Maine says NO to queers

[jimnyc]

Another marriage state left up to a vote by the people and the 31st state to be shot down by the people. I can't wait to read all the whining today from the queers and how they live such a horrible life and they are discriminated against - even though the citizens have spoken out loudly once again - in a legal manner.


Dejection fills Maine ballroom after marriage vote


PORTLAND, Maine – Cecelia Burnett and Ann Swanson had already set their wedding date. When they joined about 1,000 other gay marriage supporters for an election night party in a Holiday Inn ballroom, they hoped to celebrate the vote that would make it possible.

Instead, they went home at midnight, dejected and near tears after a failed bid to make Maine the first state to approve same-sex marriage at the ballot box.

"I'm ready to start crying," said Burnett, a 58-year-old massage therapist, walking out of the ballroom with Swanson at her side. "I don't understand what the fear is, why people are so afraid of this change.

"It hurts. It hurts personally," she said. "It's a personal rejection of us and our relationship, and I don't understand what the fear is."

With 87 percent of precincts reporting, gay-marriage foes had 53 percent of the vote in a referendum that asked Maine voters whether they wanted to repeal a law allowing same-sex marriage that had passed the Legislature and was signed by Democratic Gov. John Baldacci.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gay_marriage_maine

[Sir Evil]

I guess MM will be looking for a new place to live. :laugh2:

[avatar4321]

Glad to see the people are still making the right choice. Problems come when the people arent.

[GW in Ohio]

jimnyc: I didn't know there were any homophobic troglodytes like you still around.

You ought to be in a museum, next to the exhibit about burning witches at the stake. (You aren't in favor of that, too, are you?)

[avatar4321]

What a surprise, cant win on the merits, so you resort to personal attacks.

[NightTrain]

I guess MM will be looking for a new place to live. :laugh2:

LOL!

:thumb:

[Little-Acorn]

I can't wait to read all the whining today from the queers and how they live such a horrible life and they are discriminated against -

In Washington state, they made a law explicitly granting all the same rights to same-sex couples that opposite sex couples had in marriage... EXCEPT that the same-sex union could not be called a marriage. Finally the gay advocates had a state where they could NOT be discriminated against, and had all the same rights. They only thing they didn't have, was the redefinition of the term "marriage".

They hated it.

They screamed and protested this law so much, that they finally put together a challenge on yesterday's ballot in Washington state, trying to get the law cancelled. Clearly, fully equal rights was NOT what they really wanted. They wanted to change the fundamental definition of marriage.

The ballot measure to reject the law, was voted down yesterday. So they still have fully equal rights as opposite-sex couples do in marriage... and their protests and hatred have not diminished even a little bit.

Never forget what these people really want: to force the rest of us to change the millenia-old definition of marriage.

[HogTrash]

I'm old enough to remember when homosexuals were considered deviant aberrations who were restricted to the gutters and dark allys.

Hollywood has brought these sickos out of the shadows and convinced many people that their disgusting perversions are normal and should be excepted.

They have even succeeded in influencing our children in the media, music, movies and even our public schools, that Gay is OK...Even cool.

Because of Political Correctness, many people live in fear of speaking out about what they know to be sick immoral perversion...See video below.

When these immoral depravities are excepted and glorified by the mainstream, it is an indication that civilization is on the decline, which is already quite obvious.

When will we learn to stop listening to the liberals?...Their only goal is to destroy everything decent and good...They openly display their hatred for the family, morality, religion and America.

Even dumb blonds know the danger of "political correctness".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17zfrVPJOA8&feature=related

[jimnyc]

jimnyc: I didn't know there were any homophobic troglodytes like you still around.

You ought to be in a museum, next to the exhibit about burning witches at the stake. (You aren't in favor of that, too, are you?)


Sure, I'm homophobic because I don't care for homosexual activities. I guess that means you're a faggot since you support it.

31 states have now voted to push away the queers. I think you'll need a much larger museum.

[Kathianne]

In Washington state, they made a law explicitly granting all the same rights to same-sex couples that opposite sex couples had in marriage... EXCEPT that the same-sex union could not be called a marriage. Finally the gay advocates had a state where they could NOT be discriminated against, and had all the same rights. They only thing they didn't have, was the redefinition of the term "marriage".

They hated it.

They screamed and protested this law so much, that they finally put together a challenge on yesterday's ballot in Washington state, trying to get the law cancelled. Clearly, fully equal rights was NOT what they really wanted. They wanted to change the fundamental definition of marriage.

The ballot measure to reject the law, was voted down yesterday. So they still have fully equal rights as opposite-sex couples do in marriage... and their protests and hatred have not diminished even a little bit.

Never forget what these people really want: to force the rest of us to change the millenia-old definition of marriage.

Yep, they don't want 'equal rights', they want extraordinary rights.

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

Sure, I'm homophobic because I don't care for homosexual activities. I guess that means you're a faggot since you support it.

31 states have now voted to push away the queers. I think you'll need a much larger museum.

Isn't it funny how GW and his queer Buddy's think were the minority? GET A CLUE MORON 31-0 speaks for it self no body wants your perverted sick life style defined as a Marriage :dance:

[gabosaurus]

Supporting gay rights doesn't make you gay. That's like saying that supporting gun laws makes you in favor of criminals owning guns.
Now Jim and his evil brother posting the same thought at pretty much the same time...hmmm, who knows how that came about...

http://i38.tinypic.com/5zfvye.jpg

[avatar4321]

Supporting gay rights doesn't make you gay. That's like saying that supporting gun laws makes you in favor of criminals owning guns.
Now Jim and his evil brother posting the same thought at pretty much the same time...hmmm, who knows how that came about...


Yeah, which is why they said that because opposing gay marriage doesnt make you a homophobe, which is the freaking point of the comparison.

[jimnyc]

Supporting gay rights doesn't make you gay. That's like saying that supporting gun laws makes you in favor of criminals owning guns.
Now Jim and his evil brother posting the same thought at pretty much the same time...hmmm, who knows how that came about...

Well, if supporting gay rights doesn't make one gay, then opposing extended rights to gays certainly doesn't mean that I fear them. If I oppose health care reform, does that make me a "healthaphobic"? Too many libs reply with the same homophobia crap, and it's laughable that not a one of them even understands what they are saying.

Blast me all you like for feeling disgust towards queers, but accusing me of being afraid of them is preposterous.

[sgtdmski]

In Washington state, they made a law explicitly granting all the same rights to same-sex couples that opposite sex couples had in marriage... EXCEPT that the same-sex union could not be called a marriage. Finally the gay advocates had a state where they could NOT be discriminated against, and had all the same rights. They only thing they didn't have, was the redefinition of the term "marriage".

They hated it.

They screamed and protested this law so much, that they finally put together a challenge on yesterday's ballot in Washington state, trying to get the law cancelled. Clearly, fully equal rights was NOT what they really wanted. They wanted to change the fundamental definition of marriage.

The ballot measure to reject the law, was voted down yesterday. So they still have fully equal rights as opposite-sex couples do in marriage... and their protests and hatred have not diminished even a little bit.

Never forget what these people really want: to force the rest of us to change the millenia-old definition of marriage.

Actually the same is true in California. Same Sex couples under the Family Law Code are granted all the same rights as married couples. Only in California, a Constitutional Amendment denies them the right of the use of the word marriage.

When all the debate about the prop in California was going on, I made this point over and over again. It has never been about rights, it has always been about changing the meaning of the word marriage.

The Gays, Fags, Homos, or whatever you want to call them are not interested in fighting for their own rights, their only interest is to change the traditional meaning of the word marriage from the union of one man and one woman to the union of one person with another person.

Their lies are not passing the test of the people.

Considering the fact that the SCOTUS and its more liberal members have established as stare decisis the idea of changing standards of decency under the eighth amendment DOMA, and any other State Constitutional Amendment forbidding same sex marriage will ever be granted certiorari. For if they did, they would either have to follow the law that they established, or abandon it. If they abandon it, then they would have to revisit several decisions.

The liberal members of the Court live in fear of their positions, for if they ever had to reverse themselves, then they would have to admit to the public that they do not rely upon the law for their decisions, but rather their opinions, in fact showing that they have no right to be on the court.

dmk

[Sir Evil]

Supporting gay rights doesn't make you gay. That's like saying that supporting gun laws makes you in favor of criminals owning guns.
Now Jim and his evil brother posting the same thought at pretty much the same time...hmmm, who knows how that came about...

http://i38.tinypic.com/5zfvye.jpg


gabogeekgirl, how did you come to the conclusion that we posted the same thought? Seriously, does supporting the empty space between your ears make you a liberal?

Arghhh, just see mmy avatar.... nuff said..

[YamiB.]

In Washington state, they made a law explicitly granting all the same rights to same-sex couples that opposite sex couples had in marriage... EXCEPT that the same-sex union could not be called a marriage. Finally the gay advocates had a state where they could NOT be discriminated against, and had all the same rights. They only thing they didn't have, was the redefinition of the term "marriage".

They hated it.

They screamed and protested this law so much, that they finally put together a challenge on yesterday's ballot in Washington state, trying to get the law cancelled. Clearly, fully equal rights was NOT what they really wanted. They wanted to change the fundamental definition of marriage.

The ballot measure to reject the law, was voted down yesterday. So they still have fully equal rights as opposite-sex couples do in marriage... and their protests and hatred have not diminished even a little bit.

Never forget what these people really want: to force the rest of us to change the millenia-old definition of marriage.

I don't know where you're getting your information, but the domestic partnership law was opposed by anti-homosexual groups. http://protectmarriagewa.com/

I would of course expect gay-rights advocates to push for more since anybody with even a simple understanding of US history should understand that separate but equal is not equal.

It's funny that you think that marriage has the same definition that it did thousands much less hundreds of years ago.

Edit -

As for Maine this vote was obviously horrible, minority rights should not be left to a simple majority vote. I'm secure in the knowledge that the bigots are on the wrong side of history and they will be placed in the same category of as their anti-miscegenation brethren.

[YamiB.]

Yeah, which is why they said that because opposing gay marriage doesnt make you a homophobe, which is the freaking point of the comparison.

Well there is a pretty good chance that people who are against gay marriage are against homosexuals. The other option is that they lack the necessary mental faculties to distinguish valid arguments from false ones. This is based on the fact that there is no valid argument against same-sex marriage.

[Nukeman]

Well there is a pretty good chance that people who are against gay marriage are against homosexuals. The other option is that they lack the necessary mental faculties to distinguish valid arguments from false ones. This is based on the fact that there is no valid argument against same-sex marriage.

and yet they continue to use a term such as "homophobic" which literaly means afraid of. Most who are opposed to homosexual activity are not "afraid" of it but don't condone it!!!!!!

So who is not using a "valid" argument???????

[YamiB.]

and yet they continue to use a term such as "homophobic" which literaly means afraid of. Most who are opposed to homosexual activity are not "afraid" of it but don't condone it!!!!!!

So who is not using a "valid" argument???????

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobia
irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

The definition has evolved over time to include more than just fear for the word homophobia. Though I don't personally like the phrase so I typically will just use bigot.

To answer your second question it is still those opposed to same-sex marriage.

[Nukeman]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobia
irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

The definition has evolved over time to include more than just fear for the word homophobia. Though I don't personally like the phrase so I typically will just use bigot.

To answer your second question it is still those opposed to same-sex marriage.
It has only "evolved" over time because of the bastardization of "phobic".

Why should it be called a "marriage"? Why push for that word?? What majical meaning does it hold for homsexuals??????

[YamiB.]

It has only "evolved" over time because of the bastardization of "phobic".

Why should it be called a "marriage"? Why push for that word?? What majical meaning does it hold for homsexuals??????

Homosexuals want equality, setting up a separate institution is not true equality. What reason is there to not allow same-sex couples to marry?

[avatar4321]

Homosexuals want equality, setting up a separate institution is not true equality. What reason is there to not allow same-sex couples to marry?

Because no matter how many times you call a dog a cat, he is still a dog. They want to completely redefine a word that has had the same meaning for millinia. You cant do that through judicial fiat. And you sure as heck force it on people. Words mean something.

No one is stopping same sex couples from being together. Heck, they can even say they are married if it makes them feel better. But it doesnt mean the government has an obligation to recognize that union. There is no compelling reason to. The relationship doesnt benefit society or civilization in the slightest. Quite the opposite. Nor does it mean other people need to accept attempts to redefine marriage.

Scream as loud as you want, get as many judges to rule in your favor as you can, usurp the power of the people, you will never make a dog into a cat. You will never make a square round. It's impossible.

[YamiB.]

Because no matter how many times you call a dog a cat, he is still a dog. They want to completely redefine a word that has had the same meaning for millinia. You cant do that through judicial fiat. And you sure as heck force it on people. Words mean something.

This ignores that marriage has been socially and legally redefined various times. For legal redefinition there is legalization of interracial marriage in the 1960s. For social change there is the move away from arranged marriages, dowries, and marriages related to alliances between families.



No one is stopping same sex couples from being together. Heck, they can even say they are married if it makes them feel better. But it doesnt mean the government has an obligation to recognize that union. There is no compelling reason to. The relationship doesnt benefit society or civilization in the slightest. Quite the opposite. Nor does it mean other people need to accept attempts to redefine marriage.


Same-sex people are not claiming that they are being kept apart. They are being treated unequally because they are not allowed to marry, which for opposite-sex couples is an option that gives them various rights and privileges as a couple.


Scream as loud as you want, get as many judges to rule in your favor as you can, usurp the power of the people, you will never make a dog into a cat. You will never make a square round. It's impossible.

Likewise I expect you to continually ignore reality and the historical facts that contradict the view you have presented.

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. More reason's Americas best days are long gone.
2. Fags want equality.
3. This is totally immoral.
4. Even cults and heatherns can see this leads to a dead end.
5. We will all suffer as a people, or nation, even more if theses fags ever get their way.


Regrards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Trigg]

Well there is a pretty good chance that people who are against gay marriage are against homosexuals. The other option is that they lack the necessary mental faculties to distinguish valid arguments from false ones. This is based on the fact that there is no valid argument against same-sex marriage.

So our current President and Vice President are lacking necessary mental faculties. Glad I didn't vote for him.:laugh2:

Only in your little world are people bigots because they are against gay marriage.

If gays could have all the benefits of being a couple why would they want the definition of marriage to be changed??? There is no logical reason for them to want this.

[YamiB.]

So our current President and Vice President are lacking necessary mental faculties. Glad I didn't vote for him.:laugh2:

Yes, they're definitely horribly wrong on this topic. Of course the opposition was even more wrong so you choose the better of two bad choices.



Only in your little world are people bigots because they are against gay marriage.


I provided two options because of the fact that there is no valid argument against it. Either they are fooled by poor arguments like mentioned above or they simply hate gay people. Is there another option you would like to add?


If gays could have all the benefits of being a couple why would they want the definition of marriage to be changed??? There is no logical reason for them to want this.
Again, anybody with a knowledge of US history should have learned that separate, but equal is not equal. I already pointed out the problems with the argument that same-sex marriage should not be allowed because of definition.

[Trigg]

QUOTE=YamiB.Yes, they're definitely horribly wrong on this topic. Of course the opposition was even more wrong so you choose the better of two bad choices.
So your guy is lacking mental faculties, good to know.


I provided two options because of the fact that there is no valid argument against it. Either they are fooled by poor arguments like mentioned above or they simply hate gay people. Is there another option you would like to add?

That's your opinion. My opinion is that people who are against gay marriage aren't bigots, they simply want to uphold marriage as between a man and a woman.

Again, anybody with a knowledge of US history should have learned that separate, but equal is not equal. I already pointed out the problems with the argument that same-sex marriage should not be allowed because of definition.

It is completely equal. What exactly is unequal about gays having the same exact rights as everyone else with a civil union???

You have provided no good arguments other than your oppinion that people must hate gays if they're against same sex marriage. How do you even know that most (non militant) gays want to change the definition of marriage?

[YamiB.]

So your guy is lacking mental faculties, good to know.

Yes, it is a failing of most prominent politicians. They may be smart, but they're out of touch with the people and they're out of touch with reality.



That's your opinion. My opinion is that people who are against gay marriage aren't bigots, they simply want to uphold marriage as between a man and a woman.

And if they want to uphold marriage between a man and a woman either they have accepted false arguments showing the lacking mental faculties.


It is completely equal. What exactly is unequal about gays having the same exact rights as everyone else with a civil union???

If they are completely equal what reason is there to have them separate?


You have provided no good arguments other than your oppinion that people must hate gays if they're against same sex marriage. How do you even know that most (non militant) gays want to change the definition of marriage?

Well actually it involves more than gay people its about gay rights supporters who are pushing for same-sex marriage. Much like the civil rights movement in the 1960s you don't need to be part of the minority group you are trying to help in order to push for their rights.

And actually you're misrepresenting me. I either said that if somebody is against same-sex marriage either they're bigoted against homosexuals or they lack the necessary mental capabilities to differentiate between valid and invalid arguments.

You still have not provided any reason to think otherwise.

[jimnyc]

I either said that if somebody is against same-sex marriage either they're bigoted against homosexuals or they lack the necessary mental capabilities to differentiate between valid and invalid arguments.

You can call me a bigot, stupid, racist, homophobe, tyrant and any other thing you can possibly think of - it will NEVER change my stance against the filth. Did you ever think for a moment that I don't NEED an argument? I'll vote any damn way I please, and no amount of name calling will change that either. I simply detest the filth displayed by queers. I do not need an argument above and beyond that.

So the queer supporters can complain and call names all they like - but marriage supporters aren't budging on this one.

Call me a bigot or a homophobe while you digest the fact that 31 states in a row have shot down the queers when put to a vote by the people.

[YamiB.]

You can call me a bigot, stupid, racist, homophobe, tyrant and any other thing you can possibly think of - it will NEVER change my stance against the filth. Did you ever think for a moment that I don't NEED an argument? I'll vote any damn way I please, and no amount of name calling will change that either. I simply detest the filth displayed by queers. I do not need an argument above and beyond that.

So the queer supporters can complain and call names all they like - but marriage supporters aren't budging on this one.

Call me a bigot or a homophobe while you digest the fact that 31 states in a row have shot down the queers when put to a vote by the people.

Yes, of course being with the majority means your right. It's not like people who supported anti-miscegenation laws were racist while they held the majority.

I don't know how I would tell if you're racist from you statements here. But you're certainly bigoted and would fit the current definition of homophobe. I would also consider somebody who votes on something without any reason stupid.

[jimnyc]

Yes, of course being with the majority means your right. It's not like people who supported anti-miscegenation laws were racist while they held the majority.

I don't know how I would tell if you're racist from you statements here. But you're certainly bigoted and would fit the current definition of homophobe. I would also consider somebody who votes on something without any reason stupid.

That's the beauty of a democracy - even though you continue with your name calling, I am still standing against queers and will still vote the same way. I don't care about the majority or minority - I would vote the same way if I were the only person on Earth who thought they needed medical help instead of rewarding their filth with additional benefits and rights.

You say my stance is without reason, I disagree, and I need not have an argument to your liking to keep my stance. Call me ignorant too if you like and draw pictures of me with a swastika and a klan cap - I don't care - and queers will still be filth no matter how much you try and make me out to be whatever flavor of name you wish to call me.

[bullypulpit]

Why not a voter referendum in Maine on banning lobsta? After all, according to the Book of Leviticus, eating shellfish IS an abomination, as is wearing cotton-poly blends. And if the religious right wing-nuts that oppose same-gender marriage are going to use the Bible as their ultimate and absolute guide to morality, they cannot pick and choose which precepts they wish to follow.

Or perhaps a voter referendum to ban divorce, if they're REALLY interested in protecting the sanctity of the institution of traditional marriage. Of course, past divorces would have to be grand-fathered in. Personally, I'd like to see these miscreants forced back into marriage to their former spouses. Nothing like being forced into a loveless, soul-sucking, sham of a marriage. Heh. :coffee:

[jimnyc]

Why not a voter referendum in Maine on banning lobsta? After all, according to the Book of Leviticus, eating shellfish IS an abomination, as is wearing cotton-poly blends. And if the religious right wing-nuts that oppose same-gender marriage are going to use the Bible as their ultimate and absolute guide to morality, they cannot pick and choose which precepts they wish to follow.

I certainly don't use the Bible or any religious belief in my thinking. But if Maine wants a referendum on banning lobster, have at it! But don't make this into 100% a religion thing, MANY MANY people are opposed simply because they don't want society filled with perverse filth. Other than here on this forum, everyone I know is against it and they never mention the Bible.


Or perhaps a voter referendum to ban divorce, if they're REALLY interested in protecting the sanctity of the institution of traditional marriage. Of course, past divorces would have to be grand-fathered in. Personally, I'd like to see these miscreants forced back into marriage to their former spouses. Nothing like being forced into a loveless, soul-sucking, sham of a marriage. Heh. :coffee:

Gotta admit, giggled a little when I read this. I DO think the organizations against gay marriage should also make some moves towards doing what they can to prevent divorces, which has completely gotten out of hand. People divorce these days like its tossing away a pair of pants and buying a new pair. I have enough issues in my marriage but outright refuse to ever get divorced. Saw it with my parents, my eldest brother, my sister & my other brother. I don't have the answer, but some of these people probably should have never been married in the first place.

But anyway, just because divorce rates are so high, that doesn't mean we should allow ANYONE to get married and make a further mockery of such a religious union. I said it in the beginning and I'll say it again - give the queers civil unions with 100% of the benefits that straight couples get when married. This way "marriage" is protected, and queers get the protection and benefits they desire.

But - how much you wanna bet that the more they get regarding civil unions, the more they press for marriage.

[Kathianne]

I certainly don't use the Bible or any religious belief in my thinking. But if Maine wants a referendum on banning lobster, have at it! But don't make this into 100% a religion thing, MANY MANY people are opposed simply because they don't want society filled with perverse filth. Other than here on this forum, everyone I know is against it and they never mention the Bible.



Gotta admit, giggled a little when I read this. I DO think the organizations against gay marriage should also make some moves towards doing what they can to prevent divorces, which has completely gotten out of hand. People divorce these days like its tossing away a pair of pants and buying a new pair. I have enough issues in my marriage but outright refuse to ever get divorced. Saw it with my parents, my eldest brother, my sister & my other brother. I don't have the answer, but some of these people probably should have never been married in the first place.

But anyway, just because divorce rates are so high, that doesn't mean we should allow ANYONE to get married and make a further mockery of such a religious union. I said it in the beginning and I'll say it again - give the queers civil unions with 100% of the benefits that straight couples get when married. This way "marriage" is protected, and queers get the protection and benefits they desire.

But - how much you wanna bet that the more they get regarding civil unions, the more they press for marriage.

I'm against 'gay marriage' not because of rights, but rather for extraordinary rights. There is a demand for recognition that defiles the institution. With that said, haven't any issue with all legal rights and benefits being given. The issue to me isn't bible based, but rather fairness based.

I'm for a shrinking of government in the bedroom, work place, and pocketbook, not an expansion.

[bullypulpit]

I'm against 'gay marriage' not because of rights, but rather for extraordinary rights. There is a demand for recognition that defiles the institution. With that said, haven't any issue with all legal rights and benefits being given. The issue to me isn't bible based, but rather fairness based.

I'm for a shrinking of government in the bedroom, work place, and pocketbook, not an expansion.

How, praytell, does allowing same gender couples to marry "defile the institution"? How does wanting to cement the bond between oneself ant the one you love "defile the institution"?

The ONLY interest the state has in marriage lies in the contractual relationship it establishes between the individuals involved...property ownership, child care, survivorship benefits, estate probate, and more. All else is moot. Only the insistence of those for whom personal belief dictates that same-gender couples are somehow anathema continues to drive this pointless debate.

The Maine decision stripped rights, already granted by the state, to a class of individuals for no better reason than "It's so icky!" If women's suffrage or the abolition of Jim Crowe laws had been left to popular vote, neither would have been achieved when they were. For the rights of a minority, any minority, to be subject to the whim of the majority is the very definition of "tyranny of the majority".

[Kathianne]

How, praytell, does allowing same gender couples to marry "defile the institution"? How does wanting to cement the bond between oneself ant the one you love "defile the institution"?

The ONLY interest the state has in marriage lies in the contractual relationship it establishes between the individuals involved...property ownership, child care, survivorship benefits, estate probate, and more. All else is moot. Only the insistence of those for whom personal belief dictates that same-gender couples are somehow anathema continues to drive this pointless debate.

The Maine decision stripped rights, already granted by the state, to a class of individuals for no better reason than "It's so icky!" If women's suffrage or the abolition of Jim Crowe laws had been left to popular vote, neither would have been achieved when they were. For the rights of a minority, any minority, to be subject to the whim of the majority is the very definition of "tyranny of the majority".

What rights were 'stripped'? How is the state prevented from ensuring its enforcements of what you said were its interests?

[bullypulpit]

What rights were 'stripped'? How is the state prevented from ensuring its enforcements of what you said were its interests?

Just because you asked...

<center><a href=http://www.hrc.org/issues/5478.htm>Rights and Protections Denied Same-Sex Partners</a></center>

<center><a href=http://revcom.us/a/051/same-sex-couples.html>Same-Sex Couples: Denied Basic Rights</a></center>

<center><a href=http://www.angelfire.com/home/leah/index.html>In Defense of Gay Marriage</a></center>

<center><a href=http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/03/benefits_denied.html>Benefits Denied</a></center>

At last count, dear lady, some 1138 rights accorded to traditional married couples under federal law are denied same-gender couples, even if the sates they live in allow same gender couples to marry.

"Because it's icky!" is no valid reason to continue to insist on denying same-gender couples the right to enter into the institution of marriage and enjoy all the rights and responsibilities, joys and sorrows, which that institution carries with it.

[mrg666]

I guess MM will be looking for a new place to live. :laugh2:

You know you took the words out of my mouth , but you put it a lot nicer than i would have :)

[Kathianne]

Just because you asked...

<center><a href=http://www.hrc.org/issues/5478.htm>Rights and Protections Denied Same-Sex Partners</a></center>

<center><a href=http://revcom.us/a/051/same-sex-couples.html>Same-Sex Couples: Denied Basic Rights</a></center>

<center><a href=http://www.angelfire.com/home/leah/index.html>In Defense of Gay Marriage</a></center>

<center><a href=http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/03/benefits_denied.html>Benefits Denied</a></center>

At last count, dear lady, some 1138 rights accorded to traditional married couples under federal law are denied same-gender couples, even if the sates they live in allow same gender couples to marry.

"Because it's icky!" is no valid reason to continue to insist on denying same-gender couples the right to enter into the institution of marriage and enjoy all the rights and responsibilities, joys and sorrows, which that institution carries with it.

Seems dealing with SSI is a better, quicker answer which would not fool with state's rights.

[Sir Evil]

The whole argument is total bullshit! Why not allow people to marry their pets next and afford them the same rights, I mean afterall the little bastards are expensive to take to the vets office and if we are going to recognize these unions as equals we may as well save a buck along the way....:rolleyes:

[LiberalNation]

the state battles aren't the way to go. Civil rights would never have passed if put up for a peoples vote in individual states.

[bullypulpit]

The whole argument is total bullshit! Why not allow people to marry their pets next and afford them the same rights, I mean afterall the little bastards are expensive to take to the vets office and if we are going to recognize these unions as equals we may as well save a buck along the way....:rolleyes:

The dumbass attack you tried to pawn off as a post is total, unadulterated, bullshit. What occurs between two consenting adults, regardless of gender, is of no interest to the state so long as no demonstrable harm comes to either party. And those are the key words..."consenting adults"...neither of which one's pet is. That insipid argument doesn't improve with use and simply reveals a profound lack of intellectual ability on the part of those who resort to it.

You sir, are an idiot.

[Luna Tick]

HogTrash:
Our children will suffer what we have aloud to happen. ...

Hollywood has brought these sickos out of the shadows and convinced many people that their disgusting perversions are normal and should be excepted. ...

When these immoral depravities are excepted and glorified by the mainstream, it is an indication that civilization is on the decline, which is already quite obvious.

HogTrash, you could benefit from googling and reading up on "homonym errors."

[bullypulpit]

HogTrash, you could benefit from googling and reading up on "homonym errors."

:laugh2:

[Sir Evil]

The dumbass attack you tried to pawn off as a post is total, unadulterated, bullshit. What occurs between two consenting adults, regardless of gender, is of no interest to the state so long as no demonstrable harm comes to either party. And those are the key words..."consenting adults"...neither of which one's pet is. That insipid argument doesn't improve with use and simply reveals a profound lack of intellectual ability on the part of those who resort to it.

You sir, are an idiot.

Well another typical yet condescending leftist post...:uhoh:

My point was it's not always a reason of religion that people see the marriage of gay people as being wrong but of course as a bullyleftistpuppet it's what you bring to the table.

Now if two guys wanna get to cornholing the night away thats their business and I could give a damn less. If they want to be recognized in some sort of legal union I could give a damn less. When they want to be recognized as equals and enjoy the same benefits as the traditional couple is what I find a problem with. Why should they be afforded the same benefits? If so then why not allow other untraditional unions if it should all be treated equal and afforded the same benefits?



What occurs between two consenting adults, regardless of gender, is of no interest to the state so long as no demonstrable harm comes to either party.


Again, this is not a problem for many and if state truly had interest in it that deep then why not pass laws so that gays will be punished if caught? Perhaps it's not the government trying to take over your pathetic little piece of heaven or corrupt your harmonious balance of things, maybe it's just something thats best left to legal unions of another kind.

It's MY opinon that these unions shouldn't be afforded the benfits of a traditional couple. If it's your opinion that they should then go live somewhere that allows it.

[HogTrash]

HogTrash, you could benefit from googling and reading up on "homonym errors." Does this mean you did not understand the messege I was attempting to covey?

Or are you simply establishing your intellectual superiority over the lowly Hog?

Are you by chance a liberal?...Do you practice the liberal double standard?

In other words, do you ever correct the language of negroes when they communicate in ebonics?

Now back to the subject...

My admittedly outdated reasoning tells me that two men butt-humping each other and slobbering all over each others willywackers is a sick disgusting perversion and 2+2=4 not 5.

Trying to convince me that it's not is an exersize in futility and before you start correcting my spelling, I am aware it is horrindous and I never use spell-check cuz I couldn't care less.

[HogTrash]

The left, with the implementation of political correctness, has managed to convince many Americans, including the young, that homosexuality is perfectly normal and should be accepted.

NAMBLA is now attempting to do the same with adults having sexual relations with children...Next they will be promoting beastiality and protesting for the right to marry your pet or a farm animal.

Remember, you heard it first, right here on WHOG. :salute:

[Sir Evil]

The left, with the implementation of political correctness, has managed to convince many Americans, including the young, that homosexuality is perfectly normal and should be accepted.

NAMBLA is now attempting to do the same with adults having sexual relations with children...Next they will be promoting beastiality and protesting for the right to marry your pet or a farm animal.

Remember, you heard it first, right here on WHOG. :salute:

Totally agree!

[bullypulpit]

The left, with the implementation of political correctness, has managed to convince many Americans, including the young, that homosexuality is perfectly normal and should be accepted.

NAMBLA is now attempting to do the same with adults having sexual relations with children...Next they will be promoting beastiality and protesting for the right to marry your pet or a farm animal.

Remember, you heard it first, right here on WHOG. :salute:

This dumbass argument, another iteration of SirEvil's dumbass argument ignores a very basic fact, neither a pet, nor a farm animal has, nor can they have, the same legal capacity of an adult man or woman.

Suppose you, HogTrash, marry that ewe that caught your eye as you were out catching bugs in your teeth. Would she be on your insurance card? Would she be able to visit you in the hospital? Should you divorce her would she share joint custody of your children that you may have adopted? Should you suddenly die after some dumbass cager leaves you greasy smear on the highway because they didn't see you on your hawg, how will the ewe manage as executor of your estate and legal parent to any children you may have adopted? This sounds ridiculous because it is. A ewe IS NOT a woman, and could never be given the same legal capacity as a woman.

Marriage is a legal institution established for the protection of both of the individuals involved regarding wealth and combining wealth, fair division of that wealth on dissolution of the marriage, hospital visitation, benefits, child care and more. And that is the state's only interest in marriage...the contractual relationship is establishes between consenting parties. the gender of the parties is irrelevant.

You spew about NAMBLA is just that...spew. The DSMV dropped homosexuality from its pages more than 25 years ago. The reason being that aside form their sexuality, homosexuals showed little...if any...difference from straight folks in one peer reviewed psychological study after another. Pedophilia remains in the DSMV because it is a disorder irrespective of the sexuality of the perpetrator. Most pedophiles, in fact, have no adult sexual orientation, either homo or hetero sexual.

But don't let facts stand in the way of your and SirEvil's ignorance.

[Sir Evil]

This dumbass argument, another iteration of SirEvil's dumbass argument ignores a very basic fact, neither a pet, nor a farm animal has, nor can they have, the same legal capacity of an adult man or woman.


Of course it would have to be a dumbass argument, nevermind the fact that it's an opinion but being an opinion you don't agree with it has to come down to being dumbass.

It would be ignorant to think a pet or farm animal could reproduce with a human but then again the same could be said for the same sex couple so why should they be afforded the same insurance coverage as the standard couple?

Just because someone has an opinion against same sex marriage does not always indicate a point of religion as you would like to claim. It's truly ignorant on your behalf to try to force an issue on someone when it's strictly an opinion based point but then it's always been the same with you when it comes to opinions on a subject especially if it is not the same point of view that you share.

Just because you handle dirty male spinchters on the daily basis and likely have grown used to it probably even enjoy the quick once over of it doesn't mean it should be the norm for everybody. Get back to cleaning those bed pans and accept that there are others that don't agree with your views...

[HogTrash]

This dumbass argument, another iteration of SirEvil's dumbass argument ignores a very basic fact, neither a pet, nor a farm animal has, nor can they have, the same legal capacity of an adult man or woman.True!.....Marital rights and priviledges are still restricted to a human spouse of the opposite sex.


Suppose you, HogTrash, marry that ewe that caught your eye as you were out catching bugs in your teeth. Would she be on your insurance card? Would she be able to visit you in the hospital? Should you divorce her would she share joint custody of your children that you may have adopted? Should you suddenly die after some dumbass cager leaves you greasy smear on the highway because they didn't see you on your hawg, how will the ewe manage as executor of your estate and legal parent to any children you may have adopted? This sounds ridiculous because it is. A ewe IS NOT a woman, and could never be given the same legal capacity as a woman.Just like homosexuals, before long those who practice beastiality will be fighting for the same rights as traditional man-woman marriages.

In case you haven't been paying attention, if we give perversion an inch, political correctness will demand we give it a mile.


Marriage is a legal institution established for the protection of both of the individuals involved regarding wealth and combining wealth, fair division of that wealth on dissolution of the marriage, hospital visitation, benefits, child care and more. And that is the state's only interest in marriage...the contractual relationship is establishes between consenting parties. the gender of the parties is irrelevant.Not according to the law.....Read your own links, einstein;

Rights and Protections Denied Same-Sex Partners
http://www.hrc.org/issues/5478.htm
Same-Sex Couples: Denied Basic Rights
http://revcom.us/a/051/same-sex-couples.html
In Defense of Gay Marriage
http://www.angelfire.com/home/leah/index.html
Benefits Denied
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/03/benefits_denied.html

The guy that's been humping your butt has been banging your brains into the headboard to hard, cupcake.


You spew about NAMBLA is just that...spew. The DSMV dropped homosexuality from its pages more than 25 years ago. The reason being that aside form their sexuality, homosexuals showed little...if any...difference from straight folks in one peer reviewed psychological study after another. Pedophilia remains in the DSMV because it is a disorder irrespective of the sexuality of the perpetrator. Most pedophiles, in fact, have no adult sexual orientation, either homo or hetero sexual.

But don't let facts stand in the way of your and SirEvil's ignorance.
Perversion is perversion, regardless of what form it takes when it sticks it's ugly head out of the gutter.


The DSMV dropped homosexuality from its pages more than 25 years ago. The reason being that aside form their sexuality, homosexuals showed little...if any...difference from straight folks in one peer reviewed psychological study after another.The only litmus test used in these studies was Political Correctness and all political correctness is based on lies.

You can spray paint a pile of shit the colors of the rainbow and douse it with perfume, but it's still just a pile of shit.

[jimnyc]

This dumbass argument, another iteration of SirEvil's dumbass argument ignores a very basic fact, neither a pet, nor a farm animal has, nor can they have, the same legal capacity of an adult man or woman.

What if relatives decide they want to get married? Are they not adults with the legal capacity to make decisions? They wouldn't be harming anyone. If there's a chance that a child could be born with issues - is that any different than a "regular" couple knowing ahead of time that their child will have issues, and having the child anyway? So what harm could their be to society to stop relatives from marrying?

[bullypulpit]

What if relatives decide they want to get married? Are they not adults with the legal capacity to make decisions? They wouldn't be harming anyone. If there's a chance that a child could be born with issues - is that any different than a "regular" couple knowing ahead of time that their child will have issues, and having the child anyway? So what harm could their be to society to stop relatives from marrying?


Just another iteration of Hawg Trash's and SirEvil's retarded bestiality arguments, Jimmy. There are good and valid reasons for laws against incest...just look at Britain's royal family. Never mind the demonstrable psychological harm caused by the act.

Where same-gender couples are permitted to marry, both in the US and abroad, aside from the gender of the spouses, there is little documented difference between the married couples. And, no instances of any of them being married to their pets, farm animals, brothers or sisters.

<center><a href=http://ww2.cox.com/myconnection/kansas/today/news/national/article.cox?moduleType=apNews&articleId=D9BNP59G0>UCLA study: Gay spouses similar to heterosexual married couples in age, income, parenting</a></center>

Face it Jimmy, the arguments against same gender marriage boil down to 2 basic categories. The "its a sin" category, relies on nothing more than religious dogma. The "its so icky!" category is based on nothing more than prejudice and ignorance. In neither case do the arguments provide solid ground for legalized discrimination against same-gender couples.

[bullypulpit]

True!.....Marital rights and priviledges are still restricted to a human spouse of the opposite sex.

Just like homosexuals, before long those who practice beastiality will be fighting for the same rights as traditional man-woman marriages.

In case you haven't been paying attention, if we give perversion an inch, political correctness will demand we give it a mile.

Not according to the law.....Read your own links, einstein;

Rights and Protections Denied Same-Sex Partners
http://www.hrc.org/issues/5478.htm
Same-Sex Couples: Denied Basic Rights
http://revcom.us/a/051/same-sex-couples.html
In Defense of Gay Marriage
http://www.angelfire.com/home/leah/index.html
Benefits Denied
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/03/benefits_denied.html

The guy that's been humping your butt has been banging your brains into the headboard to hard, cupcake.


Perversion is perversion, regardless of what form it takes when it sticks it's ugly head out of the gutter.

The only litmus test used in these studies was Political Correctness and all political correctness is based on lies.

You can spray paint a pile of shit the colors of the rainbow and douse it with perfume, but it's still just a pile of shit.

Well, golly "cup-cake" that 350lb bull faggot you shared a cell with musta really pounded your head against a wall every time he bent you over the bottom bunk. You seem fortunate t have more than two neurons left to rub together.

As I stated previously, the APA dropped homosexuality from the DSMV more than 25 years ago, not on a whim, but because study after study showed little, if any, difference between the psychological health of homo and heterosexuals. Political correctness had nothing to do with it, just demonstrable, repeatable, independently verifiable research. Now, unless you're willing to go out on a limb and have it cut off behind you, the logical extension of the fallacy you call an argument would be that all sexual acts between consenting adults are acts of perversion. But that's your argument reductio ad absurdum.

Dismissed.

[Sir Evil]

Face it Jimmy, the arguments against same gender marriage boil down to 2 basic categories. The "its a sin" category, relies on nothing more than religious dogma. The "its so icky!" category is based on nothing more than prejudice and ignorance. In neither case do the arguments provide solid ground for legalized discrimination against same-gender couples.

What it boils down to is opinion, you have one and other have one as well. Your opinion of "I'm right and here is why" comes with the typical condescension of almost every post you make, and almost always a negative comment directed to conservative point of view. Thats good for you but sure shows your own prejudice ways.

If you wanna defend your precious leftist views thats fine but you point to two topics as to why the argument doesn't fly in your view, religion & prejudice. Hmm, perhaps a good point to discuss with Obama's preacher! :laugh2:

Again, why should any of the same benefits be afforded to same gender marriages? Why can't they be happy enough with some sort of civil unions? And if it's your opinion that it's not the states right to to say who can & can't marry what makes you the better authority?

Just another pompous post that shows why you are best left to bedpan duties...

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. Another prime example pf why Americas turning into a *Shit Hole*.
2. So much perversion, its sickening.
3. With educated people supporting this crap.
4. Its coming, and perhaps soon, this nations on the cliff.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[bullypulpit]

What it boils down to is opinion, you have one and other have one as well. Your opinion of "I'm right and here is why" comes with the typical condescension of almost every post you make, and almost always a negative comment directed to conservative point of view. Thats good for you but sure shows your own prejudice ways.

If you wanna defend your precious leftist views thats fine but you point to two topics as to why the argument doesn't fly in your view, religion & prejudice. Hmm, perhaps a good point to discuss with Obama's preacher! :laugh2:

Again, why should any of the same benefits be afforded to same gender marriages? Why can't they be happy enough with some sort of civil unions? And if it's your opinion that it's not the states right to to say who can & can't marry what makes you the better authority?

Just another pompous post that shows why you are best left to bedpan duties...

Opinion based upon empirical evidence and fact trumps opinion based on ignorance and prejudice every time. You lose...again. :laugh2:

And when you're confined to a bed in a hospital and have to shit so bad you're about to go blind, remember to thank that nurse or aide who gives you a bed pan. Unless, of course, you enjoy shitting the bed and suffering the indignity of having someone clean you up. :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

[Sir Evil]

Opinion based upon empirical evidence and fact trumps opinion based on ignorance and prejudice every time. You lose...again. :laugh2:



What so called "empirical" evidene and facts have you produced as to why the same benefits should apply to same sex marriages? So fay you whined about religion and ignorance but thats very far away from anything called factual.
You have produced exactly squat as to why same sex marriages should be allowed, you simply provided more of your leftist views and squashed others opinion of it by claiming it fact.

So it's a fact if someone doesn't agree with same sex marriages that they are either ignorant or a religious conservative?

[jimnyc]

Just another iteration of Hawg Trash's and SirEvil's retarded bestiality arguments, Jimmy. There are good and valid reasons for laws against incest...just look at Britain's royal family. Never mind the demonstrable psychological harm caused by the act.

Is there demonstrable psychological harm to children born with autism, retarded, HIV infected or any other life changing views, brought on by same sex married couples who decide to have these children, whether they are born with "issues" or not? These are loving parents who have decided to have their children regardless of any problems that may arise after birth. Should we be able to dictate to these parents whether they should be able to have these children or not? And if we can't stop them, why is it ok to suddenly stop other potential parents who might want to have children with known risks?

The exact same arguments you give to defend the queer marriages will pertain to incest and any other "bond" that might potentially bring "harm" to their offspring, but wouldn't hurt society in any direct manner whatsoever.

You might think my argument supporting incest marriage is way off base, is without merit, and can bring demonstrable harm to society - and now you have an idea of how queer marriage opponents feel. No matter how you slice and dice it, incest cannot harm neither you or I, which is your main argument for queer marriage. If family members love one another, and won't harm the community, there is no valid argument to deny them the same rights as other loving couples.


Face it Jimmy, the arguments against same gender marriage boil down to 2 basic categories. The "its a sin" category, relies on nothing more than religious dogma. The "its so icky!" category is based on nothing more than prejudice and ignorance. In neither case do the arguments provide solid ground for legalized discrimination against same-gender couples.

And I can give you a long list of "moral" laws that have stood the test of time and still remain. Society has these laws in place for a reason. It's absolutely ridiculous to think that everything should be 100% legal so long as the only standard is that it doesn't directly harm others. It's not just that it's "icky" or derived from pure filth perversion, it's because it is outright wrong for society. If an when a time comes that the majority of society will accept such perversions, I will have no alternative but to accept it. Until then, you have no alternative but to understand that the majority of society doesn't want this filth to be "accepted" and part of the norm.

[bullypulpit]

Is there demonstrable psychological harm to children born with autism, retarded, HIV infected or any other life changing views, brought on by same sex married couples who decide to have these children, whether they are born with "issues" or not? These are loving parents who have decided to have their children regardless of any problems that may arise after birth. Should we be able to dictate to these parents whether they should be able to have these children or not? And if we can't stop them, why is it ok to suddenly stop other potential parents who might want to have children with known risks?

The exact same arguments you give to defend the queer marriages will pertain to incest and any other "bond" that might potentially bring "harm" to their offspring, but wouldn't hurt society in any direct manner whatsoever.

You might think my argument supporting incest marriage is way off base, is without merit, and can bring demonstrable harm to society - and now you have an idea of how queer marriage opponents feel. No matter how you slice and dice it, incest cannot harm neither you or I, which is your main argument for queer marriage. If family members love one another, and won't harm the community, there is no valid argument to deny them the same rights as other loving couples.



And I can give you a long list of "moral" laws that have stood the test of time and still remain. Society has these laws in place for a reason. It's absolutely ridiculous to think that everything should be 100% legal so long as the only standard is that it doesn't directly harm others. It's not just that it's "icky" or derived from pure filth perversion, it's because it is outright wrong for society. If an when a time comes that the majority of society will accept such perversions, I will have no alternative but to accept it. Until then, you have no alternative but to understand that the majority of society doesn't want this filth to be "accepted" and part of the norm.

Nice attempt at changing the subject Jim. The decision about whether or not to bring fetuses with known birth defects to term is a discussion best left to the prospective parents and their physicians. Same gender couples being allowed to marry is another topic entirely. Stick to it or remain silent.

As for moral standards, the only standard by which our morals can have any meaning IS in their consequences to this human life, in this world. No demonstrable harm to the individuals involved OR the communities in which they live has arisen where same gender couples are allowed to marry that would justify forbidding it elsewhere or allowing voters to strip such rights already granted through due process of law.

Your argument with regards to incest and/or polygamy carries no more weight than the rest of your argument. There are compelling reasons to prohibit incestuous or polygamous marriages, not the least of which are the genetic issues facing any children of incest or the abuse and coercion of young girls and women caught up in polygamous marriages.

Your argument against same-gender couples being allowed to marry is, like that of your fellow travelers, rooted in nothing more than your own prejudices and ignorance or religious dogma.

[Sir Evil]

Your argument against same-gender couples being allowed to marry is, like that of your fellow travelers, rooted in nothing more than your own prejudices and ignorance or religious dogma.


As is your opinion....:rolleyes:

[HogTrash]

Your argument against same-gender couples being allowed to marry is, like that of your fellow travelers, rooted in nothing more than your own prejudices and ignorance or religious dogma.I have noticed you are extremely dedicated to the plight of homosexuals and "gay rights".

Are you out of the closet yet?...How does your family feel about your homosexuality?...Are they supportive?

[jimnyc]

Nice attempt at changing the subject Jim. The decision about whether or not to bring fetuses with known birth defects to term is a discussion best left to the prospective parents and their physicians. Same gender couples being allowed to marry is another topic entirely. Stick to it or remain silent.

First off, you're not sincere in telling me to remain silent on the issue, are you? You should know better than that by now... :)

Secondly, it's not me trying to change a topic, it's you trying to eliminate an analogy that fits perfectly but kills your view. You are against incest parents, and use the damages of the potential children as a reason to deny it. And I'm curious as to why, when we allow other parents to have children knowing full well that they will have issues. If your line of thinking is correct, shouldn't we stop ALL loving parents from bringing children into this world with known problems? You are trying to eliminate my comparison, and I know why. You have ALWAYS been a big believer in rights afforded to people, so long as they aren't hurting anyone else. With that being the case, incest marriage is right in line with what you usually defend.


As for moral standards, the only standard by which our morals can have any meaning IS in their consequences to this human life, in this world. No demonstrable harm to the individuals involved OR the communities in which they live has arisen where same gender couples are allowed to marry that would justify forbidding it elsewhere or allowing voters to strip such rights already granted through due process of law.

Incest kids "might" be born with issues, and it would be up to the parents to decide if they want to follow through to term, the same can be said for hetero couples...

As for the rest of what you write - and again for the billionth time - queers currently have the EXACT same rights as every other human on this earth pertaining to marriage - EXACTLY. If they want MORE or want the law CHANGED - then THEY must go through due process to have laws changed - which they are currently trying to do - and have failed in 31 consecutive states.

And lastly, all the bellyaching in the world by the queers and their filth supporters will likely NEVER change the mind of a normal person.

[bullypulpit]

Jim, you are equating two things which are entirely unrelated. Incest and homosexuality. Consensual adult incest is a choice, a bad one as we both agree. Adult-child incest is pedophilia.

Relationships between same gender couples do not fundamentally alter between a child and sibling or a child and parent relationships. To legitimize incest would fundamentally alter, and likely poison, those relationships for ALL families, not just of those practicing incest.

With the number of same-gender couples growing, and raising families, it is to society's benefit to integrate these families into the social structure. The family is, after all, the fundamental building block of a healthy society, and the children of same-gender couples come to no demonstrable harm from having been raised in such a family structure.

Finally, sexual orientation is far different from an attraction to an inappropriate individual, and forbidding the pursuit of such attractions is a part of daily life. Suppose, Jim, you are attracted to a married woman. Telling you to forget that particular attraction isn't an act of cruelty...it's not telling you to give up on love. It's simply telling you that you should wait for someone who is available. Telling same-gender couples that they cannot express their love for their partner by marriying them IS a baseless act of cruelty. Human sexuality and gender preference are not idle whims they are a fundamental part of the human psyche. And to tell people that, because they are homosexual, they will never experience love because their sexual identity is perverted and vile is cruel in away that a "normal person" will never know.

And just so you don't feel left out HawgTrash, those two synapses you have flappin' around in your head making random connections lead you to many false assumptions.

[Sir Evil]

And to tell people that, because they are homosexual, they will never experience love because their sexual identity is perverted and vile is cruel in away that a "normal person" will never know.


Finally you said something that makes sense but too bad the rest is just you usual dribble on how you are right and everybody else is wrong.

[jimnyc]

Jim, you are equating two things which are entirely unrelated.

Bully, I'm too tired to argue about queers as of late! And I respect you too much to get into an argument over something both of us will likely never change our minds about.

I admire your ability to write compelling arguments without flaming, but I still disagree when you break it down to the basics.

I don't think I'll ever be able to support gay marriage, even if it's passed in every state. I would support civil unions granting them every single right and benefit that hetero married couples gain though.

[Binky]

I'm old enough to remember when homosexuals were considered deviant aberrations who were restricted to the gutters and dark allys.

Hollywood has brought these sickos out of the shadows and convinced many people that their disgusting perversions are normal and should be excepted.

They have even succeeded in influencing our children in the media, music, movies and even our public schools, that Gay is OK...Even cool.

Because of Political Correctness, many people live in fear of speaking out about what they know to be sick immoral perversion...See video below.

When these immoral depravities are excepted and glorified by the mainstream, it is an indication that civilization is on the decline, which is already quite obvious.

When will we learn to stop listening to the liberals?...Their only goal is to destroy everything decent and good...They openly display their hatred for the family, morality, religion and America.

Even dumb blonds know the danger of "political correctness".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17zfrVPJOA8&feature=related



Hollywierd brought it all out in the open because Hollywierd is filled to capacity with gays. It has been for decades but it was all kept under wraps as much as possible back decades ago. There are so many writers, production asst's, producers, actors etc, that are gay that they've decided to let it all hang out by making movies with that stuff in it. The more it was talked about the more it was made to be normal.....So they began making movie after movie with gayism in it.....

Hog, remember actors like Rock Hudson? He was gay as hell, and his producers made him look as tho' he were a ladies man with women all over him. He was in a lot of movies with leading ladies such as Doris Day. It was VERY bad for business back in those days to have your leading man going around with men rather than women. When it came to the flicks, it was a serious no, no. If memory serves me correct, didn't he die from having aids?

He's the one that stands out most in my mind. He more or less lead the way. At the moment I am at a loss for other names as well.

[HogTrash]

Hollywierd brought it all out in the open because Hollywierd is filled to capacity with gays. It has been for decades but it was all kept under wraps as much as possible back decades ago. There are so many writers, production asst's, producers, actors etc, that are gay that they've decided to let it all hang out by making movies with that stuff in it. The more it was talked about the more it was made to be normal.....So they began making movie after movie with gayism in it.....

Hog, remember actors like Rock Hudson? He was gay as hell, and his producers made him look as tho' he were a ladies man with women all over him. He was in a lot of movies with leading ladies such as Doris Day. It was VERY bad for business back in those days to have your leading man going around with men rather than women. When it came to the flicks, it was a serious no, no. If memory serves me correct, didn't he die from having aids?

He's the one that stands out most in my mind. He more or less lead the way. At the moment I am at a loss for other names as well.I suppose we could say that Rock Hudson was at least decent enough to know that he was a sick pervert.

[Binky]

I suppose we could say that Rock Hudson was at least decent enough to know that he was a sick pervert.

Yep, I suppose we could at least give him that.