T1B

Spinach Genie wrote: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.

socially beneficial? And who exactly is making this rule?

two 55 year old hetero taxpayers get married.

two 35 year old gay tapxpayers get married.

in what way are the non child producing hetero couple more socially beneficial than the gay one?

Felix wrote:

Which one is the dad and the future grandpa?

Spinach Genie wrote:Link what?

Oh, I dunno, maybe your claims that it's impossible for a gay couple to have a "stable" union.

If you're so confident in your belief, then I presume it won't be hard to come up with the facts, dipshit. But you won't. You'll just spin, spin, spin away.

but as a whole do you honestly believe a homosexual union is a stable platform to raise children?

Every family upbringing is situational. You're doing a great job of generalizing an entire group of people. Either you're too lazy to look a little more into the issue of which you preach, or you're just really fucking stupid and arrogant. I'm leaning towards both.

Because that's what the end goal of a marriage is. Family.

Uhh, that's not everybody's path, moron. The fact you believe every person in America should have the same "set of goals" is pretty fucking dictatorial of you. Again, great job of generalizing. That's about the only thing you've accomplished in this exceedingly narrow-minded charade of yours.

Raising future and productive citizens for a civilized society.

Fuckin' please. I don't even believe you buy this argument.

If anything, gay couples are a benefit to our society as they help control the population. Lord knows we don't need more meth addicts popping out babies left and right with multiple partners.

Diego in Seattle wrote: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)?

The 14th Amendment doesn't require fag marriage, fag.


Imagine elementary school teacher, Mrs Pepperplugger's class has an election for student senate. Timmy, Sarah, Ahmed, and Reuben are elected and put on student senate. Proud of their status, they are.

Two days later Mrs Pepperplugger feels forlorn over the plight of little Nelson the nosepicker, who's 'socially ill-adapted' ....

Being a do-gooder, she 'promotes' Nelson the nosepicker to student senate, right alongside Timmy, Sarah, Ahmed, and Reuben.

Now that the nosepicker Nelson has been promoted to equal status, Timmy, Sarah, Ahned, and Reuben see that student senate just doesn't have the same zing to it.

In fact, it quite sucks.

Nelson the nosepicker, and do-gooder Mrs Pepperplugger, ruined a happy day for everyone.

poptart wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote: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)?

The 14th Amendment doesn't require fag marriage, fag.

U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment - Rights Guaranteed Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection


Amendment Text | Annotations
Section. 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.

A partner in a couple can bequeath to their other partner their estate w/o taxes, but only if they are married. To say that the couple can't have that privilege simply because they don't fit a religious view of what a couple should be is a violation of both the 1st & 14th Amendments.

EOS

Notice how Pedo jumps into a thread about homosexuals and children? :big shocker:

poptart wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote: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)?

The 14th Amendment doesn't require fag marriage, fag.


Imagine elementary school teacher, Mrs Pepperplugger's class has an election for student senate. Timmy, Sarah, Ahmed, and Reuben are elected and put on student senate. Proud of their status, they are.

Two days later Mrs Pepperplugger feels forlorn over the plight of little Nelson the nosepicker, who's 'socially ill-adapted' ....

Being a do-gooder, she 'promotes' Nelson the nosepicker to student senate, right alongside Timmy, Sarah, Ahmed, and Reuben.

Now that the nosepicker Nelson has been promoted to equal status, Timmy, Sarah, Ahned, and Reuben see that student senate just doesn't have the same zing to it.

In fact, it quite sucks.

Nelson the nosepicker, and do-gooder Mrs Pepperplugger, ruined a happy day for everyone.

You're right, Herr Poptart. The master race should lead.

Whatever the 'master race' may be, one thing's for certain.
It is made up of males procreating with females.

Btw, Bushice, you didn't answer my question before about homosexual 'couples' adopting children.
Are you in favor of it ... ?


Hate to break it to ya, Diego, but tossing 'bequeath' into your post in attempt to sound intellectual accomplishes the opposite result.


Jsc, in a vaccum, of course you are right.
We don't live in a vaccum.

It boils down to what sort of society we want to have.
Society deems some things acceptable and other things not.
You're well aware that we just can't do whatever it is we want to do, right .... ?
There are things that society says NO to, despite your own strong urges and desires.
Smoking dope may be cool in a lot of circles, but society has said NO to it.
Are all the dope smokers being discriminated against ... ?
No, there are some dope smokers who are responsible and upright, yet still, society has decided that on a large scale, we are better off without sanctioning that activity.

Most folks believe that men marrying other men is not right.
That being the case, society certainly ought not sanction and bless them with marriage just because they want it.

poptart wrote:Whatever the 'master race' may be, one thing's for certain.
It is made up of males procreating with females.

You presume too much.

sin

Asexual reproduction

http://biology.about.com/library/weekly/aa090700a.htm

poptart wrote:Hate to break it to ya, Diego, but tossing 'bequeath' into your post in attempt to sound intellectual accomplishes the opposite result.

Hate to break it to ya, poptart, but dodging my question revolving around the constitutional issues involved makes you look like a huge idiot & wus. If you don't want to deal with relevant facts & issues just eject.

Katy wrote:I thought she was banned?

For the third time, LK is not banned.

RadioFan wrote:

Katy wrote:I thought she was banned?

For the third time, LK is not banned.

All I'm doing is repeating what she posted at .net

poptart wrote:Whatever the 'master race' may be, one thing's for certain.
It is made up of males procreating with females.

Btw, Bushice, you didn't answer my question before about homosexual 'couples' adopting children.
Are you in favor of it ... ?

I have no problem with it, because I've observed they make good parents. They don't "encourage" the gay lifestyle with kids, they have just as much concern for the childs welfare as hetero parents. And the kids don't grow up with the prejudicial burden of despising those who are different, like you have.

It boils down to what sort of society we want to have.
Society deems some things acceptable and other things not.
You're well aware that we just can't do whatever it is we want to do, right .... ?
There are things that society says NO to, despite your own strong urges and desires.
Smoking dope may be cool in a lot of circles, but society has said NO to it.

Society hasn't said no, the government has. pot enjoys widespread use in society, underground. Same thing as booze in the 1920's. the government said no, society said yes.

Are all the dope smokers being discriminated against ... ?
No, there are some dope smokers who are responsible and upright, yet still, society has decided that on a large scale, we are better off without sanctioning that activity.

More particularly, the stuck up religious right, who thinks it's bad to smoke pot and have premarital sex but perfectly ok to cheat in business and rip off the public.

Most folks believe that men marrying other men is not right.

Funny how gays have such a high exposure on TV, in entertainment, in film, and, oddly enough, in congress. You would think "most folks" would object.

That being the case, society certainly ought not sanction and bless them with marriage just because they want it.

Sorry, this argument is just weak. You're incapable of stepping outside of your own religious shackles to accept a reality that does not fit the picture of the way YOU want things to be. IF homosexuality was so abhorrent to americans, will and grace would not be on Tv and been as successful, barney frank would not have been re-elected as many times as he has been , and Elton John would not have become the international star that he is.

IF you can, explain why "queer eye for the straight guy" became a successful show if "most people" find that type of behavior unacceptable.

Bushice, instead of evaluating American sentiment by what you see on your boob tube, why don't you digest the FACT that homo marriage was obliterated in voting in 11 different states in the '04 election.

You're aware of that fact, right ... ?
Yes, you are.

The people don't want it.


Jsc,

I know that there are those out there pushing VERY hard the idea that folks are born gay.
In a VERY loose way, I agree with it ..... but not in the way you think.

People are born anatomically equipped for sexual relations with the opposite sex.
So my take is that there are no homosexuals, but there are people who engage in homosexual activity.
Being as they are equipped for sex with the opposite sex, homosexual activity is accurately described as a deviation ..... or perversion.

Are people 'born' compulsive gamblers ...?
Born alcoholics ... ?
Born perfectionists ...?
Born with raging tempers ... ?
Born shopaholics ... ?
Born chain-smokers ... ?
Born fingernail chewers ... ?
Born pedophiliacs ... ?
Born homosexual ... ?

Sort of, yes.
They may be born with a 'predisposition' toward a certain behavior, but accurately speaking, they CHOOSE those behaviors as they move through life.

Coming from the soiled seed of Adam (sorry, Bushice), we ALL are born 'deformed' ....... and as we try to find comfort we all further mal-adapt and aquire behaviors which bring us a sense of comfort or pleasure as we move through life.
Most of the behaviors are neurotic.
You have them, I have them, all of us have them.
Homosexual behavior is just one.
It's not better or worse than the other behaviors, necessarily ....... but it is not desirable.
Our anatomy clearly spells that out.

We, as a society, ought not embrace that behavior and grace those who partake in it with marital status just because they want it.



Diego, the 1st and 14th Amendments are not being violated by gay marriage being against the law.
I don't know what else it is you're looking to hear.

Bushice, instead of evaluating American sentiment by what you see on your boob tube, why don't you digest the FACT that homo marriage was obliterated in voting in 11 different states in the '04 election.

You're aware of that fact, right ... ?
Yes, you are.

The people don't want it.

I'm guessing most of those states are Red states, right?

SOME of the people don't want it. The marriage act designed to ban gay marriage was shot down in the senate.

Massachusetts, California, New jersey, Hawaii, Vermont, Connecticut, New York and Maine either shot down a gay marriage ban or they allow either legal marriage or civil unions to occur.

It is not as simple as you think.

Again, you chose the facts that only supoprt your case, but they are not all of the facts.

Why you religious types have this as a major bug up your nightie is beyond me. I could not care less if the gays are married.

You're in here selling it pretty damn hard for somebody that 'couldn't care less'.

I DO care about this issue a lot, yes, because I care about our country, and pushing through gay marriage would have a big-time damaging impact.

The American family has already been so very badly fractured over the past generation, and this would definitely NOT help matters at all.

We see things differently so we'll just have to agree to disagree, Bushice, .......... you big homosexual.

poptart wrote:Diego, the 1st and 14th Amendments are not being violated by gay marriage being against the law.

You don't see that a marriage provides privileges not provided to unmarried couples????

Has your IQ ever reached double digits?

If the unmarried folks want the benefits then they can sack up and marry according to the standard of marriage.
This 'everybody deserves everything' bullshit is ...... bullshit.

The Amish want to ride their horse and buggy on the interstate.
Why can't they .... ?
Because only cars and motorcycles are allowed on the interstate.
That's the standard set forth, for the good of the people.

No horseshit on the interstate.

poptart wrote:If the unmarried folks want the benefits then they can sack up and marry according to the standard of marriage.

They can't do the latter half due to half-brains like you, dumbshit.

This 'everybody deserves everything' bullshit is ...... bullshit.

Why do you hate America & the principles it was built on?

The Amish want to ride their horse and buggy on the interstate.
Why can't they .... ?
Because only cars and motorcycles are allowed on the interstate.
That's the standard set forth, for the good of the people.

No horseshit on the interstate.

No horseshit on the interstate because your cranial cavity is filled with it. You're comparing the danger of very slow & very fast vehicles using the same highway to gay marriage?? :roll: X infinity

You have yet to define how gay marriage will damage this country, nor how giving privileges to one set of people but not another isn't a violation of the 14th Amendment (and usually done so while violating the 1st).

This "I got mine & tough for all the rest" argument ain't makin' you look too good. Just say'in.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

Spinach Genie wrote:Link what?

Oh, I dunno, maybe your claims that it's impossible for a gay couple to have a "stable" union.

If you're so confident in your belief, then I presume it won't be hard to come up with the facts, dipshit. But you won't. You'll just spin, spin, spin away.

The facts are homosexuality is a sexual orientation...an unnatural sexual orientation. It can't produce children. Short of artificial means, it can't produce a family. If someone wants to draw up a law that allows a civil union to a sexual fetish, go for it. Just don't make the rest of the world pay for it.

=Every family upbringing is situational. You're doing a great job of generalizing an entire group of people. Either you're too lazy to look a little more into the issue of which you preach, or you're just really fucking stupid and arrogant. I'm leaning towards both.

You're dodging. Answer the question. You don't have a mother/father figure. You have a socially off situation. Basically, you've introduced disfunction before you even begin.

Uhh, that's not everybody's path, moron. The fact you believe every person in America should have the same "set of goals" is pretty fucking dictatorial of you. Again, great job of generalizing. That's about the only thing you've accomplished in this exceedingly narrow-minded charade of yours.

This is about money, dipshit. Why do we give tax breaks to a married couple? Think hard.

Fuckin' please. I don't even believe you buy this argument.

Why?

If anything, gay couples are a benefit to our society as they help control the population. Lord knows we don't need more meth addicts popping out babies left and right with multiple partners.

Some G popping his homie in the street controls the population. It doesn't mean I want to set up a tax break for him.

poptart wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote: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)?

The 14th Amendment doesn't require fag marriage, fag.


Imagine elementary school teacher, Mrs Pepperplugger's class has an election for student senate. Timmy, Sarah, Ahmed, and Reuben are elected and put on student senate. Proud of their status, they are.

Two days later Mrs Pepperplugger feels forlorn over the plight of little Nelson the nosepicker, who's 'socially ill-adapted' ....

Being a do-gooder, she 'promotes' Nelson the nosepicker to student senate, right alongside Timmy, Sarah, Ahmed, and Reuben.

Now that the nosepicker Nelson has been promoted to equal status, Timmy, Sarah, Ahned, and Reuben see that student senate just doesn't have the same zing to it.
In fact, it quite sucks.

Nelson the nosepicker, and do-gooder Mrs Pepperplugger, ruined a happy day for everyone.

Says who - why do you hate Boys?

Oh, butt you just love little boys, don’t you pedorino?

Try to keep on topic, you attention-deficit-disordered clown

The phantorino wrote:Try to keep on topic, you attention-deficit-disordered clown

Try to keep off the little boys, you brain-damaged pederast.

poptart wrote:You're in here selling it pretty damn hard for somebody that 'couldn't care less'.]/quote]

Don't confuse the issue. I couldn't care less if gays are married. Discussing the issue itself I enjoy, and I think your reasons have no substance other than religious ones.

I DO care about this issue a lot, yes, because I care about our country, and pushing through gay marriage would have a big-time damaging impact.

DO elaborate on how,and what is big time damaging about it.

The American family has already been so very badly fractured over the past generation, and this would definitely NOT help matters at all.

Gay relationships have had ZERO to do with fracturing the American Family up until now. It's not like Gays are out there stealing heteros away from their partners.

We see things differently so we'll just have to agree to disagree, Bushice, .......... you big homosexual.

I'm no homo. I just like how organized they are. :)