an animal? You’re sick.

Even been to West Virgina?

 

[Bearded_Menace]

Wow, looks like the "gay" thing is an even hotter topic than racism.

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

Wow, looks like the "gay" thing is an even hotter topic than racism.

I bet if this had something to do with Israel the board will blow up.

 

[pete rose]

Uh, what the hell does your aunt being gay have to do with anything? Knowing someone who is gay is completely irrelevant. Have whatever opinion you want on people being gay, but Constitutionally speaking, you can't deny them the right to marry, it's that simple. So why bother using that opinion as justification?

dude did you read ANY of his posts????

lol

Why is that ridiculous? I know quite a few people that love animals more than people. So you're telling me that if somebody loves their animals more than people, that they don't deserve equal rights!?! That sounds like intolerance to me dear sir.

I'd call this circular logic, but it's more like when you try to draw a circle very carefully, thinking it's going to turn out alright, but then you don't even make the connection to the starting point and shout "GODDAMNIT!" It looks more like an amoeba.

So, how does it feel to be on the same side as Dick Cheney for once?

My heart is fine, thanks.

You know what...who gives a shit if someone wants to marry an animal? Let them.

You people are just plain scary. I don't just know a gay person I know a lot of gay people. My aunt isn't just gay she's married to another woman.

At this point, I'd ask you what your point was, but I'll just say I'm happy for your aunt since I'm still not seeing a point.

 

[Ace Bandage]

This is awesome. I love flame wars. Maybe someone will get killed.

Here's my opinion: I'm against gay marriage. That's why I love the Midwest (minus Iowa). It'll never be legal here in the Hoosier State. High five for that!

**tosses more wood on the fire**

 

[~~whimsy~~]

This is awesome. I love flame wars. Maybe someone will get killed.

Here's my opinion: I'm against gay marriage. That's why I love the Midwest (minus Iowa). It'll never be legal here in the Hoosier State. High five for that!

**tosses more wood on the fire**

Not to mention the judge in this case is a gay himself.

*tosses gasoline on the fire*

 

[1ManRevolution]

This is awesome. I love flame wars. Maybe someone will get killed.

Here's my opinion: I'm against gay marriage. That's why I love the Midwest (minus Iowa). It'll never be legal here in the Hoosier State. High five for that!

**tosses more wood on the fire**

One can't help but notice the ironic use of the phrase flame war in a thread about gay people...

 

[BlueBalls]

Why is that ridiculous? I know quite a few people that love animals more than people. So you're telling me that if somebody loves their animals more than people, that they don't deserve equal rights!?! That sounds like intolerance to me dear sir.

I really find it utterly distasteful that you have equated homosexuality with bestiality here. I would have assumed you would have a little more sense than that.

Where is the animals choice in this relationship? The entire reason bestiality is looked down upon by society as a whole is because the animal does not have the conscious capacity to give consent for the actions it is either performing or are being performed on it. Therefore animals are protected from those within society who have this sort of perversion. The same goes with people who are attracted to children. The mental capacities of these beings and the dominance the person having such relations with them all strikes against this notion.

Marriage as I'm sure you very well know is a union between two people. Now show me how homosexual relationships work in the same way as so called zoophile or paedophile relationships do and your argument might be worth the time it took you to write it. You of course can't and this comparison is complete bunk.