Recommended Posts
slug 1
.
Do you support bigamy? How about a bi-sexual bigamy where people of all sexual persuations are allowed to marry multiple partners? If so, at what point do you stop calling it marriage and refer to it as hedonism?
Yes I do as long as all partners consent and can leave when they want and have the skills to support themselves in the same standard of living.
Hedonism? Personnel choice as long as no one is hurt.
Reprobate? I rather be a hedonist.
R.I.P.
billvon 2,426
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>It's wrong and not in the best interest of my country...as the voters decided.
Indeed; it's not the first time that our government has acted "in the best interests of the country." From a Virginia law still in effect when I was born:
"No marriage license shall be granted until the clerk or deputy clerk has reasonable assurance that the statements as to color of both man and woman are correct. If there is reasonable cause to disbelieve that applicants are of pure white race, when that fact is stated, the clerk or deputy clerk shall withhold the granting of the license until satisfactory proof is produced that both applicants are 'white persons' as provided for in this act.
It shall hereafter be unlawful for any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian. For the purpose of this act, the term "white person" shall apply only to the person who has no trace whatsoever of any blood other than Caucasian; but persons who have one-sixteenth or less of the blood of the American Indian and have no other non-Caucasic blood shall be deemed to be white persons. All laws heretofore passed and now in effect regarding the intermarriage of white and colored persons shall apply to marriages prohibited by this act."
Thank heavens the Virginia legislature took a stand against the destruction of the family and promoted the purity of the ruling race, eh?
Indeed; it's not the first time that our government has acted "in the best interests of the country." From a Virginia law still in effect when I was born:
"No marriage license shall be granted until the clerk or deputy clerk has reasonable assurance that the statements as to color of both man and woman are correct. If there is reasonable cause to disbelieve that applicants are of pure white race, when that fact is stated, the clerk or deputy clerk shall withhold the granting of the license until satisfactory proof is produced that both applicants are 'white persons' as provided for in this act.
It shall hereafter be unlawful for any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian. For the purpose of this act, the term "white person" shall apply only to the person who has no trace whatsoever of any blood other than Caucasian; but persons who have one-sixteenth or less of the blood of the American Indian and have no other non-Caucasic blood shall be deemed to be white persons. All laws heretofore passed and now in effect regarding the intermarriage of white and colored persons shall apply to marriages prohibited by this act."
Thank heavens the Virginia legislature took a stand against the destruction of the family and promoted the purity of the ruling race, eh?
crozby 0
As the Christian right gather support through acts like this they will no doubt go further and start targetting other immoral activities like porn, gambling, swearing on TV, farting in public etc.
And then all those homophobes who didn't think there was anything wrong with supressing the rights of homosexuals will suddenly be on the receiving end of the interfering fascist do-good'ers that they used to support.
And then all those homophobes who didn't think there was anything wrong with supressing the rights of homosexuals will suddenly be on the receiving end of the interfering fascist do-good'ers that they used to support.
Good apples and oranges comparison. When you get some good comparisons let me know.
Look, you all can spin it any way your DNC manual tells you to. Bottom line...gays will not be married and living in my good ole US of A.
Period.
Forty-two
Look, you all can spin it any way your DNC manual tells you to. Bottom line...gays will not be married and living in my good ole US of A.
Period.
Forty-two
QuoteQuoteI thought freedom of religion was one of the principles of this nation. One of the big slippery slope fallacies employed by opponents of gay marriage is polygamy... a practice encouraged by several religions. If a gay person, mormon, or muslim belongs to a church that encourages them to marry in a manner other than the christian version widely accepted in this country, are those people being denied their freedom of religion?
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or LDS(Mormons) does not and has not condoned nor practiced Polygamy in a very long time. It is against the law of the land and our Prophets have declared it for intents and purposes...
For "my" lack of actual terminology we'll call it "Dead Doctrine",
and any members of the church practicing, attempting to practice will be held accountable and excommunicated.
There are however certain splinter groups who call themselves LDS, Mormon, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ------ or ect... Who are not following the laws of the land, much less church teachings/doctrine and who are "NOT" of our church.
Well the question still applies then. Are those "splinter groups" or "sects" or whatever being denied their freedom to practice their religion?
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
wmw999 2,146
QuoteAre those "splinter groups" or "sects" or whatever being denied their freedom to practice their religion?
Yes, they are. One thing to consider in any legal consideration of union or marriage scenarios with more than two people involved is the whole insurance/legal rights thing. Because it's probably an undue hardship on a company to have them cover someone's 12 husbands or wives, and how would the state establish automatic inheritance rights in such a case? And who gets to make medical decisions in an emergency?
So if civil unions are recognized (or marriages) between same-sex partners (don't get me wrong -- I think they should be, and vote that way), the state would have to establish, probably at significant cost-of-hassle, how issues pertaining to multi-partner legal relationships would apply if it were generalized. And yes, that, too, would be an arbitrary distinction.
Wendy W.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
billvon 2,426
> Good apples and oranges comparison.
Right. Because a religion-based objection to interracial marriages, one that predicted the downfall of institution of marriage, has nothing to do with a religion-based objection to gay marriages, one that predicts the downfall of the institution of marriage.
>Bottom line...gays will not be married and living in my good ole US of A.
Too late! First blacks started marrying whites, now gays are marrying each other. Looks like other people have rights in 'your' USA, no matter how repugnant the concept of equal rights is.
Right. Because a religion-based objection to interracial marriages, one that predicted the downfall of institution of marriage, has nothing to do with a religion-based objection to gay marriages, one that predicts the downfall of the institution of marriage.
>Bottom line...gays will not be married and living in my good ole US of A.
Too late! First blacks started marrying whites, now gays are marrying each other. Looks like other people have rights in 'your' USA, no matter how repugnant the concept of equal rights is.
Jayruss 0
QuoteGood apples and oranges comparison. When you get some good comparisons let me know.
Look, you all can spin it any way your DNC manual tells you to. Bottom line...gays will not be married and living in my good ole US of A.
Period.
Why is this an apple v. oranges comparison? Both issues are clearly the choice of the government taking the rights of a given group because the majority deems so.
Seems like apples v. apples. Please provide a valid reason as to why you feel its apples v. oranges.
__________________________________________________
"Beware how you take away hope from another human being."
-Oliver Wendell Holmes
QuoteQuoteGood apples and oranges comparison. When you get some good comparisons let me know.
Look, you all can spin it any way your DNC manual tells you to. Bottom line...gays will not be married and living in my good ole US of A.
Period.
Why is this an apple v. oranges comparison? Both issues are clearly the choice of the government taking the rights of a given group because the majority deems so.
Seems like apples v. apples. Please provide a valid reason as to why you feel its apples v. oranges.
Because if he sticks his fingers in his ears and goes "lalalalalalala" then no one can argue against his point of view. Essentially this is what he is doing by blindly claiming everyone but him is wrong.
_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
rehmwa 2
QuoteAs the Christian right gather support through acts like this they will no doubt go further and start targetting other immoral activities like porn, gambling, swearing on TV, farting in public etc.
And guns, and smoking, and SUVs, and certain races and religions, .......
Pick your nutter extremist groups they exists across the spectrum, it's not one sided and never will be.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
quade 3
Quote
Bottom line...gays will not be married and living in my good ole US of A.
Moving to the United States of Africa?
As I recall, one of the original 13 states of the United States of America, the place where the Pilgrims landed, the place where Paul Revere set up his silver shop, the place where the tea party took place, the freekin' birthplace of our great nation . . . the place that the "neo-conservatives" now denegrate with such vile disrespect . . . already has gay marriage.
So much for your bottom line.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
base428 1
Try as hard you can (and I'm sure some of you will), but you'll never convince me that sticking my pecker in another man's ass is anything but absurdly abnormal. I applaud those with morals who support the traditional, normal meaning of marriage.
PS. I've been "heterosexually married" for 6+ years to a wonderful wife......try it sometime!
PS. I've been "heterosexually married" for 6+ years to a wonderful wife......try it sometime!
(c)2010 Vertical Visions. No unauthorized duplication permitted. <==For the media only
billvon 2,426
>but you'll never convince me that sticking my pecker in
>another man's ass is anything but absurdly abnormal.
So is sticking your pecker in a woman's mouth. The important idea to get to is that it's really none of anyone else's business what you do with another adult, whether male or female.
>I applaud those with morals who support the traditional, normal
>meaning of marriage.
Do you avoid everything but reproductive sex?
>another man's ass is anything but absurdly abnormal.
So is sticking your pecker in a woman's mouth. The important idea to get to is that it's really none of anyone else's business what you do with another adult, whether male or female.
>I applaud those with morals who support the traditional, normal
>meaning of marriage.
Do you avoid everything but reproductive sex?
quade 3
Quote
Try as hard you can (and I'm sure some of you will), but you'll never convince me that sticking my pecker in another man's ass is anything but absurdly abnormal. I applaud those with morals who support the traditional, normal meaning of marriage.
Just change the words a bit . . .
Try as hard you can (and I'm sure some of you will), but you'll never convince me that jumping from a bridge is anything but absurdly abnormal. I applaud those with comon sense who support the traditional, normal use of a parachute.
Do you see how ridiculous that sounds and jumping from a bridge is less common than people being gay.
What is it in you that would deny people their right to be happy?
What business is it of the government's?
PS -- I've been married to the same woman since 1982. There probably isn't a whole lot you can tell me about hetro marriage, good, bad or ugly, that I don't already know.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
QuotePS. I've been "heterosexually married" for 6+ years to a wonderful wife......try it sometime!
I've actually tried it a couple times! One of them for 9 years. And I still do not have the "urge" to stick my pecker in another man's ass.
But if someone does, it's fine with me. No one is forcing me to watch or participate.
"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."
Quote>but you'll never convince me that sticking my pecker in
>another man's ass is anything but absurdly abnormal.
So is sticking your pecker in a woman's mouth.
Bill, don't give them any ideas. I shudder at the thought.
_________________________________________
-There's always free cheese in a mouse trap.
-There's always free cheese in a mouse trap.
base428 1
Quade, ya gotta brush up on your parachute history bro. Some of the first parachutes were used to save people from burning castles, hundreds of years ago. See, it's even on the wall at the Smithsonian Institute and in the history page for a notable BASE gear manufacturer. Parachuting from fixed objects was how our wonderful sport got started. But anyway, let's not get off topic here......give me more apple/orange comparisons please!
Quotejust change the words a bit . . .
Try as hard you can (and I'm sure some of you will), but you'll never convince me that jumping from a bridge is anything but absurdly abnormal. I applaud those with comon sense who support the traditional, normal use of a parachute.
(c)2010 Vertical Visions. No unauthorized duplication permitted. <==For the media only
QuoteTry as hard you can (and I'm sure some of you will), but you'll never convince me that ...is anything but absurdly abnormal.
I personally think it's abnormal and gross, but I also think that having sex with an abnormally obese woman is gross too, same thing with adults who get off by pissing on each other. BUT, who am I to say that skinny men and fat women should not be allowed to be happily married or be listed on the same insurance policy. I don't care what other consenting adults do with each other, and I absolutely don't care if they want to stand on the courthouse steps, get married, and declare their freaky love till the cows come home. It's simply none of my business, and it's not going to change my personal values or how I treat anyone else.
I think the blowjob analogy is appropriate. They may possibly be the greatest idea ever, I just prefer to cast a woman for the part of the other participant. The government should not be in the casting business for blowjobs, marriage, or any other act between consenting adults.
_________________________________________
-There's always free cheese in a mouse trap.
-There's always free cheese in a mouse trap.
Ron 7
The #1 reason that people voted against it was that the minority gay population tried to force it into the majorities life.
While I agree gays should have the rights allowed to anyone...Which includes things like the ability to visit a sick loved one in a hospital, passage of property ect....
Marriage is a term used by Religion, that was adopted by the Government....
Gay people stil have the same rights as straight people, they choose not to exercise them. A gay man has the same right as a straight man to maryy a woman...They choose not to do that.
The Government should not mess with what a person chooses to do in his or her bedroom. And last I checked for the most part they are not.
I am not "happy" that rights are denied to gays. But when a few vocal gays are yelling at me, calling me their "enemy", threatening me, ect...
Who do you think I am gonna side with?
And the country has spoken. They pushed to hard, and the majority pushed back.
While I agree gays should have the rights allowed to anyone...Which includes things like the ability to visit a sick loved one in a hospital, passage of property ect....
Marriage is a term used by Religion, that was adopted by the Government....
Gay people stil have the same rights as straight people, they choose not to exercise them. A gay man has the same right as a straight man to maryy a woman...They choose not to do that.
The Government should not mess with what a person chooses to do in his or her bedroom. And last I checked for the most part they are not.
I am not "happy" that rights are denied to gays. But when a few vocal gays are yelling at me, calling me their "enemy", threatening me, ect...
Who do you think I am gonna side with?
And the country has spoken. They pushed to hard, and the majority pushed back.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
skreamer 1
OK, now you guys have totally turned me on. I'm sitting here in only my socks and underpants getting all hot and sweaty reading your macho angry posts. Of course this wouldn't be a problem if I wasn't still at work... 
Will
PS I'm still straight for now but it is hard with studly real men like you lot around...
Will
PS I'm still straight for now but it is hard with studly real men like you lot around...
Ron 7
QuoteOK, now you guys have totally turned me on. I'm sitting here in only my socks and underpants getting all hot and sweaty reading your macho angry posts. Of course this wouldn't be a problem if I wasn't still at work...
I am sure you will manage.
Besides....I could not care one bit...Until I was attacked and called an enemy....I don't like ANY ideas forced upon me...And the easiest way to make me against an idea is to try and force me to accept it.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
And the scared homophobic majority are the ones trying to force their opinion on everyone else.QuoteThe #1 reason that people voted against it was that the minority gay population tried to force it into the majorities life.
The problem is that even these rights were denied by the election.QuoteWhile I agree gays should have the rights allowed to anyone...Which includes things like the ability to visit a sick loved one in a hospital, passage of property ect....
Then let the government define the rules for civil union and let the religions define marriage. Our government is there to defend the rights of the citizens, esp the minority. It's not there to take them away because the thought of something upsets their reliegious beliefs!!! I'm wondering when in his next four years Bush will claim they have "cooties?"QuoteMarriage is a term used by Religion, that was adopted by the Government....
This argument always worries me. People are actually trying to justify why it is ok to discriminate against a segment of our society. This is a slippery slope. Newly elected Senator (R) Jim Demint from South Carolina does not want homosexuals to be teachers (a large part of his campaign platform was against gay marriage). The funny part about that is SC has the third worst education system in the country. Nice way to focus on the real issues.QuoteGay people stil have the same rights as[ straight people, they choose not to exercise them. A gay man has the same right as a straight man to maryy a woman...They choose not to do that.
Tom Coburn is starting to focus on homosexuality as one of the biggest problems in his state! Wow, who knew that things like the budget, education and the environment should take a back seat to homosexuality.![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
The Christian-Right Elitist attitude is scary. And they say they are the ones with "morals" and "values" - how insulting to the other half of the country! To claim that someone doesn't have morals because they don't side with you on ugly discrimination??? From what it seems, 49% of this country has stronger values towards the indidual freedoms of the citizen than the elitist republicans.
How many more threads are you going to post this in? We get the point. This is going to be your argument on why its ok to discriminate and be unAmerican?QuoteI am not "happy" that rights are denied to gays. But when a few vocal gays are yelling at me, calling me their "enemy", threatening me, ect...
_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
Gawain 0
QuoteThis, as with all other prejudices in this country, will eventually be overcome. ... ... ... ...
This country still has a lot of evolving to do.
Come on guys, one minute we're (society) are talking about ensuring more tolerance for homosexuals, the next minute they're getting married.
Literally!
Society is barely in grasp of tolerating the behavior to begin with. It hasn't been "so many years" we've traveled on what is a cultural journey with no defined destination yet (as evidenced by the most recent election).
Let's take another look back as a comparison (which is linked to this side of culture - right or wrong) at the phenomenon that swept with the identification of AIDS:
Denziens of high-culture, fearing that the new spirit of sexual enlightenment might be dampened by the news of this disease, AIDS, tried to tell us that everyone--homosexual and heterosexual alike--was in danger of being struck by the disease. Well, the claim turned out to be untrue. Virtually the only "heteros" being afflicted were intravenous drug users and those that dabbled in bisexuality (I'm talking from a US perspective here, so don't go off half-cocked with stats from Africa or Europe or wherever people are dropping like flies from this shit).
Culturally, AIDS became a cruel fate rather than a result of blind encounters in exclusive bars or bathhouses or habit abuse. It took a very short time to our society to overlook the real meaning (compared to how long it took society to get around our shameful conduct toward black people - which for all our progress, our work isn't done there either).
The gay community is (and has been) within its rights to demand better manners from society at large. This has been getting accomplished without massive, violent protests nationwide. However, the agenda has also included the unconditional demand that how they comported themselves, sexually speaking, was no less normal a way of living than that engaged in by the "straight" community.
Results: The Boy Scouts were informed that they could no longer abide by their policy of disallowing homosexuals as scoutmasters. Sex-Ed curricula in public schools began instruction including homosexual families. NYC now has a high school specifically for homosexual kids.
All in the name of tolerance.
Well, society has stated (2 Nov) that it is not ready to let the flood gates loose. Homosexual marriage is not so much about homosexuals as it is about them. It's the ultimate "in your face."
As you said Lew, society will come to terms with it. It may not end up in a manner some want it to though.
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
No one?! The who is tabling these motions? Who is campaigning for Gay marriage all over the country? Just because something is defeated doesn't mean that no-one supports it.
A better post would have been:
"I don't want to see gay marriage. I think it is wrong and not in the best interest of my country"
CJP
Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites