California Crew: How are you going to vote on Prop 8.

[Jschmuck2]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JS80
How can you call it marriage when it isn't marriage?

Why do you feel compelled to use government to force the rest of us to live under your personal definition of marriage?

I didn't define it. Why do gays feel compelled to hijack something they didn't invent and force it on everyone?

Is it because you're a tool?

Oh look aww how cute it's an actor.

You know, I would still like to meet you somewhere for a drink - why won't you come? I'm just a bitch, after all.

I heard bitch is contagious. I value my asshole. Thanks.

So you're afraid that I'm going to anally rape you? That's about as rational as the rest of your posts.

I'm offering to buy you a drink. How about the Edison, that's a nice place.

I'll tell you what, when I have one of my baller bashes in the westside i'll let you know when and where. Just look for the baller jackass crew with the hot chicks blowing money like it's hyperinflation.

Man you're white.

Dude, ask your Jewish wife - it would be a Mitzvah to come out and have a bev with a fellow yid. Clearly, if I'm the contagious bitch you paint me to be, what's the issue?!!?

Seriously, all I want to do is hear you say this nonsense in person and have a discussion about it.

 

[bsobel]

According to your assumption about the constitution child molesters would have a case too. There is nothing in Constitution that protect boys marrying each other anymore than people could marry their pets.

Wow your stupid. Animals and young children can not consent to marriage, suggesting they can shows a complete lack of understanding of the law.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Above is what happens when you choose to not think for yourself and place all your excuses in a fictional novel.


Luckily, Moonie is so convoluted, that he does not know who he is when he is inside himself.

To those who hold a particular Faith (belief sans proof) the Bible is held to be proof, ergo, it is not faith but, rather, an axiomatic faith based on a doctrine supplied by God to enable the multitude to gain entry to heaven. There are some who go half way but well.... they are chosen so they get a pass.
By the Grace of God we here in the USA are blessed with the wisdom of the Founders in Creating our Constitution and whose insight are, in part, contained in the Federalist papers. No where in those documents does it explain the rights of the 'Gays'. Madison nor Hamilton nor even Jay - Hamilton was thought by some to be Gay - never even by inference did they articulate in favor of equal rights for the Gay being forced on the population by the States... Dang that Fourteenth.. BUT, there it is... We are forced to be equal...
God or at least Moonie's one don't really hate anyone, as Moonie indicated. But we do, as Moonie reflected.
Everyone does think for themselves and it is in this thinking that folks devolve to bigotry. They do it all by themselves and to themselves because they, indeed, hate another equally to the hate for themselves for harboring that hate.... Convoluted....

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Butterbean

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
I'm not voting for or against it. It doesn't affect me either way.

The bigots claim that it is forcing them to accept same sex marriage.

People are being forced to accept it. Nature is also a bigot since it militates against husband and husband marriage in so many ways. Cannibals will want rights someday and people trying to stop that will be called bigots too no doubt. We have a broken world on out hands.

That which is legal is legal in this country. That is the basic starting point and from there one can be comfortable in their pursuit of happiness.

 

[AstroManLuca]

So if you hate so much that you are being forced to accept gay marriage, shouldn't I be equally entitled to be offended that I am forced to accept your religiously-influenced laws?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Butterbean

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Butterbean

Originally posted by: bamacre
How did this even make the ballot in CA?

Judges kept overriding the will of the people and they keep fighting the homosexual agenda being forced on them and their schools. A very undemocratic lot those gays,

The will of the people may not reflect the equal protection under the constitution.

According to your assumption about the constitution child molesters would have a case too. There is nothing in Constitution that protect boys marrying each other anymore than people could marry their pets.

There is the protection of society.

Being married to a person of the same sex does not endanger society - it is a choice that they choose to make. You should have the same choice, but not the right to deny them their choice.

Gay marriage endangers the bigot's feelings of superiority. As long they have a privilege they can deny others, all's right in their world.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JS80
How can you call it marriage when it isn't marriage?

Why do you feel compelled to use government to force the rest of us to live under your personal definition of marriage?

I didn't define it. Why do gays feel compelled to hijack something they didn't invent and force it on everyone?

Is it because you're a tool?

Oh look aww how cute it's an actor.

You know, I would still like to meet you somewhere for a drink - why won't you come? I'm just a bitch, after all.

I heard bitch is contagious. I value my asshole. Thanks.

So you're afraid that I'm going to anally rape you? That's about as rational as the rest of your posts.

I'm offering to buy you a drink. How about the Edison, that's a nice place.

I'll tell you what, when I have one of my baller bashes in the westside i'll let you know when and where. Just look for the baller jackass crew with the hot chicks blowing money like it's hyperinflation.

Man you're white.

Dude, ask your Jewish wife - it would be a Mitzvah to come out and have a bev with a fellow yid. Clearly, if I'm the contagious bitch you paint me to be, what's the issue?!!?

Seriously, all I want to do is hear you say this nonsense in person and have a discussion about it.

Nope I'm not white, nor am I yid. Why the fuck would I want to talk politics at a bar drinking and trying to have fun.

 

[badnewcastle]

Here is why I'm voting yes.

1st grade class takes field trip to lesbian wedding.

Why would anyone organize this? It's not like we organize 1st graders to go to a heterosexual wedding... WTF?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: badnewcastle
Here is why I'm voting yes.

1st grade class takes field trip to lesbian wedding.

Why would anyone organize this? It's not like we organize 1st graders to go to a heterosexual wedding... WTF?

From the story at your link:

A parent came up with the idea for the field trip - a surprise for the teacher on her wedding day.

"She's such a dedicated teacher," said the school's interim director Liz Jaroslow.

Sheesh! It's San Francisco. Why does it suprise you?

More importantly, why should you give a rat's ass... unless you're a narrow minded bigot? :thumbsdown:

ZOMFGWTFBBQ!!! The kids may actually learn something about tolerance, and they and their teacher may all have a good time at their wedding. Wouldn't want that, now, would we? :roll:

Just for you, I'm going to vote no twice. :laugh:

 

[ElFenix]

if i were a 1st grade teacher the last thing i would want is a buncha the little twerps showing up to my wedding uninvited

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: badnewcastle
Here is why I'm voting yes.

1st grade class takes field trip to lesbian wedding.

Why would anyone organize this? It's not like we organize 1st graders to go to a heterosexual wedding... WTF?

From the story at your link:

A parent came up with the idea for the field trip - a surprise for the teacher on her wedding day.

"She's such a dedicated teacher," said the school's interim director Liz Jaroslow.

Sheesh! It's San Francisco. Why does it suprise you?

More importantly, why should you give a rat's ass... unless you're a narrow minded bigot? :thumbsdown:

Just for you, I'm going to vote no twice. :laugh:

But Harvey, now all the kids in the class are going to catch the gay!

And they might get the wrong message, that gays *aren't* despicable scum, but equal.

Oh the horror:

The students' parents are planning to make a video with the children describing what marriage is to them.

Marriage, 6-year-old Nolan Alexander said Friday, is "people falling in love."

It means, he added, "You stay with someone the rest of your life."

As is the case with all field trips, parents had to give their permission and could choose to opt out of the trip. Two families did. Those children spent the duration of the 90-minute field trip back at school with another first-grade class, the interim director said.

So let's count all the children who had to see this poison against their parents' wishes:

Zero.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
if i were a 1st grade teacher the last thing i would want is a buncha the little twerps showing up to my wedding uninvited

Which is why you are not someone who should be a first grade teacher.

 

[351Cleveland]

I wouldnt vote on it. I dont believe in gay "marraige," and I also dont believe the government should be in the business of defining marraige. Marraige is a religioius institution, and its nomenclature adopted by the government for secular reasons. To vote either way would say that the government had the right to decide. It doesnt.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

I wouldnt vote on it. I dont believe in gay "marraige," and I also dont believe the government should be in the business of defining marraige. Marraige is a religioius institution, and its nomenclature adopted by the government for secular reasons.

"Marriage" is a civil legal state according to the laws of EVERY state and U.S. territory, as well as the laws of EVERY English speaking nation in the world. In most, if not all, jurisdictions, religious institutions are granted the right to perform legally binding marriages, but that legal standing is granted under the CIVIL codes of those jurisdiction.

The fact that you're hung up on the word, "marriage" as a solely a religious concept is simply wrong. Giving it an alternative name like "civil union" is nothing more than a monumental semantic jackoff.

Are you anti-semantic?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
I wouldnt vote on it. I dont believe in gay "marraige," and I also dont believe the government should be in the business of defining marraige. Marraige is a religioius institution, and its nomenclature adopted by the government for secular reasons. To vote either way would say that the government had the right to decide. It doesnt.

If there were a ballot measure to ban blacks from marrying, would you vote on it?

 

[Butterbean]

Originally posted by: bsobel

According to your assumption about the constitution child molesters would have a case too. There is nothing in Constitution that protect boys marrying each other anymore than people could marry their pets.

Wow your stupid. Animals and young children can not consent to marriage, suggesting they can shows a complete lack of understanding of the law.

Who needs consent? The people refused to consent to homosexual marriage and got it forced anyway. You dont even follow basic anatomy . Guess we know all we need to about you.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Butterbean

Who needs consent? The people refused to consent to homosexual marriage and got it forced anyway. You dont even follow basic anatomy . Guess we know all we need to about you.

AHA! Butt__bean admits HE was forced into a gay marriage. Gotta ask, was that a gun in your SO's pocket, or was he just glad to see you? :laugh:

 

[Butterbean]

Originally posted by: Harvey
In most, if not all, jurisdictions, religious institutions are granted the right to perform legally binding marriages, but that legal standing is granted under the CIVIL codes of those jurisdiction.

Religious institutions are protected by first amendment. No civil code was needed to allow religious marriage. But we already knew you rationalize things.

 

[Butterbean]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Butt__bean

Who needs consent? The people refused to consent to homosexual marriage and got it forced anyway. You dont even follow basic anatomy . Guess we know all we need to about you.

AHA! Butt__bean admits HE was forced into a gay marriage. Gotta ask, was that a gun in your SO's pocket, or was he just glad to see you? :laugh:

your fantasies are showing

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Butt__bean

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Butt__bean

Who needs consent? The people refused to consent to homosexual marriage and got it forced anyway. You dont even follow basic anatomy . Guess we know all we need to about you.

AHA! Butt__bean admits HE was forced into a gay marriage. Gotta ask, was that a gun in your SO's pocket, or was he just glad to see you? :laugh:

your fantasies are showing

Unlike you, hiding in the closet with your boyfriend. Come on out to California. You won't have to hide it, here. :laugh:

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Butterbean

Originally posted by: Harvey
In most, if not all, jurisdictions, religious institutions are granted the right to perform legally binding marriages, but that legal standing is granted under the CIVIL codes of those jurisdiction.

Religious institutions are protected by first amendment. No civil code was needed to allow religious marriage. But we already knew you rationalize things.

The 1st amendment is a prohibition on the Federal Govt. Among its topics is that the Feds are prohibited from establishment of a 'State' religion (iow, from creating a national religion)

edit: I would think your position would be more like under the "Due Process'' clause of the 14th

edit: hehehehehe In order to perform marriage an official must meet the criteria set down in statute. Probably in the Businees and Professional Code... but I rationalize...

 

[BoomerD]

This was on last night's news:
http://www.modbee.com/local/story/462341.html

Man swipes signs urging passage of anti-gay marriage Proposition 8
last updated: October 14, 2008 06:12:31 AM

"Modesto police are looking for a man who reportedly stole a stack of signs supporting a constitutional ban on gay marriage, then punched the owner of the signs in the eye when he tried to reclaim his materials.

The victim told police he had to get 16 stitches as a result, said police spokesman Sgt. Brian Findlen.

Demonstrators against gay marriage had set up a table outside St. Stanislaus Church at 1416 Maze Blvd. On Sunday about 11:15 a.m., a man exchanged words about gay marriage with the Proposition 8 supporter before taking the signs."



According to the TV story, the assailant stole the signs that the victim was putting up, so the victim chased the guy who "socked" him in the eye. (victim's words)

Like the proposition or not...this is NOT the way to stop it...

 

[Jeff7]

Like they usually say, if you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay person.

It's not going to cause society to collapse, and it's not going to make your deity of choice destroy the planet. Humanity commits real atrocities on a regular basis. <Insert deity here> doesn't seem to give two shits about the thousands upon thousands of people who die as a result. With that in mind, I don't think <deity> is going to give even 0.2 shits about our mating rituals.