In as little as a month,gay couples can marry according to a
decision handed down in the nation's largest state { Calif.}
by it's Supreme Court...Today.

I was fearful of this.Not because Gays aren't entitled to
Rights.Just NOT Marriage rights.Same sex should never constitute
Marriage.For many a good reason.It defies the grounds of a
civilized Society.A Child should have a birth right to BOTH a
Mother and a Father.Not 2 of each.
How is a Society benefitted by propagation,if Gay marriage
becomes en vogue and an entire generation of more of society
find it perfectly acceptable to toss aside history and define
marriage according to their hedonistic mindset.
What next.?
Redefine the definition of what constitutes Rape or a Pervert.

if Gay marriage
becomes en vogue and an entire generation of more of society
find it perfectly acceptable to toss aside history and define
marriage according to their hedonistic mindset.
What next.?


So you think, now that it's legal, a bunch of straight people are going to engage in gay marriage because it's trendy or something? Whether gay marriage is legal or not, the number of gay people isn't going to change.

just another on the long list of things i don't really give a fuck about...but i'm more than willing to argue about it ;)

I just want to know why gays want to get married in the first place. they have to know that is a death sentence.... why fight so hard for the right to suffering..

Having two moms or dads is far better than having none.

I just want to know why gays want to get married in the first place. they have to know that is a death sentence.... why fight so hard for the right to suffering..
so they can get divorced and make their hate for each other legit:lolhit:

so they can get divorced and make their hate for each other legit:lolhit:

well sir on that niote I say we give them full permission and blessing to make the same horrific mistakes straight people do seemingly over and over and over again!

In as little as a month,gay couples can marry according to a
decision handed down in the nation's largest state { Calif.}
by it's Supreme Court...Today.

I was fearful of this.Not because Gays aren't entitled to
Rights.Just NOT Marriage rights.Same sex should never constitute
Marriage.For many a good reason.It defies the grounds of a
civilized Society.A Child should have a birth right to BOTH a
Mother and a Father.Not 2 of each.
How is a Society benefitted by propagation,if Gay marriage
becomes en vogue and an entire generation of more of society
find it perfectly acceptable to toss aside history and define
marriage according to their hedonistic mindset.
What next.?
Redefine the definition of what constitutes Rape or a Pervert.

I don't think its so "en vogue" at all as you say. Just because now its out in the open does not mean its "cool". What are you afraid of anyway?

I don't think its so "en vogue" at all as you say. Just because now its out in the open does not mean its "cool". What are you afraid of anyway?
Yeah, because to find a life choice not acceptable to your way of thinking is obviously a sign of fear. :rolleyes:

Not all gay couples have kids, ya know. And not all straight couples have kids either. Is that the reason for yer disdain of this topic? Cuz kids are involved?

Well, they aren't usually invovled so what else makes you so miffed to see two consenting adults getting married? Oh ya, it's hedonistic. I forgot.

:rolleyes:

Yeah, because to find a life choice not acceptable to your way of thinking is obviously a sign of fear. :rolleyes:

Why would you want others to make "life choices" based on "your way of thinking"?

Why would you want others to make "life choices" based on "your way of thinking"?
I dont, but i do have the right to not agree with their decisions, right?

I dont, but i do have the right to not agree with their decisions, right?
Disagreeing with someone's life choices and wanting those choices to be illegal are two different things.

just another on the long list of things i don't really give a fuck about...but i'm more than willing to argue about it ;)

Amen, Mikey.

:lolhit:

Disagreeing with someone's life choices and wanting those choices to be illegal are two different things.
Not neccessarily.

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site568/2008/0516/20080516__gaycouple16~3_Gallery.JPG

I think this is awesome news! Congratulations GLBTs!

:thumbs:

Not neccessarily.

Of course not, but let's be clear here and say we're talking about the life choices of others that have no profound negative effects on others. Why would you care?

Disagreeing with someone's life choices and wanting those choices to be illegal are two different things.
there's illegal, then there's not legal.

i'm still wondering why the separation of church and state crowd isn't whining about the government putting it's stamp of approval and licensing a religious institution.:confused:

Agreed, Mike, but unless we're going to change it so that the government can only issue civil union licenses to gay AND straight couples, we can't just leave out one.

Agreed, Mike, but unless we're going to change it so that the government can only issue civil union licenses to gay AND straight couples, we can't just leave out one.
then you open the door to line marriages and polygamy.

then you open the door to line marriages and polygamy.
I have no idea what a "line marriage" is, but what's wrong with polygamy?

Marriage is a contract, no more. People should feel free to enter into whatever contracts they want, regardless of how squeamish we may feel around it.

So can a straight person who is already married go out and get married again to someone of the same sex?

So can a straight person who is already married go out and get married again to someone of the same sex?
that would be a line marriage. or husband takes a second wife who's already married.

:grouphug: <----literally.

I have no idea what a "line marriage" is, but what's wrong with polygamy?

Marriage is a contract, no more. People should feel free to enter into whatever contracts they want, regardless of how squeamish we may feel around it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_marriage

well if marriage can be made into anything the courts want it to be there are no limits anymore. It seems the only thing that resembles boundries anymore is the word "consent". How long until we decide to change what consent means? How long before a lawyer goes to a judge and argues that the child would have consented if they knew what the word meant? Or he could just redefine what a child is. I am against just changing things with no regard to the consequences.

And of course, I have to put out the disclaimer that I have no problem with gay people, or gay people being in love, or living together and yada yada yada. It is not my buisness to judge other peoples lifestyle. This is another case of the supreme court of CA overiding the voters. They seem to enjoy doing that.

Of course not, but let's be clear here and say we're talking about the life choices of others that have no profound negative effects on others. Why would you care?Thats not what we were talking about here. I'm not advocating anything. I merely stated that you can disagree with something without having "fear" about the topic.

[QUOTE=Scumbelina]Not all gay couples have kids, ya know. And not all straight couples have kids either. Is that the reason for yer disdain of this topic? Cuz kids are involved?

Well, they aren't usually invovled so what else makes you so miffed to see two consenting adults getting married? Oh ya, it's hedonistic. I forgot.

Weld,fer starters it DIMINISHES the Vow of traditional Marriage.
In one fell swoop those 4 republican Supreme's just made
the Vow of Marriage in Calif. damn near second rate.
Is All.

Weld,fer starters it DIMINISHES the Vow of traditional Marriage.
How?

I think Hollywood already made short work of that sanctity.

How?

Traditional marriage is between a man and a woman. The word marriage no longer has that meaning in CA. It is not what it used to be. I guess how you look at that is a matter of opinion. We know what the judges opionions were, and what they say goes and I will respect it since I respect the system, even though I think they abused their power.

Traditional marriage is between a man and a woman. The word marriage no longer has that meaning in CA. It is not what it used to be. I guess how you look at that is a matter of opinion. We know what the judges opionions were, and what they say goes and I will respect it since I respect the system, even though I think they abused their power.
But do you think this, in any way, diminishes your marriage? Your marriage still means the same it did before gays were able to marry, I'd say. Your vows don't mean any less because more people are allowed to marry.

But do you think this, in any way, diminishes your marriage? Your marriage still means the same it did before gays were able to marry, I'd say. Your vows don't mean any less because more people are allowed to marry.
of course it does. i'm never ever going to get married now because i don't want ppl thinking i'm gay:@@:

But do you think this, in any way, diminishes your marriage? Your marriage still means the same it did before gays were able to marry, I'd say. Your vows don't mean any less because more people are allowed to marry.

No, it does not do anything to me personally. I think it is a bad idea. It is just my opinion.

This is another case of the supreme court of CA overiding the voters. They seem to enjoy doing that.
And thank god for the checks and balances the founding fathers put in place! They wanted to make sure our country based its laws on the constituion, and not always what the majority of people think.

What part of the constitution says 2 guys should be able to get married? I don't even think the California state constitution says that.

What part of the constitution says 2 guys should be able to get married? I don't even think the California state constitution says that.

Amendment #14, article 1. (emphasis mine)

"1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

And thank god for the checks and balances the founding fathers put in place! They wanted to make sure our country based its laws on the constituion, and not always what the majority of people think. You got that right. If that was not the case marrying a different race would be a crime. "As California goes,so goes the rest of the nation"

Amendment #14, article 1. (emphasis mine)

"1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

There is no one who is being treated un equally. No one can marry a person of the same sex.

There is no one who is being treated un equally. No one can marry a person of the same sex.

Since gay people can't get married, how about we outlaw marriage all together? It'd be equal, after all...

Since gay people can't get married, how about we outlaw marriage all together? It'd be equal, after all...
I don't see where there is a special case of contract law for marriages. I agree, have the government butt out of this one.

Since gay people can't get married, how about we outlaw marriage all together? It'd be equal, after all...

I would go for that. Have the government give all couples the benefits they give to married couples and call it whatever they like. Social contract, domestic partnership, whatever. Then, if a man and a woman want to go to church and have a cerimony of marriage they are free to do so, same with Jim and John out in the Castro. I just don't want the government giving the green light to gay marriage, I think it sets a bad precedent and sends the wrong signal to our kids and even our friendly islamist brothers who already hate us.

How?

Seldom does Lowering a standard,improve something in the long
haul.In point of fact,it can do great harm.
It creates an environ of less seriousness and cavalier
experimentation.
Once a standard is lowered,it is hard to Go Back and
re-institute.
Is All !

I was fearful of this.Not because Gays aren't entitled to
Rights.Just NOT Marriage rights.Same sex should never constitute
Marriage.For many a good reason.It defies the grounds of a
civilized Society.A Child should have a birth right to BOTH a
Mother and a Father.Not 2 of each.

Gay marriage isn't going to change the fact that some children have 2 moms or 2 dads. It just means that those kids that already belong to gay couples will be able to live within the same institution that you claim keeps society civilized.

Since you say "gays are entitled to the same rights", I'm guessing you mean some type of Civil Union? If so, wouldn't that also "defy the grounds of a civilized Society"?


Weld,fer starters it DIMINISHES the Vow of traditional Marriage.
In one fell swoop those 4 republican Supreme's just made
the Vow of Marriage in Calif. damn near second rate.

Not my marriage. But then again, I have an Oregon marriage...must be stronger than those weak California marriages that can crumble just because gays are allowed to marry. Oh wait, my parents were married in California and have been married for 40 years, and this ruling hasn't affected their marriage either. Wait a minute, now I'm confused...who are these people whose marriages are being DIMINISHED? Is it just yours?

I would go for that. Have the government give all couples the benefits they give to married couples and call it whatever they like. Social contract, domestic partnership, whatever. Then, if a man and a woman want to go to church and have a cerimony of marriage they are free to do so, same with Jim and John out in the Castro.

I could live with that. I'm perfectly OK with the government just butting out of marriage, but since I doubt that's going to happen I think we should ensure that everyone has to right to marry whomever they wish. Just make sure it's another person! (Didn't someone post an article here a long time ago about a woman trying to marry her snake? :@@:)

I just don't want the government giving the green light to gay marriage, I think it sets a bad precedent and sends the wrong signal to our kids and even our friendly islamist brothers who already hate us.

A bad precedent for what? What's the bad signal it sends to kids? This is where you lost me.

Weld,fer starters it DIMINISHES the Vow of traditional Marriage.
Adultery and a soaring divorce rate do far more to diminish the vow of traditional marriage. Yet I don't see anyone advocating a ban on those two things.

Adultery and a soaring divorce rate do far more to diminish the vow of traditional marriage. Yet I don't see anyone advocating a ban on those two things.


well we should demand that 40% of gay marriages have divorces too!!
:D

Ban marriage altogether...didn't that go badly in 1984?

Personally, I think homosexuals are a little too obsessed with marriage. I guess they're running out of battles to fight.

There is no one who is being treated un equally. No one can marry a person of the same sex.

That's exactly the same argument that was used by people who opposed interracial marriage. They claimed nobody's rights were being violated because the law was being applied the same to everyone.

In the court's ruling that declared such laws discriminatory and unconstitutional the court held that it wasn't enough to show that the law was applied evenly, the state also had to show that the main purpose of the law was not discriminatory. I believe the laws banning gay marriage should be rescinded for the same reason. They serve no purpose other than to prevent gays from marrying, and in no way do they protect society from some perceived threat.

Fine, then let me marry my lamp post, I'm not hurting society.

What a bunch of rubbish.

Fine, then let me marry my lamp post, I'm not hurting society.Can the lamp post consent?

I think not.What a bunch of rubbish.Do you think the Supreme Court was wrong to strike down the laws against miscegenation?

Can the lamp post consent?

I think not.
how do you know? have you ever asked one?:bike:

how do you know?Consent requires volition. Volition requires sentience. Lamp posts are not sentient. Lamp posts can not consent.

QED.

Was that explanation really necessary? have you ever asked one?The only thing I ever asked a lamp post was "whatcha knowin?".

Consent requires volition. Volition requires sentience. Lamp posts are not sentient. Lamp posts can not consent.

QED.

Was that explanation really necessary?The only thing I ever asked a lamp post was "whatcha knowin?".
i just wanted to know how often you talk to lamp posts:bike:

i just wanted to know how often you talk to lamp posts:bike:About as often as you make sense -- that is, hardly ever.

Can the lamp post consent?

I think not.

I thought one of the central arguments behind gay marriage was that there is no clear cut definition of marriage.

So tell me, where does it even say that there has to be consent? Ask the Chinese when they arrange marriage between their children if there is consent.

How come you or homosexuals or liberals get to dictate that consent has to be part of marriage, but it is not strictly for heterosexuals? How come my culture gets to be decided by you? Just tell me what makes you so special that you are the god of marriage that gets to decide this stuff for so many of us.

I thought one of the central arguments behind gay marriage was that there is no clear cut definition of marriage.

So tell me, where does it even say that there has to be consent? Ask the Chinese when they arrange marriage between their children if there is consent.

How come you or homosexuals or liberals get to dictate that consent has to be part of marriage, but it is not strictly for heterosexuals? How come my culture gets to be decided by you? Just tell me what makes you so special that you are the god of marriage that gets to decide this stuff for so many of us.
Liberal judges, of course.

I thought one of the central arguments behind gay marriage was that there is no clear cut definition of marriage.

I hadn't heard that one. Unless you're referring to the fact that many states do or didn't have a clear definition of marriage written into law?


So tell me, where does it even say that there has to be consent?

If it says it anywhere, it would be in the state's statutes.


Ask the Chinese when they arrange marriage between their children if there is consent.

Why would I be concerned with Chinese law?


How come you or homosexuals or liberals get to dictate that consent has to be part of marriage, but it is not strictly for heterosexuals?

Who says we do?


How come my culture gets to be decided by you? Just tell me what makes you so special that you are the god of marriage that gets to decide this stuff for so many of us.

I should be asking you that.

I'm not a homosexual or a liberal trying to define marriage and American culture for the rest of the country. Why don't you try answering my questions first, before turning them on me? You're part of the minority wanting to decide what marriage is for the rest of us, aren't you?

I thought one of the central arguments behind gay marriage was that there is no clear cut definition of marriage. That isn't one of my arguments.

Maybe you can find someone who thinks it is and argue with them instead.So tell me, where does it even say that there has to be consent?Every state has laws defining the age of consent for marriage.

Didn't you know that? Ask the Chinese when they arrange marriage between their children if there is consent.This isn't China.How come you or homosexuals or liberals get to dictate that consent has to be part of marriage, but it is not strictly for heterosexuals?I didn't "get to dictate" anything. How come my culture gets to be decided by you?How does your culture "get to be decided" by me? Just tell me what makes you so special that you are the god of marriage that gets to decide this stuff for so many of us.Legislatures make the laws, not me.

Courts determine if the laws are constitutional, not me.

Why do you think I'm special?

I'm not a homosexual or a liberal trying to define marriage and American culture for the rest of the country.

Neither am I.


Why don't you try answering my questions first, before turning them on me?

I did. Your questions were largely invalid since they were based on the false premise that I, or others, were trying to "dictate" to the rest of the country what the definition of marriage would be.


You're part of the minority wanting to decide what marriage is for the rest of us, aren't you?

No, I'd be part of the minority that wants to have the legal definition of marriage changed for me.

Thank you marriage gods, now we can change hundreds, nay THOUSANDS of years of culture after cultures understanding of what marriage is and include homosexuals because of the almighty enlightenment of the homosexuals in the United States!

And maybe next decade I can convince the Supreme Court that I have just as much right to marry my goddam lamp post, like I've been wanting to do for years!!

Thank you marriage gods, now we can change hundreds, nay THOUSANDS of years of culture after cultures understanding of what marriage is and include homosexuals because of the almighty enlightenment of the homosexuals in the United States!

Why did you demand an answer that you were just going to ignore?


And maybe next decade I can convince the Supreme Court that I have just as much right to marry my goddam lamp post, like I've been wanting to do for years!!

I'm sorry you equate the rights of gay people with the rights of inanimate objects. It says a lot about your intelligence and compassion for your fellow citizens. BTW, I'd see a therapist about your affection for posts...it doesn't sound too healthy. ;)

Answer me one question, Karankawa. In your opinion, what is the purpose of the state in passing laws that ban gay marriage?

Thank you marriage gods,
Sacrilege! There is only one God, heathen!

Monday, Feb. 16, 2004
Why The M Word Matters To Me
By Andrew Sullivan

As a child, I had no idea what homosexuality was. I grew up in a traditional home--Catholic, conservative, middle class. Life was relatively simple: education, work, family. I was raised to aim high in life, even though my parents hadn't gone to college. But one thing was instilled in me. What mattered was not how far you went in life, how much money you earned, how big a name you made for yourself. What really mattered was family and the love you had for one another. The most important day of your life was not graduation from college or your first day at work or a raise or even your first house. The most important day of your life was when you got married. It was on that day that all your friends and all your family got together to celebrate the most important thing in life: your happiness--your ability to make a new home, to form a new but connected family, to find love that put everything else into perspective.

But as I grew older, I found that this was somehow not available to me. I didn't feel the things for girls that my peers did. All the emotions and social rituals and bonding of teenage heterosexual life eluded me. I didn't know why. No one explained it. My emotional bonds to other boys were one-sided; each time I felt myself falling in love, they sensed it, pushed it away. I didn't and couldn't blame them. I got along fine with my buds in a nonemotional context, but something was awry, something not right. I came to know almost instinctively that I would never be a part of my family the way my siblings might one day be. The love I had inside me was unmentionable, anathema. I remember writing in my teenage journal one day, "I'm a professional human being. But what do I do in my private life?"

I never discussed my real life. I couldn't date girls and so immersed myself in schoolwork, the debate team, school plays, anything to give me an excuse not to confront reality. When I looked toward the years ahead, I couldn't see a future. There was just a void. Was I going to be alone my whole life? Would I ever have a most important day in my life? It seemed impossible, a negation, an undoing. To be a full part of my family, I had to somehow not be me. So, like many other gay teens, I withdrew, became neurotic, depressed, at times close to suicidal. I shut myself in my room with my books night after night while my peers developed the skills needed to form real relationships and loves. In wounded pride, I even voiced a rejection of family and marriage. It was the only way I could explain my isolation.

It took years for me to realize that I was gay, years more to tell others and more time yet to form any kind of stable emotional bond with another man. Because my sexuality had emerged in solitude--and without any link to the idea of an actual relationship--it was hard later to reconnect sex to love and self-esteem. It still is. But I persevered, each relationship slowly growing longer than the last, learning in my 20s and 30s what my straight friends had found out in their teens. But even then my parents and friends never asked the question they would have asked automatically if I were straight: So, when are you going to get married? When will we be able to celebrate it and affirm it and support it? In fact, no one--no one--has yet asked me that question.

When people talk about gay marriage, they miss the point. This isn't about gay marriage. It's about marriage. It's about family. It's about love. It isn't about religion. It's about civil marriage licenses. Churches can and should have the right to say no to marriage for gays in their congregations, just as Catholics say no to divorce, but divorce is still a civil option. These family values are not options for a happy and stable life. They are necessities. Putting gay relationships in some other category--civil unions, domestic partnerships, whatever--may alleviate real human needs, but by their very euphemism, by their very separateness, they actually build a wall between gay people and their families. They put back the barrier many of us have spent a lifetime trying to erase.

It's too late for me to undo my past. But I want above everything else to remember a young kid out there who may even be reading this now. I want to let him know that he doesn't have to choose between himself and his family anymore. I want him to know that his love has dignity, that he does indeed have a future as a full and equal part of the human race. Only marriage will do that. Only marriage can bring him home.

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,993372,00.html

How come you or homosexuals or liberals get to dictate that consent has to be part of marriage, but it is not strictly for heterosexuals?

Funny how you call it "dictating" when a group says who can or can not be part of marriage.

How come my culture gets to be decided by you?

Actually, you're the one who wants to decide someone else's culture. Gay people want to marry, and if it happens you will still be allowed to marry...that does not decide your culture. If you had it your way, gay people would be excluded from marriage, therefor deciding their culture for them.

of course it does. i'm never ever going to get married now because i don't want ppl thinking i'm gay:@@:

That's hilarious! I'm going to use that at dinner tonight with my in-laws! I'll be sure to give you a footnote or something.:D

That's hilarious! I'm going to use that at dinner tonight with my in-laws! I'll be sure to give you a footnote or something.:D
just send the royalty check to-

Mikezila Corp.
P.O. Box 404
Hell, MI 48169

Adultery and a soaring divorce rate do far more to diminish the vow of traditional marriage. Yet I don't see anyone advocating a ban on those two things.

Ah ! Fer cryin out loud,use your head.
Why complicate Marriage.
All this Sikky Gay Marriage bidness is gonna do is make a
Jerry Springer degment out of real life.
As if Gays don't have enough problems.
Now,we'll have to have Gay Divorce Courts.

[QUOTE=sedan]Consent requires volition. Volition requires sentience. Lamp posts are not sentient. Lamp posts can not consent.


Whoa Thar Wilbur ! I knowed fer a fact,many a story of a
Sailor humpin' a Lampost on Shore leave.
How's them potatoes.?

[QUOTE=Vilepagan]I hadn't heard that one. Unless you're referring to the fact that many states do or didn't have a clear definition of marriage written into law?


Where do you drum up that drivel.
The definition of " Marriage " ain't complicated.
It's all rather straight-forward simple.
Starting with consent between a legal-aged Man & Woman.

THE only Rights Gays should have is the right to act like
Silly Pansies,in the privacy of their own space.

Employers should have the right to NOT hire them.
Rentors { Landlords } should have the right to NOT rent to them.
and so on and so forth.
Strictly on account of their clique,pile-on mob mentality.
They have consistently shown themself to be centrist motivators
of a selfish,often hedonistic lifestyle.
They care not a whit,as a group,of the betterment of overall
Society.Only their selfish desire to propagate a sinfull and
often malicious disregard for traditional standards of sexuality
and decorum within civilised society.
If gays want ME to respect their wants and needs,they best
not try and interpret wholesomeness as corny or outdated.

THE only Rights Gays should have is the right to act like
Silly Pansies,in the privacy of their own space.

Employers should have the right to NOT hire them.
Rentors { Landlords } should have the right to NOT rent to them.
and so on and so forth.
Strictly on account of their clique,pile-on mob mentality.
They have consistently shown themself to be centrist motivators
of a selfish,often hedonistic lifestyle.
They care not a whit,as a group,of the betterment of overall
Society.Only their selfish desire to propagate a sinfull and
often malicious disregard for traditional standards of sexuality
and decorum within civilised society.
If gays want ME to respect their wants and needs,they best
not try and interpret wholesomeness as corny or outdated.

You're a very disturbed individual...

Employers should have the right to NOT hire them.
Rentors { Landlords } should have the right to NOT rent to them.
and so on and so forth.
Strictly on account of their clique,pile-on mob mentality.


Only if you give people the right to do the same thing to Catholics!

THE only Rights Gays should have is the right to act like
Silly Pansies,in the privacy of their own space.

Employers should have the right to NOT hire them.
Rentors { Landlords } should have the right to NOT rent to them.
and so on and so forth.
Strictly on account of their clique,pile-on mob mentality.
They have consistently shown themself to be centrist motivators
of a selfish,often hedonistic lifestyle.
They care not a whit,as a group,of the betterment of overall
Society.Only their selfish desire to propagate a sinfull and
often malicious disregard for traditional standards of sexuality
and decorum within civilised society.
If gays want ME to respect their wants and needs,they best
not try and interpret wholesomeness as corny or outdated.

Next time someone says that being against gay marriage does not make you a bigot, can I use the above quote as an example of a time where it means exactly that?

I have a solution: Gay marriages should be called "gay-rriages". Problem solved!

My wife is all against gay marriage and I'm not. How does their marriage hurt mine? it doesn't .

You're a very disturbed individual...

Not at all.And I can prove it.
Right now in this Country there is a concerted movement by the Gay
Community to propagate the belief that it is perfectly
acceptable and even good for there to be Gays in Society.
It's abundantly clear that Gays DO NOT Care much for straights {heterosexuals}.
I've talked with many a Gay,and they ALL have that mindset.
In fact,they spend great amounts of their time Mocking and
talking down about Straights.They have decided haughty contempt for
other than their own predisposition or Proclivity.
Therefore,why should someone such as a Straight,not have the
Right to do the same.Talk down to and about a Lifestyle,that was
once considered a scourge.
It is almost wrong-sided not to.Gayness is Wrong.It is defined as a
Sin in most every bona fide religion.It goes against nature,no matter
what Liberal Sociologist pretend to drum-up thru distortions of
anthology.Just like this - Global Warming - hoax.
On average Gays have HALF the life expectancy as those NOT Gay.
AIDS was and is spread by Gays,theur their Proclivity and
Communal habits.
I'm not Prejudiced against Gays.
Gays ARE prejudiced against Straights.
I like many a Gay writer.But that was when they weren't spending
inordinate amount of their time,parading around and being priggish
proud of something that HAS no pride.
Being Gay simply means Sexual proclivity.
Name for me a single Gay who was and is ASEXUAL.
There,I just proved the entire silly notion that Gays have a
Right to bitch and make silly demands upon Society.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with being straight.
There is absolutely nothing right about being Gay.
May the Twain,continue on in their ways.
Butts... not means.

Not at all.And I can prove it.

Great.


Right now in this Country there is a concerted movement by the Gay
Community to propagate the belief that is it perfectly
acceptable and even good for there to be Gays in Society.
It's abundantly clear that Gays DO NOT Care much for straights {heterosexuals}.
I've talked with many a Gay,and they ALL have that mindset.

I stand corrected. You're not disturbed, you're just an idiot.

Next time someone says that being against gay marriage does not make you a bigot, can I use the above quote as an example of a time where it means exactly that?
only if it's Foolie you're using it against. no two ppl think exactly alike.

Great.



I stand corrected. You're not disturbed, you're just an idiot.

That's yer entire approach in defending somethin as important
as one's membership in THE club of clubs.
Because that's what bein Gay has turned into.
An exclusive club for those who openly show disdain and
contempt for Straights.

I stand corrected. You're not disturbed, you're just an idiot.
at least he's an idiot based on his personal experiences.

at least he's an idiot based on his personal experiences.

If bein an " idiot " means havin the wherewithal to eloquently
trounce via Wildefully woeful means,the inertia of those
scoffers who know not Woe is Me,me,me,me ... Meeeeeeeeeeeee.
I mean ... them.

Oscariana {1911}

" Society often forgives the criminal,it never forgives the dreamer. "
-- Wilde

That's yer entire approach in defending somethin as important
as one's membership in THE club of clubs.
Because that's what bein Gay has turned into.
An exclusive club for those who openly show disdain and
contempt for Straights.

I'm not showing disdain for straight people, I'm showing my disdain for idiots.

I'm not showing disdain for straight people, I'm showing my disdain for idiots.

Insisting upon my idiocy,does literally nothing to progress
yer argument for.
I take it yer FOR the Gay Agenda.?

Insisting upon my idiocy,does literally nothing to progress
yer argument for.
I take it yer FOR the Gay Agenda.?

Just as your bigoted, and ignorant, remarks about gays do nothing to further your argument. I just see no point in discussing an important issue with a moron.

Just as your bigoted, and ignorant, remarks about gays do nothing to further your argument. I just see no point in discussing an important issue with a moron.

Just like Gays are Bigots towards Straights.
At least I'll err on the side of Straight.
If err bee it called.
Is all.

Just like Gays are Bigots towards Straights.


The problem is that you speak in generalities, and I do not. You claim gays are bigoted against straights, a generality. I claim not that straights are idiots, but rather more specifically that you are an idiot, and I offer as proof, your above claim.

The problem is that you speak in generalities, and I do not. You claim gays are bigoted against straights, a generality. I claim not that straights are idiots, but rather more specifically that you are an idiot, and I offer as proof, your above claim.
and by speaking down to him, you reinforce his personal experiances.:@@:

and by speaking down to him, you reinforce his personal experiances.:@@:

Mike, I'm more than willing to have a polite discussion with anyone who shows a minimum amount of respect for me. Fooly crossed that line a long time ago. He talks about gay people as if they're subhuman, and advocates they be denied their rights. Why should that be deserving of respect?

Not at all.And I can prove it.

Well, you did NOT prove it.




Gays ARE prejudiced against Straights.


So gay people are trying to pass state laws banning straights from marriage?

THE only Rights Gays should have is the right to act like
Silly Pansies,in the privacy of their own space.
Employers should have the right to NOT hire them.
Rentors { Landlords } should have the right to NOT rent to them.
and so on and so forth.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being straight.
There is absolutely nothing right about being Gay.

I'm not Prejudiced against Gays.

You've already proven you ARE prejudiced against gays, don't make a fool of yourself and try to back pedal your way out of it.

Mike, I'm more than willing to have a polite discussion with anyone who shows a minimum amount of respect for me. Fooly crossed that line a long time ago. He talks about gay people as if they're subhuman, and advocates they be denied their rights. Why should that be deserving of respect?
he's like that with everybody..even ppl that agree with him.

The problem is that you speak in generalities, and I do not. You claim gays are bigoted against straights, a generality. I claim not that straights are idiots, but rather more specifically that you are an idiot, and I offer as proof, your above claim.

I realize that in yer circles,it's simply enough to spout off
simple bumper sticker slogans like - Bush Lied/Troops Died -
and - Bush is Stupid -.
The argument is a generality.
The point being is that Marriage is a Generality.
What good would it do to interject specific examples into
a general debate.We are talking generically,here.
Not about a specific individual but rather a group.
A large,and ever-growing group.
I might even be corrrect in assuming the Heterosexual community is
growing smaller,while the Gay Community is growing larger.
Answer me this.Who do you respect more.
A Heterosexual or a Homosexual.?
And now,more importantly ...WHY ?
That is the import of what I'm asserting.

Mike, I'm more than willing to have a polite discussion with anyone who shows a minimum amount of respect for me. Fooly crossed that line a long time ago. He talks about gay people as if they're subhuman, and advocates they be denied their rights. Why should that be deserving of respect?he's like that with everybody..even ppl that agree with him.He's deserving of respect because he's an equal opportunity moron?

I realize that in yer circles,it's simply enough to spout off
simple bumper sticker slogans like - Bush Lied/Troops Died -
and - Bush is Stupid -.
The argument is a generality.
The point being is that Marriage is a Generality.

Statements like these just make me wonder whether or not you understand the English language.


Answer me this.Who do you respect more.
A Heterosexual or a Homosexual.?
And now,more importantly ...WHY ?
That is the import of what I'm asserting.

I don't base the level of respect I show someone on their sexual preference.

Statements like these just make me wonder whether or not you understand the English language.



I don't base the level of respect I show someone on their sexual preference.

Because yer Lyin and In denial.
GOTCHA.
Can't be any udder way ...Pally.

only if it's Foolie you're using it against. no two ppl think exactly alike.

Yes, I agree with you there.

Answer me this.Who do you respect more.
A Heterosexual or a Homosexual.?
And now,more importantly ...WHY ?
That is the import of what I'm asserting.

There doesn't seem to be a reason to respect one more than the other. But since it appears that you do, I guess we'll wait for you to answer the WHY part.

There doesn't seem to be a reason to respect one more than the other. But since it appears that you do, I guess we'll wait for you to answer the WHY part.

The onus is on Vile to defend his claims.I did my part.
Yes,I think Gays have an agenda that is more than just a
casual dislike/distrust and overall intolerance towards Straights.
And yes,Being Gay is ENTIRELY a Sex thing.
Which means their SEX urge,utterly dominates their mindset.
Which is the really idiotic Irony.
I disrespect Gays,entirely,when they run on and on about their
Gayness.I'll never disrespect a Gay,unless they act gay.
That being talk/dress/facial expressions and gestures that are
overtly effeminate.
I think Gays are just silly pansies,most of the time.
I do respect Gay writers.But,not when they parade their sexuality
like Truman Capote/Tennessee Williams and Oscar Wilde did,to name
but a few.

The onus is on Vile to defend his claims.

He has nothing to defend, he stated he would respect both equally. You're the only one that has the position that needs defending.

I did my part.

You did try, but just made yourself look worse.

He has nothing to defend, he stated he would respect both equally. You're the only one that has the position that needs defending.



You did try, but just made yourself look worse.

Yes,I know.How cavalierly clever to use the convenient
Leftist approach.Namely to use names and be quick to call
anyone a *Racist,at the first mention of race,and any subsequent
differing.Leftist are also the ones who benefit from a Racist
discussion,since they OWN the Race-baiting trait.Seldom does a
Republican hurl the word " Racist " around.
Same thing here with the Gay debate.Anyone disagreeing with
the Leftist approach of just GO ALONG to get along,no matter
how unfair or wrong,is met with the usual barrage of name-calling
and insistence the other person is wrong.
I don't understand why Heterosexuals should have to claim
defeat,every time they defend their lifestyle,vs. a Gay.
This isn't a question of a wronged party.Yes,Gays,especially good gays,
who were forced to remain in the closet,50 and fewer years ago,no
longer have a stigma,a negative stigma to overcome.
What is now occurring is a Social culture shock of transferrence.
Heterosexuals are now being given the stigmata,as the party
that should feel shame and be forced to adapt.
Based sheerly on Liberal,years of liberal pandering to a group
that now sees political power and gain thru it's increased membership,
at the expense of Americana.We are quickly becoming like France.
There will be many Boy type Male Lead actors.And fewer if any
John Wayne/Clark Gable types.
That's one argument I'd make for not liking or respecting what the Gay
Community has brought about.A Culture,almost devoid of those
Historic,strong American Male types.



* or bigot,moron,Idiot etc.

The onus is on Vile to defend his claims.

The only claim I've made is that you're an idiot.


I did my part.

Yes, you did...Thank you.


I think Gays are just silly pansies,most of the time.

And here you are continuing to do your part to uphold my claim.