T1B

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:12 pm**

Neely8 wrote:
BSmack wrote:
Neely8 wrote:Looks like the pioneers of gay marriage couldn't make it work either....

Gays do it better
Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston plit up too. What's yer point?

Gay Marriage sure has helped things overseas.....

Guinea Pigs
And yet in Iran, gay marriage is illegal. Where would you rather live?

Well at least Iran got something right......

Iran has the right idea, just the wrong religion, eh, Neely?

poptart wrote:Jsc, marriage has been, in all times and in all places, between a man and a woman.

Not true. As recently as the 19th century, polygamy was legal in many parts of the U.S.

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:36 pm**

poptart wrote:Jsc, marriage has been, in all times and in all places, between a man and a woman.

The "it's always been that way" card doesn't hold water.

Sincerely,
Jan 1, 1863

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:01 pm**

Diego in Seattle wrote:
poptart wrote:Jsc, marriage has been, in all times and in all places, between a man and a woman.
The "it's always been that way" card doesn't hold water.

Sincerely,
Jan 1, 1863

Now you've done gone and make mvs all verklempt.

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:40 pm**

The sancitity of marriage arguement might actually hold some water if the divorce rate in this country wasn't 50%. Hell, even heterosexual couples don't even practice the sanctity of marriage - hello adultery.

But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom.

Goddamn homosexual animals.

But it's all just learned behavior, right?

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:48 pm**

Neither animals dicking around nor a 50% divorce rate does diddly squat to advance the idea that society ought to recognize buttfuckers as marriage partners.

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:21 pm**

Diego in Seattle wrote:The acceptance of gay marriages will destroy the system! The gays are responsible for all the faults of hetero marriages. We must get rid of them!

Sin,

No suprise here that republicans are once again claiming that they are the party of moral superiority (when obviously they aren't, especially lately). :roll:

If a loved one in a hetero marriage is hopitalized in an ICU unit, the partner is able to visit them because they are married. Gay & lesbian couples are only asking for the same right (hence, gays aren't asking for special rights as most conservatives spout in their meltdowns). How is that "getting over?"

Why do you conservatives hate the United States Constitution?

there is no fucking RIGHT in the state constitution. hell even the fucking NJ judge said that, fucknuts. once again some UNELECTED judge oversteps his authority and orders legislation.

why do you hate the democratic process?

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm**

Cicero wrote:Fuckin great

It's totally a party in the Crown/Sissyrow apartment. The ass-reaming will possibly even rival the Coach K commericals for enthusiastic yelping.

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 3:37 pm**

poptart wrote:Neither animals dicking around nor a 50% divorce rate does diddly squat to advance the idea that society ought to recognize buttfuckers as marriage partners.

That's not what I said. I said it goes against the "sanctity of marriage" excuse that is used to prevent gay marriage. If you want to keep gays from getting married, pick another reason besides "sanctity of marriage" unless you want to tackle adultery and divorce first.

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 3:55 pm**

Without marginally talented gays there would be no Broadway musicals.

And without completed untalented gays there would be no childrens' television programs.

-Fess
On Yet Another Tangent

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 3:56 pm**

KM, I spoke of a few reasons why fruit marriage is dumb, and I didn't bring sanctity into the discussion.

Divorce ought to be avoided.
People should be faithful to their spouse.
Men can not marry men.

Now what ... ?

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 3:57 pm**

Without marginally talented gays there would be no Broadway musicals.

Yes, please.

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 4:12 pm**

Eventually one of you will do a google search on "famous gays"

I call bullshit.

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 4:19 pm**

Diego in Seattle wrote:The acceptance of gay marriages will destroy the system! The gays are responsible for all the faults of hetero marriages. We must get rid of them!

Sin,

Keep your sick, psycho-sexual fantasies off this board, pedo

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 4:23 pm**

Mister Bushice wrote:If two ass boys or two chicken lickers want to say I do, go right ahead, doesn't hurt me at all.

And if it could be shown that this is true, and it wouldn't have an adverse impact on the tax base or social services, then I don't have a problem with it...it's not my business.

I'm just sensing a scam in the air.

Diego in Seattle wrote: If a loved one in a hetero marriage is hopitalized in an ICU unit, the partner is able to visit them because they are married. Gay & lesbian couples are only asking for the same right

And as I mentioned earlier, I think adressing issues like this with a couple of simple laws would make a wonderful compromise that doesn't allow for a tax-dodge.

I'm not opposed to gay marriage on moral grounds -- I'm opposed because it sounds like yet another group who feels that unmarried childless people should pick up even more of their tax burden.

Single unmarried men are by far the most discriminated against group in the country. And this sounds like another attempt to hit them up again.

mvscal wrote:You blew Lee Majors on that boat, didn't you?

While I'm quoting shit, I might as well go ahead and RACK that one.

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 4:25 pm**

PSUFAN wrote:
Eventually one of you will do a google search on "famous gays"
I call bullshit.

I call "Colonel Crown in the dining room with a flash memory stick."

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 4:26 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:Single unmarried men are by far the most discriminated against group in the country. And this sounds like another attempt to hit them up again.

Then why don't you just get hitched and scam the system? You know, like Meds was saying gay people would do?

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 4:28 pm**

BSmack wrote: Then why don't you just get hitched and scam the system? You know, like Meds was saying gay people would do?

For starters, your mother and sisters would become suicidal...

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 4:31 pm**

CrowningSissy wrote:May I play?

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 4:34 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:
BSmack wrote: Then why don't you just get hitched and scam the system? You know, like Meds was saying gay people would do?
For starters, your mother and sisters would become suicidal...

It is quite doubtful that the thought of an balding, middle aged, alcoholic, hepatitis infected man in search of a mate 3000 miles away would inspire thoughts of any kind here in NY.

But hey, you could still fool around. That's what the research says. Right? That gays would just get hitched but then fool around? Just find some "self employed model" and sign a prenup and an open marriage agreement and get your freak on while you and she enjoy all the benefits of marriage.

Or maybe that's not so easy to do?

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 4:38 pm**

BSmack wrote: Or maybe that's not so easy to do?

That's not what your mother said.

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 4:46 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:
BSmack wrote: Or maybe that's not so easy to do?

That's not what your mother said.

I'll accept that as your surrender. I never thought I could ever get you to bail on an honest debate. Oh well, there's a first for everything.

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 4:59 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Why should it? What benefit does society derive from recognizing faggot marriage?

let's turn this around......

what benefit does society derive from specifically legislating against a relatively small minority in this country........

another "(insert whichever minority is appropriate here) are the reason your life is for shit".......

more of those "family values" coming to the forefront......

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:01 pm**

BSmack wrote: I'll accept that as your surrender. I never thought I could ever get you to bail on an honest debate. Oh well, there's a first for everything.

There's one carved-in-stone Rule of BODE -- If you grant it for yourself, there's about a 99.9% probability that you don't have any.

If you claim it, you are dumb.

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:04 pm**

If you claim it, you are dumb.

that's what I meant to type.

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:10 pm**

You CHOSE to type it.

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:15 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:
BSmack wrote: I'll accept that as your surrender. I never thought I could ever get you to bail on an honest debate. Oh well, there's a first for everything.
There's one carved-in-stone Rule of BODE -- If you grant it for yourself, there's about a 99.9% probability that you don't have any.

If you claim it, you are dumb.

And there's another rule. If your reply is nothing more than "your mother", you have surrendered.

But hey, I'll be nice and give you another chance to make an honest reply.

So what is it Claire? You gonna answer the question?

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:16 pm**

No...I was ASKED.

Twist it off, and it will come.

--bsmacklite

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:56 pm**

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?

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:52 pm**

Felix wrote:
mvscal wrote:
Why should it? What benefit does society derive from recognizing faggot marriage?
let's turn this around......

what benefit does society derive from specifically legislating against a relatively small minority in this country........

another "(insert whichever minority is appropriate here) are the reason your life is for shit".......

more of those "family values" coming to the forefront......

And isn't it more than a tad ironic that so many who do this also claim to be champions of "personal responsibility"?

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:01 pm**

Jsc810 wrote:Like the NJ opinion says, you can keep "marriage" between a man and a woman. You just have to set up an equal system, such as civil unions.

The problem with this is that it could be setting up another Constitutional pitfall. Something about "separate but equal" in the back of my head right about now . . .

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:11 pm**

Jsc810 wrote: I realize concepts such as equality may be difficult for you to understand, but you'll get used to it eventually.

equality so long as he's deciding who's equal......

he's "liberal" like that......

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:16 pm**

Jsc810 wrote: Thought we would have seen a better effort from you. Oh well.

he can't argue it because his homophobia is 100% religiously based (there is simply no other explanation for his unbridled hatred).....

he's spent an enourmous amount of time and effort cultivating the idea that he has no religious beliefs........

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:31 pm**

PSUFAN wrote:
Cicero wrote:Fuckin great
It's totally a party in the Crown/Sissyrow apartment. The ass-reaming will possibly even rival the Coach K commericals for enthusiastic yelping.

Yeah, I totally disagree w/ gays getting recognized and I loath that they are going to be granted rights equal to man/woman couples and yet I'm the gay one. Keepy reaching PUS.

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:34 pm**

Cicero wrote:
PSUFAN wrote:
Cicero wrote:Fuckin great
It's totally a party in the Crown/Sissyrow apartment. The ass-reaming will possibly even rival the Coach K commericals for enthusiastic yelping.

Yeah, I totally disagree w/ gays getting recognized and I loath that they are going to be granted rights equal to man/woman couples and yet I'm the gay one. Keepy reaching PUS.

Whatever you say Foley.

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:34 pm**

Jsc810 wrote:Terry, did you read this:
CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ has filed a separate CONCURRING and DISSENTING opinion, in which
JUSTICES LONG and ZAZZALI join. She concurs in the finding of the majority that denying the rights and
benefits to committed same-sex couples that are statutorily given to their heterosexual counterparts violates the
equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution. She dissents from the majority's
distinguishing those rights and benefits from the right to the title of marriage. She also dissents from the majority's
conclusion that there is no fundamental due process right to same-sex marriage encompassed within the concept of
"liberty" guaranteed by Article I, Paragraph 1. She is of the view that persons who exercise their autonomous liberty
interest to choose same-sex partners have a fundamental right to participate in a state-sanctioned civil marriage.
I was expecting the dissent to be the typical anti-gay rant, but instead it said the majority didn't go far enough. ;)

I hadn't read that. But now that I have, I tend to agree more with the dissent.

However, I think that "choose" was a poor choice of words, in this context. I consider a "choice" to be something made after a voluntary, deliberate and conscious process. Gays no more "choose" to be gay than straight people "choose" to be straight, at least imho.

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:36 pm**

PSUFAN wrote:
Cicero wrote:Fuckin great
It's totally a party in the Crown/Sissyrow apartment. The ass-reaming will possibly even rival the Coach K commericals for enthusiastic yelping.

Sissy and Crown having sex with one another is anatomically impossible, given that they're actually the same person.

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:41 pm**

^^^^

He'll be here all night ladies and gentleman.

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:45 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:Does that mean it can't ever change?

Why should it? What benefit does society derive from recognizing faggot marriage?

By the same token, what harm does society derive?

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:11 pm**

Jsc810 wrote:The democratic process includes three branches of government. ;)

EXACTLY and nowhere does it state that a judge shall CREATE LEGISLATION.

checks and balances, dude.

that judge doesn't know his role!!!!!

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:24 pm**

titlover wrote:
Jsc810 wrote:The democratic process includes three branches of government. ;)
EXACTLY and nowhere does it state that a judge shall CREATE LEGISLATION.

checks and balances, dude.

that judge doesn't know his role!!!!!

They're not legislating; in fact, they steered clear of doing precisely that.

What they did was lay out the Constitutional parameters, which is precisely the role of the judiciary.

T1B

look what NJ just did