look what NJ just did

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:49 pm

Jsc810 wrote:Damnit Terry, why did you have to point that out? I was going to watch and see how far they would take that thought, which evidences that they didn't bother to read the opinion.

If they're not going to bother reading the 14th Amendment, why would they bother to ready a court decision?

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:12 am

KatMode wrote:
poptart wrote:KM, I spoke of a few reasons why fruit marriage is dumb, and I didn't bring sanctity into the discussion.
I see one reason:
poptart wrote:Many homos seeking marriage would be doing so for the wrong reason.
They, as Dinsdale has accurately pointed out, would be seeking to get over.
What evidence do you have to back up that unsubstantiated claim? And how do you know that it is only homos that would do this as opposed to a man and a women doing it for 1) immigration purposes, 2) Death benefits, or 3) Social Security/Retirement benefits?

Some people get married for 'getting over' purposes, yes.
Guess what ... ?
Adults can marry for whatever reason they see fit.
Make your vows, pay your fee, off you go.
Fags need not apply.
Marriage = man & woman.
Discrimination .... ?
No, common sense.
As I said, you either get that or you don't.

I have no evidence to back up my claim because marriage is man & woman in our country.
My claim is based on common sense.

Look into it.

RadioFan · Post by **RadioFan** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 5:08 am

poptart wrote:Some people get married for 'getting over' purposes, yes.
Guess what ... ?
Adults can marry for whatever reason they see fit.

Key word there, and yes.

poptart wrote:Make your vows, pay your fee, off you go.

Agreed.

Why does that bother you so, pop? Why would you care what some guy does with his dick or some woman does with her pussy?

Why is it any of YOUR business, as far as economics are concerned? Two adults. Pay the fee, right?

poptart wrote:I have no evidence to back up my claim because marriage is man & woman in our country.

No, it isn't.

The issue is the one being discussed in this thread.

poptart wrote:My claim is based on common sense.

Look into it.

Look in the mirror.

No really. It's like Dins has said, I find it fascinating how certain men are so concerned about what other men do with their dicks. Or women, for that matter.

Psychotic, actually.

Btw, hypocrites,

Spinach Genie · Post by **Spinach Genie** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:31 am

What some fag does in the bedroom is their biz. Marriage, however, is asking for federal benefits. The idea behind these benefits is the advancement of a stable family situation. While this is certainly no guarantee in a heterosexual relationship, it's a possibility. A homosexual relationship can not reproduce, ever. It is not naturally intended that they do so. You are asking the federal government to basically fork over dollars for a sexual proclivity. Homosexuals are not a race. It's like declaring special rights to S&M practitioners. Shack up, cool. As others have said, however, tax dollars should not go to fund a non-productive sexual orientation. The modern court being the legislators that they are, however, it will likely come to pass eventually.

Cicero · Post by **Cicero** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:38 am

^^^

Dead on, as usual.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:42 am

That's pretty damned ignorant.

What about older hetero couples who are past child bearing age? They are non productive. You going to single them out too?

RadioFan · Post by **RadioFan** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:57 am

Spinach Genie wrote:Marriage, however, is asking for federal benefits.

Given the divorce rate, that's pretty funny.

Spinach Genie wrote:The idea behind these benefits is the advancement of a stable family situation. While this is certainly no guarantee in a heterosexual relationship, it's a possibility. A homosexual relationship can not reproduce, ever.

Niether can my gf and I, with me fucking her in the ass.

But then again, we don't generally see ourselves as "asking for federal benefits," nor do we see ourselves as having kids, especially ones who would want to post on a board like this, with the name of "Spinach Genie."

Spinach Genie wrote: You are asking the federal government to basically fork over dollars for a sexual proclivity.

Nope. No more so than those who think, "Hey! Let's get married! It'd be cool for federal benefits! Honey, you had me at tax form A.

Spinach Genie wrote:Homosexuals are not a race.

Niether are hard-up ex-spouses of veterans.

Spinach Genie wrote:It's like declaring special rights to S&M practitioners. Shack up, cool. As others have said, however, tax dollars should not go to fund a non-productive sexual orientation.

So when I die, I can't leave everything I own, to the woman I've been with, for years, simply because we couldn't produce children, for "morality's" ... errr, the government's sake?

Nice outline, Buc.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 7:24 am

RF, I challenge you to find any post I've ever put up in which I spoke on behalf of lesbianism.

SG's post is a good one.

This is an issue where folks have staked out their positions and really won't easily be budged from them.

If fags want to fag around, fine.
If they want to redefine marriage, not fine.
Seriously, where do they get their balls big enough to think they can do that .... ?
Fuck them.
The next step following, of course, is fag adoption of children.
Very very uncool.

The standard set for marriage is man & woman, and that is an appropriate and GOOD standard for society.
The people believe it to be .... overwhelmingly.

Much is made of the divorce rate.
50% is horrible -- not NOT good.
If you think that number will do anything but go up up up UP if sodomites are allowed to marry then you're a very dim bulb.

There is NO compelling reason at all to radically redefine marriage .... NONE.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 7:41 am

poptart wrote:RF, I challenge you to find any post I've ever put up in which I spoke on behalf of lesbianism.

SG's post is a good one.

Not really. What he said is that people get married to get money from the government, and that since marriage is for procreation of children, we should exclude gays.

THAT is about as narrow minded and ignorant as you can get.

This is an issue where folks have staked out their positions and really won't easily be budged from them.

If fags want to fag around, fine.
If they want to redefine marriage, not fine.
Seriously, where do they get their balls big enough to think they can do that .... ?
Fuck them.
The next step following, of course, is fag adoption of children.
Very very uncool.

The standard set for marriage is man & woman, and that is an appropriate and GOOD standard for society.
The people believe it to be .... overwhelmingly.

Much is made of the divorce rate.
50% is horrible -- not NOT good.
If you think that number will do anything but go up up up UP if sodomites are allowed to marry then you're a very dim bulb.

There is NO compelling reason at all to radically redefine marriage .... NONE.

It's a double standard,like women reporters in the locker room.

I don't think they should be allowed in, unless their male counterparts are also allowed in womens sports locker rooms .

You say "gays can do whatever they want, they can be couples, but they can't be married. Why? because you say? because the bible or the dictionary says?

If the government uses marriage as a means of defining how people - individuals and couples - pay taxes and reap benefits, and you are taking a small segment of the population (gay couples) which you allow to exist under your rules, and you're saying they aren't allowed the same benefits hetero couples have just because they are gay, well isn't that discrimination? Set aside your disgust at the gay activities they partake in (because there are ass fuckers in the hetero world, too), and take a look at the broader picture. They are working, paying taxes, and yet they are denied the benefits other couples get.

IMo You either have to redefine the way the government uses the institution of marriage as a benchmark for distribution of benefits to citizens or you have to allow all "couples", regardless of their sexual proclivities to be able to have access to those benefits.

If you form a new religion - and called yourself "The Tartists" - and the government decided that your religious practices did not meet the standards under which marriage was defined and they denied you access to beneifts you would have a right to if you belonged to an accepted religion, would you accept that as fair?

In the past history of this country at various times, blacks, women, and indians had no rights or limited rights.

Even today in india the lowest caste of people - the untouchables - are treated worse than the dogs that people born into the upper caste keep as pets. Hardline muslims treat women as inferior, yet without them the race would cease to exist.

At what point will we as humans be able to grow past stubborness and ignorance into acceptance of others who live differently when the activities of those who are different have no negative affect on our own personal lives?

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 8:04 am

Women don't belong in male lockerrooms.
That's always been my take.

Mister Bushice wrote:You either have to redefine the way the government uses the institution of marriage as a benchmark for distribution of benefits to citizens or you have to allow all "couples", regardless of their sexual proclivities to be able to have access to those benefits.

We don't have to do diddly squat.

The family structure is important to our country.
That family structure begins with man and wife.
It's just the way it is, and it just happens to be the way it's always been in every place in every time.
Get over it.

Do you believe a homosexual couple should be allowed to adopt children ... ?

Spinach Genie · Post by **Spinach Genie** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:00 pm

RadioFan wrote: Given the divorce rate, that's pretty funny.

Actually, it's pretty irrelevant.

But then again, we don't generally see ourselves as "asking for federal benefits," nor do we see ourselves as having kids, especially ones who would want to post on a board like this, with the name of "Spinach Genie."

It wasn't me who stole your crayons, pipsqueak. Focus.

Nope. No more so than those who think, "Hey! Let's get married! It'd be cool for federal benefits! Honey, you had me at tax form A.

I'm not discussing motivations, I'm discussing financial realities.

Niether are hard-up ex-spouses of veterans.

Your surgical dissection of my point rivals a walrus with the shits for its grace.

So when I die, I can't leave everything I own, to the woman I've been with, for years, simply because we couldn't produce children, for "morality's" ... errr, the government's sake?

Nice outline, Buc.

I didn't mention morality, only simple biology. Doubtless there are plenty of legal outlets for one fag to leave his spread to the other. If not, I'm sure there will be. Marriage, however, should not be that solution.

Spinach Genie · Post by **Spinach Genie** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:12 pm

Mister Bushice wrote:
Not really. What he said is that people get married to get money from the government, and that since marriage is for procreation of children, we should exclude gays.

THAT is about as narrow minded and ignorant as you can get.

Actually I said people do get benefits from the government when married. This is true. Motivations for marriage are irrelevant. If two gays wish to get 'married', what is at question for me and many are these benefits which are paid for by taxpayers. As useless as many marriages turn out to be, the heterosexual union can produce a productive family situation. With a homosexual union, this is biologically impossible in any situation. Again, as much as gays are treated like a race or nationality they are not. It's a sexual orientation no more deserving of re-visiting what constitutes 'marriage' and the benefits according than Radiofan fucking a pet schnauzer.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:26 pm

And this isn't just about benefits received from the government. Married couples receive many benefits from the private sector as well (previously mentioned access to loved ones in hospital, rental car rates, car insurance rates, access to medical insurance, ect.).

And if you want to argue that gays & lesbians shouldn't be given these benefits based on their sexual preference/choice, where does it say that your choice is more deserving of these benefits (especially now that your "it's for the children" argument has been blown to bits)?

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:56 pm

so I'm assuming that you consider this relationship (hetero couple with 2 children)

to be a much more nurturing enviornment for their children than this dirty lesbian coupling......

yeah, brittney and kev are much better suited to being parents....

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:56 pm

There is a normally a standard of qualification for 'perks', Diego.
Not only in marriage, but in MANY things.
Society has set the standard for marriage, and it has been set because it is a GOOD standard.
It is a standard that the people overwhelmingly support.

You're trying to raise individual wishes above the greater good of the people as a whole, and it demonstrates a profound selfishness on your part.

To put it less politely, fuck off.

Spinach Genie · Post by **Spinach Genie** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 4:33 pm

Jsc810 wrote:
Spinach Genie wrote:As useless as many marriages turn out to be, the heterosexual union can produce a productive family situation. With a homosexual union, this is biologically impossible in any situation.
Not quite. Just as many heterosexual couples must resort to adoption, in vitro feterilization, and having other women carry the baby, gay couples can and do use those methods also.

True. Of course, the child was still not a natural result of their union. In a hetero situation, these methods are taken to overcome uncommon circumstances. In a homosexual situation, they are required. Again, it's a sexual orientation at debate here. You could marry two 10 year olds and they could theoretically adopt. I don't support re-writing the book on that one anymore than I do someone who has wrapped their life around a sexual preference. I don't think there is necessarily a moral basis for arguing on either side of the plate here...but there is a logical one. A homosexual union will never have the stability of a natural, heterosexual one. You can spin all the statistics and celebrity couples you like, the differences in men and women are purposeful and no amount of put on feminine and masculine homosexual enthusiasm can imitate that. It's a question of money and legality. Put to a vote, I think with very few exceptions across the nation the idea of homosexual marriage has a very long, long way to go in gaining public acceptance. However, as with so many things, the court will take it upon themselves to "interpret" new legislation and eventually it will come to pass. The sun will still rise the next day and I as many will shrug and get on with life, but my opinion won't change. It will be another (of many) waste of my tax dollars.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 4:51 pm

poptart wrote:Society has set the standard for slavery, and it has been set because it is a GOOD standard.
It is a standard that the people overwhelmingly support.

It's GOOD because the person advocating maintaining the status quo isn't the one being discriminated against. Many people felt that slavery was good for themselves & their society. And a vote in their southern part of the country would have resulted in slavery being upheld. Does that make slavery right? By your logic regarding homosexual marriages you're condoning slavery for the same reasons.

You're trying to raise individual wishes above the greater good of the people as a whole, and it demonstrates a profound selfishness on your part.

Please explain how yours or anyone else's hetero marriage would be damaged by allowing gay & lesbian couples the same priviliges (as required by the 14th Amendment)? Please explain how this country would be hurt by allowing equality to be applied to marriages. And just for giggles, please explain how the ability to procreate in this country is so important after passing the 300 million population mark.

To put it less politely, fuck off.

Is that your cologne, or did you just deliver soap cakes to the urinals?

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sat Oct 28, 2006 5:30 pm

Spinach Genie wrote:A homosexual union will never have the stability of a natural, heterosexual one.

Never?

Link up or shut the fuck up. And what about all the gays who don't intend on having kids?

There's no way two unemployable heterosexual crackheads are going to maintain a more "stable" union than two college educated, professional homos. Not a chance in hell.

You fuckers need to stop generalizing and start producing evidence for your commie-like "beliefs."

Katy · Post by **Katy** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 5:55 pm

RadioFan wrote: Niether are hard-up ex-spouses of veterans.

Guess this little jizz deposit was meant for me....

Believe me, my ex isn't some war hero. I give him respect for serving our country, and that's all I give him. Any man who beats a small child and throws said child from a SUV, beats his wife black and blue, gets arrested and charged with 4 Class D felonies, and 4 Class A misdemeanors--isn't someone you should wrap up in the flag and sing the National Anthem for.

Yes, he's a veteran...but he's no man or father.

Now that some of you know the above--please feel free to praise my ex even further. It's all a matter of public record and so is the fact that I have sole custody of my children and he has NO visitation.

But back to the subject, I agree with everything Buc posted on the subject before Radio Fan tried to take it personal.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sat Oct 28, 2006 5:57 pm

This thread finally got good.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:07 pm

Katy wrote:I agree with everything Buc posted

Probably a good idea to start getting into this habit.

sin

Katy · Post by **Katy** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:12 pm

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
Katy wrote:I agree with everything Buc posted
Probably a good idea to start getting into this habit.

sin

Buc isn't a woman beater nor has he treated me in the least bit badly. I'm sure it was Buzzer who started all of that. He never met her face-to-face and dumped her via text message after she continued to leave him voice mails cussing him out for not being where she thought he should be.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:14 pm

Katy wrote:He never met her face-to-face and dumped her via text message after she continued to leave him voice mails cussing him out for not being where she thought he should be.

Comedy gold.

Keep it comin'.

Katy · Post by **Katy** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:17 pm

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
Katy wrote:He never met her face-to-face and dumped her via text message after she continued to leave him voice mails cussing him out for not being where she thought he should be.
Comedy gold.

Keep it comin'.

I agree, it is funny.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:25 pm

Spinach Genie wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:
Not really. What he said is that people get married to get money from the government, and that since marriage is for procreation of children, we should exclude gays.

THAT is about as narrow minded and ignorant as you can get.
Actually I said people do get benefits from the government when married. This is true. Motivations for marriage are irrelevant. If two gays wish to get 'married', what is at question for me and many are these benefits which are paid for by taxpayers. As useless as many marriages turn out to be, the heterosexual union can produce a productive family situation. With a homosexual union, this is biologically impossible in any situation. Again, as much as gays are treated like a race or nationality they are not. It's a sexual orientation no more deserving of re-visiting what constitutes 'marriage' and the benefits according than Radiofan fucking a pet schnauzer.

umm hellooo? Gays don't pay taxes? When did that rule get instituted?

Or is it you think they should pay them and not be allowed to reap the benefits of doing so?

and SO FUCKING WHAT if a gay marriage doesn't produce children? You are tripping all over your religious upbringing here. An implied ability to reproduce has no relevance at all.

You guys are just freaking because your religious pleas are being ignored.

When you cry out "but marriage is OURS!! No judge should be listening, because it has zero relevance to equal rights.

And you equate gays with dogs? Nice going there, punjab. Just because you're dating a member of the equine class, don't get all confused.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:31 pm

Katy wrote:I'm sure it was Buzzer who started all of that.

I'm fairly sure that was me.

All of which I obviously made up, for the record.

And why would I do something so mean and distasteful?

So people like MGO could drop extremely RACKable bombs, of course. Funny shit.

Katy · Post by **Katy** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:32 pm

Mister Bushice wrote:
Spinach Genie wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:
Not really. What he said is that people get married to get money from the government, and that since marriage is for procreation of children, we should exclude gays.

THAT is about as narrow minded and ignorant as you can get.
Actually I said people do get benefits from the government when married. This is true. Motivations for marriage are irrelevant. If two gays wish to get 'married', what is at question for me and many are these benefits which are paid for by taxpayers. As useless as many marriages turn out to be, the heterosexual union can produce a productive family situation. With a homosexual union, this is biologically impossible in any situation. Again, as much as gays are treated like a race or nationality they are not. It's a sexual orientation no more deserving of re-visiting what constitutes 'marriage' and the benefits according than Radiofan fucking a pet schnauzer.
umm hellooo? Gays don't pay taxes? When did that rule get instituted?

Or is it you think they should pay them and not be allowed to reap the benefits of doing so?

and SO FUCKING WHAT if a gay marriage doesn't produce children? You are tripping all over your religious upbringing here. An implied ability to reproduce has no relevance at all.

You guys are just freaking because your religious pleas are being ignored.

When you cry out "but marriage is OURS!! No judge should be listening, because it has zero relevance to equal rights.

And you equate gays with dogs? Nice going there, punjab. Just because you're dating a member of the equine class, don't get all confused.

Equine class? Were you one of the many LK fucked from this board?

Katy · Post by **Katy** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:34 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Katy wrote:I'm sure it was Buzzer who started all of that.

I'm fairly sure that was me.

All of which I obviously made up, for the record.

And why would I do something so mean and distasteful?

So people like MGO could drop extremely RACKable bombs, of course. Funny shit.

Actually, Dins, it was buzzer who said that at .net in a PM to LK that was posted at .net. But yeah, I read your shit when it was posted and frankly, it didn't bother me. If you post on these boards, everything is game.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:41 pm

Katy wrote:If you post on these boards, everything is game.

The welfare-chasing punching-bag "gets it."

Katy · Post by **Katy** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:44 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Katy wrote:If you post on these boards, everything is game.

The welfare-chasing punching-bag "gets it."

Sure. Why not? I don't see anything wrong with trolling, errr spinning facts just for meltage purposes.

Sin,
Every poster on any Rome spinoff board.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:58 pm

Katy wrote: Were you one of the many LK fucked from this board?

Honey, lkpick cantered from this board with her tail between her hocks, and that was the only running she did around here.

Katy · Post by **Katy** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 7:00 pm

Mister Bushice wrote:
Katy wrote: Were you one of the many LK fucked from this board?
Honey, lkpick cantered from this board with her tail between her hocks, and that was the only running she did around here.

I thought she was banned? I was soooo dying to hear about her Elvis nuptials at Circus, Circus.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 7:06 pm

last I recall she melted after telling a sad story about some teenager who was in a car accident with an infant in the car on the way home from work at 2 am.

yeah, that story worked real well.

I was soooo dying to hear about her Elvis nuptials at Circus, Circus.

IT wasn't circus circus, it was THE circus. and it wasn't a bridal veil, it was a bridle.

Katy · Post by **Katy** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 7:08 pm

Mister Bushice wrote:last I recall she melted after telling a sad story about some teenager who was in a car accident with an infant in the car on the way home from work at 2 am.

yeah, that story worked real well.

There was no infant in the car. Did she add that to the story for sympathy points? There were 2 girls in the car and that was it. Apparently they were speeding and the girl that was supposedly brain dead isn't brain dead at all.

LK=drama whore

Katy · Post by **Katy** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 7:15 pm

Mister Bushice wrote: IT wasn't circus circus, it was THE circus. and it wasn't a bridal veil, it was a bridle.

Perhaps the groom stuffed her back in the beanbag chair and returned her to Wal-mart.

Spinach Genie · Post by **Spinach Genie** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 8:09 pm

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote: Link up or shut the fuck up. And what about all the gays who don't intend on having kids?

Link what? The fact that you have a socially and biologically aberrant sexually based union trying to raise a stable child? That said child will not have a natural set of masculine or feminine figures to grow with? Commie? What is commie is asking taxpayers to fund someone's sexual fetish. You continue to single out the failed hetero examples, but as a whole do you honestly believe a homosexual union is a stable platform to raise children? Because that's what the end goal of a marriage is. Family. Raising future and productive citizens for a civilized society. A homosexual union is incapable of producing a natural family. As for the gays who don't intend on having kids, I could give a fuck. I don't feel like I should pay tax money to fund their sexual orientation.

Spinach Genie · Post by **Spinach Genie** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 8:11 pm

Mister Bushice wrote: and SO FUCKING WHAT if a gay marriage doesn't produce children? You are tripping all over your religious upbringing here. An implied ability to reproduce has no relevance at all.

Try again, genius. I'm not the least bit religious nor have I ever been.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 8:56 pm

Spinach Genie wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote: and SO FUCKING WHAT if a gay marriage doesn't produce children? You are tripping all over your religious upbringing here. An implied ability to reproduce has no relevance at all.
Try again, genius. I'm not the least bit religious nor have I ever been.

The only wedidng vows which include having children as part of the marriage are religious based ceremonies. Civil ceremonies do not mention anything about children unless the couple specify it.

So where's your relevance now?

And nice dodge on the taxpaying question , too. You might want to tighten up that belt, your ignorant ass is showing.

Spinach Genie · Post by **Spinach Genie** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 9:03 pm

Money, not vows assclown...and dodge what? Gays pay taxes. So do most people. The question here is why give tax breaks to something that can't produce a natural, socially beneficial family situation? I don't see the equality issue here. It's the nature of the union that's being challenged, not someone's right to shack up in whatever way they see fit.

Spinach Genie · Post by **Spinach Genie** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 9:05 pm

Jsc810 wrote:
Spinach Genie wrote:A homosexual union is incapable of producing a natural family.
My mother and law and her partner did a wonderful job of raising my wife and her sisters. :D

Was your wife adopted or artificially conceived?