T1B

Hi, Jsc. Gay marriage and interracial marriage are not synonymous, and that cartoon is offensive in that it erases the very real dangers blacks faced. There was more to interracial marriage than (as one man put it) 'the search for better tax benefits' that gay marriage is all about.

(Gay civil rights and racial civil rights are not synonymous, either, by the way. Wonder why gay activists don't piggyback off of the women's rights movement, though?)

mvscal wrote:What, exactly, is "wonderful" about the judiciary usurping very clear legislative prerogatives?

Go ahead and lay it out for us there, Capt. Constitution.

What is it about the principle of Judicial Review that you don't like?

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote:What, exactly, is "wonderful" about the judiciary usurping very clear legislative prerogatives?

Go ahead and lay it out for us there, Capt. Constitution.

What is it about the principle of Judicial Review that you don't like?

Everything. The role of the judiciary is to objectively interpret existing law not create new law. Judicial review is a very clear violation of the separation of powers.

I was not aware that there are no laws on the books regarding marriage. Maybe if your state's Governor hadn't passed the buck the the courts, this ruling would have been unnecessary.

Rick Santorum should watch his floppy leather cheerio. Fido's horny and of a mind to marry him. Mrs. Santorum has barked out what we must assume is disapproval.

I'd like to enter into a group marriage with my cat, so that I can get extra get tax breaks and benefits. Hell, I want to marry the trees in my back yard for the same reasons. Now tell me that marriage has to be between two humans but not between one man and one woman ??
Where do we end this circus ??

Didn't the voters of California actually vote on this?

How about if they vote to remove members ot the state supreme court? Is the court going to declare that vote invalid too?

Mvscal, as much as I agree with parts of your argument, you're venturing into Dinsdale territory here. Do you moonlight as an attorney in your part of Sanna Anna?

I think Jsc (and Terry, though he has not entered this thread) (and XXL,and TVO the child property manager) have a little more standing to say what is and is not, than us mere peons do when it comes to the law. Even if the law gets it wrong, or gets it right for the wrong reasons.

Wolfman wrote:I'd like to enter into a group marriage with my cat, so that I can get extra get tax breaks and benefits. Hell, I want to marry the trees in my back yard for the same reasons. Now tell me that marriage has to be between two humans but not between one man and one woman ??
Where do we end this circus ??

Throw out the current tax system and go to a flat tax or national sales tax.

Wolfman wrote:I'd like to enter into a group marriage with my cat, so that I can get extra get tax breaks and benefits. Hell, I want to marry the trees in my back yard for the same reasons. Now tell me that marriage has to be between two humans but not between one man and one woman ?? Where do we end this circus ??

Speaking of group marriages -- and the other examples you give -- gay activists do not support them, even as they try to piggyback off of the dangers behind Loving v. Virginia. Why? the question of TAX BENEFITS.

I support gay marriage, but I don't support the bullshit arguments gay activists are pulling in order to obtain gay marriage while themselves denying that right to others. Either everyone gains it, or get off the 'we demand our civil rights' moral pot.

Wolfman wrote:I'd like to enter into a group marriage with my cat, so that I can get extra get tax breaks and benefits. Hell, I want to marry the trees in my back yard for the same reasons. Now tell me that marriage has to be between two humans but not between one man and one woman ??
Where do we end this circus ??

Does this mean your engagement with Paul Harvey is off? Get well soon, Wolfie.

Cuda wrote:Didn't the voters of California actually vote on this?

How about if they vote to remove members ot the state supreme court? Is the court going to declare that vote invalid too?

...why yes we did, since when does the voice of the people count for squat? (your point noted Cuda)..

Be assured there will be a ballot measure come November to overturn this bilge. Changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters.

ChargerMike wrote:Be assured there will be a ballot measure come November to overturn this bilge. Changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters.

Too bad for you Rovians that Cali will still go for Obama this November. Aren't there some swing states you can pull this kind of shit in?

Is this about that TV show Brothers & Sisters?

mvscal wrote:Certainly not. Opposition to interracial marriage had absolutely nothing to do with "defending the sanctity of marriage."

I laughed.

.m2 wrote:

mvscal wrote:Certainly not. Opposition to interracial marriage had absolutely nothing to do with "defending the sanctity of marriage."

I laughed.

We object. Marriage must be defended from those who seek to pervert it.

sin

Larry King
Mickey Rooney
Liz Taylor

w00T!!!11

--PrimeX

mvscal wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:Legal procedure aside, what is so wrong with gays getting married?

The exact same thing that is so wrong with sticking your dick in a 12 year old.

Gay sex is not deviant. Prove it.

An adult gay man is not a child 12 year old. Children aren't allowed to marry in this society in order to protect them from predators -- the type of predators which exist in Mormon colonies ('sup Rootbeer and Broken Staple, wherever you perverted magic underwear modeling bitches are), certain parishes, and public school all-female teacher's lounges. An adult who is not clinically mentally enfeebled does not have to be protected from another adult. So, two adult human beings should be allowed to marry if they want to. To take it further three, four, five, eleventy adult human beings should be allowed to marry if they want to. A family is a family. A marriage is a marriage. As long as everyone is of sound mind and enters into it willingly, ain't no thang. I don't agree that drunk people should be allowed to get married. Being drunk is not being of sound mind. There should be breathalyzers all over Nevada; if you fail it, no wedding certificate for you. Here, you can buy this lovely promise ring instead for slightly more. Everyone still wins.

JSC, you should have put up a photo from 'Queer as Folk'... or real 'we didn't do this for pay' gay women. Heh.

Actually, it is a deviation. Even if one were to subscribe to the notion that being gay is genetic, it is a genetic deviation. We all have deviant genes in some way shape or form though and evolution provides for the ability for a once devient gene to be a dominant gene.

So maybe the argument is that by allowing fagulas to marry and have sex. In hundreds of years maybe they could evolve to a situation wherein they could bear fruit. Perhaps a male homosexual could evolve organs necessary to bear children and sustain children. Then at that point, they would be female.

And therefore hetero.

Jsc810 wrote:Even if you accept it is a "deviation" what does that prove? Being born disabled is a deviation from the norm, are you claiming people with birth defects shouldn't be able to get married?

Not at all. Personally I don't see a problem with "same sex unions", "domestic partnerships" in the civil sense. Two people that want to enter into a contract with one another can do so. What they do in their bedroom is none of my business. It's also none of my kids business, so keep that shit out of schools. Sex education should stop at the primary purpose of sex, procreation and the biology behind it. Get your "flavor" elsewhere.

I think insurance companies should be able to choose whether or not they will cover or honor "same sex couples".

Jsc810 wrote:Legal procedure aside, what is so wrong with gays getting married?

What effect has inter-racial marriages had upon the institution of marriage? None, except now inter-racial couples can marry, and that doesn't have any impact upon my marriage one way or another.

Likewise with gay marriage. There is absolutely no impact upon my marriage or anyone else's if these girls get married or not.

...how about the moral decay of our society which is halfway down the drain and gaining momentem...I know..you laughed.

Jsc810 wrote:
Likewise with gay marriage. There is absolutely no impact upon my marriage or anyone else's if these girls get married or not.

If I was caught rubbing one out to that pic, there might be an impact on my marriage.

Jsc810 wrote:are you claiming people with birth defects shouldn't be able to get married?

Marriage is fine- just as long as they're not allowed to breed

ChargerMike wrote:how about the moral decay of our society which is halfway down the drain and gaining momentem...I know..you laughed.

The "institution" of marriage has already been ravaged by "starter husbands" and gold-digging bitches. Go fuck yourself.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

ChargerMike wrote:how about the moral decay of our society which is halfway down the drain and gaining momentem...I know..you laughed.

The "institution" of marriage has already been ravaged by "starter husbands" and gold-digging bitches. Go fuck yourself.

What the hell is a "starter husband" ? Like a rough draft or something ?

ChargerMike wrote:...how about the moral decay of our society which is halfway down the drain and gaining momentem...I know..you laughed.

Moral decay? Give me a fucking break. Whatever moral outrages our society might be guilty of pale in comparison to the examples littered throughout history.

BSmack wrote:

ChargerMike wrote:...how about the moral decay of our society which is halfway down the drain and gaining momentem...I know..you laughed.

Moral decay? Give me a fucking break. Whatever moral outrages our society might be guilty of pale in comparison to the examples littered throughout history.

Yes and no.

That does it. I'm divorcing my wife and marrying my belt sander. Nothing gets me off like that thing. I don't think it will clamor to be added to my health benefits, either. I'll just squirt the thing with WD-40 (as long as dins thinks the choice appropriate) when it gets squeaky, and get on with my connubial bliss.

This pairing will last until the End of Days - or until I see a really sexy schnauser walk by.

PSUFAN wrote:That does it. I'm divorcing my wife and marrying my belt sander. Nothing gets me off like that thing. I don't think it will clamor to be added to my health benefits, either. I'll just squirt the thing with WD-40 (as long as dins thinks the choice appropriate) when it gets squeaky, and get on with my connubial bliss.

This pairing will last until the End of Days - or until I see a really sexy schnauser walk by.

Rick Santorum has dibs on all hot canines in PA. Tell me you knew?

I'm sure once every state has the ban overturned, then it won't be long before its acceptable for "Joe & Carl" to smooch in public. That'll be great for my kids to see.

RumpleForeskin wrote:I'm sure once every state has the ban overturned, then it won't be long before its acceptable for "Joe & Carl" to smooch in public. That'll be great for my kids to see.

It can't be any worse than watching you lip lock with a sumo wrestler on a daily basis.

BSmack wrote:a sumo wrestler

As long as cuda still has to snack on penis in the closet, all is not lost.

Jsc810 wrote:Just a matter of time before gays will be able to marry in every state, just like inter-racial couples can now marry in every state. And that is a wonderful thing.

Only for divorce lawyers!

BSmack wrote:

ChargerMike wrote:...how about the moral decay of our society which is halfway down the drain and gaining momentem...I know..you laughed.

Moral decay? Give me a fucking break. Whatever moral outrages our society might be guilty of pale in comparison to the examples littered throughout history.

...concur, I just happen to believe we are well on our way down the same road as those of whom you mention.

Jsc810 wrote: Just a matter of time before gays will be able to marry in every state, just like inter-racial couples can now marry in every state. And that is a wonderful thing.

So Jsc, we can put you down as a fudge packing queer, right? Are you the pitcher or the catcher?

Ya' know, it's one thing for polite society to look the other way at sick, reprehensible behavior, it's quite another to have government sanction it. The way I see it, fags are an abomination. Men shouldn't lay with men, period.

Flat Tax or National Sales Tax should put more money in everyone's pocket, including yours. I need some new suits, but can't afford them right now.

R-Jack wrote:The only thing queers actually want with legal marriage is the tax breaks.

Disagree.

What they want more is for their depravity to be given an official stamp of approval, and legalizing marriage does just that.

I'm sure the guilt and shame associated with being lower than an amoeba on the food chain is a terribly heavy burden to bear.

Well they want tax breaks. Who doesn't ? I mean even people who say they don't want tax cuts, do their damndest to try and minimize what Uncle Sam gets from them. Hell even Uber Liberal Radio Man Al Franken, made a few *cough* mistakes. I'm for tax breaks for us all.


What they also want is for Homo1 to be able to put Homo2 on their health insurance. My wife's jobs benefits are killer and less expensive than what my company provided. So naturally, I'm on her health plan. Homos want to be able to do this as well. I personally don't see a problem with that. I also don't see a problem with a corporation defining their own guidelines, so just because they're legally "married" - doesn't imply they automatically get coverage. Then again i don't know Health Care Law, maybe they have to legally provide coverage for spouses but I'd be shocked if they had to or if it was simply a competitive perk.

There are a myriad of other civil benefits and responsibilities where things default to the spouse that homos want to enjoy. Again, I don't see a problem with this, in the civil arena.

Religiously and morally, that's between the homo and his Church and God (respectively) and I've my own house to keep clean in that arena. For me, that's a full time job. I've no business peering into your glass house, from mine.

R-Jack wrote: Oh yeah. That's it. All they want is that sense of legitamcy to thow in the face of people whose opinions of the fag lifestyle are not going to change regardless of a ruling. Not the free money.

Idiot.

No, that's not what I wrote. It's not to "thow" in others face so they feel some sense of "legitamcy" from others... it's their own self esteem they're concerned about. The tax benefits are neglible in comparison, and negated once they get divorced (can't even believe I typed that).

Btw, best to proof read your posts before tossing out the "Idiot" gloss.

Dumbfuck.

I don't know War Wagon, I tend to disagree. You might have a point and I don't doubt that there are some motivated by a sense of wanting to legitimize their "difference" socially. But everything I've heard seems to revolve around practical issues.