First earthquake that happens, the religious nutcases (Hagee, etc.) will be falling all over themselves - neglecting the destruction of swaths of Oklahomo.

Damnit, Danforth! You beat me by a matter of minutes.

Whoo Hoo...Me and my husband are Finally Legally Married!!! Whooo Hooooo! Uh...naysayers...Told You So!

"They said 'Californy is the place you oughtta be!' so they packed up all their stools and they moved to Beverly..."

Sorry, it had to be done.

California where the Constitution still means something. Freedom means something in this State, thats why we want you all to come here an see what you are missing, don't stay but come to visit. This is an open invitation to everyone except those RACIST fuck in TEXAS, you know who you are!!!!

"I am so happy, I will go to California right now and marry my gay lover." -- Republican Senator Larry Craig

Shouldn't this be in 54 pt. font at the top of the front page?

Wake up RCade, it's past noon.

I could care less whether people are married or not. In fact, I think we should get to legal contracts (for when you split up) and only get married if you want to, but the legal contract not the "marriage" are what have standing.

That being said, when the people vote on something like this and then the court over-rules their decision, is it any wonder why people are concerned about who we are putting into the courts?

Shouldn't this be in 54 pt. font at the top of the front page?

Wake up RCade, it's past noon.

Posted by ness_gadol


No, it's not as big as the New Kids on the Block getting back together, lol!

PEOPLE CANNOT VOTE ON DENYING CIVIL RIGHTS FROM OTHER PEOPLE - THAT IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF MOB RULE.

AND IF YOU DIDN'T NOTICE - THE CONSTITUTION PREVENTS THAT!

MORON.

"That being said, when the people vote on something like this and then the court over-rules their decision, is it any wonder why people are concerned about who we are putting into the courts?"

From what I heard on TV the court said marriage is a NATURAL RIGHT, like thinking, or freedom of speech, or the right to own a gun.

How about we put free speech or gun ownership or privacy to a vote? No, NATURAL RIGHTS are not negotiable. The faux conservatives who bitch about activist courts don't really understand the Constitution and the concept of NATURAL RIGHTS.

(Here comes B_Boob to explain to us how rights come from govt, lol!)

"That being said, when the people vote on something like this and then the court over-rules their decision, is it any wonder why people are concerned about who we are putting into the courts?"

Yes, I'm sure you're nostalgic for that whole "separate but equal" thing.

Right on DUMPLING1! The United States is a Republica, not a Democracy. No tyranny of the majority here.

That being said, when the people vote on something like this and then the court over-rules their decision, is it any wonder why people are concerned about who we are putting into the courts?




Posted by sawdust


That shows a lack of understanding of a fundamental principle of the American system. Courts have a duty to protect the rights of minorities AGAINST the will of the majority sometimes. The majority doesn't always rule - that's what "inalienable rights" means, and is an essential part of the guarantee of freedom for ALL, and not just the majority.

I hope this means all 'partnership' benefits go away for the state employees, etc. Now, they have to get married like the rest of us to get the financial benefits like healthcare, etc. Now that the roadblock is removed for gay marriage, straights should be forced to marry or lose the benefits as well.

Yay, California. I know this is going to hurt the institution of straight marriage all over the state and send faithful men into the arms of syphilitic hookers, but gay couples should have as much legal right to marry as Pamela Anderson.

DoubtingThomas will be along soon to remind us that he's not gay.

Good Lord. This story's Google ad is seriously gay.

And there you have the difference between California and Texas in a nutshell.

California is determined to build a fast lane for humans to love and cherish each other whereas Texas is more intent on building a fast lane to get humans (mostly blacks) to the death chamber...

poor Texans... I feel so bad for them.. they have to live in Texas!

Careful there with them guns Texans... don't shoot yerself in the back while you are running running away from them scary gays!

(ain't I a stinker?)

Lib judges make their own laws.

Who cares -- especially enough to headline the story?!

That being said, when the people vote on something like this and then the court over-rules their decision, is it any wonder why people are concerned about who we are putting into the courts?


If you want to live in a society that actively discriminates against homosexuals, I hear that Iran is nice and warm.

Those 4 judges (like Dumperling) are going to burn in hell! The lord giveth and the lord taketh away!

May you be struck down by our almighty savior you activist judges! You are a pox on our noble and just society!

The apocolypse is upon us.

That shows a lack of understanding of a fundamental principle of the American system.

That has never stopped the right from opening their collective mouths before.

I lived out there when that friggin' Prop 22 was on the ballot. The born-agains are gonna leave the state.

The born-agains are gonna leave the state.


And the downside to that is........?

Good for Cali! 2 down, 48 to go.

"The born-agains are gonna leave the state."

Please don't send them to Florida.

I always knew California would into the stink hole.
Just because it is legal doesn't mean its right. Next they will be going for adoption. It was a capitol offense to be gay when the constitution was written...they must have just assumed it was common sense to not allow moral degradation.

Hey Ewendel, do they let you out of the house without your helmet?

Oh shut up.

(sorry, that was to Ewing-dale)

"Hey Ewendel, do they let you out of the house without your helmet?"

Posted by evashogouki

Are you jealous?

"I always knew California would into the stink hole."

A verb, please.

"Just because it is legal doesn't mean its right. Next they will be going for adoption."

Adoption? OH NO!!!!

"It was a capitol offense to be gay when the constitution was written...they must have just assumed it was common sense to not allow moral degradation."

Hrmmm... don't remember hearing about that law. Perhaps you're making this up?


My advice. Go to school, learn proper english, keep your own house in order and quit sticking your nose in other people's business.

Thank You California State Supreme Court. The loons who sued in San Francisco just gave the GOP a great campaign issue for November. " God, Gays, and Guns". Obama will have to put up or shut up on this one.

I love wedge issues.

It was a capitol offense to be gay when the constitution was written...they must have just assumed it was common sense to not allow moral degradation."

Hrmmm... don't remember hearing about that law. Perhaps you're making this up?


I think the retard was confusing sodomy laws with laws against homosexuality.

I will never be able to understand how a man cannot like breasts. I mean really. Can someone explain that to me? Maybe it has to do with breastfeeding and some weird association with their mother?

"I will never be able to understand how a man cannot like breasts. I mean really. Can someone explain that to me?"

Posted by ELCIDCE90

You're in luck; some men DO have breasts.

I cannot understand it either, but it is none of my business.

I love wedgies.

Posted by timbci

If homosexuality was detectable during pregnancy, how would you feel towards someone aborting that child for this reason alone?

"The born-agains are gonna leave the state."

I don't know about that, considering many of them are closet homos, they might get out of the closet and get married and settle down.

Ahhhh Yes...one more notch in the belt for pro-sodomites.

Ain't America great? Soon we will be legitimizing your particular brand of deviancy too! You're oppressed...your civil rights have been attacked...you're a victim in need of sympathy and court approval.

Yes, I can't wait to see when America will be placing the stamp of approval on pedophilia and beastiality too.

Aint it grand living in this Carnival called America? Screw whatever you want and we will bless and call it good!

"...when the people vote on something like this and then the court over-rules their decision, is it any wonder why people are concerned about who we are putting into the courts?"

What Sawdust must realize is that there are some things over which voters have no control, some things over which courts, legislatures and dictators have no control. In theory, anyway. They're personal things: Whom I marry, what substances I ingest, whether I have a vasectomy or carry a pregnancy to term. Good for the court ... herm

Madonna songs for everybody!

"Yes, I can't wait to see when America will be placing the stamp of approval on pedophilia and beastiality too."

Posted by DoubtingThomas

For reasons unknown...

"The born-agains are gonna leave the state."

From your lips, Eva, to Hagee's ears. herm

I don't think the government should recognize marriage at all. Separation of church and state.

If homosexuality was detectable during pregnancy, how would you feel towards someone aborting that child for this reason alone?

Geez. Talk about a trick question for the lefties!

It's funny how the same type of people make the points through out the ages. They had the points when it came to interracial marriage or women's and blacks right to vote. Conservative bigotry has not changed in 200 years.

This comment won't make me popular on here but I don't care.

The initiative the majority of Californians voted in ("Marriage is between a man and a woman") and for which I too voted only got overturned by the Supreme Court because gay marriage was banned by an initiative measure and the Supreme Court said in order not to be overturned it has to be enshrined in the California Constitution.

In November a ban against gay marriages will be on the ballot to have a ban on gay marriage included in the California Constitution and the Supreme Court won't be able to overturn it if it gets voted it -- and it will be voted in too. Most Californians do not believe in gay marriage.

I voted against gay marriage the first time it was put on the California ballot and I will vote to have gay marriage banned by including it in the California Constitution and so will most Californians. We are not as liberal out here as most of you think.

Since blogging on here and hearing different points of view I have become more "liberal" -- or let's say more "understanding" -- about issues more so than before. I didn't even agree with civil unions for gays before but I now agree gay people should be able to have a civil union if they want it. But leave the Sacrament of Marriage alone.

What's next -- multiple wives, multiple husbands, three men and five women can have a marriage, a man and his penquin, men and very young girls? We all know once the sanctity of marriage is overruled everybody will want to change the marriage structure into some absurd form to suit their own purpose and the ACLU will make sure they get it.

If a gay couple has a Will, a health directive, joint tenancies for their home and financial accounts, a Trust, etc. then there is nothing they can't have that married people have except, I guess. filing as a married couple on the IRS tax forms. I don't know all about the tax end of it. But Californians will never let gay marriage stand.

I do, however, believe in a responsible gay couple being allowed to adopt a child as I believe a loving home is better for a child than any foster home would ever be.

AP Special Bulletin:

.......PRESCOTT BUSH MARRIES HITLER IN CALIFORNIA.......

Reclusive millionaire Prescott Bush, grandfather of President George Bush, held a small press conference to announce that he will wed long-time gay lover Adolf Hitler. "Finally, we proud Republicans can come out of the closet" said jolly old Prescott. When his lover was asked if he was related to Germany's ex-dictator, Mr. Hitler said that the name, face, accent, and date of birth, were just "a funny coincidence".

Reporting: Jeff Gannon.

"I think the retard was confusing sodomy laws with laws against homosexuality."

No, he said it was a "capitol offense"--(i figure he meant capital offense) which is a crime punishable by death. There may have been bigots and whatnot who killed gays, but it wasn't sanctioned by the state, as far as i know.

"But leave the Sacrament of Marriage alone."

Chris churches perform Sacrraments, governments allow contracts. In this case marriage contracts not the Sacrament of Marriage.

If homosexuality was detectable during pregnancy, how would you feel towards someone aborting that child for this reason alone?

Abort them??? Shoot, I'd just bypass grade school for them and send them straight to Flight Attendant school, or Nursing School...or maybe just raise them in a Hair Salon where they could be a play toy to Benny and Lonnie!

Also Chris, if they did legalize civil unions with the same legal rights as marriage I'd be fine with that. What difference what we call it.

"If a gay couple has a Will, a health directive, joint tenancies for their home and financial accounts, a Trust, etc. then there is nothing they can't have that married people have except, I guess. filing as a married couple on the IRS tax forms. I don't know all about the tax end of it."


The tax end of it is the most important. Gift taxes make a same-sex household IMPOSSIBLE.

"If homosexuality was detectable during pregnancy, how would you feel towards someone aborting that child for this reason alone?"

Herm would be stumbling over himself, trying to decide whether to escort the fetus to the abortion clinic or down the aisle.

Gay marriage and abortion... two issues that lately always dominate politics, but I won't ever have either...

so my thoughts on this story are... who gives a shit?

Dear Guest:

We invite you to join us in witnessing the union in marriage of Bennie Bendover and Tommy Tirdknocker.

Come join us downtown as we celebrate together at the First Church of Sodom and Gemorrah. Bennie and Tommy ask all of you to come in your favorite leather suits. Strap-ons will be allowed at the reception following. Join us in the hot tub!

Butt kisses to all!

Bennie and Tommy

"so my thoughts on this story are... who gives a shit?"

Those who actually care about civil rights finally being granted to those who deserve it.


Nah, you're right, we should only care about ourselves. That's what this country needs, more selfishness.

DoubtingThomas, if only you had the balls to say something like that to someone IN PERSON instead of hiding behind a computer.

You're absolutely right _B_ our country is so well off right now that our focus absolutely should be on one man being able to make an honest woman out of his boyfriend.

Nothing else going on.

Next in line.... Polygamists and beastiality.... Don't laugh, really who can deny their CIVIL RIGHTS??? No wait, their HUMAN RIGHTS??

"We invite you to join us in witnessing the union in marriage of Bennie Bendover and Tommy Tirdknocker.

Posted by DoubtingThomas

So that's your real name...

Conservative bigotry has not changed in 200 years.

Posted by Species8472


And it won't change for another 200 years as long as you have shitheads like Falwell, Robertson and Hagee dictating their official positions.

Some great quotes for the archivers:

"Butt kisses to all!"
Posted by DoubtingThomas at 2008-05-15 02:48 PM


"Yes, I can't wait to see when America will be placing the stamp of approval on pedophilia and beastiality too.
Posted by DoubtingThomas at 2008-05-15 02:32 PM



Courtesy of DoubtingTommyTirdknocker.

That's what this country needs, more selfishness.

Posted by __b__ at 2008-05-15 02:49 PM


Let's see who is selfish??? On one side you have those who want their own status and seperate rights. The other by an overwhemlming majority say no. Gays, lesbians, transgenders and bi-sexuals. Notice the last two on the list? Does anyone think they should be in the same category as the true gay and lesbians????

Party going on right now over at NAMBLA.....

Next up??? 10 year old's Civil Right to be an adult.

Next up??? 10 year old's Civil Right to be an adult.

Posted by CoCoBeware


Then you won't face prosecution.

Next up??? 10 year old's Civil Right to be an adult.

Posted by CoCoBeware

Don't get your hopes up.

I will never be able to understand how a man cannot like breasts. I mean really.Maybe it has to do with breastfeeding and some weird association with their mother? -ELCID

Have you considered that LIKING breasts may also have something to do with breastfeeding and some weird association with your mother?

If bigotry was detectable during pregnancy, how would you feel towards someone aborting that child for this reason alone?

"Next in line.... Polygamists and beastiality."

Posted by CocoChannel

Hmmm. No on bestiality since one of the parties is not able to give consent or enter into a contract. Yes on polygamy as long as no one is coerced, is of legal age, and enters into the agreement freely - IMO.

You cannot Deny me my rights. Thanks for opening the Legal door for me and the rest of the NAMBLA crew.

"Debauchery! Debauchery! Raaaawk!"

DoubtingThomas TM

If bigotry was detectable during pregnancy, how would you feel towards someone aborting that child for this reason alone?

Posted by ZOT at 2008-05-15 03:02 PM | Reply


I'd hate it! Who would I have married? Who would have been my pastor? How would I have written a book without my own bigotry?
Sincerely,
Hussein Obama

I find it astonishing that people still associate pedophila and bestiality (hell, why not add mother-raping and father-killing) with being gay. How do you figure?? Oh, wait, you don't. Never mind.

"You're absolutely right _B_ our country is so well off right now that our focus absolutely should be on one man being able to make an honest woman out of his boyfriend."

I can't speak as to the urgency of this particular court case--but this case made its way through the docket and here we are. Just because this issue isn't of the highest importance for you doesn't mean the Cali Sup. Ct. shouldn't rule on the matter. The courts are filled with countless actions that mean a lot for the individual parties involved but very little to the public at large.

That being said, i believe civil rights are of paramount interest to the public--especially when we're using civil rights of others as justification for bombing the crap out of other countries.


"Let's see who is selfish??? On one side you have those who want their own status and seperate rights. The other by an overwhemlming majority say no. Gays, lesbians, transgenders and bi-sexuals. Notice the last two on the list? Does anyone think they should be in the same category as the true gay and lesbians????"

It is selfish to only care about things that impact yourself--which was the reasoning for Rob not caring. That is selfish, pure and simple. There is nothing wrong with fighting for your rights and the right of other similarly situated individuals. You're assuming these people ONLY care about themselves. I'm willing to bet these people care about EVERYONE affected by this country treating gays like second class citizens. Rob on the other hand, made it clear that he doesn't care because it doesn't affect him. That, as i said above, is selfish.

Have you considered that LIKING breasts may also have something to do with breastfeeding and some weird association with your mother?

Posted by sitdown at 2008-05-15 03:01 PM | Reply


My love of breasts has everything to do with his mother!

Dear Guest:

As follow up to our wedding invitation, Bennie and Tommy ask each of you to bring a fun gift to the reception following the wedding debauchery.

Some of the fun games we will be playing: Naked Twister, Guess Who Farted (hot tub game...yeah!), Pin The Sphincter on the Butt Pirate, and many many more flesh games.

Won't you come have fun with us down at the Y ? Bring all your boy toy friends along and we'll break in this marriage the right way!

Your loving Hershey Highway friends,

Bennie and Tommy

Party going on right now over at NAMBLA.....

Next up??? 10 year old's Civil Right to be an adult.

Posted by CoCoBeware at 2008-05-15 02:56 PM

how sad for you that you would equate the equal rights of two loving souls of legal age to that of child molesters. Exactly what are you trying to achieve? Perhaps you need to cut down on the faux news channel a bit and tune into reality?

Stick to the "Debauchery Raaaawwwk" there, Timmy -er- I mean Tommy.

"You cannot Deny me my rights. Thanks for opening the Legal door for me and the rest of the NAMBLA crew."

Posted by CoCoBeware

Should've stayed in the closet.

Your loving Hershey Highway friends,

Bennie and Tommy


Posted by DoubtingThomas at 2008-05-15 03:08 PM


"Debauchery! Debauchery! Raaaawk!"

DoubtingThomas (TM)

Posted by ZOT

We appreciate the wedding invite, DoubtingTommyTirdknocker, but I'm going to have to respectfully decline.

We all know once the sanctity of marriage is overruled...

In a sense I do agree; though, the "sanctity of marriage" has nothing to do with a court ruling, it has to do with attitudes towards marriage.

I believe marriage is a very important, fundamental part of our society (that's why I support gay marriage). But I think the deterioration of it as an institution has a heck of a lot to do with the normalization of divorce. People like John McCain, Rudy Guilliani, Newt Gingrich, and many others have done more damage to the sanctity of marriage than any other factor. Does anyone really think these guys value the institution of marriage or think their divorces had anything to do with gay marriage? With such prominent people getting divorces (and committing adultery), not only do they not value the sanctity of their own marriages, they help foster the impression that marriage and adultery is a normal part of adulthood.

It drives me crazy when I hear the "pro-marriage" crowd discuss how fundamental heterosexual marriage is to our society, yet completely focus on gay marriage, and totally ignore divorce (the number one cause of marriages ending). The only thing worse is hearing a divorce (or adulterer) give marital advice or discussing the "sanctity of marriage".

Oh, I forgot to add, congrats on your marriage to Bennie!

CalifChris, this is quite the statement you made in your post
....
I didn't even agree with civil unions for gays before but I now agree gay people should be able to have a civil union if they want it. But leave the Sacrament of Marriage alone.
....

I believe I have heard this argument before. It used to be called Separate But Equal. I am sure all the homosexuals in California are thrilled that you are willing to have them use their very own drinking fountains and bathrooms.

As far as the Sacrament of Marriage goes, I find it interesting that the Religious Right focuses so heavily on banning Gay Marriage. Last time I checked, while being a homosexual is not in any way condoned in the bible, it didn't make the top Ten laws that God gave to man (if you believe such things). If it was such an abomination unto God, don't you think He might have mentioned it there? He did, however, mention adultery. Why don't they propose a constitutional amendment banning that?

Chris churches perform Sacrraments, governments allow contracts. In this case marriage contracts not the Sacrament of Marriage.

Posted by danni at 2008-05-15 02:40 PM | Reply

I agree with that reasoning. I think government ought to get completely out of the "marriage" business. Consenting adults (including gays and polygamists, in my opinion) ought to be able to enter into civil unions.

"We are not as liberal out here as most of you think."
--CALIFCHRIS

He pretends we all didn't see the bubble bath post...

The Judges on the California Supreme Court is dominated by Republician appointees, just how do you think the Right Wing Religious zealots will spin this decision.

Listen hear you Right Wing Hacks, the Court said that California law was un-constitutional, It never said that you had to marry a Gay person, so don't take leave of your senses.

Now all you Right Wings Hacks can go back to the public toilets an await your Gay sexual experience, even though you condemn it you know you love it, come on "101CHAIRBOURNE", leave the blog go an meet your main man well be here when you get back......

I now pronounce you man and manhole......

I didn't even agree with civil unions for gays before but I now agree gay people should be able to have a civil union if they want it. But leave the Sacrament of Marriage alone.

What about just replacing marriage with civil unions for both gays and straights? If a couple wants a religious marriage, they can get their civil union at the courthouse and then can go to their church which can perform whatever ceremony they want. If a couple wants a secular civil union they can go to the courthouse and get one.

This is pretty much how it's done already... When I got married, we went to the County Clerk's office and filled out the paperwork (there was no mention of anything religious it). We then had the ceremony at our church a few weeks later.

[God] did, however, mention adultery. Why don't they propose a constitutional amendment banning that?

Posted by IrishInUSA at 2008-05-15 03:14 PM | Reply

If the Bible is a point of reference, God doesn't like gluttons much either. Have you ever noticed how many vociferously anti-gay ministers (a la Hagee, Falwell, etc.) are verrrrry fat.

How many anti-gluttony sermons have you heard from T.V. preachers lately?

Why don't we amend the Constitution to require the death penalty for lardasses?

If it was such an abomination unto God, don't you think He might have mentioned it there? He did, however, mention adultery. Why don't they propose a constitutional amendment banning that?

I've often wondered the same thing. You'd think fundamentalists would be all for an amendment banning adultery.

I've often wondered the same thing. You'd think fundamentalists would be all for an amendment banning adultery.

Posted by katieberry at 2008-05-15 03:24 PM | Reply

What about an amendment banning divorce? How popular do you think that would be?

Hell, half of the Bible-belt is divorced.

The sad truth is gays and polygamists can't "destroy" marriage anymore than Christians already have. Give me a break.

(I'm a Christian by the way.)

First we destroy Califonia's Marriages, then we turn all the boys gay and the young girls lesbians....ahahahahahaha the gay agenda is destroying America....hahahahahahaha....y
ou can't stop us.....God can't stop us.....hurricanes, earthquakes, tornados.....we're still debauching......ahahahahaha

I didn't even agree with civil unions for gays before but I now agree gay people should be able to have a civil union if they want it. But leave the Sacrament of Marriage alone.

I'd be happy to see the government get out of marriage entirely, and just have uniform treatment under the law of civil unions and all other romantic partnerships between consenting adults.

But if the "sacrament of marriage" is something that secular institutions like the government must honor, why are gay couples the only ones who get left out?

Sacraments are something for churches to decide, not government.

Sacraments are something for churches to decide, not government.

Posted by rcade at 2008-05-15 03:30 PM

What is stopping the churches from performing the marriages? Could it be the parishoners? How is that different from the voters will regarding State law???

how sad for you that you would equate the equal rights of two loving souls of legal age to that of child molesters. Exactly what are you trying to achieve? Perhaps you need to cut down on the faux news channel a bit and tune into reality


Because Human Rights are Human Rights. The door is open now. Marriage is NOT just about a man an a woman. Open your mind.

Now now Katie...that just strikes a little bit too close to home for many of the fundamentalists. They love telling people how to live their lives, however, watch what happens when you start telling them they can't do things they quite possibly would do. They will start quoting the Bill of Right verbatim (with an abridged version of the first ammendment to be sure)!

"Open your mind."

Posted by CoCoBeware

And your butt.

Sincerely,
CoCoStuffer

CoCoBeware is trying for the award for fucking dumbest post of the day. Let's wish her luck!

"Open your mind."

On second thought, Coke, umm...keep yours shut.

Please.

Why don't we amend the Constitution to require the death penalty for lardasses?


Posted by anton


Denny Hasturd would be the first one put to death.

Most interesting how the gay marriage opponents here seem to focus almost exclusively on male gay marriage and the anal sex thing, but lesbians are hardly discussed and seemingly get a pass.

Hmmmmm...

Allowing same sex marriage is just another attempt by the Right Wing religious nuts to end Gay sex in America!!!

What is stopping the churches from performing the marriages? Could it be the parishoners? How is that different from the voters will regarding State law???


Because a government is required to govern under the Constitution.

It is sad to see apologists arguing on behalf of discrimination solely because the mob wants to discriminate.

"It is sad to see apologists arguing on behalf of discrimination solely because the mob wants to discriminate."

Yes if they had their way we would still be in the 1960s when half the states banned interracial marriages.

califchris:

You belong in some Third World country with a nice dictator, not America.

The whole fucking idea behind America is that we do not subject peoples' rights to political process. They are inalienable, which means that we consider them something that belong to everyone, automatically - no votes, referendums, court cases, or other bullshit.

I promise you, if someone took it into their giddy gay head to abrogate your rights by means of a popular vote, you'd quickly be talking out the other side of your ignorant, truthiness-laden, overprivileged mouth.

This is indeed a sad day for our country when the Supreme Court of California overrules the stated will of the people.

Anyone who equates legitimizing homosexual marriage with the rights of blacks, women and whatnot is either a homosexual of a pathetically open-minded friggin' liberal moron. Overturning the most basic of laws that a society needs to function is the surest route to moral decay of a society and the eventual decline of that said society. If the people of California do not approve the Constitutional measure afforded to them in November to negate this ruling our own nations internal terrorists (the PC) have won.

I live in California.... This SUCKS... Pandering to everyone....... What's next, providing schools, medical care, housing, welfare to illegals at taxpayer expense? Wait, we already do that. No wonder the state is fucking broke. If the weather wasn't so fucking good I would move.

Heating bills will be a bitch in the near future.

I am so glad that rosie and the rest of her fucking gay nazi friends can now get married. Beware of what you wish for.

Get out of my state old man.

You'd think fundamentalists would be all for an amendment banning adultery.

Posted by katieberry



Yeah, right!!! They are usually the worst adulterers, and many times they cheat on their wives with handsome young men!

This is indeed a sad day for our country when the Supreme Court of California overrules the stated will of the people.



What if the will of the people was that anyone with over $10 million in assets could be killed and have their assets redistributed to the masses?

What if the will of the people was that anyone that did not have blue eyes could not vote?

What if the will of the people was that men could not own property?

Lets take the gloves off this argument, shall we? This is the issue.

The democrats want Gay marriage legal, so that in schools that can teach your kids how to fuck each other up the ass properly, and that a gay person is equal 100% to a straight person in raising kids.

So, all you democrats, why don't you come out and say it.

You want it publicly taught how to fuck people up the ass.

I seriously, hope you fucking democrats can handle what you want so bad. I hope your kids grow up and you catch them taking it up the ass in your own beds. IF your own kids get aids, because of your political agenda, you have nobody to blame but yourselves.

you sew what you reap.

Kuma

Kuma, Have you always been a complete fucking retard or is this a new development?

"This is indeed a sad day for our country when the Supreme Court of California overrules the stated will of the people.

Posted by Gimme_a_Scotch"

PS: That Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, 19th Amendment, and Emancipation Proclamation really sucked too.

Love, Scotchie

"This is the issue."

Yer stupidity is appalling.

You have absolutely no concept of "the issue".

"you sew what you reap.

Kuma"

I think it would have to be either "you sew what you rip", or "you sow what you reap", Kumquat.

I notice that there is a correlation between homophobia and stupidity. Therefore homophobia is probably an inheritable trait.

This is a very big win for the Democrats...
I wonder if they will flood to the "Meet The Depressed" this sunday to express their victory.
Wow...Democrats are really getting things done..
Congratulation democrats...little did you think this is going to be played everywhere on the news and will send those undecided evangelical right back to McCain..
Democraps are stupid...

The democrats want Gay marriage legal, so that in schools that can teach your kids how to fuck each other up the ass properly, and that a gay person is equal 100% to a straight person in raising kids.

So, all you democrats, why don't you come out and say it.

You want it publicly taught how to fuck people up the ass.


Kuma

With everything that's been going on in congress lately, I would think that this is what the republicans want.

The democrats want Gay marriage legal, so that in schools that can teach your kids how to fuck each other up the ass properly, and that a gay person is equal 100% to a straight person in raising kids.

So, all you democrats, why don't you come out and say it.

You want it publicly taught how to fuck people up the ass.


Kuma

With everything that's been going on in congress lately, I would think that this is what the republicans want.

Gives a whole new meaning to the term cock ring!

sorry about the double!!

"So, all you democrats, why don't you come out and say it.

You want it publicly taught how to fuck people up the ass."

Kuma:

Only if they insist upon voting to restrict gays' rights. In that case, I think they should be fucked up the ass as voter education. I do not want anyone voting without adequate knowledge of the issues.

May all your kids grow up to be gay, and fuck many other men up the ass. Thats what you wall want right?

I mean 2 men parents is the same as man and a woman right?

Shall you educate your own kids on gay sex, or should NAMBLA?

Which one?

You point out my bad grammer as if that takes anything away from the argument.

your the fucking morons. Me and you are at war. We will never agree, I will never go along with any democrats ever, and youll have to kill me and 10's of millions of other people like me to impose your bullshit on me/us.

Kuma

With everything that's been going on in congress lately, I would think that this is what the republicans want.

Posted by geezer1 at 2008-05-15 04:25 PM | Reply

On the heels of this big coup in California, I'm sure the Republicans in Congress will push forward with their much desired "Free Anonymous Hummers in Public Toilets" Amendment to the U.S. Constiution.

"The tax end of it is the most important. Gift taxes make a same-sex household IMPOSSIBLE."


This is a really interesting point. Has the Federal Gov't gone after same-sex couples who failed to report "gifts" from their significant other? B? Taxman? Danforth?

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT RULING:

"Send out your men, so that we might marry them!"



SODOM and GOMORRAH RULING:

"Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we might know them."



Ahhh yessss! Ain't America Grand?

Me and you are at war.

Cool. Sledgehammers at 10 paces.

And I predict that dozens and dozens will be rushing to the altar.

Call it . . . 300 people. Tops.

However, by overturning the law that defined marriage as between 'A' man and 'A' woman, they've thrown the door open to plural marriage and polygamy. And there are a LOT of people who would be signing up for that.

your the fucking morons.

Is this guy for real?

"Me and you are at war. We will never agree, I will never go along with any democrats ever, and youll have to kill me and 10's of millions of other people like me to impose your bullshit on me/us.

Kuma"

What a frickin' DRAMA Queen!

And there are a LOT of people who would be signing up for that.

Oh yeah? Name some.

"You point out my bad grammer as if that takes anything away from the argument."

You don't have an argument, shit-fer-brains.

DoubtingThomas, what are you, like fifteen years old? You sound like you have a high school level of paranoia about sexuality.

and youll have to kill me and 10's of millions of other people like me to impose your bullshit on me/us.

Or we can just wait. I mean, it can't take that long to get peritonitis when you eat so much shit on a daily basis.

You sound like you have a high school level of paranoia about sexuality.

He's just still a little geeked out from the time his dad taught him where to hide the salami.

Kuma....

So if your girlfriend or wife told you that you could "play her back nine" you would turn her down? No? Oh right, because you aren't gay it is different.

The sheer stupidity of your argument is eclipsed only by your colossal ignorance.

You are exactly right about one thing. Most democrats (myself included) absolutely believe that two homosexual people can raise kids as well as two "straight parents." No argument there at all.

"Hmmm. No on bestiality since one of the parties is not able to give consent or enter into a contract." - SanAntonioRogue

What is your stand on abortion then? Adoption of an infant, or any other act where an individual is unable to give consent?

" think it would have to be either "you sew what you rip", or "you sow what you reap", Kumquat.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue"

Either way, it's putting the cart before the horse. You reap what you sow. Sheesh!

DoubtingThomas, what are you, like fifteen years old?

Posted by dibblda at 2008-05-15 04:32 PM | Reply |


Yeah, like totally. Like fer sure.

What a douche.

Because Human Rights are Human Rights. The door is open now. Marriage is NOT just about a man an a woman. Open your mind.

Posted by CoCoBeware

How do you feel about birth as a Human Right?

Come to America, where we call evil good and good evil. Come childern of the world. Bring to us your filth and scum. Bring all manner of vile behavior and disgusting display. Bring to us your drag queens and effetes. Display them on our streets. We will celebrate and honor you on our news shows and in our parks. Come to us and we will bless all of your miscreant passions and bottom sucking rot.

We are America! There is nothing too disgusting for us. Yes, come and share in our decay!


Celebrating Diversity!

"Congratulation democrats...little did you think this is going to be played everywhere on the news and will send those undecided evangelical right back to McCain..
Democraps are stupid...

Posted by cmsa1r at 2008-05-15 04:24 PM"

I didn't know you were a Dem, cmsa1r, but you sure are stupid. There aren't any undecided evangelical rightwingers who were going to vote for Obama. Moreover, this was a decision by the California Supreme Court interpreting the California Constitution, not the result of Democratic legislation.

"DoubtingThomas, what are you, like fifteen years old?

Posted by dibblda at 2008-05-15 04:32 PM | Reply |


Yeah, like totally. Like fer sure.

What a douche.

Posted by 101Chairborne"

Ummm, either AirHorn IS DT, or he's got the DT's.


RAWWWWWWK ON,DUDE!

What is your stand on abortion then? Adoption of an infant, or any other act where an individual is unable to give consent?

Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2008-05-15 04:37 PM | Reply

There is only one person involved in abortion--therefore only one person makes the decision.

Adoption of infants is an apple and oranges comparison. Fucking and marriage is not involved in infant adoption.


What other acts are you talking about?

Doubting Thomas is sounding suspiciously like Larry 'wide stance' Craig. He knows more about homosexuality 'ram'ifications than anyone i've ever heard.

"Well, duh. Lesbians are HOT!"

Posted by Dumb_as_Rocks

Yeah, some are. But I seen me some Butches... Eeeek!

"I mean 2 men parents is the same as man and a woman right?"

Posted by Kuma

How about two women parents? As mentioned above, that'd be pretty hawt!!

Well, the subject matter of this particular case aside, it does demonstrate that we've returned to the days of the Star Chamber with the courts the instruments of tyranny.

The California courts certainly don't view themselves as needing to be deferential to the will of the people. They've even overturned constitutional amendments which were supposed to be inviolate.

The elites have taken over this country. So long as people abide decisions by a small group of tyrants, they relinquish their freedom and autonomy.

The California Justices are subject to a sort of election, periodically. One time a group was swept out of office as a rebuke to their decisions on death penalty cases. We'll see if there is a concerted campaign to oust the Justices for this violation of the will of the people.

Bonjour democracy. Good-bye government of the people, by the people, for the people. You have perished from this Earth through the tolerated actions of judicial tyrants.

DoubtingThomas

"Come to America, where we call evil good and good evil. Come childern of the world. Bring to us your filth and scum. Bring all manner of vile behavior and disgusting display. Bring to us your drag queens and effetes. Display them on our streets. We will celebrate and honor you on our news shows and in our parks. Come to us and we will bless all of your miscreant passions and bottom sucking rot.

We are America! There is nothing too disgusting for us. Yes, come and share in our decay!

Celebrating Diversity!"

Posted by DoubtingThomas at 2008-05-15 04:40 PM

Your words closely echo the words on the Statue of Liberty.

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

All those people you mentioned in your post Bring to us your filth and scum. Bring all manner of vile behavior and disgusting display. Bring to us your drag queens and effetes. Display them on our streets.

Those people would make a better American than you, and more deserving of being Americans. You don't understand Freedom or the concept of America. Wasting American citizenship on a freedom hater like yourself is an insult to everything America has stood for in its history. People like you will kill the concept of Freedom--and America. Your are worse than any foreign enemy.

Predictable.. Sooner or later we're going to have to deal with the fact that Equal branches of government means exactly that.. not that the judicial branch is superior...

Not sure about California law, but on the fed level, congress can abolish a court..

There is no historical precedent anywhere in US law that says Gay Marriage is a civil right.. that's up to the people to decide.

Maybe it will be overturned, and if not, then it can come up in the presidential election about what can happen if liberals are allowed to appoint judges.

The repubs need some kind of argument.. mccain is quickly morphing into just another dem..

"This is a really interesting point. Has the Federal Gov't gone after same-sex couples who failed to report "gifts" from their significant other? B? Taxman? Danforth?"

I don't know the answer to that question. All i do know is that most couples engage expensive accountants to navigate these waters and there are a lot of things they just cannot do---which is a shame.


I tell ya---if the IRS were to actively enforce these gift tax rules, i would think that there would be a pretty swift backlash from the public. Many people don't support same sex marriage because they think all of the rights can be dealt with via contract. Truth is, many of the really important ones cannot.

Bonjour democracy. Good-bye government of the people, by the people, for the people. You have perished from this Earth through the tolerated actions of judicial tyrants.

Posted by Johnson at 2008-05-15 04:51 PM | Reply


This isn't a democracy. Never was--never will be. Just because Freedom Haters like yourself don't win them all, quit being such a whiner.

Sometimes the "Will of the People" is stupid, and should be tempered by those with some intelligence and compassion. Both of which, people like you lack in abundance.

There is only one person involved in abortion--therefore only one person makes the decision.

Adoption of infants is an apple and oranges comparison. Fucking and marriage is not involved in infant adoption.


What other acts are you talking about?

Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Sorry you feel that way Bob. I guess your happy your mom made the "right" decision. However, please do not leave out the doctor performing the abortion as one of the deciders.

As to your apples and oranges reference, he made the statement about individuals not being able to give consent. Since when is an animal an individual. I would say that if anything, my question has more relevance to his statement than the one he was commenting on originally (i.e. bestiality).

One example of another act could be that of an individual on life support who did not have a living will or other document stating his/her desires in such a situation. The courts rule to "pull the plug" and there is no consent given by the individual.

Daddy?

Yes son!

How come you're married to a man?

Because we love each other son.

But where did I come from?

Son, you came from your other daddy's sperm which was placed in a butch dyke. Nine months later you were born.

Why a butch dyke daddy?

Well son, we were trying for a gay child...given that homosexuality is genetic, we were hoping the chances were better for you turning out gay like your other father and I.

But I want a mommy!

No son! In this house you have two dads....even though your other dad is the effete one in this relationship and acts like a woman.

But dad, I want a mommy like my other friends have.

But you don't need a mommy for us to have a true family.

But dad, you and dad couldn't have a baby if there wasn't a lady that helped.

Son, I told you she wasn't a lady. She was a butch dyke.

Whatever dad. Don't you think it's supposed to be a mom and a dad as parent, since two dads can't have a baby, and two moms can't either?

Son, homosexuality exists in the animal world, so it's ok.

Dad?

Yes son?

Did you know that tigers sometimes eat their young?

No, I didn't know that son.

Would it be ok if people eat their own babies, since animals do this?

No son, that wouldn't be right.

But you just said dad...(dad interrupts)

Run along now son. You're father and I will be late to the gay pride parade.



Ahhhh yessss! Ain't America Grand?

You don't understand Freedom or the concept of America. ...

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-05-15 04:52 PM

Says the guy who is so rabidly opposed to those who think differently than himself that he wants the divide the country in half.

LOL

Never a dull moment with da bOoB

"However, by overturning the law that defined marriage as between 'A' man and 'A' woman, they've thrown the door open to plural marriage and polygamy."

That is a talking point but logically it doesn't compute. The court found that under equal protection gays were not treated fairly, for this decision to effect plural marriage first straight plural marriage would have to be legal which it is not. So both gay and straight people have the same prohibition on plural marriage. Thus they are treated equally under the law.
In truth only idiots think this change to California's laws will effect anyone except two gay people who want to get married. I really think that all these objectors have issues that have little to do with the rightness or wrongness of this. Probably just a desire to be able to discriminate against someone and gays are one of the last minorities where it is still PC in more ignorant circles.

No country has ever survived open acceptance of homosexuality. "Gay people are unfortunate biological misfits. I support letting them enjoy their misbegotten existence without imposing additional burdens on them.

As they are not biologically disposed to procreate in a union with a same sex person, and lack the physiological make-up for a biological union, I would not confound reality by pretending they are fit subjects for "marriage," nor would I permit them to adopt.

I would also respond negatively to their drive for intrusion on normal people where they campaign for withdrawing government support from those who want to remove themselves and their family members from coerced participation in activities with homosexuals.

I would not permit denial of facilities to Boy Scouts for example, for refusal to expose children to homosexual exploitation by allowing those perverse people suffering from unnatural drives to accompany children on overnight trips as authority figures, or even participate with youngsters where they might be regarded as role models.

When homosexuals become too intrusive, they should be firmly rebuked. If they continue aggressive drives to impede normal people in the living of normal family lives, then I think that homosexuals despite their unfortunate impairment should be confronted with negative consequences.

Live and let live. But don't be bullied into surrendering normal heterosexual prerogatives to accommodate the sensibilities of deviates."

LiveorDie aka AuntJomama aka DumbasRocks aka ThePerfectStorm

"We are not as liberal out here as most of you think."

--CALIFCHRIS"

He pretends we all didn't see the bubble bath post...

Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2008-05-15 03:18 PM

And the point you're trying to make (as you write that post after post after post) is?

Also, what is a "burritositter"?
You and your other anti-American blogthug buddies keep using that term for me but I've never heard of it and neither apparently has Google.

Okay wise guy, this ass ain't just for shittin' no more. I know cause the Supreme Court of California told me so. It's used for the marriage bond.

This shit don't stink, it's love potion #9.

Inhale that sweet smell, and lick your lips, lover.

LiveorDie aka AuntJomama aka DumbasRocks aka ThePerfectStorm

I've got an appointment to keep but will come back later for your answer.
Not all of us have the option of drooling 24/7 over our keyboards like you (and your multiple personalities).

Yeah, an appointment at the BUBBLE BATH!

HAHAHAHAHA!!!

You know how to keep KaliKrisK in suspense for hours?

"When homosexuals become too intrusive, they should be firmly rebuked."

How about when Bible-thumping mouth-breathers "become too intrusive" - teaching their fairy tales as scientific fact in public schools, for example?

"Sorry you feel that way Bob. I guess your happy your mom made the "right" decision."

I wouldn't have known if she changed her mind. It would have been no problem for me. I was never a fetus. Werte you? What was it like. Got any stories?

"However, please do not leave out the doctor performing the abortion as one of the deciders."

The doctor was free to make his own decision.

"As to your apples and oranges reference, he made the statement about individuals not being able to give consent."

"Since when is an animal an individual."

Since it was born.

"I would say that if anything, my question has more relevance to his statement than the one he was commenting on originally (i.e. bestiality)."

Your short sightednes was made mpost evident.


"One example of another act could be that of an individual on life support who did not have a living will or other document stating his/her desires in such a situation."

We have laws for that in each state too. Also, the individual in the coma is a citizen of the United States. A fetus is not a citizen of any country.

"The courts rule to "pull the plug" and there is no consent given by the individual."

Link? I think the family makes that decision. Usually, unl;ess it is seen as a political football by you control freaks on the right who tried to take even that right away in the Terri Schiavo case.

Uh, what's this got to do with gay marriage?

How about when Bible-thumping mouth-breathers "become too intrusive" - teaching their fairy tales as scientific fact in public schools, for example?

Posted by Dumb_as_Rocks


Where does that happen? Scientific fact? Really? However teaching the "theory" of evolution as "scientific fact" should be just as intrusive - right?

"Predictable.. Sooner or later we're going to have to deal with the fact that Equal branches of government means exactly that.. not that the judicial branch is superior..."


Well, each has a check on the other. I think you're result-oriented "analysis" is lacking a complete understanding of how this government is set up. Please start with reading Marbury vs. Madison (1803).

"Not sure about California law, but on the fed level, congress can abolish a court.. "

Yes, a check on the judiciary. The Constitution only requires one SUPREME COURT. Good luck abolishing the courts because you don't like the decision!

"There is no historical precedent anywhere in US law that says Gay Marriage is a civil right.. that's up to the people to decide."

Whether there is precedent that directly addresses the issue on point is not dispositive (or really relevant)---because most cases deal with issues that have not yet been settled (this is in part WHY we have these appeals courts!). Otherwise, the court would only decide cases it has already decided.

What we do know is that "Equal Protection under the Law" DOES convey certain rights. And it can be well argued that anti-same-sex legislation violates this provision of our Constitution.

"Maybe it will be overturned, and if not, then it can come up in the presidential election about what can happen if liberals are allowed to appoint judges. "

These were primarliy judges appointed by a REPUBLICAN administration in California.

The repubs need some kind of argument

AGREED!!! You don't have an argument!

It's taught as a theory, you retard. Hence the name. Want to try the "theory" of Jesus as God?

'Bout fucking time somebody threw me a bone.

"And the point you're trying to make (as you write that post after post after post) is?

Also, what is a "burritositter"?
You and your other anti-American blogthug buddies keep using that term for me but I've never heard of it and neither apparently has Google."
--CALIFCHRIS

I've never used the word "burritositter," so why are you asking me?

Because you are really me. C'mon now. Pay attention.

John Jay is rolling in his grave.
I wonder what Patrick Henry would think. Afterall he wanted this country to have a state religion

Who googles "burrito sitter"? He's fallen down the rabbit hole, I'm afraid.

I was never a fetus.

You went from zygote to newborn? How was this possible? Some sort of alien technology that was found at the base of lunar smokestacks or what?

"'Bout fucking time somebody threw me a bone."

Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

Bad form to use "fucking" and "bone" in the same sentence as part of a response in a debate about gay marriage in which half the respondents are irrationally phobic about "burrito sitting."

"Because you are really me."

Posted by Dumb_as_Rocks

You just called me dumb as rocks...

*cries inside*

mouth-breathers

I don't get this the mouth breather thing. It seems to be used a lot here. I assume it is an insult -- usually aimed at right wingers -- seeing the context it is used in. Can someone explain it to me?

LiveorDie

I've never used the word "burritositter," so why are you asking me?

Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2008-05-15 05:18 PM

My error - it was "Let_Us_Pray" who said it yesterday. Wrong three-word username.

Bob, how is an animal an individual but a human being is not? Actually I was a fetus. The proof of that is in the fact that I am responding to your rebuttal of my posting. Hard to be an adult without first being a fetus. Unfortunately, or fortunately, I have no memories of being a fetus. I have heard of studies though that show babies recognition of their mothers voice that they heard while inside their womb.

As to the state laws, what if the individual did not support the law - voted against it as such? They still did not give their consent.

As to providing a link to the courts deciding - come on, every individual on life suport has a family?

BTW - How do you know I am a control freak on the right? Besides, I thought that the left were the control freaks -

Sometimes the "Will of the People" is stupid, and should be tempered by those with some intelligence and compassion. Both of which, people like you lack in abundance.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob

You went from zygote to newborn? How was this possible? Some sort of alien technology that was found at the base of lunar smokestacks or what?

Posted by goatman at 2008-05-15 05:24 PM |


What I am--is consciousness. I had no consciousness when what I was to become was a blob of tissue. Also--I will never be a corpse. That these concepts are too much for you to comprehend is not a surprise. Maybe one of your other incarnations can explain it to you, but I would be willing to bet that they have they same limited mental capacity as yourself.

Humans are consciousness. If there is no consiousness in a human body, and none likely to return--the plug is pulled and the body buried. You aren't really a human being untill you have consciousness, or the government declares you to be a human being.

"Zot gets the bubble bath!"

Posted by Dumb_as_Rocks

Kewl! I'll be sure to share with my Bad Czech Girl.

From the wiki:

Social perception

Mouth breathing in public is sometimes considered to be less socially acceptable or attractive than nose breathing, as mouth breathers can appear to have a somewhat "slack jawed" look, and mouth breathing can cause or exacerbate bad breath. Consequently, the term "mouth breather" may be used in a pejorative sense for someone lacking in hygiene or intelligence. Such usage is generally considered insensitive.

Cletus, the slack-jawed yokel - case in point

Homosexuality is a normal part of sexuality. 100% of the straight men that I know have experienced some form of sexual gratification with another male - usually in their teens. This is commonly referred to as "experimentation", but should it be discouraged and why?

The women that I know are more apt to share intimate knowledge, even sex toys. Does this make women lesbian by nature? Apparently we are all homosexual as well as heterosexual to some extent.

Morality has little to nothing to do with the experience - until a decision is imposed, such as religion or laws defined by religion - the two main culprits.

If two consenting adults, regardless their gender, fall in love they should have the opportunity to marriage. To do otherwise is to hold religion higher than constitutional rights. To dictate the sexuality consenting adults in a loving relationship is immoral.

Can anyone seriously argue otherwise?

"mouth-breathers"

I don't get this the mouth breather thing. It seems to be used a lot here. I assume it is an insult -- usually aimed at right wingers -- seeing the context it is used in. Can someone explain it to me?
Posted by goatman at 2008-05-15 05:27 PM

Just examining the physiology - the nostril hair is used to filter particulates, thus "in through the nose, out the mouth".

Poor Doubting Thomas still can't get over the fact that he liked to suck his friends dicks in junior high. Get some counseling, DT - it's obvious you need it.

It's taught as a theory, you retard. Hence the name. Want to try the "theory" of Jesus as God?

Posted by Dumb_as_Rocks


Again, where is christianity or any other religion taught as "scientific fact" in school?

Your statement, not mine. No need to get bitter.

But I would never be insensitive. No, not me.

Bad form to use "fucking" and "bone" in the same sentence as part of a response in a debate about gay marriage in which half the respondents are irrationally phobic about "burrito sitting."

Posted by ZOT

Double entendres are inevitable on threads like these. I had to slip into one eventually.

Evolution is not a theory. Evolution is a proven scientific fact.

Wrong. It is a theory.

I'm going to use your favorite monosyllabic word, bOoB: Link?

"I don't get this the mouth breather thing." (He pants.)

Again, where is christianity or any other religion taught as "scientific fact" in school?

Your statement, not mine. No need to get bitter.

Posted by ELCIDCE90

Are you denying "intelligent design" is a Christian religious construct?

Was attempted - Vista, Ca. late 90's.
Was practiced - Kansas
Is/Was? - Florida.

No need to be so obtuse.

"Poor Doubting Thomas still can't get over the fact that he liked to suck his friends dicks in junior high. Get some counseling, DT - it's obvious you need it."

Posted by mOntecOre

He's just mad that no one accepted the invitation to his gay wedding to Bennie Bendover. Though, I'm surprised you turned down the offer to some of his "flesh games."

"Double entendres are inevitable on threads like these. I had to slip into one eventually.

Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE "

You mean you had to be ANALLY PENETRATED eventually.

Ohhh...that's a good double french word thing.

"Bob, how is an animal an individual but a human being is not?"

Human beings and animals are both individuals. I never said otherwise.

"Actually I was a fetus."

Really--then answer the question. What was it like? You were there--what was your first thought?


"The proof of that is in the fact that I am responding to your rebuttal of my posting."

Not at all. The proof would be if you were a fetus and were respondng. You were no more "you" when what was to become you was a fetus than an acorn is an oak tree. See the difference? If not--build a house out of acorns.


"Hard to be an adult without first being a fetus."

Not at all. It is done all the time.


"Unfortunately, or fortunately, I have no memories of being a fetus."

Then you weren't there.


"I have heard of studies though that show babies recognition of their mothers voice that they heard while inside their womb."

Plants do the same thing.

"As to the state laws, what if the individual did not support the law - voted against it as such? They still did not give their consent."

Too bad. All rights come from the government.

"As to providing a link to the courts deciding - come on, every individual on life suport has a family?"

I said there were laws for citizens.

"BTW - How do you know I am a control freak on the right? Besides, I thought that the left were the control freaks -"

The left is for freedom--not control. The right says they are for Freedom, yet they are restricting it at everyturn and in the most personal of decisions--they want to make those decisions for everyone else. The right wants to tell you who to fuck, who to marry, when to reproduce, and in what positions fucking is legal. I missed the part where the left wants to control those things. I see the right fighting against freedom, and the left fighting for freedom. Freedom for gays--women--minorities.


Sometimes the "Will of the People" is stupid, and should be tempered by those with some intelligence and compassion. Both of which, people like you lack in abundance.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob

"I was never a fetus."
--BUFFALO_BOOB

It's like he WANTS us to call him retarded...

Again, where is christianity or any other religion taught as "scientific fact" in school?
Your statement, not mine. No need to get bitter.
Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2008-05-15 05:34 PM

Uh, through textual omissions such as the massacre of the native tribes, purposeful mistranslations, even the re-writing of the "founders" religions, oh, and reciting the modified pledge of allegiance, abortion knowledge, contraception knowledge, human sexuality, etc. Historically religion has basically supplanted the majority of important data for the sake of generating a less intellectually curious caste.

Oh, and up until just a few years ago homosexuals were not permitted to even be teachers. Care to guess who spearheaded that decision?

Zot

"...in a debate about gay marriage in which half the respondents are irrationally phobic about "burrito sitting."

Posted by ZOT at 2008-05-15 05:26 PM


Not "half the respondents" -- I was the only one being called a "burrito sitter" on another thread yesterday and the day before and I am merely asking what "burritositter" means. Jomama used it in a post to me, LetUsPray (who also called me a "telephone sitter" (which made absolutely no sense to me either (you guys are weird!) in the same post he called me a "burritositter", and I believe, but am not positive offhand, Nullidiot used the same term for me.

Here's Jomama's post to me on the same thread as LetUsPray's post yesterday calling me a "burritositter."

Bubble-bath taking burrito sitter.

Posted by Jomama at 2008-05-14 04:38 PM

So Zot, since you commented about the words "burrito sitter" in your post surely you can enlighten me as to its meaning and/or why one would be "phobic" about it?

Zot is me, dammit. Look at ME!

It's like he WANTS us to call him retarded...

Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2008-05-15 05:43 PM |


Were YOU a fetus retard? If so--tell us your experiences. What was it like since you were there?

CC,

I believe it's the equivalent of cock sitter.

Depends on how much meat you like in your burrito, big boy.

Are you denying "intelligent design" is a Christian religious construct?

Was attempted - Vista, Ca. late 90's.
Was practiced - Kansas
Is/Was? - Florida.

No need to be so obtuse.

Posted by Dumb_as_Rocks


Is it taught as a "theory" or "scientific fact"?

"Were YOU a fetus retard?"

Posted by Buffalo_Bob

No, I budded from my parent's shoulder, similar to a sea sponge.

I wonder if the US Supreme Court will grant certiorari on this one. While its a nice hotbutton issue, does anyone think that the Court would prefer to simply ignore the issue and let the states settle it out for themselves?

I was also trying to predict how the Court would rule if it did come before them. I'm not sure that Equal Protection would be the route that supporters of the ruling would want to take. Equal Protection starts with identifying the discriminated class, obviously homosexuals. That grouping probably wouldn't be held to be inherently suspect like race. My bet is that the court would use the same standard as gender discrimination and apply intermediate scrutiny which could allow State interests (probably something on the order of procreation and stable homes) greater weight.

Any thoughts if Marriage would be treated as a fundamental right? I'm not sure the pivacy of the bedroom room rational from Lawernce would apply, given that marriage is a public distinction and declaration. But if Marriage is found to be a fundamental right then the Court should apply strict scrutiny under the substantive due process case law and uphold CA's supreme court.

"I wonder if the US Supreme Court will grant certiorari on this one."

No. It is a decision of the Calif Sup Ct construing the Calif Const. No basis for USSC to get involved.

Uh, through textual omissions such as the massacre of the native tribes, purposeful mistranslations, even the re-writing of the "founders" religions, oh, and reciting the modified pledge of allegiance, abortion knowledge, contraception knowledge, human sexuality, etc. Historically religion has basically supplanted the majority of important data for the sake of generating a less intellectually curious caste.


Oh, and up until just a few years ago homosexuals were not permitted to even be teachers. Care to guess who spearheaded that decision?

Posted by redlightrobot

This is related to the "theory" of evolution or the "theory" of intelligent design being taught as scientific fact how?

No argument that history has been revised due to community beliefs - religous or otherwise. Always has always will. History is written in the eye of the beholder - and the publisher.

It shouldn't be "taught" at all. It's faith. It has NOTHING to do with science. I notice you failed to address my point that no religious person would consider the falsification of their faith (theory of Jesus as God), but science compels us to attempt to prove OR disprove any theory. So, nice talking to you.

Looks like another victory for the CA blow jobs.

"I wonder if the US Supreme Court will grant certiorari on this one. While its a nice hotbutton issue, does anyone think that the Court would prefer to simply ignore the issue and let the states settle it out for themselves?"

Good question, though i believe the Cali decision was made on State law grounds. The USCT doesn't have jurisdiction over that.


"I was also trying to predict how the Court would rule if it did come before them. I'm not sure that Equal Protection would be the route that supporters of the ruling would want to take. Equal Protection starts with identifying the discriminated class, obviously homosexuals. That grouping probably wouldn't be held to be inherently suspect like race. My bet is that the court would use the same standard as gender discrimination and apply intermediate scrutiny which could allow State interests (probably something on the order of procreation and stable homes) greater weight."

I agree with your determination that the scrutiny applied to same-sex discrimination is the intermediate standard. Immutable characteristics, history of discrimination, etc.--they are definitely present in this situation. I think there are some decent parallels there and the logic is consistent in most ways. That being said i disagree that this elevated scrutiny won't help the cause. I think intermediate scrutiny (the law must be substantially tailored to serve important governmental interests) would be ultimately fatal to most same-sex based laws. It is very difficult to get gender based descrimination to pass constitutional muster.

"Any thoughts if Marriage would be treated as a fundamental right?"

I think that is a little more difficult to argue. I'm not for bastardizing the concept of "fundamental right". Voting, movement, procreation, contract, etc.-those are fundamental rights. Marriage just doesn't, IMO, raise to that level. Now, the interesting question is whether the inability to enter into a marriage CONTRACT with whomever you choose is a violation of that fundamental right.

well, they took care of that lickety split.

It shouldn't be "taught" at all. It's faith. It has NOTHING to do with science. I notice you failed to address my point that no religious person would consider the falsification of their faith (theory of Jesus as God), but science compels us to attempt to prove OR disprove any theory. So, nice talking to you.

Posted by Dumb_as_Rocks

Science has not proven human evolution to the extent I belive you are inferring in our discussion or your initial statement (one cell to human being maybe?). If it has please provide the link.

As to religious people considering the falsification of their faith, I can only address my thoughts and would not be so arrogant as to determine what others think. Myself, I am always open to discussion about my faith or religion and would be happy to discuss any evidence you have concering such "falsification" of it (theory of Jesus as God) as you so stated.

"Evolution is not a theory. Evolution is a proven scientific fact."

Wrong. It is a theory.
I'm going to use your favorite monosyllabic word, bOoB: Link?
Posted by goatman at 2008-05-15 05:35 PM

Arg.. I'm no scientist, but even I know that evolution happens, it's factual and undeniable. We have genetic evidence from living isolated species that have mutated from another. This doesn't mean that it's instantaneous or immediately recognizable, but sometimes severe or extreme mutations can and will be introduced. Thus albino babies are common with all species - we all evolve in similar response to these mutations. Birds, plants, Texans and Polar bears all mutate, evolve where applicable and develop new resource management techniques if the changes are gradual enough to not eliminate all mutation. Sharks still "evolve" although their genetics have found fewer mutations other than specializing in their particular habits.

The Theory of Evolution takes that schema and extrapolates an historical dataset that theorizes longer-term relationships between the process of evolution and the cataloged species. This often leaves holes in the evolutionary chain, and we will eventually link them to events that radicalize the resources and displace the ecologies.

So, as you see, evolution in and of itself is not incompatible with any religion other than those that deny the existence of the dataset, ie fossils and other corroborative information. It's all theory - UP TO A POINT.

"Bonjour democracy. Good-bye government of the people, by the people, for the people. You have perished from this Earth through the tolerated actions of judicial tyrants."

Johnson:

I wanna see the court that is as tyrannical as a bunch of Xtian rightists who have taken it into their thick heads to decide who may have civil rights and who may not.

Not even Bush's Supreme Court picks have dared go quite that far.

P.S.: "Johnson" is just another word for "Dick", isn't it?

"Though, I'm surprised you turned down the offer to some of his "flesh games."

Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2008-05-15 05:38 PM"

I'm not surprised you accepted the same offers.

That these concepts are too much for you to comprehend is not a surprise

Nor is the vain attempt you made at an insult that ended in "is not a surprise".

News flash, bOoB. Unless you developed differently than the ~13,000,000,000 people and countless more mammals that have walked this planet, you were indeed once a fetus. I'm sorry to be the one to break the news to you.

It is kind of strange you even say you were not. A few weeks ago you posted the "scientific" stages of a human. I chided you for telling me that "toddler" was not a scientific term. Remember this? (probably not -- it's been more than 17 minutes). One of those stages was a fetus.

So either you are lying, or you are not human. Which is it? In the past you've made excellent cases for both.

Ummmm, there is no factual data demonstrating macro evolution, you dimbulbs. Yes, micro-evolution is fact, but macro-evolution is an atheisitc pipe dream. Yes, the different dog breeds evolved from the wolf, but did you all notice that the wolf is a dog? Hellloooooo?

Please show the transitional forms from fish to wolf, dimbulbs.

Silly rabbit, atheists are closet sodomites.

You aren't really a human being untill you have consciousness, or the government declares you to be a human being.

So without a government, there are no human beings.

Remember folks, you heard it here first --- straight from da bOoB's mouth.

People ask me why I enjoy the DR so much . . .

The left is for freedom--not control.

Funny, I thought you were left wing, bOoB. If wanting to split the country in half isn't a control issue, I don't know what is. I con't think of anything more controlling than that!

Just give them a couple of years, they won't be together. They will get bored of each other.

You aren't really a human being untill you have consciousness, or the government declares you to be a human being.

"So without a government, there are no human beings."

Remember folks, you heard it here first --- straight from da bOoB's mouth.

People ask me why I enjoy the DR so much . . .

No DuMMy--if you have consiouisness you are a human being, whether there is a government of not. Still having those reading comprehension problems I see. That's why you are a dUmmy. You can't read and understand what the words mean when you place them all together in a sentence.

CC,

I believe it's the equivalent of cock sitter.

Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2008-05-15 05:48 PM

Only a gay man would sit on another man's c--k or have anything at all to do with another man's c--k for that matter.

You aren't really a human being untill you have consciousness, or the government declares you to be a human being.

"So without a government, there are no human beings."

Remember folks, you heard it here first --- straight from da bOoB's mouth.

People ask me why I enjoy the DR so much . . .

No DuMMy--if you have consiouisness you are a human being, whether there is a government of not. Still having those reading comprehension problems I see. That's why you are a dUmmy. You can't read and understand what the words mean when you place them all together in a sentence.

"...Me and you are at war. We will never agree, I will never go along with any democrats ever, and youll have to kill me and 10's of millions of other people like me to impose your bullshit on me/us....Kuma"

Hey KUMA: You religious people have already BEEN AT WAR against us gays. You have been denying us our Constitutional Rights every step of the way. YOU MOTHER FUCKING CLUELESS CHRISTIANS STARTED IT.

So, in order to even the death score between you're army and mine, can you loan me the gun that your freaky christian brothers used to Pistol Whip Mathew Sheppard to death? Or the gun that was used to shoot-to-death young Larry King? Or any of the other weapons you've used to KILL my people over the past 70 years?

Califchris: You are now an official Moron of the Month.

Gays can adopt in California as singles as well as couples. That has been a done deal for a long time.

101chairborne, doubtingthomas and johnson:

Funny thing: this morning i woke up and had an incredible urge to Divorce my GAY Husband and then Marry My Dog!!! You are...right - What's happening to me: Magically I have transformed and I'm having the urge to stroke my dog's fur until orgasm and call it consumation!!

OMG Jeeebus Help me....Tom Cruise Help me...

The Reagan-Era conservative judges have ruled. California has not been hit by an earthquake. Massachussetts has not legalized polygamy, and neither has Spain, Canada, Denmark, South Africa or The Netherlands.

Once again....I say unto you in the immortal words of my Gay Icon Paul Lynde:

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! BIG FAT MORONS LOSE AGAIN

I WONDER IF MULTIPLE WIVES WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE FUTURE

i mean why not.....how far can we stretch the term marriage

BTW...didnt marriage get started as a religious ceremony.....marriage was not started by the government......so why can government claim the right to regulate a religious ceremony

Ummmm, there is no factual data demonstrating macro evolution, you dimbulbs. Yes, micro-evolution is fact, but macro-evolution is an atheisitc pipe dream. Yes, the different dog breeds evolved from the wolf, but did you all notice that the wolf is a dog? Hellloooooo?
Please show the transitional forms from fish to wolf, dimbulbs.
Silly rabbit, atheists are closet sodomites.
Posted by DoubtingThomas at 2008-05-15 06:20 PM

Well, since you are chock-loaded full of shit it's apparent that you may have evolved from feces-withholding paramecium.:]

But seriously, you have a valid point - it's honestly a jump into the void attempting to explain hundreds of thousands of years of evolution in a sentence, and probably vain. Not every animal has a fossil - less than what, 2%? So, we make some educated guesses and experiment with genetics to interpret the probability that chickens are indeed related to giant raptors. China has an enormous collection of impressive multi-"winged" raptors, yet we only have the two-winged variety around now. They all probably taste like chicken, but at some point so did nearly every large predator.

There are a number of intra-species diversity as you mentioned - giants and micro-sized canines on almost every continent (Australia is specialized), but you aren't really able to see the man-bear-pig connection. This might be a good time for you to ask why are sapiens-sapiens the only remaining hominid. Perhaps we specialized faster than other species of hominid? Or, maybe diversity and mutation are not exclusive, but require extinction of resource-hogging competition?

Human evolution is very debatable, but the fossils are not.

CalifMoron:

If you hate cock so much, why not do us a favor and cut yours off? You can drop it in a jar of Formaldehyde and give it to your friend 101Chairborne to place on his mantel next to his Fake War Medals.

No DuMMy--if you have consiouisness you are a human being, whether there is a government of not.

So if I get hit on the head and knocked unconcious, I am no longer a human?

When I am asleep, I am no longer human?

I'm sitting here looking at my 10 day old granddaughter nestled in my left arm. I guarantee you she is not concious of her own being. You are telling me she is not human?

I love you twisted logic, bOoB. The $17.98/mo I pay for internet access is more than paid from with entertainment value from you.

BTW, Thanks!

BBOB

You should trademark the your spelling of "dUmMy" or that word in any and all similiar forms- DUmMy" or "duMmY" etc., etc. If you got paid anytime anyone used it you'd get rich.

"I WONDER IF MULTIPLE WIVES WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE FUTURE"

Multiple wives are allowed now in many cultures.

":i mean why not.....how far can we stretch the term marriage"

The bible seemed fine with it and it still endures today--what's the problem?


"BTW...didnt marriage get started as a religious ceremony.....marriage was not started by the government......so why can government claim the right to regulate a religious ceremony"

All rights come from the government. The right to perform legal marriage contracts comes from the government. The right of the Catholic Church to perform marriage contracts in this country comes from the government--not the Catholic Church, and not some sky fairy.

No DuMMy--if you have consiouisness you are a human being, whether there is a government of not.

"So if I get hit on the head and knocked unconcious, I am no longer a human?"

No dummY--you are still a human because the government says you are a human. You still have problems grasping more than one concept at a time. Poor dUmmy.

"When I am asleep, I am no longer human?"

The government says you are a human when you sleep.

"I'm sitting here looking at my 10 day old granddaughter nestled in my left arm. I guarantee you she is not concious of her own being. You are telling me she is not human?"

The government says she is human dUMmy.


"I love you twisted logic, bOoB. The $17.98/mo I pay for internet access is more than paid from with entertainment value from you."

I doubt you will get any benefit from it. You have to have the brains to understand the words written in front of your face. In your case. FAIL.

BB...marriage has been around for a long time now.....government did not start marriage....religion started marriage

You aren't really a human being untill you have consciousness, or the government declares you to be a human being.

"So without a government, there are no human beings."

Remember folks, you heard it here first --- straight from da bOoB's mouth.
People ask me why I enjoy the DR so much . . .
Posted by goatman at 2008-05-15 06:30 PM

I had a similar debate with Joe a while back at what point does a fertilized egg be considered an "embryo". My argument relies on cellular division creating a nervous system - any "harvesting" of embryo beyond that point is unethical. He believes that once it's fertilized that's blastocyst is a person. Stem cell research is a hot topic.

the government took marriage from religion in order to regulate it.....and apply it to government laws

The government says you are a human when you sleep.

Link?

BB...marriage has been around for a long time now.....government did not start marriage....religion started marriage
Posted by judas at 2008-05-15 06:53 PM

That's right, and homosexual marriage has been around far longer than all modern religions.

It's just a matter of doing the right thing and encouraging two adults in love to the same rights of expression as anyone else.

Even Anna Nichole was able to marry someone obviously 200 years her elder, but she couldn't have to another woman her own age. Pretty sad.

You have to have the brains to understand the words written in front of your face. In your case. FAIL.

Says the guy whose brain tells him there are smokestacks on the moon.

I'm crushed, bOoB.

BB...marriage has been around for a long time now.....government did not start marriage....religion started marriage

Posted by judas at 2008-05-15 06:53 PM | Reply


It wasn't the christian religion that started marriage, and facts are the government controls marriage contracts and who can perform them. Religion has absolutely no say in this simple fact. Marriage is a legal contract and has absolutley nothing to do with religion in any way.

1. No religious person is necessary to make a marriage legal.

2. No religious belief by the partners in the marriage contract is necessary for the marriage to be legal.

3. No religious person is necessary to end a marriage.

4. All religions must receive permission from the government before their marriage contracts are considered legal.

5. Religion is not necessary in any part of a marriage to make it legal.

In short--religion has absolutely nothing to do with marriage.

All rights come from the government.

Lying again. You finally admitted a week or two ago that not all rights come from the government, just civil rights. You are back to the all think again.

Liar, troll, or whatever you are. Pick one.

Even Anna Nichole was able to marry someone obviously 200 years her elder, but she couldn't have to another woman her own age. Pretty sad.



RED....no doubt marrige has gone past its origional design......but marriage was started by religion....until the government decided to regulate it....in order to maintain control and accountablilty

1. No religious person is necessary to make a marriage legal.

2. No religious belief by the partners in the marriage contract is necessary for the marriage to be legal.

3. No religious person is necessary to end a marriage.

4. All religions must receive permission from the government before their marriage contracts are considered legal.

5. Religion is not necessary in any part of a marriage to make it legal.

In short--religion has absolutely nothing to do with marriage.



BB.... the reason this is because the government took a religious ceremony...to regulate it with laws

but marriage is a religious ceremony....in its origional design

BB.... the reason this is because the government took a religious ceremony...to regulate it with laws

but marriage is a religious ceremony....in its origional design

Posted by judas at 2008-05-15 07:06 PM | Reply

So maybe we should all load up with about 50 wives---just to go along with the original concept.

Facts are--what happened thousands of years ago doesn't really count today.

Religion has absolutely nothing to do with marriage.

1. No religious person is necessary to make a marriage legal.

2. No religious belief by the partners in the marriage contract is necessary for the marriage to be legal.

3. No religious person is necessary to end a marriage.

4. All religions must receive permission from the government before their marriage contracts are considered legal.

5. Religion is not necessary in any part of a marriage to make it legal.

In short--religion has absolutely nothing to do with marriage.

NOTHING

That being said, when the people vote on something like this and then the court over-rules their decision, is it any wonder why people are concerned about who we are putting into the courts?

Really!

I hold concern in the fact that this made it to the ballet without being checked by law.

The court over-rules the decision because the decision of mob rule isn't alway correct, that's how we get discrimination for one.

It is bothersome knowing people like you think mob rule should be the norm, not much of a fair common sense person are we.

Marriage is a civil contract between two people. If You believe that the US Constitution protects the Marriages of Heterosexual Couples then You must also declare that Homosexual Marriage is an equally protected right. If You do not then You do not support the 14th amendment of equal protection. Face the facts.

Larry Mohr

What do you see dumMy?

youtube.com

I'm not sure what you see, but I'm sure it's your demented version of the truth. Please forgive me if I don't take the bait. I readily admit I am a slow dimwit. I have looked at at least a couple of dozen of your youtube.com videos thinking, "This might actually be the one that doesn't have fuzzy pictures and a bad British accent and new age music and worst of all twisting of all known and accepted laws of physics." I'm always wrong.

Sorry, bOoB -- I won't fall for it anymore.

but marriage was started by religion....until the government decided to regulate it....in order to maintain control and accountablilty

Posted by judas at 2008-05-15 07:03 PM | Reply


Religion was started to maintain control and accountability. Religion used to be the government thousands of years ago, and still is in some countries. We just don't need that bullshit running our lives. The time for belief in sky fairies is at an end. Mankind needs to realize that or suffer the fate of the 99.9% of all life forms that have EVER lived on this planet--extinction.

Goatman

You see NUTZING.

I understand.

Goatpa -

I'm sitting here looking at my 10 day old granddaughter nestled in my left arm....

Posted by goatman at 2008-05-15 06:43 PM


You said you were holding the baby in your left arm in a post around 2:00 p.m. (est) and again at 6:43 p.m. Isn't she about due for a change of diapers by now? And you do help out with that chore, don't you? (grin)

I understand.

Well, you get credit for that. The boy who cried wolf in the fable did not understand.

You see NUTZING.

I liked Hogan's Heroes too, BBob : )

Child molestors take note, if you bitch enough the government will change the laws for you to. Our politicians are weak, they just want problems to go away.

You said you were holding the baby in your left arm in a post around 2:00 p.m. (est) and again at 6:43 p.m. Isn't she about due for a change of diapers by now? And you do help out with that chore, don't you? (grin)

No way. A shout to mama takes care of that. I do all but diapers. I even hold the bottle full of pumped breast milk, creepy as that is.

See the difference dummY?

See my 7:12 post, bOoB. You must've missed it, or it went in one ear and out the other. Easy to do when there is nothing in between to get in the way, I suppose.

Child molestors take note, if you bitch enough the government will change the laws for you to. Our politicians are weak, they just want problems to go away.

I think you protest too much, so therefore you must be taking note!

I saw your 7:12. It said nothing as usual.

???

It said I won't fall for your youtube.com videos anymore.

Are you really that dense that (a)you did get that? Or (b)are you trolling? Or (c)are you lying and did not really read it? It has to be one of the above.

I choose (A): you are really that dense. It was a hard call, though

"Child molestors take note, if you bitch enough the government will change the laws for you to. Our politicians are weak, they just want problems to go away.

Posted by rick1234567890 at 2008-05-15 07:18 PM"

Rick the Ignorant Dickwad, take note. This had nothing to do with politicians. It was a legal decision. But don't let facts get in the way of your paranoid reality.

"I do all but diapers."

Real men change their kids diapers.

Let's see. Some of you maintain that regarding homosexual activities as unnatural is peculiar only to Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Is that a valid contention or is there a similar attitude worldwide, aside from practicing homosexuals, and their tyrannical supporters, such as the four justices who overthrew the democratically made decision of several million people. Will the tyrants prevail? Or is this the basis for another vote, this time a Constitutional Amendment?

Anyway, elsewhere in the world, the numerous Chinese think in terms of complementariness, Yin and Yang. A balance of the masculine and feminine principles. Not Yin and Yin or Yang and Yang.

Among the Hindus, there is a call for balance, the complementary nature of man and woman.

Shintoism was a phallic religion celebrating heterosexual sex.

Buddhism is a mixed bag with homosexual protagonists interpreting it as not to be judgmental concerning homosexuality since Buddhism did not find value in procreation although such was considered positive.

Which candidate will the introduction of homosexuality as an issue help, and which candidate will be hurt. All are, I think, officially opposed to homosexual marriage although Obama was bankrolled initially by wealthy Hollywood homosexuals, and reputedly was prepared to make concessions after the election.

The homosexual issue may galvanize voters to register and vote in November, which may assist the lackluster McCain. There are often unanticipated and unintended consequences.

Is it true that one of the female California Supreme Court Justices, who voted for homosexual marriage had been caught with her finger in the dyke?

Is it true that one of the female California Supreme Court Justices, who voted for homosexual marriage had been caught with her finger in the dyke?

saw your 7:12. It said nothing as usual.

???

It said I won't fall for your youtube.com videos anymore.

Are you really that dense that (a)you did get that? Or (b)are you trolling? Or (c)are you lying and did not really read it? It has to be one of the above.

I choose (A): you are really that dense. It was a hard call, though

Posted by goatman at 2008-05-15 07:33 PM


Then don't bring them up duMmY. Simple isn't it. You brought up the video, then say you don't want to talk about it. Talk about a troll.

;-)

So activist judges at it again--

Well now they re-define marriage as same sex couples and opposite sex couples!

CC--don't worry--the vote on the ballot in November will be passed.

CA voters voted in 2000 61%-39% for marriage between a man and a woman--Proposition 22..

So they will pass the Constitutional Amendment this November and shut the friggin tyranny judges up!

The people dont' count only they--the tyrannical judges count. They should be impeached and thrown out of office.


If bigotry was detectable during pregnancy, how would you feel towards someone aborting that child for this reason alone?

Posted by ZOT at 2008-05-15 03:02 PM |

ZOT--why do you think gays are pro-life? They don't want future gay babies aborted.

And B--Bush has been trying to do away with the gift tax forever--for everyone!

Murphy

Real men change their kids diapers

Yes they do. And I did. But real men get a pass on changing their grandchild's diapers when the mom or dad are present. *grin*

Then don't bring them up duMmY.

I didn't. You did. I followed up.

Simple isn't it.

Your mind? Yes, it is.

"The homosexual issue may galvanize voters to register and vote in November, which may assist the lackluster McCain."

Sorry, Penis, but racist homophobes like yerself, are fortunately a small and ugly minority...albeit a vociferous minority.

Catching up after about five hours away, I am most struck by the righties melting down over this. One virtually had a nervous breakdown with his visions of anal love, right here on the net.

I'd like these appalling people to tell me how THEIR marriages are threatened by gays uniting.

I'd also like someone with a bit more education if voters can pass a patently unconstitutional one-man-one-woman initiative, and if the Scalia-Thomas SCOTUS can overrule California. herm

"And B--Bush has been trying to do away with the gift tax forever--for everyone!"


He was focusing on the estate, not gift taxes. We cannot just get rid of the estate/gift taxes (though we should bring them in line with ordinary tax rates) and give up that revenue. Furthermore, you can't expect me to agree to give up this necessary revenue so you can continue to discriminate and treat same sex couples as second class citizens.

Herm--

When Prop 22 was first on the ballot in 2000--it was at that time already reviewed to be constitutional. The process reviews all propositions before they are on the ballot--

Otherwise every Tom Dick and Harry would put something--

The people will pass the Constitutional Amendment in November and this too shall pass.

Gay marriage is an oxymoron--I don't care that adults want to have sex with their same sex..

But gay marriage debases traditional marriage--which is already having a headache.

It confuses children---they have a hard enough time.

It opens the door for anything and anyone to get married--further destroying traditional marriaqge and future children to have them taught that sex with anyone is ok--when gay sex is one the most lethal risky behaviors people can do.

CA won't need the SCOTUS to overrule this--which they might since the activist judges overruled the people's will--

If the same 61% of the folk who voted in 2000 come out in Nov--they will likely pick McCain at the top of the ticket.

Obama is in the back pocket of gays and wouldn't lift a finger for traditional marriage--

There have been 16 states who have passed Constitutional Amendments in this country--and there are more this Nov--including CA.

Then you may see CA turn red in Nov--what a great way to drum up the base.

Murphy

Goatman


I saw your 7:12. It said nothing as usual.

???

"It said I won't fall for your youtube.com videos anymore.

Are you really that dense that (a)you did get that? Or (b)are you trolling? Or (c)are you lying and did not really read it? It has to be one of the above.

I choose (A): you are really that dense. It was a hard call, though"

Posted by goatman at 2008-05-15 07:33 PM


Then don't bring them up duMmY. Simple isn't it. You brought up the video, then say you don't want to talk about it. Talk about a troll.

;-)

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-05-15 07:47

Then don't bring them up duMmY.

"I didn't. You did. I followed up.

Simple isn't it.

Your mind? Yes, it is."

Posted by goatman at 2008-05-15 07:49 PM

I say you Lie. Where did I bring up the Youtube video before this post:


Says the guy whose brain tells him there are smokestacks on the moon.

I'm crushed, bOoB.

Posted by goatman at 2008-05-15 06:59 PM | Reply

"But gay marriage debases traditional marriage..."


How so? Care to explain?

Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2008-05-15 04:37 PM

"Hmmm. No on bestiality since one of the parties is not able to give consent or enter into a contract." - SanAntonioRogue

What is your stand on abortion then? Adoption of an infant, or any other act where an individual is unable to give consent?

Hey Murphy if the will of the people is unconstitutional then it should be overturned. Sowwy

Larry Mohr

Yes--same people having sex trying to make it normal is debasement.

It is not the same. Next will be polygamists--further eroding of the family unit for our society.

I could go on the moral road, biblical road and God's road--those apply as well for arguements against same sex marriage.

These judges have spit in the faces of CA voters claiming they know best--

There are 1.1 million signatures to put this on the ballot in Nov..

Murphy

I say you Lie. Where did I bring up the Youtube video before this post:

youtube.com

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-05-15 07:06 PM

"Profoundly retarded people aren't permitted to "consent."

If that were the case, you wouldn't exist.

Gay marriage is an oxymoron--I don't care that adults want to have sex with their same sex..

But gay marriage debases traditional marriage--which is already having a headache.

Apparently, you do care about gay sex.

At least to the point of trying to decrease social cohesion by attacking marriage amongst gay folks.

More marriages just means a more stable society.

If it doesn't then why not just get rid of all marriage all together?

It confuses children---they have a hard enough time.

Spud knows folks who were brought up by gay parents and, far from being confused by the experience, they had a more complete worldview and a better understanding of what marriage means than most children from straitlaced religious families who tend to not provide their kids with a real worldview.

It opens the door for anything and anyone to get married--further destroying traditional marriage

Spud'll stop you right there.

The argument that gay marriage will lead to marriages between people and animals or rocks and trees or wot have you is 100% completely false.

It has no basis in reality and Spud really wishes folk like Murphy would stop making such a obviously specious and patently false argument.

Go on...

and future children to have them taught that sex with anyone is ok--when gay sex is one the most lethal risky behaviors people can do.

How is lesbian sex "More dangerous" than traditional hetrosexual sex?

Are you talking about anal sex?

That isn't specifically limited to homosexual men.

Ergo, another ridiculous argument.

Polygamy, which some folks have argued will be allowed if gay marriages are okayed is the sole province of the fundamentalist sects.

While in theory, line marriages and polygamous relationships are okay amongst consenting adults the sad reality is that most often they involve minors, spousal abuse, rape, and, of course, religious fundamentalist doctrine that encourages making objects and of women while steeeping them in ignorance.

Not related to the topic at hand, Spud grants, but still worth pointing out.

Foes of gay marriage call themselves "Pro Marriage" and declare that they are somehow "protecting" marriage.

Not true.

They are anti-Marriage and anti equal rights and they have no basis for their arguments short of misguided immoral anti-Constitutional religious zealousness and hate founded on fear of folks who are different from themselves.

Tsk Tsk.

Spuddish shout out to Cali.

The West Coast, ...it's the best coast.

Represent!

Be Well.

Larry--It wasn't unconstitutional when it was approved in the first place to be voted on in 2000.

Don't be a moron when it is obvious that these judges overturned the will of the people.

So when it is official and passes in Nov and the constitution is changed--the will of the people will be in place once again.

The judges wanted gay marriage--CA passed a statute and it is not against the Constitution right now--except for the penumbras and gases these fart bags expouse.

Murphy

These judges made up this "right" for gays in the CA Consitution out of whole cloth.

How can they find this right for gays and not for polygamists? Damn bigots they are!

Can't wait for Nov--

McCain will get a boost from the base for this issue becoming front and center.

Murphy

Hey Murphy if the will of the people is unconstitutional then it should be overturned. Sowwy

You are right, Larry. And there is a process for that. It takes ratification from 2/3 of the states to put an ammendment to the constitution. I'm all for the constitutional process

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-05-15 04:52 PM

Your words closely echo the words on the Statue of Liberty.

I am sorry Murphy I believe You are full of shit but I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed this one

except for the penumbras and gases these fart bags expouse.

Murphy

Posted by MURPHY at 2008-05-15 08:23 PM | Reply

"How can they find this right for gays and not for polygamists? Damn bigots they are!"

I just love how bigots scream bigotry when they don't get their way. What an ass.

Null--you are one of the biggest asses on this site!

Did you read the post dunderhead?

They made this up out of whole cloth from the existing CA Constitution.

They made it up for an agenda--because if they were going to be honest instead of whores--they would have made polygamists legal too!

Murphy

Hey Murphy if the will of the people is unconstitutional then it should be overturned. Sowwy

We are talking about the California State Constitution here not the federal U.S. Constitution (which takes 2/3rds of the states to amend or overturn).

Murphy is right. This new ruling will be overturned in November because the people of California will vote it in an and make sure it is now made part of the California State Constitution where the California State Supreme Court cannot overturn it.

Thanks CC--correcto mundo...

Murphy

Suck it up, Murphy. I'm sure clowns like you felt the same way when slavery was abolished, segregation outlawed, women's suffrage was enacted, etc.

You'll live.

"This new ruling will be overturned in November because the people of California will vote it in an and make sure it is now made part of the California State Constitution where the California State Supreme Court cannot overturn it."

And then God will smile on California once again and the Angels will sing. Married people all over the state will rejoice knowing that since the evil gay marriage menace has been slain their own marriages will take on new meaning and divorce will disappear. No more broken homes for children to have to deal with. No more domestic violence as those basking in the sanctifying grace of holy matrimony are healed by God's love. But these Californians don't do this with any malice towards the gay community, no they love gay people who know their place in society. Just live as the defenders of the sacrament of marriage say and no one will get hurt.

Danni's snarkicism indicates she is against the will of the people. I thought she was all for the will of the people. She confuses me.

I guess she is one of those who wants the will of the people as long as she agrees with it.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-05-15 04:56 PM

This isn't a democracy. Never was--never will be. Just because Freedom Haters like yourself don't win them all, quit being such a whiner.

Sometimes the "Will of the People" is stupid, and should be tempered by those with some intelligence and compassion. Both of which, people like you lack in abundance.

Sometimes the "Will of the People" is stupid, and should be tempered by those with some intelligence and compassion.

Murphy is right. This new ruling will be overturned in November because the people of California will vote it in an and make sure it is now made part of the California State Constitution where the California State Supreme Court cannot overturn it.


Posted by CalifChris at 2008-05-15 08:35 PM | Reply

Why do You support Bigotry and or Homophobia??

Larry Mohr

Danni

I have nothing against gay people. They can have civil unions and other available legal means to protect and share their assets/homes/heath care decisions and the like.

I'm not some Bible-thumping, anti-gay type. It's just that I believe in the sanctity of the religious sacrament of marriage which says that marriage is between one man and one woman. However, I also think a responsible gay couple who wishes to adopt a child and give the child a good home rather than have the child shuttled from foster home to foster home should be allowed to do so.

You are too much Bob, you elitist you. Do you own a limousine, or are you a public transportation liberal?

Well, when he gets his way and splits the country in two and all the people who disagree with him move to the one he doesn't live in, I'm sure he'll be riding in a motorcade in a limousine. Until then, he'll have to ride the bus like the rest of his neighbors.

"I have nothing against gay people."...
Posted by CalifChris

As long as they stay at the back of the bus.

I'm not some Bible-thumping, anti-gay type. It's just that I believe in the sanctity of the religious sacrament of marriage which says that marriage is between one man and one woman. However, I also think a responsible gay couple who wishes to adopt a child and give the child a good home rather than have the child shuttled from foster home to foster home should be allowed to do so.

Posted by CalifChris at 2008-05-15 08:52 PM | Reply

You are talking like a man with a paper asshole the shit just keeps flying out. Since Marriage is a civil contract which does noit require it be performed in a church or be a church affiliated process that renders that moot. If one can get married in front of some ugly Judge somewhere how can You declare it's a religious sacrament?? You are in effect injecting Religion in a State function. I thought You was against mixing religion and state business?? Guess not.

Larry Mohr

"Funny thing: this morning i woke up and had an incredible urge to Divorce my GAY Husband and then Marry My Dog!!!"
--DUMPLING1

Some things should stay in the closet...

"I have nothing against gay people."...
Posted by CalifChris

"As long as they stay at the back of the bus."

Posted by nullifidian

Null likes them in front...

Unfortunately, given the level of homophobia in the general population, this victory for common decency may be short lived. I fully expect there to be an initiative on the November ballot to amend the State Constitution to lawfully define "marriage" as between one man and one woman. I hope I am wrong.

"Null--you are one of the biggest asses on this site!"
--MURPHY

"Suck it up, Murphy."
--NULLIFIDIAN

You 2 should get a room...

Posted by MaryTylerWhore at 2008-05-15 06:14 PM

P.S.: "Johnson" is just another word for "Dick", isn't it?

Posted by MaryTylerWhore at 2008-05-15 06:14 PM

P.S.: "Johnson" is just another word for "Dick", isn't it?

Posted by MaryTylerWhore at 2008-05-15 06:14 PM

P.S.: "Johnson" is just another word for "Dick", isn't it?

us "straights"
--JOHNSON

I wasn't convinced the first time, let alone the second or third...

REAL men do not marry weenie men.

REAL women do not marry sleazy weeny women.

Typical black robe bullshit.

The nation loses here and the sleazy weenies think they have won only to lose in the end and the end will arrive to see these scum bags put out to pasture.

"The nation loses here and the sleazy weenies think they have won only to lose in the end and the end will arrive to see these scum bags put out to pasture."

Posted by farmerjohn

All this talk of "weenies" and "in the end"... are you projecting?

Homosexuals crave the imprimateur of the state for their relationships. Some of us regard homosexuality as an unfortunate condition or situation in which some people find themselves as they are attracted to same sex individuals, which denies them relationships of a complementary nature, physiological, hormonal, and the like, that heterosexual people enjoy.

I would wish homosexuals the opportunity to be "gay," and to practice whatever they will as a matter of free choice with other consenting adults with no state restriction.

There are homosexuals who seem to be sexual predators, who are attracted to young boys. I resent that they try to ingratiate themselves, and even force themselves into situations in which persons with their predilections can victimize young males by insisting that they be employed in youth activity venues. This conflict has resulted in revocation of meeting places for such groups as Boy Scouts due to homosexual pressure for inclusion. This evokes negativity from those of us adversely affected by these decisions. We have nevertheless adapted and meet in churches and other private places now.

I don't want homosexuals on overnight camping trips as authority figures and role models with my boys. Similarly I wouldn't want heterosexual men on overnight camping trips as authority figures with my girls. I think that both are exposed to victimization in such circumstances.

We are sexual creatures. As such we find mates and companions with biological creatures that complement us. Societies fostered such relationships for millennia in establishing its structure. Rules were developed for relationships taking into account the different natures of the parties to the relationships, and provisionally adding laws pertaining to issue of any unions.

Similarly if you look to nature, you find animals such as lions, and hyenas, and wolves, as well as the primates, and other groups forming organizations and hierarchies and with behavior based on the sexual nature of the components of the group. We humans are pretending to disregard these natural factors that are operative among communities of sexual creatures. There are differing natural roles.

Why should the structure of society be radicalized to accommodate fringe people who don't meet the criteria established for participation in marriage.

That said, I want to express my gratitude to homosexuals for their able and creative drive to direct attention to AIDS which so sadly afflicted their community. Due to political and social pressure, huge amounts of money and effort were directed to the field of biology and medicine, which has resulted in huge leaps in those fields benefiting everyone, leaps which I think would not otherwise have occurred.

If you want to live a "gay life." do so. Just don't intrude your lifestyle on me. I'll reciprocate. And don't try to impose monetary burdens on others by estalishing faux families and demanding that they be treated as real, as if they were biological units.

So far, the people of this country seem to have spoken similarly. but when the aggressiveness of the homosexuals continues and they do not respond to gentle rebukes, I would suggest that you keep in mind that homosexual behavior and relationships could again be criminalized in addition to revocation of some benefits temporarily grnated by a tyrannical group of four people overturning the will of the people.

Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2008-05-15 09:39 PM
us "straights"
--JOHNSON

I wasn't convinced the first time, let alone the second or third...
What's your point, LIVE_?

If I were "gay," I certainly would be advertising my preference as "gay pride" seems to be de rigeur these days.

Or were you referring to something else, grammar or something?

Some of us regard homosexuality as an unfortunate condition...

~Tiny Johnson

Some of us regard religious fundamentalism as an unfortunate condition too.

Doesn't mean we wanna make them shitheads illegal though.

REAL men do not...

~Johnboy the Farmer

See them leering at the women
See them staring at the girls
Making stupid secret gestures
And shouting stupid senseless words
Oh, they're stronger than a sheet of metal
And they're in the rugby club reserves
They buy the wife a birthday kettle
These are strong men getting on my nerves

Real men, real men from hell
Real men, real men from hell

Faster than a speeding bullet
See them leaping off that train
All their clothes are stained and dirty
All their girlfriends are ashamed
Real men like to go to the boozer
They play bad darts and they drink bad beer
They get too drunk they look for trouble
And they ask punk rockers if they're queer
( wot you got that hat on for? )

Chorus

All these narrow-minded sun-fed suckers
They're ignorant and they're kept that way
It suits the prats who pay their money
So that is how they're going to stay

Those real men beat on blacks and faggots
Real men stalk in every town
Flash and feisty, mean and nasty
Those real men really get me down

~Jazz Butcher

Be Well.

Oops. Sorry LIVE_, it was an unintended triplet.

How could you not? What if wifey isn't available you wouldn't just let her sit in it, Goat?

Keep up, redlight. Wifey's dead. Has been for 12 years. I can't be a parent. I was neutered 22 years ago. As I've been speaking in this thread (and others) it is a grandchild and mom is in the house.

Granddad has done his time with diapers. When mom or dad are in the house they do the deed

What's all this about the NAMBLA? Are they still around? Spudmeister should know the answer to this question. Monsieur Spudmeister since you were (and are) a long-time member of NAMBLA is this true they're still a viable group? Oh never mind I forgot that you're from the Great White Gay-Lez Approvers of North.

"How could you not? What if wifey isn't available you wouldn't just let her sit in it, Goat?"

Keep up, redlight. Wifey's dead. Has been for 12 years. I can't be a parent. I was neutered 22 years ago. As I've been speaking in this thread (and others) it is a grandchild and mom is in the house.
Granddad has done his time with diapers. When mom or dad are in the house they do the deed
Posted by goatman at 2008-05-15 10:17 PM

I do get distracted with all of your colorful posts, pardon me if I get whom did what when a little off. Hmm, that was a week I tuned out, when I came back there were panties strewn everywhere caked with crap of every color - friends and miscreants alike. I hope we are all beyond that.

Back on topic, do you have any gay relatives who want to marry? Do they get treated any different in your family? Parents close to them and all that?

Would you feel disappointed if your beautiful perfect granddaughter is lesbian? As distasteful as this next question is, would you have supported her being aborted if mom wasn't supportive whatsoever?

And you said I brought it up. Sorry to have to rub your nose in your own lies, but you asked! LIke a lawyer, you should know the answer to the question before you ask. What a curse a damaged brain must be

Posted by goatman at 2008-05-15 08:20 PM | Reply | Flag


You did bring it up first dUmmY. You brought up the Smokestack on the Moon at 6:59. I responded at 7:06---Can't you tell time either?

How often do I have to prove you a liar? This is getting old.

;-)

"What's all this about the NAMBLA?"

Go have another scotch, you drunken buffoon.

Sounds like panties everywhere is a lot more exciting than diapers everywhere, *grin*, but for once, I don't miss the panties. Never thought I'd say that. This little angel in my arms has brought me unimaginable joy in the few days she's been on this planet.

I have always said that I am for gay rights.

No gay family members here so I can't answer related questions.

Oh, and up until just a few years ago homosexuals were not permitted to even be teachers. Care to guess who spearheaded that decision?

Posted by redlightrobot at 2008-05-15 05:45 PM | Reply

School boards?

Posted by redlightrobot at 2008-05-15 10:42 PM

Geeze, Redlight, can't you at least first say congratulations to Goatman on the birth of his first grandchild? His little granddaughter is only 10 days old. You two can hash out your other political opinions but leave the new baby out of this for now.

Johnson

This is not a democracy--it is a republic. You don't seem to know much about the country you live in, which would explain why you don't know much about American values--such as freedom, and human rights.

How will gay marriage affect your life in a negative way?

"And you said I brought it up."

"You did bring it up first dUmmY."

You two need to see a gay marriage counselor.

You two need to see a gay marriage counselor.

Posted by Dave at 2008-05-15 10:57 PM

May I suggest Nullifidian?

Not sure what he charges but perhaps he'll lower his hourly fee if you ask him politely.

Re the topic of this thread

In 2000, 61% of California's voters voted in favor of Proposition 22 which stated "Marriage is between a man and a woman." That is a large majority and you can't just dismiss the will of an overwhelming majority of California voters on this issue.

That is a large majority and you can't just dismiss the will of an overwhelming majority of California voters on this issue.

Posted by CalifChris at 2008-05-15 11:16 PM | Reply


Why not? I would bet that a vast majority of people in 1860 would have voted to keep slavery legal also. You have no point--no valid argument against gay marriage. NONE.

You only seek to keep human rights away from people whose lifestyle you disagree with. It is a very unAmerican stance.

"Go have another scotch, you drunken buffoon.

Posted by Dave at 2008-05-15 10:47 PM"


Okay I will have anuthah Scotch and I'd buy you one but I'm guessing you're too busy licking the fungus off your sister's corn chute to join me.

Actually, I agree with BBob. I think most Southerners would have voted to keep slavery legal. I suppose for people like CC and Johnson that means slavery should still be enforced. Further the analogy with gay marriage is apropos. The intent of the majority is to deny fundamental civil rights to a significant minority.

"The intent of the majority is to deny fundamental civil rights to a significant minority."


Fundamental civil rights? Significant minority?

Ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha.........

Laugh it up funny boy. By the way the dry cleaners called. Your white robe and hood is ready to be picked up.

What's next? The guy or gal who wants to marry his pet?

Giime a Scotch thinks he made a great retort.

Do you think he knows everyone is laughing at him?

In 2000, 61% of California's voters voted in favor of Proposition 22 which stated "Marriage is between a man and a woman." That is a large majority and you can't just dismiss the will of an overwhelming majority of California voters on this issue.

Posted by CalifChris at 2008-05-15 11:16 PM | Reply

Sure You can if the majority is interfering with the rights of the minority. Face it times they are a changing for the better at least in California.

Larry Mohr

AnunAmerican

Do you have to prove you are a moron with every post? Pace yourself.

..LOAD O'CRAPPITY, CRAP-CRAP..
Sloughed out from Johnson at 2008-05-15 10:02 PM

There are homosexuals who seem to be sexual predators, who are attracted to young boys.

Sexual predators are REAL the vast majority are straight and related to the child they abuse.

Rules were developed for relationships taking into account the different natures of the parties to the relationships, and provisionally adding laws pertaining to issue of any unions.

You are completely misrepresenting history through your Christian-colored glassed. Homosexuals were member of the Roman Senate, have been among the fiercest warriors, many have been rulers and yes, even conquerors. We contribute in every capacity even procreation.

Similarly if you look to nature, you find animals such as lions, and hyenas, and wolves, as well as the primates, and other groups forming organizations and hierarchies and with behavior based on the sexual nature of the components of the group.

Homosexual activity is extremely prevalent among all social animals. This can be a natural act of domination among males and even alpha females, or just a pleasant diversion. There are homosexuals in every form of life. Parenting duties are often shared with them. In the ancient world some were revered as spiritual leaders being creatures of both sexes, and possessing vision surpassing the moment.

If you want to live a "gay life." do so. Just don't intrude your lifestyle on me.

Who is "intruding gay life" on you precisely, and how? You can turn off the television when Will & Grace is on, dude. I won't even watch that crap (all respect to Megan Mullally) being a History Channel and C-SPAN junkie.

And don't try to impose monetary burdens on others by estalishing faux families and demanding that they be treated as real, as if they were biological units.

"Faux families" as in a cobbled-together collection of social workers, parole officers, pimps and drug dealers, right? Yeah, very gay. Uh, we dress better, act better and buy better drugs than you ever shall. I look fine while being pimped for my heroin fix. You are so insensitive!

That said, I want to express my gratitude to homosexuals for their able and creative drive to direct attention to AIDS which so sadly afflicted their community.

The majority of AIDS victims are straight and got it from straight sex.

but when the aggressiveness of the homosexuals continues and they do not respond to gentle rebukes, I would suggest that you keep in mind that homosexual behavior and relationships could again be criminalized in addition to revocation of some benefits temporarily grnated by a tyrannical group of four people overturning the will of the people.

"Gentle rebukes" such as what Matthew Shepherd went through? I have first-hand knowledge of your type of gentility, and can see that a troll is forever a mother-fucking troll. Dude, I cannot understand how you can type 10 concise paragraphs of utterly unbelievable bullshit rhetoric.

The guy or gal who wants to marry his pet?

Lenny deserves a love life too. (Not really)

Wow the garbage just keeps piling up ehhhhhhh Mike. Typical of a poster "child" for birth control such as Yourself. Why should I be surprised anymore.

Larry Mohr

You did bring it up first dUmmY. You brought up the Smokestack on the Moon at 6:59. I responded at 7:06---Can't you tell time either?

How often do I have to prove you a liar? This is getting old.

*yawn* Once would be interesting to see.

BTW, what happens in the confines of your mind (like me "lying" by saying there are no smokestacks on the moon) doesn't count.

Amuse me some more oh delusional one! I'm sure you're still good for a few more cheap laughs.

Gee BaffledBob I don't know if they're laughing at me but the majority of folks are pretty pissed that the Supreme Courts of CA (and MA) have ruled against the will of the people to bow to the wishes of deviants who will destroy this great country of ours in short order if they continue to have their way. That is simple commonsense morality speaking not bigotry so stop confusing the two.

Goatman

Quit trying to hijack the thread. If you want to talk about the Smokestack on the moon--start a thread.

You lied by saying I brought up the Smokestack on the moon first on this thread. That is what you lied about, and that has been proven three times already.

Gimme a Scotch

The California Supreme Court did their job--they interpreted the Constitution. If you want some activist judges in there--elect them, and see if they can write a new law.

You really don't know people are laughing at you. What a surprise.

Per Gimme: "That is simple commonsense morality speaking"

What a deluded homophobic fascist. He defines commonsense morality as anything he feels comfortable with. And fuck everyone else.

You lied by saying I brought up the Smokestack on the moon first on this thread.

Incredible that you so blatantly lie. Anyone who cares (and who does -- we all know you are a liar) can scroll up and see you are lying.

You are truly a pathetic individual, bOoB. Morbidly pathetic. I am most sincere when I say I pity you.

Gee BaffledBob I don't know if they're laughing at me but the majority of folks are pretty pissed that the Supreme Courts of CA (and MA) have ruled against the will of the people to bow to the wishes of deviants who will destroy this great country of ours in short order if they continue to have their way. That is simple commonsense morality speaking not bigotry so stop confusing the two.

Posted by Gimme_a_Scotch at 2008-05-15 11:55 PM | Reply

If this ain't a bunch of shit I don't know what is. Since Gays and Lesbians(I hope Lesbians are still allowed to be called Lesbians I would hate for RCADE to get a nasty gram from Hungary or whereever it was to cease and dessist) have been cohabitating for a good number of Years and tyhe United States hasn't collapsed because of it. It just makes Your point painfully moot to the nth degree. I wouldn't doubt Your kind would have been saying that about Interracial Marriages and Black Marriages. It's time to go forward instead of regressing.

Larry Mohr

You really don't know people are laughing at you.

Who's laughing at him, bOoB, and how do you know they are?

As I said -- you're pathetic. Anyone who fabricates a fantasy world as you do is -- in the simplest terms -- sick.

Goatman, many of us think you are pathetic. And obnoxious to boot. And I am laughing at GimmeScotch. Like you he is sounds like a typical Southern redneck homophobic jackass.

Goatman, many of us think you are pathetic. And obnoxious to boot

Oh, so you share the same telepathic powers as the bOoB and are able to discern other DR poster's opinions of me.

Cool. For a while there I just that it was irrational self indulgence

"You did bring it up first dUmmY. You brought up the Smokestack on the Moon at 6:59. I responded at 7:06---Can't you tell time either?
How often do I have to prove you a liar? This is getting old."

*yawn* Once would be interesting to see.
BTW, what happens in the confines of your mind (like me "lying" by saying there are no smokestacks on the moon) doesn't count.
Amuse me some more oh delusional one! I'm sure you're still good for a few more cheap laughs.
Posted by goatman at 2008-05-15 11:46 PM

In case it wasn't apparent before (CalifChris indicates it wasn't) - congratulations on your first grandchild. I keep waiting for my brother to get that end of things going - they're close to engagement, so I'm almost free from periodic requests for grandchildren.:]

Okay, on to the craptitude that is the disputed smokestack. The footage is irrefutably not of standard NASA technology. Lunar volcanism seems out of the question unless it's of a nature that has not been scientifically explored, such as expulsion from unseen impacts collapsing vast caverns. It appears to be unlike standard moon dust, but I'm really not qualified to know one way or another. In my opinion, neither is NASA.

The tread marks in the close-up images appear to be indicating something far larger than an oil rig, mobilizing over craters and doesn't cover it's tracks. There is a possibility that the object is secret military technology harvesting the minerals and objects littered about the surface and subsurface. Either that, or maybe it's alien technology operated by bored aliens.

Goatman, after reading your last post, I rest my case.

Goatman

You said I brought up the smokestack first here:

Then don't bring them up duMmY.

"I didn't. You did. I followed up.

Simple isn't it.

Your mind? Yes, it is."

Posted by goatman at 2008-05-15 07:49 PM

and you brought up the Smokestack first here.

Says the guy whose brain tells him there are smokestacks on the moon.

I'm crushed, bOoB.

Posted by goatman at 2008-05-15 06:59 PM

So--you lied. You brought up the Smokestack first.

Redlightrobot

The footage comes from Apollo 8.

Goatman

Who's laughing at him, bOoB, and how do you know they are?

Posted by goatman at 2008-05-16 12:08 AM |

The same people who laugh at you. You can't read very well, you give fuzzy logic a bad name, and you lie.

You funny guy.

;-)

congratulations on your first grandchild.

Thank you on that. It is sincerely appreciated.

Lunar volcanism seems out of the question

As it should be. Lunar vulcanism has never been documented. The moon is thought to be seismologically dormant. Nor have volcanoes ever been seen on the moon.

Admittedly, I will not look at another youtube.com video that "proves" something fantastic. I am amazed that people recognize CGI in a feature length movie, but refuse to accept its possibility in a 5 minute youtube.com video.

The same people who laugh at you

And who are they, oh telepathic one? A few names would make your claim more believable. Until then, it's just more of the same; i.e. bullshit.

bOoB -- I'm not getting into a "you said, I said" battle with you. You know as well as I do the context your quotes are in concerned youtube.com being brought up, not lunar smokestacks.

God, I feel like such a child even indulging in your bullshit, so go ahead, believe what you want to believe, post what you want to post -- maybe someone will believe you. I hope so. You need petty reassurance of your worth in the worst sort of way. But sorry, I'm not going to give it to you by lying or agreeing to your out-of-context quotes.

Please, someone out there in blogsville, stop bOoB from making an ass of himself and indulge him and tell him he is absolutely correct. I can't bring myself to lie like that.