November 18, 2004
By Michael Shannon

Marriage, and the legal definition thereof, is probably the most heated topic in America today, and it arguably won the election for George W. Bush.

Let's face it. The Bible, and those who profess a belief in it, are never going to see eye to eye on this issue with those of us who believe that everyone, gay or straight, has the same rights when it comes to their partners - rights like hospital visitation, next of kin, child custody, joint tax filing, etc.

However, the reason the two sides of this issue do not agree is not a basic belief that gays and lesbians should be denied these rights; the reason is the word that's used for this binding of two people: marriage.

The State Constitutional Amendments passed by 11 states this past election are destined to be struck down, as is the Defense of Marriage Act. The Supreme Court ruled in 1996 (Romer v. Evans, 116 S.Ct 1620) that homosexuals are protected by the equal protection clause of the constitution, and any law that changes the definition of marriage to exclude what would be a married couple in another state violates the full faith and credit clause.

Quite simply, under current interpretation of the Constitution, there is no way to prohibit gay marriage; it would require a Constitutional Amendment. That's what the evangelical religious political agenda wants, but as of the next Congress, the GOP still does not have the 2/3rds majority in both houses it would need to pass an Amendment, nor the 37 states to ratify it.

That could change, if the plan currently grinding on works out as the religious wing of the GOP hopes. Anyone can look at the facts, history, and campaign speeches and work all this out for themselves.

What I propose is a solution. A simple solution that actually appeals to right-wing constituents on the basis of "less government."

Here goes: any defense of marriage as "a man and a woman" has, as its basis, that marriage is a sacred institution. As the self-proclaimed defenders of marriage mean sacred, they mean "made or declared holy," ie. specified or set apart for religious purposes.

Cede the point that marriage is sacred. It's a little sacrifice to be made for the good of all. Admit to anyone who wants you to that marriage is the holiest thing ever.

Why? Simple.

The First Amendment to the Constitution reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

If marriage is holy, then any law regarding the definition of marriage - no matter what definition - is a law respecting (regulating) an establishment (marriage is an institution) of religion (marriage is sacred, Q.E.D).

So, if marriage is religious, that means the Federal (and State) governments have absolutely no business handing out Marriage Licenses. All they can hand out are Civil Union licenses, pieces of paper that certify two people have merged their civil and financial lives into one.

Take the poll numbers, and you'll quickly see that while a majority of Americans are against gay marriage (sorry, it's true), there's a 30ish percent there that is against marriage but for civil unions.

Make it about civil unions, and the majority switches to the other side. And this should appeal to Republicans and Libertarians too, on the basis of smaller, less intrusive government.

Now, I know some people out there are right now saying that they don't want civil unions, they want to be married, just like everyone else has a right to be. I'm going to tell you that you pick your fights, and you set your battlegrounds as ones you can win. Moving the religion out of government (as I propose, abolishing legal marriage in favor of generic civil unions) will turn this into a fight that can be won.

If you want marriage, then first, win the governmental fight, then, once you and your partner have a license that says you are fit to be joined in the government's eyes, start talking to your pastor. Because that's where religion (and therefore marriage) belongs. In Church. Not in the Constitution.

i believe in christ, but i also believe that if gays want to be married, its their call.

The religious right is nothing but a bunch of con artists. If they were truly religious and lived by the bible they wouldn't back the Iraq invasion and wouldn't back the death penalty. And correct me if I'm wrong but isn't one of the commandments (in nearly every religion) 'Thou shalt not kill'?

In reality, the religious right is a reconstructionist group, trying to tell everyone how to live and what to do in their bedrooms.

The gay community had better keep low profile, probably underground cause if these whack jobs have their way it's gonna be gulags for anyone that has sex of any kind that lies outside the intent of procreation.

Oh, and did I mention, they're also chickenhawks.

ROTFLMAO

Dop

Gays have equal rights.

Amen Mr. Tooner. They're human just like we are, why treat them differently?

This was an excellent post Echo, and it pounds home the one issue I've had with gay "marriage", and that is, that's not marriage, it's a union - in the eyes of the state, and in the eyes of the federal government. It is an issue of words, not RIGHTS, and that's why I stand strong in my belief that gays should be privy to every tax exemption, and marriage benefit the law provides, but don't pretend that the union of two men is equal to that of a man and a woman. It's not the same thing, period. Settle for the word, or find a different island. It's that simple.

For example:
Now, I know some people out there are right now saying that they don't want civil unions, they want to be married, just like everyone else has a right to be. I'm going to tell you that you pick your fights, and you set your battlegrounds as ones you can win. Moving the religion out of government (as I propose, abolishing legal marriage in favor of generic civil unions) will turn this into a fight that can be won.

Bravo, Michael Shannon! He gets it!!!

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing

In reality, the religious right is a reconstructionist group, trying to tell everyone how to live and what to do in their bedrooms.



I wish they would tell you to shut the hell up! :hitout:

One more thing, if this means that only "civil union" licenses will be handed out by the government, then so be it...I'm fine with that, but I'll never settle for a "gay union" as one the government generically, and falsely, recognizes as marriage. Maybe you're all right, the government has no place calling it marriage, but so help me God, the day our "religion less" government recognizes their union as something a sacred institution never intended it to be recognized as, I'll be sickened. I'll let my church "marry" me, and I'll let my government pass off a tax savings because of it. Big difference…

Originally posted by The Praetorian
This was an excellent post Echo, and it pounds home the one issue I've had with gay "marriage", and that is, that's not marriage, it's a union - in the eyes of the state, and in the eyes of the federal government. It is an issue of words, not RIGHTS, and that's why I stand strong in my belief that gays should be privy to every tax exemption, and marriage benefit the law provides, but don't pretend that the union of two men is equal to that of a man and a woman. It's not the same thing, period. Settle for the word, or find a different island. It's that simple.

I've been saying all along that this issue comes down to semantics. Christians just don't want the word marraige used.

I'm so glad I am not so anal that a mere word gets my political hackles up and causes me to vote in favor of someone who is harmfull to my country.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
Gays have equal rights.

If you repeat that over and over enough times maybe someone will believe you eventually...:rolleyes:

lol, Yes, gays have equal rights. but they don't have the right to marry. *laughs*

Christians who don't agree with gay marriages get blamed for being hateful towards gays for simply not agreeing with gay marriages. Most christians do not hate them and would not treat them like they're any less of a person.

Anyhow, I am not posting to debate that, but what I really don't understand is that if bible believing christians are being accused of hating gays, why does no-one seem to notice that there is a lot of non-christians who hate gays and have discriminated against gays? Only bible believing christians are considered to be hateful to them even though there are numorous people that are nasty to the.

Back in high school, there was a guy that I went to school with that was openly gay. He was treated with cruelty. He endured physical and emotianal abuse from many other students. Only because he was gay. I did not treat him that way, but most other kids did. These kids were by no means, christians. They never even professed christianity and some them even mocked God and christians.

I remeber seeing 2 lesbian women walking together and 2 young men walked by them and seeing that, they laughed at them and mocked them. The 2 women were very embarrassed that they could be treated this way and kept walking on. Those 2 guys showed bogtry to them. I highly doubt they were christians.

Awile back, my wife and I wnet to the donut shop and we seen a man dressed as a woman. Most of the people in the donut shop were laughing and giggling. Even the girls who worked there couldn't stop laughing despite that this person seemed to bevery embarrassed by the look on his face.

From what I see, many are very prejudiced against gays(gays do not deserve to be treated this way), yet christians who simply disagree with their lifestlye are constanlty being accuse of being the haters when no-one seems to notice all the bogotry and hate that many others for them.

Originally posted by Overdose
lol, Yes, gays have equal rights. but they don't have the right to marry. *laughs* But OD, gays DO have the right to marry.

Originally posted by HaVoK
But OD, gays DO have the right to marry.
Not who they want to marry.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
If you repeat that over and over enough times maybe someone will believe you eventually...:rolleyes:

A gay man can't marry a woman? Ridiculous.

Originally posted by TheGreat Gatsby
A gay man can't marry a woman? Ridiculous.

Sorry, gay couples don’t have the right to marriage. I hate it when the Republicans go,

“Gays can marry, but they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex, so we aren’t really denying them any rights”

When really, gay couples are denied the right of marriage. Marriage is a right in which we give couples, not just a single person. That is the difference. Which makes this discrimination, against gay couples.

It is not only the Republicans saying that. A whole lot of folks in the U.S. of every political slant do not want to see gay marriages. There's plenty of boneheaded Democrats out there believing the very same way.

Yes, there are. But there are more Republicans like that, and I was referring to the Republicans on this forum…actually.

Originally posted by Overdose
Sorry, gay couples don’t have the right to marriage. I hate it when the Republicans go,

“Gays can marry, but they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex, so we aren’t really denying them any rights”

When really, gay couples are denied the right of marriage. Marriage is a right in which we give couples, not just a single person. That is the difference. Which makes this discrimination, against gay couples.

Marriage is a right we give to individuals. We just happen to give it out in pairs. We can deny one person the right to marriage if we wanted to do so. Bottom line, I'm straight and I can't marry another man. Neither can a gay man. Ergo, equal rights.

Within the confines of this particular forum, maybe.

Originally posted by TheGreat Gatsby
Marriage is a right we give to individuals. We just happen to give it out in pairs. We can deny one person the right to marriage if we wanted to do so. Bottom line, I'm straight and I can't marry another man. Neither can a gay man. Ergo, equal rights.

Hmm...in that case everyone is being discriminated against. :D

If I’m not mistaken, two people sign a marriage license…and two people receive the benefits of this right to marriage. In terms of hospital visitation, money issues (etc.) Which would thus discriminate against gay couples, who want the same rights. Who want to same right, as to sign a marriage license…receive the benefits of marriage etc...

And again, a gay man can marry a woman, just like a straight man can.

Originally posted by TheGreat Gatsby
Marriage is a right we give to individuals. We just happen to give it out in pairs. We can deny one person the right to marriage if we wanted to do so. Bottom line, I'm straight and I can't marry another man. Neither can a gay man. Ergo, equal rights.

OMG... LOL... the issue is about pension, and heathcare and tax breaks. Why the Hell shouldn't two people in Love be able to benefit from marriage the same way that a Hetersexual couple? Equal rights? Please that is not equal rights... you are grasping at straws...

Are you incoherent?

That is the same reason many whites gave when they were against African Americans marrying whites.

They (blacks) can marry each other, but they are not allowed to marry whites!

Now it’s...

They (gays) can marry the opposite sex, just not the same sex!

Which is a reason that was shot down by the courts in America. It has no substance. And is only a reason for those who want to be stubborn and not see beyond their narrow perspective of marriage.

And, you are discriminating against Gay Couples. Marriage is a union of two people. And if you are not going to allow two gay people to become married, then you are not allowing them the same rights as straight couples. Period.

Originally posted by Overdose






And, you are discriminating against Gay Couples. Marriage is a union of two people. And if you are not going to allow two gay people to become married, then you are not allowing them the same rights as straight couples. Period.


::claps:: you took the words right out of my mouth.

Marriage does not mean what you liberals apparently think it does.

Marriage is between two loving people…who want to spend the rest of their lives with each other.

And you think that based on what? Because that's what you think it ought to mean?

That is what marriage, in my opinion, should be about. But I'm not going to stop people from getting married, who have different reasons for marriage.

Originally posted by Overdose
Marriage is between two loving people…who want to spend the rest of their lives with each other.

Who are you to draw the line at two?

See how this goes?

Re Post That is what marriage, in my opinion, should be about. But I'm not going to stop people from getting married, who have different reasons for marriage.

So why stop at two? Why is YOUR definition any better than three people who love one another? Four, five? Just two, eh?

I don't care if 100 people at once want to get married. How does it affect me, personally? If they all want to get married...fine by me. Although, I don't think it's a reality to jump that far, nor do I think it would ever happen. But I don't see why we should outlaw it.

Okay, so you don't want to draw any lines. Incest would be okay, too?

Incest? If they are of consenting age, fine. The only restrictions I’m for, are they have to be of age. That seems reasonable. You are not emotionally ready, mentally ready, nor financially ready to get married before 18. That is the line I would be in favor of drawing.

Age restrictions seem to work in America. You can vote when you are 18, join the military, smoke etc. And the reason they pick 18, is because you are mostly done with puberty (emotionally you would be better then before 18), high school (you have learned a wealth of information and can make an educated decision on most issues, I’d hope), and are eligible for most jobs, that don’t require college degrees (can take care of yourself financially, well, when the Democrats are in power) And that is why I pick 18.

Basically, you are just trying to be funny about this situation. We are talking about gay marriage. You have no reason to be against it, so you are bringing in examples that have almost no relevance. Good luck with that one…

Originally posted by Echo2
I'm so glad I am not so anal that a mere word gets my political hackles up and causes me to vote in favor of someone who is harmfull to my country.
Despite what you may already think, that's not the reason I voted for him, but it doesn't surprise me that you'd take that stance, for the conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking, and you've mastered the art...

high school (you have learned a wealth of information and can make an educated decision on most issues, I’d hope), and are eligible for most jobs, that don’t require college degrees (can take care of yourself financially, well, when the Democrats are in power) And that is why I pick 18.
:lolhit:

Which one are you, Larry, Moe, or Curly?

Awww, how cute, not replying to the issues. Good job buddy…you make a great point.

In my topic Future of Gay Marriage everone who replied, from left and right, agreed that like it or not gay marriage will be a normal thing in 10 years. We have been arguing this for so long now, and the generation that is generally in favor of gay marriage is growing up, isn't it about time to start getting used to the idea?

WOW... OD is okay with incest. At least he's consistent.

not replying to the issues.
Oh, you're such a stickler, OD. Might I suggest you read the quoted caption again? If you still don't find it funny, cut and paste it to a word document - print it out, and reread it in 15 years. That oughta do it...
Good job buddy…you make a great point.
I know, and some day you'll realize it.

Luckily, I have adults who are far older then you, who agree with me. Which shows that I most likely won’t change…but, thanks for trying.

Oh and, Dave, this is about Gay Marriage. Not about incest. Post a thread on that, if you want to discuss that. Why are you against Gay marriage? Any reasons, that may have some substance?

If you change the definition of marriage, why stop at two? Basically, you're saying that gayness is ok, but incest isn't, by drawing the line there. You're saying that it IS okay to draw lines.

So, the majority of the country wants to draw it at two people, a man and a woman.

Originally posted by TheGreat Gatsby
If you change the definition of marriage, why stop at two?
Why stop at two? I don’t know…

Originally posted by TheGreat Gatsby
Basically, you're saying that gayness is ok, but incest isn't, by drawing the line there. You're saying that it IS okay to draw lines.
I’m saying it’s OK in almost all cases.

Originally posted by TheGreat Gatsby
So, the majority of the country wants to draw it at two people, a man and a woman.
The majority does not get to override the constitution. If something is un-constitutional, it does not matter what the majority thinks. You are discriminating against gay couples from getting married, period.

The only reason an age restriction would be put in place, is because of the emotional and financial reasons. You are not an adult, and cannot engage in sex with someone above 18. Your parents are also in control of your life, which thus would prohibit marriage until you are an adult. That is the line I’m willing to draw, because it makes sense. Not allowing gay people to marry, makes no sense.

Originally posted by TheGreat Gatsby
So why stop at two? Why is YOUR definition any better than three people who love one another? Four, five? Just two, eh?

You are so anal retentive that I can't believe that you could see the light through your own pile of shit.


Marriage is union between two people, not multiple people, what the Hell are you trying to point out. OMG do you think that even homosexulals don't value monogomy? Grow up, open your mind and look at the BIGGER PICTURE.

Why are you against Gay marriage? Any reasons, that may have some substance?

Please spare me, OD. I debated this until I was blue in the face in the last gay marriage thread. Look it up.

Afraid of a little debate? I’ve debated this as well, until I was blue in the face. I understand you are an older member then me, but when you were not here, we’ve had several gay marriage threads that I’ve debated in heavily. I suggest you look those up, I’ve most likely debunked almost all of your “arguments”

Originally posted by DaveTooner
Please spare me, OD. I debated this until I was blue in the face in the last gay marriage thread. Look it up.


I don't have the time... how about you start new with me? ::smiles:: I value your closed minded opinon it just makes me look more intelligent.

Originally posted by Overdose
Afraid of a little debate? I’ve debated this as well, until I was blue in the face. I understand you are an older member then me, but when you were not here, we’ve had several gay marriage threads that I’ve debated in heavily. I suggest you look those up, I’ve most likely debunked almost all of your “arguments”

why is it that when OD gives his opinion....he considers it "debunking" our arguments lol.

He has a point of view....a very secular one, i have the opposite.

but yet he "debunked".....LOL

The reason some people on this forum find it neccessary to mention incest, polygamy, beastiality, and pedophilia, in a discussion about gay marriage is because they are desperate. They have no reasons for being against gay marriage other than their religious convictions, or a gut feeling that it is "wrong". They also know that these two reasons are insufficient to justify denying gays the right to marry under our constitution, so they bring up the comparisons in an attempt to offend, and frighten people.

Afraid of a little debate? I’ve debated this as well, until I was blue in the face. I understand you are an older member then me, but when you were not here, we’ve had several gay marriage threads that I’ve debated in heavily. I suggest you look those up, I’ve most likely debunked almost all of your “arguments”

No OD, I am not afraid to debate you, but I'm sure you'd like to think that. We literally JUST FINISHED debating that issue for probably a solid week. I'm sure the thread is still on this page for you to read.

Dave, if you don't wish to discuss this issue, then don't. There is little point in repeated posts about why you don't want to discuss the issue.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
The reason some people on this forum find it neccessary to mention incest, polygamy, beastiality, and pedophilia, in a discussion about gay marriage is because they are desperate. They have no reasons for being against gay marriage other than their religious convictions, or a gut feeling that it is "wrong".

Exactly.

Their argument will invariably, when reduced to it's essence, come down to the position that --- "Well, my God don't like it!".

At the heart of the problem, the self-appointed marriage police just will not, just CAN NOT admit that people in this country who do not believe in or worship the Christian god are just as deserving of civil and human rights as the Bible believers.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
The reason some people on this forum find it neccessary to mention incest, polygamy, beastiality, and pedophilia, in a discussion about gay marriage is because they are desperate. They have no reasons for being against gay marriage other than their religious convictions, or a gut feeling that it is "wrong". They also know that these two reasons are insufficient to justify denying gays the right to marry under our constitution, so they bring up the comparisons in an attempt to offend, and frighten people.
I say "Civil Unions" for everyone...gay or straight.

The state has no business in doling out "marriage" licenses because of the word's religious heritage. I see this as a solution because I'd sooner be castrated than refer to a homo union as a "marriage". I know that the bond I'll have with my wife is real marriage, and so will my God, and that's all the comfort I need. It's my church that will provide me with the marriage title, not the state courthouse. It's just too bad the people who wrote our constitution didn't think that they'd have to define a marriage as a union between a man and a woman because this whole concept is ridiculous. (sorry, this is poorly written, but I'm in a hurry.)

the problem is the pro gay marriage crowd of secularists see religious convictions as "only religious convictions". they say "other then religious reasons, what reasons do you have?" as if since they dont believe in it, its not a good enough reason. Its obvious to them there is no good reason not to allow anyone marry whoever they want. What reason could be given to them that would change their mind? none. OUr reasons are not good enough for them. Their reasons are not good enough for us. they try to spice it up with words like equal rights and try to align themselves with other legitamate groups that have actually fought through actual oppresion and segregation. Fear of Labels will not be good enough leverage to get what you want this time.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
The reason some people on this forum find it neccessary to mention incest, polygamy, beastiality, and pedophilia, in a discussion about gay marriage is because they are desperate. They have no reasons for being against gay marriage other than their religious convictions, or a gut feeling that it is "wrong". They also know that these two reasons are insufficient to justify denying gays the right to marry under our constitution, so they bring up the comparisons in an attempt to offend, and frighten people. Well Vile, we only have a "gut feeling" that beastiality is wrong. I think the reason incest, polygamy, beastiality, and pedophilia are brought up is because a lot of people see no difference in the deviant sexual choices between them and homosexuality. Im not trying to offend you with my opinion. And i dont feel like this is some sort of fear campaign against homosexuality. Its my, and a lot of others opinions, that the differences are minimal.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
I say "Civil Unions" for everyone...gay or straight.

The state has no business in doling out "marriage" licenses because of the word's religious heritage. I see this as a solution because I'd sooner be castrated than refer to a homo union as a "marriage.

This shows just how deap the fear goes. Prae would rather have his balls cut off than use the word marraige to describe the union between two gay people. The semantics means more to him than his family jewels.

I don't care what they call it as long as gays are not denyed the rights of a couples union. A word is just a bunch of letters. The word "marraige" holds know sacred meaning. The sacredness is in the bond between the two people, not what the bond is called.

Originally posted by Travh20
the problem is the pro gay marriage crowd of secularists see religious convictions as "only religious convictions". they say "other then religious reasons, what reasons do you have?" as if since they dont believe in it, its not a good enough reason. Its obvious to them there is no good reason not to allow anyone marry whoever they want. What reason could be given to them that would change their mind? none. OUr reasons are not good enough for them. Their reasons are not good enough for us. they try to spice it up with words like equal rights and try to align themselves with other legitamate groups that have actually fought through actual oppresion and segregation. Fear of Labels will not be good enough leverage to get what you want this time.

We give actual good reasons why we support it. Equality is one and here in Canada, the very marriage laws are infringing on gays rights that are mentioned in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In order for true equality, we must extend the rights that the rest of Canada has to gays and lesbians. The new marriage act that is being proposed protects religious rights. Religious priest/ministers,etc, in Canada have the right to refuse to marry a gay couple. Gay marriage won't destroy you and your family, and it doesn't threaten to turn you gay.

Originally posted by Echo2
This shows just how deap the fear goes. Prae would rather have his balls cut off than use the word marraige to describe the union between two gay people. The semantics means more to him than his family jewels. I pity people who are that full of fear and hatred.
LMFAO! :D

echo please shut up with your fear and hatred rhetoric you idiot!!!!!!!!!

Dave, if you don't wish to discuss this issue, then don't. There is little point in repeated posts about why you don't want to discuss the issue.

take a hike, vile. I was obviously responding to his ridiculous accusation that I was 'afraid' to debate the issue. If my post defending myself was inappropriate, then his post accusing me of being "afraid" was equally inappropriate, so you can shove it. Quit trying to be a nagging mother figure.

Quit trying to be a nagging mother figure.*laughs*

Like I thought, he won't debate the issues...

I'll see you when I get out of school...hopefully by then you can come up with some reasons to be against homosexual marriage. Either debate the issues, or don’t post again. You’re just taking up space with this thread…

My views are right here on this board for you to see and respond to, so please shut up.

lol, your views are false. I looked at the last thread...and you have no valid reasons. Nice try, though. Keep dancing around the issues...it works well for the Republicans.

overdose, you need to drop the idea that your opinions are as good as gold. your debating an issue that is based in opinions. SInce it says nothing abot gay marriage specifically in the US Constitution its all opinions. get off your high horse already. you cant prove anyone wrong with your opinions, and thats all you have given on his board

Originally posted by Overmost
lol, your views are false. I looked at the last thread...and you have no valid reasons. Nice try, though. Keep dancing around the issues...it works well for the Republicans.
You snide little bastard. Jesus, you're cocky, and just so you know, egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity. I know, I know, I'm not debating the issues, well congratulations, neither are you...

Originally posted by Travh20
echo please shut up with your fear and hatred rhetoric you idiot!!!!!!!!!

You neocons can't debate the issue so you attack us. Call us names and laugh at us. It's a rebublican trick that is old and worn out.

Trav, what you fail to understand t is that being called an idiot by the likes of you is a compliment to those of us who believe in the constitution.

WTF is your major malfunction lady?

Originally posted by Echo2
I hate, therefore I am. That about sums it up.

Tell us what thread you found that quote in. You just set it up to look like a quote by me. A blantant misrepresentation if not an outright lie.

Typical republican. You can't debate the topic so you attempt to malign the speaker with lies and dirty tricks. Pitiful.

Yes, I admit i made it up. It was my interpretation of every post you make, rolled up into one. I took artistic liberties with your post and I apologize if i offended anyone other than you with that post.

Originally posted by Echo2
Typical republican.

THROW IN THE WORDS HATE AND FEAR AND YOU GOT ECHO IN A NUTSHELL

I am not offended. (yes I know you didn't appologise to me). I expect as much from republicans. That type of thing is how they approach political discussion. You have learned well from herr bush. (clicks heals together).

lmao, OK

Gawd I love this thread but I'm not going to jump in with an opinion. It's way too much fun just sitting on the sidelines watching a (very informed) 15 year old and a (very informed) middle age woman kicking ass on all the right wing macho chickenhawks.

I've always said that if you want to get the wingers riled, just bring up sexual freedom -- they hate it and they live their lives just to tell you and me what to do in our bedrooms.

Go team .... ROTFLMAO

Dop

dont flatter yourself dop, no one gives a shit about your sex life or lack thereof. And just because they echo your sentiments regarding this topic doesnt make them well informed, just birds of a feather. to me and others they are just babbling leftist nonsense as usual.

look, if 2 people love eachother and actually want to spend their lives together, then rock on. look at all the straight marriages that fall apart. look at the children who suffer in "straight" families. gay couples should be entitled to every benefit a straight couple is. so, they're gay. and? they're just as capable of raising children and committing to a marriage as any of us do. god bless them!!

Originally posted by Travh20
overdose, you need to drop the idea that your opinions are as good as gold.
Why…? My ideas haven’t been proved wrong, so until some Republicans do that…they are as good as gold in my book!

Originally posted by Travh20
Since it says nothing abot gay marriage specifically in the US Constitution its all opinions. get off your high horse already. you cant prove anyone wrong with your opinions, and thats all you have given on his board
You have no reason to be against it. Our Constitution was created to protect equal rights, as well as the Bill of Rights. Marriage is a right for everyone, including gay couples. Period.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
You snide little bastard.
Weren’t you the one that said I should fight back…and have a little more attitude?

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Jesus, you're cocky,
Yes, I am.

you cant prove a horses ass wrong overdose

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Gawd I love this thread but I'm not going to jump in with an opinion. It's way too much fun just sitting on the sidelines watching a (very informed) 15 year old and a (very informed) middle age woman kicking ass on all the right wing macho chickenhawks.

I've always said that if you want to get the wingers riled, just bring up sexual freedom -- they hate it and they live their lives just to tell you and me what to do in our bedrooms.

Go team .... ROTFLMAO

Dop
Your comments lack a certain lucidity which happens to be a byproduct of them coming from a fundamentally sterile brain. There's no shame in silence, Dop, for when you speak your mind, it severely limits the quality of conversation.

Consider this a heads-up...

Originally posted by Travh20
you cant prove a horses ass wrong overdose

Alrighty then…

As OD continues with this attitude, I continue to wonder if he is such an insolent sonofabitch in person as he is on this forum. Were he to speak to others in person as is seen here, he'd be unable to type, as both arms would be in casts, and both eyes would be swollen shut from repeated beatings delivered by those bigger, meaner and without an ounce of tolerance.

Weren’t you the one that said I should fight back…and have a little more attitude?
Attitude is one thing, omnipotence is another. But, however, you do have a good point, I did say to flare up conversation from time to time...

Originally posted by es347fan
As OD continues with this attitude, I continue to wonder if he is such an insolent sonofabitch in person as he is on this forum. Were he to speak to others in person as is seen here, he'd be unable to type, as both arms would be in casts, and both eyes would be swollen shut from repeated beatings delivered by those bigger, meaner and without an ounce of tolerance.
*Laughs*, but Es, be careful, mother hen is lurking in the shadows, just waiting to bare down on those who allude to physical threats of any kind.
:D

Hey Prae

Kiss my lucid ass

ROTFLMAO

Dop

Originally posted by es347fan
As OD continues with this attitude, I continue to wonder if he is such an insolent sonofabitch in person as he is on this forum. Were he to speak to others in person as is seen here, he'd be unable to type, as both arms would be in casts, and both eyes would be swollen shut from repeated beatings delivered by those bigger, meaner and without an ounce of tolerance.

Es, you are unbelievable. You are so bias; it’s amazing to me. When you have Trav saying things that are almost 100 times worse then what I’ve ever said. The Praetorian has even said things that have been highly offensive and wrong. Although, you don’t accuse or criticize them in any way. It’s fairly ironic, and I’m getting rather agitated with your little snide comments towards my character.

It’s amazing to me, that you allow others to have even more rude attitudes then myself, never once questioning them, but then attack me. You’re just an old man who has nothing better to do then surround himself with his own biases.

You purposely post comments that you know will crawl under my skin. You un-fairly target me, and it’s showing with every irrelevant comment you make towards me.

You once said Once you offer something of intelligence to this forum, I’ll debate you (this isn’t your exact words, but it’s the just of what you said)

Which thus shows, that you not only try and antagonize me, but you also have questioned my intelligence and thought process. So with all respect, I don’t care what you have to say. You’ve lost all credibility with me.

Plus, you always bring in my “age” when we are debating. Although, you allow others (who are my age, roughly) get away with the age argument you present so much. Again, unfairly targeting me.

Basically, you have it out for me. Do I care? Nope. Do your comments hurt? Sometimes. But since I’ve heard you mention them many times, I really couldn’t care. Have a nice life…

if you dont care why run off at the mouth like you do?

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Hey Prae

Kiss my lucid ass

ROTFLMAO

Dop

Okay, Dop, you win.

Wow! everyone is getting rather aggressive on this issue. Myself included. I would like to apoligize for my attitude on the last few posts, I was rather uhhmm.... heated.

Anyway... I seriously think it is wrong for you to classify Homosexuals as Sexual Deviants. Men and women practice Sodomy, some people like animals... and they aren't "Gay" Some people like Small Children and they aren't Gay... Everyone weather they are straight or Gay have the potential to be Sexual Deviants.

Wanting to bang members of the opposite sex doesn't constitute sexually deviant behavior. Wanting to bang members of the same sex, in the ass, does. That's NOT normal, and I don't care how you want to spin it...

I don't understand what is wrong with ass banging?

http://onfinite.com/libraries/165592/167.jpg

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Wanting to bang members of the opposite sex doesn't constitute sexually deviant behavior. Wanting to bang members of the same sex, in the ass, does. That's NOT normal, and I don't care how you want to spin it...


Exactly! what is wrong with Ass Banging same sex or otherwise? A lot of people practice it and some of them even says it feels good.... Again.. don't knock it till you try it.

I know many straight women who have anal sex.

sure you do overdose :rolleyes:

ummmm, I can get you some porn of women who have anal sex....with other men. It's not that hard to find online...if you really want to see that I"m telling the truth.

I was kidding about the ass-banging thing. I think God gave women vagina's for a reason. If we were meant to screw each other in the asses, there would be no need for that vagina!

How insightful…

Originally posted by Overdose
ummmm, I can get you some porn of women who have anal sex....with other men. It's not that hard to find online...if you really want to see that I"m telling the truth.


first of all, your not old enough to view such things, secondly, you said you knew these women, now your getting it off the internet? LOL, how do you go from knowing many woomen who have anal sex to offering up some internet porn as proof? anyway, dont bother, I havve been around the block a few times, I know whats up.