gay marriage?!....legal in california... [Archive] - Debate Policy

glockmail

05-15-2008, 12:32 PM

This really made no sense as California already offered same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support.
It makes sense if you understand their true agenda, which is the breakdown of traditional marriage, hence the traditional family, hence traditional society based on the family as its central core, hence the rise of the State to manage still more personal affairs.

Hagbard Celine

05-15-2008, 12:33 PM

manu1959

05-15-2008, 12:35 PM

This really made no sense as California already offered same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support.

yep.....from the article.....

California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support. It's therefore unclear what additional relief state lawmakers could offer .......

manu1959

05-15-2008, 12:36 PM

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

nope .... one of my closest friends is gay ...... i am very happy for him that he can now legally use the word ..... all his legal rights he got years ago .....

glockmail

05-15-2008, 12:40 PM

Good. Operation "Deprecate Straight Marriage" can finally commence! Now all Republican marriages mean absolutely nothing! HAHAHAHAHA! HAHAHA!

Unless of course they find some way of not deriving the meaning in their lives from the actions of others! Then our plan is screwed! OMG! :eek: I'm sorry, I thought this was a democracy, and that the laws of the State reflected on the actions of the majority. :rolleyes:

Besides, this is an edict from the elite and robed.

hjmick

05-15-2008, 12:40 PM

I wonder if we will start to see discrimination lawsuits stemming from churches refusing to perform these marriage rituals.

glockmail

05-15-2008, 12:41 PM

.... one of my closets friends is gay ..... So he can come out of the closet? :laugh2:

manu1959

05-15-2008, 12:43 PM

So he can come out of the closet? :laugh2:

i really should proofread my stuff......

manu1959

05-15-2008, 12:49 PM

I'm sorry, I thought this was a democracy, and that the laws of the State reflected on the actions of the majority. :rolleyes:

Besides, this is an edict from the elite and robed.

the people are not allowed to pass laws that are judged by the courts to be unconstitutional.....

Hagbard Celine

05-15-2008, 12:50 PM

I'm sorry, I thought this was a democracy, and that the laws of the State reflected on the actions of the majority. :rolleyes:

Besides, this is an edict from the elite and robed.

Ooh, those elitist, robed elitists! They really grind my gears with their robes and their law degrees that they got while eating frou-frou sushi in their ivory towers! What qualifies them to make legal decisions HUH!? Real food is cooked! Are you with me or what!?

Also, this isn't a democracy man. It's a republic. Try and keep up.

glockmail

05-15-2008, 12:52 PM

the people are not allowed to pass laws that are judged by the courts to be unconstitutional..... I guess that means we need an Ammendment to clarify common sense.

manu1959

05-15-2008, 12:54 PM

I guess that means we need an Ammendment to clarify common sense.

common sense isn't.......

glockmail

05-15-2008, 12:57 PM

Ooh, those elitist, robed elitists! They really grind my gears with their robes and their law degrees that they got while eating frou-frou sushi in their ivory towers! What qualifies them to make legal decisions HUH!? Real food is cooked! Are you with me or what!?

Also, this isn't a democracy man. It's a republic. Try and keep up.
These judges are appointed. It appears that it is you who needs to "keep up". :pee:

Hagbard Celine

05-15-2008, 01:04 PM

These judges are appointed. It appears that it is you who needs to "keep up". :pee:

No sh*t Sherlock. They're appointed by elected representatives, which is not as you put it "democracy."
I know the temptation to put your foot in your mouth again is over-powering so by all means, tell me something else I know already. The anticipation of what it will be is simply titillating. :rolleyes:

manu1959

05-15-2008, 01:09 PM

No sh*t Sherlock. They're appointed by elected representatives, which is not as you put it "democracy."
I know the temptation to put your foot in your mouth again is over-powering so by all means, tell me something else I know already. The anticipation of what it will be is simply titillating. :rolleyes:

they are also voted on by the public ..... from wiki.....

Associate Justices who are appointed by the Governor of California for 12-year terms. New justices are subject to a retention vote by the public at the next general election after their appointment, and each 12 years thereafter. The electorate has occasionally exercised the power not to retain justices; Chief Justice Rose Bird and Associate Justices Cruz Reynoso and Joseph Grodin were removed in 1986 because they opposed capital punishment.

glockmail

05-15-2008, 01:23 PM

No sh*t Sherlock. They're appointed by elected representatives, which is not as you put it "democracy."
I know the temptation to put your foot in your mouth again is over-powering so by all means, tell me something else I know already. The anticipation of what it will be is simply titillating. :rolleyes:
Actually, Holmes, in this case they are appointed by the governor, for long terms, which means that they are as far removed from the influences of democracy as possible, in a democracy. In this elite position, they have decided to make public policy.

All the more reason for a Constitutional Amendment to clarify common sense.

theHawk

05-15-2008, 01:24 PM

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90M6UHG0&show_article=1

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - The California Supreme Court has overturned a ban on gay marriage, paving the way for California to become the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

Faggots and liberals rejoice!

Yurt

05-15-2008, 01:25 PM

on pdf the opinion, with dissents included is 172 pages!

manu1959

05-15-2008, 01:25 PM

Actually, Holmes, in this case they are appointed by the governor, for life, which means that they are as far removed from the influences of democracy as possible, in a democracy. In this elite position, they have decided to make public policy.

All the more reason for a Constitutional Amendment to clarify common sense.

actully they are not appointed for life in california......we get to vote on them....every so often...

Hagbard Celine

05-15-2008, 01:25 PM

they are also voted on by the public ..... from wiki.....

Associate Justices who are appointed by the Governor of California for 12-year terms. New justices are subject to a retention vote by the public at the next general election after their appointment, and each 12 years thereafter. The electorate has occasionally exercised the power not to retain justices; Chief Justice Rose Bird and Associate Justices Cruz Reynoso and Joseph Grodin were removed in 1986 because they opposed capital punishment.

Are you really going to sit there and try to argue with me about the specifics of what another poster was thinking when he mistakenly referred to our type of government as a "democracy" instead of the republic that it really is? So according to you, when Glock said "democracy," he was specifically referring to the fact that judges (after they've been appointed by representatives) are periodically voted-upon in a popular vote in order to end or continue their terms in office? Please spare me your bullsh*t Manu.

manu1959

05-15-2008, 01:27 PM

glockmail

05-15-2008, 01:36 PM

Are you really going to sit there and try to argue with me about the specifics of what another poster was thinking when he mistakenly referred to our type of government as a "democracy" instead of the republic that it really is? So according to you, when Glock said "democracy," he was specifically referring to the fact that judges (after they've been appointed by representatives) are periodically voted-upon in a popular vote in order to end or continue their terms in office? Please spare me your bullsh*t Manu.

You've really got your head up your ass today, dontcha Hag? How many people do you know go around calling America a "republic" v. the common vernacular of “democracy”? Answer: very few. For your information, the precise term is “democratic republic”. So if you insist on being a tight twat about this, you’re calling our form of government a “republic” is technically more incorrect than my calling it a “democracy”. So get off your liberal elitist bark-humping horse.

avatar4321

05-15-2008, 01:37 PM

dont you just love liberals throwing aside the will of the people to pursue their own personal philosophies?

Little-Acorn

05-15-2008, 01:40 PM

the people are not allowed to pass laws that are judged by the courts to be unconstitutional.....

They are also not allowed to pass laws that are judged by the courts to be "not the way we'd like things to be".

The fact that it's not the courts' job to make such judgements, is often ignored, as it has been in this case. This is why various liberal, gay-activist, etc. groups use the courts to force their agenda on others, when established legislative methods fail (i.e. when no one wants to vote for them).

glockmail

05-15-2008, 01:42 PM

dont you just love liberals throwing aside the will of the people to pursue their own personal philosophies? What I'd like to know if how exactly did they figure out a way to make public policy decisions from the Bench? Isn't this in direct violation of the Founder's principles?

glockmail

05-15-2008, 01:43 PM

They are also not allowed to pass laws that are judged by the courts to be "not the way we'd like things to be".

The fact that it's not the courts' job to make such judgements, is often ignored, as it has been in this case. This is why various liberal, gay-activist, etc. groups use the courts to force their agenda on others, when established legislative methods fail (i.e. when no one wants to vote for them). I'm glad you joined this. Maybe you can answer my question in post 29.

Yurt

05-15-2008, 01:48 PM

What I'd like to know if how exactly did they figure out a way to make public policy decisions from the Bench? Isn't this in direct violation of the Founder's principles?

i have not read the entire opinion, but i'm sure they are going to point out the due process and equal protection clause of the california constitution. that is their job, to make sure EP is applied to all.

glockmail

05-15-2008, 01:52 PM

i have not read the entire opinion, but i'm sure they are going to point out the due process and equal protection clause of the california constitution. that is their job, to make sure EP is applied to all. EP is a BS argument based on the fact that queers had the same rights by prior CA law. Plus, using the EP argument, why is polygamy illegal?

avatar4321

05-15-2008, 01:54 PM

What I'd like to know if how exactly did they figure out a way to make public policy decisions from the Bench? Isn't this in direct violation of the Founder's principles?

i just dont understand how they can make public policy decisions contrary to the direct vote of the people.

Yurt

05-15-2008, 01:59 PM

EP is a BS argument based on the fact that queers had the same rights by prior CA law. Plus, using the EP argument, why is polygamy illegal?

so california supreme court was wrong to overturn the will of the people when the people made it statutorily illegal for inter-racial couples to marry?

they did not have the "same" rights, they could not marry, and marriage is a fundamental right. i don't think polygamy should be illegal.

glockmail

05-15-2008, 02:05 PM

so california supreme court was wrong to overturn the will of the people when the people made it statutorily illegal for inter-racial couples to marry?

they did not have the "same" rights, they could not marry, and marriage is a fundamental right. i don't think polygamy should be illegal.

Equating race with sexual preference is a weak argument.

Regardless on your opinion about polygamy, my agument still stands.

theHawk

05-15-2008, 02:05 PM

Does anyone have a link to the actual law that was passed? I'd like to know what exactly it "banned".

If it banned churches from performing the religious ceremony then it would be 100% unconstitutional. However if it merely stated that the state would not recognize such marriages in terms of benefits for the gay couple, then its perfectly legal.

GW in Ohio

05-15-2008, 02:06 PM

It makes sense if you understand their true agenda, which is the breakdown of traditional marriage, hence the traditional family, hence traditional society based on the family as its central core, hence the rise of the State to manage still more personal affairs.

Could you possibly be any stupider?

Do you really think that the goal of those who support same sex marriage is the breakdown of American society and the installation of a socialist or fascist government?

Here's a news flash, which will probably not penetrate your tin foil hat......

All they want to do is get married, like heterosexual couples.

That's all. It's really not a hidden agenda.

Unless you're one of those people who gets his marching orders from Rush Limbaugh.

Yurt

05-15-2008, 02:09 PM

Equating race with sexual preference is a weak argument.

Regardless on your opinion about polygamy, my agument still stands.

its actually a good argument for overturning the will of the people when it comes to marriage, as in this case. some people strongly believe that inter-racial couples should not marry. you are going to say that one is choice, the other is not. however, one does not have to choose to marry someone from a different race.

the government should get out of marriage and leave it with the church. you then can go to court and get your legal documents making a civil union. for a marriage is only a contract.

Yurt

05-15-2008, 02:10 PM

manu1959

05-15-2008, 02:12 PM

Could you possibly be any stupider?

nah.....it appears you have that covered......

GW in Ohio

05-15-2008, 02:16 PM

why do you have to be such a bitch? can't you simply debate the issue and not get your panties in twist...

Okay......

I'm sorry if I was insulting, glockie.

If you want to believe that the real goal of the folks who support same-sex marriage is the destruction of American society and the institution of a socialist or fascist government, you have every right to believe that.

This is America..........

manu1959

05-15-2008, 02:16 PM

its actually a good argument for overturning the will of the people when it comes to marriage, as in this case. some people strongly believe that inter-racial couples should not marry. you are going to say that one is choice, the other is not. however, one does not have to choose to marry someone from a different race.

the government should get out of marriage and leave it with the church. you then can go to court and get your legal documents making a civil union. for a marriage is only a contract.

what i find the most interesting about this is …. gay couples have all the same legal rights as non-gay couples in california......obtaining the use of the word marriage does not get them some new set of rights they did not have.....

curious to read the opinion about the unconstitutionality of the use of a word....

glockmail

05-15-2008, 02:20 PM

Could you possibly be any stupider?

Do you really think that the goal of those who support same sex marriage is the breakdown of American society and the installation of a socialist or fascist government?

Here's a news flash, which will probably not penetrate your tin foil hat......

All they want to do is get married, like heterosexual couples.

That's all. It's really not a hidden agenda.

Unless you're one of those people who gets his marching orders from Rush Limbaugh.

FUCK YOU ASSHOLE.

FIRST OF ALL, WHEN I ASK YOU A DIRECT QUESTION YOU DON'T BOTHER RESPONDING. THAT AUTOMATICALLY DISQUALIFIES YOU TO DEBATE.

SECOND, AGAIN I OFFER A LOGICAL BASIS FOR MY OPINIONS AND BELIEFS, AND YOU DISPUTE THEM BY CALLING ME NAMES AND ACCUSING ME OF BEING A MINDLESS AUTOMATON.

THIRD, YOU OFFER NO LOGICAL ARGUMENT TO DISPUTE MY ARGUMENTS.

GO BACK TO OH HIGH OH AND SHOVE IT UP YOUR ASS.

glockmail

05-15-2008, 02:25 PM

its actually a good argument for overturning the will of the people when it comes to marriage, as in this case. some people strongly believe that inter-racial couples should not marry. you are going to say that one is choice, the other is not. however, one does not have to choose to marry someone from a different race.

the government should get out of marriage and leave it with the church. you then can go to court and get your legal documents making a civil union. for a marriage is only a contract.

1. I don't see that at all. I don't have a choice about what color my skin is. queers choose to be queer.

2. Agreed.

manu1959

05-15-2008, 02:28 PM

1. I don't see that at all. I don't have a choice about what color my skin is. queers choose to be queer.

2. Agreed.

1. this has not been prooven one way or another.....

glockmail

05-15-2008, 02:31 PM

1. this has not been prooven one way or another.....
I think that nearly everyone can agree that some percentage choose to be gay, and the facts support that conclusion completely.

GW in Ohio

05-15-2008, 02:32 PM

what i find the most interesting about this is …. gay couples have all the same legal rights as non-gay couples in california......obtaining the use of the word marriage does not get them some new set of rights they did not have.....

curious to read the opinion about the unconstitutionality of the use of a word....

Let me ask you something, manu.....

Are you married?

If you are, how would you feel if your government had told you, back before you got married, "Sorry, the state won't sanction your marriage. But you can have many of the legal benefits of a same sex union."

How would that make you feel? Like a second-class citizen, maybe?

manu1959

05-15-2008, 02:32 PM

I think that nearly everyone can agree that some percentage choose to be gay, and the facts support that conclusion completely.

not one gay person i know would agree with your premise .....

glockmail

05-15-2008, 02:36 PM

not one gay person i know would agree with your premise ..... The gays that I have know must be more open minded. How can anone logically disagree with that?

GW in Ohio

05-15-2008, 02:44 PM

FUCK YOU ASSHOLE.

FIRST OF ALL, WHEN I ASK YOU A DIRECT QUESTION YOU DON'T BOTHER RESPONDING. THAT AUTOMATICALLY DISQUALIFIES YOU TO DEBATE.

SECOND, AGAIN I OFFER A LOGICAL BASIS FOR MY OPINIONS AND BELIEFS, AND YOU DISPUTE THEM BY CALLING ME NAMES AND ACCUSING ME OF BEING A MINDLESS AUTOMATON.

THIRD, YOU OFFER NO LOGICAL ARGUMENT TO DISPUTE MY ARGUMENTS.

GO BACK TO OH HIGH OH AND SHOVE IT UP YOUR ASS.

Awwww, glockie....

I'm sorry.

C'mere, big guy. Give us a hug.

No, never mind. Just shake hands.....

Yurt

05-15-2008, 02:45 PM

Okay......

I'm sorry if I was insulting, glockie.

If you want to believe that the real goal of the folks who support same-sex marriage is the destruction of American society and the institution of a socialist or fascist government, you have every right to believe that.

This is America..........

if all americans turned gay, had gay marriage, who would produce? actually gay marriage does seek the destruction of the traditionally understood marriage. that is why i believe the state should get out of marriage. the very concept of marriage comes from the bible and the bible is against homosexuality.

what i find the most interesting about this is …. gay couples have all the same legal rights as non-gay couples in california......obtaining the use of the word marriage does not get them some new set of rights they did not have.....

curious to read the opinion about the unconstitutionality of the use of a word....

Let me ask you something, manu.....

Are you married?

If you are, how would you feel if your government had told you, back before you got married, "Sorry, the state won't sanction your marriage. But you can have many of the legal benefits of a same sex union."

How would that make you feel? Like a second-class citizen, maybe?

from what i have read so far of the opinion, that is basically what they are saying. that marriage is a fundamental right under the constitution and thus afforded due process and equal protection. giving someone the same "legal" rights without the name is still not the same. the opinion also says that to deny that to gays is to deny the ability to have a family, something that comes from marriage. husband/wife, and now husband/husband. if the constitution of CA is amended, then the case becomes moot.

manu1959

05-15-2008, 02:45 PM

Let me ask you something, manu.....

Are you married?

If you are, how would you feel if your government had told you, back before you got married, "Sorry, the state won't sanction your marriage. But you can have many of the legal benefits of a same sex union."

How would that make you feel? Like a second-class citizen, maybe?

yes i am married and from a social perspective i have already stated my opion about gay marriage in this thread.....

the post you have quoted of mine is aimed at my legal interest in this issue....

the state does sanction the union of gay couples and gives them all the same rights as straight couples.....

there is a law on the books voted on by the people of the state which defines the word marriage as a legal contract between a man and a woman.....this is the law....

the judicial branch redefined that word today .... which means they made law..... that is not their roll ... which is why i said i am interested to see what they used within the constitution to let them "make law" and redefine the word ..... i would surmise they simply ruled the law unconstitutional under equal protection .... unfortunately being gay is not listed as a protected class in our constitution....this may take a while.....

Yurt

05-15-2008, 02:49 PM

These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the
opportunity of an individual to establish — with the person with whom the
individual has chosen to share his or her life — an officially recognized and
protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage. As past cases establish, the substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own — and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family — constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the
benefit of both the individual and society.

the opinion: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/

GW in Ohio

05-15-2008, 02:50 PM

if all americans turned gay, had gay marriage, who would produce? actually gay marriage does seek the destruction of the traditionally understood marriage. that is why i believe the state should get out of marriage. the very concept of marriage comes from the bible and the bible is against homosexuality.

from what i have read so far of the opinion, that is basically what they are saying. that marriage is a fundamental right under the constitution and thus afforded due process and equal protection. giving someone the same "legal" rights without the name is still not the same. the opinion also says that to deny that to gays is to deny the ability to have a family, something that comes from marriage. husband/wife, and now husband/husband. if the constitution of CA is amended, then the case becomes moot.

yurt: It's ridiculous to speculate on the entire population of the US becoming homosexual. Even the most optimistic estimates put the gay population at no higher than 10%. I think it's closer to 6%.

Yurt

05-15-2008, 02:52 PM

We need not decide in this case whether the name “marriage” is invariably
a core element of the state constitutional right to marry so that the state would
violate a couple’s constitutional right even if — perhaps in order to emphasize and
clarify that this civil institution is distinct from the religious institution of
marriage — the state were to assign a name other than marriage as the official
designation of the formal family relationship for all couples. Under the current
statutes, the state has not revised the name of the official family relationship for all
couples, but rather has drawn a distinction between the name for the official
family relationship of opposite-sex couples (marriage) and that for same-sex
couples (domestic partnership). One of the core elements of the right to establish
an officially recognized family that is embodied in the California constitutional
right to marry is a couple’s right to have their family relationship accorded dignity
and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families, and
assigning a different designation for the family relationship of same-sex couples
9
while reserving the historic designation of “marriage” exclusively for opposite-sex
couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex
couples such equal dignity and respect. We therefore conclude that although the
provisions of the current domestic partnership legislation afford same-sex couples
most of the substantive elements embodied in the constitutional right to marry, the
current California statutes nonetheless must be viewed as potentially impinging
upon a same-sex couple’s constitutional right to marry under the California
Constitution.

Yurt

05-15-2008, 02:54 PM

yurt: It's ridiculous to speculate on the entire population of the US becoming homosexual. Even the most optimistic estimates put the gay population at no higher than 10%. I think it's closer to 6%.

why? it could happen, and if it does, then the state ceases to reproduce. that is the ultimate reality of homosexuality. non-reproduction.

GW in Ohio

05-15-2008, 02:56 PM

why? it could happen, and if it does, then the state ceases to reproduce. that is the ultimate reality of homosexuality. non-reproduction.

No, it couldn't happen.

manu1959

05-15-2008, 02:56 PM

Yurt

05-15-2008, 03:01 PM

same-sex couple’s constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution.

funny i can't find those words in the constitution.....i guess the legislators will when they write the amendment and put it in there.....

i don't believe it says opposite-sex only, it just declares that marriage is a right...that is why CA voters passed the family law code defining marriage as between man and a woman...they will now undoubtedly try to amend the constitution

Yurt

05-15-2008, 03:02 PM

No, it couldn't happen.

so then, gays need hetros to survive...

manu1959

05-15-2008, 03:06 PM

i don't believe it says opposite-sex only, it just declares that marriage is a right...that is why CA voters passed the family law code defining marriage as between man and a woman...they will now undoubtedly try to amend the constitution

if the judical branch says the right is in there .... why would one have to write an amendment to put it in there .....

4-3 vote .... and the ruling starts to define sexual orientation as a protected class.....which would mean being gay would get you more rights than being straight....

glockmail

05-15-2008, 03:07 PM

Awwww, glockie....

I'm sorry.

C'mere, big guy. Give us a hug.

No, never mind. Just shake hands.....

Fuck you asshole. You can't even apologize withiout being condescending. I owe you. :fu:

Yurt

05-15-2008, 03:07 PM

if the judical brach says the right is in there why would one have to write and amendment to put it in there .....

they want an amendment saying mariage is only btwn man and woman...the court cannot go against that...but the court is empowered to rule against statutes

Yurt

05-15-2008, 03:08 PM

Fuck you asshole. You can't even apologize withiout being condescending. I owe you. :fu:

are you talking to her or mfm :laugh2:

Missileman

05-15-2008, 03:42 PM

why? it could happen, and if it does, then the state ceases to reproduce. that is the ultimate reality of homosexuality. non-reproduction.

Speak for yourself sport! :poke:

The notion that the entire nation would or could turn homosexual is absurd!

Yurt

05-15-2008, 03:51 PM

Speak for yourself sport! :poke:

The notion that the entire nation would or could turn homosexual is absurd!

so then you need hetros in order to survive?

Missileman

05-15-2008, 04:00 PM

so then you need hetros in order to survive?

I am a heterosexual. When I said speak for yourself it was in reference to YOU turning gay as you contended it's possible. It's not even a remote possibility for me...never happen.

Homosexuals don't need heteros to survive, they aren't a separate species. However, heterosexuals maintain the homosexual population simply by having children.

manu1959

05-15-2008, 04:06 PM

Homosexuals don't need heteros to survive, they aren't a separate species. However, heterosexuals maintain the homosexual population simply by having children.

homos dont need heteros to survive except for the having children part.....

got it....

Missileman

05-15-2008, 04:09 PM

homos dont need heteros to survive except for the having children part.....

got it....

Heteros having children has no bearing on the survival of existing homosexuals. Do you GET that?

Hagbard Celine

05-15-2008, 04:10 PM

manu1959

05-15-2008, 04:12 PM

Heteros having children has no bearing on the survival of existing homosexuals. Do you GET that?

yes.....he was talking about the survival of the species.....not the current stock of pole smokers and muff divers....

how do you propose the homo's survive as a protected class without heteros having children......

glockmail

05-15-2008, 04:12 PM

are you talking to her or mfm :laugh2: Gay Way. Funny how they both have similar habits.

Hagbard Celine

05-15-2008, 04:13 PM

yes.....he was talking about the survival of the species.....not the current stock of pole smokers and muff divers....

how do you propose the homo's survive as a protected class without heteros having children......

I second the Conservative motion for Conservatives to stop having children. Here, here!

glockmail

05-15-2008, 04:16 PM

Even if the entire Earth's population decided to "go gay," gay scientists would still make new gayfers in petri dishes and then lesbo surrogates would carry them to term. It would be like some post apocalyptic gay Mad Max world.
So your "gayness is the end of the human race" idea is really quite flawed, not to mention incredibly inane.

What would have happened, say, 50 years ago if that technology didn't exist?

Thanks for making my argument that queers aren't born queer because they can't reproduce themselves.

Hagbard Celine

05-15-2008, 04:30 PM

What would have happened, say, 50 years ago if that technology didn't exist?

Thanks for making my argument that queers aren't born queer because they can't reproduce themselves.

I haven't "made" anything for you. You're completely wrong. Some people are born sterile and they can't reproduce and yet they were BORN sterile.
And 50 years ago, nothing would've happened because the entire premise is ridiculous to begin with. To answer you though, they probably would've "sucked it up" and had hetero-relations for the sole purpose of procreating. They might've even done it with turkey basters so as to avoid the whole physical thing entirely. And in this hypothetical world, you would be gay. You know how I know that? Because you said everyone in this hypothetical is gay. Now quit imagining hypothetical worlds where you can act-out your closeted fantasies and get back on the thread topic: Gay Marriage.

Missileman

05-15-2008, 04:31 PM

yes.....he was talking about the survival of the species.....not the current stock of pole smokers and muff divers....

Based on some ridiculous speculation that the entire world is going to go gay...do you want to base your argument on an impossibility also?

how do you propose the homo's survive as a protected class without heteros having children......

Since I clearly stated that heterosexuals produce homosexuals, I'm not sure why you are asking me to propose the opposite.

If gays aren't reproducing, then the cause of homosexuality certainly resides within heterosexuals. If gays aren't reproducing, it's a trait that can't become more prevalent do to heredity.

Yurt

05-15-2008, 05:09 PM

in terms of evolution, homosexuality is deviant, for homosexuality cannot perpetuate...without hetrosexuality.

manu1959

05-15-2008, 05:16 PM

in terms of evolution, homosexuality is deviant, for homosexuality cannot perpetuate...without hetrosexuality.

yes it is biologically pointless and abnormal.....

Nuc

05-15-2008, 06:21 PM

I'm sorry, I thought this was a democracy, and that the laws of the State reflected on the actions of the majority. :rolleyes:

You're confusing democracy and mob rule. Constitutional democracies defend the rights of the individual even if they are in the minority.

Besides, if Condi and Hillary decided to hook up and wanted to get married, what would bother you more, same sex, or different political parties? :dance:

actsnoblemartin

05-15-2008, 06:26 PM

yeah but thats sex i dont wanna think about :puke3:

You're confusing democracy and mob rule. Constitutional democracies defend the rights of the individual even if they are in the minority.

Besides, if Condi and Hillary decided to hook up and wanted to get married, what would bother you more, same sex, or different political parties? :dance:

manu1959

05-15-2008, 06:39 PM

You're confusing democracy and mob rule. Constitutional democracies defend the rights of the individual even if they are in the minority.

Besides, if Condi and Hillary decided to hook up and wanted to get married, what would bother you more, same sex, or different political parties? :dance:

you think hillary is a top or a bottom?

and condi......pitcher or catcher..........

actsnoblemartin

05-15-2008, 06:40 PM

Hillary is definently a top, you seen how intense she is :coffee:

condi is catcher, cause she is too subdued

you think hillary is a top or a bottom?

and condi......pitcher or catcher..........

midcan5

05-15-2008, 06:44 PM

manu1959

05-15-2008, 06:48 PM

avatar4321

05-15-2008, 06:56 PM

men......creator......life liberty and pursuit of happiness......= gay marriage is a right......:laugh2:

obviously that's what Midcan thinks, but honestly, I dont see it.

Yurt

05-15-2008, 08:02 PM

men......creator......life liberty and pursuit of happiness......= gay marriage is a right......:laugh2:

:lol: great point...then again, most libs write god/creator out of anything they can...they completely ignore this country's founding

glockmail

05-15-2008, 08:23 PM

I haven't "made" anything for you. You're completely wrong. Some people are born sterile and they can't reproduce and yet they were BORN sterile.
And 50 years ago, nothing would've happened because the entire premise is ridiculous to begin with. To answer you though, they probably would've "sucked it up" and had hetero-relations for the sole purpose of procreating. They might've even done it with turkey basters so as to avoid the whole physical thing entirely. And in this hypothetical world, you would be gay. You know how I know that? Because you said everyone in this hypothetical is gay. Now quit imagining hypothetical worlds where you can act-out your closeted fantasies and get back on the thread topic: Gay Marriage.
Look Hag when you're carrying on a lie like this you have to keep your story straight (no pun intended).

1. The world can't "go gay" because they don't choose to be queer- they are born that way.
2. They couldn't "suck it up" because hetero is unnatural to them.
3. You can't compare it with birth defects because its normal.

Or you can face the truth like us conservatives and realize that its not normal, not natural, and they ain't born that way.:laugh2:

DragonStryk72

05-15-2008, 11:43 PM

It makes sense if you understand their true agenda, which is the breakdown of traditional marriage, hence the traditional family, hence traditional society based on the family as its central core, hence the rise of the State to manage still more personal affairs.

They don't give a shit about the greater picture, they want to be 'married', not 'civilly unionized', and yeah, they're going to argue for it. Now, The Court was wrong for oveturning a law that was laid down by both the will of the state legislature, and the will of the citizenry, but aside from that, it is of absolutely no consequence.

If they get all the same rights priviliges, responsiblities, and whatnot as married couples, then it is only a matter of idiotic wording.

and it is not gay marriage that is "eroding" the covenant of marriage, it's this constant stream of "being my own special me" crap, it's people getting hammered and getting married in Vegas, screwing around, and the general erosion of personal responsiblity that is hurting marriage.

red states rule

05-16-2008, 05:52 AM

Once again, we all need to take off our hats and commend the founding mothers and fathers of this country: even minority people are equal under the law. Bravo, what a amazing system they helped devise.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."

Yep, libs are a happy bunch

Free at Last, Free at Last, Good Golly Miss Molly, Free at Last!

The California Supreme Court's unanimous decision in favor of same-sex marriage is not only a victory for the Gay Community against mean straight people, but a triumph for equal rights. Up until today, only heterosexuals were allowed to marry members of the same gender. Now gays can, too! More importantly, the court's ruling is a noble gesture of compassion for a race of people that has suffered far too long under the cloak of oppression.

Imagine waking up every day knowing that simply because of the person you choose to love, you'll have to file your taxes differently than everyone else. Hitler did the exact same thing to the Jews! It's a cruel indignity no human being should be forced to endure.

Caring for a sick loved one is also something we all take for granted, but in most states gays can't visit other gays in the hospital. It's against the law! What if the only person you ever loved was on their death bed, and you weren't even allowed to be at their side in their final moments to say, "Gosh, I'm sorry I gave you AIDS"? It's hard for us insensitive heterosexuals to envision such a nightmare, but it's a terrible reality that members of the deeply passionate and overly dramatic Gay Community suffer through every day.

The California Supreme Court has finally removed the tiny "except for gays" asterisk on their state's Bill of Rights with this nifty new law they've written. I pray to a gender-neutral God that a more progressive SCOTUS under President Hillary follows suit and legalizes same-sex marriage nationwide - centuries of tradition and the moral fabric of society be damned.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2008/05/free-at-last-fr.html

mundame

05-16-2008, 10:07 AM

Hagbard Celine

05-16-2008, 10:08 AM

Look Hag when you're carrying on a lie like this you have to keep your story straight (no pun intended).

1. The world can't "go gay" because they don't choose to be queer- they are born that way.
2. They couldn't "suck it up" because hetero is unnatural to them.
3. You can't compare it with birth defects because its normal.

Or you can face the truth like us conservatives and realize that its not normal, not natural, and they ain't born that way.:laugh2:

Well either they can or they can't. This is your little fantasy hypothetical so if I hadn't answered you with what I said and instead had gone with the "they can't "go-gay" because they're born that way" argument then you would've accused me of dodging. I don't claim to know for sure if it's an inborn thing or if it's a preference formed over time BECAUSE I'M NOT GAY. I know that you don't know either because you claim you're not gay either. You also can't use your ridiculous "what if the whole world went gay" argument as "proof" that gays aren't born that way. It's ridiculous and f*cking stupid to even try that. I wouldn't think an adult would. Nor can you use my or any other heterosexual's opinion on the subject either. I'd say the fact that all of us could never go that way in a million years is proof that they are born that way, but once again, that's the opinion of a straight person on something they know very little about.
The fact of the matter is that you just despise gay people so you're going to come up with every excuse and half-cocked speculation in the book as to why they shouldn't be allowed any rights. It's sad that you devote so much time to being so negative about people and things that you have no control over. Homosexuals have been with us since the dawn of civilization. You should probably take that as your clue that we won't be rid of them any time soon if ever so constantly b*tching and whining about them is a moot point.

red states rule

05-16-2008, 10:09 AM

Next stop:

Legalized polygamy.

All the Saudis can immigrate here with their four wives all lined up in burkas with only their eyes showing.

And our Mormons! One for each day of the week is only a good start for those fundamentalists; Brigham Young had upwards of 36.

They'll take all the women by marrying them to their brothers at age 12 so their religion can take over all the population; won't be any women left for the rest of you.

and libs have so many spokespeople on this issue

Rosie O'Donnell, Man of the People
Congratz to the lesbian Gandhi, Rosie O'Donnell, who married her longtime Significant Other Domestic Life Partner, Karen Carpenter, in the face of overwhelming opposition from that fascist hatemonger Bush!

"We were both inspired to come here after the sitting president made the vile and hateful comments he made. Sometimes civil disobedience is necessary to insure freedom for all. Isn't that right, babycakes?" Rosie snarled at the press while holding her blushing bride in a loving head-lock.

"Merp!" Carpenter agreed. Carpenter, a former dancer and marketing executive for Nickelodeon, has produced 9 of Rosie's 17 children, impregnating herself with a turkey-baster filled with sperm purchased on eBay. "We just want to be treated like normal people, is that so much to ask?"

Although the two had been cohabitating for six years, it was George Bush's sudden support for a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage that forced the couple to tie the knot.

"We should conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger," Bush spoke to reporters at the White House last Monday. "In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and goodwill and decency."

For the folks at home, that's secret code for "Let's exterminate the queers". Good ol' Rosie saw right through it.

"I think the actions of the President are, in my opinion, the most vile and hateful words ever spoken by a sitting president," O'Donnell hissed in response to Bush's speech. "I could just rip his head off and shit down his neck!!"

The newlyweds celebrated their nuptials along with thousands of San Franciscans by castrating Bush in effigy, followed with a dildo sword-fight on the steps of City Hall.

This open-minded, tolerant blogger wishes the O'Donnell family all the happiness in the world, and may God protect them from the right-wing Christians who only want to spoil everyone's good time.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2004/03/rosie_odonnell_.html

glockmail

05-16-2008, 10:31 AM

Well either they can or they can't. This is [1]your little fantasy hypothetical so if I hadn't answered you with what I said and instead had gone with the "they can't "go-gay" because they're born that way" argument then you would've accused me of dodging. I don't claim to know for sure if it's an inborn thing or if it's a preference formed over time BECAUSE I'M NOT GAY. I know that you don't know either because [2]you claim you're not gay either. You also can't use your ridiculous "what if the whole world went gay" argument as "proof" that gays aren't born that way. It's ridiculous and f*cking [3]stupid to even try that. [4]I wouldn't think an adult would. Nor can you use my or any other heterosexual's opinion on the subject either. I'd say the fact that all of us could never go that way in a million years is proof that they are born that way, but once again, that's the opinion of a straight person on something they know very little about.
The [5]fact of the matter is that you just despise gay people so you're going to come up with every excuse and half-cocked speculation in the book as to why [6]they shouldn't be allowed any rights. It's sad that you devote so much time to being so negative about people and things that you have no control over. Homosexuals have been with us since the dawn of civilization. You should probably take that as your clue that we won't be rid of them any time soon if ever so [7]constantly b*tching and whining about them is a moot point.
1. The fantasy was yours, Bub.
2. Why do libs always use “gay” as an insult....
3. or claim that we’re intellectually inferior…
4. or childish…
5. or haters…
6. or we are denying rights…
7. while exhibiting these traits themselves?
:coffee:

mundame

05-16-2008, 10:43 AM

I'd say the fact that all of us could never go that way in a million years is proof that they are born that way, but once again, that's the opinion of a straight person on something they know very little about.

Naaaaaaah, impossible. That's why they seduce and train up boys and young male adolescents to be their partners: it's how homosexuals reproduce.

Parents would not be worried about homosexual teachers and scoutmasters if they thought their kid would be impervious to being turned homosexual because you're either born that way or not. Parents know very well that it's a choice, and that homosexuals can seduce and pervert young boys, and they do, it's the only way to keep the supply up.

Like Foley was doing with the congressional pages. Classic.

That's what Catholic priests did constantly, too, go after boys so there would be some homosexuals around for them to prey on.

Of course it's a choice: that's why there is the homosexuality problem in prisons and on ships, when men don't have any women to choose, as most would if they could. So they do each other, that's all.

Hagbard Celine

05-16-2008, 10:46 AM

1. The fantasy was yours, Bub.
2. Why do libs always use “gay” as an insult....
3. or claim that we’re intellectually inferior…
4. or childish…
5. or haters…
6. or we are denying rights…
7. while exhibiting these traits themselves?
:coffee:

Number two is the only one I exhibit thank you very much. All the others you've mentioned are your personal attributes, which you are projecting onto me.
First, the fantasy was not mine. This is obvious since you are the one who proposed the idiotic premise in the first place. To paraphrase: "What if the whole world went gay?" you said, "would it be the end of human beings since gays can't reproduce? The fact that they can't reproduce proves that bigotry against them is justified," you added.
So you see, YOU are the one who came up with the bird-brained thing so it is in fact yours, not mine. I merely responded for argument's sake and that's how we ended up here, with you saying that it was my fantasy to begin with, which I've clearly proven it was not.
Second, (and this comprised both four and five on your list) you are childish because you continually and unceasingly hate on anything and everything that doesn't fall under your freako-pseudo-militant version of conservatism. You are completely closed-minded to any person, idea or thing that isn't white, military-related, or Biblically literal and for that I think you are childish and a hater--as well as chronically negative and a kill-joy. You continue to completely ignore and/or completely disrespect any opinion that isn't your own whether it be on abortion, rap music, gay rights, or anything else for that matter. You'll turn that around to accuse me of the same thing, but it wouldn't be true because I don't do that.
(This covers number six) I respect and tolerate other people's opinions except for when they infringe on the liberties of others, which is what your opinions always seem to do. Can you think of one thing you support that doesn't deny someone something? You can't. And that's why I think you're a childish hater and a negative Nancy.

Hagbard Celine

05-16-2008, 10:51 AM

Naaaaaaah, impossible. That's why they seduce and train up boys and young male adolescents to be their partners: it's how homosexuals reproduce.

Parents would not be worried about homosexual teachers and scoutmasters if they thought their kid would be impervious to being turned homosexual because you're either born that way or not. Parents know very well that it's a choice, and that homosexuals can seduce and pervert young boys, and they do, it's the only way to keep the supply up.

Like Foley was doing with the congressional pages. Classic.

That's what Catholic priests did constantly, too, go after boys so there would be some homosexuals around for them to prey on.

Of course it's a choice: that's why there is the homosexuality problem in prisons and on ships, when men don't have any women to choose, as most would if they could. So they do each other, that's all.

See, what separates us from the Conserv-baaahhhh-tives and the hardline Christ-I take myself to seriously-ians is that we possess the uncanny ability to detect sarcasm. It's a little-known trait that is passed down in the genes from the father's side of the family.

glockmail

05-16-2008, 11:00 AM

Number two is the only one I exhibit thank you very much. [1]All the others you've mentioned are your personal attributes, which you are projecting onto me.
[1]First, the fantasy was not mine. This is obvious since you are the one who proposed the idiotic premise in the first place. To paraphrase: "What if the whole world went gay?" you said, "would it be the end of human beings since gays can't reproduce? The fact that they can't reproduce proves that bigotry against them is justified," you added.
So you see, YOU are the one who came up with the bird-brained thing so it is in fact yours, not mine. I merely responded for argument's sake and that's how we ended up here, with you saying that it was my fantasy to begin with, which I've clearly proven it was not.
Second, (and this comprised both four and five on your list) you are childish because you continually and unceasingly hate on anything and everything that doesn't fall under your freako-pseudo-militant version of conservatism. You are completely closed-minded to any person, idea or thing that isn't white, military-related, or Biblically literal and for that I think you are childish and a hater--as well as chronically negative and a kill-joy. You continue to completely ignore and/or completely disrespect any opinion that isn't your own whether it be on abortion, rap music, gay rights, or anything else for that matter. You'll turn that around to accuse me of the same thing, but it wouldn't be true because I don't do that.
(This covers number six) I respect and tolerate other people's opinions except for when they infringe on the liberties of others, which is what your opinions always seem to do. Can you think of one thing you support that doesn't deny someone something? You can't. And that's why I think you're a childish hater and a negative Nancy.

Thanks for proving my point [unnumbered bolded text].

1. It’s your’s Bub: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=245305&postcount=70

2. I'll add closed-minded to the earlier list.

This is too easy. :lol:

Hagbard Celine

05-16-2008, 11:06 AM

Thanks for proving my point [unnumbered bolded text].

1. It’s your’s Bub: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=245305&postcount=70

2. I'll add closed-minded to the earlier list.

This is too easy. :lol:

You must be legally retarded. That's my response to the hypothetical (it was actually first posted by Yurt now that I look so I've conclusively discovered that you do at least have some vague awareness of what you posted).
This is where the premise originated: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=245255&postcount=51
I did NOT come up with the premise.

"Closed-minded" makes absolutely no sense. That's what you do. You post a non-sequitur and then pretend as if it proves your point. I swear to God, I can't fathom how you made it to adulthood without being rubbed-out via natural selection.
Watch this. I'll do the exact same thing.

I'll add born-with-a-tail to the list.

This is too easy :lol:

mundame

05-16-2008, 11:08 AM

See, what separates us from the Conserv-baaahhhh-tives and the hardline Christ-I take myself to seriously-ians is that we possess the uncanny ability to detect sarcasm. It's a little-known trait that is passed down in the genes from the father's side of the family.

With respect, I don't see how this answers anything I said.

Complete non sequitur.

red states rule

05-16-2008, 11:10 AM

You must be legally retarded. That's my response to the hypothetical (it was actually first posted by Yurt now that I look).
This is where the premise originated: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=245255&postcount=51
I did NOT come up with the premise.

"Closed-minded" makes absolutely no sense. That's what you do. You post a non-sequitur and then pretend as if it proves your point. I swear to God, I can't fathom how you made it to adulthood without being rubbed-out via natural selection.
Watch this. I'll do the exact same thing.

I'll add born-with-a-tail to the list.

This is too easy :lol:

Hag you are so open-minded your brain fell out of your head years ago

Hagbard Celine

05-16-2008, 11:26 AM

Hag you are so open-minded your brain fell out of your head years ago

Thanks for that conclusive statement about my mental status. I guess being open-minded means accepting things as fact even when you know them to be false--like when Glock said the gay-world scenario was my idea. You're right. I guess I don't really meet that definition of "open-mindedness." I'd just like to add that you were obviously born with a tail and that proves something. If you can't accept something that conclusive then you're not open-minded either.

Hagbard Celine

05-16-2008, 11:27 AM

With respect, I don't see how this answers anything I said.

Complete non sequitur.

Oh, it answers it alright. It's totally conclusive.

mundame

05-16-2008, 11:31 AM

Oh, it answers it alright. It's totally conclusive.

[Sigh] http://bestsmileys.com/signs12/5.gif

manu1959

05-16-2008, 11:36 AM

gabosaurus

05-16-2008, 11:36 AM

There are some DP members who can benefit from this...

glockmail

05-16-2008, 11:45 AM

[3]You must be legally retarded..... That's my response to the hypothetical (it was actually first posted by Yurt now that I look so I've conclusively discovered that you do at least have some vague awareness of what you posted).
This is where the premise originated: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=245255&postcount=51
I did NOT come up with the premise.

"Closed-minded" makes absolutely no sense. That's what you do. You post a non-sequitur and then pretend as if it proves your point. [3]I swear to God, I can't fathom how you made it to adulthood without being rubbed-out via natural selection.
[4]Watch this. I'll do the exact same thing.

I'll add born-with-a-tail to the list.

This is too easy :lol:
* You didn’t quote Yurt. Additionally, you agreed with the entire concept that gay is a preference, and expanded on it by theorizing that these gays would reproduce by “sucking it up” and go hetero. Oops. You’d better go re-read the party line on this.

The bracketed numbers to the bolded text above reference post 93 Liberal traits.

Sorry Hag but I must leave now. You see Rush is on and I have to write down everything that he says and memorize it. ;)

gabosaurus

05-16-2008, 11:48 AM

You don't need gay marriage Glock. You can just get it on the side. :p

Hagbard Celine

05-16-2008, 11:50 AM

* You didn’t quote Yurt. Additionally, you agreed with the entire concept that gay is a preference, and expanded on it by theorizing that these gays would reproduce by “sucking it up” and go hetero. Oops. You’d better go re-read the party line on this.

The bracketed numbers to the bolded text above reference post 93 Liberal traits.

Sorry Hag but I must leave now. You see Rush is on and I have to write down everything that he says and memorize it. ;)

Unlike you, I don't follow a party line. I mistakenly thought you were the one who first proposed the "gay-world" premise so that's why I didn't quote Yurt. If you'd like to read his post, I believe it's post 51. I also linked to it in one of my last three posts. I've already stated that there's no way to know for sure unless you're actually gay. They say they're born that way. I have no way of knowing any better and have no reason to argue with them otherwise. That's my stance. None of that can stop me from indulging in a debate on the subject or from supporting any side of it I wish to support.
Your problem is that you've bought-in hook, line and sinker to the Rush doctrine that there are two distincly different types of people living in America. It's an evil, partisan derisive doctrine that has found root in the American psyche but it's completely false and I feel sorry for you that you've bought into it so completely. Your leader Rush has got you wearing a tinfoil cap and I won't be the first to tell you that it makes you look really silly.

glockmail

05-16-2008, 11:56 AM

Unlike you, I don't follow a party line......I deliberately set you up for a straw man (http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Straw%20man) and you took it like a fish to water.

Hagbard Celine

05-16-2008, 11:57 AM

I deliberately set you up for a straw man (http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Straw%20man) and you took it like a fish to water.

You accused me of taking a party line and that's not true so I said so. You haven't proven anything except that you're really good at making false accusations (which is the definition of strawman btw).

glockmail

05-16-2008, 11:58 AM

You don't need gay marriage Glock. You can just get it on the side. :p Gabs I'm sure that you get it in the front, the back, the boobs, the mouth and the face, but I've never heard of "the side" action before.
:lol:

Hagbard Celine

05-16-2008, 11:59 AM

Gabs I'm sure that you get it in the front, the back, the boobs, the mouth and the face, but I've never heard of "the side" action before.
:lol:

You don't have a side orifice? Maybe libs and cons really are a separate species :dunno:

glockmail

05-16-2008, 12:02 PM

You accused me of taking a party line and that's not true so I said so. You haven't proven anything except that you're really good at making false accusations. It's probably because you were born with a tail.
OIC- I'm sorry, I misunderstood.

No I accuused you of forgetting the Party line: "queer is not a choice". That's OK though, urine good company. GW Ohio does it all the time.

You'll have to explain the "born with a tail" comment.

glockmail

05-16-2008, 12:04 PM

You don't have a side orifice? Maybe libs and cons really are a separate species :dunno: Damn! Show me a picture of yours! I can't believe I missed out on this!!!
:clap:

Wait, maybe y'all referring to Obama's big ears???? (Yuck)

Hagbard Celine

05-16-2008, 12:07 PM

OIC- I'm sorry, I misunderstood.

No I accuused you of forgetting the Party line: "queer is not a choice". That's OK though, urine good company. GW Ohio does it all the time.

You'll have to explain the "born with a tail" comment.

"Born with a tail" is a non-sequitur and a strawman argument akin to accusing me of not being open-minded and/or not sticking to my party line. (As-if not conclusively making-up my mind about the origin of homosexuality be it biological or a decisive preference when I have absolutely no first-hand knowledge of the psychology behind it makes me closed-minded :rolleyes:) Likewise, it also means absolutely nothing.

Hagbard Celine

05-16-2008, 12:08 PM

Damn! Show me a picture of yours! I can't believe I missed out on this!!!
:clap:

Wait, maybe y'all referring to Obama's big ears???? (Yuck)

No man. It's a slit that kinda resembles the gills on a fish. We expell protoplasm through them. The protoplasm is formed from our diet, which is high in babies.

glockmail

05-16-2008, 12:12 PM

"Born with a tail" is a non-sequitur and a strawman argument akin to accusing me of not being open-minded and/or not sticking to my party line. (As-if not conclusively making-up my mind about the origin of homosexuality be it biological or a decisive preference when I have absolutely no first-hand knowledge of the psychology behind it makes me closed-minded :rolleyes:) Likewise, it also means absolutely nothing.

If "born with tail" is a non-sequitur and a strawman argument, then why do you use it?

You are closed minded because you think that someone can't make up their mind about queer choice, unless they are queer.

glockmail

05-16-2008, 12:16 PM

No man. It's a slit that kinda resembles the gills on a fish. We expell protoplasm through them. The protoplasm is formed from our diet, which is high in babies. Holy shit! Gill sex! Damn how y'all come up with these perverted things I'll never know.

Is that how Libs move around too? Kinda like a jellyfish squirting out water? That would explain all the waffling and wavering. It would also explain why those rap artists do that head bobbin' thing.
:laugh2:

Hagbard Celine

05-16-2008, 12:17 PM

If "born with tail" is a non-sequitur and a strawman argument, then why do you use it?

You are closed minded because you think that someone can't make up their mind about queer choice, unless they are queer.

No, it's not that I don't think they can make up their mind. I know that you have made up your mind. I think that a person can't know for sure unless they are queer. That doesn't make me "closed-minded," it makes me rational.
What makes you closed-minded is that you have made up your mind and yet you have absolutely no first-hand knowledge of what it's like to be gay. Your opinion is based on fear and ignorance, i.e., that you don't agree with the act of homosexuality, that you don't like it, that since you don't like it you're going to avoid it, that since you avoid it it must be bad, that since it's "bad" that must mean that gays are bad and on and on like dominos until you arrive where you are now and you actually believe that there is a vast gay conspiracy to destroy marriage and turn everyone gay. It's ridiculous and if you think I don't see right through it then you're kidding yourself.
I use the tail strawman to mock you.

Hagbard Celine

05-16-2008, 12:24 PM

Holy shit! Gill sex! Damn how y'all come up with these perverted things I'll never know.

Is that how Libs move around too? Kinda like a jellyfish squirting out water? That would explain all the waffling and wavering. It would also explain why those rap artists do that head bobbin' thing.
:laugh2:

No, we don't use our side orifices "SO's" to move around. We use our legs just like you. Although I was always under the impression that conservatives floated from place to place over long distances using the hot air that normally comes out of their mouths. Is there anything to this or have I heard wrong?

glockmail

05-16-2008, 12:34 PM

No, it's not that I don't think they can make up their mind. I know that you have made up your mind. I think that a person can't know for sure unless they are queer. That doesn't make me "closed-minded," it makes me rational.
What makes you closed-minded is that you have made up your mind and yet you have absolutely no first-hand knowledge of what it's like to be gay. Your opinion is based on fear and ignorance, i.e., that you don't agree with the act of homosexuality, that you don't like it, that since you don't like it you're going to avoid it, that since you avoid it it must be bad, that since it's "bad" that must mean that gays are bad and on and on like dominos until you arrive where you are now and you actually believe that there is a vast gay conspiracy to destroy marriage and turn everyone gay. It's ridiculous and if you think I don't see right through it then you're kidding yourself.
I use the tail strawman to mock you.

I see. So by your logic, you have to get a tat to know why people choose to get one. Or have a cleft palette to know why they are born that way.

So now the straw man is to mock me. But-but- before you didn’t use a straw man, and I didn’t know what one was. Ooops.

glockmail

05-16-2008, 12:36 PM

No, we don't use our side orifices "SO's" to move around. We use our legs just like you. Although I was always under the impression that conservatives floated from place to place over long distances using the hot air that normally comes out of their mouths. Is there anything to this or have I heard wrong?

Yeah that's it. It's amazing what we can see from the high up perspective. Plus its a great way to avoid Atlanta traffic.

Hagbard Celine

05-16-2008, 01:02 PM

I see. So by your logic, you have to get a tat to know why people choose to get one. Or have a cleft palette to know why they are born that way.

So now the straw man is to mock me. But-but- before you didn’t use a straw man, and I didn’t know what one was. Ooops.

The cleft palette thing is a physical deformity, not an unseen persuasion--that example holds no water. And getting a tattoo isn't quite the same as being attracted to men over women. If you think it's that shallow of a decision (if you're going to subscribe to the "choice" hypothesis) then you have even less understanding of the issue than I do. Think about it. If it is a choice as you believe, do you really think that making the choice to be gay is as simple as deciding whether to get a flower or a butterfly on your ass? They have to take into consideration what their friends and family will do, how they'll be percieved by society, their religious views, etc. It's a huge decision that affects every facet of their lives. It's not deciding between getting a tuna or a meatball sub.
If you don't get the joke I was making with the "tail" comment by now then you're not going to get it. Just move-on man. :rolleyes:

Hagbard Celine

05-16-2008, 01:04 PM

Yeah that's it. It's amazing what we can see from the high up perspective. Plus its a great way to avoid Atlanta traffic.

I'm sure it is amazing what you can (and can't) see from way up there.:dance:

glockmail

05-16-2008, 01:47 PM

The cleft palette thing is a physical deformity, not an unseen persuasion--that example holds no water. ….

Oops- there you go again. I thought being gay was not a choice?
:coffee:

mundame

05-16-2008, 01:57 PM

Oops- there you go again. I thought being gay was not a choice?
:coffee:

A sort of brain damage?

Yeah, sure.

I guess it's a catching sort of brain damage if a homosexual teacher or scoutmaster or priest or uncle catches you and keeps inviting a boy over to feel him up.

If there were ANYTHING to this inborn error of metabolism business, there would be no need to fear seduction of young boys. But somehow we don't see parents being real accepting of child-porn-collecting male fifth-grade teachers, because they know it's not just inborn: it's how you learn to do sex.

Learning to do sex with the scoutmaster or math teacher is not a good route to getting any grandchildren from your son, and he'll disappear into a highly dysfunctional, strange "gay" community as well as not be able to reproduce normally.

Yurt

05-16-2008, 02:00 PM

i want to give a different take on the inter-racial marriage case and its importance than the one i gave yesterday:

i watched AC360 for a bit last night and the guy from some org that supports man/woman only marriage said that while perez v. sharp was important in overturning anti-interracial marriage laws, it did not alter the definition of marriage.

i thought that was a great point

Hagbard Celine

05-16-2008, 02:17 PM

Oops- there you go again. I thought being gay was not a choice?
:coffee:

How would you have termed it? I guess you've never heard the term used in examples such as "Of the black persuasion" or "Of the Asian persuasion." Next you'll be trying to convince me that blacks and asians chose their respective races. Please stop the idiocy.

And ONCE AGAIN: I do not follow a party line so stop trying to "catch" me not doing it.

glockmail

05-16-2008, 03:11 PM

How would you have termed it? I guess you've never heard the term used in examples such as "Of the black persuasion" or "Of the Asian persuasion." Next you'll be trying to convince me that blacks and asians chose their respective races. Please stop the idiocy.

And ONCE AGAIN: I do not follow a party line so stop trying to "catch" me not doing it.

The current politically correct term is "sexual orientation". This replaces the actually correct "sexual preference" because the queer lobby figured out that if they could convince everyone that they were all born queer, then they could get "equal rights".

So get with the program Hag. Your Party Line is that they were born queer, so stop messing up.

Hagbard Celine

05-16-2008, 04:15 PM

The current politically correct term is "sexual orientation". This replaces the actually correct "sexual preference" because the queer lobby figured out that if they could convince everyone that they were all born queer, then they could get "equal rights".

So get with the program Hag. Your Party Line is that they were born queer, so stop messing up.

Me no have party rine.

glockmail

05-16-2008, 04:16 PM

Me no have party rine. Making fun of Chinese now. Have you no shame?

Hagbard Celine

05-16-2008, 04:38 PM

Making fun of Chinese now. Have you no shame?

I wasn't making fun of Chinese I just thought it'd be fun to type my response in broken English and replace my "l's" with "r's" and visa versa :dunno:. You're pushing a strawman with that "making fun of Chinese" crap.

Missileman

05-16-2008, 04:46 PM

How would you have termed it? I guess you've never heard the term used in examples such as "Of the black persuasion" or "Of the Asian persuasion." Next you'll be trying to convince me that blacks and asians chose their respective races. Please stop the idiocy.

And ONCE AGAIN: I do not follow a party line so stop trying to "catch" me not doing it.

Funny that Ol Cupcake himself recenty admitted that some percentage of homosexuals are born that way and he's giving you shit about straying from the party line.

Hagbard Celine

05-16-2008, 04:49 PM

Funny that Ol Cupcake himself recenty admitted that some percentage of homosexuals are born that way and he's giving you shit about straying from the party line.

The thing is, I've never claimed to represent a party line. In my profile I've selected "Independent" as my political affiliation and I make-up my opinions based on my own thoughts on the issues. Frankly I'm a little insulted. But only Frankly. Otherwise I'm fine.

glockmail

05-16-2008, 04:55 PM

I wasn't making fun of Chinese I just thought it'd be fun to type my response in broken English and replace my "l's" with "r's" and visa versa :dunno:. You're pushing a strawman with that "making fun of Chinese" crap.
:laugh2: Touche!

glockmail

05-16-2008, 04:57 PM

The thing is, I've never claimed to represent a party line. In my profile I've selected "Independent" as my political affiliation and I make-up my opinions based on my own thoughts on the issues. Frankly I'm a little insulted. But only Frankly. Otherwise I'm fine. I'm not a party person either. I consider myself much more conservative than the GOP, in fact to the right of Rush.

You "little insult" should be looked at with respect to you calling me a racist without any basis.

Pale Rider

05-16-2008, 09:03 PM

actsnoblemartin

05-16-2008, 09:04 PM

hey its not my fault my state is gay :laugh2:

So kully-fornia took another step down the proverbial toilet towards immorality... so what's so surprising about that?

Kully-fornia is a cess pool of weirdos, degenerates, perverts, liberal moon bats, fruit cakes, homos and faggots. The state revels in it's perversions of morality and religion. Clearly, the devil has a firm foot hold in kullyfornia.

Yurt

05-16-2008, 09:08 PM

So kully-fornia took another step down the proverbial toilet towards immorality... so what's so surprising about that?

Kully-fornia is a cess pool of weirdos, degenerates, perverts, liberal moon bats, fruit cakes, illegal aliens, homos and faggots. The state revels in it's perversions of morality and religion. Clearly, the devil has a firm foot hold in kullyfornia.

actually, the court upheld the law, as written in the california constitution and applied by the judicial branch.

sure the opinion is laced with legislature from the bench, but that is the core reason the court was allowed to overturn the statute. do you not support the courts function in such a regard?

Pale Rider

05-16-2008, 09:31 PM

hey its not my fault my state is gay :laugh2:
I never said it was "happy," I said it was immoral and perverted, and under the obvious control of the devil.

actually, the court upheld the law, as written in the california constitution and applied by the judicial branch.

sure the opinion is laced with legislature from the bench, but that is the core reason the court was allowed to overturn the statute. do you not support the courts function in such a regard?
No. It's liberal, activist, kullyfornia judges legislating from the bench. We've seen it happen how many times now? It's no mystery. We know they do it, and they get away with it, even over the will of the people.

actsnoblemartin

05-16-2008, 09:34 PM

no i meant my state is immoral and stupid, not happy :P

I never said it was "happy," I said it was immoral and perverted.

No. It's liberal, activist, kullyfornia judges legislating from the bench. We've seen it happen how many times now? It's no mystery. We know they do it, and they get away with it, even over the will of the people.

Yurt

05-16-2008, 10:08 PM

I never said it was "happy," I said it was immoral and perverted, and under the obvious control of the devil.

No. It's liberal, activist, kullyfornia judges legislating from the bench. We've seen it happen how many times now? It's no mystery. We know they do it, and they get away with it, even over the will of the people.

so the judicial branch is not empowered to overturn statutes? what then is the judicial branch for?

manu1959

05-16-2008, 10:17 PM

I never said it was "happy," I said it was immoral and perverted, and under the obvious control of the devil.
No. It's liberal, activist, kullyfornia judges legislating from the bench. We've seen it happen how many times now? It's no mystery. We know they do it, and they get away with it, even over the will of the people.

they didn't legislate from the bench they ruled that the law as written is in violation under the california constitution's equal protection clause.....

Pale Rider

05-16-2008, 10:31 PM

so the judicial branch is not empowered to overturn statutes? what then is the judicial branch for?
To uphold the constitution.

they didn't legislate from the bench they ruled that the law as written is in violation under the california constitution's equal protection clause.....
That's legislating from the bench, because what was written was specific enough. What the they did in essence was say, "we don't like what it says, so we're going to rule what WE want it to say." What do you call that?

manu1959

05-16-2008, 10:38 PM

To uphold the constitution.

That's legislating from the bench, because what was written was specific enough. What the they did in essence was say, "we don't like what it says, so we're going to rule what WE want it to say." What do you call that?

no legislating from the bench would be writing a new law...they did not do that they said that the law as written was unconstitutional ......

for example if someone wrote a law that was voted in to outlaw guns......and the courts ruled that law unconstitutional would they be legislating from the bench....

Pale Rider

05-16-2008, 10:46 PM

no legislating from the bench would be writing a new law...they did not do that they said that the law as written was unconstitutional ......

for example if someone wrote a law that was voted in to outlaw guns......and the courts ruled that law unconstitutional would they be legislating from the bench....

You can dissect their actions until the cows come home pard, but the fact of the matter is, kullyfornia judges are liberals in favor of homosexual marriage, and one way or the other they're going to make it so. The means of which may be legal or not, i.e. this debate. But what it boils down to is, had the judges been conservative instead of liberal, this wouldn't have happened. Case in point, the liberal judges "interpret" what is written differently than conservatives would have in reference to homosexual marriage. Their interpretation favors their agenda.... thus legislating from the bench in their favor.

Yurt

05-16-2008, 10:53 PM

You can dissect their actions until the cows come home pard, but the fact of the matter is, kullyfornia judges are liberals in favor of homosexual marriage, and one way or the other they're going to make it so. The means of which may be legal or not, i.e. this debate. But what it boils down to is, had the judges been conservative instead of liberal, this wouldn't have happened. Case in point, the liberal judges "interpret" what is written differently than conservatives would have in reference to homosexual marriage.

the court ruled based on the CA const. like it or not, the CA const. gurantees equal rights to MARRY. . the const. of CA does not say, only opposite sex, it simply says the right to marry is a right and the court ruled accordingly.

that is why the court also said, in order to change this, the people need to change the const.

what do you disagree with about this process?

manu1959

05-16-2008, 10:55 PM

You can dissect their actions until the cows come home pard, but the fact of the matter is, kullyfornia judges are liberals in favor of homosexual marriage, and one way or the other they're going to make it so. The means of which may be legal or not, i.e. this debate. But what it boils down to is, had the judges been conservative instead of liberal, this wouldn't have happened. Case in point, the liberal judges "interpret" what is written differently than conservatives would have in reference to homosexual marriage. Their interpretation favors their agenda.... thus legislating from the bench in their favor.

actually the californian supreme court a majority rebublican court ....

Mr. P

05-16-2008, 11:14 PM

Holy cow 10 pages of law this, law that, legislation from the bench...please!

This decision made a legislative wrong right.
If you're heterosexual this doesn't affect your personal life at all. You just can't control someone else's life.

Pale Rider

05-16-2008, 11:50 PM

the court ruled based on the CA const. like it or not, the CA const. gurantees equal rights to MARRY. . the const. of CA does not say, only opposite sex, it simply says the right to marry is a right and the court ruled accordingly.

that is why the court also said, in order to change this, the people need to change the const.

what do you disagree with about this process?

actually the californian supreme court a majority rebublican court ....

Whatever it is according to the law, the people of kullyfornia voted against it, and the court is overturning it. So be it. Kullyfornia is just one more step into the proverbial toilet of immorality, and the destruction of the meaning of holy matrimony.