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

[Vlad The Impaler]

his boring

Man, this turned into a nice shitstorm.

I'm sure they hold some resentment, you're probably just tolerated.

I'm done. You can all consider yourselves reported.

 

[Mayhem]

It's not shoved in anyone's face. As for this token fag as you so politely put it. There are gay people in society so why shouldn't they be on tv shows? Or should it be all token heterosexuals? The representation of gay people in the media my be stereotypical, as are most characters in tv shows, but its not shoved in anyone's face so long as you have a fully functional off switch on your remote. Society is more accepting of homosexual's so TV should reflect that.


You have gay family members but use the word fag? How noble of you! None of the people you mentioned were flamboyant? So what? Everyone's different. Not every heterosexual person is the same in their attitude & personality, so why should every gay person be the same? As for keeping their private lives private. Well, if they have been the victim of prejudice, or simply because of their private sexual persuasion then they are entitled to bring it out into the open in order to highlight the issue.
& it's not about appeasing minorities, it's about giving all people in a society equality under law. If allowing gay people to marry somehow impinges on the values of the majority then the values of the majority obviously need to be impinged!

That's the post of the week, as far as I'm concerned, well done. The fact that we are in full agreement leads me to one question: Who are you and what have you done with the real mrtrebus? j/k

 

[Facetious]

Good thing that we're a Republic (not a democracy) otherwise there would be no appeals process. :eek:


If it's already been addressed within the context of this thread, I apologize, but let me ask, what additional bennies (benefits) would a same sex couple get out of a marriage that they wouldn't get from a civil union?

Aside: Do we all agree that the far left is hell bent for leather over destroying the conventional nuclear family? :discuss:

 

[shayd]

And the thing about the "gay community".
It seems that there are 2 different types.
Those who are gay and act like normal, respectable human beings and those who seem to have a perverted, sexual mental disorder.
Watch any gay pride parade for clear proof of that.
And there is no hatred in that observance.

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?

Abnormal has become the norm. I liked it better when they stayed in their closets. I don't need anybody's sexual preference shoved in my face every 5 fucking seconds. I couldn't give a flying fuck whether You take it up your ass or eat pussy all day. Why is this shit all over the ether nowadays? Why isn't it private and personal, instead its flaunted and plastered all over the TV and other media. I'd give anything to not have my daughter subjected to this shit. And before you rip me go find a post where I actually talk about my personal sexual experiences with anyone here.

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.

but this does open up the can of worms can they adopt children question for the males.
be prepared.

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.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

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.

Did you read any of my other posts? Specifically the one where I state my aunt is married to another woman. That's the problem with people around here they can't wait to tell people how wrong they are regardless of what they might have said later on. And besides It's a damn opinion. Why is it so goddamn important that everybody have the same one?

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Good thing that we're a Republic (not a democracy) otherwise there would be no appeals process. :eek:


If it's already been addressed within the context of this thread, I apologize, but let me ask, what additional bennies (benefits) would a same sex couple get out of a marriage that they wouldn't get from a civil union?

Aside: Do we all agree that the far left is hell bent for leather over destroying the conventional nuclear family? :discuss:

I do. But I doubt you'll find many others in this thread that will.

 

[CurtJa]

"Aside: Do we all agree that the far left is hell bent for leather over destroying the conventional nuclear family?"

The conventional nuclear family is overrated, from my experience. Come on, one woman for the rest of the natural life span? I'm sure it DOES work for some particularly dedicated and virtuous people, but it's definitely less than half by the numbers, and definitely not for those with little libido restraint like myself.

 

[shayd]

Did you read any of my other posts? Specifically the one where I state my aunt is married to another woman. That's the problem with people around here they can't wait to tell people how wrong they are regardless of what they might have said later on. And besides It's a damn opinion. Why is it so goddamn important that everybody have the same one?

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?

 

[sporty_carr]

but this does open up the can of worms can they adopt children question for the males.
be prepared.

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:

The conventional nuclear family is overrated, from my experience. Come on, one woman for the rest of the natural life span? I'm sure it DOES work for some particularly dedicated and virtuous people, but it's definitely less than half by the numbers, and definitely not for those with little libido restraint like myself.

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:

 

[jjo_is4]

Can't we all just get along? It sure don't look like we can. :2 cents:

 

[Mayhem]

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:



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:

Sporty, if you're going to come up with ridiculous generalizations and obtuse examples then don't stop there. Keep going. I'm sure you have plenty more to share.

This topic is about the government trying to interfere with the rights of two consenting adults. Whether the adults in question are of the same sex should be irrelevant. The perception that a loving couple of any gender(s) can't be trusted to raise a child is an outdated stereotype that needs to be eliminated from the public consciousness.

 

[sporty_carr]

Sporty, if you're going to come up with ridiculous generalizations and obtuse examples then don't stop there. Keep going. I'm sure you have plenty more to share.

This topic is about the government trying to interfere with the rights of two consenting adults. Whether the adults in question are of the same sex should be irrelevant. The perception that a loving couple of any gender(s) can't be trusted to raise a child is an outdated stereotype that needs to be eliminated from the public consciousness.

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.

 

[Mayhem]

It sounds like bestiality to me, dear sir. (Note the proper placement of the comma, which adds to my credibility while shaming you before all the village.)

 

[sporty_carr]

It sounds like bestiality to me, dear sir. (Note the proper placement of the comma, which adds to my credibility while shaming you before all the village.)

Yeah.....you really got me with the comma thing, which completely makes me a village idiot.

I will cut to the chase, as I won't have all day to play around on here because I have a ton of school work to finish (village idiot working on his Master's here....I know, I know, they're just handing them out like candy these days). My point with the bestiality example is that not everybody is equal, therefore not everybody should be allowed equal rights.

The liberal governmnet just passes laws like this so that nobody's feelings get hurt, but in the end it is actually quite absurd. Now I'm not saying I have a problem with same sex relationships. If somebody wants to be gay, have at it. It doesn't affect me or my lifestyle in the slightest. The problem I have with this is that they're calling it marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman, end of story.

Can a male physically reproduce with another male - No.
Can a female physically reproduce with another female - No.
Can a human male physically reproduce with a horse - No.

Therefore, they aren't physically equal to a male/female relationship, thus they shouldn't be entitled to equal "marriage" rights. Not everybody/thing is equal, that's just the laws of God/nature. Not everybody can (or should) have their way.

I'm out, you guys have fun debating this mess.

 

[bustybbwlover]

even before the verdict both sides promised to appeal the verdict so this saga will continue as to whether or not gays can marry i honestly never understood those against it mainly cuz if a religious organization is willing to marry gays (as many are) well then that's a violation of religious expression and separation of church & state, if it's a homophobic thing well then those gays are out of your hair cuz they've got a husband/wife to keep them occupied doing boring shit everyone does with the husband or wife, if it's to protect the institution of marriage (in some nonreligious way) well then the institution of marriage is clearly a failure (judging by divorce rates) so what is being protected at this point?

 

[ForumModeregulator]

Call me when we start making idiots of ourselves in a parade.

Does Mardi Gras count for the straights?

This thread is slightly annoying to read. If it were 50 years ago, we would be having the same discussion about race. I dont get gays, bisexuals, or lesbians. I dont understand it at all. But I know for damned sure that just because I dont understand something, or disagree with a person does not mean they should be discriminated against for any reason. That's why it seems most logical to me to just let them live their lives however they want, regardless of any differences.

The real problem is not oppression, it is the fact that we as a society had set up laws and social life agreed upon the "male" "female" couple ever since the creation of this country. It took us nearly 100 years to get rid of slavery and realize that it was not ok to discriminate against non-whites and women, what is taking place now is only the beginning of a social change. It's a process, one that has taken many forms. But soon, most will realize how ignorant and humanely unreasonable they really are being.


Does anybody know what the social class the majority of gay, and lesbian couples fall in to? That would probably be quite relevant to the struggle...

 

[ForumModeregulator]

...
Can a male physically reproduce with another male - No.
Can a female physically reproduce with another female - No.
Can a human male physically reproduce with a horse - No.


....

I used to think this way as well...but finally came to the sensible conclusion that biological capabilities/incapabilities should not determine a socially constructed institution.

Can a sterile male reproduce with a female? - No
Can a sterile woman reproduce with a male? - No

Would you deny the right of marriage to a couple that could not physically bear children? SINCE WHEN in a marriage has it been necessary to have children? The answer: it's not.

 

[1ManRevolution]

oh boy, another internet punk.
likes saying things over the internet that in real life he would never say.
its ok, don't worry about this idiot, truth is a few more of you simple minded immature one track clowns enters this board and i'm gone.
it used to be fun here, now its just people trying to annoy each other and talking shit.


i agreed that they should recognized them as a lawful couple.
isn't that what you want too?

so whats with the name calling?
seriously, answer it.
or were you just talking garbage, trying to be cool?

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.

 

[Facetious]

*OPPRESSED (whoops!)



I'm surprised this hasn't been posted. +1 for basic civil rights.

So, how does it feel to be on the same side as Dick Cheney for once? :1orglaugh
. . .and don't respond with the one about broken clocks being correct twice a day. :nono:

 

[Baill Inneraora]

If it's already been addressed within the context of this thread, I apologize, but let me ask, what additional bennies (benefits) would a same sex couple get out of a marriage that they wouldn't get from a civil union?

Love is not about getting benefits.

Aside: Do we all agree that the far left is hell bent for leather over destroying the conventional nuclear family? :discuss:

No, we don't agree. Leftists like myself are hell bent on not letting the government deny rights and privileges to citizens based on race/gender/religion/nationality or sexual orientation.