T1B

So can I marry my trees and declare them as exemptions on next year's income tax ??
I'll get Jsc to represent me in court. It will be great not having to pay the IRS any more !
Wait----- I'll probably have to move to Cali to get a court that agrees with me.

So can I marry my trees and declare them as exemptions on next year's income tax ??

If all goes as planned, yes. It's inevitable, actually. Soon, your BOSE radio will be courting your Clapper...and the Fags are to blame for it.

Jsc, from the very first paragraph of the Wikipedia homo propaganda piece ........


A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior, not necessarily sex, has been
observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.


One can only imagine how many things animals do together could be interpretated as ... homosexual behavior.

AP put panties on, flashed some pics, and emailed 'em to someone.
Sounds like homosexual behavior.

But all smack aside, until I hear of AP squatting down on some live kakk, I don't believe he is a real live homosexual.

Some peeps just interpreted his behavior as being homosexual.

As long as this is a step towards polygamy, Im all for it.

Honestly they should take away the tax breaks, insurance breaks and so on that come with marriage. In fact, those who have more children should have to pay more taxes as they are the ones more likely to use the benefits the taxes are to pay.
My wife does not work and I have 2 kids, I can guarantee you that I use more public resources than my cousin who is unmarried and has 1 kid that he pays support for but can not claim yet my cousin pays a higher percentage of his income in taxes.

Hopefully this law will allow everyone to take advantage of the backwards system this country employs and we will see people applying for marriage licenses with no love or realtionship at all just so they can exploit the financial benefits that go with the license.

Always wondered what Jsc stood for. Now I know.



Just suck cock.

Jsc810 wrote: Clearly, however, homosexual sex is documented in many species in the animal kingdom. For the bonobo (one of our closest relatives):

About 60% of all sexual activity in this species is between two or more females.

The argument that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because homosexuality is unnatural is absurd. Homosexuality happens -- naturally -- in humans and in animals.

Exactly. I guess this is where mvscal's point about marriage as a means of maintaining cultural mores/status quo comes in. A lot of things happen in nature; but how much does a society want to encourage, for the longevity of the society? In this society, I don't see where homosexuality is detrimental. In another society, they might decide that child marriage (in spite of raised possibility of obstetric fistula) is beneficial. In yet another, the importance of the extended family is the rule not the exception. In a fourth, only soldiers are allowed to breed.

My only problem with homosexuality is my problem with feminism: one size does not fit all, but well to do 'mainstream' leaders work as if it does until politically expedient to latch onto 'the others' struggle for itself.

War Wagon wrote:Mebbe so Tom, I guess I can't really say what makes a sick, queer mind tick the way it does.

All that aside, it's even more difficult to figure why normal folks would want to cowtow to the gay agenda and accept deviant behavior.

...they don't Wags...as 88 pointed out the people took it to vote and by a margin of 60% voted against same sex marriage. Now that 60% could equate to several million people, I don't have the number...but hey, those 4 supreme court judges showed us didn't they :?

ChargerMike wrote:

War Wagon wrote:Mebbe so Tom, I guess I can't really say what makes a sick, queer mind tick the way it does.

All that aside, it's even more difficult to figure why normal folks would want to cowtow to the gay agenda and accept deviant behavior.

...they don't Wags...as 88 pointed out the people took it to vote and by a margin of 60% voted against same sex marriage. Now that 60% could equate to several million people, I don't have the number...but hey, those 4 supreme court judges showed us didn't they :?

sounds an awful lot like prop 187. over 60% of the state voted to pass that and the state supreme court kept it from going through.

PSUFAN wrote:I'm that much closer to rockin' some poodle's world. Zip-a-Bing!

If I see you, I will SHOOT you

poptart wrote:Dins, just speaking for myself, I don't care what people do in their own private time or place.

Don't know if I've ever told you this Pop, but I dn't lump you in with the garden-variety thumpers. While I disagree with your outlook on the Big Picture, at least when you state your views on said Big Picture, you're always consistent, and seem to actually adhere to "christian principles."


Making you unique on this board.

Take a shot at addressing 88's post.

Short answer: What Jsc said. It's there in black and white.


Dinsdale answer: 88 has allowed hispersonal opinions to cloud what years of law school taught him. Easy trap to fall into. But the summary seems to make it pretty clear that the persuit-of-happiness and equal protection deal has been interperetted to mean that no one has the right to limit which gender you select a spouse from.


And with the way the cali constitution is worded, I can't say I disagree with the ruling.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big proponent of gay marriage. It's just that I don't care. Shove your cock in a light socket a few times, swear your undying devotion, and slap a wedding band on it... I still don't freaking care. I'm pretty big on "live and let live" and minding my own business until you fuck with my world... and I just don't see how homos sacking up, with or without a marriage license, æffects me in any way, nor can I envision a scenario where it would.

That shit, minus the legal standing, has been going on around me for 40 years now. I'm not naive enough to believe otherwise. In my trips around the sun so far, I can't think how a couple of Atomic Punks doing nasty shit inside their 4 walls has had any sort of negative impact on my life. I don't see where a piece of paper and a couple of Zale's Finest on their fingers suddenly is going to radically change that.


When gay marriage comes up, the question that pops into my head is "so, how much is this going to cost me?" That's my only beef.

SoCalTrjn wrote: sounds an awful lot like prop 187. over 60% of the state voted to pass that and the state supreme court kept it from going through.

In Oregon, we have a citizens' intiative dealio, which I believe is similar to california's prop system... anyone can write a new law, and with enough signatures, can put it on the ballot (although if you're not a lawyer who specializes in such tings, or employ such a lawyer, the courts usually laugh those initiatives right off the ballot, since they usually don't conform to the guidelines, and the authors always try to slip in some extra wording/law, which has been clarified in recent times to not fly with the citizens' intiative process).


An initiative could pass with a 100% majority, and if the state supreme court decides it isn't consistent with the Oregon or US constitutions, that law is void.


Crazy how that 3-brach checks and balances thing works, eh?


But it's kinda funny how people want to trash the very foundation this country is built upon when that system goes against their whims.


Then again, maybe we just go about things a little more thoroughly here. When the gay marriage debate was raging and hitting the ballots a couple years back, we didn't pass a law... we amended the state constitution, which takes the decision out of the Supreme Court's hands (unless they decide the amendment violates other areas of the constitution).

Jsc810 wrote:[Homosexuality happens -- naturally

It can't be natural if you are more likely to be exposed to the HIV/AIDS virus with multiple same sex partners. The anus is not a "naturally" lubricatred entry point for a penis, so it is more likely for diseases to be transmitted through the anus because of open tears or cuts. The vagina is naturally lubricated for penis' to enter and re-enter which makes it less likely for open wounds to be created in that area and the disease be spread to those tissues.

Although this rings true for heteros as well, but anal sex can lead to more exposure of diseases than traditional sex.

What is so natural about that?

Cuda wrote:

PSUFAN wrote:I'm that much closer to rockin' some poodle's world. Zip-a-Bing!

If I see you, I will SHOOT you

To see me, you'll have to wipe all of that semen out of your eyes. That's gonna take a little time...

mvscal wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:Nice try, 88, but wrong. The California Legislature already passed a law authorizing gay marriage, but it was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger (R), .

Shut the fuck up, moron. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Doncha all love it when mv is reduced to blindly mashing obscenities into his keyboard for lack of a rational response?

It weakens the rule of law, which weakens our country.

I think our country will be ok. The Bush Administration flouted the rule of law of a frequency, and apparently we soldiered on through just fine.

Some folks are outraged by torture and a casual disregard of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act...some are outraged about someone else's sexual orientation. You'll have these differences of opinion in a society such as ours.

HOLY FUCK!!!!!



Man, have we been getting worked around here.

RumpleForeskin wrote:The anus is not a "naturally" lubricatred entry point for a penis

All this time, the Rumps troll was actually the triumphant return of Valvenis, back from the dead after the fatal bicycle accident?


Damn, who knew?

mvscal wrote:In California marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. Period. End of story. That is the law in California. The court can't very rule on a law that has never been passed.

That makes JSC a liar or an idiot. Take your pick.

Looks like that makes you the idiot.

Arnold Schwarzenegger's Press Secretary wrote:"Five years ago the matter of same-sex marriage was placed before the people of California. The people voted and the issue is now before the courts. The Governor believes the matter should be determined not by legislative action - which would be unconstitutional - but by court decision or another vote of the people of our state. We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote. Out of respect for the will of the people, the Governor will veto AB 849."

http://gov.ca.gov/press-release/1443/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

88 wrote:For the most part, the Judicial branch has not declared that Bush's policies and procedures violate the rule of law.

And that has nothing o do with the fact that the SC has W on speed-dial, and renders whatever judgement Bucheney tells them to?

Jsc810 wrote:Just as the law that prohibited inter-racial marriages was not discriminatory. After all, it applied equally to eveyone.

While again I'm not a big propenent of gay marriage...


Anyone taking the "non-discriminatory" tack needs to shut the fuck up... now.

Jsc just clowned you. And here's a good rule-of-thumb... if you get clowned by Jsc, your argument was fucking stupid.

I just spoke to my wife, she said we cant invite a second wife in to our marital bliss and now I have to make my own dinner for asking. She also said that after last night, she's not going to allow me to coach either of our sons baseball teams next year.

SoCalTrjn wrote:She also said that after last night, she's not going to allow me to coach either of our sons baseball teams next year.

So something good has come out of this after all?

88 wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:Just like Jsc clowned the people who discriminate against polygamists and incestuous relationships.

Lets leave Oregon out of this, 88.

BSmack wrote:

SoCalTrjn wrote:She also said that after last night, she's not going to allow me to coach either of our sons baseball teams next year.

So something good has come out of this after all?

Fuck, this is going to be a major financial hit to our industry about ten years from now.


Sin,
Southern California Therapists

My sons will be in different divisions next year and I think we will probably avoid doing Pony and just do the travel ball. Last night some lady from a team ours had just beat 37-2 spent 30 mins talking to me at Big O Pizza about drafting her kid next year. I told her I was tired of the politics of the Pony and that they were doing away with legacy teams next season.
The therapists wont be seeing the kids on my teams, those other teams however...

RumpleForeskin wrote:

88 wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:Just like Jsc clowned the people who discriminate against polygamists and incestuous relationships.

Lets leave Oregon out of this, 88.

Ohhhhhh fucking dear.


Help me out here, Rumps...


When was it that Texas outlawed marriage between first cousins?


I'll help you out... it was less than 3 years ago.


Did you log on to this board, and suddenly think to yourself "Self, I need to come up with a new and creative way to plunger myself"?


What next? You gonna make jokes about Oregonians marrying cows?

Dinsdale wrote:When was it that Texas outlawed marriage between first cousins?


I'll help you out... it was less than 3 years ago.

It doesn't change the fact that Oregon invented it.

Dins, I've been to Eugene and the mugs on some of those people make Gollum look like Dr. McDreamy.

It is easy to just state, as if it were fact, that the Bush administration "flouted the rule of law". But it is much harder to identify those laws and then explain, in reasoned fashion, where they have been flouted.

I shouldn't have to point this out to you, but since you do not seem to grasp it. I will.

I'll admit, I'm summarizing the matter for my own convenience...otherwise known as using common sense.

I feel fairly sure that the Bush Administration flouted the rule of law. I feel fairly sure that most people's lives will not be changed a single bit by allowing fags to marry. Those are my own opinions, not facts.

RumpleForeskin wrote:Dins, I've been to Eugene and the mugs on some of those people make Gollum look like Dr. McDreamy.

Dude... just... stop.


I've also been to Eugene. Dozens of times, matter of fact.

Matter of fact, it home o what has been voted at times the hottest cheerleading squad in the country.


And frankly, with your track record, do you feel that you're really qualified to pass any judgement on anyone's physical appearance?

Dinsdale wrote:

RumpleForeskin wrote:Dins, I've been to Eugene and the mugs on some of those people make Gollum look like Dr. McDreamy.

Dude... just... stop.


I've also been to Eugene. Dozens of times, matter of fact.

Matter of fact, it home o what has been voted at times the hottest cheerleading squad in the country.


And frankly, with your track record, do you feel that you're really qualified to pass any judgement on anyone's physical appearance?

they import all those cheerleaders from California too?

Jsc810 wrote:Let's take the word "gay," for example. Does it have the same meaning today as it did 200 years ago?

Nonsense, i'm sure Philip II of Macedon was calling his son a flaming faggot 2300 years ago.

Dinsdale wrote:And frankly, with your track record, do you feel that you're really qualified to pass any judgement on anyone's physical appearance?

Yes, I do.

My wife's weight has nothing to do with the Sloth-like mugs on the women of Eugene. Their peripheral vision cannot be matched. Incest has everything to do with that.

Jsc810 wrote:

PSUFAN wrote:I feel fairly sure that most people's lives will not be changed a single bit by allowing fags to marry. Those are my own opinions, not facts.

What are people afraid of? What might happen? When Ellen gets married, how does that destroy traditional marriage? It will have exactly zero impact on my marriage. What impact will it have on your marriage? Or anyone else's?

Thanks alot asshat, how am I going to get it up for my wife tonight with that image in my head.

mvscal wrote:Your wife's weight also has nothing to do with the fact that she looks Wade Phillips with slightly bigger tits.

No she doesn't, but nice reach.

If entering a marriage with U.S.S. Rumple is protected, then I say anything else is fair game. It's just not natural to get that large. It's just not natural to stick your weiner in a fault line. Think of the children...the types of medical problems they'll undoubtedly have to persevere through. And most certainly, if we deem it ok to wed a vat of lard, then Wolfman should be able to stick his pruned-up little shoelace into some tree sap...you know, for the "tax breaks."

I'd rather fuck Wade Phillips than Andy Reid, Wayne Fontes or Charlie Weis.


sayin'

poptart wrote:I'd rather fuck Wade Phillips than Andy Reid, Wayne Fontes or Charlie Weis.


sayin'

Where does Rumplewife weigh in at on that scale?


And I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss -- I'll bet Cheesesteak Charlie cooks upone hell of a post-coital meal.

Honest question for the conservatives with their panties in a wad over this:

Is it the term "marriage," or the notion that same-sex couples could have some of the same legal rights as married couples?

RadioFan wrote:Honest question for the conservatives with their panties in a wad over this:

Is it the term "marriage," or the notion that same-sex couples could have some of the same legal rights as married couples?

It's the money. Certain conservatives are riding the 'sanctity of marriage' bull..... just as gays are riding the 'loving versus virginia' bull........ but in the end, for both sides, it all comes down to money. The garbled arguments I saw involved businesses fearing profit-eating if they had to extend the same type of benefits to same-sex couples as to hetero-couples. I don't know.

mvscal wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:And you know good and well that the meaning of words written 200 years ago change over time, depending on what a majority of the Court says. The 14th Amendment didn't change one word from 1896 to 1954, but the SCOTUS sure reached different conclusions in Plessy and Brown.

Which is exhibit A as to why judicial review is complete horseshit.

The meaning of words do not change over time.

I agree.

So what you're saying is that conservatives favor activist judges when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. The meaning of "a well regulated militia" hasn't changed in 2oo+ years. Right, fart-mouth?

Diego in Seattle wrote:The meaning of "a well regulated militia" hasn't changed in 2oo+ years. Right, fart-mouth?

Nope.


"Militia" still carries as one if its definitions "The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service." (Which was the common usage of the word in 1789).


And I regulate my discharge of bullets just fine, thanks for asking.


From my cold dead fingers.