look what NJ just did

Cicero · Post by **Cicero** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:54 pm

Fuckin great

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:56 pm

So your bags (along with overworked ass) are packed?

Cicero · Post by **Cicero** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:22 pm

Goober McTuber wrote:So your bags (along with overworked ass) are packed?

You're so witty.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:59 pm

no doubt, this decision will crumble the foundation of all those marriages whose success is predicated solely on whether gays can or can't marry......

the divorce lawyers better be prepared for the onslaught......

Terry in Crapchester · Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:12 pm

Rack Felix.

Neely8 · Post by **Neely8** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:59 pm

And I am sure if god forbid they let the residents of NJ decide it would be voted down. So nice of a democracy to pass laws without asking the whole.....

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:21 am

Neely8 wrote:And I am sure if god forbid they let the residents of NJ decide it would be voted down. So nice of a democracy to pass laws without asking the whole.....

So you'd be fine with Georgia, Texas, & Arkansas bringing back slavery via popular vote?

Neely8 · Post by **Neely8** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:17 pm

Diego in Seattle wrote:
Neely8 wrote:And I am sure if god forbid they let the residents of NJ decide it would be voted down. So nice of a democracy to pass laws without asking the whole.....
So you'd be fine with Georgia, Texas, & Arkansas bringing back slavery via popular vote?

Apples and oranges. Georgia's court recently did the same thing I believe. Then the state let the people vote and it was like 75% were against it......

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:29 pm

why should something like this be put to a vote in the first place.........

it's none of your fucking business what two adults of consenting age do in the privacy of their own home.......

and please tell me exactly how two gays/lesbians getting "married" in New Jersey affects you.......how does it negatively impact your life.......and be specific please......

why are you so adamant about legislating intolerance.....

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:40 pm

mvscal wrote:
Needless to say, this has absolutely nothing to do with marriage.

I agree, but unfortunately that's what those that oppose gay marriages have made the overriding issue......

but seeing as how you stepped up, maybe you would like to offer an explanation as to why gay marriage is so threatening to heterosexual marriages.....

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:57 pm

2+2?

So now you're talking about 2 couples getting together to make kids?

I suppose you're in favor of spouse sharing, but not gay marriage. Damn, you are one kinky swinging bisexual mofo.

rozy · Post by **rozy** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:14 pm

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Rack Felix.

For what? Popping out a statement that has absolutely nothing to do with the price of slinkies in Johannesburg?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:37 pm

rozy wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:Rack Felix.
For what? Popping out a statement that has absolutely nothing to do with the price of slinkies in Johannesburg?

The "Defense of Marriage Act" says you're full of shit. Part and parcel of the arguments against same sex marriage has been that it threatens the "sanctity" of heterosexual marriage in a way that Mickey Rooney, Elizabeth Taylor and Britney Spears cannot.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:49 pm

I don't really care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes...but I'm guessing it;s a way for them to pay less taxes and get increased health care benefits, which ultimately come out of my pocket, sooner or later.

But, if you truly have a problem with dudes sucking other dudes' dicks...you should be all for gay marriage -- I understand that all dicksucking comes to an end after the wedding day, just like heterosexual marriages.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:00 pm

Dinsdale wrote:I don't really care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes...but I'm guessing it;s a way for them to pay less taxes and get increased health care benefits, which ultimately come out of my pocket, sooner or later.

If what you're saying is that there should be no special tax/health care benefits for heterosexual married couples either, then I would say at least you're consistient.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:08 pm

What I'm saying is...

Everybody is looking to get over.

I don't really care if the homos want to suck dick...to each their own.

I'm just saying that marriage in no way enhances their ability to suck dick. Therefore, they're up to something.

When this issue was on the state level, some of the homos claimed that they had long term commitments, and matters of inheritance and whatnot were a problem. I'd certainly support legislation to clear matters like these up.

But when they start talking about something that gives increased financial perks...then it's a matter of someone looking to get over.

What's the other possible reasons? Why is it important to homos that I recognize their union? Is my opinion somehow going to validate what they're doing?

If that's their thinking, they're in for a shock -- I don't fucking give a shit.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:15 pm

Dinsdale wrote:I'm just saying that marriage in no way enhances their ability to suck dick. Therefore, they're up to something.

It's not exactly helping heterosexuals in that regard either. The more important benefits are the rights of association and compainionship that derive from marriage.

Neely8 · Post by **Neely8** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:15 pm

Do I feel like the government needs to bend over backwards to appease less then 1% of the population? Hell no....

Do I have a problem with what gay people do in the privacy of their bedroom. Hell no.....

In my opinion it is a fetish and therefore they are welcome to partake in their likes on their own time. No reason for the government to put their stamp of approval on it though......

Let the people decide and I am sure that most people are not for it......

jiminphilly · Post by **jiminphilly** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:19 pm

Dinsdale wrote: Why is it important to homos that I recognize their union? Is my opinion somehow going to validate what they're doing?

If that's their thinking, they're in for a shock -- I don't fucking give a shit.

Major rack.

Jimmy Medalions · Post by **Jimmy Medalions** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:27 pm

Gay "marriage" would become a convenient vehicle for cornholers to get over on the system, as Dinsy points out. It's no real mystery that faggots with a "union" are very much the minority of their little club.

This kind of legislation is an easy path for faggots to get over on the system. They will go out and get "married," apply for benefits, suck each other off in the parking lot outside city hall, and then never speak again.

Cicero · Post by **Cicero** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:30 pm

Neely8 wrote:Do I feel like the government needs to bend over backwards to appease less then 1% of the population? Hell no....

Do I have a problem with what gay people do in the privacy of their bedroom. Hell no.....

In my opinion it is a fetish and therefore they are welcome to partake in their likes on their own time. No reason for the government to put their stamp of approval on it though......

Let the people decide and I am sure that most people are not for it......

RACK

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:34 pm

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:the rights of association and compainionship
Neither of which depend on marriage. If two fags want to play house, they are free to do so.

And as I mentioned, if leaving their estae to their...domestic partner is somehow a legal quagmire in the current setup, then sign a couple of bills to clarify things...not too tough.

I've got no problem with ~~T1B posters~~ homos shacking up, and if they choose to leave their estate and whatnot to whoever they wish, that ain't my business. Just as I don't care if you want to will your Ferrari to your dog when you croak.

The main reason for legal marriages over the millenia is to promote a nuturing environment for the next generation...basic birds and bees shit, right there. The reason a widow gets continued benefits after her husband dies is presumed to be because she kept a home, which may or may not have included raising a new generation of humans -- whether they did or not, the envoronment to do so was promoted by the rest of the society they lived in.

Because humans breathe, drink, eat, sleep, and reproduce as priorities...in that order. Gay marriages do nothing to promote that, and are counterproductive to that, if anything.

And while the entire subject is rather unsavory, I'm just not seeing the morality problem -- my personal morals tell me to "mind your own fucking business." But by enacting legislation, as an American, it's implied that I'm now involved in some way, albeit miniscule. And in the end...I just don't fucking care enough to be involved...ergo, the less laws the better(in this instance, anyway).

I won't condone it, and I won't denounce it...I just don't want to pay for it.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:39 pm

Dinsdale wrote: Because humans breathe, drink, eat, sleep, and reproduce as priorities...in that order. Gay marriages do nothing to promote that, and are counterproductive to that, if anything..

Good point, Dins.

It's hard to imagine being able to do any of those things with mouthfull of cock

Then again, Winston Churchill said " Its impossible to get a sodomy conviction from an English jury. Half of them don't believe its possible, and the other half are doing it"

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:40 pm

Heck, the world isn't even safe for straight sex anymore --

King County sheriff's deputies responded to a report of a man having sex with a woman in a Qwest Field women's restroom.

The man and woman they caught during Sunday's Seahawks game both work for the Thurston County prosecutor's office.

He's a deputy prosecutor and she's an administrative assistant.

King County sheriff's spokesman John Urquhart said the man apparently had been drinking and was very argumentative. He was thrown out of the stadium, and the King County prosecutor's office is considering charges of tresapssing and obstruction.

Thurston County Prosecutor Ed Holm says they'll face discipline, depending on the outcome of the case in King County.

Holm said he considers the matter kind of a prank.

If that's the most shocking thing they saw at a Seahawks game, they weren't looking very hard.

Funny thing is, in Oregon, the only crime possibly committed is by the guy being in the ladie's room. No law against having sex in a public restroom, since a person has an expectation of privacy in a restroom(state supreme court out front told me).

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:50 pm

Dinsdale wrote: The main reason for legal marriages over the millenia is to promote a nuturing environment for the next generation....

ah, the age old "nurturing" argument......so what you assert here is that a child growing up in a loveless marriage between a man and a woman that can't stand each other, constantly fight (including geting physical) is somehow more nurturing than two people of the same sex who truly love each other raising a child.......

great fucking argument.......

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:54 pm

mvscal wrote:
Felix wrote:two people of the same sex who truly love each other raising a child.......
Two people of the same sex can't have any fucking children, moron.

who said anything about "having" children.....I said "raising children"....

can you fucking read........

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:56 pm

mvscal wrote: fucking children.

:swoon:

-sin
Diego

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:18 pm

Felix wrote:so what you assert here is that a child growing up in a loveless marriage between a man and a woman that can't stand each other, constantly fight (including geting physical) is somehow more nurturing than two people of the same sex who truly love each other raising a child.......

That's a pretty darn big leap to say that's what I assert.

The traditional family unit is what has produced the next generation of fuckups for thousands of years now. This is not up for debate.

Homosexual couple raising children has only entered the equation very recently, in the big picture, and is therefore a non-player.

But point out where I commented on this, either way? I mentioned that civilized societies have always given perks to traditional families, because traditional families propagate the species. Homosexuals, by their very definition, do not.

But regardless, rather than have you put words in my mouth, I'll give my take, even though it isn't particularly relevant to the subject at hand, except as a tangent --

As far as homosexual couples raising children...it's not my business, assuming there's no sexual abuse or any other stuff going on that children shouldn't be exposed to. Maybe it's bad, maybe it's fine...there's many evils in this world that are beyond my ability to fix, and if this is in fact an evil, it's one no amount of crusading on my part will correct.

So, if a homo couple wants to adopt a child, and those we entrust with the duty of finding suitable homes for the children think it's OK, I'll abide by their decision...assuming it isn't a way for them to dig into my wallet.

Although I'm guessing the percentage of children from homosexual homes that grow up to wear eyeliner and hang out in urban coffeeshops is probably higher than average...just a guess.

I really don't have a problem with homosexuals. They're always going to be present in society, and like anything else, you can sit around and cry about it, or you can deal with it and move on. I choose the latter.

I just don't want to finance them...that's all...and that's the only point I've ever made on this subject.

I kind of support personal freedom, whether I find the results of that freedom distasteful or not.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:20 pm

mvscal wrote: Typical grandmothers aren't rugmunching dykes.

I actually happened across a website that casts some doubt on this.

The word "unsavory" came to mind.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:22 pm

Jimmy Medalions wrote:Gay "marriage" would become a convenient vehicle for cornholers to get over on the system, as Dinsy points out. It's no real mystery that faggots with a "union" are very much the minority of their little club.

This kind of legislation is an easy path for faggots to get over on the system. They will go out and get "married," apply for benefits, suck each other off in the parking lot outside city hall, and then never speak again.

Wow, you mean sex would stop after marriage?

Never heard of that happening with straight people.

BTW: If you don't think straight people abuse the benefits of marriage, you're not paying attention.

Neely8 · Post by **Neely8** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:24 pm

Thats the next argument. Let them get married and it will be "Oh why can't we adopt children"....

For the record I am against gay adoption. I love the argument that gay people are born that way. So how does the "gay" gene get passed on to your offspring if your fucking another guy? Does munching your lovers bush make kids? That must be how they pass on the gene then......

Homosexuality is a learned trait. Allowing kids to be raised by homos is opening the door to them learning those traits. Don't even get me started about it being on my TV......

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:26 pm

Jimmy Medalions wrote:Gay "marriage" would become a convenient vehicle for cornholers to get over on the system,

Not to mention totally fucking ruining the whole Monday Night Football experience

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:27 pm

Neely8 wrote:Homosexuality is a learned trait.

Actually, with the explosion of technology in brain research, initial studies tend to show there's somew messed up "wiring" involved...but there's much much more research to be done before any sort of hypothesis can be accurately developed.

Neely8 · Post by **Neely8** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:31 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Neely8 wrote:Homosexuality is a learned trait.

Actually, with the explosion of technology in brain research, initial studies tend to show there's somew messed up "wiring" involved...but there's much much more research to be done before any sort of hypothesis can be accurately developed.

Well walking in on dad and dad blowing each other would mess up any kids wiring I am sure.....

Jimmy Medalions · Post by **Jimmy Medalions** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:37 pm

BSmack wrote:Wow, you mean sex would stop after marriage?

Never heard of that happening with straight people.

BTW: If you don't think straight people abuse the benefits of marriage, you're not paying attention.

Ya. The reports are true for straight folks. :notcool: My point is that these turd tappers would go to city hall, get a piece of paper that says they're "married," consummate said "marriage" with a couple of handy's on the parking lot, and then go their separate ways forever. Faggots are, for the most part, nomadic sexual clusterfucks.

Clearly, straight people abuse the system in all kinds of ways. You would be crazy to argue that the faggots, on a percentage basis, would do it less.

Dins is getting it big-time in this thread.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:41 pm

mvscal wrote:
Homosexuals are, by definition, fucked up sexual deviants who should not ever under any circumstances be raising children.

according to who.......

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:42 pm

Jimmy Medalions wrote: Clearly, straight people abuse the system in all kinds of ways. You would be crazy to argue that the faggots, on a percentage basis, would do it less.

Great argument -- "the system is quite open to abuse, so we should make it equal-opportunity, so all people, of every orientation, should be able to abuse it, too."

Brilliant.

Cicero · Post by **Cicero** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:42 pm

Felix wrote:
mvscal wrote:
Homosexuals are, by definition, fucked up sexual deviants who should not ever under any circumstances be raising children.
according to who.......

^^

Are you fucking retarted?

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:44 pm

Sissy asking someone if they're retarded is akin to a kettle saying to other cookware "Sup, n. igger?"

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:46 pm

Jsc810 wrote:Look, I'm the same way, it absolutely disgusts me to think of 2 men. But I'm also disgusted at the thought of an obese heterosexual couple going at it

So, I assume this means that if someone were to bring up KC Paul and BSpray doing it, they'd owe you a refund on the lunch you just tossed?