NationStates Jolt Archive

The people of Michigan passed a constitutional amendment today by a 70% majority vote. This amendment will prevent the state government from issuing driver’s licenses to homosexuals. In addition, Michigan will no longer recognize driver’s licenses from other states if they have been issued to homosexuals.

Bill Georges, a proponent of the bill, explained the reasoning behind it:

“Well, I don’t hate the gays or anything. I mean, I had a gay friend once, until he stopped talking to me when I told him that his lifestyle was dirty and vile. Anyways, this isn’t discrimination or anything, it’s really just natural. You see, Henry Ford invented cars, and he was against gays. So gays shouldn’t be allowed to drive them. It’s ok if they own cars and pretend like they are normal, straight drivers, as long as they keep the car in their own driveway and don’t drive it where we normal people can see.”

When faced with the fact that policy based completely on what Henry Ford may or may not have said may be unconstitutional, he had this to say:

“Well, I mean, the whole purpose of driving a car is to drive your kids around. And the gays can’t have kids, so why would they need a car? We can’t deny driver’s licenses to straight people who don’t have kids, because they can drive other people’s kids around and one day might have their own. But the gays can’t have kids and nobody wants to let them drive their kids around, right? And we know Henry Ford was against the blacks too, but they have kids so we have to let them drive.

“Then there’s the fact that they just aren’t safe drivers. I mean, they tend to drive other people’s cars more than their own. And I read a study somewhere once that said that they do more drugs and drink more before they drive. The gays are going to destroy the roadways if we let them drive!

“Plus, there is no right to drive a car, it’s a privilege that the government gives you and they can regulate it however they want. There is absolutely no reason why the gays should be able to drive cars legally.”

And to the question of whether or not homosexuals might lose their jobs, and then their homes and assets:

“Well, that’s all about money and it’s just greedy. Driving a car isn’t about money, it’s about the children. Henry Ford made the car and he didn’t like the gays. So they shouldn’t drive. Besides, if we give driver's licenses to the gays, soon we'll be giving them to dogs, catuses, and two-year olds!”

Penny Lane had the following to say:

“If Henry Ford were here today, he’d slap all the gays that are driving cars! Gays have no place in cars!”

John Lane added:

“We have to protect the tradition of driving! Driving has a fine tradition in this country stretching all the way back to the frontier days when good, God fearing men drove their families all the way across the country in nothing more than a covered wagon. It’s bad enough we gave women and blacks the right to drive, but we will stand firm when we defend the tradition of driving and will keep gays off our roads! It’s their choice to be gay and if they’re going to make that choice, then not having a license is just a price they’re going to have to pay!”

Steven Doe acknowledged that while gays in other countries have the right to acquire license that,

“The US doesn’t bow to international pressure! Who cares that other countries have given gays licenses? We know better than all of them and we’re the ones that make the rules in our country. Things like civil rights, human rights, and social policies should not be influenced just because a bunch of other countries in the “Old World” and Canada have a different view. Why should we care what they think? The international community is full of a bunch of liberal sissies anyway! This is America and in America, Americans make the laws! Not the freedom hating British, French, or those damn, druggie, hippie, commie-bastard Scandinavians. Where is Scandinavia anyway?! Is it even a country, I ask you?!”

Michigan lawmakers insist that this amendment will help to protect the roadways and ensure that the gays are kept in their proper place.

“Well, I mean, the whole purpose of driving a car is to drive your kids around. And the gays can’t have kids, so why would they need a car? We can’t deny driver’s licenses to straight people who don’t have kids, because they can drive other people’s kids around and one day might have their own. But the gays can’t have kids and nobody wants to let them drive their kids around, right? And we know Henry Ford was against the blacks too, but they have kids so we have to let them drive."

Bad gay marriage parody. That paragraph right there gives it away. Of course, the parody doesn't make any reference to the idea of civil unions. The equivalent of the legal companionship, just without the perks of marriage. Because that rather derails the entire argument.

.....

Ok, ha ha ha, nice joke :rolleyes:

Now let's see how many people think this is true :D

Bad gay marriage parody. That paragraph right there gives it away.

Really? You think it gives it away? You really think I was trying to hide the fact that this is a parody on gay marriage? The point is that there is absolutely no call for denying homosexuals any of the legal privileges afforded to heterosexuals. The arguments I just stated for denying driver's licenses make just as much sense as anyone else's anti-gay marriage arguments. If you can find a way to refute that statement, go ahead.

Of course, the parody doesn't make any reference to the idea of civil unions. The equivalent of the legal companionship, just without the perks of marriage. Because that rather derails the entire argument.

How so? The "perks of marriage" are exactly what is being fought for. And civil union is just civil marriage under another term so the extreme right-wingers don't get upset. If a civil union gives all the same rights as a civil marriage, then it is a civil marriage.

Tell me something--does this mean that Michiganites will be forced to "prove" their heterosexuality before getting their licenses? It adds a whole new level of pressure to the driving test, I imagine. :D

Tell me something--does this mean that Michiganites will be forced to "prove" their heterosexuality before getting their licenses? It adds a whole new level of pressure to the driving test, I imagine. :D

Yes. Michigan will now employ driving testers that were once sex workers and they will also run the tests that measure penile erection based on pictures. Driver's licenses will be denied to gays and pedophiles.

Tell me something--does this mean that Michiganites will be forced to "prove" their heterosexuality before getting their licenses? It adds a whole new level of pressure to the driving test, I imagine. :D

Overheard in a Michigan coffee house:

Yeah, I passed the written, but I flunked the oral.

I can just see it--proper use of turn signals? check. proper parallel parking technique? check. ability to bring driving instructor to orgasm in under 10 minutes? Sorry, Billy. You failed. Come back next week and try again.

Really? You think it gives it away? You really think I was trying to hide the fact that this is a parody on gay marriage? The point is that there is absolutely no call for denying homosexuals any of the legal privileges afforded to heterosexuals. The arguments I just stated for denying driver's licenses make just as much sense as anyone else's anti-gay marriage arguments. If you can find a way to refute that statement, go ahead.

Great, start by being sarcastic and putting words in my mouth. Way to open the lines of communications sport.

Your analogy makes no separation of marriage, and marriage benefits. There is only one issue: driving.

A civil union would be, in your analogy, a legal equivalent of a drivers license. They would be recognized by law as a driver, and allowed to drive, but would not be categorized in the same way. They would also lack perks offered to non-homosexual drivers. The actual right to drive wouldn't be taken away.

How so? The "perks of marriage" are exactly what is being fought for. And civil union is just civil marriage under another term so the extreme right-wingers don't get upset. If a civil union gives all the same rights as a civil marriage, then it is a civil marriage.

That's just it, they have no claim to the benefits. Studies have shown that heterosexual married couples produce the healthiest and best adjusted children. Homosexuals produce the least well adjusted children. Even non-married heterosexual couples have been shown to produce a better adjusted child.

The benefits are given to encourage people to create the enviroment in which a child can flourish. That is not the enviroment provided by a homosexual co-habitation. There is no reason to reward said pairing.

This does not prevent homosexuals from being together, nor from receiving legal recognition, nor from having children. It only denies them the perks, which they never had an entitlement to to begin with.

Overheard in a Michigan coffee house:

Yeah, I passed the written, but I flunked the oral.
Okay--that's far better than mine.

Overheard in a Michigan coffee house:

Yeah, I passed the written, but I flunked the oral.

Berk, if it were legal, and my boyfriend didn't mind - would you marry me?

Nice way, Dem.

But I still was ranked better for my auto industry on Nationstates. :)

(but only narrowly. Mmm. Are cars and sexuality *really* linked?)

That's just it, they have no claim to the benefits. Studies have shown that heterosexual married couples produce the healthiest and best adjusted children. Homosexuals produce the least well adjusted children. Even non-married heterosexual couples have been shown to produce a better adjusted child.

I assume that you can point us in the direction of these studies, and that they will be widely recognised and accepted, in addition to being peer-reviewed.

Great, start by being sarcastic and putting words in my mouth. Way to open the lines of communications sport.

Sorry. But the whole thread is sarcastic.

Your analogy makes no separation of marriage, and marriage benefits. There is only one issue: driving.

That is because, legally, there is no separation of marriage and marriage benefits. Why should I make one up?

A civil union would be, in your analogy, a legal equivalent of a drivers license. They would be recognized by law as a driver, and allowed to drive, but would not be categorized in the same way. They would also lack perks offered to non-homosexual drivers. The actual right to drive wouldn't be taken away.

Wrong. If a civil union is legal, it must include all the "perks" (as you put it) of marriage. Anything else is blatantly unconstitutional. On a legal basis, the "perks" are the marriage.

That's just it, they have no claim to the benefits. Studies have shown that heterosexual married couples produce the healthiest and best adjusted children. Homosexuals produce the least well adjusted children. Even non-married heterosexual couples have been shown to produce a better adjusted child.

The assumption that marriage is all about children is false. What does this have to do with the discussion exactly?

The benefits are given to encourage people to create the enviroment in which a child can flourish. That is not the enviroment provided by a homosexual co-habitation. There is no reason to reward said pairing.

No, there are separate benefits for couples with children. For instance, there are income tax deductions that come along with having children that do not come along with being married. Again, marriage is not dependent on children. The reason that government recognizes marriage in this day and age is convenience in determining ownership and other monetary and legal issues.

This does not prevent homosexuals from being together, nor from receiving legal recognition, nor from having children. It only denies them the perks, which they never had an entitlement to to begin with.

I think homosexuals have an entitlement to not have to worry about losing everything that belongs to them when their partner dies. I think that homosexuals should be able to pay more taxes by filing income tax together. I believe that if two homosexuals raise a child together, they should be able to share the legal responsibility for that child.

I think you are a little confused on exactly what a legal marriage entails.

Mmm. Are cars and sexuality *really* linked?

Hmmm... hadn't really thought about it. I was thinking more along the lines that marriage and driver's licenses are both privileges granted by state governments. But I suppose they might be. Super-macho males usually think more about their cars than normal people. There was also a recent study linking adulterers to which cars they drive.

Actually, said 'studies' are only put forward by right-wing religious groups and to my knowledge, none has stood up to a 'peer review' cause the studiers weren't 'peers' to anyone in the scientific community.

Mind you, these are the same people that think a hundred times more children are sacrificed in Satanic rituals than actually are reported missing in the whole US...


So, you be the judge.

I assume that you can point us in the direction of these studies, and that they will be widely recognised and accepted, in addition to being peer-reviewed.

First of all, it's ignorant to assume every study ever done will appear on a web site. Believe it or not, the internet is far from infinite, and there are a lot of things that can't be found on it. Even if you can find them, the site in question is simply attacked as being "unreliable".

I've done a quick Google search, and found no sites that quote the studies. I'm not particularly surprised, since I didn't find the studies on the internet. They came from newspapers and television. I'm sure if you do a little work, you can find excerpts in the real world, and *possibly* on the internet.

In short, do your own damned work. I'm not your mother. I stated an opinion based on things I have personally read and seen. I'm sorry that I didn't consider it necessary to videotape my life so that in the eventuality this arguement came up, I could provide you with visual proof.

If you want the studies, you're going to have to find them yourself. I can't find them online.

Wrong. If a civil union is legal, it must include all the "perks" (as you put it) of marriage. Anything else is blatantly unconstitutional. On a legal basis, the "perks" are the marriage.

Ok, that's just gibberish. I know there are a lot of 14 year olds on this site, but claiming two things have to be exactly the same to be legal is retarded. They are two different scenarios, with two different interpretations. Get over it.

The assumption that marriage is all about children is false. What does this have to do with the discussion exactly?

Read the original topic. I'm sick of spoon feeding you people your answers. I never claimed marriage was only for children, ever. I gave extensive explanations of what marriage was, of why the benefits were accorded, of why homosexuals didn't fall under the coverage, and more.

It's all there for your perusal. Find it yourself. A little effort won't kill you.

No, there are separate benefits for couples with children. For instance, there are income tax deductions that come along with having children that do not come along with being married. Again, marriage is not dependent on children. The reason that government recognizes marriage in this day and age is convenience in determining ownership and other monetary and legal issues.

Nobody said marriage was dependant on children. So, pulling that out of your ass doesn't prove anything. Moreover, that example only proves my point. The government is encouraging a healthy enviroment for a child, not a religious viewpoint. I do appreciate you arguing for me, but it's not needed.


I think homosexuals have an entitlement to not have to worry about losing everything that belongs to them when their partner dies. I think that homosexuals should be able to pay more taxes by filing income tax together. I believe that if two homosexuals raise a child together, they should be able to share the legal responsibility for that child.

I think you are a little confused on exactly what a legal marriage entails.

$20 gets you a legally binding will. Marriage is not required for it, and it would be a foolish reason to get married. The rest is your opinion, and I can't tell you that's wrong. I disagree however.

Well, this thread took all of 5 minutes to reach the "I'm going to pull statements out of my ass about how marriage isn't about children and then ignore when it is explained that nobody ever said marriage was about children" mark.

That's my cue to say "screw this, you're wasting my time".

I've done a quick Google search, and found no sites that quote the studies. I'm not particularly surprised, since I didn't find the studies on the internet. They came from newspapers and television. I'm sure if you do a little work, you can find excerpts in the real world, and *possibly* on the internet.


Quick tip. If you want credible sources that will be accepted by the scientific minded, they have to be in credible journals that are peer-reviewed. For anything medical, the most well-known and easiest place to find these is http://www.pubmed.org

Also, I'm not your mother, but I think I have to remind you not to believe everything you see in a newspaper or on television. And as an independent-minded person, I'd like to suggest that if you do believe things from there, don't just believe the ones that support your previous biases.

The people of Michigan passed a constitutional amendment today by a 70% majority vote. This amendment will prevent the state government from issuing driver’s licenses to homosexuals. In addition, Michigan will no longer recognize driver’s licenses from other states if they have been issued to homosexuals.

Bill Georges, a proponent of the bill, explained the reasoning behind it:

“Well, I don’t hate the gays or anything. I mean, I had a gay friend once, until he stopped talking to me when I told him that his lifestyle was dirty and vile. Anyways, this isn’t discrimination or anything, it’s really just natural. You see, Henry Ford invented cars, and he was against gays. So gays shouldn’t be allowed to drive them. It’s ok if they own cars and pretend like they are normal, straight drivers, as long as they keep the car in their own driveway and don’t drive it where we normal people can see.”

When faced with the fact that policy based completely on what Henry Ford may or may not have said may be unconstitutional, he had this to say:

“Well, I mean, the whole purpose of driving a car is to drive your kids around. And the gays can’t have kids, so why would they need a car? We can’t deny driver’s licenses to straight people who don’t have kids, because they can drive other people’s kids around and one day might have their own. But the gays can’t have kids and nobody wants to let them drive their kids around, right? And we know Henry Ford was against the blacks too, but they have kids so we have to let them drive.

“Then there’s the fact that they just aren’t safe drivers. I mean, they tend to drive other people’s cars more than their own. And I read a study somewhere once that said that they do more drugs and drink more before they drive. The gays are going to destroy the roadways if we let them drive!

“Plus, there is no right to drive a car, it’s a privilege that the government gives you and they can regulate it however they want. There is absolutely no reason why the gays should be able to drive cars legally.”

And to the question of whether or not homosexuals might lose their jobs, and then their homes and assets:

“Well, that’s all about money and it’s just greedy. Driving a car isn’t about money, it’s about the children. Henry Ford made the car and he didn’t like the gays. So they shouldn’t drive. Besides, if we give driver's licenses to the gays, soon we'll be giving them to dogs, catuses, and two-year olds!”

Penny Lane had the following to say:

“If Henry Ford were here today, he’d slap all the gays that are driving cars! Gays have no place in cars!”

John Lane added:

“We have to protect the tradition of driving! Driving has a fine tradition in this country stretching all the way back to the frontier days when good, God fearing men drove their families all the way across the country in nothing more than a covered wagon. It’s bad enough we gave women and blacks the right to drive, but we will stand firm when we defend the tradition of driving and will keep gays off our roads! It’s their choice to be gay and if they’re going to make that choice, then not having a license is just a price they’re going to have to pay!”

Steven Doe acknowledged that while gays in other countries have the right to acquire license that,

“The US doesn’t bow to international pressure! Who cares that other countries have given gays licenses? We know better than all of them and we’re the ones that make the rules in our country. Things like civil rights, human rights, and social policies should not be influenced just because a bunch of other countries in the “Old World” and Canada have a different view. Why should we care what they think? The international community is full of a bunch of liberal sissies anyway! This is America and in America, Americans make the laws! Not the freedom hating British, French, or those damn, druggie, hippie, commie-bastard Scandinavians. Where is Scandinavia anyway?! Is it even a country, I ask you?!”

Michigan lawmakers insist that this amendment will help to protect the roadways and ensure that the gays are kept in their proper place.Gay Marriage Legalized in Washington
A superior court judge in Washington state ruled yesterday that same-sex marriage is legal because a state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman is unconstitutional. If the state Supreme Court approves the decision, the ruling will go further than the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage because Washington has no residency requirements for marriage, so out of state couples would be able to travel there to wed.

www.democracynow.org

Syd, actually, I can point you to a place where there are a *lot* of folks who *have* done and will happily quote the research, ...if you get your information from Religious-Right funded sources, well, let's put it this way.

Rush was *obviously on drugs,*

And that doesn't seem to bother anyone he indoctrinated.

Science has its rules.


Saying something is science doesn't make it science.


Religious Right sites claim 'reparative therapy' that uses religion to try and make gay people straight... ...works, even though most of the "ex-gay" pioneers who wanted so badly for it to work and said a lot of things that are still quoted, have actually repudiated the whole thing and are living actively gay lives, often with each other...

Scientific academies have reputations to uphold, and political bias would mean they never worked again.

Religious Right sites can be like Oral Roberts, ...scream hypocrisy, be hypocritical, if caught, deny it or beg forgiveness, continue as usual, please. New figurehead, no correction.

They can *say* science has a left-wing agenda. And maybe it *does* if 'right wing' means blind allegiance flying in the face of the facts to suit an agenda laid down by oh, I don't know, this dude named Calvin who made Christianity safe for corporate capitalism, and , oh, I dunno, Jonathan Edwards in Northampton, Massachusetts in the 19th century, with his apocalyptic 'Great Awakening,' as the foundation for American evangelicalism, or anything like that...

*koff.*


Anyway, Dem, I totally chanced across your country while reading the auto industry reviews, (I was being facetious about any deep meaning to that, btw. :) ) I'm still not sure how these forums relate to the game, but, ah. the game's losing interest, here, isn't there supposed to be trade and foreign policy somehow? :)

When did this become a serious thread? Back to the driver's/sex ed jokes! Back I say!

Ok, that's just gibberish. I know there are a lot of 14 year olds on this site, but claiming two things have to be exactly the same to be legal is retarded. They are two different scenarios, with two different interpretations. Get over it.

Thanks for resorting to insults, but would you also argue that separate black and white schools are ok? The civil unions would supposedly give all the rights afforded to marriage. Therefore, they would be the same thing, just under different names. However, the bans on gay marriage being passed in many states preclude civil unions as well. Therefore, the term civil union doesn't really come into this discussion.

Read the original topic. I'm sick of spoon feeding you people your answers. I never claimed marriage was only for children, ever.

In this topic you just said that the entire purpose of marriage was to provide an environment for children to grow up in. I'll even quote you:

"The benefits are given to encourage people to create the enviroment in which a child can flourish. That is not the enviroment provided by a homosexual co-habitation. There is no reason to reward said pairing."

So, yeah, you did say the benefits were only about children.

Nobody said marriage was dependant on children. So, pulling that out of your ass doesn't prove anything. Moreover, that example only proves my point. The government is encouraging a healthy enviroment for a child, not a religious viewpoint. I do appreciate you arguing for me, but it's not needed.

Wait, how does pointing out that the government recognizes marriage for its own convenience in monetary and legal matters even mention children? I think you were reading someone else's post and accidently replied to mine.

$20 gets you a legally binding will. Marriage is not required for it, and it would be a foolish reason to get married. The rest is your opinion, and I can't tell you that's wrong. I disagree however.

Yes, but that will does not keep you from paying inheritance tax. Why should a homosexual person have to lose half of what they own in order to pay inheritance tax on something that should have legally belonged to them in the first place?

Besides, inheritance is only one of the many, many issues involved in marriage. All of which should apply to couples of any sexual orientation.

Well, this thread took all of 5 minutes to reach the "I'm going to pull statements out of my ass about how marriage isn't about children and then ignore when it is explained that nobody ever said marriage was about children" mark.

I'll tell you what, you explain to me how "The benefits are given to encourage people to create the enviroment in which a child can flourish. That is not the enviroment provided by a homosexual co-habitation. There is no reason to reward said pairing." doesn't say that marriage is about children and I'll stop "pulling statements out of my ass."

Sydenia; I have one thing to say.
Listen, sport, I refuse to do your research for you. I am not your mother, and even if I was, I am not going to write your essay for you.

If you are going to try to argue a point, then it is your job to convince me, not the other way around.

All I was asking was that you throw me a title of a printed study found in a journal, or a book, maybe, and I stress maybe a site or two, to support your argument.

Obviously, you cannot do this.

Citing what you've "seen on TV" and read in the paper is not acceptable, unless such items can be backed up with further evidence. Personal experience? No, not acceptable either, unless you can provide concrete evidence of what has occurred.

In short, you have failed to adequately research your argument, and expect me to do so. Also, seeing that you cannot produce the evidence to support it, I must deem your case invalid.

Sorry if I've offended you, but that's the way the world works; give me evidence, or have your argument thrown out with the rest of the garbage.


Oh, and Kinsella; the game is played out in International Incidents, and the forums around it.

i think the first post is too ridiculous to be written by a professional. someone making a story up for fun, perhaps?

i think the first post is too ridiculous to be written by a professional. someone making a story up for fun, perhaps?Of course it's a joke--read through the thread for the rest of them. Ignore the debating--most of the rest of are. :D

Overheard in a Michigan coffee house:

Yeah, I passed the written, but I flunked the oral.

LOL. That's funny. I know funny, and that's funny.

Of course it's a joke--read through the thread for the rest of them. Ignore the debating--most of the rest of are. :D


..................

Driver's licenses will be denied to gays and pedophiles.
You must have missed the latest news. As it happens documents were recently uncovered which proved that Ford really didnt mind pedophiles at all (as long as you scourge the kids afterwards and confess before offering up a sacrifice via the automobile association was his original thoughts published in the Old Manual, but following the publication or the New Manual, the sacrifice thing has been dropped). Further studies have revealed that pedophiles do indeed use cars to drive children around. As a result they will not be included in the driving ban.

That's just it, they have no claim to the benefits. Studies have shown that heterosexual married couples produce the healthiest and best adjusted children. Homosexuals produce the least well adjusted children. Even non-married heterosexual couples have been shown to produce a better adjusted child.
Studies can show anything including the detrimental effects of breathing. As it happens I know for a fact that comprehensive studies actually do not prove that hetrosexuals produce the healthiest and best adjusted children generally, because studies that could prove or disprove this notion either way have not been conducted to a sufficiently representitive degree. However anecdotal evidence points in an entirely different direction and appears to indicate that the problem for children raised by homosexual or alternatively gendered parents is....well I dont want to be rude, but the problem is you. There is no evidence what so ever that indicates children raised by homosexual or differently gendered parents in societies where people like you dont exist to stigmatise their parents, are any differently adjusted than those who are raised by one mother and one father.

Overheard in a Michigan coffee house:

Yeah, I passed the written, but I flunked the oral.

and who could forget this classic:

My driving instructor was a dick and test was a real pain in the ass, but somehow I managed.

The people of Michigan passed a constitutional amendment today by a 70% majority vote. This amendment will prevent the state government from issuing driver’s licenses to homosexuals. In addition, Michigan will no longer recognize driver’s licenses from other states if they have been issued to homosexuals. <snip>

Mega kudos... you should write for the Onion. http://www.onion.com/

IC: The Great Seme of Transport has recently tabled a Transport Bill in the Homocratic Parliament which includes limitation of driving licenses to the LGBT community. I, the Grand Seme of the Colony of Homocracy, support this Bill. Anyone who is lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered, i.e. eligible to vote in Homocracy, may get a full drivers license. However, the Bill also sets up a seperate scheme called the Authorisation of Automobile Ownership and Use (AAOU) certificate, which would be equal to a drivers license, except the owner would no be authorised to drive on the innermost lane of motorways or in city centres. A fine would be applied in the case of such transgressions.

OOC: To the eejit who said kids raised by queers are less well-adjusted, I've read of studies that show those kids show no great difference other than being less prejudiced. Are we reading the same studies?

and who could forget this classic:

My driving instructor was a dick and test was a real pain in the ass, but somehow I managed.

No, no, Michigan doesn't use the sodomy in their tests! That's something only the gays do! =)

I realise its all a joke, but I'm a pedantic kinda guy...is the whole "Henry Ford invented the car" part of the joke?

I realise its all a joke, but I'm a pedantic kinda guy...is the whole "Henry Ford invented the car" part of the joke?

There are those who believe it to be absolutely true. These people also believe that Ford was a saint who could do no wrong. I used to live in a city with quite a few such people. =)

Let's ban pink cars while we are at it! :p

Gay Marriage Legalized in Washington
A superior court judge in Washington state ruled yesterday that same-sex marriage is legal because a state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman is unconstitutional. If the state Supreme Court approves the decision, the ruling will go further than the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage because Washington has no residency requirements for marriage, so out of state couples would be able to travel there to wed.

www.democracynow.org

Wow, go Washington!

I realise its all a joke, but I'm a pedantic kinda guy...is the whole "Henry Ford invented the car" part of the joke?

Yes.
http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/story054.htm

Studies have shown that heterosexual married couples produce the healthiest and best adjusted children. Homosexuals produce the least well adjusted children. Even non-married heterosexual couples have been shown to produce a better adjusted child.

Even if those studies are accurate, you run into a problem of consistency. I'm quite certain that alcoholics would be much more likely to produce maladjusted children, and to a greater degree than homosexuals would, but I don't see anyone protesting alcoholics getting married. Same thing for those who have serious mental conditions like paranoid-schizophrenia, like my biological father. Same thing for those who can't produce well-adjusted children because they are simply emotionally unstable. When you start using the argument that "It's not what's best for the children" as a basis for taking away rights, you are establishing a very dangerous legal precedent. I don't want to give the government more power to remove people's rights.

Mega kudos... you should write for the Onion. http://www.onion.com/

Hehe, thanks. I love the Onion! =)

Tell me something--does this mean that Michiganites will be forced to "prove" their heterosexuality before getting their licenses? It adds a whole new level of pressure to the driving test, I imagine. :DWe are Michiganders or Michiganians (I prefer the former), not Michiganites.

Just thought you'd like to know

thank GOD they have finally acted to remove this scourge from the road!

i lived in michigan for a few years in the 70s-80s and i REFUSED TO DRIVE
letting homosexuals have drivers licenses ruins the sanctity of ALL drivers.

it is responsible for the deterioration of driving skills!

im so glad that they have finally elected some officials with backbones

now maybe they can get the atheists and communists off the road

thank GOD they have finally acted to remove this scourge from the road!

i lived in michigan for a few years in the 70s-80s and i REFUSED TO DRIVE
letting homosexuals have drivers licenses ruins the sanctity of ALL drivers.

it is responsible for the deterioration of driving skills!

im so glad that they have finally elected some officials with backbones

now maybe they can get the atheists and communists off the road

Hehe =)

Thats great.

Thats great.

Swing and a miss!

However anecdotal evidence

Anecdotal evidence? Is not that just hearsay?

If this were true, I would have seen the riots on the news.

If this were true, I would have seen the riots on the news.

Why? You haven't seen any riots in any of the states that have put a ban on giving homosexuals other legal privileges, have you?

OOC: To the eejit who said kids raised by queers are less well-adjusted, I've read of studies that show those kids show no great difference other than being less prejudiced. Are we reading the same studies?

Nah, they're only reading the studies put out by right-wing lobby groups with no scientific backing. =)