If Anybody Lives In These States...... [Archive] - Debate Policy

OCA

06-18-2007, 04:09 PM

Abbey Marie

06-18-2007, 04:10 PM

That's an impressive list. Thanks for the perspective.

OCA

06-18-2007, 04:18 PM

That's an impressive list. Thanks for the perspective.

This is why I laugh when an idiot such as Osama tries to say that they are being more and more accepted each day when the evidence points to them being slapped down.

Hagbard Celine

06-18-2007, 04:30 PM

This is why I laugh when an idiot such as Osama tries to say that they are being more and more accepted each day when the evidence points to them being slapped down.

Why was Osama talking about gays in the US? I thought he was dead!

OCA

06-18-2007, 04:39 PM

Why was Osama talking about gays in the US? I thought he was dead!

Obama funny guy, Obama.

Hagbard Celine

06-18-2007, 04:48 PM

Obama funny guy, Obama.

OH! Oh, that's hilarious. I get it now. His name rhymes with "Osama" so you call him that to make it seem like he's a bad guy. Wow :clap: You're sooo creative. It must've taken you DAYS to think-up that little gem. :slap:

Gunny

06-18-2007, 04:58 PM

I would like to offer a heartfelt thanks for having the courage to standup to the pc crowd and standup for what is obviously right..... banning queer marriage.

Oregon
Idaho
Nevada
Utah
Montana
Colorado
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Kansas
Oklahoma
Texas
Missouri
Arkansas
Lousiana
Wisconsin
Michigan
OHIO LOL
Kentucky
Tennessee
Mississippi
Alabama
Georgia
South Carolina
Virginia and

New York!

Hats off to ya!

I confess. One of those Texas votes is mine. The actual law doesn't ban anything that I'm aware of. It defines marriage as being between a man and woman only.

Hagbard Celine

06-18-2007, 05:03 PM

MtnBiker

06-18-2007, 05:16 PM

That list is 26 states, a consensus. Does that mean that any state that does not recognize a marriage as being between one man and one woman are marriage deniers?

LiberalNation

06-18-2007, 05:21 PM

I don't think my state should be congradulated for it's stupid policy on this issue.

Mr. P

06-18-2007, 05:32 PM

I confess. One of those Texas votes is mine. The actual law doesn't ban anything that I'm aware of. It defines marriage as being between a man and woman only.

One Georgia vote is mine. And yes the same here, it defines marriage as being between a man and woman only.

MtnBiker

06-18-2007, 05:32 PM

I don't think my state should be congradulated for it's stupid policy on this issue.

You do not agree with your state's democratic processes?

avatar4321

06-18-2007, 05:39 PM

You do not agree with your state's democratic processes?

She is liberal, why would she agree with the democratic process?

Abbey Marie

06-18-2007, 05:46 PM

You do not agree with your state's democratic processes?

http://users.telenet.be/honeybee1/basket.gif

LiberalNation

06-18-2007, 05:53 PM

You do not agree with your state's democratic processes?
I agree with the right to have democratic process. I don't like the way people voted.You can disagree with a law but still believe in the peoples right ot make it.

Dilloduck

06-18-2007, 06:23 PM

http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

Some things are not worthy of tolerance. Or do you disagree ?

OCA

06-18-2007, 07:48 PM

OCA

06-18-2007, 07:54 PM

http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

Intolerant of what? Intolerance should be judged case by case, no? If a group of people are intolerant of people who wear lime green shirts that would be ridiculous but if people are intolerant of a group of people with DEMONSTRATED adverse effects upon theirselves and upon society then that should be acceptable.

Hell in your line of thinking its wrong to be intolerant of murderers, now that is ridiculous.

OCA

06-18-2007, 07:58 PM

Oh and I forgot, a high IQ obviously doesn't translate to high common sense.

Gunny

06-18-2007, 08:10 PM

That list is 26 states, a consensus. Does that mean that any state that does not recognize a marriage as being between one man and one woman are marriage deniers?

Not necessarily. What it does for those states who did enact the legislation, is it protects the term "marriage" in the event of SCOTUS usurping the rights of the states to enact their own laws shoves "civil unions" down our throats.

manu1959

06-18-2007, 08:14 PM

why do people care who marries who?

Guernicaa

06-18-2007, 08:34 PM

I would like to offer a heartfelt thanks for having the courage to standup to the pc crowd and standup for what is obviously right..... banning queer marriage.

Oregon
Idaho
Nevada
Utah
Montana
Colorado
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Kansas
Oklahoma
Texas
Missouri
Arkansas
Lousiana
Wisconsin
Michigan
OHIO LOL
Kentucky
Tennessee
Mississippi
Alabama
Georgia
South Carolina
Virginia and

New York!

Hats off to ya!
Where do you get this list?
Give me a link. I'm not disputing any of them, because I recognize that many of them did outlaw it.
I'm just wondering how you compiled your list...

Guernicaa

06-18-2007, 08:38 PM

And actually, New York may change sometime soon.

I wouldn't put it on your "horray" list too soon.

Elliot Spitzer introduced legislation to legalize same sex marraige on April 27th of this year...
http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/02/020405nyMarr.htm

OCA

06-18-2007, 09:40 PM

Where do you get this list?
Give me a link. I'm not disputing any of them, because I recognize that many of them did outlaw it.
I'm just wondering how you compiled your list...

Wikipedia...look it up.

But google this shit you only get about 5,000,000 hits.

nevadamedic

06-18-2007, 10:30 PM

OH! Oh, that's hilarious. I get it now. His name rhymes with "Osama" so you call him that to make it seem like he's a bad guy. Wow :clap: You're sooo creative. It must've taken you DAYS to think-up that little gem. :slap:

Actually Obama makes himself look like the bad guy, thats why he already begged for Secret Service protection. The guy is such a damn tool...........

Pale Rider

06-19-2007, 09:04 AM

http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

Wow. Red States and intolerance go hand in hand? Who knew?!

Red states hag? Red states? You calling Colorado red? Wisconsin? Michigan? New York?? Just to list a few from that list, I think you made a major blunder statement there bud.

GW in Ohio

06-19-2007, 09:44 AM

I would like to offer a heartfelt thanks for having the courage to standup to the pc crowd and standup for what is obviously right..... banning queer marriage.

Oregon
Idaho
Nevada
Utah
Montana
Colorado
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Kansas
Oklahoma
Texas
Missouri
Arkansas
Lousiana
Wisconsin
Michigan
OHIO LOL
Kentucky
Tennessee
Mississippi
Alabama
Georgia
South Carolina
Virginia and

New York!

Hats off to ya!

I'm supporting a bill in my State Senate that would ban marriage between right-wing wackos. The medical evidence says the gene pool among right-wingers is already seriously polluted.

Sitarro

06-19-2007, 09:56 AM

OH! Oh, that's hilarious. I get it now. His name rhymes with "Osama" so you call him that to make it seem like he's a bad guy. Wow :clap: You're sooo creative. It must've taken you DAYS to think-up that little gem. :slap:

I would think that you would have heard this before in a speech by Senator Drinks...er.....I mean Ted Kennedy. His "High-ness" called Obama....Osama.
Start listening to Rush and you will get to hear all of those interesting little tidbits the national news media try to cover up.

Nukeman

06-19-2007, 09:57 AM

I'm supporting a bill in my State Senate that would ban marriage between right-wing wackos. The medical evidence says the gene pool among right-wingers is already seriously polluted.

At least they have a pool which is far more than the little puddle that the Libs find themselves left with...

GW in Ohio

06-19-2007, 10:12 AM

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:0rX7LobgAY-t9M:http://blogs.nydailynews.com/dailypolitics/archives/images/marriage.jpg

You're invited to the wedding.

:dance::clap::dance:

Hagbard Celine

06-19-2007, 10:45 AM

Some things are not worthy of tolerance. Or do you disagree ?

Of course some things aren't. But since we're all talking about homosexuality/gay marriage on this thread, I assumed that everyone would be smart enough to know that I was talking about intolerance towards gays and not intolerance in general. As usual, you all have demonstrated that I can't make assumptions about the intelligence of the posters on this board and must spell-out every single post I make so that those with downsyndrome or whatever it is ya'll have will be able to comprehend.

The sexual orientation of consenting adults is not something you can control. You must concede that the existence of homosexuality throughout all of human history proves that it isn't something that'll just go away if we wish it enough or pass enough laws denying rights to those who claim to be oriented that way. The saying "we're here, we're queer--get over it" has more truth than your constituency-for one reason or another (stubbornness I think)-is unwilling to acknowledge.

All this thread proves is that the majority of our country is populated with people who are willing to deny rights to a minority group based solely on their sexual orientation. In the 1940s in this country, it was still illegal in many states for inter-racial couples to marry. Would you be proud of that if it were still true today? If not, then why do you proudly post threads proclaiming the righteousness of denying homos the right to marry? It's mean-spirited bigotry in my opinion and it shows you and all those who voted for it to be sour, fearful hypocrits who'd rather persecute your fellow citizens than treat them fairly as you would wish to be treated.

No1tovote4

06-19-2007, 10:48 AM

Dilloduck

06-19-2007, 11:04 AM

Of course some things aren't. But since we're all talking about homosexuality/gay marriage on this thread, I assumed that everyone would be smart enough to know that I was talking about intolerance towards gays and not intolerance in general. As usual, you all have demonstrated that I can't make assumptions about the intelligence of the posters on this board and must spell-out every single post I make so that those with downsyndrome or whatever it is ya'll have will be able to comprehend.

The sexual orientation of consenting adults is not something you can control. You must concede that the existence of homosexuality throughout all of human history proves that it isn't something that'll just go away if we wish it enough or pass enough laws denying rights to those who claim to be oriented that way. The saying "we're here, we're queer--get over it" has more truth than your constituency-for one reason or another (stubbornness I think)-is unwilling to acknowledge.

All this thread proves is that the majority of our country is populated with people who are willing to deny rights to a minority group based solely on their sexual orientation. In the 1940s in this country, it was still illegal in many states for inter-racial couples to marry. Would you be proud of that if it were still true today? If not, then why do you proudly post threads proclaiming the righteousness of denying homos the right to marry? It's mean-spirited bigotry in my opinion and it shows you and all those who voted for it to be sour, fearful hypocrits who'd rather persecute your fellow citizens than treat them fairly as you would wish to be treated.

Being "intolerant" of homosexuals desire to marry is no more hateful or mean than being "intolerant" of someones desire to smoke when they are 16.

Hagbard Celine

06-19-2007, 11:04 AM

It certainly took you days to catch on... :rolleyes:

Sorry, forgot I have to roll it out for the slow ones. I knew all along what his retarded "joke" meant. The fact that he's making such a stupid joke is what I'm calling attention to. His joke is geared for toddlers. Yes, even toddlers can make rhymey-whymies. I doubt he even knows what Obama's platform is. What I'm betting on is that he knows he's a democrat and he knows his name rhymes with "Osama." If that's enought to qualify you for making fun of presidential candidates on this board then I need to move on. If you or he wants to be treated like an adult, then use those noggins to come up with some adult jokes. Kay kay?

No1tovote4

06-19-2007, 11:07 AM

Sorry, forgot I have to roll it out for the slow ones. I knew all along what his retarded "joke" meant. The fact that he's making such a stupid joke is what I'm calling attention to. His joke is geared for toddlers. Yes, even toddlers can make rhymey-whymies. I doubt he even knows what Obama's platform is. What I'm betting on is that he knows he's a democrat and he knows his name rhymes with "Osama." If that's enought to qualify you for making fun of presidential candidates on this board then I need to move on. If you or he wants to be treated like an adult, then use those noggins to come up with some adult jokes. Kay kay?

:lol:

Right.... Amazingly it only became so "clear" to you after you first had it explained to you.

"What do you mean? Who are you talking about? Who am I?"

Ohh..... I meant to do that!

You sound like Pee-Wee Herman.

Hagbard Celine

06-19-2007, 11:09 AM

Being "intolerant" of homosexuals desire to marry is no more hateful or mean than being "intolerant" of someones desire to smoke when they are 16.

So are you calling me out for being intolerant of smokers or society in general? Personally, I don't think there should be an age limit on smoking. Furthermore, how does preventing a kid (who I think you would agree is still under parental authority) from smoking cigarettes (an individual activity that is proven to reduce lung function, decrease libido and initiate the growth of cancerous cells) equal making it illegal for a homosexual man to legally marry the man he loves? Please explain this apparent non-sequitor.

Also, making it illegal for someone to marry who they see as their soul mate is a little bit more severe than not allowing someone to smoke cigarettes. Jesus. Do you really not see a difference between the two?

Hagbard Celine

06-19-2007, 11:13 AM

:lol:

Right.... Amazingly it only became so "clear" to you after you first had it explained to you.

"What do you mean? Who are you talking about? Who am I?"

Ohh..... I meant to do that!

You sound like Pee-Wee Herman.

I wanted the moron to waste his time posting the meaning of his retarded joke. When someone makes a joke as inane as the one he made, it's the duty of whoever hears or reads it to call him on how ridiculous he is. If you still don't get what my motivation was, you and him deserve each other.

GW in Ohio

06-19-2007, 11:16 AM

Of course some things aren't. But since we're all talking about homosexuality/gay marriage on this thread, I assumed that everyone would be smart enough to know that I was talking about intolerance towards gays and not intolerance in general. As usual, you all have demonstrated that I can't make assumptions about the intelligence of the posters on this board and must spell-out every single post I make so that those with downsyndrome or whatever it is ya'll have will be able to comprehend.

The sexual orientation of consenting adults is not something you can control. You must concede that the existence of homosexuality throughout all of human history proves that it isn't something that'll just go away if we wish it enough or pass enough laws denying rights to those who claim to be oriented that way. The saying "we're here, we're queer--get over it" has more truth than your constituency-for one reason or another (stubbornness I think)-is unwilling to acknowledge.

All this thread proves is that the majority of our country is populated with people who are willing to deny rights to a minority group based solely on their sexual orientation. In the 1940s in this country, it was still illegal in many states for inter-racial couples to marry. Would you be proud of that if it were still true today? If not, then why do you proudly post threads proclaiming the righteousness of denying homos the right to marry? It's mean-spirited bigotry in my opinion and it shows you and all those who voted for it to be sour, fearful hypocrits who'd rather persecute your fellow citizens than treat them fairly as you would wish to be treated.

Hagbard: Congratulations. That's one of the best posts I've read on this subject.

Dilloduck

06-19-2007, 11:17 AM

So are you calling me out for being intolerant of smokers or society in general? Personally, I don't think there should be an age limit on smoking. Furthermore, how does preventing a kid (who I think you would agree is still under parental authority) from smoking cigarettes (an individual activity that is proven to reduce lung function, decrease libido and initiate the growth of cancerous cells) equal making it illegal for a homosexual man to legally marry the man he loves? Please explain this apparent non-sequitor.

I'm challanging the semantics of the word "intolerant" as used by liberals. They make it sound as if it's like being Satan himself if you are "intolerant" of anything. I'm intolerant of the idea of gays using marriage to pretend they are no different from a traditional family. It's a belief---not some act of terror.

Hagbard Celine

06-19-2007, 11:25 AM

I'm challanging the semantics of the word "intolerant" as used by liberals. They make it sound as if it's like being Satan himself if you are "intolerant" of anything. I'm intolerant of the idea of gays using marriage to pretend they are no different from a traditional family. It's a belief---not some act of terror.

I don't see it as homosexuals masquerading as "traditional families." If anything, the majority of them take pride in being abnormal. Most gays--the ones who've accepted themselves--embrace their sexuality and celebrate it because it makes them different. The reason they want to marry their partners is because that's what we do in our society as a means of letting others know who our mate is. It's also a way of making a coventant between yourself and your partner. People are much more self-centered than you give them credit for. Most of the arguments I see against homosexuals are arguments that say "homosexuals (as a group) are campaigning against the traditional family" or "homosexuals (as a group) are trying to ruin marriage." That's simply not true. I think homosexuals (as individuals) want the right to have society recognize their relationships as legitimate. It has nothing to do with them wanting to "convert" people into being gay or with them trying to "ruin marriage." It has to do with them wanting to have the individual right to legally marry their partners.

I think what the "gays as a group against x" arguments are about is "normal" individuals being fearful of change.

Dilloduck

06-19-2007, 11:34 AM

I don't see it as homosexuals masquerading as "traditional families." If anything, the majority of them take pride in being abnormal. Most gays--the ones who've accepted themselves--embrace their sexuality and celebrate it because it makes them different. The reason they want to marry their partners is because that's what we do in our society as a means of letting others know who our mate is. It's also a way of making a coventant between yourself and your partner. People are much more self-centered than you give them credit for. Most of the arguments I see against homosexuals are arguments that say "homosexuals (as a group) are campaigning against the traditional family" or "homosexuals (as a group) are trying to ruin marriage." That's simply not true. I think homosexuals (as individuals) want the right to have society recognize their relationships as legitimate. It has nothing to do with them wanting to "convert" people into being gay or with them trying to "ruin marriage." It has to do with them wanting to have the individual right to legally marry their partners.

I think what the "gays as a group against x" arguments are about is "normal" individuals being fearful of change.

If they take pride is being abnormal then why do they insist on using an incredibly traditional word with a very specific meaning to try to define their bond? Make NO mistake-----they are trying to redefine a word. They can have civil unions--the can have the same legal rights. What people DON'T want them to do is hijack a word that has a very specific meaning and tradition.
Ask a couple of homosexuals if they would be willing to use another word and see what kind of response you get.

Hagbard Celine

06-19-2007, 11:39 AM

If they take pride is being abnormal then why do they insist on using an incredibly traditional word with a very specific meaning to try to define their bond? Make NO mistake-----they are trying to redefine a word. They can have civil unions--the can have the same legal rights. What people DON'T want them to do is hijack a word that has a very specific meaning and tradition.
Ask a couple of homosexuals if they would be willing to use another word and see what kind of response you get.

Well I explained why I think they want to "marry." They want to be treated like everyone else. Why are you so convinced that treating them equally is a bad thing? Do you just need a group to project negativity onto? If so, why? Why can't you just let gays who love each other very much marry each other the way a man and a woman can? I think it's just because you don't want to. In your mind--and by "your" I mean all those who are against this--you've got some kind of ideological or "moral" (notice I put "moral" into quotes) reasoning behind your intolerant stance, but to the rest of us it just looks like you're being intolerant--bigoted even.

Dilloduck

06-19-2007, 11:46 AM

Well I explained why I think they want to "marry." They want to be treated like everyone else. Why are you so convinced that treating them equally is a bad thing? Do you just need a group to project negativity onto? If so, why? Why can't you just let gays who love each other very much marry each other the way a man and a woman can? I think it's just because you don't want to. In your mind--and by "your" I mean all those who are against this--you've got some kind of ideological or "moral" (notice I put "moral" into quotes) reasoning behind your intolerant stance, but to the rest of us it just looks like you're being intolerant--bigoted even.

First of all, lets get something straight---you mean they take pride in being abnormal yet AT THE SAME TIME they want to be treated just like everyone else? They are asking others to do the impossible which may be one reason people are tired of screwing with trying to adjust to them.

Hagbard Celine

06-19-2007, 12:01 PM

First of all, lets get something straight---you mean they take pride in being abnormal yet AT THE SAME TIME they want to be treated just like everyone else? They are asking others to do the impossible which may be one reason people are tired of screwing with trying to adjust to them.

Lots of different types of people take pride in what makes them different AND demand equality at the same time. Blacks and women have done it. The only thing that makes gays different (atleast in your--again collective your--mind) is that there is a religious undertone that has labelled them "sinful" or "immoral" people. The problem with your argument is that people are NOT trying to adjust to them. They're trying to persecute them and deny them rights without ever trying anything.

Dilloduck

06-19-2007, 12:01 PM

Well I explained why I think they want to "marry." They want to be treated like everyone else. Why are you so convinced that treating them equally is a bad thing? Do you just need a group to project negativity onto? If so, why? Why can't you just let gays who love each other very much marry each other the way a man and a woman can? I think it's just because you don't want to. In your mind--and by "your" I mean all those who are against this--you've got some kind of ideological or "moral" (notice I put "moral" into quotes) reasoning behind your intolerant stance, but to the rest of us it just looks like you're being intolerant--bigoted even.

Why is insisting that a word means something such a bad thing. Marriage= a man and a woman. I'm not projecting ANY negativity on gays nor am I even implying immorality. If you wanna take that issue up with others, go for it. I'm against people being rude--that doesnt mean I'm against people and yes--I'm intolerant of people who try to use words to change the truth. Midgets are midgets--not "little people". Blind people are blind--not "visually challenged". Don't try to change the truth by using word games.

Hagbard Celine

06-19-2007, 12:09 PM

Why is insisting that a word means something such a bad thing. Marriage= a man and a woman. I'm not projecting ANY negativity on gays nor am I even implying immorality. If you wanna take that issue up with others, go for it. I'm against people being rude--that doesnt mean I'm against people and yes--I'm intolerant of people who try to use words to change the truth. Midgets are midgets--not "little people". Blind people are blind--not "visually challenged". Don't try to change the truth by using word games.

Well, because in this instance it's just an excuse to be stubborn. Words change meaning all the time. The word "cool" used to be strictly associated with temperature. The word "awesome" used to be strictly associated with a great spectacle. The word "negro" used to mean "black" in Spanish. The word "car" used to be short for "carriage," which was something drawn by a horse. The word "news" used to be strictly associated with respectable journalism. Etc. The list goes on and on.

And if "midgets" are insulted and get their feelings hurt from being called a "midget" instead of a little person, why continue to call them "midgets?" Is it just to be stubborn and mean? Why do you want to be that way?

Dilloduck

06-19-2007, 12:20 PM

Well, because in this instance it's just an excuse to be stubborn. Words change meaning all the time. The word "cool" used to be strictly associated with temperature. The word "awesome" used to be strictly associated with a great spectacle. The word "negro" used to mean "black" in Spanish. The word "car" used to be short for "carriage," which was something drawn by a horse. The word "news" used to be strictly associated with respectable journalism. Etc. The list goes on and on.

And if "midgets" are insulted and get their feelings hurt from being called a "midget" instead of a little person, why continue to call them "midgets?" Is it just to be stubborn and mean? Why do you want to be that way?

Because in this day and age the "TRUTH" is becoming more and more important. All this PC "wordsmithing" doesn't make a silk purse out of a sows ear. If homosexuals are so damn proud of the unions they are making I would think they could be creative and come up with a word to define it other than saying something bizarre like "It's just like marriage only it's not". They have already usurped the word gay---I bet they could pull out another descriptive noun to describe what they are instead of trying to swipe one and ride on the coat tails of its meaning.

oh--and negro STILL means "black" in spanish

remie

06-19-2007, 12:23 PM

I don't think my state should be congradulated for it's stupid policy on this issue.

Guess what sweetie. Its my state too and I do think they should be congratulated.

Hagbard Celine

06-19-2007, 12:24 PM

Because in this day and age the "TRUTH" is becoming more and more important. All this PC "wordsmithing" doesn't make a silk purse out of a sows ear. If homosexuals are so damn proud of the unions they are making I would think they could be creative and come up with a word to define it other than saying something bizarre like "It's just like marriage only it's not". They have already usurped the word gay---I bet they could pull out another descriptive noun to describe what they are instead of trying to swipe one and ride on the coat tails of its meaning.

This fight isn't about words or semantics, it's about allowing married gays to have the same legal rights that married heterosexuals' relationships afford them. I've laid out a straightforward case here and answered all your questions well and all you've done is 1) proven that you are content to continue denying rights to homosexuals and 2) that you have no reason to do so other than stubbornness and a sense of self-righteousness that abandons empathy and the feelings of others. Congratulations. You're the poster child of the modern conservative movement.

Dilloduck

06-19-2007, 12:50 PM

This fight isn't about words or semantics, it's about allowing married gays to have the same legal rights that married heterosexuals' relationships afford them. I've laid out a straightforward case here and answered all your questions well and all you've done is 1) proven that you are content to continue denying rights to homosexuals and 2) that you have no reason to do so other than stubbornness and a sense of self-righteousness that abandons empathy and the feelings of others. Congratulations. You're the poster child of the modern conservative movement.

I NEVER said homosexuals should be denied legal rights that people who qualify to be a married couple have. Congratualtions--you've been owned.

Straightforeward case :laugh2:

Hagbard Celine

06-19-2007, 01:21 PM

I NEVER said homosexuals should be denied legal rights that people who qualify to be a married couple have. Congratualtions--you've been owned. Well then what the hell are you arguing for? Has all this been over your belief that homosexuals are trying to change the meaning of words? Way to pull one over on me douche. I've been "owned." What a joke. :rolleyes:

Straightforeward case :laugh2:
Hey, opinions are like assholes...They seem to be ubiquitous on this board :lol:

OCA

06-19-2007, 03:06 PM

Sorry, forgot I have to roll it out for the slow ones. I knew all along what his retarded "joke" meant. The fact that he's making such a stupid joke is what I'm calling attention to. His joke is geared for toddlers. Yes, even toddlers can make rhymey-whymies. I doubt he even knows what Obama's platform is. What I'm betting on is that he knows he's a democrat and he knows his name rhymes with "Osama." If that's enought to qualify you for making fun of presidential candidates on this board then I need to move on. If you or he wants to be treated like an adult, then use those noggins to come up with some adult jokes. Kay kay?

Take your retarded and shove it up your ass you condescending illiterate pile of shit.

Fuck off if i'm too "juvenile" for you.

OCA

06-19-2007, 03:16 PM

Douchebag has demonstrated he has zero understanding of this subject. There is a factually demonstrated physical and mental "negativity", for lack of a better word, associated with the choice to engage in the queer lifestyle no different than the choice to use drugs. It is the responsibility of society to try and repress this negativity at every chance and turn.

There is no evidence of people being sexually oriented towards homosexuality from birth, but we are supposed to buy the lie and enact "special laws" so queers can feel better about theirselves? No, not in a million years.

...is right about 1 thing though, this is all about legitimization........of a perversion of choice and marriage is the vehicle they are using to get there.

What in reality is degenerate lust is many times mistaken as homosexual love....what a joke.

LiberalNation

06-19-2007, 03:19 PM

Guess what sweetie. Its my state too and I do think they should be congratulated.

I'd have guessed, the majority also seems to. That's why we have the stupid policy in the first place. Doesn't change the fact it's a stupid policy tho.

OCA

06-19-2007, 03:20 PM

I'd have guessed, the majority also seems to. That's why we have the stupid policy in the first place. Doesn't change the fact it's a stupid policy tho.

Its a brilliant policy endorsed by a super majority of Americans.

Hagbard Celine

06-19-2007, 03:37 PM

There is a factually demonstrated physical and mental "negativity", for lack of a better word, associated with the choice to engage in the queer lifestyle no different than the choice to use drugs.

No there isn't. You're wrong. You're making stuff up to support your own bigoted opinion. If not, prove it. Post links to this unicorn you keep alluding to.

The fact of the matter is that the "physical and mental negativity" you speak of is created by cretins like you who ostracize and persecute those with a homosexual orientation.

No1tovote4

06-19-2007, 03:54 PM

I wanted the moron to waste his time posting the meaning of his retarded joke. When someone makes a joke as inane as the one he made, it's the duty of whoever hears or reads it to call him on how ridiculous he is. If you still don't get what my motivation was, you and him deserve each other.

Translation: "I meant to do that!"

Go look for your bike there, Pee-Wee.

OCA

06-19-2007, 03:57 PM

No there isn't. You're wrong. You're making stuff up to support your own bigoted opinion. If not, prove it. Post links to this unicorn you keep alluding to.

The fact of the matter is that the "physical and mental negativity" you speak of is created by cretins like you who ostracize and persecute those with a homosexual orientation.

You've seen the facts and links posted here hundreds of times, either you are blind or ignorant, which one is it?

Dilloduck

06-19-2007, 04:21 PM

Well then what the hell are you arguing for? Has all this been over your belief that homosexuals are trying to change the meaning of words? Way to pull one over on me douche. I've been "owned." What a joke. :rolleyes:

Hey, opinions are like assholes...They seem to be ubiquitous on this board :lol:

You need to check with those who you are defending before you get all carried away. They want to be married--say they are married--and be called married. In states where they have COMPLETELY EQUAL and LEGAL civil unon rights they STILL want to be called married. Now who in the hell started this problem with words and why is it REALLY so important to them to try to pass themselves off as something they can nor will ever be?

Call your skunk a cat if you want but it still stinks like hell and IT'S NOT ONE !!

Hagbard Celine

06-19-2007, 04:58 PM

You need to check with those who you are defending before you get all carried away. They want to be married--say they are married--and be called married. In states where they have COMPLETELY EQUAL and LEGAL civil unon rights they STILL want to be called married. Now who in the hell started this problem with words and why is it REALLY so important to them to try to pass themselves off as something they can nor will ever be?

Call your skunk a cat if you want but it still stinks like hell and IT'S NOT ONE !!

*shrug* I'm calling you a bigot because that's what you are. When a gay couple gets' married, it's called "married" because that's what it is. *shrug* If you actively choose to live in a state of denial, it's neither my fault nor my problem.

Dilloduck

06-19-2007, 06:40 PM

*shrug* I'm calling you a bigot because that's what you are. When a gay couple gets' married, it's called "married" because that's what it is. *shrug* If you actively choose to live in a state of denial, it's neither my fault nor my problem.

On what grounds are you calling me a bigot? If it's because I don't think a legal homosexual union is a marriage, you are petty as hell. And homosexuals are petty as hell to demand it.

Abbey Marie

06-19-2007, 10:50 PM

On what grounds are you calling me a bigot? If it's because I don't think a legal homosexual union is a marriage, you are petty as hell. And homosexuals are petty as hell to demand it.

In general, the words bigot and racist are so overused/wrongly used these days, that they will soon lose their impact. Then what will the libs do?

remie

06-20-2007, 07:34 AM

I'd have guessed, the majority also seems to. That's why we have the stupid policy in the first place. Doesn't change the fact it's a stupid policy tho.

Obviously not stupid to the majority though....right?:poke:

LiberalNation

06-20-2007, 07:36 AM

Outright racism wasn't offensive or stupid to the majority of kentuckians just a few years ago. It doesn't mean it wasn't stupid.

remie

06-20-2007, 07:39 AM

Outright racism wasn't offensive or stupid to the majority of kentuckians just a few years ago. It doesn't mean it wasn't stupid.

Ky doesnt corner the market on racists. If you get around much, there are racists everywhere. What does racism have to do with this topic anyway?

LiberalNation

06-20-2007, 07:41 AM

Racism, homophobia, sexism, they all run together.

Yes kentucky doesn't have a corner on the market but a lot of people I know over 30 are pretty darn racist.

remie

06-20-2007, 07:52 AM

Racism, homophobia, sexism, they all run together.

Yes kentucky doesn't have a corner on the market but a lot of people I know over 30 are pretty darn racist.

Way to gerneralize. I guess all men are the same too.

GW in Ohio

06-20-2007, 08:19 AM

On what grounds are you calling me a bigot? If it's because I don't think a legal homosexual union is a marriage, you are petty as hell. And homosexuals are petty as hell to demand it.

They used to say similar things about black people early in the 20th century.....

"What the hell do these niggers want to vote for? Gov-mint ain't got nothin' to do with them."

Dilloduck

06-20-2007, 08:20 AM

Racism, homophobia, sexism, they all run together.

Yes kentucky doesn't have a corner on the market but a lot of people I know over 30 are pretty darn racist.

There are many reasons to against gay marriage. Insisting that these people are bigoted or homophobic is an absurd and petty argument that does more to hurt your cause than help it.

Hagbard Celine

06-20-2007, 08:57 AM

There are many reasons to against gay marriage. Insisting that these people are bigoted or homophobic is an absurd and petty argument that does more to hurt your cause than help it.

fyi: Online dictionary defines "bigotry" as "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own." It seems pretty cut and dry that this is what you and the others who hold your pov are doing. Your refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of homosexual marital unions based on nothing more than your own stubborn sense of self-righteousness and having absolutely no evidence to support your side of the argument other than a couple of nebulous Bible verses I think qualifies as stubborn intolerance, hence you are bigoted. I think before you continue to berate homosexuals, you may want to look at your own character and determine what it is inside yourself that makes you so fervently spiteful and intent upon denying rights to these people who want nothing more than to have their feelings and relationships legitimized by the society they live in.

Dilloduck

06-20-2007, 09:06 AM

fyi: Online dictionary defines "bigotry" as "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own." It seems pretty cut and dry that this is what you and the others who hold your pov are doing. Your refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of homosexual marital unions based on nothing more than your own stubborn sense of self-righteousness and having absolutely no evidence to support your side of the argument other than a couple of nebulous Bible verses I think qualifies as stubborn intolerance, hence you are bigoted. I think before you continue to berate homosexuals, you may want to look at your own character and determine what it is inside yourself that makes you so fervently spiteful and intent upon denying rights to these people who want nothing more than to have their feelings and relationships legitimized by the society they live in.

According to that defintition if you are against pedophilia you are a bigot so I'm not going to worry to much about it. I have never used a Bible verse as a defense for my position and I don't berate homosexuals. Try again

Hagbard Celine

06-20-2007, 09:22 AM

According to that defintition if you are against pedophilia you are a bigot so I'm not going to worry to much about it. I have never used a Bible verse as a defense for my position and I don't berate homosexuals. Try again

Nope, my post was perfect. You try. :poke:

Dilloduck

06-20-2007, 09:30 AM

Nope, my post was perfect. You try. :poke:

I guess that makes you a bigot---you think you perception is perfect and you are intolerant of mine. Welcome to the club ! :laugh2:

(Don't be upset--"bigot" has been so overused and misused that it's meaningless.)

Hagbard Celine

06-20-2007, 10:39 AM

I guess that makes you a bigot---you think you perception is perfect and you are intolerant of mine. Welcome to the club ! :laugh2:

(Don't be upset--"bigot" has been so overused and misused that it's meaningless.)

I know. I hope I didn't insult you or sound too harsh in the above posts. I just don't think that allowing gays to indulge in the pleasures of marriage--as heteros do--would cause any deleterious effects on society. First off, I don't think they're a big enough group and secondly, I don't see how having gay married couples around would change anything about the nature or significance of marriage between a man and a woman.