NationStates Jolt Archive

77% of voters in Texas are in favor of Proposition 2- which defines marriage as "between a man and a woman" and forbids any other civil unions that can be construed as similar to marriage.

I'm waiting for Rick Perry to authorize construction of a homosexual internment camp within 10 years now.

It'll probably be called Asschwitz.

I want to watch everyone get their marriages voided because marriage is a religious ceremony, it doesn't count in the state, thus applying at a court house for a marriage certificate to show you are married is irrelevant sense it creates a mockery of marriage.

Asschwitz....XD.

Asschwitz....XD.
At first I thought that Asschwitz might be a Nazi themed strip club somewhere, but it wasn't. You've let me down again Interweb!

*is glad he's fortunate to live where he lives*

At first I thought that Asschwitz might be a Nazi themed strip club somewhere, but it wasn't. You've let me down again Interweb!
http://www.allfunpix.com/humor/pics4/hitler_jerkin.jpg

At first I thought that Asschwitz might be a Nazi themed strip club somewhere, but it wasn't. You've let me down again Interweb!
You, Mr. Fiddlebottoms the Eighth, have a very dirty mind.

Almost as dirty as that bloodstained pair of trousers you're wearing. How long have you had those things? And what did you drag them through—a pile of manure? *grimaces*

*is glad he's fortunate to live where he lives*
*is glad Fass feels fortunate to live where he lives*

At first I thought that Asschwitz might be a Nazi themed strip club somewhere, but it wasn't. You've let me down again Interweb!

Okay, that made me laugh.

*is glad Fass feels fortunate to live where he lives*
*alerting the thought police Baran-Duine is glad Fass feels fortunate to live where he lives*

*is glad he's fortunate to live where he lives*
*is also glad he lives where he lives*

Cuz...imagine Fass as a neighbor!

"Good morning!"
"Which morning?"

*Is glad that everyone else is glad, but feels that the joke has gotten rather stale and that we should move on*

*alerting the thought police Baran-Duine is glad Fass feels fortunate to live where he lives*
*stopping thinking to avoid the thought police*

*is glad Fass feels fortunate to live where he lives*

Aww. News like this really does make it difficult to not count your lucky stars. To think of the differences in our societies - in ours, the biggest church in the country just moved to bless gay couples, while in the US, they have referenda to insert discrimination into their constitutions. The rift is mind-boggling, and, well, being on this side of it is a lot more pleasant.

Not that I don't feel for those who are affected by this, and that the irony is not lost on me that most of those who voted for this ban wouldn't have been affected by gay marriage either way. It is a strange country they have over there.

Not that I don't feel for those who are affected by this, and that the irony is not lost on me that most of those who voted for this ban wouldn't have been affected by gay marriage either way.
Someone explained this to me once. If gays are allowed to become married, then they can combine their powers and become even greater a threat then they were before. However, monogamous gay marriage wasn't the true goal anyway, the goal is to use the enhanced power gained by combining gays to allow Gay Polygamy!
At this point all of the gays can marry and form two Super Gay Unions, at which point their collected power will be so great that they will tear a Gay Hole in the fabric of the Universe and bring in the Great Gaythulhu, who will then plunge the world into an eternal Purple of fashion design and homosexual orgies.
Then he started screaming that his clothes were ghosts that were consuming his flesh and passed out. Still, the fact that he was ODing on various hallucinagens doesn't make his theory any less valid than Intelligent Design.

Asschwitz....XD.
More like Austinwitz....

God Damnit I hate Texas...

More like Austinwitz....

God Damnit I hate Texas...
Austrinwitz.....AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I want to watch everyone get their marriages voided because marriage is a religious ceremony, it doesn't count in the state, thus applying at a court house for a marriage certificate to show you are married is irrelevant sense it creates a mockery of marriage.
Marriage was civil before it was religious. Get your own tradition for uniting couples.

http://www.allfunpix.com/humor/pics4/hitler_jerkin.jpg
You must've had that thing on your HD for years waiting for an opportunity to use it!!!


Seriously, that is fucking hilarious!!!!!

More like Austinwitz....

God Damnit I hate Texas...

Actually...Austin is the last liberal bastion in Texas. A lot of conservative Texans hate it for that reason. I call Austin home, currently, but never Texas.

I, by the way, voted against Prop 2.

77% of voters in Texas are in favor of Proposition 2- which defines marriage as "between a man and a woman" and forbids any other civil unions that can be construed as similar to marriage.

Chalk up another victory for state rights.

Chalk up another victory for state rights.

Bet you didn't say that when Massachusetts legalized gay marriage, Bushevik.

:rolleyes:

Bet you didn't say that when Massachusetts legalized gay marriage, Bushevik.

:rolleyes:

You would be right. Why? Because it wasn't done by the people. It was done by the courts.

Chalk up another victory for state rights.
I'm sure Strom Thurmond is cheering them on from beyond the grave.:rolleyes:

You would be right. Why? Because it wasn't done by the people. It was done by the courts.

Please Comrade Bushevik. You'd come up with some other flimsy premise to bitch about legalized gay marriage even if Massachusetts voted for it.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I'm sure Strom Thurmond is cheering them on from beyond the grave.:rolleyes:

While sheltering his other gay illegitimate child from the fallout of Jesus Loves You Unless You're a Homo.

Please Comrade Bushevik. You'd come up with some other flimsy premise to bitch about legalized gay marriage even if Massachusetts voted for it.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

No I wouldn't have. If the people themselves voted it, I would say another victory for state's rights as well.

No I wouldn't have. If the people themselves voted it, I would say another victory for state's rights as well.
So when the democratically elected legislatures of Canada's provinces voted to allow gay marriage, you were happy that democracy and federalism were being preserved?

77% of voters in Texas are in favor of Proposition 2- which defines marriage as "between a man and a woman" and forbids any other civil unions that can be construed as similar to marriage.

I'm waiting for Rick Perry to authorize construction of a homosexual internment camp within 10 years now.

It'll probably be called Asschwitz.

What do you all care if gays get married? I fail to see why people are so offended by this.

Chalk up another victory for state rights.
Frankly, I'm amazed there even is a Federal government in the States, considering the casual antipathy and even enmity for that level of government I come across routinely on these forums. Why bother, when so much importance seems to be placed on enacting and enshrining frankly petty regional differences into immutable Law.

I say America should definitely balkanize. Sooner than later. Say to Hell with Federalism, you've all become so used to hating it why not legislate it out of its' misery, or through some other means hasten its' demise?

You could easily carve up the spoils into numerous American nations - earlier tonight I was reading a link about Atlzan or Aztlan or some shit, who want to secede the Southwest as an Hispanic country. Okay, now there was that story floating around here a week or two back about the Christian wingnuts wanting to move to South Carolina and seceding to form a Theocracy. I hear persistent rumours about White Supremacists wanting to do the same thing in Idaho. though to be honest, I've never really bothered investigating those rumours to any extent whatever as I'm genuinely disinterested in things relating to White Supremacism as a matter of course...

But just off the top of my head, there's three groups that want outski. Then there's the Hawaiians, who I've heard very recently aren't surpisingly too happy about the status quo... and there's Utah, but I'm sure Utah would just quietly wait until after Federalism in America had died before going it on their own as it's own Theocracy. Texas, well... I'm pretty sure Texas would be first out the door like a kid on the last day of school.

The rest? Well... who can say, I like looking at maps and wondering.

But I digress.

Ah thats right, today was the last day to vote wasnt it. Saw that in the paper. Yes I am a Texan and I would not judge america by Texas, we are very different from the rest of the country. Or so I hear from everyone not from Texas.
I believe very firmly in majority rule, if the majority of the people in a place believe a certain way, then that way should be the course of the government. Yes that applies to things I do not agree with. If that large a mojority is against gay marrige, it should not be legal. But that number is from the people who voted. In thi county, about 1/8 of the registered voters took part in this.

You would be right. Why? Because it wasn't done by the people. It was done by the courts.

So its only states rights if people in the state vote for it, not the states courts??

I'm not exactly surprised.

Ah thats right, today was the last day to vote wasnt it. Saw that in the paper. Yes I am a Texan and I would not judge america by Texas, we are very different from the rest of the country. Or so I hear from everyone not from Texas.
I believe very firmly in majority rule, if the majority of the people in a place believe a certain way, then that way should be the course of the government. Yes that applies to things I do not agree with. If that large a mojority is against gay marrige, it should not be legal. But that number is from the people who voted. In thi county, about 1/8 of the registered voters took part in this.

So if a majority of people are for slavery we should roll with it? Or if the majority believes that women should stay in the kitchen, not be able to have a job, or not have rights like the right to vote?

So if a majority of people are for slavery we should roll with it? Or if the majority believes that women should stay in the kitchen, not be able to have a job, or not have rights like the right to vote?

ouch. i wouldnt want to answer that.

ouch. i wouldnt want to answer that.

Those were the tame questions. ;)

Ah thats right, today was the last day to vote wasnt it. Saw that in the paper. Yes I am a Texan and I would not judge america by Texas, we are very different from the rest of the country. Or so I hear from everyone not from Texas.
I believe very firmly in majority rule, if the majority of the people in a place believe a certain way, then that way should be the course of the government. Yes that applies to things I do not agree with. If that large a mojority is against gay marrige, it should not be legal. But that number is from the people who voted. In thi county, about 1/8 of the registered voters took part in this.
So if a majority of the population thought that say, hispanics are crooks. Should they all be jailed?
If 70 percent of a class gets a question incorrect, should they all be given passing grades?
If a majority of germans supported Hitler, was he legitimate in his actions?
The logic of majority rules all is flawed. Human rights, and equality rights aren't, or should not be, debateable topics, particularly in a country like the U.S.A. "democracy" soon digresses into "mob rule" when your participants beklong in the 19th century.

So if a majority of people are for slavery we should roll with it? Or if the majority believes that women should stay in the kitchen, not be able to have a job, or not have rights like the right to vote?
Yes, if that is what the majority of the people being enslaved or the women staying home believe. A majority includes everyone, not a voting majority. Majority rule is the basis of democracy, and any democracy not firmly based in this will fall to opression and corruption in one direction or the other.

Man I'm gonna get killed for this.:sniper:

Yes, if that is what the majority of the people being enslaved or the women staying home believe. A majority includes everyone, not a voting majority. Majority rule is the basis of democracy, and any democracy not firmly based in this will fall to opression and corruption in one direction or the other.

Wait, wait... A majority of the repressed group?

So then the voting in Texas on prop 2 shouldn't be on the general populous but only amongst the homosexuals.

Or only require that a majority of homosexuals agree.

If a majority of germans supported Hitler, was he legitimate in his actions?

To be fair, yes. As far as those they voted to give him.

If a majority of germans supported Hitler, was he legitimate in his actions?



Godwin's Law uber-pwnz you! :p


(I'm in favor of gay marriage, just for the record.)

Frankly, I'm amazed there even is a Federal government in the States, considering the casual antipathy and even enmity for that level of government I come across routinely on these forums. Why bother, when so much importance seems to be placed on enacting and enshrining frankly petty regional differences into immutable Law.

I say America should definitely balkanize. Sooner than later. Say to Hell with Federalism, you've all become so used to hating it why not legislate it out of its' misery, or through some other means hasten its' demise?

You could easily carve up the spoils into numerous American nations - earlier tonight I was reading a link about Atlzan or Aztlan or some shit, who want to secede the Southwest as an Hispanic country. Okay, now there was that story floating around here a week or two back about the Christian wingnuts wanting to move to South Carolina and seceding to form a Theocracy. I hear persistent rumours about White Supremacists wanting to do the same thing in Idaho. though to be honest, I've never really bothered investigating those rumours to any extent whatever as I'm genuinely disinterested in things relating to White Supremacism as a matter of course...

But just off the top of my head, there's three groups that want outski. Then there's the Hawaiians, who I've heard very recently aren't surpisingly too happy about the status quo... and there's Utah, but I'm sure Utah would just quietly wait until after Federalism in America had died before going it on their own as it's own Theocracy. Texas, well... I'm pretty sure Texas would be first out the door like a kid on the last day of school.

The rest? Well... who can say, I like looking at maps and wondering.

But I digress.

Not a bad idea. In fact, when America was in its early years there was debate among the founders as to whether or not America should start up a federal government in the first place. The Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers were the result of the discussion. They eventually decided to have a federal government in order to keep the states in line (I think there was some business about some of the states printing their own money and causing hyperinflation), but they tried to severely limit the power of the federal government. Now that the US government has grown grossly beyond the scale the founders envisioned, maybe its time to revive the federalist/anti-federalist debate.

Not that everything America does has to agree with the intentions of the founders. There is, however, a case to be made for balkanization. Of the 10 wealthiest countries in the world, only four of them (US, Switzerland, Norway and Singapore) have populations above a million, and the US is the only one over 10 million. The future could very well belong to the small and agile.

Yes, if that is what the majority of the people being enslaved or the women staying home believe. A majority includes everyone, not a voting majority. Majority rule is the basis of democracy, and any democracy not firmly based in this will fall to opression and corruption in one direction or the other.

You do realize that majority rule, though the basis of democracy, does not mean its right. That is the reason why we have an electoral college and a Supreme court. No one here is saying that a majority rule is always a bad thing but we all know that the majority can and often makes mistakes. I mean christ you just advocated slavery one of the most barbaric and brutal practices to man. There are one of two options that come from that statement. Either your a troll who's doing this on purpose or(and I'm trying to frame this in the nicest way I possibly can) your not the sharpest tool in the shed.

Godwin's Law uber-pwnz you! :p
Funny, I was just thinking that as I typed it. My apologies.

@Chellis, you are still wrong.

(I'm in favor of gay marriage, just for the record.)

So was Hitler! Godwin be hanged!

Wait, wait... A majority of the repressed group?

So then the voting in Texas on prop 2 shouldn't be on the general populous but only amongst the homosexuals.

Or only require that a majority of homosexuals agree.

Thats not what I meant. As I said, a majority includes everyone, everyone as in everyone in the area the law will be enacted under.

[propos of slavery]Yes, if that is what the majority of the people being enslaved or the women staying home believe.

Thats not what I meant. As I said, a majority includes everyone, everyone as in everyone in the area the law will be enacted under.

This is a contradiction. I believe you have not fully replied to our concerns.

You do realize that majority rule, though the basis of democracy, does not mean its right. That is the reason why we have an electoral college and a Supreme court. No one here is saying that a majority rule is always a bad thing but we all know that the majority can and often makes mistakes. I mean christ you just advocated slavery one of the most barbaric and brutal practices to man. There are one of two options that come from that statement. Either your a troll who's doing this on purpose or(and I'm trying to frame this in the nicest way I possibly can) your not the sharpest tool in the shed.

You misunderstand, I never said it would be right, only legal. I do not believe oppression in any form is right, but it has been legal in many forms and fashions. Government has never concerned itself with what was right, you go down that road and you have a church-state.

I admit, I am a bit of an Idealist and I do know that true majority rule would never work, people are too gullible. But it is an ideal that we should strive for. In this case, an overwhelming majority has spoken. Under a democratic system, that word should be made into law.

The funny thing is, that the majority has voted to deny majority rule in several instances, like the electoral college.

77% of voters in Texas are in favor of Proposition 2- which defines marriage as "between a man and a woman" and forbids any other civil unions that can be construed as similar to marriage.
I'm waiting for Rick Perry to authorize construction of a homosexual internment camp within 10 years now.
It'll probably be called Asschwitz.
Hey, Texas and like 11 other States! Welcome to America! Is anyone really surprised?

And those internment camps are stricly for Asains. And it would back-fire, cooping all those raging flamers in under one roof, they'd have way too much fun doing they're...ya know...thing.

And internment camps weren't in Germany, those are called "Concentration Camps," but those were open to everyone. And no-one made it back to dinner after they're after-work shower...hmm.... Anyhow, I'm citing this inadverdant refferal to "Facism" as way out of line. Its not like Bush and Republicans have stormed the State Capital, and made gay unions illegal. There's Democrates voting in that too, and maybe even a consevative Liberal or two. Its totally democratic. Its not like we're making gays work to death and shooting them on site with Gestapo death-squads, just so they can't get married. I'm against it, but at least its still a democracy, and someday the laws can change. Or, you can move to Sweden! :D

Still, the fact that he was ODing on various hallucinagens doesn't make his theory any less valid than Intelligent Design.

That could almost be worthy of sigging

Funny, I was just thinking that as I typed it. My apologies.

@Chellis, you are still wrong.

Of course, providing reasons for this is an insane thought.

Not that everything America does has to agree with the intentions of the founders. There is, however, a case to be made for balkanization. Of the 10 wealthiest countries in the world, only four of them (US, Switzerland, Norway and Singapore) have populations above a million, and the US is the only one over 10 million. The future could very well belong to the small and agile.

Wrong. The ten wealthiest nations in the world all have populations over 10 million. Perhaps you meant wealthiest by GDPPC?

Wrong. The ten wealthiest nations in the world all have populations over 10 million. Perhaps you meant wealthiest by GDPPC?
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_gdp_cap
1. Luxembourg
2. Norway
3. US

*stopping thinking to avoid the thought police*
*Arrested for not thinking without a license, only Government Officials and Religious believers have that right.*

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_gdp_cap
1. Luxembourg
2. Norway
3. US

Hence, GDPPC(GPD per capita). You are just proving me right.

wealth·y Audio pronunciation of "wealthiest" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wlth)
adj. wealth·i·er, wealth·i·est

1. Having wealth; rich. See Synonyms at rich.

Hence, the Wealthiest nations in the world are the ones with the most wealth, not per person.

You would be right. Why? Because it wasn't done by the people. It was done by the courts.

Ok, you like the tyranny of the majority; lets assume that a referendum was passed which was to kill off you and your whole family in the most grusome and awful way - would you be ok and say, "hey, thats what the majority want, and thank god that awful court didn't interfer with the democratic process".

Ok, you like the tyranny of the majority; lets assume that a referendum was passed which was to kill off you and your whole family in the most grusome and awful way - would you be ok and say, "hey, thats what the majority want, and thank god that awful court didn't interfer with the democratic process".

tyranny of the majority > tyranny of the minority

EDIT: I should elaborate. Rejecting Gay Marriage is simply rejecting Gay Marriage. Nobody is going to be shot, rounded up into camps, or God knows what else. Basic rights are still protected, but the minority can no longer impose its will on the majority via the court system.

Ah thats right, today was the last day to vote wasnt it. Saw that in the paper. Yes I am a Texan and I would not judge america by Texas, we are very different from the rest of the country. Or so I hear from everyone not from Texas.
I believe very firmly in majority rule, if the majority of the people in a place believe a certain way, then that way should be the course of the government. Yes that applies to things I do not agree with. If that large a mojority is against gay marrige, it should not be legal. But that number is from the people who voted. In thi county, about 1/8 of the registered voters took part in this.

According to your logic, Jim Crow laws which created inequality between African Americans and whites were OK because the majority supported it? how about descrimination based on religion, you're ok with that because there seems to be an anti-Catholic undercurrent in US society?

tyranny of the majority > tyranny of the minority

EDIT: I should elaborate. Rejecting Gay Marriage is simply rejecting Gay Marriage. Nobody is going to be shot, rounded up into camps, or God knows what else. Basic rights are still protected, but the minority can no longer impose its will on the majority via the court system.

Excuse me, but you have failed to demonstrate how the majority will be affected by this; it isn't "we're going to replace heterosexual marriage with gay marriage, therefore, only gays can get married" <-- THAT would be overriding the rights of another person(s).

Same sex marriage is merely and EXTENSION of the existing legislation which is in place.

What you're saying is that by having racially integrated schools, white children are getting their rights taken away from them - which would, rightfully so, be a load of bullcrap, no ones rights are being impeeded, removed or short changed.

Same goes for same sex marriage - are you claiming now, that some how, two gays getting married would affect your marriage? if so, how?

Excuse me, but you have failed to demonstrate how the majority will be affected by this; it isn't "we're going to replace heterosexual marriage with gay marriage, therefore, only gays can get married" <-- THAT would be overriding the rights of another person(s).

Same sex marriage is merely and EXTENSION of the existing legislation which is in place.

That does not matter at all. What does matter is that it's perfectly legal to ban gay marriage and nobody has their basic fundamental rights infringed upon. But to reply, the desire to ban gay marriage comes from a desire to preserve some semblance of "moral order".

What you're saying is that by having racially integrated schools, white children are getting their rights taken away from them - which would, rightfully so, be a load of bullcrap, no ones rights are being impeeded, removed or short changed.

Segregated schools were unconsitutional, and the Supreme Court correctly recognized it as such. Banning gay marriage, however, is not unconsitutional as there is no constitutional right to marry whomever you choose. Your analogy is flawed.

Same goes for same sex marriage - are you claiming now, that some how, two gays getting married would affect your marriage? if so, how?

It doesn't have to affect my marriage. What matters is the majority does not want it, and the banning of it infringes upon nobody's constitutional rights.

Thats not what I meant. As I said, a majority includes everyone, everyone as in everyone in the area the law will be enacted under.This technically means that it's ok for a town of perhaps 10, 000 to decide that its population of people from minority A (some 2000 souls) deserve to be put on a lower level than the rest of the population. There is an election on it, and turns out about 60% in favor of them being stripped of their rights, 40% against. According to your logic, this is acceptable, since there's a majority support for it.
I honestly don't find that ok.

equating opposition to civil unions to hatred of gays is moronic.


same kind of logic as Pat Robertson if you ask me

if you want to be taken seriously be serious

equating opposition to civil unions to hatred of gays is moronic.


same kind of logic as Pat Robertson if you ask me

if you want to be taken seriously be seriousWhat other reason is there against gay marriage, let alone civil unions then? Maybe it's not hatred, but it is a disregard of a homosexual's rights.

77% of voters in Texas are in favor of Proposition 2- which defines marriage as "between a man and a woman" and forbids any other civil unions that can be construed as similar to marriage.

I'm waiting for Rick Perry to authorize construction of a homosexual internment camp within 10 years now.

It'll probably be called Asschwitz.
Being against gay marriage =/= hating gays.

Being against gay marriage =/= hating gays.Being against interracial marriage =/= racist? :confused:

Banning gay marriage, however, is not unconsitutional as there is no constitutional right to marry whomever you choose.

Not true anymore. With the passing of Proposition 2, Texas now recognizes that a marriage can only be between 1 man and 1 woman. What that means is there is now a Constitutionally recognized right for 1 man and 1 woman to marry each other.

Hence, 1 man and 1 man who want to get married are to be discriminated against on a State level.

The only fortunate thing that will come of this is that this law, just like the anti-sodomy laws, will be overturned by SCOTUS in a few short years. Just you wait and see. The United States will not stand idley by and watch a State spit on the Bill of Rights.

Being against interracial marriage =/= racist? :confused:
No, no. It just means they aren't real people, and half-people shouldn't have the same rights as real people. It would be degrading to the real people, and ultimately, one might not be able to tell the difference between the real people & the half people

What complete and utter BS. America free. Whatever. Christianity accepting. Yeah right. I'd be willing to bet the 12 apostles were gay. Was there a single female apostle in the gang? Nooooooo.... I'm too fed up to think straight. Isn't it about time all of these phobic-prone a-holes stop trying to force feed their narrow-minded hateful propaganda on everyone else who just wants to live their own life???? How would it hurt anyone if gay people got married? Even if gay marriage was never accepted in the US, it's not going to stop them from being together! Do these people seriously think a comet is going to come and blast earth to pieces if America let's gays get married?

Rantrantrant.... :headbang:

That does not matter at all. What does matter is that it's perfectly legal to ban gay marriage and nobody has their basic fundamental rights infringed upon.

Like hell. A fundamental right (in the United States, at least) is the right to be equal under the law regardless of gender. If a male citizen can legally enter into a binding marital contract with a female citizen and reap civil benefits from this union, then the government of the United States cannot deny me (a female) the same right (to enter a legally equal marital contract with a female). Denial of gay marriage rights is unconstitutional gender discrimination.


But to reply, the desire to ban gay marriage comes from a desire to preserve some semblance of "moral order".

By increasing extramarital sex, ensuring less stable home environments for children, and enforcing a devisive religious agenda?


Segregated schools were unconsitutional, and the Supreme Court correctly recognized it as such. Banning gay marriage, however, is not unconsitutional as there is no constitutional right to marry whomever you choose. Your analogy is flawed.

No, but there is a constitutional right to equal treatment regardless of gender. Bans on gay marriage violate that right by granting each sex an exclusive right: men are giving the exclusive right to marry women, and women are given the exclusive right to marry men. It's no different than when miscegination laws were in place, and blacks were given the exclusive right to marry blacks and whites the right to marry whites. Those laws were struck down, and are now regarded as barbaric and stupid...the same will be true of gay marriage bans, in time.


It doesn't have to affect my marriage. What matters is the majority does not want it, and the banning of it infringes upon nobody's constitutional rights.
Funny that the majority of Americans DO support allowing gay unions, and it does infringe on constitutional rights...but don't let a little thing like fact stand in the way of your opinion...

tyranny of the majority > tyranny of the minority

EDIT: I should elaborate. Rejecting Gay Marriage is simply rejecting Gay Marriage. Nobody is going to be shot, rounded up into camps, or God knows what else. Basic rights are still protected, but the minority can no longer impose its will on the majority via the court system.
Except allowing gay marriage prevents no one from doing anything. It is not actionary but protectionary. There is no tyranny.

Except allowing gay marriage prevents no one from doing anything. It is not actionary but protectionary. There is no tyranny.
But *gasp* think of the children! They might get the notion that marriage is about love, honor, commitment, respect, and companionship! We all know that the REAL purpose of marriage is to ensure that penises are inserted into vaginas in order to produce adorable white babies for Jesus!

Being against interracial marriage =/= racist? :confused: Being against incarcerated criminals voting =/= hating all criminals.

No, I'm not saying gays are criminals.

But *gasp* think of the children! They might get the notion that marriage is about love, honor, commitment, respect, and companionship! We all know that the REAL purpose of marriage is to ensure that penises are inserted into vaginas in order to produce adorable white babies for Jesus! Um… since when did any number of people think that?:confused:

Being against incarcerated criminals voting =/= hating all criminals.

No, I'm not saying gays are criminals.
Criminals voting has nothing to do with marriage. Please find a more fitting allegory.

I don't see what the hell is so bad about legalizing gay marriage. As a Christian, yes, I believe homosexuality is a sin, but as they say, "hate the sin, love the sinner." And, aren't we all sinners? Doesn't the Bible say "judge not?" Most importantly, what happens in the bedroom is no one else's business, provided everyone in the bedroom consents.

I don't see what the hell is so bad about legalizing gay marriage. As a Christian, yes, I believe homosexuality is a sin, but as they say, "hate the sin, love the sinner." And, aren't we all sinners? Doesn't the Bible say "judge not?" Most importantly, what happens in the bedroom is no one else's business, provided everyone in the bedroom consents.
Unless you follow Levitican law and sacrefice goats to your god with regularity, you have no right to call homosexuality a sin.

Unless you follow Levitican law and sacrefice goats to your god with regularity, you have no right to call homosexuality a sin.

As I said, I don't judge people. What they do is their business, so long as they're not hurting anyone else.

Being against gay marriage =/= hating gays.
only if you see marriage as a religious institution. That ship has sailed when the government gave special status, like tax-exemption to married people.

I should elaborate. Rejecting Gay Marriage is simply rejecting Gay Marriage. Nobody is going to be shot, rounded up into camps, or God knows what else. Basic rights are still protected, but the minority can no longer impose its will on the majority via the court system.Right...:eek:

*Backs away slowly*

Someone explained this to me once. If gays are allowed to become married, then they can combine their powers and become even greater a threat then they were before. However, monogamous gay marriage wasn't the true goal anyway, the goal is to use the enhanced power gained by combining gays to allow Gay Polygamy!
At this point all of the gays can marry and form two Super Gay Unions, at which point their collected power will be so great that they will tear a Gay Hole in the fabric of the Universe and bring in the Great Gaythulhu, who will then plunge the world into an eternal Purple of fashion design and homosexual orgies.
Then he started screaming that his clothes were ghosts that were consuming his flesh and passed out. Still, the fact that he was ODing on various hallucinagens doesn't make his theory any less valid than Intelligent Design.

So that's what it's all about. :eek:

Well, here in Canada we're still waiting for that Great Gaythulhu, Purple of fashion design and homosexual orgies.

I'm particularly looking forward to those homosexual orgies. :p

Damn I wish I had a boyfriend :(

Damn I wish I had a boyfriend :(

Oh, behave! ;)

So that's what it's all about. :eek:

Well, here in Canada we're still waiting for that Great Gaythulhu, Purple of fashion design and homosexual orgies.

I'm particularly looking forward to those homosexual orgies. :p

Damn I wish I had a boyfriend :(

Gaythulhu fagthagn, ÿa!! ÿa!! :D

Oh, behave! ;)

Come on, isn't a fag allowed a little melodrama over here? ;)

Gaythulhu fagthagn, ÿa!! ÿa!! :D

Did you come for me, master? :p

Master in the kinky, domination/submission sense of the term, of course. With lots of whips and leather chaps. :D

Because we know all gays are into that stuff.
[/sarcasm]

Come on, isn't a fag allowed a little melodrama over here? ;)

I was watching Christopher Lowell not too long ago, and in the middle of talking about a headboard for a bed, he nonchalantly announced that he didn't have a boyfriend.

Yes, you're not as melodramatic as Chris, so ok.

Being against interracial marriage =/= racist? :confused:
WTF does that have to do with anything?

I was watching Christopher Lowell not too long ago, and in the middle of talking about a headboard for a bed, he nonchalantly announced that he didn't have a boyfriend.

Yes, you're not as melodramatic as Chris, so ok.

Thanks for the tip about Christopher Lowell, but bald, beardy men who are old enough to be my father aren't really my type. :rolleyes:

To think that others are actually turned on by bald, beardy men old enough to be their father just makes me *shudder* :eek:

WTF does that have to do with anything?
It was in answer to the "Being against gay marriage =/= being homophobe" comment earlier, I believe.

Thanks for the tip about Christopher Lowell, but bald, beardy men who are old enough to be my father aren't really my type. :rolleyes:

To think that others are actually turned on by bald, beardy men old enough to be their father just makes me *shudder* :eek:

Well, that was my take on it - maybe he's gotten desperate, so he makes the announcement on his show.

Still, he has a lot of money... you could be a boy toy.

Criminals voting has nothing to do with marriage. Please find a more fitting allegory.
Oh, you mean more like "opposing interacial marriage =/= being racist?" Riiight. :rolleyes:

I don't see what the hell is so bad about legalizing gay marriage ... what happens in the bedroom is no one else's business, provided everyone in the bedroom consents.
Precisely. The government has enough on its plate without trying to police the bedroom. :headbang:

only if you see marriage as a religious institution. That ship has sailed when the government gave special status, like tax-exemption to married people.
I don't agree with that, either. As far as I'm concerned, there should be no exemptions, no deductions for anything ... not marriage, not kids, not houses ... nothing! :(

Well, that was my take on it - maybe he's gotten desperate, so he makes the announcement on his show.

Still, he has a lot of money... you could be a boy toy.

I'd rather not be a boy toy. I have feelings, you know.

Unlike you tough macho straight boys :D

But if I really had to be a boy toy, I'd at least choose to be a boy toy to a beautiful ephebe with a greek god's physique. Not some old beardy bald guy, however crafty he might be at interior decorating.:p

Come on, isn't a fag allowed a little melodrama over here? ;)
Remember when "fag" was just another name for a cigarette and "gay" meant that you were happy? :D

But if I really had to be a boy toy, I'd at least choose to be a boy toy to a beautiful ephebe with a greek god's physique. Not some old beardy bald guy, however crafty he might be at interior decorating.:p


Hey! You're not living up to the stereotype if Interior Decorating doesn't turn you on!

Besides, all arguments against gay marriage are pretty much bullshit. I live in Canada, and it's been legal for some time now.

Still no armageddon in sight. No anarchy, no "hundreds of thousands of straight children turning gay", no collapse of social order, nada.

Oh, and no "acts of God" in the form of giant hurricanes raining down divine retribution on our nation of godless heathens for letting those Dirty Sodomites(tm) marry each other and pursue happiness together in peace and quiet. :rolleyes:

It was in answer to the "Being against gay marriage =/= being homophobe" comment earlier, I believe.
Not a very effective analogy, if I may say so. And it's true that being against the marriage of gays does not equal hating them. Two different things, although I personally couldn't care less if someone marries their goldfish! :)

Remember when "fag" was just another name for a cigarette and "gay" meant that you were happy? :D

Lol, I'm too young to remember that.

But I have heard stories of this wondrous past, yeah ;)

Hey! You're not living up to the stereotype if Interior Decorating doesn't turn you on!

Then go ahead and call me a straight boy. See if I care :D

I'm really far from stereotypes. In fact, several of my straight friends look "gay-er" than I do.

Doesn't stop me from looking at cute guy's asses though. :p

*snip*I personally couldn't care less if someone marries their goldfish! :)
Bestiality? Scandalous! :eek:

In fact, several of my straight friends look "gay-er" than I do.

I haven't been able to tell with most gay guys - it's not tattooed on their foreheads.

I haven't been able to tell with most gay guys - it's not tattooed on their foreheads.

Which is sad, because it really would make finding a boyfriend easier. :p

77% of voters in Texas are in favor of Proposition 2- which defines marriage as "between a man and a woman" and forbids any other civil unions that can be construed as similar to marriage.

I'm waiting for Rick Perry to authorize construction of a homosexual internment camp within 10 years now.

It'll probably be called Asschwitz.
Hyperbole is your friend.

Which is sad, because it really would make finding a boyfriend easier. :p
why not push for a law demanding that all gays have the word "Gay" tattoed on their forehead?

I know it could pass muster in some places.

Hyperbole is your friend.

Hyperbole right now perhaps, but you can't deny that there's a percentage of Texans who voted Yes for Prop 2 who probably would support such a dehumanizing institution. After all, the local KKK supported and endorsed Prop 2 openly as "promoting White Values" and voters didn't even bat an eyelash at that.

why not push for a law demanding that all gays have the word "Gay" tattoed on their forehead?

I know it could pass muster in some places.

Now the Star-bellied Sneetches had bellies with stars.
The Plain-bellied Sneetches had none upon thars.
The stars weren't so big; they were really quite small.
You would think such a thing wouldn't matter at all.
But because they had stars, all the Star-bellied Sneetches
would brag, "We're the best kind of Sneetch on the beaches."

So that's what it's all about. :eek:

Well, here in Canada we're still waiting for that Great Gaythulhu, Purple of fashion design and homosexual orgies.

I'm particularly looking forward to those homosexual orgies. :p
You haven't yet acheived Gay Polygamy. Gaythulhu can only be brought into the world by the combined efforts of two Super Gay Unions. There is still time for you to save your soul! Repent! REPENT! Re- oh fuck it, I'm going to go get drunk.
Damn I wish I had a boyfriend :(
Have you considered chloroform? I hear it can work wonders.

why not push for a law demanding that all gays have the word "Gay" tattoed on their forehead?

I know it could pass muster in some places.

Nah, they should stick to historical precedence and require a Pink Triangle sewed onto their clothing.

Nah, they should stick to historical precedence and require a Pink Triangle sewed onto their clothing.

Bellies with stars are so much more attractive.

*alerting the thought police Baran-Duine is glad Fass feels fortunate to live where he lives*
*is glad that Baran-Duine is glad Fass feels fortunate to live where he lives*:D

why not push for a law demanding that all gays have the word "Gay" tattoed on their forehead?

I know it could pass muster in some places.

Migh as well pass a law requiring virgin "sacrifices" to be provided for me.

In for a penny, in for a pound :p

Have you considered chloroform? I hear it can work wonders.

There is GHB too, but I'd rather have a conscious, moving partner. Might as well buy one of those fancy rubber ass sex toys instead of drugging someone.

Texas passed a pro-hetero law? Surely not, no! Not Texas?!?

Texas passed a pro-hetero law? Surely not, no! Not Texas?!?
I wouldn't call that "pro-hetero" as much as "pro-religious fundie".

RE:Jesusland Hates Gays

I think if you sat down to look at this from the philosophical and social point of view that christians see this issue, then I am quite sure that your liberal diatribe would be seen by you and all else as self righteous justification. I don't mean this personally to anyone, but speak only toward the mindset by which this situation is approached by the non "Jesusland".

If out of the mouth comes the overflow of the heart, then when hatreful remarks are made the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the heart is in fact hateful. I can tell you that "Jesusland" does not hate gays.

Well, it's not a secret that people that use the term Jesusland as a term of derision actually hate Christians.

Speaking as an advocate of states' rights, I can state with the utmost confidence that both your porpositions would be illegal under the U.S. Constitution.
Since you are defending the concept of tyranny by majority, it is a fallacy to bring up the US Constitution because:

1. It is a document that guarantees individual rights, even if they are against the will of the majority.

2. Tyranny by majority can happen anywhere, not only the USA.

Hyperbole right now perhaps, but you can't deny that there's a percentage of Texans who voted Yes for Prop 2 who probably would support such a dehumanizing institution.
Yes, perhaps a miniscule minority. I support gay marriage and I think that it will go loke interracial marriage. There may be a flurry of bans, but they will all be overturned.

There is GHB too, but I'd rather have a conscious, moving partner.
Yes, but if they're moving then they can run away.
Might as well buy one of those fancy rubber ass sex toys instead of drugging someone.
Yes, but you don't want people to think that you are the sort of pervert who buys sex toys, do you?

Hyperbole right now perhaps, but you can't deny that there's a percentage of Texans who voted Yes for Prop 2 who probably would support such a dehumanizing institution.

That's a non sequitur that's completely unprovable.

Yes, perhaps a miniscule minority. I support gay marriage and I think that it will go loke interracial marriage. There may be a flurry of bans, but they will all be overturned.

Actually, no court can overturn a state Consitutional Amendment. In order for it to be overturned, the people themselves have to do it.

Yes, but if they're moving then they can run away.

Then there is always the thrill of the chase ;)

Yes, but you don't want people to think that you are the sort of pervert who buys sex toys, do you?
As opposed to the kind of pervert that drugs and rapes innocent straight boys? :p

Hmm, I suppose I'll have to think about it :D

As opposed to the kind of pervert that drugs and rapes innocent straight boys? :p

Hmm, I suppose I'll have to think about it :D
No one said you had to go after the innocent. You could be a new Anti-Hero for the world to look up to, the Fighting Fag, who deals out justice in the form of butt-rape! Where ever evil lurks in scummy corners and plots to prey upon the weak, the Fighting Fag is there!
You could even get a sidekick called the Boy Wonder If He's Like That Too, who would follow you, ready with a steady supply of condoms, and whose power would be making people feel really confused about whether he was simply following you for the justice or if he just enjoyed watching the gay sex.

No one said you had to go after the innocent. You could be a new Anti-Hero for the world to look up to, the Fighting Fag, who deals out justice in the form of butt-rape! Where ever evil lurks in scummy corners and plots to prey upon the weak, the Fighting Fag is there!
You could even get a sidekick called the Boy Wonder If He's Like That Too, who would follow you, ready with a steady supply of condoms, and whose power would be making people feel really confused about whether he was simply following you for the justice or if he just enjoyed watching the gay sex.

That's too much like the Ambiguously Gay Superheroes (or Batman and Robin).

That's a non sequitur that's completely unprovable.

Even when the local KKK was seen on media supporting Prop 2 as "White Values"?

Even when the local KKK was seen on media supporting Prop 2 as "White Values"?

I'm sure members of the KKK use laundry detergent to wash their sheets. Does that make everyone who uses laundry detergent a racist?

That's too much like the Ambiguously Gay Superheroes (or Batman and Robin).
Not at all. For one thing there is nothing at all ambiguous about the Fighting Fag, though I suppose that the Boy Wonder If He's Like That Too is laying it on a little thick.
I still stand by the powers of gay-rape as a crime prevention method though.
But now I think that the hijack should stop because Jesusland Hates Gays is an issue for our times that is very important to us, our children, our children's children and our children's parents.

At first I thought that Asschwitz might be a Nazi themed strip club somewhere, but it wasn't. You've let me down again Interweb!

Drinks (and pants) are half-off for sailors on Das Bootie Night.

Actually, no court can overturn a state Consitutional Amendment.

SCOTUS can.

Particularly if the amendment is in violation of the Bill of Rights.

SCOTUS can.

Particularly if the amendment is in violation of the Bill of Rights.

And since banning gay marriage doesn't violate the Bill of Rights, there is no case to be made.

The Federal Government has not legislated marriage. Yes we have DOMA but that is not legislating marriage. They tried with the FMA (Federal Marraige Amendment) but it failed.

This is proposterious! How can a group determine how another group lives? Especially when it wasnt a choice?

That does not matter at all. What does matter is that it's perfectly legal to ban gay marriage and nobody has their basic fundamental rights infringed upon. But to reply, the desire to ban gay marriage comes from a desire to preserve some semblance of "moral order".

Which is the imposing of one persons beliefs over another.

If I want all men to wear red turbans, because that is what my religion deems are morally correct, should I there fore have a right to hold the country to ransom and demand that a law is to be passed to enforce such a crazy notion?

Oh, and so-called moral order; maybe those who wish to ban gay marriage get their heterosexual community in order - namely the Hollywood and music industry side, with their record 5 month marriages, or marriage for the sake of making a name for ones self - hardly something I would deem 'protecting the moral order'.

What to stop the 'moral decay', then outlaw adultery and divorce.

It doesn't have to affect my marriage. What matters is the majority does not want it, and the banning of it infringes upon nobody's constitutional rights.

Which goes right back to what I said about the 'tyranny of the majority' - do you *really* think that policiticians, that you vote in, go by what is popular or by what they consider correct.

For me personally, the courts should stay OUT OF the writing of laws; if special interest groups wish to get a law change, they should work within the system, woo politicians just like anyone else.

77% of voters in Texas are in favor of Proposition 2- which defines marriage as "between a man and a woman" and forbids any other civil unions that can be construed as similar to marriage.

I'm waiting for Rick Perry to authorize construction of a homosexual internment camp within 10 years now.

It'll probably be called Asschwitz.
Yeah, that damn democratic process, giving people what they want! We should form a dictatorship instead, it is obviously a more effecient form of government which would no doubt perform its duties with the best intentions for The People.

I'm sure members of the KKK use laundry detergent to wash their sheets. Does that make everyone who uses laundry detergent a racist?

Do the KKK publicly endorse that laundry soap as supporting the supremacy of caucasians?

I'm sure members of the KKK use laundry detergent to wash their sheets. Does that make everyone who uses laundry detergent a racist?

Nah, only the ones who use bleach.

And since banning gay marriage doesn't violate the Bill of Rights, there is no case to be made.

You seem very sure of that. What makes you so sure?

You seem very sure of that. What makes you so sure?

Since the Federal government hasn't regulated marriage.

And since banning gay marriage doesn't violate the Bill of Rights, there is no case to be made.

The Federal Government has not legislated marriage. Yes we have DOMA but that is not legislating marriage. They tried with the FMA (Federal Marraige Amendment) but it failed.

Banning gay marriage violates the 14th Amendment.

DOMA is unconstitutional.

Since the Federal government hasn't regulated marriage.

What?

There is a constitutionally protected right to marriage recognized under federal law in multiple SCOTUS cases. Loving v. Virginia, for one.

Banning gay marriage violates the 14th Amendment.

In case you haven't noticed. Gay marriage isn't banned outright. Most of these amendments allow for civil unions but recognizes marriage as one man and one woman. It is only in a couple of states is this also banned.

DOMA is unconstitutional.

It was challenged and upheld. Don't know if it went to the 9th Circuit Court or if its making its way through the state courts.

What?

There is a constitutionally protected right to marriage recognized under federal law in multiple SCOTUS cases. Loving v. Virginia, for one.

The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT! I said NOTHING about the Judiciary which is independent OF the federal government.

The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT! I said NOTHING about the Judiciary which is independent OF the federal government.

Um.

1. The federal judiciary is one branch of the federal government.

2. Whether or not something is federally regulated has nothing to do with whether it is a federal right.

(BTW, in the other thread you referred to SCOTUS as part of the federal government just now.)

Um.

1. The federal judiciary is one branch of the federal government.

2. Whether or not something is federally regulated has nothing to do with whether it is a federal right.

(BTW, in the other thread you referred to SCOTUS as part of the federal government just now.)

No I didn't refer to it as part of the Federal Government in the other thread.

As to it being part of the Federal Government, it is independent. You and I both know it is independent. If you don't know its independent then I wouldn't want you to take my case in court.

That does not matter at all. What does matter is that it's perfectly legal to ban gay marriage and nobody has their basic fundamental rights infringed upon. But to reply, the desire to ban gay marriage comes from a desire to preserve some semblance of "moral order".

It doesn't have to affect my marriage. What matters is the majority does not want it, and the banning of it infringes upon nobody's constitutional rights.
... Except you forget freedom of religion. The government cannot a) establish a state religion (or adopt a specific religion's views as its own, thus adopting that religion) or b) discriminate against a religion.

So, if two Unitarian Universalist gays want to marry, and their church allows it, they can't? Because a Southern Baptist says so? (Isn't that infringement upon religion rights by the religious right?) And what if the tables were turned....?

Hoo boy, fire and brimstone on all of us! And not from hell!

In case you haven't noticed. Gay marriage isn't banned outright. Most of these amendments allow for civil unions but recognizes marriage as one man and one woman. It is only in a couple of states is this also banned.

Seperate but equal is not constitutional either.

The right to marry is a fundamental constitutional right. Period.

It was challenged and upheld. Don't know if it went to the 9th Circuit Court or if its making its way through the state courts.

It has also been challenged and ruled unconstitutional. It hasn't made its way to a US Court of Appeals, yet. (You do realize there are 13 Circuits, right?)

Seperate but equal is not constitutional either.

The right to marry is a fundamental constitutional right. Period.

Technically, I'll give it to you but in reality it isn't.

It has also been challenged and ruled unconstitutional. It hasn't made its way to a US Court of Appeals, yet. (You do realize there are 13 Circuits, right?)

Yes there are 13 courts. I haven't heard of a court yet that has ruled it unconstitutional. Doesn't mean it has. I do know that what I have heard was that it was upheld.

Technically, I'll give it to you but in reality it isn't.

WTF does that mean?

Yes there are 13 courts. I haven't heard of a court yet that has ruled it unconstitutional. Doesn't mean it has. I do know that what I have heard was that it was upheld.

There are 13 Circuits.

But anyway, DOMA has been declared unconstitutional by several state and federal courts. Others have found it constitutional. I agree with the former group.

In case you haven't noticed. Gay marriage isn't banned outright. Most of these amendments allow for civil unions but recognizes marriage as one man and one woman. It is only in a couple of states is this also banned.

Um, have you even bothered doing your homework on Proposition 2? Not only does it define marriage as "between one man and one woman," it outright forbids (read "BANS") any form of partnership that is similar to marriage (read "Civil Unions").

Then again I'm talking to a Bushevik so I suppose not.

:rolleyes:

WTF does that mean?

Your the lawyer. Its in english! Or would you prefer a different language?

There are 13 Circuits.

That is what I said dude.

But anyway, DOMA has been declared unconstitutional by several state and federal courts. Others have found it constitutional. I agree with the former group.

And I agree with the latter.

Um, have you even bothered doing your homework on Proposition 2? Not only does it define marriage as "between one man and one woman," it outright forbids (read "BANS") any form of partnership that is similar to marriage (read "Civil Unions").

Then again I'm talking to a Bushevik so I suppose not.

:rolleyes:

In that case, this should be removed. Homosexuals should have the right to civil unions.

And lay off the insults. It does nothing for your arguements.

Jesuslands hates gay

Well, gays hate Jesusland too anyway. :rolleyes:

Your the lawyer. Its in english! Or would you prefer a different language?

So, is there a fundamnetal righ to marry or not?

So, is there a fundamnetal righ to marry or not?

I already answered your question.

I already answered your question.

And your answer made no sense to me. Please try to explain it to me.

In that case, this should be removed. Homosexuals should have the right to civil unions.

Oh but wait, since the majority of Texans voted for it, according to your standards removing Prop 2 would be violating State Rights. What's your position now?

That does not matter at all. What does matter is that it's perfectly legal to ban gay marriage and nobody has their basic fundamental rights infringed upon. But to reply, the desire to ban gay marriage comes from a desire to preserve some semblance of "moral order".

Segregated schools were unconsitutional, and the Supreme Court correctly recognized it as such. Banning gay marriage, however, is not unconsitutional as there is no constitutional right to marry whomever you choose. Your analogy is flawed.

It doesn't have to affect my marriage. What matters is the majority does not want it, and the banning of it infringes upon nobody's constitutional rights.

Now there's a reasoned argument. Well said.

Now there's a reasoned argument. Well said.

Except the premise is flawed. There is a constitutional right to marry. In fact, SCOTUS has called it one of the most basic civil rights of mankind.

Like hell. A fundamental right (in the United States, at least) is the right to be equal under the law regardless of gender. If a male citizen can legally enter into a binding marital contract with a female citizen and reap civil benefits from this union, then the government of the United States cannot deny me (a female) the same right (to enter a legally equal marital contract with a female). Denial of gay marriage rights is unconstitutional gender discrimination.

By increasing extramarital sex, ensuring less stable home environments for children, and enforcing a devisive religious agenda?

No, but there is a constitutional right to equal treatment regardless of gender. Bans on gay marriage violate that right by granting each sex an exclusive right: men are giving the exclusive right to marry women, and women are given the exclusive right to marry men. It's no different than when miscegination laws were in place, and blacks were given the exclusive right to marry blacks and whites the right to marry whites. Those laws were struck down, and are now regarded as barbaric and stupid...the same will be true of gay marriage bans, in time.

Funny that the majority of Americans DO support allowing gay unions, and it does infringe on constitutional rights...but don't let a little thing like fact stand in the way of your opinion...

Also very good points. Refreshing to have a good and reasoned debate in General. Nice work.

Now there's a reasoned argument. Well said.

Except that the whole argument hinges on the premise that civil unions will be available as an alternative to marriage for homosexual couples. Proposition 2 defines marriage and bans civil unions as an option at the same time.

Oh but wait, since the majority of Texans voted for it, according to your standards removing Prop 2 would be violating State Rights. What's your position now?

The people may have voted for it, that doesn't mean I have to like it. See the difference?

Since they have outlawed Civil Unions it is a bad amendment but there is nothing I can do about it.

I still consider it a victory for State Rights.

And your answer made no sense to me. Please try to explain it to me.

If I have to explain it to you then your not much of a lawyer.

I'd rather not be a boy toy. I have feelings, you know.

Unlike you tough macho straight boys :D

But if I really had to be a boy toy, I'd at least choose to be a boy toy to a beautiful ephebe with a greek god's physique. Not some old beardy bald guy, however crafty he might be at interior decorating.:p

"Ephebe"! Now THERE's a word you don't hear every day.

It means "adolescent", doesn't it? As in "ephebophilia"?

If I have to explain it to you then your not much of a lawyer.

Fine. Explain it anyway.

If I have to explain it to you then your not much of a lawyer.

And you can't spell and are a hypocrite for laying on the insults to Cat-Tribe when you just ordered someone else to lay off insulting you. Which is it?

And you can't spell and are a hypocrite for laying on the insults to Cat-Tribe when you just ordered someone else to lay off insulting you. Which is it?

Him and I have done this gig before. I mean nothing by it.

As to my spelling, I haven't slept in a few days because of personal problems and I'm also trying to study for a make-up exam and it is also 1217 at night.

Him and I have done this gig before. I mean nothing by it.

Just answer the f*)@#ing question. Use little words I can understand.

Just answer the f*)@#ing question. Use little words I can understand.

No :D

Seems to me that a vast majority of the people up in arms about gay people getting married are so because of their religious inclinations. If within their religion something is prohibited, so be it, whether or not I agree. However, when they bring their qualms to the governmental level, especially a government not legally allowed to dabble in religious matters, so that all people must adhere to this prohibition, it imposes their religious belief on other people not of the same religion. As someone who follows no religion, I see this as oppressive and threatening.

If the only reason for adhering to a certain way of doing things is one's religious persuasion, then it needs to be kept within that religion. If Southern Baptists don't want same sex couples to wed, then they should prohibit it from their own ranks. If they stick their bible between people who do not share their beliefs, then that is forced assimilation.

And so, to all religious legislatures: Grow your garden in your own back yard. Spread your seeds in mine, I'll pee in yours.

This is not a question of majority rule, and should not be excused as a demonstration of majority rule.

It is state-sanctioned subjugation of a class of people, and that is inherently immoral, and should be opposed through any effective means. If those contradict majority rule - like utilizing the court system, for instance - I do not care. Human rights are not things that can be dismissed by a majority vote. To restrict rights simply because of who a person loves is a sinful perversion and a blatant violation of essential moral values.

This is not a question of majority rule, and should not be excused as a demonstration of majority rule.

It is state-sanctioned subjugation of a class of people, and that is inherently immoral, and should be opposed through any effective means. If those contradict majority rule - like utilizing the court system, for instance - I do not care. Human rights are not things that can be dismissed by a majority vote. To restrict rights simply because of who a person loves is a sinful perversion and a blatant violation of essential moral values.

And the fact is, I think that should be at the top of the list is why there is are a whole boot load of special privilages for married couples. It isn't the roll of the state/government to play social engineer in a Chaichesku way to manipulate the populas.

Get the government out of peoples lives and stop favouring one couples arrangement over another; remember, the greatest minority is the individual.

Bloody good Marriage should be between a Man and his Woman or between Animals.

Bloody good Marriage should be between a Man and his Woman or between Animals.

Only panthers should be allowed to marry, only they are worthy enough.