Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
August 23, 2014, 12:45:01 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home Help Calendar Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 528 529 [530] 531 532 ... 602
13226  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: How can a PDI PRO win an NPC contest? on: June 08, 2008, 02:05:55 PM
Aren't they no longer considered amatuers since they competed and accepted money as a "pro"

Serious question.

Sean Allen was a PDI PRO and competed in at least one PDI show correct??

That's not out of the ordinary. Kai Greene competed as a pro in the WNBF, before winning the Team Universe twice (1999 and 2004).
13227  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage on: June 06, 2008, 12:52:52 PM
What will the gays have to continually whine and bitch about now?

The fact that their marriage licenses may only be good for another 5 months.
13228  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage on: June 03, 2008, 04:30:09 PM
no more than that mormon cult already does

In other words, more of a mockery.
13229  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage on: June 03, 2008, 04:28:19 PM
The opponents of this issue being on the ballot in November will still try to convince the public through the tanked-up media that the polls show that more people care less about the issue.  It will be a wake-up call when the ballot results should at least a 5-10% point margin in favor of a marriage amendment.  Twenty-Seven states already have this amendment in their constitution.  And if California ends up with vote to amend it's state constitution, the adversaries will have to concede that, indeed, not everyone sees this lifestyle as favorable as they deem it to be.

That's generally the case. Some of these outlets will prop up polls, claiming that people support gay "marriage". If history repeats itself, these polls will be shot to pieces, when the results of the vote are tallied. 1.1 million people signed this petition in record time; they only needed 695,000.

If the amendment passes, it will be the third time a state's residence has voted for such, after its court deemed laws that declared marriage as only a 1M-1W union unconstitutional. And, California will join Michigan, Oregon, Hawaii, and Wisconsin, as "blue" states with constitutional amendments, regarding the definition of marriage.
13230  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage on: June 03, 2008, 01:10:03 PM
It's official! The California Marriage Amendment is on the ballot:

California Marriage Amendment Qualifies for November Ballot – The People Will Decide (6/2/08)


Secretary of State Debra Bowen today certified the eighth initiative for the November 4, 2008, General Election ballot. The measure would amend California’s Constitution to define marriage as a union “between a man and a woman.”


“The response from the people of this state has been unprecedented in support of marriage’s legacy, by responding with an all-out volunteer signature campaign,” said Ron Prentice, CEO of the California Family Council and Chairman of the ProtectMarriage.com coalition sponsoring the amendment. “We’re so grateful to the over 1.1 million voters who signed the marriage petition in time for the November election. Passing this amendment is the only way for the people to override the four supreme court judges who want to re-define marriage for our entire society.”

In order to qualify for the ballot, the marriage definition measure needed 694,354 valid petition signatures, which is equal to 8% of the total votes cast for governor in the November 2006 General Election. The initiative proponents submitted 1,120,801 signatures in an attempt to qualify the measure, and it qualified through the random sample signature check.

“The vast majority of research continues to state that California’s voters favor keeping marriage as it is, protecting its historic definition between only a man and a woman. The November ballot will give opportunity for citizens to respond to the State Supreme Court’s decision, by solidifying traditional marriage in the California Constitution. Californians are a tolerant people. But we also know that marriage is between a man and a woman, as the voters reaffirmed just a few years ago.” stated Prentice.





http://www.protectmarriage.com/newsdetail.php?newsId=314
13231  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: How is Batista beating WWE drug testing? on: June 03, 2008, 10:45:44 AM
I just saw him on the pay per view and he looks like he has lost little or no size since the WWE drug testing began! Surely he is not completely natural now. I just can't believe that.

Triple H is still big, if not in as good shape as he used to be, but him getting away with it can easily be explained by him f*cking Vince's daughter.

I beg to differ. Batista looks to be about 20-25 lbs lighter than he was 3-4 years ago. He's announced to be 290 lbs. Back in '04 & '05, he was 317.
13232  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: Batista.... on: June 01, 2008, 01:10:25 PM
I would like to know how the F^&K he is passing the wellness tests...no way he is anywhere near natural;

unless his buddy HHH is pulling some strings...

Both Batista and Hemsley are somewhat smaller than they've been in the past. Look at HHH's videos from 2002 and 2003 and compare that with how he looks today.

Same with Batista. He was over 300 lbs. 3-4 years ago. Now, he's down to 280-290.
13233  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: Batista.... on: June 01, 2008, 01:07:18 PM
  whos that

Batista.

Wrong one. The one in the video is Francisco "Paco" Bautista, not the wrestler Dave Batista.
13234  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: The Luke: Since you're too lazy to do it....... on: May 31, 2008, 08:39:04 PM
It appears that Luke can't quite find his way here. So, I'll have to do his work for him.

Your claims that Jesus condoned:

- Genital mutilation (circumcision). Ummmm......that was part of the covenant with Abraham, done ONLY to males, when they were eight days old (hardly the tortorous process you're pitifully making it to be).

- Arrange marriages: What's so "evil" about that? The parents set up the logistics, you know, silly little things like FOOD, SHELTER, ENSURING GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT. And, it appears you're assuming that there was no love involved between the parties. The concept of two youngsters in love, urging their parents to make the deal, is hardly an inconceivable one.

- Child molestation: where does this happen, again? Maybe someone should inform you that in the state of Massachusetts, females can marry as young as 12 (with parental permission). Is that molestation?

- Child sacrifice: Ummm....Child sacrifice had been outlawed since the days of Moses. Israel, unfortunately, did participate in it, as it's documented that Israel became more evil than its neighbors.


You referred to Jesus as a "freeloader". Last time I checked, he worked as a carpenter. In other words, he had a....JOB (see Mark 6).

Your spiel about widows is off the mark as well. The Pharisees were asking him a loaded question about a woman's husbands, dying one after the other (Matt. 22), in order to trip him up. They asked, whose wife would this hypothetical woman be "in the resurrection". This has ANYTHING but Jesus saying that widows should not be married.

Quite the opposite! When Peter carried on Jesus' ministry, he instructed Christians to dedicate their resources to widows with small children (see 1 Tim. 5)

Other widows had care systems in place, according to law. Women with grown offspring could be cared for by those offspring; and childless widows could be redeemed by their dead husband's male in-laws (see the book of Ruth).

I don't need to misquote you. You've tried to make the claim that Jesus was evil, because he allegedly didn't address these items (some of which aren't even offenses or "evils"). And, as such, you've tried tying Jesus' so-called moral failing into an argument, condoning same-sex "marriage".

But, given that your facts are anything but (in this instance), your case crumbles.

13235  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: California and same sex "marriage" on: May 31, 2008, 08:11:52 PM
Wow... MCWAY evaded the question and changed the subject after being asked continuously not to do so.

Surprising... does that constitute a surrender? Did I just win the argument? Funny, I don't feel as if a reasoned rational consensus has been reached... yet none of my arguments have been refuted.

The Luke

Hardly!!! Check the G&O board.
13236  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / The Luke: Since you're too lazy to do it....... on: May 31, 2008, 08:11:05 PM
As promised, I have started this thread to address the off-topic mess (from the "Califonia and same-sex 'marriage' thread) about which you kept blubbering.

Let's see.

Should I begin with your feeble attempt to cover yourself, after erroneously claiming that eating shellfish (and other unclean foods) was a capital offense, like homosexual behavior?

Or would you prefer me to go to work on your silly claims about Jesus?

Take your pick!!

13237  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: California and same sex "marriage" on: May 31, 2008, 08:04:02 PM
MCWAY,


Stop the evasion... all my points are properly formulated and thought out.

You dismiss arguments you can't counter while attempting to infer that these points don't warrant discussion.


Every second post of yours is an attempt to either run off on a tangent or change the subject.

It's not clever... it's a blatant transparent ploy used by morons to argue above their IQ.

The Luke

Change the subject? Ummm....genius, the subject is same-sex "marriage", (check the title of the thread) which is what I am discussing.

In fact, I'll go one better. I WILL start a different thread and take apart your pitiful claims there.
13238  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: California and same sex "marriage" on: May 31, 2008, 07:54:34 PM
Do it here... it simply can't be done.

Someone else will second this request so as to show a second thread is unnecessary.

The Luke

This thread is specifically about same-sex "marriage". And, notwithstanding my initial off-topic post, I'm not hijacking this thread to address the myriad of off-topic foolishness you've posted.

Start another thread, and I will deal with that mess there.

Now, I'd love to see you support this newest wacky claim, citing fear of rednecks as the reason why the "blue" states passed constitutional amendments, defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I don't call there being that many rednecks in Hawaii or Michigan. And, I don't think that there'll be that many in California.
13239  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: California and same sex "marriage" on: May 31, 2008, 07:47:23 PM
...Blue States vote against gay marriage because even liberals are afraid of Red-Neck Evangelicals.

You guys LOVE Jeebus, and profess to love your neighbours while simultaneously hating
-Jews
-blacks
-liberals
-socialists
-gays
-muslims
-non-Christians
-gays
-lesbians
-intellectuals
-thinker
-readers

...you book-burning parasites are so sure that you are right that you can never ever admit your mistakes.

A good example is the fact that you avoid every argument that you cannot counter or dismiss... just as you are doing in this thread.

The Luke

Now, you're claiming that the "blue" states passed amendments, out of fear from "red-neck evangelicals". Now, that's rich.
 
Apparently, you don't comprenhend very well. You start another thread, with that other foolishness you posted, and I will address that (and pick it apart), period.
13240  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: California and same sex "marriage" on: May 31, 2008, 07:36:06 PM
...so which one of these are you using here? Equivocation, evasion or selective reasoning... or is this a combination of all three?

Why isn't the fact that the Bible support for a ban on gay marriage/intercourse is bullshit relevant here... in this thread, especially when it is the (sole) basis of your counter argument?

Whys should Jesus or his morality be relevant to modern society?

Jesus never spoke out against some of the most egregious and blatant evils of his own time... slavery, female oppression, genital mutilation, arranged marriages, child rape etc etc

Couldn't the argument be made that by todays standards Jesus was quite a bigoted hateful bastard... perhaps his veiled moral musings regarding gay marriage aren't worth consideration?

The Luke   

What part of "Start another thread" (for this non-topic stuff) ain't penetrating that skulls of yours?

And for that matter, why aren't you addressing that your "Jeebus-loving" redneck spiel don't hold, concerning the "blue" states that passed constitutional amendments?
13241  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: California and same sex "marriage" on: May 31, 2008, 07:29:39 PM
Goatboy... DeBussey etc...

You're doing sterling work here, but let's give MCWAY a chance to answer my challenge... which obviously he is taking every effort to avoid.

The Luke

The avoiding stuff would fall on you, as you have yet to address the issue about the "blue" states that passed constitutional amendments, defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, thus flattening your rants about this issue being merely about "Jeebus-loving" rednecks.

And, as stated before, if you're so eager for me to carve up that other non-topic-related silliness, start another thread.
13242  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: California and same sex "marriage" on: May 31, 2008, 07:22:18 PM
I'm sorry...

I made a mistake. You see I read this:

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:22)

...and then I read further and found this...

"If a man lie with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

 ...and came to the conclusion that the punishment for an abomination was death. Especially seeing as death was the proscribed punishment for even lesser crimes... such as disrespect:

"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)

I (seemingly) wrongly assumed death would be the punishment for ALL other abominations listed in Leviticus:

"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10)
...don't eat shellfish.

"They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Leviticus 11:11)
...really, don't eat shellfish.

"And these you shall regard as an abomination among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the buzzard." (Leviticus 11:13)
...don't eat certain birds either.

"All flying insects that creep on all fours shall be an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:20)
...don't eat insects either (unless you're John the Baptist and eat mostly locusts).



"Whatever crawls on its belly, whatever goes on all fours, or whatever has many feet among all creeping things that creep on the earth, these you shall not eat, for they are an abomination." (Leviticus 11:42)
...presumably locusts somehow don't count in this group.

Seeing as I was so wrong on this obvious distinct legal term abomination which merits capital punishment in one verse but seemingly has another distinct and contradictory meaning later in the same chapter (a distinction that eludes me).



I'm sure MCWAY can similarly explain all the faults in my argument that Jesus was essentially evil because he never once spoke out against slavery and female oppression (see my previous more detailed post for the full argument).

Let's give him a chance to read back and decide which combination of equivocation, evasion and selective reasoning qualifies as the Christian viewpoint on this topic.


The Luke

Again, this is off-topic. If you're so eager for me to pick this silliness apart, make another thread.
13243  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: California and same sex "marriage" on: May 31, 2008, 07:16:50 PM


America would be a far better place if we did a holocaust number on all the evangelicals.  We'll call it "evolution at work".

Considering that you'd be grossly outnumbered (and outgunned, being as the evangelicals are supposedly a bunch of rifle-toting rednecks), you might want to reconsider that idea.
13244  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: Why do 'Big Name' Sponsors pass on bodybuilding? on: May 31, 2008, 07:14:40 PM
hank is right about these "colossus" companies....

if only they sponsored pro bbing....

Don't some of them sponsor the "World's Strongest Man" contests?

Once again, it's got nothing to do with steroids or homosexuality, as to why bodybuilding gets little such support.
13245  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: California and same sex "marriage" on: May 31, 2008, 07:08:29 PM
Because it is a testament to tolerance, and to "moving away" from ancient irrational values, and because homosexuals are no longer discriminated by the law which = supposed to be secular and objective.

And who made the declaration these values are irrational? Besides, if law is secular and objective, that means that gay "marriage" is neither good nor bad. It's merely a preference. Therefore, if the people decide they want it to be legal, that's fine; if they decide that they don't want it to be legal, that's fine as well.




Allowing gay marrage is good for the homosexuals, and it really does not hurt anyone directly. The only thing it does is to create friction while certain people has to free themselves from backwards thinking which is holding society back anyway. Thus, allowing gay marrage means that the faggits gets MORE pleasure while society as a whole eventually benefits from the tolerance improvement this causes while becoming more free from "backwards thinking/irrationality". Thus, not only does the faggits benefit from it, but most other people eventually becomes free from their own delusional values that only serves to hurt other people while serving NO GOOD.

Holding society back from what?

This same "backwards thinking" says that it's wrong to steal, cheat, lie, dishonor your parents, and commit adultery. If you are (or were to get) married and your wife was cheating on you, I highly doubt you would see it as her being free from "backwards thinking"?


In other words: Everybody benefits from it, and nothing is lost because the reasons for DENYING gay marrage has no value for a society, it actually damages it. Believing that allowing only heterosexual marrage is some kind of "positive cultural shit that has value in itself" is a moronic belief. It is the same as thinking that circumsition (mutilation) of women at birth has some value because some dumb african community thinks it has some value. The result is that many girls are fucked up for life just because of a ritual that does not do anything. That african society would be better of if they never had the thing in the first place. Same shit applies to the current denial of gay marrage. Let the faggits marry as they want, nobody has the right to deny them to do so, because that is trying to inhibit other peoples freedom to do something that hurts nobody else via the law just to uphold some outdated moronic ritual.


The members of the society determine what does and doesn't have value. And, as I've said earlier, if gay "marriage" is so valuable, there ain't nothing stopping YOU or anyone else who supports gay "marriage" to start a petiton to get constitutional amendments put on their states' ballot.

If you expect your kids to obey and respect you, then you are upholding this "outdated moronic ritual". If you expect your wife to be faithful to you, you uphold this "outdated moronic ritual". If you expect people not to take your things without your permission........you get the point.
13246  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: California and same sex "marriage" on: May 31, 2008, 06:54:06 PM
Well, MCWAY, you fell for it...

I was hoping you'd notice those errors (actually not errors but exact exaggerations)... I wanted to quote your counter arguments (which you learn by heart and seemingly don't understand) in order to better demonstrate for everyone else on the board why your uninformed opinion is the result of biased arguing.


I misquoted Leviticus because now that you have insisted on direct quotations anyone else who is as bored of your stupidity as I am can go through Leviticus and point out all the absurdities therein and you can attempt to defend them. Especially the Lord's decrees with regard to who makes a suitable slave and under which circumstances slave girls can be raped.

You have a wacky habit of making claims, without citing specific references. And, now I'm to believe that you intentionally stated that eating shellfish was a capital offense, for the sole purpose of trapping me.....RIIIIIIIIGHT!!!!

As is all too often the case, another atheist decides to start flapping his mouth, making wild claims and hurling insults. But, when you get the heart of the matter, you have no substance to back your statements


I'll rest my argument on the intelligence of my fellow atheists... they got the humour when I referred to the disciples as sailors (done for the effect of emphasizing Jesus' "Village People" kitsch factor).


What I'd really enjoy would be your counter to my (facetious) proof that Jesus was actually EVIL.

Read back, you'll find it... it's epically funny because there is no counter argument.

Good luck.

The Luke

As I said, if you want to continue this silliness, do it elsewhere. I'd prefer, at this point, to stick to the topic at hand.
13247  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: California and same sex "marriage" on: May 31, 2008, 06:17:40 PM
Word.

It's amazing the arguements these morons put up against gay marriage. None are valid, none show why it would be bad for society as a whole to deny these civil liberties to certain people who're different.

So, why is it good for society as a whole? And if it is, why aren't gay "marriage" supporters, beating the streets to get signatures and petitions for state constitutional amendments, redefining marriage to accomodate homosexuals?
13248  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: California and same sex "marriage" on: May 31, 2008, 06:13:36 PM
Though this is completely off-topic (and now, that I'm finished LAUGHING), I'd like to address some of these claims here.


The thing I find so strange about the supposed "Christian" opposition to gay marriage is that no one who expounds the biblical interdiction against same sex marriage/intercourse has actually read Leviticus (the book of Jewish Law).

The passage which forbids gay marriage states that "no man shall lay with another man as he would with a woman" ...on pain of death (as per usual).

Firstly, that's a ban on male-male anal sex... we know Jewish peoples had sacred temple priestesses who only performed anal sex even after the adoption of Mosaic Law...  so the sodomy of women seems to be fine with Yahweh.

Secondly, the same passage that supposedly bans homosexuality also bans the eating of shellfish... and also under penalty of death.


WHAT!!!! Please get your facts straight. Shellfish were part of the "unclean foods" list. Anyone who ate those simply got deemed "unclean" and quarantined from the camp for 24 hours.

And unlike what's presented in this post of your (among others), I will cite the references to back my statements.

Lev. 11:24, And for these ye shall be unclean; whosoever toucheth the carcass of them shall be unclean until even. That don't sound like the death penalty to me.


Thirdly, God clearly didn't write/inspire these particular passages as they also include a blanket death penalty for any man who accidentally kills another man... seeing as God is presumably the originator of all accidents he either:
-doesn't agree with these prohibitions (or wasn't consulted)
-uses industrial accidents as a method of killing people he doesn't approve of (while also having his subjects murder the innocent patsy of his choosing)
-uses industrial accidents as a method of framing people he doesn't approve of for the death penalty (while sacrificing an innocent pawn of his choosing)

Similarly, menstruating women must live outside the city walls... witches must be put to death... meat and dairy can't go on the same plate... etc etc etc


Now some Christians claim that the New Testament supersedes the brutality of the Old Testament and Torah... but these self same people also hate fags with a passion...

For the record, Jeebus never said anything about homos... (except a reference to "upholding the Law" which he himself regularly flouted)

What Jesus DID say, when questions about matters of marriage and sex was, "For this reason, shall a man leave to his father and mother and cleave to his WIFE. And the two shall become one flesh". The message was clear, when it comes to sexual behavior, any kind outside of marriage (defined as a one man, one woman union) was sinful, which INCLUDES HOMOSEXUALITY.



But, most importantly of all.... Evangelical Christians (Ameranthropoides non-sapiens) conveniently neglect the possibility that Jesus himself was a queer...

<<pause for hysterical laughter>>

Jesus' antagonists were looking for reasons to have Him put to death, as He kept embarrasing them. If Jesus were gay, the Pharisees could have put him to death, based on that alone.


He wasn't married (an unmarried Jewish over thirty man is also a "abomination" according to the Torah).

Jesus made it clear, that He had no intention to set up any earthly kingdom or legacy. Hence, there's no need for a wife or children.


He hung around with 12 sailors.

Come again. Matthew was a tax-collector; John grew up in an influential home among priests. Andrew and Peter were fishermen. Again, please get your facts, straight, before posting such mess.


He had a female friend he wasn't banging (Mary Magdelene).

Again, no earthly kingdom, no intent to leave an earthly descendant; hence no marriage, wife, or kids.


He was devoted to his mother.

DUH!!!! His earthly father (Joseph) was dead. The firstborn son (unmarried) always took care of his mother and the younger unmarried siblings.


He threw a hissy fit when his Dad's house was messy (expelling the money traders from the temple)

He had a special disciple (John) described as "the young man whom Jesus loved"

And that makes Jesus gay how (this may come as a shock to you, but you can love another guy without being gay, unless you have no male friends, whatsoever)?




When he was arrested in the garden of Gethsemane he was meeting a young man dressed only in a linen shroud (this same young man simply slipped loose his garment and ran off stark naked when accosted by a Roman soldier).

One of the early Christian cults (I think they were called Capocrations) claimed to have a secret gospel of Mark which detailed the secret sodomy rituals preserved for the inner initiates... one of the early Church Fathers admitted the existence of such a secret gospel but denied the buggery part (but then again, he did deny the very existence of the secret gospel... until he didn't).

And this "secret Gospel" has been sliced, diced, and julien-ed more times than the law allows. Why is it that an allgedly gay Jesus is never charged with sodomy, especially with a bunch of people looking for excuses to kill Him?


And besides all this... Jesus has no moral standing whatsoever, I can prove he was actually evil.

The Luke 

Go for it (but on another thread. Let's see how many blunders come up, as a result).
13249  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: California and same sex "marriage" on: May 31, 2008, 05:29:29 PM
The biggest issue here is birth certificate infallibility...


Here's how to institute gay marriage in any conservative state (again in a few easy steps):


A gay couple (Bob & Randy) applies for a marriage license... they are denied.

They sue the state on the grounds that Randy is actually female and their union is not subject to the Bush Administrations infantile amendment to the constitution.

They lose the case on the grounds that Randy's birth certificate classes him as a male (birth certificates are fallible; my maternal grandfather was 165 years old when he died, a direct result of clerical error in his birthdate: 1820 not 1920). So they appeal to the Supreme Court... and this is where they have the legal system by the balls.

THERE IS NO MEDICAL CONSENSUS ON WHAT DIAGNOSTIC PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS DEFINE AND DELINEATE THE SEXES.

The Supreme Court, swayed by NeoCon appointees then has only one option... to define the sexes in medical terms itself (birth certificate classifications an be overturned: see the test cases involving intersex people, hermaphrodites and androgen insensitive males [classed female]).


This would then incur the laughable scenario of all engaged couples being subject to the same test that excludes male-male and female-female marriage.

THIS IS COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

NO AMERICAN CITIZEN CAN BE MADE SUBJECT TO MEDICAL DISCRIMINATION SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF GENDER BY ANY STATE OR FEDERAL STIPULATION.


If the gay lobby concentrated their efforts on an anti-discrimination agenda in concert with the efforts of intersex and hermaphodite pressure groups they could easily force the state into the position of mandating a "Cruciamentum" for all prospective marriage license applicants.

Yes Mr-Jeebus-Loving-Hill-Billy-Red-Neck-Republican-Voting-Moron, you can have a ban on gay marriage just like Jeebus wanted... but it means you and Mrs-Jeebus-Loving-Hill-Billy-Red-Neck-Republican-Voting-Moron will have to take a few tests before you two can get your marriage ratified also.


So, could you and your fiance please report to your local county hospital for the usual Hope-you're-not-related blood test and some new tests:
-DNA sex chromosome test
-full hormone profile
-androgen receptor gene test
-two complete physical genital inspections (2nd opinion required)
-ultrasound of your abdomen (to make sure she has ovaries and he doesn't)
-full body DEXA scan to check the extent and gerndrification of your physical structure)
-full MRI scan of the sex-specific brain structures
-extensive PET scan (Positron Emission Topography) in conjunction with real-time image association testing to quantify sexual preference

Even after all this you might have the scenario wherein a male/female marriage is ratified on the grounds that the man is 51% male:49% female and the women is 49% male:51% female despite the fact that there would be a significantly higher gender difference between the average gay couple... 


Can you imagine the befuddlement when all these Evangelical hate-mongers are told by a scientist exactly what percentage male and female they are (average bloke is only 70% male, average girl is only 70% female: it's a double lobed Bell curve distribution)... exactly what their genetic sexual preference is (that should pan out to 50% hetero; 40% bi; 10% gay for males and 50% hetero; 35% bi; 5% gay for females)... and while we're at it we might as well tell the homophobes exactly how many gay genes they are carrying (in case they want to have kids).



Might be a good idea to also tell 14-17% of them that their biological father is not who they think their biological father is (go have a talk with Mom), and maybe tell the racists exactly what percentage black they are... (very few full-blooded whites in the US).


You simply can't discriminate without a scientific basis for it. The science is against gay/hetero discrimination... just too many shades of pink.


The Luke

Ummm.....before you go on another pointless tirade, perhaps you should remember that the "blue" states don't have these "Jeebus-loving-hibilly-rednecks". Yet, they passed the constitutional amendments that their citizens put on their ballots.

That would be states such as like Hawaii, Michigan, Wisconsin, and, Oregon

Or, did you forget about the fact that Missouri passed its constitutional amendment 71-29, despite 60% of the voters being democrats.

BTW, what will the excuse be if the biggest blue state of them all passes a constitutional amendment, defining marriage as a 1M-1W union?
13250  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage on: May 31, 2008, 04:25:28 PM
10 States Ask Calif. Court to Delay Gay Marriage 

Friday, May 30, 2008 2:30 PM

SAN FRANCISCO -- The attorneys general of 10 states are urging the California Supreme Court to delay finalizing its ruling to legalize same-sex marriage.

The attorneys general say in court documents filed Thursday that they have an interest in the case because they would have to determine if their states would recognize the marriage of gay residents who wed in California.

They want the court to stay its ruling until after the November election, when voters likely will decide whether to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown is urging the court not to grant the stay.

The states involved are Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah.
 
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/gay_marriage_states/2008/05/30/100258.html

They don't have to do so, according to the Defense of Marriage Act. This is why gay "marriage" supporters were looking for a state, other than Massachusetts, to legalize it.

Baker v. Nelson already stated that bans on gay "marriage" don't violate the 14th amendment, which is the argument that supporters will attempt to use. They must present the case as to why it does not, as it did not 37 years ago.
Pages: 1 ... 528 529 [530] 531 532 ... 602
Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!