NationStates Jolt Archive

Michigan passes ban on gay driver’s licenses

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.”

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 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.

Meanwhile, some have proposed a new type of license known as the union license. This license would allow homosexuals to drive, but only on dates with odd numbers and only in the right lane.

Let me guess. This is a spoof. Everybody is meant to see how ridiculous this is and then you're going to compare this to denying homosexuals the right to marry, saying something similar to "if this is ridiculous, isn't it ridiculous we exclude gays from another right."

Except there's a problem with this type comparison. Sexual orientation has no bearing on driving abilities in the least, while it does have bearing on marriages.

OMG this is so right. I mean, everyone knows homosexuality is unnatural. And Leviticus 95: 5 clearly states "Though shall not allow one man who sleeps with another man to drive a vehicle; this is an abomination."

I mean, if we let gay people drive cars, what's next-them driving children or toasters?!

Let me guess. This is a spoof. Everybody is meant to see how ridiculous this is and then you're going to compare this to denying homosexuals the right to marry, saying something similar to "if this is ridiculous, isn't it ridiculous we exclude gays from another right."

Except there's a problem with this type comparison. Sexual orientation has no bearing on driving abilities in the least, while it does have bearing on marriages.


Meanwhile, some have proposed a new type of license known as the union license. This license would allow homosexuals to drive, but only on dates with odd numbers and only in the right lane.

Also this even close to a civil union. Civil unions are exactly the same as marriage but with a different name.

Now I'll redo it. Meanwhile, some have proposed a new type of license known as the union license. This license would allow homosexuals to drive but they can't call it a drivers license even though it finctions exactly the same.

Homosexuals are gay

Except there's a problem with this type comparison. Sexual orientation has no bearing on driving abilities in the least, while it does have bearing on marriages.

Wrong. It has bearing on your particular religious version of marriage. It has none whatsoever on fulfilling *civil* marriage.

Also this even close to a civil union. Civil unions are exactly the same as marriage but with a different name.

Now I'll redo it. Meanwhile, some have proposed a new type of license known as the union license. This license would allow homosexuals to drive but they can't call it a drivers license even though it finctions exactly the same.

Wrong. None of the proposed civil unions have provided all of the rights/protections/responsibilities of marriage. Why don't you actually look into something instead of spouting partisan rhetoric?

Actually by allowing gays to marry it redefines the marriage and has a huge affect on marriage, as marriage is defined differently.

But either way, it is none of the government's business. That the government has any amount of control over a private contract like marriage is just stupid.

There should be no debate over whether gay marriages should be allowed or not as it shouldn't be a political issue because a marriage is a private contract between individuals and their religious orginization.

Anything else is just government butting in where it don't belong.

Wrong. None of the proposed civil unions have provided all of the rights/protections/responsibilities of marriage. Why don't you actually look into something instead of spouting partisan rhetoric?
It matters which state actually. I'm sure I've heard that a state or two gave Civil unions same rights. Partisan? So democrats are lying to me?

Homosexuals are gay

Thanks for the update, chief.

It matters which state actually. I'm sure I've heard that a state or two gave Civil unions same rights. Partisan? So democrats are lying to me?

Only one state grants civil unions - and they are not given all of the protections of marriage.

And *none* of them are given *all* the protections, as civil unions are not recognized by the federal government. Thus, no civil union (in Vermont, which grants them) can obtain all of the protections afforded to marriage in this country.

allowing gay people to drive legally destroys the sanctity of MY driving!

give them licenses and pretty soon im gonna drive right off a bridge!

and have you considered

THEY MIGHT DO UNNATURAL THINGS IN THE CAR!!

ohmygod thats just nasty!

I've seen this one before.

Henrey Ford didn't invent the automobile. This is either a very comical hoax, or a very, very stupid little man whom made those statements in that interview.

I've seen this one before.

I know, I posted it before. But the NS climate seemed ripe for it again. Plus I changed a bit at the end =)

Henrey Ford didn't invent the automobile. This is either a very comical hoax, or a very, very stupid little man whom made those statements in that interview.

Duck!

**hits the ground as the point flies ovrer Asurnahb's head**

Except there's a problem with this type comparison. Sexual orientation has no bearing on driving abilities in the least, while it does have bearing on marriages.
i would LOVE to see this explanation

Only one state grants civil unions - and they are not given all of the protections of marriage.

And *none* of them are given *all* the protections, as civil unions are not recognized by the federal government. Thus, no civil union (in Vermont, which grants them) can obtain all of the protections afforded to marriage in this country.
How about making it so it does? I mean wouldn't that solve the problem?

How about making it so it does? I mean wouldn't that solve the problem?

Not completely, no. But it would be a start.

Homosexuals are gay
uh huh, really? no, really? Are you serious? No, that can't be true... can it? :rolleyes:

i would LOVE to see this explanation

What explanation. It seems self-explaining to me.

Who sexually arises you doesn't affect your driving abilities.

But sexuality will affect marriage as marriage will have to be redefined if people want to accomodate new forms of marriage.

It's kung fu that you do.

Michigan passes ban on gay driver’s licenses

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.

How the hell are they going to prove that the person they denied a license to is Gay? Isn’t this a violation of the equal protection clause?

What explanation. It seems self-explaining to me.

Who sexually arises you doesn't affect your driving abilities.

But sexuality will affect marriage as marriage will have to be redefined if people want to accomodate new forms of marriage.
as it stands marriage is a government recognized union with government benefits. that is asexual. the churches can piss off, they dont have to do shit

Homosexuals are gay
call off the police, detective dipshit is on the job!

How the hell are they going to prove that the person they denied a license to is Gay? Isn’t this a violation of the equal protection clause?

It was just a spoof, made in a way to make people react at how stupid a measure it is (just as you are reacting) then to draw a false parallel between this and homosexual marriage so as to make people see that banning homosexual marriage is stupid.

as it stands marriage is a government recognized union with government benefits. that is asexual. the churches can piss off, they dont have to do shit

How do the churches come into what I said. From what I understand marriage in the US is legally defined by national law as being between a man and a woman, as it is here in Canada (for now).

I might be mistaken as to this as I am Canadian and don't know everything there is to know about American marriage laws.

But if I'm not, then marriage would have to be redefined to fit sexual orientation adn therefore sexual orientation is of importance to the marriage debate.

While sexual orientation ahs nothing at all to do with driving abilities.

WTF - they're banning ppl's driving licenses all cause they're gay?

Wow, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard

It was just a spoof, made in a way to make people react at how stupid a measure it is (just as you are reacting) then to draw a false parallel between this and homosexual marriage so as to make people see that banning homosexual marriage is stupid.

A marriage license is a legal contract, as is a driver's licenses. If the government cannot deny driver's licenses to a homosexual for being homosexual, then it cannot deny marriage licenses to homosexual couples for being homosexual.

It was just a spoof, made in a way to make people react at how stupid a measure it is (just as you are reacting) then to draw a false parallel between this and homosexual marriage so as to make people see that banning homosexual marriage is stupid.
But there is no parallel. It is one thing to deny a person a drivers license because of who they choose to sleep with. It is a wholde different matter to give someone the special right to marry someone of the same sex, which is against nature.

OMG this is so right. I mean, everyone knows homosexuality is unnatural. And Leviticus 95: 5 clearly states "Though shall not allow one man who sleeps with another man to drive a vehicle; this is an abomination."

I mean, if we let gay people drive cars, what's next-them driving children or toasters?!

Toasters?



HOT PUMPING TOASTER ACTION!!!

But there is no parallel. It is one thing to deny a person a drivers license because of who they choose to sleep with. It is a wholde different matter to give someone the special right to marry someone of the same sex, which is against nature.

Despite the fact that numerous animals are homosexual.

Because everyone knows, there's nothing mroe unnatural then nature.

But there is no parallel. It is one thing to deny a person a drivers license because of who they choose to sleep with. It is a wholde different matter to give someone the special right to marry someone of the same sex, which is against nature.

That's similar to what I said earlier, although I didn't say homosexuality is against nature, and I don't believe that it is.

But I did say that the logic use in drawing the parallel is faulty.

But there is no parallel. It is one thing to deny a person a drivers license because of who they choose to sleep with. It is a wholde different matter to give someone the special right to marry someone of the same sex, which is against nature.

There is a parallel. The government grants driver's licenses which grant specific priveleges, protections, and responsibilities to an individual citizen. It cannot discriminate in this on the basis of race, creed, color, gender, or sexual preference.

The government grants marriage licenses which grant specific privileges, protections, and responsibilities to a couple of individuals who have decided to bind their lives together. They cannot discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color - but according to you gender and sexual preference are just fine.

And homosexuallity is in no way against nature, unless you are going to argue that nature is against nature.

A marriage license is a legal contract, as is a driver's licenses. If the government cannot deny driver's licenses to a homosexual for being homosexual, then it cannot deny marriage licenses to homosexual couples for being homosexual.

But sexual orientation has nothing to do with driving abilities. Sexual orientation is the heart of the issue when it comes to redefining marriage. Therefore, the parallel is false.

The parallel of homosexual marriages and driving liscences is similar to drawing a parallel between not allowing a blind man to drive, and not allowing a blind man to go to the opera. They have nothing to do with each other.

But sexual orientation has nothing to do with driving abilities. Sexual orientation is the heart of the issue when it comes to redefining marriage. Therefore, the parallel is false.

Civil marriage is a way for a couple to bind themselves together legally and become a single entity for many purposes in the law.

There is nothing inherent in homosexuality that makes them unable to do so.

The parallel of homosexual marriages and driving liscences is similar to drawing a parallel between not allowing a blind man to drive, and not allowing a blind man to go to the opera. They have nothing to do with each other.

Nope. It is like saying we can not allow a blind man to go to the opera, but it's ok for a blind man to go to the movie theatre.

OMG!! u guys are so gay... you cant help who u do or dont like so we really shouldnt be able to stop gays from driving i mean its we never no one day gays could rule the world, which would be like super funny to see, but it could happen and would u like ppl saying o you cant drive cuz u like someone the same gender as you. I mean how gay can u get

Please God tell me this is supposed to be funny and isn't real.

OK, I'm not seeing anything about it anywhere else, so I'm going to guess that it's a joke, thank goodness. Not even a very good one, from only the first few sentences that I read it was obviously fake. Henry Ford didn't invent cars, he popularized the assembly line. He didn't even invent that, he just applied it well.

EDIT: Having read a little farther I'm glad to say that it gets even more obvious. Of course now I feel like an idiot, but that's ok.

Everyone knows women are terrible drivers. Everyone also knows that gay men act more like women. Shouldn't it also follow that gay men, who inherently act more like women, are also terrible drivers?

Of course that's fake. It's meant to demonstrate how rediculous any ban on gay marriage would be. People just need to realize that even beyond religious reasons, gay is wrong. It's just plain unnatural. You don't have to be a biologist to realize that.

Of course that's fake. It's meant to demonstrate how rediculous any ban on gay marriage would be. People just need to realize that even beyond religious reasons, gay is wrong. It's just plain unnatural. You don't have to be a biologist to realize that.

Actually, biologists realize that it is not unnatural at all - as it occurs in nature. Congratulations on demonstrating pure ignorance.

Yep, it happens in nature, but its not the norm. It's wrong no matter how you look at it. Sorry if that means you're wrong.

Yep, it happens in nature, but its not the norm. It's wrong no matter how you look at it. Sorry if that means you're wrong.

So are you saying that nature is unnatural?

So are you saying that nature is unnatural?


There are exceptions to every rule, unfortunately. I hope some day this world will be rid of it.

There are exceptions to every rule, unfortunately. I hope some day this world will be rid of it.

I hope some day this world will be rid of eating. After all, I don't think eating is very appealing, so it must be unnatural. Never mind that it can be shown to help species survive. I hope it goes away.

Gay helps a species survive???? I'd love to know how that works. Seems to me, it would be the exact oppisite.

OK, I'm not seeing anything about it anywhere else, so I'm going to guess that it's a joke, thank goodness. Not even a very good one, from only the first few sentences that I read it was obviously fake. Henry Ford didn't invent cars, he popularized the assembly line. He didn't even invent that, he just applied it well.

Surely you can see how this applies to fundamentalist arguments that their particular religion has a monopoly on marriage?

Gay helps a species survive???? I'd love to know how that works. Seems to me, it would be the exact oppisite.
look up the word over population

Gay helps a species survive???? I'd love to know how that works. Seems to me, it would be the exact oppisite.

And you would be wrong.

Homosexuals contribute to the survival of the species in pack animals by helping to gain resources and raise children that are not their own. If every single animal that had reached the breeding age was constantly breeding, most of the offspring would die out. Homosexual members of the pack help keep the offspring (and the parents) from dieing.

In bighorn sheep, transsexual male sheep travel with the female herd. Surely it is obvious why this would be a good idea - as the male is naturally bigger and stronger and could help fend off predators.

There are many other examples, but I'll let you try and wrap your mind around these two.

look up the word over population


Well, shit, so does staying single. And I'd much rather be single than vile, dirty and worthless.

And you would be wrong.

Homosexuals contribute to the survival of the species in pack animals by helping to gain resources and raise children that are not their own. If every single animal that had reached the breeding age was constantly breeding, most of the offspring would die out. Homosexual members of the pack help keep the offspring (and the parents) from dieing.

In bighorn sheep, transsexual male sheep travel with the female herd. Surely it is obvious why this would be a good idea - as the male is naturally bigger and stronger and could help fend off predators.

There are many other examples, but I'll let you try and wrap your mind around these two.

Got me there. Good job. Glad to see there are some informed people on these forums after all.

I don't care about stupid things like this.

Surely you can see how this applies to fundamentalist arguments that their particular religion has a monopoly on marriage?

I understood it's value as satire after I established that it was satire and not real. Things that seem completely absurd have been happening recently, so you never know.

OMG this is so right. I mean, everyone knows homosexuality is unnatural. And Leviticus 95: 5 clearly states "Though shall not allow one man who sleeps with another man to drive a vehicle; this is an abomination."



its an interesting quote because in comparison to the previous directions that were given which were "do not have sex with ....... your brothers/parents cousins/ another mans wife"

The way this is written this says that you can have sex with members of the same sex just dont spend the night or make a habit of it. If i am not mistaken these laws were given to a nomadic peoples/ part of an easly settlement heterosexual relationships are more ideal increase family size for the growing army.

An interesting law would be do not eat shellfish which would seem very silly apart from the fact that shellfish are fliter feeders and soak up any bad stuff i.e camplobacter (gastro-enteritis). So for a nomadic population this is bad.

Its important not to take the bible out of the context/culture it was written in.

(i have a masters degree in medical microbiology which menas i know that it doesnt mean i can spell anything correctly)

Why is it easier to get a legal right to fly a plane at a very early age, yet noone can driv unless you do 2,000,000 things! :gundge:

Actually i love this. The writer has really thinked about this---->


--------------------------------------------------------------
" Henry Ford invented cars, and he was against gays. So gays shouldn?t be allowed to drive them."

"Christian's took the concept of marriage for themselves, and they hate gays, so gays shouldn't get married."


?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."

"The whole purpose of marriages is making children. Gays can't have kids so why would they need to get married? We can't prevent straigth people from marrying becouse they can someday have children or raise adobted children.
But the gays can't have kids and nobody want's them to adobt their children.
And we know many christian's were(are) against blacks too, but they have kids so we have to let them get married."

?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.

"Then there's the fact that theyr just not loyal to theyr husbands. I mean, they tend to fuck other people more than theyr husbands.

"Meanwhile, some have proposed a new type of license known as the union license. This license would allow homosexuals to drive, but only on dates with odd numbers and only in the right lane."

"Meanwhile some have proposed the new type of marriage called "Civil Union".
This thingy would allow homosexual's to "get married", but not get all the right's they would get by getting married."

--------------------------------------------------------------------


Just think about it. Doesn't that show that all excuses wwhy gays shouldn't be able to marry are kinda stupid.

And btw. sorry for typos.

Wrong. None of the proposed civil unions have provided all of the rights/protections/responsibilities of marriage. Why don't you actually look into something instead of spouting partisan rhetoric?

In Canada, a civil union DOES have all the rights/protections/responsibilites of marriage...right down to the exhorbant lawyer fees for a divorce:) You might want to calm down a bit.

And you would be wrong.

Homosexuals contribute to the survival of the species in pack animals by helping to gain resources and raise children that are not their own. If every single animal that had reached the breeding age was constantly breeding, most of the offspring would die out. Homosexual members of the pack help keep the offspring (and the parents) from dieing.

In bighorn sheep, transsexual male sheep travel with the female herd. Surely it is obvious why this would be a good idea - as the male is naturally bigger and stronger and could help fend off predators.

There are many other examples, but I'll let you try and wrap your mind around these two.

The homosexual gene is assosiated with high fertility it was reported in Proceedings national acadamy of science this week (a top science journal) meaning its advantageous because it helps to stop overpopulation)

My thoughts:

1. To those that say, "the bible says its wrong". The bible also says you shouldn't touch the skin of a dead pig - therefore, we should ban the National Football League, because its full of sinners (not to mention what we're doing to helpless highschoolers - allowing them to touch the dead pig skin).

2. To those that argue, "it will erode the meaning of marriage". Each religion has a different (yet accepted) form of marriage - yet the fact that a Muslim's ceremony is accepted doesn't detract from the Christian or Jewish ceremony. Nor will Gay ceremonies.

3. To those that say gays are, "dirty, vile, and worthless"....get a life. Haven't you seen the Fab 5? I mean - really they are clean, and witty and certainly add value to a lot of straight men.

Well, shit, so does staying single. And I'd much rather be single than vile, dirty and worthless.

So homosexuality is bad because you think it's icky?

Yep, it happens in nature, but its not the norm. It's wrong no matter how you look at it. Sorry if that means you're wrong.

LMAO...

So anything that occurs in nature, but is not the norm, is unnatural!

Kill the left-handed people!!! Albinos must go!!! Down with Blondes!!!

LMAO...

So anything that occurs in nature, but is not the norm, is unnatural!

Kill the left-handed people!!! Albinos must go!!! Down with Blondes!!!

Damn - I'm a left-handed, blond albino. lol.

Damn - I'm a left-handed, blond albino. lol.


freak.

How do the churches come into what I said. From what I understand marriage in the US is legally defined by national law as being between a man and a woman, as it is here in Canada (for now).

I might be mistaken as to this as I am Canadian and don't know everything there is to know about American marriage laws.

But if I'm not, then marriage would have to be redefined to fit sexual orientation adn therefore sexual orientation is of importance to the marriage debate.

While sexual orientation ahs nothing at all to do with driving abilities.

You don't know much about Canada either apparently... national law? Marriage is a provincial/territorial responsibility. Gay marriage is legal in British Colombia, Quebec and Ontario. Each province and territory has to ratify their own laws to make this legal. By the way, New Jersey has agreed to recognize the marriages of gay couples (married in Canada) for the purposes of retirement! http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/legal/index.html
Weird, huh?

But there is no parallel. It is one thing to deny a person a drivers license because of who they choose to sleep with. It is a wholde different matter to give someone the special right to marry someone of the same sex, which is against nature.

If speeding down an unnatural (re:human-made) concrete highway in an unnatural contraption of metal and plastic at speeds no human was meant to travel (re: our bodies are not designed to absorb impact at those speeds) using unaturally-refined petroleum for fuel isn't unnatural enough for you, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS!

yes defintaly gay drivers' licenscs should be banned

In Canada, a civil union DOES have all the rights/protections/responsibilites of marriage...right down to the exhorbant lawyer fees for a divorce:) You might want to calm down a bit.

Of course, since it isn't called marriage, it means absolutely nothing if they leave the country, even just for vacation. So even then, civil unions don't provide *all* of the protections of marriage.

You don't know much about Canada either apparently... national law? Marriage is a provincial/territorial responsibility. Gay marriage is legal in British Colombia, Quebec and Ontario. Each province and territory has to ratify their own laws to make this legal. By the way, New Jersey has agreed to recognize the marriages of gay couples (married in Canada) for the purposes of retirement! http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/legal/index.html
Weird, huh?

Actually - you're both off, but its understandable given the divisions of powers between the federal and provincial governments.

The cases that have travelled through the courts have been within provincial jurisdictions - related to the issuance of marriage licences.

However, the broader issue of the constitutionality of gay marriages is being examined by the federal government.

The Prime Minister has asked the Supreme Court to review the legislation that enables and recognizes gay marriage across the nation.

So, while specific provinces allow the marriages to proceed and licences them - the feds still have to legislate the recognition.

Of course, since it isn't called marriage, it means absolutely nothing if they leave the country, even just for vacation. So even then, civil unions don't provide *all* of the protections of marriage.

I'm curious now...what are the rights married people have when they travel? I'm not being facetious.

Actually - you're both off, but its understandable given the divisions of powers between the federal and provincial governments.

The cases that have travelled through the courts have been within provincial jurisdictions - related to the issuance of marriage licences.

However, the broader issue of the constitutionality of gay marriages is being examined by the federal government.

The Prime Minister has asked the Supreme Court to review the legislation that enables and recognizes gay marriage across the nation.

So, while specific provinces allow the marriages to proceed and licences them - the feds still have to legislate the recognition.

So actually, we're both on:) Well thanks for clearing that up... it IS a little confusing!

I'm glad I can now drive the streets of Detroit and get car-jacked without all those homos clogging up I-75. I'd like to thank the Michigan State Legislature and Mrs. Jenny Granholm for making my home a safer, brighter place. Now do something about the cold and those Canadians thinking they have rights to our Great Lakes!

This is reduction ad absurdium. How about this: the government doesn't allow infants to drive. But then some moron goes out and posts a thread saying how that's exactly the same as if they were denied a social security number. After all, your SSN is a number, and customer number's on licenses are numbers, so logically denying an infant the right to drive is the same as removing all his rights as a citizen! Call the ACLU! Ridiculuous garbage.,,

I'm curious now...what are the rights married people have when they travel? I'm not being facetious.

Countries often have treaties with other countries that include marriage rights. Basically, if a citizen from Canada is traveling in one of these countries or decides to move there, that country recognizes them as married with all of the protections thereof.

Having a different name gives them a way around doing so, as the treaty says marriage.

The US and Canada do not have such a treaty, but both countries have traditionally recognized each others' marriage licenses until recently when a homosexual couple who had moved to the US was denied next-of-kin rights. I'm hoping to see tit-for-tat with Canadian provinces refusing to recognize US marriages to show just how stupid a move that was.

This is reduction ad absurdium. How about this: the government doesn't allow infants to drive. But then some moron goes out and posts a thread saying how that's exactly the same as if they were denied a social security number. After all, your SSN is a number, and customer number's on licenses are numbers, so logically denying an infant the right to drive is the same as removing all his rights as a citizen! Call the ACLU! Ridiculuous garbage.,,


There is a compelling interest in denying infants the right to drive.

I'm not really into forums normally, but I had to ask this:

Why you keep starting these threads to support gay marriages, since those who oppose them clearly are not capable to state arguments for their opinions?
I have yet to see convincing line against gay marriages and somehow I tend to believe I won't see any.

Do you think you can convert them?

It matters which state actually. I'm sure I've heard that a state or two gave Civil unions same rights. Partisan? So democrats are lying to me?

And how. Seperate but equal = unconstitutional.

How the hell are they going to prove that the person they denied a license to is Gay? Isn’t this a violation of the equal protection clause?


i agree, how do they plan on enforcing it to? are the michigan state police going to start pulling over all men with pink Pom-poms hanging off their license plates?

I'm not really into forums normally, but I had to ask this:

Why you keep starting these threads to support gay marriages, since those who oppose them clearly are not capable to state arguments for their opinions?
I have yet to see convincing line against gay marriages and somehow I tend to believe I won't see any.

Do you think you can convert them?

It's the same reason we keep talking about U.S foreign policy....it's not going to change anyone's mind, but it's FUN!

I'm not really into forums normally, but I had to ask this:

Why you keep starting these threads to support gay marriages, since those who oppose them clearly are not capable to state arguments for their opinions?
I have yet to see convincing line against gay marriages and somehow I tend to believe I won't see any.

Do you think you can convert them?

You've always got to hold out hope that you can convert people, but in the end I think you're right, neither side is going to be able to convince the other of anything. Dogmatic beliefs cannot be changed by debate, only the introduction of overwhelming empirical evidence can change beliefs like the belief that homosexuality is sinful. Unfortunately the most we can provide right now is circumstational evidence, essentially saying, "Here are some homosexuals who are 'good'" and some rudimentary empirical evidence about the nature of homosexuality coming from a relatively new science that hasn't yet established itself as trustworthy in the minds of the general public. Give it a generation or two and the discrimination against homosexuals will be gone from the lips of nearly everyone as more and more evidence that it isn't a choice, that it is natural, and that it is even benificial to the species as a whole, begin to surface and as those who present the evidence become more trustworthy as they establish a consistent track record for accuracy.

And how. Seperate but equal = unconstitutional.
Not if Bush wins four more years and gets a hold of the Supreme Court.

Not if Bush wins four more years and gets a hold of the Supreme Court.

Touché.

It's the same reason we keep talking about U.S foreign policy....it's not going to change anyone's mind, but it's FUN!

Oh, right. Now I can see the great fun in constantly repeating how fucked up this world is, as if everybody intelligent enough hasn't already figured it out. Thanks for enlightening me.

i agree, how do they plan on enforcing it to? are the michigan state police going to start pulling over all men with pink Pom-poms hanging off their license plates?

Nono. There will be a sexuality test when they take their driving test, most likely an oral one. =)

some rudimentary empirical evidence about the nature of homosexuality coming from a relatively new science that hasn't yet established itself as trustworthy in the minds of the general public.

I assume that you are speaking of genetics.

But there is also an overwhelming amount of evidence from behavioral biology - which is arguably the oldest branch of biology.

Oh, right. Now I can see the great fun in constantly repeating how fucked up this world is, as if everybody intelligent enough hasn't already figured it out. Thanks for enlightening me.

You don't sound like you're having fun....hmmmm...(shrugs) oh well!

The other side to that is that there ARE people out there who are still making their decisions and using these kinds of debates to decide what position they are more comfortable with. So keep debating...you won't change someone's mind who is unwilling to let you, but you may be influencing the undecided.

-snip- Give it a generation or two and the discrimination against homosexuals will be gone from the lips of nearly everyone as more and more evidence that it isn't a choice, that it is natural, and that it is even benificial to the species as a whole, begin to surface and as those who present the evidence become more trustworthy as they establish a consistent track record for accuracy.

I will. And I really really hope that it won't take even that long.
In my opinion every person should be able to whatever he/she pleases, as long as he/she is not hurting anyone else in the process, and I'd like to live long enough to see world that way. I know I'm not going to, but that doesn't stop me from hoping.

Ah, I just realised something. If I'm not going to give up hope, why should you do so about converting people to be pro-gay-marriages.

You don't sound like you're having fun....hmmmm...(shrugs) oh well!

But I am. I really am. You must believe me in this. Reach deep inside yourself and you can feel it. The Truth. I'm having fun.


The other side to that is that there ARE people out there who are still making their decisions and using these kinds of debates to decide what position they are more comfortable with. So keep debating...you won't change someone's mind who is unwilling to let you, but you may be influencing the undecided.

Yeah, I guess you're right. Thanks for pointing that out. No longer will I be silenced only by the sheer frustration of single-mindedness. And I'm being serious here. I know it's sometimes hard to tell about me, so just making sure.

You don't sound like you're having fun....hmmmm...(shrugs) oh well!

The other side to that is that there ARE people out there who are still making their decisions and using these kinds of debates to decide what position they are more comfortable with. So keep debating...you won't change someone's mind who is unwilling to let you, but you may be influencing the undecided.

And sometimes, however occasional, people who have made up their minds based on false information will actually look into the matter and end up changing their minds.

I know people are uncomfortable thinking that they might actually maybe have to change every now and then, but some overcome that fear and go with it.

And sometimes, however occasional, people who have made up their minds based on false information will actually look into the matter and end up changing their minds.

There's just two little problems with this:
1) some false information sources tend to be pretty convincing since, well, they have this little thing called truth to fight and one has to take battle like that seriously
2) some false information comes from unrational sources, such as religious texts. I don't think one can debate down word of god

There's just two little problems with this:
1) some false information sources tend to be pretty convincing since, well, they have this little thing called truth to fight and one has to take battle like that seriously
2) some false information comes from unrational sources, such as religious texts. I don't think one can debate down word of god

These things are why the change is occasional, at least the second one is, I'm not quite sure what you mean by the first - unless it is essentially the same thing. =)

These things are why the change is occasional, at least the second one is, I'm not quite sure what you mean by the first - unless it is essentially the same thing. =)

Even false information can be presented convincingly. If you appear persuasive and sincere enough, you can make people believe almost anything.

I assume that you are speaking of genetics.

But there is also an overwhelming amount of evidence from behavioral biology - which is arguably the oldest branch of biology.

I am in fact talking about genetics. The behavioral sciences, and all the phsychological sciences are regarded with similar skepticism as genetics and the more recent biological sciences, especially neurobiology which includes the study of the biochemical differences between homosexual and heterosexual brains. We are living, for better or worse (probably for worse) in a neophobic society, new things scare people not because they are inherently scary but because society has taught them to fear change. Change means loss, creation necessitates destruction, but adaptability is the greatest human strength. I hate the idea that it might be necessary, but I think for the sake of progress some scientists should keep their findings secret until the evidence to support them is overwhelming so that they do not get ostracised and relegated to the realm of apocraphy and pseudo-science. Psychologists came out with their findings too quickly and startled society, activating its neophobic defense mechanisms. In the minds of many people psychology is "not quite a science." The neuro sciences fall into the same catagory. Neurobiology and genetics are getting us closer to understanding the way our bodies work at a rate that many people find alarming. Logic aside the majority of people simply aren't ready for the revelations that psychology and genetics have in store. I hope, and believe that within the next generation or two people will be ready, but we'll find another revolution to stifle when the times comes. In the mean time it is up to the dedicated minority of neophilic minds to pursue understanding unhindered by society's conservative domination.

Even false information can be presented convincingly. If you appear persuasive and sincere enough, you can make people believe almost anything.

If you want to take it a step further, brainwashing can change a person's view in any area to a polar opposite if properly executed.

If you want to take it a step further, brainwashing can change a person's view in any area to a polar opposite if properly executed.

And since - as "f***ing left-wing liberal communist bastard" - I'm not trying to brainwash anyone but to get them to use their own brains and think for themselves and to like and accept each other, I have that to fight too.
In most cases the right thing to do is the hardest one.

I will. And I really really hope that it won't take even that long.
In my opinion every person should be able to whatever he/she pleases, as long as he/she is not hurting anyone else in the process, and I'd like to live long enough to see world that way. I know I'm not going to, but that doesn't stop me from hoping.

Ah, I just realised something. If I'm not going to give up hope, why should you do so about converting people to be pro-gay-marriages.

I shouldn't, and I haven't, but sometimes it's hard to keep the faith when some people are so rigidly idiotic and irrational.

Hey, with any luck the immortality revolution will take place within our lifetimes and we won't have to worry about the concept of "lifetimes" any more. Some fairly well educated opinions say that it could happen in the next 20 years.

I am in fact talking about genetics. The behavioral sciences, and all the phsychological sciences are regarded with similar skepticism as genetics and the more recent biological sciences, especially neurobiology which includes the study of the biochemical differences between homosexual and heterosexual brains. We are living, for better or worse (probably for worse) in a neophobic society, new things scare people not because they are inherently scary but because society has taught them to fear change. Change means loss, creation necessitates destruction, but adaptability is the greatest human strength. I hate the idea that it might be necessary, but I think for the sake of progress some scientists should keep their findings secret until the evidence to support them is overwhelming so that they do not get ostracised and relegated to the realm of apocraphy and pseudo-science. Psychologists came out with their findings too quickly and startled society, activating its neophobic defense mechanisms. In the minds of many people psychology is "not quite a science." The neuro sciences fall into the same catagory. Neurobiology and genetics are getting us closer to understanding the way our bodies work at a rate that many people find alarming. Logic aside the majority of people simply aren't ready for the revelations that psychology and genetics have in store. I hope, and believe that within the next generation or two people will be ready, but we'll find another revolution to stifle when the times comes. In the mean time it is up to the dedicated minority of neophilic minds to pursue understanding unhindered by society's conservative domination.

I have to agree with you in part, but not totally. I don't think any scientist should keep their findings secret, as sharing data is what pushes science along. However, I really do think the media needs to stop reporting everything immediately and hyping it like crazy. In my own field, it is very difficult to get funding, not because there is anything wrong with the science, but because the media hyped everything so much that people are upset we don't have results yet. Never mind that no scientist ever stated that we would have results as quickly as the media wants them. I think the mass media has caused numerous problems in science, and they really need to butt out.

And since - as "f***ing left-wing liberal communist bastard" - I'm not trying to brainwash anyone but to get them to use their own brains and think for themselves and to like and accept each other, I have that to fight too.
In most cases the right thing to do is the hardest one.

You don't realize it, but you're trying to brainwash people too. You're trying to change their way of thinking so that instead of following strict social constructs or following the commands of leaders they follow personal constructs and personal leadership, but you're still trying to brainwash them. Brainwashing is just removing the old programming (imprints, role play scripts) and replacing it with new programming, in this case the programming seems to have a "don't be programmed" message, but it is essentially the same as all other programming.

Hey, with any luck the immortality revolution will take place within our lifetimes and we won't have to worry about the concept of "lifetimes" any more. Some fairly well educated opinions say that it could happen in the next 20 years.

Well, there's something to keep my hope up for. Only that with current state of this world I couldn't take it for very long, much less eternally. :rolleyes:

You don't realize it, but you're trying to brainwash people too. You're trying to change their way of thinking so that instead of following strict social constructs or following the commands of leaders they follow personal constructs and personal leadership, but you're still trying to brainwash them. Brainwashing is just removing the old programming (imprints, role play scripts) and replacing it with new programming, in this case the programming seems to have a "don't be programmed" message, but it is essentially the same as all other programming.

I haven't thought it like that before. Maybe I don't see it consiously because I don't do it directly. I don't go around telling people to "be free! think for yourself!", I try to challenge them to think and maybe shape their principles by making them justify and explain their way of thinking.

I have to agree with you in part, but not totally. I don't think any scientist should keep their findings secret, as sharing data is what pushes science along. However, I really do think the media needs to stop reporting everything immediately and hyping it like crazy. In my own field, it is very difficult to get funding, not because there is anything wrong with the science, but because the media hyped everything so much that people are upset we don't have results yet. Never mind that no scientist ever stated that we would have results as quickly as the media wants them. I think the mass media has caused numerous problems in science, and they really need to butt out.

The media is a dangerous animal for anyone it gets its hands on. The major news outlets can make or break anyone they want without any difficulty. Sharing within the scientific community is important for the furtherment of the science, but sharing limited findings with the public is unecessary except for getting funding. Unfortunately funding for the sciences is being treated as an investment with a monetary return expected, so patentable material is more important than social valuable material in some cases. If every chemical engineer who had been working on Viagra had instead been working on cancer or AIDs we might have a cure by now, but Viagra is worth a ton of money so the funding comes flowing in while cancer or AIDs is only a cost in the immediate sense, though saving the lives of millions of people and having them act as productive members of society for longer than they would otherwise has a significant social and economic value. That is why the government needs to step in and fund research towards the cure of these diseases. A 1% increase in the tax rate would allow for the funding of cancer and AIDs research across the country (I'm talking about the US) and would likely result in more money going into the pockets of the tax payers after a cure is found than was taken out to find the cure, it's just a matter of getting all the money together and spending it where it's needed.

I do understand what you're saying about the impressions of the public based on media coverage of scientific progress, and that is part of why I think that progress should be generally kept low profile until concrete results can be presented so that the efforts of the scientists cannot be misrepresented or misunderstood.

If gay marriages were legalized, I would call for the right to marry my dog.

I <3 my golden retriever.

If gay marriages were legalized, I would call for the right to marry my dog.

I <3 my golden retriever.

If you can demonstrate consent on the part of the dog, why not? Of course when you die the dog gets everything you own and if you get divorced it can sue for part of your collective belongings.

If gay marriages were legalized, I would call for the right to marry my dog.

I <3 my golden retriever.

As long as you're sure your dog thinks it's ok, feel free.

Damn, Our Earth was faster. And I'm off to bed now, it's 2 AM here.
It's been fun and interesting, but I doubt I'll be posting again. Thanks and bye.

As long as you're sure your dog thinks it's ok, feel free.

Damn, Our Earth was faster. And I'm off to bed now, it's 2 AM here.
It's been fun and interesting, but I doubt I'll be posting again. Thanks and bye.

:D Nice talking to you.

If gay marriages were legalized, I would call for the right to marry my dog.

I <3 my golden retriever.

Once you can prove without a doubt that your dog consents, then go for it :p

That's similar to what I said earlier, although I didn't say homosexuality is against nature, and I don't believe that it is.

But I did say that the logic use in drawing the parallel is faulty.
While I don't disagree that a person should be able to do whatever they want in the bedroom, granting them special rights because they choose to do things differently is a joke and an offense to those who don't and do not get special treatment. And I belive it is against nature.

Once you can prove without a doubt that your dog consents, then go for it :p

That's 3.

While I don't disagree that a person should be able to do whatever they want in the bedroom, granting them special rights because they choose to do things differently is a joke and an offense to those who don't and do not get special treatment.
Wait a sec. Special treatment? I don't recall a single person asking for special treatment. They want the SAME thing. Not something more.

And I belive it is against nature.
Then you're in idiot, because it isn't, and it's been proven.

2) some false information comes from unrational sources, such as religious texts. I don't think one can debate down word of god

Actually, the word of god has been successfully debated before. Seriously, look at the number of people who have divorced and remarried (J.C. himself spoke out very strongly against this) who think that god sanctions their marriages, but think that homosexual marriages would be a sin.
:rolleyes:

Wrong. It has bearing on your particular religious version of marriage. It has none whatsoever on fulfilling *civil* marriage.

wouldnt it be unconstitutional if they banned marrage because it is religous and says in the bible that marrgie is between a man and a woman. but the govenment HAS to stay out of religion. Personaly i think it is stupid people are still people if marrying a person of the same sex makes them happy let them no hair off my balls.

" ALL men are Created Equal"

" Natural rights: Life Liberty and Puirsuit of happyness"

That is the constitution so all this stupid gay marraige crap is unconstitutional and is crap.

Actually by allowing gays to marry it redefines the marriage and has a huge affect on marriage, as marriage is defined differently.

But either way, it is none of the government's business. That the government has any amount of control over a private contract like marriage is just stupid.

There should be no debate over whether gay marriages should be allowed or not as it shouldn't be a political issue because a marriage is a private contract between individuals and their religious orginization.

Anything else is just government butting in where it don't belong.

Um... you *do* know that it's the government that gives you all those handy marriage benefits like, say, being able to see your spouse in hospital, or... you know, any of the hundreds of *legal* rights associated with marriage.

And... what about us atheists? We don't *have* a religion... should we not be allowed to marry? Because we can't have a 'private' contract with a religious organization?

And what about all the people who get married at registry offices? Are registry offices now religious organaizations? Since when?

People, you need to realize civil marriage and religious marriage, although both referred to as 'marriage', aren't the same thing. One is associated only with legal rights, and is regulated by the government, and one is associated only with religious rights, and is regulated by the various religions. A church has every right (in theory) to say 'Nope, we aren't marrying you sinners. You're gay, and we won't stand for it. Go away'. The government can't do that, it's unconstituational.

So the *government*, which regulates the *civil* part of marriage, should be forced to entend that to all couples (where both parties can legally consent).
But the *religious parties*, who regulate the *religious* part of marriage, should NOT be forced to.

Can you see how the government legalising gay marriage doesn't touch religion at all? If not, you should go watch some registry office weddings - no religion at all. Nothing to do with religion. No harm *to* religion.

What was the issue again?

Of course that's fake. It's meant to demonstrate how rediculous any ban on gay marriage would be. People just need to realize that even beyond religious reasons, gay is wrong. It's just plain unnatural. You don't have to be a biologist to realize that.

You'd have to NOT be a biologist to realise that. Biology says nothing about homosexuality being 'unnatural'.

Nature itself has some interesting things to say though (gay penguins, gay rams, gay dolphins, lesbian lizards, fish that change genders depending on dominance, gay chimps....)

wouldnt it be unconstitutional if they banned marrage because it is religous and says in the bible that marrgie is between a man and a woman. but the govenment HAS to stay out of religion. Personaly i think it is stupid people are still people if marrying a person of the same sex makes them happy let them no hair off my balls.

" ALL men are Created Equal"

" Natural rights: Life Liberty and Puirsuit of happyness"

That is the constitution so all this stupid gay marraige crap is unconstitutional and is crap.

Actually "all men are created equal" is in the Declaration of Indpendence and nowhere in the Constitution.

The legal argument against laws or ammendments banning gay marriage is very weak. There is no clause that says that the government has to stay out of religious affairs entirely, the first ammendments freedom of religion and expression (including religious practices) and the non-establishment clause mean that a specific national religion cannot be created, but the legislation of specific aspects of a moral code are not strictly forbidden.

With that said, I agree in principle that legislation against gay marriage is absurd.

Actually by allowing gays to marry it redefines the marriage and has a huge affect on marriage, as marriage is defined differently.
I see this idiotic double speak from the religious fundies and it makes my skin crawl. I'm married, if two guys decide to marry down the street, it doesn't change my relationship with my wife. Are there actually paople out there who feel that their commitment to their spouse will somehow be lessened by two people of the same sex across town being married also? Sorry, but if other peoples relationships have that big an impact on yours, you got deeper issues than gay marraige you should be worried about.

I see this idiotic double speak from the religious fundies and it makes my skin crawl. I'm married, if two guys decide to marry down the street, it doesn't change my relationship with my wife. Are there actually paople out there who feel that their commitment to their spouse will somehow be lessened by two people of the same sex across town being married also? Sorry, but if other peoples relationships have that big an impact on yours, you got deeper issues than gay marraige you should be worried about.
and why aren't these people bothered by the damage being done to marriage by HETEROSEXUALS?! when "Who Wants To Marry A Millionaire" and "Married By America" are on TV, how can they possibly claim that gay marriage is what is going to undermine the sanctity of their unions? Bill and Frank have been together for 15 years and want to get married, so the homophobes go nuts about how marriage is being corrupted, yet Brittany gets married because she "wanted to do something crazy" and i don't see anybody trying to take marital rights away from stupid blonde pop stars.

and why aren't these people bothered by the damage being done to marriage by HETEROSEXUALS?! when "Who Wants To Marry A Millionaire" and "Married By America" are on TV, how can they possibly claim that gay marriage is what is going to undermine the sanctity of their unions? Bill and Frank have been together for 15 years and want to get married, so the homophobes go nuts about how marriage is being corrupted, yet Brittany gets married because she "wanted to do something crazy" and i don't see anybody trying to take marital rights away from stupid blonde pop stars.

It's the butt sex.

What about hetero butt sex? I don't see any large scale movement to ban hetero sodomy.

Ah, hypocrisy again. We don't mind lesbians, but we dislike gay men. We don't mind guy on girl butt or oral sex, but we dislike guy on guy butt or oral sex.

I think the whole religion/government thing of marriage is the major argument here. Well, it's not as if someone is going to want to get married in a church which is giving them metaphorical dirty looks, and the christian church shouldn't be able to control anyone who isn't christian, logically - but then of course logic doesn't come into it, does it?

How about this - if two gay guys want to get married in a church and be white-picket-fencey and go to mass every sunday, the church can tell them no, because what the hell happened to one of you being a woman? But if they want the government to recognise that they have a relationship pretty much the same as any man and woman can have and thus have the same rights, then I fail to see how the hell it's relevant to the church.

I mean, everyone knows homosexuality is unnatural.
Well actually, homosexuality is very natural indeed. There are a lot of gay animals out there as well as humans. Come on, if they want to be homosexual, let them. It's not gonna hurt anyone.

;) I wonder if we should add an option: should NationStates users be banned from driving? If so -- I'm screwed.

If only that was real. It think it would be the greatest thing America could do but I'm very sad to say that it would never happen.

It's the butt sex.
honestly, i think that has to be it. they can't possibly be actually defending marriage, since they are trying to prevent committed couples from marrying out of love while allowing random strangers to be married on television for the purposes of big cash payouts. they aren't doing anything to defend marriage, they just think anal sex is ICKY ICKY ICKY.

i may be dumb: but what in the bloody effing ell does what anyone does or does not go to bed with, where, when or how often, have to do with their ability or lack of it, to safely opperate a motor vehicule??????

i'd swear the loonitics ARE in charge of the asylum!

=^^=
.../\...

i may be dumb: but what in the bloody effing ell does what anyone does or does not go to bed with, where, when or how often, have to do with their ability or lack of it, to safely opperate a motor vehicule??????

i'd swear the loonitics ARE in charge of the asylum!

=^^=
.../\...

You are dumb, but you're dumb like me, so I'll let you in on a little secret, it's satire designed to make the position of those who are opposed to gay marriage look absurd.

If only that was real. It think it would be the greatest thing America could do but I'm very sad to say that it would never happen.

It seems like you're opposed to all right for homosexuals, with that attitude why aren't you proposing that they all be killed? I think the reason is that even modern extremists can't stomach that sort of absolutist policy in defense of an arbitrary and minor tenent of a faith whose primary facets are love and kindness to all. The war against homosexuals put on in the name of Faith is a travesty and the must un-Christian demonstration by the "faithful" since the Klan during the Civil Rights Movement.

This is a great thread! I feel like saying more about this thread but...meh, I really can't be bothered...

OMG this is so right. I mean, everyone knows homosexuality is unnatural. And Leviticus 95: 5 clearly states "Though shall not allow one man who sleeps with another man to drive a vehicle; this is an abomination."

I mean, if we let gay people drive cars, what's next-them driving children or toasters?!


LOL!