Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: dario73 on January 07, 2010, 02:20:35 PM
-
N.J. Senate rejects bill legalizing gay marriage
By The Star-Ledger Continuous News Desk
January 07, 2010, 4:39PM
TRENTON -- The state Senate rejected a same-sex marriage bill today, a major victory for opponents who contend the measure would damage religious freedom and is not needed because the state already permits civil unions.
The 20-14 vote defeating the measure followed an hour and a half of public debate inside the packed Senate chamber. The nearly thousand supporters and opponents of the bill held rallies on the Statehouse steps.
Statewide polls have shown New Jersey residents closely divided on same-sex marriage, and leading up to today’s vote, indicators showed a majority of the senators opposing the measure.
But momentum for the bill grew after Gov. Jon Corzine lost the November election. He has promised to sign the measure before Gov.-elect Chris Christie takes office. Christie has said he opposes the bill.
After the vote, Corzine said he was appreciative the bill was publicly debated, but was "deeply disappointed by the final tally on this common-sense measure that would have assured equal rights for all New Jerseyans."
"Most assuredly, this is an issue of civil rights and civil liberties, the foundation of our state and federal constitutions," the governor said. "Denying any group of people a fundamental human right because of who they are, or whom they love, is wrong, plain and simple."
Last month, the legislation cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee after hours of emotional debate and testimony, which set the stage for today’s full Senate showdown.
New Jersey passed a domestic partnership law in 2002 and legalized civil unions in 2006, but supporters say there are major flaws, like problems with pension benefits and hospitals denying visits to partners. They say gay couples do not have equal rights without being allowed to marry.
Just four state have legalized gay marriage, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont, while 30 states have banned it through constitutional amendments.
There were three abstentions in the vote. They were Sens. Paul Sarlo (D-Bergen), Steve Sweeney (D-Gloucester) and James Beach (D-Camden). Sen. Andrew Ciesla (R-Ocean) was not present and Sen. Diane Allen (R-Burlington) has been out sick while she fights cancer.
-
Good job by New Jersey. Corzine had no business trying to push this crap on his way out.
-
Armageddon is delayed yet again, LOL!
-
N.J. Senate rejects bill legalizing gay marriage
By The Star-Ledger Continuous News Desk
January 07, 2010, 4:39PM
TRENTON -- The state Senate rejected a same-sex marriage bill today, a major victory for opponents who contend the measure would damage religious freedom and is not needed because the state already permits civil unions.
The 20-14 vote defeating the measure followed an hour and a half of public debate inside the packed Senate chamber. The nearly thousand supporters and opponents of the bill held rallies on the Statehouse steps.
Statewide polls have shown New Jersey residents closely divided on same-sex marriage, and leading up to today’s vote, indicators showed a majority of the senators opposing the measure.
But momentum for the bill grew after Gov. Jon Corzine lost the November election. He has promised to sign the measure before Gov.-elect Chris Christie takes office. Christie has said he opposes the bill.
After the vote, Corzine said he was appreciative the bill was publicly debated, but was "deeply disappointed by the final tally on this common-sense measure that would have assured equal rights for all New Jerseyans."
"Most assuredly, this is an issue of civil rights and civil liberties, the foundation of our state and federal constitutions," the governor said. "Denying any group of people a fundamental human right because of who they are, or whom they love, is wrong, plain and simple."
Last month, the legislation cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee after hours of emotional debate and testimony, which set the stage for today’s full Senate showdown.
New Jersey passed a domestic partnership law in 2002 and legalized civil unions in 2006, but supporters say there are major flaws, like problems with pension benefits and hospitals denying visits to partners. They say gay couples do not have equal rights without being allowed to marry.
Just four state have legalized gay marriage, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont, while 30 states have banned it through constitutional amendments.
There were three abstentions in the vote. They were Sens. Paul Sarlo (D-Bergen), Steve Sweeney (D-Gloucester) and James Beach (D-Camden). Sen. Andrew Ciesla (R-Ocean) was not present and Sen. Diane Allen (R-Burlington) has been out sick while she fights cancer.
If this hadn't happened then you would have married a man, is that right? ::)
-
Is this really a shock to anybody?
If single sex marriage wouldn't fly in California, it's not going to fly anywhere else except in a handfull of underpopulated liberal territories that are by and large meaningless to the national landscape.
-
Finally some good sense!
-
I can't be the only one who feels safer. :)
-
How about rejecting the plague of guidos.
Whats that supposed to mean?
-
Whats that supposed to mean?
you mad?
-
Whats that supposed to mean?
Is that a retorical question? :-\
-
If this hadn't happened then you would have married a man, is that right? ::)
whens the rally for heterosexual opposite locker rooms?
you think its ok for you to be able to stare at a person you find sexual attractive but not me? how dare you deny my liberties... >:(
-
How about rejecting the plague of guidos.
honestly I would be ok with simply limiting them to New jersey/new york and not allowing them on the internet or any public access of any kind...
Ive got some frat boy friends(I was friends before they became frat boys) down here in houston and they have the same style although they dont do the whole puckering of the lips when they take pics...I think I would have to boot them in the face if I saw them do that.
Although they do seem to pull some quality tail so maybe there is something to the whole quido thing....Hmmmm
-
Whats that supposed to mean?
easy, what's more annoying? a couple fags getting hooked up or guidos? sorry, got to go with guido's being the bigger eye sore.
-
easy, what's more annoying? a couple fags getting hooked up or guidos? sorry, got to go with guido's being the bigger eye sore.
It was a joke Hugo. I used to be a guido. I am from the spirtual neverce center of Guidoism, Yonkers/Bronx is where it all started.
My first car was a white monte carlo SS, with a blue rag top, five spoke wheels, big antenna off the back, blacked out windows, racing wheel, black bra on the front, etc.
Im the gym where I go, its loaded with these idiots. They are all juiced up and weak as shit. I dont touch roids and can out lift any of these punks since all they do is arms, bench, delts, and a little back.
-
It was a joke Hugo. I used to be a guido. I am from the spirtual neverce center of Guidoism, Yonkers/Bronx is where it all started.
My first car was a white monte carlo SS, with a blue rag top, five spoke wheels, big antenna off the back, blacked out windows, racing wheel, black bra on the front, etc.
Im the gym where I go, its loaded with these idiots. They are all juiced up and weak as shit. I dont touch roids and can out lift any of these punks since all they do is arms, bench, delts, and a little back.
How many gold chains did you have? We won't tell. :)
-
How many gold chains did you have? We won't tell. :)
Bro - I had the turtle neck with the gold name plate on the front. Remember those things? I had Z Cavaricci's and listend to Freestyle for awhile.
It was a short fling with guidoism but I came back to my metal head roots very quickly.
Where I am from you cant not flirt with it. ;D ;D
-
If this hadn't happened then you would have married a man, is that right? ::)
Since it didn't happen, maybe now gays like you will now realize how unnatural faggotry is and marry a woman.
Not even evolution justifies homos.
-
How about rejecting the plague of guidos.
NJ can't close their border to NY.
But you are right. We need to come up with a revision that will ban both disorders.
-
Since it didn't happen, maybe now gays like you will now realize how unnatural faggotry is and marry a woman.
Not even evolution justifies homos.
and end up breaking her heart because the guy is hot for her brother?!? why ruin her life.. :o
-
Since it didn't happen, maybe now gays like you will now realize how unnatural faggotry is and marry a woman.
Not even evolution justifies homos.
Homosexuality may be an evolutionary means to control population growth.
-
Homosexuality may be an evolutionary means to control population growth.
No. Man evolved to be intellectual enough to create contraceptives, surgical procedures and if need be abortion. No need for pole smokers. Thanks for trying.
-
No. Man evolved to be intellectually enough to create contraceptives, surgical procedures and if need be abortion. No need for pole smokers. Thanks for trying.
Most of the people you will ever meet are stupid. This is a fact.
Not talking about the merits of homosexuality itself. Evolution may have inserted a mechanism to artificially limit use of resources and increase overall survival of the species. You're simply talking about technology, none of what you've mentioned has anything to do with evolution in humans. Someone, HH6 for example, could have just as easily written "the ability to kill our neighbors and take their resources eliminates the need to consider population control in the US.". :)
I'm against changing the definition of marriage but haven't seen a rational, non-stupidreligious argument against them having something equal.
I guess the real question is why guys like you are so concerned with the activities of homosexuals. I'm not suggesting you're gay, merely wondering why you're so threatened by faggotry.
-
Why would anyone be against this?
Unless you're gay, it doesn't really affect you, does it?
It's usually Religious extremists like Islamists and the like that are homophobes.
A difference between the enlightened Western Civilized world and the barbarians are that we're non-discrimating.
-
Why would anyone be against this?
Unless you're gay, it doesn't really affect you, does it?
It's usually Religious extremists like Islamists and the like that are homophobes.
A difference between the enlightened Western Civilized world and the barbarians are that we're non-discrimating.
I'm wiling to entertain logical reasons why/how it might affect someone.
If the divorce rate were less than 50%, pretending they were protecting marriage or children would make sense.
In the same vein, most of the arguments I've seen for it are stupid too. Ultimately I feel the issue is primarily driven by gays who think their identity crisis will be solved if homosexuality is legitimized through changing marriage's definition. It's pretty stupid.
-
The whole 'definition on marriage' thing is just the gays trying to force themselves and their behavioral problems into relevancy.
-
Most of the people you will ever meet are stupid. This is a fact.
Not talking about the merits of homosexuality itself. Evolution may have inserted a mechanism to artificially limit use of resources and increase overall survival of the species. You're simply talking about technology, none of what you've mentioned has anything to do with evolution in humans. Someone, HH6 for example, could have just as easily written "the ability to kill our neighbors and take their resources eliminates the need to consider population control in the US.". :)
I'm against changing the definition of marriage but haven't seen a rational, non-stupidreligious argument against them having something equal.
I guess the real question is why guys like you are so concerned with the activities of homosexuals. I'm not suggesting you're gay, merely wondering why you're so threatened by faggotry.
Nice. You can't argue a single valid point. You don't a valid point. Therefore, you act as if the other person is too stupid to understand your invalid point and you end up attacking religion, which is not even part of the discussion.
You can't use phrases like "evolution may have". That shows you don't know the first thing about evolution. Maybe? Your conveying an opinion behind an erroneous understanding of the natural world around you. With the exception of very few low level life forms, every species has males and females. This proves to any rational individual that propagation is of utmost importance for the survival of a species. Any improvement what so ever is aided, not hindered by population growth.
Again you make a silly argument that pole smokers might be nature's way of population growth. Negative. Evolution took care of that by giving man the scientific prowess to come up with methods IF it NEEDED to control overpopulation. You can't argue with that. Intellectual/scientific advancement is the desirable and natural result of evolution. Not an unnatural desire to not aid in the growth of the species.
You go by what you feel and your own misguided opinions. I go by what I see in this world in which every life form reproduces. There is no ifs or maybes about that.
Your argument holds no water. You just like it so much because you need to justify yourself as a homo.
-
Nice. You can't argue a single valid point. You don't a valid point. Therefore, you act as if the other person is too stupid to understand your invalid point and you end up attacking religion, which is not even part of the discussion.
You can't use phrases like "evolution may have". That shows you don't know the first thing about evolution. Maybe? Your conveying an opinion behind an erroneous understanding of the natural world around you. With the exception of very few low level life forms, every species has males and females. This proves to any rational individual that propagation is of utmost importance for the survival of a species. Any improvement what so ever is aided, not hindered by population growth.
Again you make a silly argument that pole smokers might be nature's way of population growth. Negative. Evolution took care of that by giving man the scientific prowess to come up with methods IF it NEEDED to control overpopulation. You can't argue with that. Intellectual/scientific advancement is the desirable and natural result of evolution. Not an unnatural desire to not aid in the growth of the species.
You go by what you feel and your own misguided opinions. I go by what I see in this world in which every life form reproduces. There is no ifs or maybes about that.
Your argument holds no water. You just like it so much because you need to justify yourself as a homo.
Then you just have a narrow view of evolution. I'd go a step further and argue evolution uses pre-natural selection and makes people gay so bad DNA doesn't get passed on but you're not bright enough to understand or adequately respond to the previous post. There's a reason it's called evolutionary theory, LOL!
Most of the science you've mentioned thwarts nature and its natural selection. All drugs, except 4, only extend life and don't affect quality. Letting people die off naturally, without artificially extending their lives, would likely result in healthier populations.
"Scientific prowess", LOL! I love it when dumbasses come on here and try writing smart.
-
Now, I will say that with population growth you see the occurrence of abnormalities. Like homosexuality. It has been observed at very infrequent times in other species. But, just because it exists it doesn't mean that it isn't against the intended purpose of nature and that it isn't a stumbling block to evolution. Like cancer is a mutation that is deadly to the natural processes of the body, so is homosexuality and its acceptance.
In humans, it is a learned/acquired behavior. There is no scientific proof that a person is born gay. To say otherwise, is a lie. People ask why would homos display such behavior considering the stigma. Why would a person sleep with someone underage even when he/she knows that there is a law against it? There are a lot of people that do things without caring if it's wrong. Why let natural law get in the way?
What these "gays" need is not marriage. They don't need a marriage license. They need to replace their sick, perverted sexual tendencies and replace them with the natural desire of the opposite sex. This is not impossible. We have seen straight people become gay. Casey Johnson who just died, Kelly McGinnis, Lindsey Lohan, and a few others. That seems to be accepted by liberals and the homosexual community. But, the moment that someone expresses that a person can change their sexual orientation from gay to straight, it becomes a ridiculous notion. (Boy George's former bottom boy is now married to a WOMAN and has kids).
Fags just need to get some self respect for themselves, forget about traumatic events that may have lead you to such a horrible path, forget that you were raised by dyke of a mom and get some will power to obey the natural order.
-
Now, I will say that with population growth you see the occurrence of abnormalities. Like homosexuality. It has been observed at very infrequent times in other species. But, just because it exists it doesn't mean that it isn't against the intended purpose of nature and that it isn't a stumbling block to evolution. Like cancer is a mutation that is deadly to the natural processes of the body, so is homosexuality and its acceptance.
In humans, it is a learned/acquired behavior. There is no scientific proof that a person is born gay. To say otherwise, is a lie. People ask why would homos display such behavior considering the stigma. Why would a person sleep with someone underage even when he/she knows that there is a law against it? There are a lot of people that do things without caring if it's wrong. Why let natural law get in the way?
What these "gays" need is not marriage. They don't need a marriage license. They need to replace their sick, perverted sexual tendencies and replace them with the natural desire of the opposite sex. This is not impossible. We have seen straight people become gay. Casey Johnson who just died, Kelly McGinnis, Lindsey Lohan, and a few others. That seems to be accepted by liberals and the homosexual community. But, the moment that someone expresses that a person can change their sexual orientation from gay to straight, it becomes a ridiculous notion. (Boy George's former bottom boy is now married to a WOMAN and has kids).
Fags just need to get some self respect for themselves, forget about traumatic events that may have lead you to such a horrible path, forget that you were raised by dyke of a mom and get some will power to obey the natural order.
Geez, you're gay!
Only someone with a strong self-loathing because of their strong taste for penile tissue* could feel so threatened by other gays being happy.
*Sorry, A23.... had to borrow it. :) I was pretty certain Hugo, Ozmo or someone else would have taken exception to my writing "the cock".
-
Why would anyone be against this?
Unless you're gay, it doesn't really affect you, does it?
It's usually Religious extremists like Islamists and the like that are homophobes.
A difference between the enlightened Western Civilized world and the barbarians are that we're non-discrimating.
Unless you're gay?
It affects the institution of marriage. Since the very beginning marriage has been understood as being between a man and a woman. That's it.
Why do fags have to mess with that? They never wanted it before, why do they want to corrupt the marriage institution now?
I don't want my children or any one else's growing up in a society where this is looked upon as "natural". It isn't, no matter how you slice it.
The most important point is this: If the people decide they don't want gay marriages, why do these homos keep coming back with resolutions to try to force states to accept them? Once people in a state vote to amend their state constitutions to ban the disgusting gay marriages by defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, then that should be the end of it. But, no. The fags will continue to press the issue. Acting as if they are some kind of new race or ethnic group whose rights have been violated. Eventually, they will succeed. I am not numb to that. Eventually, the fagsters will have their way.
For now, if gays want to be married, then stop being abnormal and marry a person of the opposite sex. There is your solution.
-
Homos need to either STRAIGHTEN up. Or just stay in your homes living in shame due to your sick CHOICE of sexual orientation.
-
Most of the people you will ever meet are stupid. This is a fact.
Not talking about the merits of homosexuality itself. Evolution may have inserted a mechanism to artificially limit use of resources and increase overall survival of the species. You're simply talking about technology, none of what you've mentioned has anything to do with evolution in humans. Someone, HH6 for example, could have just as easily written "the ability to kill our neighbors and take their resources eliminates the need to consider population control in the US.". :)
I'm against changing the definition of marriage but haven't seen a rational, non-stupidreligious argument against them having something equal.
I guess the real question is why guys like you are so concerned with the activities of homosexuals. I'm not suggesting you're gay, merely wondering why you're so threatened by faggotry.
interesting thought, I dont really see how it would have implemented itself into the evolutionary process though. You seem to think that it might have been in response to the surroundings but lack of resources wouldnt produce homosexuality. It would likely produce a species that was more efficient in the way individuals used said resources not the group and thereby allowing more heterosexuals on the same resources not creating homosexuals.
I heard a theory in school that was along the lines of helping in child rearing, heterosexual males in most species dont stick around to care for the well being of their offspring. A homosexual male sometimes steps in and fills the parenting role of the absent heterosexual male to help in successful rearing.
There are plenty of arguments against gay marriage not based in religion Kaje youve posted in the same threads I have bro I never bring up religion in my anti gay marriage stance.
-
interesting thought, I dont really see how it would have implemented itself into the evolutionary process though. You seem to think that it might have been in response to the surroundings but lack of resources wouldnt produce homosexuality. It would likely produce a species that was more efficient in the way individuals used said resources not the group and thereby allowing more heterosexuals on the same resources not creating homosexuals.
I heard a theory in school that was along the lines of helping in child rearing, heterosexual males in most species dont stick around to care for the well being of their offspring. A homosexual male sometimes steps in and fills the parenting role of the absent heterosexual male to help in successful rearing.
There are plenty of arguments against gay marriage not based in religion Kaje youve posted in the same threads I have bro I never bring up religion in my anti gay marriage stance.
How about this?
I agree to gay marriage if we can cut spending by 50%?
Both parties split the baby in half. Agreed?
-
I'm wiling to entertain logical reasons why/how it might affect someone.
If the divorce rate were less than 50%, pretending they were protecting marriage or children would make sense.
In the same vein, most of the arguments I've seen for it are stupid too. Ultimately I feel the issue is primarily driven by gays who think their identity crisis will be solved if homosexuality is legitimized through changing marriage's definition. It's pretty stupid.
LOL its always really funny to hear ppl state the divorce rate and them have no clue of how wrong they are...sorry kaje but your off bro.
First off do you know how they get the 50%+ divorce rate?
-they take all the divorces in a year and divide it by all the marriages in a year...as you might be able to tell this causes problems b/c this doesnt take into account the divorces in that year that didnt get married in that year...this greatly exaggerates the divorce rate
the best way that I could see would be to take in all the divorces that we have on record and divide that by the number of marriages on record.
The actual divorce rate is supposedly in the 30's a far cry from 50%, wouldnt you say?
so I guess the sanctity of marriage argument just gained some traction with you ;)
-
How about this?
I agree to gay marriage if we can cut spending by 50%?
Both parties split the baby in half. Agreed?
nah, not until I can stare at a woman in the womens locker room will I be satisfied with the unequal rights of gays and straights ;)
-
nah, not until I can stare at a woman in the womens locker room will I be satisfied with the unequal rights of gays and straights ;)
Like Pelosi, Feinstein/Boxer, Hillary, Wasserman-Shcultz, Hillary, and that bunch Tony?
-
Unless you're gay?
It affects the institution of marriage. Since the very beginning marriage has been understood as being between a man and a woman. That's it.
Why do fags have to mess with that? They never wanted it before, why do they want to corrupt the marriage institution now?
I don't want my children or any one else's growing up in a society where this is looked upon as "natural". It isn't, no matter how you slice it.
The most important point is this: If the people decide they don't want gay marriages, why do these homos keep coming back with resolutions to try to force states to accept them? Once people in a state vote to amend their state constitutions to ban the disgusting gay marriages by defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, then that should be the end of it. But, no. The fags will continue to press the issue. Acting as if they are some kind of new race or ethnic group whose rights have been violated. Eventually, they will succeed. I am not numb to that. Eventually, the fagsters will have their way.
For now, if gays want to be married, then stop being abnormal and marry a person of the opposite sex. There is your solution.
Huh? You need a history lesson. :-\
http://www.amazon.com/Marriage-History-How-Love-Conquered/dp/014303667X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262982646&sr=8-2-spell
http://www.amazon.com/Marriage-Likeness-Same-Sex-Unions/dp/0002555085/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262982830&sr=1-1
-
thank you. I was too lazy to do the cut/paste for these. other sites {bodybuilding.com , etc} have been over this topic years ago. Its like revisiting an old friend. same agruments-different avatars. ;D
-
interesting thought, I dont really see how it would have implemented itself into the evolutionary process though. You seem to think that it might have been in response to the surroundings but lack of resources wouldnt produce homosexuality. It would likely produce a species that was more efficient in the way individuals used said resources not the group and thereby allowing more heterosexuals on the same resources not creating homosexuals.
I heard a theory in school that was along the lines of helping in child rearing, heterosexual males in most species dont stick around to care for the well being of their offspring. A homosexual male sometimes steps in and fills the parenting role of the absent heterosexual male to help in successful rearing.
There are plenty of arguments against gay marriage not based in religion Kaje youve posted in the same threads I have bro I never bring up religion in my anti gay marriage stance.
You know me. I'll argue sky color, LOL!
Look at it this way.... very few animals have sex for fun. Evolution minded people (unlike most here but those who've really studied studied it, not a class in community college or cut & paste experts) came to the conclusion years ago that females willing to accommodate non-estrus sex benefitted from increased protection from males and higher offspring survival rates. Why wouldn't there be some built in way to remove a small percentage of people from the gene pool?
Your reason(s): taxes/cost were among the few lucid mentioned but that's really not what we're going for here. Are we? :P I specifically want to read why someone who isn't gay could be so emotionally invested in stopping gay marriage. I'm more interested in the reason than gay marriage itself. The topic has been boring for a long time. :)
-
I think the problem is these gay rights groups. Instead of taking the countries temperature and realizing that they are alienating most Americans with their nonsensical rhetoric about civil rights, they are aggressively pursuing legislation that the majority of Americans find repugnant.
Most Americans ( I would think) have absolutely no problem giving homosexuals the same rights and privileges heteros receive through marriage in the form of a civil union. Such a relationship could probably be created with relative ease through some sort of domestic relationship/ estate planning combination. But changing the definition of the marital relationship to marriage and having gay marriage ceremonies in tandem with the largely straight public being be forced into acknowledging and accepting a practice that most find offensive to their personal tastes/ religious beliefs is too much. A gradual, more evenhanded approach would certainly work imo.
If a law was proposed providing gays with the same exact rights as martial partners, but without creating "gay marriage", I think it would be overwhelmingly accepted by the public.
-
Now, I will say that with population growth you see the occurrence of abnormalities. Like homosexuality. It has been observed at very infrequent times in other species. But, just because it exists it doesn't mean that it isn't against the intended purpose of nature and that it isn't a stumbling block to evolution. Like cancer is a mutation that is deadly to the natural processes of the body, so is homosexuality and its acceptance.
In humans, it is a learned/acquired behavior. There is no scientific proof that a person is born gay. To say otherwise, is a lie. People ask why would homos display such behavior considering the stigma. Why would a person sleep with someone underage even when he/she knows that there is a law against it? There are a lot of people that do things without caring if it's wrong. Why let natural law get in the way?
What these "gays" need is not marriage. They don't need a marriage license. They need to replace their sick, perverted sexual tendencies and replace them with the natural desire of the opposite sex. This is not impossible. We have seen straight people become gay. Casey Johnson who just died, Kelly McGinnis, Lindsey Lohan, and a few others. That seems to be accepted by liberals and the homosexual community. But, the moment that someone expresses that a person can change their sexual orientation from gay to straight, it becomes a ridiculous notion. (Boy George's former bottom boy is now married to a WOMAN and has kids).
Fags just need to get some self respect for themselves, forget about traumatic events that may have lead you to such a horrible path, forget that you were raised by dyke of a mom and get some will power to obey the natural order.
Great job! ;)
-
And FYI
Why on earth would anyone choose to be gay? It's antithetical to the natural impulse of our species, it puts you in a minority that is anywhere from disliked to hated by most religions on earth, it makes your life more difficult, makes you the butt of jokes ( no pun intended) etc.
Nobody chooses to be gay anymore than one can choose to be a blonde or have green eyes. Homosexuality is a genetic abnormality that effects a certain cross section of the population. It cant be "cured", it cant be "prevented" and you can't produce a gay vaccine.
Granted, in some unfortunate situations (rape, molestation, prison, etc.) people may choose or be forced into homosexuality out of necessity. But that is in a tiny fraction of situations.
-
You know me. I'll argue sky color, LOL!
Look at it this way.... very few animals have sex for fun. Evolution minded people (unlike most here but those who've really studied studied it, not a class in community college or cut & paste experts) came to the conclusion years ago that females willing to accommodate non-estrus sex benefitted from increased protection from males and higher offspring survival rates. Why wouldn't there be some built in way to remove a small percentage of people from the gene pool?
Your reason(s): taxes/cost were among the few lucid mentioned but that's really not what we're going for here. Are we? :P I specifically want to read why someone who isn't gay could be so emotionally invested in stopping gay marriage. I'm more interested in the reason than gay marriage itself. The topic has been boring for a long time. :)
LOL I dont know if you were referring to me or not with the community college shot but anthropology was actually a minor of mine so ive had more than a class or two on evolution. I actually thought about that aspect to in terms of protection or simply less mates for all the males or females to mate.The problem with your theory as I see is that these homosexuals werent reproducing and this wouldnt have shown in the evolution of the species. Your basically saying that this trait jumped through the air from gay to gay or in other words socially engineered.
Whats more likely is that homosexuality is simply a result of some type of mutation or some abnormal trait that presents itself when the parents have certain genetic characteristics and that the homosexual individual contributed so ppl attribute that to the reason we have gays.
I think you have me confused with others in my arguments kaje to me the gay movement is about as annoying as a splinter in your finger. Shit just keeps nagging and nagging and nagging and wont STFU LOL
also not one is willing to admit or understand the problems with gays in the military etc....
also not one understands or admits the problems with gays in locker rooms this is directly related to gays in the military but nobody ever makes that leap :-[
to me they want their cake and want to eat it too, shit doesnt fly with me...you want equality thats fine but equality all the way around not simply in the areas in which are convenient to you.
-
LOL I dont know if you were referring to me or not with the community college shot but anthropology was actually a minor of mine so ive had more than a class or two on evolution. I actually thought about that aspect to in terms of protection or simply less mates for all the males or females to mate.The problem with your theory as I see is that these homosexuals werent reproducing and this wouldnt have shown in the evolution of the species. Your basically saying that this trait jumped through the air from gay to gay or in other words socially engineered.
Whats more likely is that homosexuality is simply a result of some type of mutation or some abnormal trait that presents itself when the parents have certain genetic characteristics and that the homosexual individual contributed so ppl attribute that to the reason we have gays.
I think you have me confused with others in my arguments kaje to me the gay movement is about as annoying as a splinter in your finger. Shit just keeps nagging and nagging and nagging and wont STFU LOL
also not one is willing to admit or understand the problems with gays in the military etc....
also not one understands or admits the problems with gays in locker rooms this is directly related to gays in the military but nobody ever makes that leap :-[
to me they want their cake and want to eat it too, shit doesnt fly with me...you want equality thats fine but equality all the way around not simply in the areas in which are convenient to you.
It could easily be a result of hormones affecting brain development as in some mental diseases. The cause is irrelevant in this discussion. It's one of those things like presidential choice that doesn't affect many people.
-
LOL I dont know if you were referring to me or not with the community college shot but anthropology was actually a minor of mine.
How'd that work out for ya' Tony? :-\
-
How'd that work out for ya' Tony? :-\
hahahah well Im back in school for finance prepping for the GMATS hopefully to be taken in February. I do have the ability to hold stimulating conversations though. ;) ;D :-X
-
It could easily be a result of hormones affecting brain development as in some mental diseases. The cause is irrelevant in this discussion. It's one of those things like presidential choice that doesn't affect many people.
yes and no for the purpose of your topic is doesnt really play a role although it still does somewhat as if the reason for it is meaningless then well some ppl may have a problem with affecting change for a meaningless behavior.
lets put that aside though...
I have no problem with gay ppl have known a few and have actually been friends with a few and I have no personal animosity towards gays. The gay movement however is another story I think it has something to do with normalizing an abnormal behavior. Homosexuality is not normal it shouldnt be looked at as normal and it shouldnt be made out to be normal by advocates.
There is also the rampant hypocrisy that this movement shows in preaching tolerance and acceptance and then turning and condemning those who dont advocate the values they do ::).
They also want to pick and choose the equality they receive, again more hypocrisy Im all for giving equality but equality all the way around.
I could go on but Im gonna head to the gym let me know what your thoughts are on the thoughts ive put forward so far.
-
Quote function is messed up so I'll respond to each question:
I have no problem with gays but cannot tolerate fags.
There's no shortage of hypocrisy on either side of the issue.
Worse than women who want equal rights but never want to lift heavy stuff or take out the garbage. What they want is whatever advantage 'equality' represents with none of the negatives. I am, however, for affirmative action that might get me something and would cash/spend any reparation check sent to Jake. :)
My actual pet peeves never get discussed here. Before you ask... no, I'm not sharing. :)
-
Quote function is messed up so I'll respond to each question:
I have no problem with gays but cannot tolerate fags.
There's no shortage of hypocrisy on either side of the issue.
Worse than women who want equal rights but never want to lift heavy stuff or take out the garbage. What they want is whatever advantage 'equality' represents with none of the negatives. I am, however, for affirmative action that might get me something and would cash/spend any reparation check sent to Jake. :)
My actual pet peeves never get discussed here. Before you ask... no, I'm not sharing. :)
LOL I feel the same way pretty much on everything you said
come on now doc you started this topic and stated you werent for the redefinition of marriage so please state your reasons for not being for it.
-
LOL I feel the same way pretty much on everything you said
come on now doc you started this topic and stated you werent for the redefinition of marriage so please state your reasons for not being for it.
It's really pretty simple: Definitions and social norms change naturally over time and modifying them for political gain or to soothe sandy vaginas is silly. Something equivalent would be fine, IMO, but it's doubtful expanding the definition would cause American society to collapse and really wouldn't affect my life one bit.
My main criticism of this foolishness is the intentionally inflammatory/racist language some left wingers are using. We all know the civil rights act's intent was to create parity for white women in the workplace. Nitwits saying "there was a time blacks and whites couldn't marry" is code for "how can you let blacks have more rights than us?!" :)
These opinions have been posted many times. I thought you were joking.
At some point in the next 5 or 10 years Americans will be so busy trying to survive financially that no one will give a damn about redefining marriage or abortion. It'll be a sad time for politics because there really aren't too many issues separating democrats from republicans. I do doubt Obama will do anything other than pick a Supreme Court Justice who may lean in that direction as he is personally opposed to redefining marriage. Then again... he's a politician so it's impossible to tell if there are any convictions truly held beyond whatever lies people are willing to believe. :)
I am a little curious if changing something people claim is so essential to our cultural identity will have any real, lasting impact. I'd like to believe we'd get some useful information over time from what happens in the states where same-sex marriage is practiced but it's doubtful.
-
It's really pretty simple: Definitions and social norms change naturally over time and modifying them for political gain or to soothe sandy vaginas is silly. Something equivalent would be fine, IMO, but it's doubtful expanding the definition would cause American society to collapse and really wouldn't affect my life one bit.
My main criticism of this foolishness is the intentionally inflammatory/racist language some left wingers are using. We all know the civil rights act's intent was to create parity for white women in the workplace. Nitwits saying "there was a time blacks and whites couldn't marry" is code for "how can you let blacks have more rights than us?!" :)
These opinions have been posted many times. I thought you were joking.
At some point in the next 5 or 10 years Americans will be so busy trying to survive financially that no one will give a damn about redefining marriage or abortion. It'll be a sad time for politics because there really aren't too many issues separating democrats from republicans. I do doubt Obama will do anything other than pick a Supreme Court Justice who may lean in that direction as he is personally opposed to redefining marriage. Then again... he's a politician so it's impossible to tell if there are any convictions truly held beyond whatever lies people are willing to believe. :)
I am a little curious if changing something people claim is so essential to our cultural identity will have any real, lasting impact. I'd like to believe we'd get some useful information over time from what happens in the states where same-sex marriage is practiced but it's doubtful.
LOL never thought about it like that hahahah pretty funny
I agree pretty much with your stance I dont think it would change much if anything simply more appeasement I think ppl need to learn that you dont always get what you want.
-
LOL never thought about it like that hahahah pretty funny
I agree pretty much with your stance I dont think it would change much if anything simply more appeasement I think ppl need to learn that you dont always get what you want.
I do sort of agree with your "why not just make all showers and bathrooms unisex" position but am nearly not cute enough to believe every gay man wants to be gay with me. :)
-
I do sort of agree with your "why not just make all showers and bathrooms unisex" position but am nearly not cute enough to believe every gay man wants to be gay with me. :)
LOL me either doc but then again thats probably a good thing ;)
-
I'm wiling to entertain logical reasons why/how it might affect someone.
If the divorce rate were less than 50%, pretending they were protecting marriage or children would make sense.
In the same vein, most of the arguments I've seen for it are stupid too. Ultimately I feel the issue is primarily driven by gays who think their identity crisis will be solved if homosexuality is legitimized through changing marriage's definition. It's pretty stupid.
"all persons should have the opportunity to be married and miserable"! :'(
-
"all persons should have the opportunity to be married and miserable"! :'(
Are all married people miserable?
-
Are all unmarried people miserable?
It's is never all black and white.
Could care less if you are homo/hetro/married/unmarried.
If you have the same rights as I do under the law....
not an issue....
But then again, that is the issue.
Sandra
-
Are all unmarried people miserable?
It's is never all black and white.
Could care less if you are homo/hetro/married/unmarried.
If you have the same rights as I do under the law....
not an issue....
But then again, that is the issue.
Sandra
agreed sandra are you ok with me coming into your locker room and watching you change?
gays get to do it seems a tad unfair to me, you?
-
agreed sandra are you ok with me coming into your locker room and watching you change?
gays get to do it seems a tad unfair to me, you?
and that has to do with marriage....how?
-
The gay "marriage" thing has now switched to California, where the case of "Perry v. Schwarzenegger" has the plaintiffs claiming that Prop. 8 violates the US Constitution. The specific charges are violation of the 14th amendment and (citing Romer v. Evans) showing animus towards homos.
Here's what I don't get.
We have a federal Supreme Court ruling from 1972 ("Baker v. Nelson") that already states that defining marriage as a one-man-one-woman (1M-1W) union doesn't violate the Constitution. And that's binding on all lower courts.
And, the 8th and 11th Circuit Courts, over the last 5 years, have ruled that the laws and amendments in Nebraska and Florida, respectively, do NOT violate the US Constitution. So how does California's amendment do such, when those of Florida and Nebraska do not?
The idea that the instutition of marriage was made for the expressed purpose of being mean to gays is utterly ridiculous.
-
and that has to do with marriage....how?
ahhhh equal rights...NUMB NUT
you want equal rights when it suits you but not when it doesnt
also if you dont see how this relates to gays in the military then you need to log off or go post on the G&O permanently.
-
The gay "marriage" thing has now switched to California, where the case of "Perry v. Schwarzenegger" has the plaintiffs claiming that Prop. 8 violates the US Constitution. The specific charges are violation of the 14th amendment and (citing Romer v. Evans) showing animus towards homos.
Here's what I don't get.
We have a federal Supreme Court ruling from 1972 ("Baker v. Nelson") that already states that defining marriage as a one-man-one-woman (1M-1W) union doesn't violate the Constitution. And that's binding on all lower courts.
And, the 8th and 11th Circuit Courts, over the last 5 years, have ruled that the laws and amendments in Nebraska and Florida, respectively, do NOT violate the US Constitution. So how does California's amendment do such, when those of Florida and Nebraska do not?
The idea that the instutition of marriage was made for the expressed purpose of being mean to gays is utterly ridiculous.
I think it has something to do with whats not defined by the feds is left to the states. The supreme court didnt say that marriage is between one women and one man from what I understand only that defining it as such doesnt violate the constitution.
Thus it leaves the door open for states to define marriage b/c it wasnt defined by federal authorities. This is the problem though and the reason it will keep getting thrown back to the supreme court. When lower courts have multiple rulings that differ from one another dealing with federal questions(this isnt really a federal question but since it does deal with the federal govt taxes, registration etc. it could be put in federal court) they get bumped up to higher courts to try and solidify the rulings with one from a higher court.
you should know that simply b/c a higher court rules a certain way doesnt mean the lower courts are legally bound to rule on cases that way. Now those cases may get over turned in appeal and the judge look like an ass which is why alot of judges find the same way as others but doesnt mean they cant legally go against higher courts.
"stari decis" or something like that means let the decision stand
-
N.J. Senate rejects bill legalizing gay marriage
By The Star-Ledger Continuous News Desk
January 07, 2010, 4:39PM
TRENTON -- The state Senate rejected a same-sex marriage bill today, a major victory for opponents who contend the measure would damage religious freedom and is not needed because the state already permits civil unions.
The 20-14 vote defeating the measure followed an hour and a half of public debate inside the packed Senate chamber. The nearly thousand supporters and opponents of the bill held rallies on the Statehouse steps.
Statewide polls have shown New Jersey residents closely divided on same-sex marriage, and leading up to today’s vote, indicators showed a majority of the senators opposing the measure.
But momentum for the bill grew after Gov. Jon Corzine lost the November election. He has promised to sign the measure before Gov.-elect Chris Christie takes office. Christie has said he opposes the bill.
After the vote, Corzine said he was appreciative the bill was publicly debated, but was "deeply disappointed by the final tally on this common-sense measure that would have assured equal rights for all New Jerseyans."
"Most assuredly, this is an issue of civil rights and civil liberties, the foundation of our state and federal constitutions," the governor said. "Denying any group of people a fundamental human right because of who they are, or whom they love, is wrong, plain and simple."
Last month, the legislation cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee after hours of emotional debate and testimony, which set the stage for today’s full Senate showdown.
New Jersey passed a domestic partnership law in 2002 and legalized civil unions in 2006, but supporters say there are major flaws, like problems with pension benefits and hospitals denying visits to partners. They say gay couples do not have equal rights without being allowed to marry.
Just four state have legalized gay marriage, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont, while 30 states have banned it through constitutional amendments.
There were three abstentions in the vote. They were Sens. Paul Sarlo (D-Bergen), Steve Sweeney (D-Gloucester) and James Beach (D-Camden). Sen. Andrew Ciesla (R-Ocean) was not present and Sen. Diane Allen (R-Burlington) has been out sick while she fights cancer.
Why do you care if Gays get married or not...are you gay?
-
Personally, I could care less. If the voters want it, fine, if not, fine too.
-
ahhhh equal rights...NUMB NUT
you want equal rights when it suits you but not when it doesnt
also if you dont see how this relates to gays in the military then you need to log off or go post on the G&O permanently.
nothing wrong with equal rights. and also for military.
sissy boi.
-
Personally, I could care less. If the voters want it, fine, if not, fine too.
i agree; we should have had the chance to vote on civil rights; not left it up to the courts.
I would like the front of the bus back, please...
-
nothing wrong with equal rights. and also for military.
sissy boi.
point is dip shit that gays also have advantages protected by the law, so if you want equal rights nancy you should be advocating them not picking and choosing.
IF...you want to pick and choose like it seems you do then you shouldnt talk about equal rights ;)
-
I think it has something to do with whats not defined by the feds is left to the states. The supreme court didnt say that marriage is between one women and one man from what I understand only that defining it as such doesnt violate the constitution.
Thus it leaves the door open for states to define marriage b/c it wasnt defined by federal authorities. This is the problem though and the reason it will keep getting thrown back to the supreme court. When lower courts have multiple rulings that differ from one another dealing with federal questions(this isnt really a federal question but since it does deal with the federal govt taxes, registration etc. it could be put in federal court) they get bumped up to higher courts to try and solidify the rulings with one from a higher court.
you should know that simply b/c a higher court rules a certain way doesnt mean the lower courts are legally bound to rule on cases that way. Now those cases may get over turned in appeal and the judge look like an ass which is why alot of judges find the same way as others but doesnt mean they cant legally go against higher courts.
"stari decis" or something like that means let the decision stand
With regards to marriage, the lower courts that have legalized gay "marriage" have done so, claiming it violates its own state constitution, not the federal one.
You make a good point. State constitutions can be stricter than the federal one, providing that there's no direct contradiction (see the 2002 school voucher case, "Zellman v. Simmons-Harris". The ruling doesn't mandate school vouchers for all states or that such be allowed for use at religious schools; it merely states the parameters for a school voucher program, if religious school usage is included).
A lower court, however, (as it relates to marriage) can NOT rule that a marriage law is federally unconstitutional, since the US Supreme Court has said the exact opposite.
Nor can lower courts assume that more recent federal Supreme Court rulings trump earlier ones (the argument gay activists are making in the case against Prop. 8, claiming that the 1996 ruling in "Romer v. Evans" trumps the 1972 ruling in "Baker v. Nelson).
-
The gay "marriage" thing has now switched to California, where the case of "Perry v. Schwarzenegger" has the plaintiffs claiming that Prop. 8 violates the US Constitution. The specific charges are violation of the 14th amendment and (citing Romer v. Evans) showing animus towards homos.
Here's what I don't get.
We have a federal Supreme Court ruling from 1972 ("Baker v. Nelson") that already states that defining marriage as a one-man-one-woman (1M-1W) union doesn't violate the Constitution. And that's binding on all lower courts.
And, the 8th and 11th Circuit Courts, over the last 5 years, have ruled that the laws and amendments in Nebraska and Florida, respectively, do NOT violate the US Constitution. So how does California's amendment do such, when those of Florida and Nebraska do not?
The idea that the instutition of marriage was made for the expressed purpose of being mean to gays is utterly ridiculous.
Does letting same-sex marriages from a limited time period remain in effect create a separate class and essentially deny other gays seeking the same benefits equal protection under the law? Maybe no gay advocates want to risk the backlash if challenging existing marriages on that basis renders them null and void.
-
... so if you want equal rights nancy .....
nancy; who are u calling nancy? Sarah, maybe.....
you are so fun to tease; you fall for it every time!