Discussion: Gay Rights II

[deathfromabove]

agreed.

[deathfromabove]

Rational arguments refuting the main arguments in opposition to gay marriage:

Part 1
j__dVu6UPfs

Part 2
Vyh-fXE1UZY

Part 3
ewUx8nNfGE4

verry interesting.

love the extinction t. nice touch guy...:oldrazz:

[Hotwire]

Nah, I was laughing at his Mad Libs approach to acheiving an invalid point.
An invalid point? I was using my approach to point out that your comments were eriely simmialr to the kinds of racist remarks made by those apposed to desegregation.. But hey, if you feel that certain groups of people shouldn't have certain rights, based simply on they love or the color of their skin, then so be it.

[The Senator]

Nah, I was laughing at his Mad Libs approach to acheiving an invalid point.

I like Mad Libs, let me give it a try.




Fun stuff. Wow, I guess I am a junk food-ist, too. And a work supply-ist.

I think the point everyone is missing is I SIMPLY DISAGREE. And while you're labeling me and improperly dissecting my viewpoints, somewhere out there are many who preach physical harm and utter destruction of an entire group of people. Are you kidding me by getting bent out of shape because of my inconsequential disagreements when hurtful, dangerous people actually HATE you?

Give me a break.

KRAAAAAFSHSHAAAHSHH!!!!

Here that? That's the point crashing to the ground in flames...

[lou2099]

As someone who disagrees, I am now all of a sudden labeled a racist intolerant bigot. Everyone seems to have me down pat, since everbody here is my close friends and family and know me so well.

I can almost relate to what it's like to be persecuted for what you believe in.

[Gilpesh]

The more gays ask for all these rights, and the more they equate themselves with unfairly treated races of people, the less chances they'll get. If they continually claim to be no different than anyone else, then stop trying to be so effin different.

Because being equal is "trying to be so effin different".

I meant that, but I also feel that marriage and parenting is a contradiction to their sexual preference.

Assuming is usually joked to make an ass out of you and me.... this time it just makes an ass out of you when you say something like that.

Just because people are gay... doesn't make them any different than a straight couple.

It's just a simple matter of both procreation and tradition. Why would a gay couple, who cannot possibly biologically reproduce a child, have any desire to have children? Why would gay couples wish to take on an institution which is associated with straight couples for thousands of years?

Tradition? You know, for hundreds of years there was a great tradition of getting black people to do all our work for us... we should have kept that going.

That's what I mean about gays trying too damn hard to integrate, when there are either those kinds things they physically cannot acheive, or taking on "the system" in trying to marry. They should just exist as they are, it would be easier.

I dunno Lou. That doesn't make you racist...

Does make you a big f**king ignorant bigot though... cause you can't even understand why what you said was pretty much right out of the "Ignorant Bigot's guide to denying rights to minorities just because, fifth edition".

[lou2099]

you "inconsequential disagreements" are still wrong.That's an oxymoron.

thats like telling the judge "who cares if a broke a little law. there are murderers and rapists out there!"Terrible analogy. Just totally off base.

and way to assume everyone is this thread is gay. you dont have to be homosexual to diagree with bigotry, ignorance, and intolerance. Wasn't assuming that, and you don't have to be bigoted, ignorant or intolerant to disagree with people's lifestyles.

nice try though.Same to you.

An invalid point? I was using my approach to point out that your comments were eriely simmialr to the kinds of racist remarks made by those apposed to desegregation.. But hey, if you feel that certain groups of people shouldn't have certain rights, based simply on they love or the color of their skin, then so be it.Well, since that's not what I wrote, nor how I feel, you are all the more foolish for editing it. It was a biological curiousity, nothing more, and this is what some of the answers were.
I am now all of a sudden inaccurately labeled a racist intolerant bigot. Everyone seems to have me down pat, since everbody here is my close friends and family and know me so well.

Talk about intolerance. You can't even disagree without persecution. George Orwell was so on the money.

I see no point in debating Lou any further. Objectivity doesn't fit into his 'perspective'. Instead, he goes on about Mad Libs and Doritos all the while painting anyone who posts in this thread as gay. :whatever:My thoughts exactly, except that I didn't think everyone was gay, no matter what Joan Cusack's key question from "In & Out" may have posed.Because being equal is "trying to be so effin different".



Assuming is usually joked to make an ass out of you and me.... this time it just makes an ass out of you when you say something like that.

Just because people are gay... doesn't make them any different than a straight couple.



Tradition? You know, for hundreds of years there was a great tradition of getting black people to do all our work for us... we should have kept that going.



I dunno Lou. That doesn't make you racist...

Does make you a big f**king ignorant bigot though... cause you can't even understand why what you said was pretty much right out of the "Ignorant Bigot's guide to denying rights to minorities just because, fifth edition".Very good. Nice labels. I haven't gone so far as to derogate anyone here, because I don't want to derogate anyone, but hey, I guess I now know what it's like to be in the minority. Lesson learned, everyone wins.

[lou2099]

n/t

[lou2099]

double

[Gilpesh]

Feel free to take that sarcasm I just wrote and run with it as who everyone thinks I am, cuz they know me so well.. Everyone already made up their minds.

Um... you said that marriage is against their sexual preference...

Yeah, we don't know you. But apparently you know all gay people in the entire world and have deemed it against their sexual preference to get married.

You also said that tradition is a good reason to keep gay people from getting married like THEY WANT TO and so they can get the same rights as straight people.

Yeah, we don't know you. But you know all gay people, so you see right through their ruse and understand that it is just their attempt to make themselves 'special' and 'different' from everyone else.



So I guess it was wrong to judge you a bigot, cause you actually know all gay people and understand their whole deal... woo sarcasm. :whatever:

[Holiday]

This thread was alot nicer when people were posting pictures of their cats.

[lou2099]

Um... you said that marriage is against their sexual preference...

Yeah, we don't know you. But apparently you know all gay people in the entire world and have deemed it against their sexual preference to get married.

You also said that tradition is a good reason to keep gay people from getting married like THEY WANT TO and so they can get the same rights as straight people.

Yeah, we don't know you. But you know all gay people, so you see right through their ruse and understand that it is just their attempt to make themselves 'special' and 'different' from everyone else.



So I guess it was wrong to judge you a bigot, cause you actually know all gay people and understand their whole deal... woo sarcasm. :whatever:Oh stop it. Of course I don't know all gay people. But I never said I wanted to keep those who want to marry from marrying. I wondered why they would want to because it is contrary to the constant male/female commonality of marriage.

I would not have voted either for or against Prop 8 had I lived in California. But realize that should the laws change and allow same sex marriages, I would not picket city hall with signs to fight it. I'm not doing it now. Just because I don't care for it, doesn't mean I have to fight it.

There are those here who will be thrilled to to learn that a law in PA (don't remember for certain) banning same sex adoption has been overturned, deeming it unconstitutional. Am I jumping for joy? Not really. Does it affect me personally? Not really. I have no need to be angry with the direction that other life goes.

[Gilpesh]

I wondered why they would want to because it is contrary to the constant male/female commonality of marriage.

:facepalm

[lou2099]

:facepalm:rolleyes:

So what. Really.

[Marx]

This thread was alot nicer when people were posting pictures of their cats.

This thread would also be a lot better if people would debate intelligently instead of using ignorant arguments like 'marriage is against a gay's sexuality' and 'gays have no parental instincts because they're gay'. Then again, it would also help if some people in here would take the topic a little more seriously and not arrogantly dismiss it like gays are somehow sub-human and not worthy of proper discussion. If you have nothing substantive to add to the conversation (outside the realm of ignorance,) perhaps you should visit another thread. (Looks at Lou.)

[deathfromabove]

This thread would also be a lot better if people would debate intelligently instead of using ignorant arguments like 'marriage is against a gay's sexuality' and 'gays have no parental instincts because they're gay'. Then again, it would also help if some people in here would take the topic a little more seriously and not arrogantly dismiss it like gays are somehow sub-human and not worthy of proper discussion. If you have nothing substantive to add to the conversation (outside the realm of ignorance,) perhaps you should visit another thread. (Looks at Lou.)

i thought we agreed to ignore this guy:whatever:

but seriously i agree.

and lou if you dont really care why not just leave the thread and let those that do care continue to discuss the issue?

otherwise i would have to consider your behaviour trolling.

p.s get a dictionary. you dont seem to understand the proper usage of "oxymoron".

[Marx]

i thought we agreed to ignore this guy:whatever:

but seriously i agree.

and lou if you dont really care why not just leave the thread and let those that do care continue to discuss the issue?

otherwise i would have to consider your behaviour trolling.

p.s get a dictionary. you dont seem to understand the proper usage of "oxymoron".

We did. I still felt the need to say something though. :oldrazz:

[The Senator]

This thread was alot nicer when people were posting pictures of their cats.

We might want to marry cats though, since apparently gay marriage leads to bestiality.

Or at least, that's what the Mormons say...

[deathfromabove]

We did. I still felt the need to say something though. :oldrazz:

i know. its hard to resist. its just so easy.

[Holiday]

We might want to marry cats though, since apparently gay marriage leads to bestiality.

Or at least, that's what the Mormons say...

Hahahaha.

That's the worst argument I hear from those against gay marriage. "If we let gays marry, what's next? People can marry (insert non-human species)?"

[Schlosser85]

Or at least, that's what the Mormons say...

What does it say about the merits of the righteous conservative "Christian" (:lmao:) argument that they can only make it by lying?

[deathfromabove]

What does it say about the merits of the righteous conservative "Christian" (:lmao:) argument that they can only make it by lying?

it says that they are wrong.

wrong wrong wrong.

and sinners too 'cause a lie is a sin.

they better hope the big man doesnt come back soon cause if he does he is going to be so pissed.:oldrazz:

[Pink Ranger]

they better hope the big man doesnt come back soon cause if he does he is going to be so pissed.:oldrazz:

You mean "SHE is going to be so pissed."!

[Hotwire]

After reading through Lou's responses I have to say, "Huh?"

Lou, you have missed the point of my original post by a mile. And you have only responded to it with defensiveness. Look, I was simply pointing out how you statements sounded a lot like the things being said to blacks during the Civil Right Movement. Now, if you truely were not meaning waht you said as predjudice, then you should have cleared it up in the original post. I mean, honestly, do you not see how your statement of, "That's what I mean about gays trying too damn hard to integrate, when there are either those kinds things they physically cannot acheive, or taking on 'the system' in trying to marry. They should just exist as they are, it would be easier." could be taken as discriminatory? If not, you've got a lot of learning to do.

[lou2099]

After reading through Lou's responses I have to say, "Huh?"

Lou, you have missed the point of my original post by a mile. And you have only responded to it with defensiveness. Look, I was simply pointing out how you statements sounded a lot like the things being said to blacks during the Civil Right Movement. Now, if you truely were not meaning waht you said as predjudice, then you should have cleared it up in the original post. I mean, honestly, do you not see how your statement of, "That's what I mean about gays trying too damn hard to integrate, when there are either those kinds things they physically cannot acheive, or taking on 'the system' in trying to marry. They should just exist as they are, it would be easier." could be taken as discriminatory? If not, you've got a lot of learning to do.It wasn't intended to be prejudiced. I didn't like your special editing, because I'm not racist, and not opposed to homosexuality or human rights. Could have written it more objectively to lessen the impact, but I still disgaree with gay marriage and parenting. Some of you blew up at me, and I became defensive, not "trolling". (God I hate that word)

And seriously,back to when thinking everyone else here is gay, how doesn't anyone wonder whether or not I am straight or gay or even bi? If I were gay, everyone starts a tirade of saying I am "in denial" or "repressed" If I were straight, "homophobic" whatever that entails, "bigot", "prejudice." There is a label for every belief and lifestyle, isn't there? What I've learned life to be true, I live by, just as you do.

[Gilpesh]

It wasn't intended to be prejudiced. I didn't like your special editing, because I'm not racist, and whatever -ist applies to homosexuality.

You should just quit while you're way behind.

And besides... you "don't care" one way or the other... so instead of getting the thread off track with your constant defense of your very discriminatory remarks... just stop.

[lou2099]

You should just quit while you're way behind.

And besides... you "don't care" one way or the other... so instead of getting the thread off track with your constant defense of your very discriminatory remarks... just stop.No, sorry, your definition of discrimination is very broad if you see it that way.

[Gilpesh]

No, sorry, your definition of discrimination is very broad if you see it that way.

YOU. That's you, lou2099... DECLARED. That's a big word for said... THAT MARRIAGE. That's you know, getting married... IS CONTRARY TO THEIR SEXUAL PREFERENCE. Those mean that in your discriminatory view, that marriage wasn't for gay people because it was the opposite of being gay...



If that isn't within your definition of discrimination... you're um... exactly what people have been calling you in this thread.

[Matt]

Hahahaha.

That's the worst argument I hear from those against gay marriage. "If we let gays marry, what's next? People can marry (insert non-human species)?"

It truly is a ridiculous argument. Marriage is a legal contract which requires consent. Obviously animals cannot consent to a legal contract, nor do they hold legal standing. The whole slippery slope argument in regards to gay marriage is ridiculous.

[Marx]

It truly is a ridiculous argument. Marriage is a legal contract which requires consent. Obviously animals cannot consent to a legal contract, nor do they hold legal standing. The whole slippery slope argument in regards to gay marriage is ridiculous.

Not to mention incredibly ignorant.

[Spider-Bite]

I know this is somewhat off topic, but I didn't want to start a thread specifically for this, and since this deals with minority rights I figured this was the best thread for it.

After reading a msnbc article I noticed a comment left by somebody encouraging people to join a website called chimpout.com.

http://chimpout.com/

You can tell right away this is a white supremacy website. It's all about how much these guys hate black people, even though it's completely against their forum rules for any posters to criticize any race, including jews. They don't consider black people to be human. They consider them animals.

I joined, becaue I felt like arguing with these guys. I know it's pointless but I just felt like it. I joined and for the description on my profile I put "A liberal here to combat the hate." I spent two minutes looking for a good spot to join the discussion. I hadn't even made a single post yet, when I got the message "you have been banned for the following reason. N##ger lover. Date the ban will be lifted-never"

If anybody doubts this try logging in as me. Spider-Bite password 14981498. No that is not my password here or at any other forum, for those who are wondering. You will see the message pop up right away.

Can you believe this? These idiots are so incapable of backing this crap up with logic that they don't even allow you to join if you have a different point of view. That would be like the hype banning people for being republican.

One of the things I found at this site said "liberalism seeks to brainwash Whites against supporting their own race."

One of the things these people fail to realize is that liberalism seeks to support every race. Man this is disgusting. How can these people be so proud to be so stupid?

[The Battousai]

They don't consider black people to be human. They consider them animals.

Actually, we are animals - but, specifically, we're humans (homo sapiens sapiens).

Just an aside, though :p

[Schlosser85]

Can you believe this? These idiots are so incapable of backing this crap up with logic that they don't even allow you to join if you have a different point of view. That would be like the hype banning people for being republican.



That's how Conservapedia is. The owner of the site, Andy Schlafy, fills his articles with crap, calling Obama a Muslim, etc., and anyone who disputes it, including other conservatives, get instantly labeled a "vandalizing liberal" and banned.

And then Schlafy says something about Conservapedia being "the alternative to liberal deceit" and "we let the readers decide here". LOL.

[spideyboy_1111]

As someone who disagrees, I am now all of a sudden labeled a racist intolerant bigot. Everyone seems to have me down pat, since everbody here is my close friends and family and know me so well.

I can almost relate to what it's like to be persecuted for what you believe in.

your labeled that way because all of your arguments against it are honestly not that stable... we've countered them and you've been unable to counter our counterarguments at all. Thus yours fall through.

[Marx]

your labeled that way because all of your arguments against it are honestly not that stable... we've countered them and you've been unable to counter our counterarguments at all. Thus yours fall through.

That seems to be the way it goes. People in favor of gay rights and equality provide rational arguments, while the detracters resort to close-minded ignorance. (I don't mean that to be a blanket statement. There are always exceptions to every side.)

[Spider-Bite]

If two gay people want to buy a house with a white picket fence, get a family dog, adopt a child, and yes get married, then I say they have strong family values.

It's not the government's job to step in and be mean to people. It's the government's job to make life better for people. To make society a happier place to live in for everybody.

Gay people aren't hurting me by being gay, so why should I want to hurt them? You can say "It's not about hurting people", but that's what your doing, and it benefits not even one single person.

Think pros and cons. How many benefit from outlawing gay marriage? 0
How many people benefit from allowing gay marriage? Millions

The appropiate stance couldn't be more obvious.

[Marx]

If two gay people want to buy a house with a white picket fence, get a family dog, adopt a child, and yes get married, then I say they have strong family values.

It's not the government's job to step in and be mean to people. It's the government's job to make life better for people. To make society a happier place to live in for everybody.

Gay people aren't hurting me by being gay, so why should I want to hurt them? You can say "It's not about hurting people", but that's what your doing, and it benefits not even one single person.

Think pros and cons. How many benefit from outlawing gay marriage? 0
How many people benefit from allowing gay marriage? Millions

The appropiate stance couldn't be more obvious.

It's not the church's place to scare the masses with lies and distortions about homosexuality either.

[CaptainClown]

It's not the church's place to scare the masses with lies and distortions about homosexuality either.
but if the gays are teachers my kids will be one of em. They said its something like zombies, once they bite you your one of em.

[Marx]

but if the gays are teachers my kids will be one of em. They said its something like zombies, once they bite you your one of em.

:hehe:

[wiegeabo]

but if the gays are teachers my kids will be one of em. They said its something like zombies, once they bite you your one of em.

You don't want them catching the ghey, do you?

[CaptainClown]

You don't want them catching the ghey, do you?The ghey took over in Europe, remember dem documenteries 28 days and 28 days later? Thats what happens when you drive dem tiny hybrid cars, you get the gay.

[The Senator]

I was reading a blog earlier today, and someone had asked the author how a parent is supposed to explain homosexuality or bisexuality to a child.

The author said it's simple: You explain homosexuality by telling a child that sometimes men love other men (or women love other women) and they decide to get married. You explain bisexuality by saying sometimes men love men and women equally.

This is so incredibly simple and I don't understand why it is so hard for some people to grapple with this concept...

[The Senator]

spasm

[Marx]

The ghey took over in Europe, remember dem documenteries 28 days and 28 days later? Thats what happens when you drive dem tiny hybrid cars, you get the gay.

:funny:

[Marx]

spasm

10,000 POSTS!!! CONGRATS MAN! :applaud

[The Senator]

10,000 POSTS!!! CONGRATS MAN! :applaud

I feel guilty that it was a double-post which took me over the edge.

[Marx]

I feel guilty that it was a double-post which took me over the edge.

If that's the case...then YOU sir...are a cheater! :oldrazz:

[The Senator]

If that's the case...then YOU sir...are a cheater! :oldrazz:

But I've made seven real posts since then...

[Marx]

But I've made seven real posts since then...

Which is exactly why the double post doesn't matter. :woot:

[The Senator]

What's even more surprising is that this thread has survived almost 100 pages...

[Marx]

What's even more surprising is that this thread has survived almost 100 pages...

People are passionate about topics like this. (As they should be.)

[Spider-Bite]

It's not the church's place to scare the masses with lies and distortions about homosexuality either.
sometimes the actions of the church require me to put effort into not being bigoted against a person's religous belief's. I'm not proud to say that but it's true.

I hate bigotry and I don't want to become what I despise, but Id' be lying if I said bigoted feelings towards religion didn't creep up on me now and then. I wish it wasn't the case, but it is.

I honestly don't believe it's wrong or immoral to be religous. And I don't even want religions to completely disapear from the planet, because they can improve the quality of people's lives and they could potentially offer diversity to society if their numbers shrink a little.

but I do hope people change the way they practice and intrepet religious teachings. And I also want their numbers to shrink. I don't want atheists to be a minority. I might be wrong for feeling that way. But it's how I feel.

[spideyboy_1111]

I was reading a blog earlier today, and someone had asked the author how a parent is supposed to explain homosexuality or bisexuality to a child.

The author said it's simple: You explain homosexuality by telling a child that sometimes men love other men (or women love other women) and they decide to get married. You explain bisexuality by saying sometimes men love men and women equally.

This is so incredibly simple and I don't understand why it is so hard for some people to grapple with this concept...

i'd like to add that for bisexuality you can always say as well "some people just love people" They love the person, not the gender.

and yes it is very simple, the only people who think it's not, are the ones that fear there kid becoming gay simply because they know about being gay... and when it's not considered a "bad" thing.. then people feel kids will be more susceptible to it. Which is incredibly bogus anyway, because if the kids gonna be gay, he/she is gonna be gay... if the kid is going to be strait, he/she is gonna be strait... and bi, bi... what parents don't realize is by saying one is "bad" they are actually screwing up there kids.

[Kelly]

What's even more surprising is that this thread has survived almost 100 pages...


I think people have been pretty respectful of most people's opinion on this subject........

[Hotwire]

sometimes the actions of the church require me to put effort into not being bigoted against a person's religous belief's. I'm not proud to say that but it's true.

I hate bigotry and I don't want to become what I despise, but Id' be lying if I said bigoted feelings towards religion didn't creep up on me now and then. I wish it wasn't the case, but it is.

I honestly don't believe it's wrong or immoral to be religous. And I don't even want religions to completely disapear from the planet, because they can improve the quality of people's lives and they could potentially offer diversity to society if their numbers shrink a little.

but I do hope people change the way they practice and intrepet religious teachings. And I also want their numbers to shrink. I don't want atheists to be a minority. I might be wrong for feeling that way. But it's how I feel.
I can fully understand. It is very hard to tollerate the intollerent.

[Kelly]

I can fully understand. It is very hard to tollerate the intollerent.

Anything.....ANYTHING....that is run by "man", even the church......can be corrupt and far from following the true meaning of Christianity.


I cannot tolerate stupidity.....I can tolerate ignorance......that simply means they have never learned....but even Christians can be "stupid".

[Schlosser85]

I tend to believe Jesus would sympathize more with the (peaceful) protesters than the Mormon Church.

[CaptainClown]

I tend to believe Jesus would sympathize more with the (peaceful) protesters than the Mormon Church.
I tend to believe if Jesus were alive and preaching today many "religious" people would be bashing him for being very tolerant and accepting.

[Marx]

I tend to believe if Jesus were alive and preaching today many "religious" people would be bashing him for being very tolerant and accepting.

I agree.

[wiegeabo]

Stupid Jesus. Not believing what we believe. :o

[deathfromabove]

I tend to believe if Jesus were alive and preaching today many "religious" people would be bashing him for being very tolerant and accepting.

:up:

if jesus were around christainity wouldnt be.


by that i mean he would probably issue a cease and desist to stop them from giving him a bad name:whatever:

jesus hung out with the poor and infirm. prostitutes. the so called dregs of society.

now that i think about it they would probably crucify him all over again.

[Malice]

Clinton and Hillary will run the White House shortly...with all the Clintonites that Obama puts in there.

[Schlosser85]

Well the country was in a hell of a lot better shape when we were in Clinton's hands than we are now.

[spideyboy_1111]

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones

TOOOOO FRIGGIN FUNNY!

[wiegeabo]

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones

TOOOOO FRIGGIN FUNNY!

"See ya later, sinners!"

[CaptainClown]

i was just about topost that

[Marx]

LARGE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS FAVOR RIGHT OF GAYS TO ADOPT, SERVE IN MILITARY
http://glaadblog.org/2008/12/03/the-pulse-of-equality/



http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[deathfromabove]

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones

TOOOOO FRIGGIN FUNNY!

:applaud:applaud:applaud:applaud:

[Nitehawk013]

As someone who disagrees, I am now all of a sudden labeled a racist intolerant bigot. Everyone seems to have me down pat, since everbody here is my close friends and family and know me so well.

I can almost relate to what it's like to be persecuted for what you believe in.


You could have simply read the first 3 or 4 pages of the thread and come to this realization Lou.

This site, like many, is predominantly a bunch of liberals. Thus, any person who has even the slightest conservative value, even if that person is not a Conservative, must immediately be labeled as a Bigot, racist, homophobe, etc etc.

You are only allowed to have your own opinion on things like gay "rights" if your opinion is in line with the liberal ideology. Otherwise, you are just full of hate.

It take s alot of tolerance and intelligence to be a liberal. "Agree with us or you are just a hate-monger". Wow. How very tolerant and enlightened of them.

[Matt]

That's a load of ****. Norman and Hippie Hunter are both conservatives and while I consider myself a moderate liberal, I am certainly not an Obama supporter and none of us have problems on this board. Its about how you state your opinion, not what it is.

[Joker]

You could have simply read the first 3 or 4 pages of the thread and come to this realization Lou.

This site, like many, is predominantly a bunch of liberals. Thus, any person who has even the slightest conservative value, even if that person is not a Conservative, must immediately be labeled as a Bigot, racist, homophobe, etc etc.

You are only allowed to have your own opinion on things like gay "rights" if your opinion is in line with the liberal ideology. Otherwise, you are just full of hate.

It take s alot of tolerance and intelligence to be a liberal. "Agree with us or you are just a hate-monger". Wow. How very tolerant and enlightened of them.

No, you're a hate-mongering bigot homophobe because you want to deny PEOPLE basic rights simply because you yourself do not agree with their lifestyle. They are hurting no one. By letting them get married, it's not going to make it so you have to go start making out with guys. There is absolutely NO REASON to not let them have the same rights as all other people. You can hide behind religion, and political doctrine all you want, but when it comes right down to it, you're no better than the KKK or guys like William Wallace in the 50's, or even the slavers of the 1700s. You are a bigot.

[Nitehawk013]

How you state your opinion does not change you opinion. It merely alters the "curb appeal" of it.

The fact is, when someone says they oppose gay marriage the parade of "you're a homophobe" begins immediately. The moment you say you think abortion should be illegal, the chorus of "keep your religion to yourself" is sung. If you have an opinion different from the liberal slant, you are labeled a bigot or racist or homophobe as soon as you click the post quick reply button. Unless you try to dress it up and come off as centrist or moderate.

On the flip side, those who espouse the liberal views typically have no need of having any "curb appeal". They can call us ignorant, stupid, etc and rarely get called for it. Although to be fair, it does appear that YOU (Matt) are doing more to make that side play nice as well.

In the end, some of us simply don't care about curb appeal. We have our opinions and don't care about trying to come off as moderate. I don't want gay marriage legalized. They already have equal rights (a gay man can marry a woman just like a straight man can marry a woman) so I oppose them getting special rights. I don't care to try to be "understanding of their plight". They choose to indulge in that lifestyle, therefore they choose the problems and they choose to be ostricized.

I don't hate them. I just dislike the life they are choosing to live. My neice is a lesbian. I don't hate her. I see her at Christmas every year and we have a great time with the family. I love her, I just dislike the life she is choosing.

That doesn't matter though. To most on this board, the minute I say I oppose gay "rights" I am just a hate filled homophobe.

[Nitehawk013]

No, you're a hate-mongering bigot homophobe because you want to deny PEOPLE basic rights simply because you yourself do not agree with their lifestyle. They are hurting no one. By letting them get married, it's not going to make it so you have to go start making out with guys. There is absolutely NO REASON to not let them have the same rights as all other people. You can hide behind religion, and political doctrine all you want, but when it comes right down to it, you're no better than the KKK or guys like William Wallace in the 50's, or even the slavers of the 1700s. You are a bigot.

Point in case.

[Joker]

Just because YOU don't like the lifestyle doesn't mean it's bad. There is homosexuality in nature, there is homosexuality in the human race, and there always will be both. You are essentially saying "I'm an ignorant bigot, but damn it don't call me one because I have feelings too, unlike those damn queers!"

[Mister Sinister]

I don't hate them. I just dislike the life they are choosing to live. My neice is a lesbian. I don't hate her. I see her at Christmas every year and we have a great time with the family. I love her, I just dislike the life she is choosing.


When did YOU choose to be straight?

[Nitehawk013]

You are correct in that there will always be homsexuality. No argument there. The difference is you feel we should embrace and encourage perversion while I feel it should be discouraged in every way possible.

[Schlosser85]

They already have equal rights (a gay man can marry a woman just like a straight man can marry a woman) so I oppose them getting special rights.

They're not special rights, they're the right to marry the person they love just like you.

They choose to indulge in that lifestyle, therefore they choose the problems and they choose to be ostricized.


When did you choose to be straight?


The difference is you feel we should embrace and encourage perversion while I feel it should be discouraged in every way possible.



What about ignorance?

[Nitehawk013]

When did YOU choose to be straight?

I was born straight because that is how we are made. Now as far as the actual act of being straight, I guess I chose to follow through on those actions when I began flirting and then dating girls. Although, if my mom and older siblings were telling the truth, I flirted with little girls when I was just a little one myself.

How many 2 and 3 yr old boys do you see flirting with 2 and 3 yr old girls? I've seen hundreds. How many 2 yr old boys have you seen flirt with other 2 yr old boys? I've seen none. Not a scientific poll by any means I know. I just find it curious that so many say they are born gay, and yet I have never seen a 2 or 3 yr old boy exhibit any gay flirting. It's always with little girls.

[Joker]

You are correct in that there will always be homsexuality. No argument there. The difference is you feel we should embrace and encourage perversion while I feel it should be discouraged in every way possible.

But...It's not perversion. Perversion is jerking off to tubgirl or 2 Girls 1 Cup. Homosexuality is something that occurs in almost every species on the planet. That makes it the norm. It's not something that humans made up because of how depraved and imaginitve we are.

[Matt]

You are correct in that there will always be homsexuality. No argument there. The difference is you feel we should embrace and encourage perversion while I feel it should be discouraged in every way possible.

You calling homosexuality a perversion on the Hype will not be tolerated. Enjoy your vacation.

[Joker]

I was born straight because that is how we are made. Now as far as the actual act of being straight, I guess I chose to follow through on those actions when I began flirting and then dating girls. Although, if my mom and older siblings were telling the truth, I flirted with little girls when I was just a little one myself.

How many 2 and 3 yr old boys do you see flirting with 2 and 3 yr old girls? I've seen hundreds. How many 2 yr old boys have you seen flirt with other 2 yr old boys? I've seen none. Not a scientific poll by any means I know. I just find it curious that so many say they are born gay, and yet I have never seen a 2 or 3 yr old boy exhibit any gay flirting. It's always with little girls.

Well, seeing as you can't post here for a while now, may I suggest another forum that might be more receptive to your unique brand of "logic?" Stormfront. It's full of people who have the exact same opinion on homosexuality as you.

[Schlosser85]

How many 2 and 3 yr old boys do you see flirting with 2 and 3 yr old girls? I've seen hundreds. How many 2 yr old boys have you seen flirt with other 2 yr old boys? I've seen none. Not a scientific poll by any means I know. I just find it curious that so many say they are born gay, and yet I have never seen a 2 or 3 yr old boy exhibit any gay flirting. It's always with little girls.


I'm not continuing to respond to a temporarily banned poster just to continue an argument, I'm trying to make a point...

Just because you haven't personally seen it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Many homosexuals doesn't realize they're gay until they hit puberty in their teens. Very few 2 or 3 year old children have any concept of "sexual orientation", be it gay or straight or whatever. And most gays are initially in denial growing up because they have the weight of society bearing down on them telling them they have to be straight and being anything else is simply not possible. I flirted with girls when I was in kindergarten and first grade. I never had any serious desire to date them, though. I went through the whole denial/acceptance stages: first I claimed I was straight, than I claimed I was bi (because that means you're at least half-straight, and thus more "normal" than being gay), than I finally acknowledged that I was just plain gay. And I have friends who can remember finding classmates of the same sex cute in first grade.

[Matt]

Furthermore I would like to know what he defines as "flirting?" Children interact with any other child they see, male or female. They do not...flirt. Flirting is a social device, not a biological or instinctual action.

[The Senator]

I need to start waking up earlier... it looks like I miss all the fun...

[The Senator]

I was born straight because that is how we are made.

If that's the case, then I would have been attracted to girls at one point in my life. I dated a few, but I was never sexually attracted to them. In fact, any sort of romance between myself and girls was awkward and fairly embarrassing for all involved. I'm much better with men-- as if (:eek:) I am naturally attracted to them...

[BlackLantern]

Flirting for Toddlers....

[The Senator]

You could have simply read the first 3 or 4 pages of the thread and come to this realization Lou.

This site, like many, is predominantly a bunch of liberals. Thus, any person who has even the slightest conservative value, even if that person is not a Conservative, must immediately be labeled as a Bigot, racist, homophobe, etc etc.

You are only allowed to have your own opinion on things like gay "rights" if your opinion is in line with the liberal ideology. Otherwise, you are just full of hate.

It take s alot of tolerance and intelligence to be a liberal. "Agree with us or you are just a hate-monger". Wow. How very tolerant and enlightened of them.

That's pure nonsense.

When you call homosexuality a "perversion," I don't know how that isn't a tad bit hateful.

When you advocate taking away rights from a minority, I don't how that isn't bigoted.

Meanwhile, other posters here have been able to approach this topic with at least a shred of respect-- even those who disagree that homosexuals should be able to marry or adopt or what have you. Hell, I have this debate with people in my own family, who disagree with me on this topic, and they can at least get their point across without resorting to wedge-talking points such as "homosexuality is a choice" or "homosexuality is a perversion."

You and many others seem unable to actually give your opinion without coming off as ass holes. It's as simple as that.

[jaguarr]

Flirting for Toddlers....

This must be a tie-in for the "How To Date Women" book written by a 9-year old there's a thread for in Community.

jag

[jaguarr]

Referring to other people as "perversions" simply because they don't fit into your narrow world view is, in of itself, a perversion.

jag

[BlackLantern]

This must be a tie-in for the "How To Date Women" book written by a 9-year old there's a thread for in Community.

jag

It's all about franchises and follow ups

[jaguarr]

It's all about franchises and follow ups

That's true. I feel the Leapfrog learning system people should jump on this.

jag

[BlackLantern]

That's true. I feel the Leapfrog learning system people should jump on this.

jag

umm...not sure if you're being sarcastic, but they are....have you seen the commercials?...they are totally branching out into the older kids

[jaguarr]

umm...not sure if you're being sarcastic, but they are....have you seen the commercials?...they are totally branching out into the older kids

Are they offering dating advice to kids, yet? When they have speed-dating packs for their learning systems, then we'll have progress. :up:

jag

[BlackLantern]

No...it hasn't progressed that far....though we might only be a decade from having 'Dr. Seuss' Donkey Punch' on the shelves

[jaguarr]

No...it hasn't progressed that far....though we might only be a decade from having 'Dr. Seuss' Donkey Punch' on the shelves

"Hit her in the back of the head, I said!"

"I will not punch a chick! I will not won't not, do you take me for a hick!?"

jag

[BlackLantern]

"Could you, would you, in a trailer?"

[jaguarr]

"Could you do it to a sailor?"

jag

[thedeadite]

On a different note, my psych professor said something the other day that was a little bit off.
"I don't like using the word 'homosexual' because it has too many negative connotations attached to it. I prefer to say 'gender-preferenced'".
Now, without being 100% sure, I don't think he was trying to come off as he did with this choice of wording. Personally I find his new "terminology" quite a bit more offensive than homosexual could ever be. Though most young psych profs I've had tend to say things that are a little bit sketchy at one point during the semester (in my opinion anyway).

What do you guys think of this new "terminology"?


ps. I wasn't totally offended by this to the point of wanting this guy to stop teaching, just found his attempt to curb "negative connotations" actually would do more to add to them.

[BlackLantern]

He has noble intentions....while the word 'homosexual' isn't negative in itself, the term has garnered negative perceptions...I don't see anything wrong with trying to come up with something new

[jaguarr]

Fixating on semantics won't change anyone's perceptions, to be honest.

jag

[BlackLantern]

Maybe it could help, or like deadite said, make the issue worse

[The Senator]

On a different note, my psych professor said something the other day that was a little bit off.
"I don't like using the word 'homosexual' because it has too many negative connotations attached to it. I prefer to say 'gender-preferenced'".
Now, without being 100% sure, I don't think he was trying to come off as he did with this choice of wording. Personally I find his new "terminology" quite a bit more offensive than homosexual could ever be. Though most young psych profs I've had tend to say things that are a little bit sketchy at one point during the semester (in my opinion anyway).

What do you guys think of this new "terminology"?


ps. I wasn't totally offended by this to the point of wanting this guy to stop teaching, just found his attempt to curb "negative connotations" actually would do more to add to them.

It's bull ****. Gender-preferenced doesn't make a damn bit of sense, considering gender isn't what's at the core of sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is about who you are attracted to. Gender-preferenced essentially implies that you only are attracted to people based on their gender... well, what about pansexuals, who don't "see" gender?

Homosexuality, meanwhile, describes orientation perfectly: Homosexuals are attracted to one sex-- the same sex.

Christ this is such a difficult topic to explain...

[thedeadite]

See Jman, that's how I was looking at it. The whole gender thing makes it very confusing.
The word "preferenced" also can make it easy for someone who isn't educated in psychological terminology to take that as there is a choice in the matter and that a person just "prefers" to be gay.

I'm pretty certain it's the case of a psychology grad-student trying to use his education to "make a change" yet not fully understanding the material he has been taught and how to properly use it (and the terminology that comes with it).

[BlackLantern]

so is 'Sissy Mary' not the preferred term??

[Marx]

On a different note, my psych professor said something the other day that was a little bit off.
"I don't like using the word 'homosexual' because it has too many negative connotations attached to it. I prefer to say 'gender-preferenced'".
Now, without being 100% sure, I don't think he was trying to come off as he did with this choice of wording. Personally I find his new "terminology" quite a bit more offensive than homosexual could ever be. Though most young psych profs I've had tend to say things that are a little bit sketchy at one point during the semester (in my opinion anyway).

What do you guys think of this new "terminology"?


ps. I wasn't totally offended by this to the point of wanting this guy to stop teaching, just found his attempt to curb "negative connotations" actually would do more to add to them.

Im with Jman and Jag on this. 'Gender-preference' is a bit confusing and a tad bit ridiculous. And tryng to argue semantics isn't going to change people's perception.

[C.F. Kane]

On a different note, my psych professor said something the other day that was a little bit off.
"I don't like using the word 'homosexual' because it has too many negative connotations attached to it. I prefer to say 'gender-preferenced'".
Now, without being 100% sure, I don't think he was trying to come off as he did with this choice of wording. Personally I find his new "terminology" quite a bit more offensive than homosexual could ever be. Though most young psych profs I've had tend to say things that are a little bit sketchy at one point during the semester (in my opinion anyway).

What do you guys think of this new "terminology"?


ps. I wasn't totally offended by this to the point of wanting this guy to stop teaching, just found his attempt to curb "negative connotations" actually would do more to add to them.

There's a scene from The Office that goes like this:



Michael: Um, let me ask you, is there a term besides Mexican that you prefer? Something less offensive?
Oscar: Mexican isn't offensive.
Michael: Well, it has certain connotations.

[wiegeabo]

There's a scene from The Office that goes like this:



Michael: Um, let me ask you, is there a term besides Mexican that you prefer? Something less offensive?
Oscar: Mexican isn't offensive.
Michael: Well, it has certain connotations.


Sadly, it does. Car dealerships in California are required to provide contracts in both English and Spanish to spanish speakers so a customer can't claim they didn't understand something because it wasn't their native language. But they're afraid to ask someone if they're Mexican because it might offend them. So they ask if they're Spanish.

Which is dumb because, like my Mexican friend at work said, Mexicans aren't Spanish. They're Mexican. Why should they be insulted by being called by their proper nationality?

[Marx]

MORMON CHURCH PUBLIC RELATIONS BACKLASH
RoRPKhQa6g0

[The Senator]

MORMON CHURCH PUBLIC RELATIONS BACKLASH
RoRPKhQa6g0

Business as usual for the Mormons. They usually make a decision which backfires right in their face once every six years or so; they're actually a little bit late with this one, since their last public relations nightmare occurred in 2001 after several Jews sued the church for posthumously converting Holocaust victims to the Mormon faith...

[Scarlet spidey]

This has probably been said before, but I'm not about to read 63 pages to find out.
This whole Gay Rights thing is stupid, as is Women's Rights.
The only rights that exist are Human Rights, which are granted to you by God/Nature, not Government.
It's not the Government's job to dictate who can get married, which drinking fountain you can drink out of, or if you should be allowed to adopt or not.

[The Senator]

This has probably been said before, but I'm not about to read 63 pages to find out.
This whole Gay Rights thing is stupid, as is Women's Rights.
The only rights that exist are Human Rights, which are granted to you by God/Nature, not Government.
It's not the Government's job to dictate who can get married, which drinking fountain you can drink out of, or if you should be allowed to adopt or not.

Well, considering the Judeo-Christian God hates us all and damned us all from birth, I don't really think it's God's job to dictate who can get married either...

[Marx]

This has probably been said before, but I'm not about to read 63 pages to find out.
This whole Gay Rights thing is stupid, as is Women's Rights.
The only rights that exist are Human Rights, which are granted to you by God/Nature, not Government.
It's not the Government's job to dictate who can get married, which drinking fountain you can drink out of, or if you should be allowed to adopt or not.

It's not the church's job to scare people with lies and distortions to further their causes of hate and division either.

[Scarlet spidey]

Well, considering the Judeo-Christian God hates us all and damned us all from birth, I don't really think it's God's job to dictate who can get married either...That's why I included nature in there. :p

It's not the church's job to scare people with lies and distortions to further their causes of hate and division either.
The Church doesn't make laws though. Government does. If Government wasn't involved with making laws about marriage it would be up to the specific churches whether or not gay marriage would be allowed. And I know some churches favor gay marriage.

[Marx]

The Church doesn't make laws though. Government does. If Government wasn't involved with making laws about marriage it would be up to the specific churches whether or not gay marriage would be allowed. And I know some churches favor gay marriage.

But you must admit that there are instances where minority rights should be protected, and it takes the government to do that. With regard to gay marriages and churches, I believe that the decision on whether or not to recognize it should be left of to the churches themselves.

[Scarlet spidey]

But you must admit that there are instances where minority rights should be protected, and it takes the government to do that. With regard to gay marriages and churches, I believe that the decision on whether or not to recognize it should be left of to the churches themselves.
Minority rights in what respect?
The right to get married? As I said before, churches already are for gay marriage. Some are not, some will never be.

[Schlosser85]

With regard to gay marriages and churches, I believe that the decision on whether or not to recognize it should be left of to the churches themselves.


Well if gay marriage was legalized, churches would have the choice whether or not to perform it. But it has to be the government making the initial decision, because marriages are not only performed in churches.

[Scarlet spidey]

Well if gay marriage was legalized, churches would have the choice whether or not to perform it. But it has to be the government making the initial decision, because marriages are not only performed in churches.
The Government shouldn't have anything to do with it in the first place.
They should have to grand you the right to do something like that. If you were living on an island that had no government what would stop you from getting married (gay or straight)?

[Marx]

Minority rights in what respect?
The right to get married? As I said before, churches already are for gay marriage. Some are not, some will never be.

Hate crimes. Discrimination. Adoption. Etc.

Well if gay marriage was legalized, churches would have the choice whether or not to perform it. But it has to be the government making the initial decision, because marriages are not only performed in churches.

I agree, Schloss.

[Marx]

The Government shouldn't have anything to do with it in the first place.
They should have to grand you the right to do something like that. If you were living on an island that had no government what would stop you from getting married (gay or straight)?

For starters, we don't live in ancient times on an island in the middle of nowhere. We live in a world with laws. There are rights UNDER LAW that heterosexuals have that homosexuals do not.

[Joker]

so is 'Sissy Mary' not the preferred term??

Wait...so me saying "enormous poof" all these years has been offensive!?!?!? My entire life is a lie!!!!

[danoyse]

This has probably been said before, but I'm not about to read 63 pages to find out.
This whole Gay Rights thing is stupid, as is Women's Rights.
The only rights that exist are Human Rights, which are granted to you by God/Nature, not Government.
It's not the Government's job to dictate who can get married, which drinking fountain you can drink out of, or if you should be allowed to adopt or not.

And when certain Humans are denied rights - such as the gay community or women, they fight for those rights. When the government decides who can vote and who can't, or who can get married and who can't - or when religious groups who should mind their own bloody business try to influence governments to make those kinds of decisions, then people should fight to change absurd laws that keep groups from being equal than everyone else.

[spideyboy_1111]

You could have simply read the first 3 or 4 pages of the thread and come to this realization Lou.

This site, like many, is predominantly a bunch of liberals. Thus, any person who has even the slightest conservative value, even if that person is not a Conservative, must immediately be labeled as a Bigot, racist, homophobe, etc etc.

You are only allowed to have your own opinion on things like gay "rights" if your opinion is in line with the liberal ideology. Otherwise, you are just full of hate.

It take s alot of tolerance and intelligence to be a liberal. "Agree with us or you are just a hate-monger". Wow. How very tolerant and enlightened of them.

you do know Jesus, Martin Luther King, and the founders of our god damn country were all by definition... LIBERALS. right? God you conservatives just simply don't like change, and throw around the world liberal as if it's a curse word. I'm so happy this world is changing and you bigots are becoming the minority more and more on a daily basis. :applaud

[spideyboy_1111]

You are correct in that there will always be homsexuality. No argument there. The difference is you feel we should embrace and encourage perversion while I feel it should be discouraged in every way possible.

We played that "game" for quite a while.. and if F'd up alot of lives. Denying yourself is the worst thing a person can EVER do, ask any psychologist. Or do you consider that "the devils work" too :o

[spideyboy_1111]

Furthermore I would like to know what he defines as "flirting?" Children interact with any other child they see, male or female. They do not...flirt. Flirting is a social device, not a biological or instinctual action.

i have a friend who claims he's been flirting with boys since he was in elementary school... he didn't know why till much later though. And after watching home movies of him as a kid.. haha i believe it.

[spideyboy_1111]

Referring to other people as "perversions" simply because they don't fit into your narrow world view is, in of itself, a perversion.

jag

isn't that kinda the definition of a bigot? which he is claiming he is not? you know the whole fact of being narrow minded and making everything fit into your idea of black and white? interesting... maybe he should look in a mirror

[spideyboy_1111]

Im with Jman and Jag on this. 'Gender-preference' is a bit confusing and a tad bit ridiculous. And tryng to argue semantics isn't going to change people's perception.

yeah i agree as well, "gender-preference" to me sounds like a choice.... it's like..

Woman: Do you like boy's or girls? what is your gender-preference?
Man: well... i do prefer to go with boys over girls

The man totally sounds like he likes guys MORE, meaning he may still like girls.. which makes it sound like a choice to me.

[The Senator]

you do know Jesus, Martin Luther King, and the founders of our god damn country were all by definition... LIBERALS. right? God you conservatives just simply don't like change, and throw around the world liberal as if it's a curse word. I'm so happy this world is changing and you bigots are becoming the minority more and more on a daily basis. :applaud

I didn't know Jesus founded this country...

[Gilpesh]

I didn't know Jesus founded this country...

According to those very bigots that spidey is happy to see dying off.

[CaptainClown]

I didn't know Jesus founded this country...
http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x250/captain_ClownhaHa/jesus_nephites.jpg
um...duh.

[Marx]

And when certain Humans are denied rights - such as the gay community or women, they fight for those rights. When the government decides who can vote and who can't, or who can get married and who can't - or when religious groups who should mind their own bloody business try to influence governments to make those kinds of decisions, then people should fight to change absurd laws that keep groups from being equal than everyone else.

Well said Dan. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[spideyboy_1111]

I didn't know Jesus founded this country...

i never said he was.... I said Jesus, MLK, and the founders of our country. Not saying Jesus and MLK are founding fathers of our country.

[Scarlet spidey]

you do know Jesus, Martin Luther King, and the founders of our god damn country were all by definition... LIBERALS. right? God you conservatives just simply don't like change, and throw around the world liberal as if it's a curse word. I'm so happy this world is changing and you bigots are becoming the minority more and more on a daily basis. :applaud
Classical Liberals are not the same thing as what we call Liberals today.

[CaptainClown]

Classical Liberals are not the same thing as what we call Liberals today.
We talking about those liberals who in the classroom say "aw, all of you are special."

[Scarlet spidey]

We talking about those liberals who in the classroom say "aw, all of you are special."
Which is not what the founding fathers were.

[CaptainClown]

Which is not what the founding fathers were.
ok good cause I hate that coddling that society is getting.

[spideyboy_1111]

Classical Liberals are not the same thing as what we call Liberals today.

i suggest you look at the definitions of liberals than.. because you obviously have no idea.

Merriam-Webster's definition

1lib·er·al Listen to the pronunciation of 1liberal
Pronunciation:
\ˈli-b(ə-)rəl\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lēodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
Date:
14th century

1 a: of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> barchaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a: marked by generosity : openhanded <a liberal giver> b: given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c: ample , full
3obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious
4: not literal or strict : loose <a liberal translation>
5: broad-minded ; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a: of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism
b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism ; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives
— lib·er·al·ly Listen to the pronunciation of liberally \-b(ə-)rə-lē\ adverb
— lib·er·al·ness noun

We go against the grain (if need be) in favor of liberty, justice and rights for all. It's the very thing our nation was founded upon, we question authority when authority needs to be questioned. It's the American way and always has been.

sorry if you like being a sheep

[spideyboy_1111]

Which is not what the founding fathers were.

You really do not know much about US history do you? doesn't surprise me... though, seems like more and more conservative people i meet know less and less about the topics in which they speak. :o

[CaptainClown]

You really do not know much about US history do you? doesn't surprise me... though, seems like more and more conservative people i meet know less and less about the topics in which they speak. :o
Wait are you saying that the founding fathers original intended for an "equal" america?

[spideyboy_1111]

Wait are you saying that the founding fathers original intended for an "equal" america?

No, I'm speaking about there liberal minds. Liberalism isn't just about civil equality, but generally going against there authority in order to do what's right. That's exactly what out founding fathers did against the British.

[CaptainClown]

No, I'm speaking about there liberal minds. Liberalism isn't just about civil equality, but generally going against there authority in order to do what's right. That's exactly what out founding fathers did against the British.
To do whats right? It wasn't like the British were mistreating the colonies in an inhumane nature. The reason for rebellion was because of isolationism and then swiftly retracting that thus pissing off the colonies.

[Scarlet spidey]

You really do not know much about US history do you? doesn't surprise me... though, seems like more and more conservative people i meet know less and less about the topics in which they speak. :o
I'm not really a conservative. At least not in the Republican sense of conservatives.
By the way, the founding father's were libertarian. Not liberal.

[Joker]

To do whats right? It wasn't like the British were mistreating the colonies in an inhumane nature. The reason for rebellion was because of isolationism and then swiftly retracting that thus pissing off the colonies.

A lot of it was about unfair taxation too. And the founding fathers were just a rowdy lot in general really.

[CaptainClown]

A lot of it was about unfair taxation too. And the founding fathers were just a rowdy lot in general really.
Well it was unfair taxation especially when you left the Americas alone for a long time not taxing them at all then all of a sudden loading a bunch of rules on them.

Also like you said the founding fathers were a rowdy bunch.

[spideyboy_1111]

I'm not really a conservative. At least not in the Republican sense of conservatives.
By the way, the founding father's were libertarian. Not liberal.

semantics :o

[spideyboy_1111]

Well it was unfair taxation especially when you left the Americas alone for a long time not taxing them at all then all of a sudden loading a bunch of rules on them.

Also like you said the founding fathers were a rowdy bunch.

and if they existed today, doing the same thing, they'd be called liberals to those who were perfectly fine with a british rule.

Liberals typically want change in favor of freedom where as conservatives think they are already as free as they need to be, and hate the idea of change. Sure they want to conserve tradition, but they tend to not see how that affects others rights and freedoms.

[wiegeabo]

Classifying Republicans as conservatives and Democrats as liberals is a bit of a misnomer. In social issues, Republicans are conservative and Democrats are liberal. But if you look at economic issues, Republicans are the liberals, and Democrats are the conservative.

All conservative means is that one prefers government (or higher-level) involvement/regulation/enforcement.
All liberal means is that one prefers self (or lower-level) governing/regulation/enforcement.

Libertarians are liberal on both social and economic issues. Authoritarians are conservative on both.

[BlackLantern]

My dad is a very middle of the road Republican, but he's big on states rights and small government

[Kelly]

My dad is a very middle of the road Republican, but he's big on states rights and small government


I'm independent and I'm big on those things as well. What pisses me off about the Republicans is I could usually rely on them in the house to watch over my tax money.....not anymore...........:csad:

[wiegeabo]

I'm very much a Libertarian. I believe in minimal government in everything and the rights of lower levels of government like states, counties, cities, and individuals.

Usually means on social issues I side with Democrats and economic issues I'm with the Republicans.

[spideyboy_1111]

I'm very much a Libertarian. I believe in minimal government in everything and the rights of lower levels of government like states, counties, cities, and individuals.

Usually means on social issues I side with Democrats and economic issues I'm with the Republicans.

id side with republicans on economical issues if we weren't in an economic crisis in some ways because of them. :o, republicans tend to believe in "why share the wealth?" which is fine and dandy to a degree, but not when all thats happening is the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

[BlackLantern]

id side with republicans on economical issues if we weren't in an economic crisis in some ways because of them. :o, republicans tend to believe in "why share the wealth?" which is fine and dandy to a degree, but not when all thats happening is the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

There seems to be no motivation to help the poor though....their mindeset is "why help the poor, they aren't going to be smart enough to save their money anyway"

[Kelly]

There seems to be no motivation to help the poor though....their mindeset is "why help the poor, they aren't going to be smart enough to save their money anyway"

I work in a low socioeconomic income district.....and I have to say, they do have problems saving, or even having a mindset to save. Now mind you they don't have alot of money to save, but when you "automatically" turn to the government at every turn, then there is a need for a paradigm change. I'm all for helping the poor, but I don't like throwing my money into a black hole of neverending mindset of the "government will take care of me, even if I do nothing"......it works both ways. I believe that the best way for a person to move from one socioeconomic stage to another, or even a country to do so, is through education. When you have parents that do not care what their child is doing, or how their child is doing in school, then you have a child thats going to grow up looking for the easiest way out, and both hands out because the chain has not been broken, it has only added a link.

[Marx]

NEWSWEEK POLL: SUPPORT FOR GAY MARRIAGE GROWS
http://www.newsweek.com/id/172399


Americans continue to find civil unions for gays and lesbians more palatable than full-fledged marriage. Fifty-five percent of respondents favored legally sanctioned unions or partnerships, while only 39 percent supported marriage rights. Both figures are notably higher than in 2004, when 40 percent backed the former and 33 percent approved of the latter. When it comes to according legal rights in specific areas to gays, the public is even more supportive. Seventy-four percent back inheritance rights for gay domestic partners (compared to 60 percent in 2004), 73 percent approve of extending health insurance and other employee benefits to them (compared to 60 percent in 2004), 67 percent favor granting them Social Security benefits (compared to 55 percent in 2004) and 86 percent support hospital visitation rights (a question that wasn't asked four years ago). In other areas, too, respondents appeared increasingly tolerant. Fifty-three percent favor gay adoption rights (8 points more than in 2004), and 66 percent believe gays should be able to serve openly in the military (6 points more than in 2004).

[spideyboy_1111]

There seems to be no motivation to help the poor though....their mindeset is "why help the poor, they aren't going to be smart enough to save their money anyway"

problem is they only view it as "rich and poor" what about the middle class who is smart? but were getting poor because of the riches decisions.

[spideyboy_1111]

wow.. the 14% who don't support hospital visitation rights are some seriously messed up people. And that truly disgusts me

[Marx]

wow.. the 14% who don't support hospital visitation rights are some seriously messed up people. And that truly disgusts me

That is disturbing, but the more important thing is that public opinion is changing for the GOOD.

[wiegeabo]

I work in a low socioeconomic income district.....and I have to say, they do have problems saving, or even having a mindset to save. Now mind you they don't have alot of money to save, but when you "automatically" turn to the government at every turn, then there is a need for a paradigm change. I'm all for helping the poor, but I don't like throwing my money into a black hole of neverending mindset of the "government will take care of me, even if I do nothing"......it works both ways. I believe that the best way for a person to move from one socioeconomic stage to another, or even a country to do so, is through education. When you have parents that do not care what their child is doing, or how their child is doing in school, then you have a child thats going to grow up looking for the easiest way out, and both hands out because the chain has not been broken, it has only added a link.


:applaud

[wiegeabo]

There seems to be no motivation to help the poor though....their mindeset is "why help the poor, they aren't going to be smart enough to save their money anyway"

"If you could find a solution to homelessness where the corporate swine and the politicians could steel a couple of million dollars each, you'd see the streets of America begin to clear up pretty goddamn quick. I'll guarantee you that."

-George Carlin


It applies to poverty as just as well.

[spideyboy_1111]

That is disturbing, but the more important thing is that public opinion is changing for the GOOD.

definately... but none the less those people disturb the hell out of me.

[XpunkRocker]

Classifying Republicans as conservatives and Democrats as liberals is a bit of a misnomer. In social issues, Republicans are conservative and Democrats are liberal. But if you look at economic issues, Republicans are the liberals, and Democrats are the conservative.

All conservative means is that one prefers government (or higher-level) involvement/regulation/enforcement.
All liberal means is that one prefers self (or lower-level) governing/regulation/enforcement.

Libertarians are liberal on both social and economic issues. Authoritarians are conservative on both.


nope. that isn't true. liberals and libertarians are nothing alike. democrats are liberal on social issues and economic issues. Liberals raise taxes and spend a lot (democrats). conervatives cut taxes and spend little (republicans, except G bush who is a Radcon). conservative people in general don't spend, they save. liberal people spend.

G bush wasn't a conservative. he spent to much money and put us in higher debt. that isn't conservative at all. but all these other republicans, like romney, palin, and all them. yeah, they are def economic conservatives.

What liberal really means is "to give." It was defined by George Washington as to "give." which is give power to the people. In modern day, liberals have defined themselves as the "progessives." They raise taxes, they want to higher regulation, they want bigger government. They are the ones that want the government to control things. That is why communism is extreme liberalism. where the government controls everything.

As for conservatives, it means what it does mean. They want to conserve and keep things the same. They want lower taxes, little government regulation, little gun control, traditional values, and so on. conservative doesn't mean they prefer the "higher level of government." that is silly. the republican party is the one that wants to give states the rights rather than the nation. and the dems are the ones that want the national level to have the rights. it has been that way since the birth of our country when they argued slavery. the liberals wanted the whole nation to be free, the conservatives that the states should choose on slavery.

[spideyboy_1111]

nope. that isn't true. liberals and libertarians are nothing alike. democrats are liberal on social issues and economic issues. Liberals raise taxes and spend a lot (democrats). conervatives cut taxes and spend little (republicans, except G bush who is a Radcon). conservative people in general don't spend, they save. liberal people spend.

G bush wasn't a conservative. he spent to much money and put us in higher debt. that isn't conservative at all. but all these other republicans, like romney, palin, and all them. yeah, they are def economic conservatives.

What liberal really means is "to give." It was defined by George Washington as to "give." which is give power to the people. In modern day, liberals have defined themselves as the "progessives." They raise taxes, they want to higher regulation, they want bigger government. They are the ones that want the government to control things. That is why communism is extreme liberalism. where the government controls everything.

As for conservatives, it means what it does mean. They want to conserve and keep things the same. They want lower taxes, little government regulation, little gun control, traditional values, and so on. conservative doesn't mean they prefer the "higher level of government." that is silly. the republican party is the one that wants to give states the rights rather than the nation. and the dems are the ones that want the national level to have the rights. it has been that way since the birth of our country when they argued slavery. the liberals wanted the whole nation to be free, the conservatives that the states should choose on slavery.

That's not true at all... lol look at Donald Trump, look at all the republicans who run oil companies... Conservative people are usually some of the richest and spend the most... sure some save, but republicans spend quite alot, its just typically on themselves.

[XpunkRocker]

....no. conservatives don't spend a lot. conservatives always make sure they have more money coming in than they do coming out. that is conservatism. They sticklers for budgets, they do almost ANYTHING to save money. Do you know what "conservative" means? It means some one whoe likes "to keep." Litterally. If you don't believe me, go check the dictionary.

The people who spend the most are people who buy more than they can afford. Which is usually liberals. Liberals raise taxes and spend money on a lot of dofferent programs, a lot are ones we don't need. Conervatives cut programs and cut taxes..... anyone who is economically conerservative wants to cut taxes, and cut spending. anyone who is economically liberal wants to raise taxes and raise spending. it is politics 101.

btw, donald trump isn't exactly a "republican." he might be member of the party, but he plays a small role in politics. But he obviously makes more than he spends. You have to look at the actuall politicians and their policies.

[BlackLantern]

This ties in with the view that a majority of people view the gay community as well educated and well off financially....If you're regular Joe American whos driving a 10 year old car, it's a bit tough to empathize with someone who's driving an 08' Infiniti or Benz and says they are being discriminated against and being treated as a second class citizen

[XpunkRocker]

i agree. although i have to admit, i myself was and still am prejudace against "rich people." Especially the corrupt coorperations. There are a lot of really bad ones out there, but there are a lot of good ones as well.

As far as gay rights go.... i think this is one where the politicians have it right. Civil unions should be allowed. but gay marraige no. I personally think what they should do is take marraige out of the government all together and make it all "civil unions." Marraige should be left to the churches. and i believe in seperation of church and state. that idea might be a bit radical for some, but i think it is the best.

but yeah, i can't believe that there are a couple people on here and think that fiscal conservatives spend a lot of money and raise taxes. Edmund Burke must be laughing in his grave.

if anyone wants to touch up on fiscal conservatism, be my guest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism

[Kelly]

That's not true at all... lol look at Donald Trump, look at all the republicans who run oil companies... Conservative people are usually some of the richest and spend the most... sure some save, but republicans spend quite alot, its just typically on themselves.

Not exactly true.....do a simple google, and you'll find that on average conservative republicans give more (charitable giving) than liberal democrats, and on average liberal democrats have a higher income.


I can't remember the book, but it was highlighted on a philanthropy website I was reading awhile back. It gives some specific numbers in the book. I don't have time to research it, but I think a simple google would suffice.

[StorminNorman]

id side with republicans on economical issues if we weren't in an economic crisis in some ways because of them. :o, republicans tend to believe in "why share the wealth?" which is fine and dandy to a degree, but not when all thats happening is the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

Except that the economic crisis has nothing to do with Republicans. The bank crisis came when Democrats wanted banks to make risky loans.

[BlackLantern]

Banks being pressured into lending to low income and high risk individuals as to appear "fair"....People applying for loans falsifying their incomes and then defaulting on loans...you can blame the banks/loan companies all you want, but a good chunk of this falls on the public

[XpunkRocker]

most of it falls on the banks, in my opinion. A lot people who were applying for loans didn't know any better, and they didn't know what they were doing. Basically, they would ask for a $100,000 loan and get a $300,000 loan. And by doing that, it puts the idea in their head that they can afford it.

what i am trying to say is the banks know more about finances and money managment, the people don't. most people go to college and never learn anything about money. they study art, literature, science, and everything else, but they know nothing about loans and money. in a way, i think the banks took advantage of people's ignorance. and i don't think they expected the housing bubble to burst as soon as it did.

Except that the economic crisis has nothing to do with Republicans. The bank crisis came when Democrats wanted banks to make risky loans.

actually.... it was a clinton administration AND a republican congress did all that jazz ;)

[Marx]

GAY MARRIAGE: OUR MUTUAL JOY
http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653


The argument goes something like this statement, which the Rev. Richard A. Hunter, a United Methodist minister, gave to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in June: "The Bible and Jesus define marriage as between one man and one woman. The church cannot condone or bless same-sex marriages because this stands in opposition to Scripture and our tradition."

To which there are two obvious responses: First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman. And second, as the examples above illustrate, no sensible modern person wants marriage—theirs or anyone else's —to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes. "Marriage" in America refers to two separate things, a religious institution and a civil one, though it is most often enacted as a messy conflation of the two. As a civil institution, marriage offers practical benefits to both partners: contractual rights having to do with taxes; insurance; the care and custody of children; visitation rights; and inheritance. As a religious institution, marriage offers something else: a commitment of both partners before God to love, honor and cherish each other—in sickness and in health, for richer and poorer—in accordance with God's will. In a religious marriage, two people promise to take care of each other, profoundly, the way they believe God cares for them. Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history. In that light, Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married—and a number of excellent reasons why they should.





If the bible doesn't give abundant examples of traditional marriage, then what are the gay-marriage opponents really exercised about? Well, homosexuality, of course—specifically sex between men. Sex between women has never, even in biblical times, raised as much ire. In its entry on "Homosexual Practices," the Anchor Bible Dictionary notes that nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women, "possibly because it did not result in true physical 'union' (by male entry)." The Bible does condemn gay male sex in a handful of passages. Twice Leviticus refers to sex between men as "an abomination" (King James version), but these are throwaway lines in a peculiar text given over to codes for living in the ancient Jewish world, a text that devotes verse after verse to treatments for leprosy, cleanliness rituals for menstruating women and the correct way to sacrifice a goat—or a lamb or a turtle dove. Most of us no longer heed Leviticus on haircuts or blood sacrifices; our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions. Why would we regard its condemnation of homosexuality with more seriousness than we regard its advice, which is far lengthier, on the best price to pay for a slave?

[Timstuff]

That's not true at all... lol look at Donald Trump, look at all the republicans who run oil companies... Conservative people are usually some of the richest and spend the most... sure some save, but republicans spend quite alot, its just typically on themselves.

You may find this interesting.

http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm

[CaptainClown]

Donating money = a good tax write off.

[The Senator]

Proposition 8: The Musical
Starring John C. Reilly and Jack Black

HrM2UPoWFtE

Jesus
The Bible says a lot of interesting things
Like...you...can... stone your wife
Or sell your daughter into slavery!

Christian
Well, we ignore those verses!

Jesus
Well then friend it seems to me
You pick and choose!

Christians
We pick and choose!

Perhaps the most accurate portrayal of fundamentalist Christians ever. I never thought I'd appreciate Jack Black, but he makes an excellent Jesus.

[Timstuff]

Donating money = a good tax write off.

Spending tax dollars on social programs =/= giving to charity

Even if the government eliminated tax writeoffs for charities, I think that conservatives would still give more. The reason that I believe there is such a deficit between liberals and conservatives when it comes to charity, is because liberals view the government to be a massive, mandatory charity. Rather than actually give to charity, they simply try to get the government to spend more money on nanny-state policies.

[The Senator]

Spending tax dollars on social programs =/= giving to charity

Even if the government eliminated tax writeoffs for charities, I think that conservatives would still give more. The reason that I believe there is such a deficit between liberals and conservatives when it comes to charity, is because liberals view the government to be a massive, mandatory charity. Rather than actually give to charity, they simply try to get the government to spend more money on nanny-state policies.

Christian conservatives give more money to charity because their congregations tend to guilt trip them into donating money. I've seen it happen at the three Christian churches I formerly attended, so I don't really consider this to be an ignorant generalization on my part.

I doubt that Christian conservatives would give more money to charity if they weren't told to plop a few bucks into a collection plate, tithe box, etc. every weekend

[BlackLantern]

There's a reason things like $200 a plate fundraisers are held...it's to guilt the haves into donating to charity

[Timstuff]

Christian conservatives give more money to charity because their congregations tend to guilt trip them into donating money. I've seen it happen at the three Christian churches I formerly attended, so I don't really consider this to be an ignorant generalization on my part.

I doubt that Christian conservatives would give more money to charity if they weren't told to plop a few bucks into a collection plate, tithe box, etc. every weekend

The collection plate at a church is not typically considered a charity, because it usually goes directly towards the maintanance of the church and keeping food on the staff's plates. Most churches I have been to usually have separate collections for projects, and on top of that many Christians I've known seek out charities outside of the Church. Maybe it's partially because the Church I currently attend does not pressure people into making offerings or tithes, but I think it's inaccurate to say that Christians only give more to charity in the form of offerings and tithes to churches. Also, I think it's inaccurate to say that it's only Christian conservatives who are giving more, because there are a lot of wealthy non-Christian conservatives who have philanthropic desires that they express through charity donations.

[Kelly]

The money in the plate, unless an envelope is used will not be used as a tax write off for churchgoers. Those that use it as a write off are giving an enormous amount of money.

Most of your megachurches today, like my church, never talk about the tithe. Tithing sermons are usually done in the smaller churchs still because their entire livelyhood stems from the money in the plate. The larger churches have everything from TV advertising, to music CD's, books, videos, etc......

I worked for a large church during college, and I can assure you those people that are tithing are giving a good amount of money in other areas as well.

Most of your food distribution, clothing distribution, housing accomodations etc, in the cities of the US are from churches through the faith based initiative.........and that is coming from money that is over and above the tithe.

[Marx]

'CALLING IN GAY DAY' THE LATEST PROP 8 PROTEST
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/08/calling-in-gay-latest-pro_n_149434.html


Some same-sex marriage supporters are urging people to "call in gay" Wednesday to show how much the country relies on gays and lesbians, but others question whether it's wise to encourage skipping work given the nation's economic distress. Organizers of "Day Without a Gay" _ scheduled to coincide with International Human Rights Day and modeled after similar work stoppages by Latino immigrants _ also are encouraging people to perform volunteer work and refrain from spending money.

Sean Hetherington, a West Hollywood comedian and personal trainer, dreamed up the idea with his boyfriend, Aaron Hartzler, after reading online that a few angry gay-rights activists were calling for a daylong strike to protest California voters' passage last month of Proposition 8, which reversed this year's state decision allowing marriage.

The couple thought it would be more effective and less divisive if people were asked to perform community service instead of staying home with their wallets shut. Dozens of nonprofit agencies, from the National Women's Law Center in Washington to a Methodist church in Fresno collecting food for the homeless, have posted opportunities for volunteers on the couple's Web site.

[Scarlet spidey]

Christian conservatives give more money to charity because their congregations tend to guilt trip them into donating money. I've seen it happen at the three Christian churches I formerly attended, so I don't really consider this to be an ignorant generalization on my part.

I doubt that Christian conservatives would give more money to charity if they weren't told to plop a few bucks into a collection plate, tithe box, etc. every weekendI'm an agnostic conservative and I donate.:o

[XpunkRocker]

there are 4 reasons why people donate to charity

1) They have a personal experience relating to the issue, therefore want to make a difference

2) They are human and like doing good deeds

3) To generate good PR

4) Tax right offs

When companies donate to charity, it is usually 3 and 4. when individuals donate, it is 1, 2, and 4. If it is the middle class, it is usually just 1 and 2.

I also find a lot of those people who pay like $200 a plate for a fundraiser, do it for networking as well i find. When it is $200 a plate, you know the people there will have money and will be "important." so just being there will be a good networking site. but i have seen this slip since the economy is doing bad.

[The Senator]

2) They are human

Yes, that accounts for 100% of those who donate to charity... unless, of course, animals have learned how to manipulate money these days...

[XpunkRocker]

maybe i should have chosen my words better since it is difficult to see what i implied. what i SHOULD have said is "they are humane." not much of a difference... just one letter. but i hope that clarified it. if it didn't, i will be happy to clarify it for you :)

[Kelly]

Yes, that accounts for 100% of those who donate to charity... unless, of course, animals have learned how to manipulate money these days...


My dogs give in their own way to the SPCA as ambassadors in parades.....:o And let me tell ya, they can bring in the money when they shake their little asses down the street and put on a show....lol


But I believe what he meant by that was......................"being human" can equate to "being compassionate"....at least in some of us.

[SentinelMind]

I work in a low socioeconomic income district.....and I have to say, they do have problems saving, or even having a mindset to save. Now mind you they don't have alot of money to save, but when you "automatically" turn to the government at every turn, then there is a need for a paradigm change. I'm all for helping the poor, but I don't like throwing my money into a black hole of neverending mindset of the "government will take care of me, even if I do nothing"......it works both ways. I believe that the best way for a person to move from one socioeconomic stage to another, or even a country to do so, is through education. When you have parents that do not care what their child is doing, or how their child is doing in school, then you have a child thats going to grow up looking for the easiest way out, and both hands out because the chain has not been broken, it has only added a link.

:up:

[XpunkRocker]

But I believe what he meant by that was......................"being human" can equate to "being compassionate"....at least in some of us.

exactly. just take the noun i said and make it into a verb. but i will try to be more carefull next time.

[cerealkiller182]

Anyone watch the Daily Show?

JOn Stewart totally owned Huckabee on the subject.

[Marx]

Anyone watch the Daily Show?

JOn Stewart totally owned Huckabee on the subject.

Looks like I'll be trying to catch a repeat then! http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[Holiday]

Anyone watch the Daily Show?

JOn Stewart totally owned Huckabee on the subject.

Owned indeed. Huckabee went back to the same ridiculous arguments that a lot of those who oppose gay marriage have.

And that's the second time in two nights I've heard someone on national tv say they believe being gay was a lifestyle choice. It's pathetic.

[cerealkiller182]

loved how Stewart called religion more of a lifestyle choice than homosexuality and religion has more legal rights than they do. Huckabee followed that up by saying "yeah but we dont burn people at the stakes. Ex-squeeze me!

Huckabee: We shouldnt redefine marriage

Stewart: <shpeel about how marriage had been redefined before>

Huckabee: We shouldnt redefine marriage

:whatever: open and shut case i guess.

I paraphrased but most of those words were said

[SuBe]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,465224,00.html

Jman, what do you think about this?

[Marx]

HUCKABEE, STEWART DEBATE GAY MARRIAGE
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/10/jon-stewart-mike-huckabee_n_149906.html





(Actual clip included.)

[The Senator]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,465224,00.html

Jman, what do you think about this?

It is a good concept, but I don't think it works. For one, I don't think it does much if homosexuals refuse to work for one day. Second, I don't think most homosexuals care to miss work solely to protest a ballot initiative in a state most of them don't live in.

I was planning on participating in it, but my job for the semester ended last Friday. Regardless, my boss wouldn't have cared if I took the day off, since my job on campus is fairly easy and doesn't require a lot of time and/ or effort to begin with.

[C.F. Kane]

I was actually more worried by Huckabee's image for a perfect society. Not that I don't find his ideas on homosexuality offensive, but his concept of a society where everyone follows "the rules" is pretty scary, especially since he never elaborated on who would make "the rules".

[BlackLantern]

He did make a point about "hate"...I believe he said just because someone doesn't support gay marriage doesn't make them hateful, it's just conflicting with their beliefs.....I half agree because it ties into acceptance, if you take someone who has it beaten into their heads that gay people are a certain way or that gay marriage is bad....you can't expect years of that programming to suddenly go away....I'm speaking about person to person, not rights or government legislation

[The Senator]

I was actually more worried by Huckabee's image for a perfect society. Not that I don't find his ideas on homosexuality offensive, but his concept of a society where everyone follows "the rules" is pretty scary, especially since he never elaborated on who would make "the rules".

Jesus Christ makes the rules. Huckabee said during the 2008 campaign that he feels the Constitution should be amended to reflect "God's law." In other words, there should be amendments where it's alright for men to stone their wives if they lost their virginity before marriage and to sell their daughters into slavery.

[Schlosser85]

If Jesus came back tomorrow, the evangelicals would end up stoning him to death.

[XpunkRocker]

if they didnt already

[Marx]

He did make a point about "hate"...I believe he said just because someone doesn't support gay marriage doesn't make them hateful, it's just conflicting with their beliefs.....I half agree because it ties into acceptance, if you take someone who has it beaten into their heads that gay people are a certain way or that gay marriage is bad....you can't expect years of that programming to suddenly go away....I'm speaking about person to person, not rights or government legislation

Huckabee doesn't believe in acceptance though. Despite his comment about 'not supporting gay marriage doesn't make one hateful', he does believe that gays should have to 'make a case' for equal rights. That's not acceptance. That's not tolerance. That's division. And ignorance. Jon Stewart hammered him out of the park on this whole issue.

[Marx]

If Jesus came back tomorrow, the evangelicals would end up stoning him to death.

Sad, but true.

[C.F. Kane]

Jesus Christ makes the rules. Huckabee said during the 2008 campaign that he feels the Constitution should be amended to reflect "God's law." In other words, there should be amendments where it's alright for men to stone their wives if they lost their virginity before marriage and to sell their daughters into slavery.

Thought so. His vision for America is a nationwide Liberty University.

[Spider-Bite]

Jesus Christ makes the rules. Huckabee said during the 2008 campaign that he feels the Constitution should be amended to reflect "God's law." In other words, there should be amendments where it's alright for men to stone their wives if they lost their virginity before marriage and to sell their daughters into slavery.
Man that is shocking. Really.

[Spider-Bite]

there are 4 reasons why people donate to charity

1) They have a personal experience relating to the issue, therefore want to make a difference

2) They are human and like doing good deeds

3) To generate good PR

4) Tax right offs

When companies donate to charity, it is usually 3 and 4. when individuals donate, it is 1, 2, and 4. If it is the middle class, it is usually just 1 and 2.

I also find a lot of those people who pay like $200 a plate for a fundraiser, do it for networking as well i find. When it is $200 a plate, you know the people there will have money and will be "important." so just being there will be a good networking site. but i have seen this slip since the economy is doing bad.

Number 4 never, ever applies. The tax write off is way smaller than what you actually donate. It would be like me offering you a hundred dollars to pay me five dollars. It defeats the purpose.

[CaptainClown]

If Jesus came back tomorrow, the evangelicals would end up stoning him to death.
more or less

[BlackLantern]

I've made charitable donations to score brownie points with a girl

[XpunkRocker]

Number 4 never, ever applies. The tax write off is way smaller than what you actually donate. It would be like me offering you a hundred dollars to pay me five dollars. It defeats the purpose.


It applies to me. It is crucial, and i have used this technique many times. What you do is your company makes like 300,000 in profit let's say. The government is going to tax you heavily, depending on what the tax brackets are like for you area.

So lets say..... making 300,000 makes you pay 40% in taxes. but, if you made 280,000. you only have to pay thirty. So you take 20,000 and give it to charity. that puts you in a lower bracket, but you still made 300,000. So when you do business with other companies, you can tell them that your company made 300,000. but you only paid taxes as if you made 280,000.

the more you make, the more you're taxed. I am not very good at manipulating the system. It gets complicated because there are so many governments and taxes to go through. the accountant i use usually tells me what the best way to go about it is.

[Timstuff]

HUCKABEE, STEWART DEBATE GAY MARRIAGE
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/10/jon-stewart-mike-huckabee_n_149906.html





(Actual clip included.)

I think that they both did a good job of eloquently making their points without getting petty, and I can understand where Stewart is coming from on the issue. However, my opinion is still that many people have overdramaticized this issue on both sides, and instead of reaching a compromise through political discourse it's turned into a big fight. The real problem here, which I am disappointed that niether Stewart or Huckabee brought up, is that this all started when the courts hrew out the marriage laws California already had and essentially wrote their own. As soon as the courts starts legislating from the bench, it becomes more than just a question over a single issue: it becomes a question of checks and balances.

This was an issue that should have been handled by the legislature, but it turned into a game of ping pong with a live hand grenade between the courts and the voters. The fact of the matter though is that laws are not supposed to be written from the bench, and when California's supreme court took political advantage of what it perceived as vague language in the constitution, it ticked off a lot of people.

Democracy was being threatened by the courts, and while many think it's unfair that this had to be the issue that caused a backlash from voters, something important to remember is the GLBT community is not the only sexual minority who's hopes for marriage were dashed by prop 8. This was an issue that was actually much bigger than marriage or the GLBT movement, and it's really a shame it had to be resolved in such an ugly way. If and when America is ready to accept gay marriage, it should not have to be made legal through an unelected body of officials.

[wiegeabo]

The court didn't 'legislate'. It's called judicial review. The court did what it was supposed to do. Use it's checks and balances power on the legislature. Just because the legislature passes a law doesn't mean it's a good or constitutional one. That's why the executive branch still has to sign off on the law, and the courts still have to declare it constitutional.

In the case of gay marriage, the supreme court found that, as the California Constitution was written at the time, banning gay marriage was discriminatory and unconstitutional. So it threw the law out just like it's allowed to. This has gone on since our country was in its infancy. The US Supreme Court has done it many times. Throwing out the 'Separate but Equal' laws in the 50's is another example.

[Handsome Rob]

It applies to me. It is crucial, and i have used this technique many times. What you do is your company makes like 300,000 in profit let's say. The government is going to tax you heavily, depending on what the tax brackets are like for you area.

So lets say..... making 300,000 makes you pay 40% in taxes. but, if you made 280,000. you only have to pay thirty. So you take 20,000 and give it to charity. that puts you in a lower bracket, but you still made 300,000. So when you do business with other companies, you can tell them that your company made 300,000. but you only paid taxes as if you made 280,000.

the more you make, the more you're taxed. I am not very good at manipulating the system. It gets complicated because there are so many governments and taxes to go through. the accountant i use usually tells me what the best way to go about it is.

I would double-check with your accountant on that. There's no way that I know of where a deduction can result in a savings greater than the deduction itself. The reason why is that any deduction results in a savings of the income tax liability that money would have originally been subject to. Taxable income is calculated based on a series of tax brackets. The only income taxable at a higher rate is that income that exceeds the ceiling for the rate below it. I'll show you what I mean by using your example.

Taxable income of $300,000 would be taxed in this way:

1) The first $50,000 would be subject to a 15% rate ($7,500)
2) The income between $50,001 and $75,000 would be subject to a 25% rate ($6,250)
3) The income between $75,000 and $300,000 would be taxed at 34% rate ($69,700)

So, you would end up with a tax liability of $90,250. This would leave you with an after tax net income of $209,750.

Now, let's have that $20,000 deduction. Your taxable income drops to $280,000. Your income up to $75,000 would be taxed the same way, only now you would have $205,000 subject to the 34% rate ($280,000 - $75,000).

That would leave you with a tax liability of $83,450. $280,000 - $83,450 = $196,550. This is your after tax net income--$13,200 less than before. So, you gave away $20,000 for a $6,800 savings in your tax liability.

Even if your deduction bumped you into a lower bracket, if wouldn't matter. Let's say your taxable income is $80,000. So, to get into the lower bracket, you donate $10,000 to charity. Before the donation, your tax liability would be $15,450. After giving away $10,000, your tax liability would be $12,500. So, you spend $10,000 for a $2,950 savings on your taxes.

[XpunkRocker]

I would double-check with your accountant on that. There's no way that I know of where a deduction can result in a savings greater than the deduction itself. The reason why is that any deduction results in a savings of the income tax liability that money would have originally been subject to. Taxable income is calculated based on a series of tax brackets. The only income taxable at a higher rate is that income that exceeds the ceiling for the rate below it. I'll show you what I mean by using your example.

Taxable income of $300,000 would be taxed in this way:

1) The first $50,000 would be subject to a 15% rate ($7,500)
2) The income between $50,001 and $75,000 would be subject to a 25% rate ($6,250)
3) The income between $75,000 and $300,000 would be taxed at 34% rate ($69,700)

So, you would end up with a tax liability of $90,250. This would leave you with an after tax net income of $209,750.

Now, let's have that $20,000 deduction. Your taxable income drops to $280,000. Your income up to $75,000 would be taxed the same way, only now you would have $205,000 subject to the 34% rate ($280,000 - $75,000).

That would leave you with a tax liability of $83,450. $280,000 - $83,450 = $196,550. This is your after tax net income--$13,200 less than before. So, you gave away $20,000 for a $6,800 savings in your tax liability.

Even if your deduction bumped you into a lower bracket, if wouldn't matter. Let's say your taxable income is $80,000. So, to get into the lower bracket, you donate $10,000 to charity. Before the donation, your tax liability would be $15,450. After giving away $10,000, your tax liability would be $12,500. So, you spend $10,000 for a $2,950 savings on your taxes.


that is the national part. the county has some..... other things. which is why my county has lost so many jobs. the small businesses were taxed to death. my state wasn't much help either. Then there are city taxes as well.

[Hobgoblin]

I want to know what you guys think.

Personally, I dont like ideas coming from the top down. I dont care of they are liberal or conservative ideas. So I dont like the amendment banning gay marriage but I dont like it being made legal suddenly either, in spite of so many people being against it. So what if every state put it to a vote? That way Massachusetts can have it legalized but Texas can keep it illegal. I know its not a good idea, but I dont see any other way to do it.

[Gilpesh]

but I dont see any other way to do it.

I think we should skip the whole... gay people should avoid these states if they want rights... which will lead to a few incidents over that...

And just get to the part where the federal government makes it legal and says, "Deal with it," to the bigots.

[wiegeabo]

I think we should skip the whole... gay people should avoid these states if they want rights... which will lead to a few incidents over that...

And just get to the part where the federal government makes it legal and says, "Deal with it," to the bigots.


Just like they did in the 50's and 60's. :up:

[Marx]

I want to know what you guys think.

Personally, I dont like ideas coming from the top down. I dont care of they are liberal or conservative ideas. So I dont like the amendment banning gay marriage but I dont like it being made legal suddenly either, in spite of so many people being against it. So what if every state put it to a vote? That way Massachusetts can have it legalized but Texas can keep it illegal. I know its not a good idea, but I dont see any other way to do it.

I always find it unsettling when the rights of the minority are based on a vote by the majority.

[XpunkRocker]

I want to know what you guys think.

Personally, I dont like ideas coming from the top down. I dont care of they are liberal or conservative ideas. So I dont like the amendment banning gay marriage but I dont like it being made legal suddenly either, in spite of so many people being against it. So what if every state put it to a vote? That way Massachusetts can have it legalized but Texas can keep it illegal. I know its not a good idea, but I dont see any other way to do it.


that is how we are doing it now. and almost all states don't want it. not even california now. gay marraige is a state issue and the states usually have the people vote on it.

[Kelly]

I want to know what you guys think.

Personally, I dont like ideas coming from the top down. I dont care of they are liberal or conservative ideas. So I dont like the amendment banning gay marriage but I dont like it being made legal suddenly either, in spite of so many people being against it. So what if every state put it to a vote? That way Massachusetts can have it legalized but Texas can keep it illegal. I know its not a good idea, but I dont see any other way to do it.

If we followed this concept Demo.......women would not have the right to vote, and the Civil Right's Amendments would have never been written.

But, as I have stated before, and I will probably get slammed again for not knowing what I'm talking about, but I'll go with it anyway. The white elephant in the room, IMO......just my opinion......is that the gay population more wants the acceptance of the majority, as in.......people saying...."the gay lifestyle is right"......they already have rights that all U.S. citizens have, except the right of marriage. So if this is about marriage.....then cool legislate it. If its about acceptance, I'm not sure that that can be legislated....

[The Senator]

I want to know what you guys think.

Personally, I dont like ideas coming from the top down. I dont care of they are liberal or conservative ideas. So I dont like the amendment banning gay marriage but I dont like it being made legal suddenly either, in spite of so many people being against it. So what if every state put it to a vote? That way Massachusetts can have it legalized but Texas can keep it illegal. I know its not a good idea, but I dont see any other way to do it.

I've got an idea: Considering this is a civil rights issue, why don't we leave it to the courts to decide? I don't think it is fair to let the majority decide rights for the minority. We have let that happen all too often in this country, and nothing beneficial ever comes out of that.

[Hobgoblin]

If we followed this concept Demo.......women would not have the right to vote, and the Civil Right's Amendments would have never been written.

But, as I have stated before, and I will probably get slammed again for not knowing what I'm talking about, but I'll go with it anyway. The white elephant in the room, IMO......just my opinion......is that the gay population more wants the acceptance of the majority, as in.......people saying...."the gay lifestyle is right"......they already have rights that all U.S. citizens have, except the right of marriage. So if this is about marriage.....then cool legislate it. If its about acceptance, I'm not sure that that can be legislated....
Yeah, thats exactly what I was thinking as I typed it last night. Thats the major flaw in my argument, which even I didnt totally believe in.

I just dont know of any way to pass gay marriage through the system without bending the rules. Yes, we could leave it to the courts, but I dont see how it could pass with the courts leaning Right, as they do now. True, some Jusrices are expected to retire and Obama will appoint liberal Judges, but how long with that last? Those justices will eventually retire and a conservative president could appoint reactionary judges.

I can only see gay marriage going through to legality if it were attached to a sure fire bill to pass Congress, sort of like how Roe v Wade was passed (at least I think it was RvW). If that happens, we basically have a situation like we currently have with abortion: people will protest the decision for decades but nothing will change. However, with homosexuals making up some 3% of the population, I cant see support being as strong as it is for abortion, abortion being more common than homosexuality (hard as it is to believe that abortion would be "strongly" supported).

[Gilpesh]

Yeah, thats exactly what I was thinking as I typed it last night. Thats the major flaw in my argument, which even I didnt totally believe in.

Don't worry Demo, we know you were playing devil's advocate. :oldrazz:

But yeah, normally a state rights issue should go to the states and have them vote on it, but in this situation it could only turn out like it did in California... where the majority ends up taking rights away from the minority.

[Kelly]

Yeah, thats exactly what I was thinking as I typed it last night. Thats the major flaw in my argument, which even I didnt totally believe in.

I just dont know of any way to pass gay marriage through the system without bending the rules. Yes, we could leave it to the courts, but I dont see how it could pass with the courts leaning Right, as they do now. True, some Jusrices are expected to retire and Obama will appoint liberal Judges, but how long with that last? Those justices will eventually retire and a conservative president could appoint reactionary judges.

I can only see gay marriage going through to legality if it were attached to a sure fire bill to pass Congress, sort of like how Roe v Wade was passed (at least I think it was RvW). If that happens, we basically have a situation like we currently have with abortion: people will protest the decision for decades but nothing will change. However, with homosexuals making up some 3% of the population, I cant see support being as strong as it is for abortion, abortion being more common than homosexuality (hard as it is to believe that abortion would be "strongly" supported).


Well, I think gay marriage will be very much like abortion as far as acceptance in that........."hey if they want to live their life, the way they want to live let them...." "I wouldn't have an abortion, but I'm not going to tell you you can't". We have a paradigm change in our country of "live and let live" with this generation coming up, EVEN within the conservative party. There are A HELL OF ALOT of Republicans that are fiscally conservative, but lean left in these areas.....PLUS, It is very hard for even conservative judges to go in and "change" prior decisions. I just don't see us having a true "fiscally/socially conservative" president ever again, unless Obama totally screws this up.

[Hobgoblin]

Well, I think gay marriage will be very much like abortion as far as acceptance in that........."hey if they want to live their life, the way they want to live let them...." "I wouldn't have an abortion, but I'm not going to tell you you can't". We have a paradigm change in our country of "live and let live" with this generation coming up, EVEN within the conservative party. There are A HELL OF ALOT of Republicans that are fiscally conservative, but lean left in these areas.....PLUS, It is very hard for even conservative judges to go in and "change" prior decisions. I just don't see us having a true "fiscally/socially conservative" president ever again, unless Obama totally screws this up.

We will. These things go in cycles.

[Kelly]

I think we are in evolutionary cycles.....and I think we have evolved into a Fiscally right, and a socially slightly left country. So no, I don't think a Jindal could win the presidency IF Obama does a good job. If he doesn't, then our country will say....**** evolution, I want Palin......*shudders*

[XpunkRocker]

I've got an idea: Considering this is a civil rights issue, why don't we leave it to the courts to decide? I don't think it is fair to let the majority decide rights for the minority. We have let that happen all too often in this country, and nothing beneficial ever comes out of that.


that is the way it should be. I think leaving it to the states will eventually lead to all of them legalizing marraige, but it will take a long time. The courts really are the ones that should be taking of this though. just like segragation, they should end this as well. but... it looks like the courts are staying out of it. but eventually, gay marraige/civil unions will be legal. my generation is more accepting of it, and once they have more power, it will happen. too bad it is taking so long though.

[Hobgoblin]

I've got an idea: Considering this is a civil rights issue, why don't we leave it to the courts to decide? I don't think it is fair to let the majority decide rights for the minority. We have let that happen all too often in this country, and nothing beneficial ever comes out of that.

But is it fair to let a minority decide something when the majority is against it? Democracy is rule by the majority,not rule by the majority as long as everyone is cool with it.

[CaptainClown]

But is it fair to let a minority decide something when the majority is against it?
Its a fine line that you can't really put a solution to. Every cause has to be carefully examined which can be a problem when you just make it Minority vs. Majority and assume that all Minority causes should be considered.

[Gilpesh]

But is it fair to let a minority decide something when the majority is against it?

When it is the minority's rights that they are deciding... f**k the majority being against it. And I don't mean random rights where people just pick random things that people just throw "right to..." in front of it.

But it is the right to marry the person they love that they are fighting for... which some idiots think ruin their marriages... :whatever:

Democracy is rule by the majority,not rule by the majority as long as everyone is cool with it.

But what about the tyranny of the majority? A lot of people are white and heterosexual, does that mean people who aren't just that and get their rights voted away when the majority says so is right?

[Hobgoblin]

When it is the minority's rights that they are deciding... f**k the majority being against it. And I don't mean random rights where people just pick random things that people just throw "right to..." in front of it.

But it is the right to marry the person they love that they are fighting for... which some idiots think ruin their marriages... :whatever:



But what about the tyranny of the majority? A lot of people are white and heterosexual, does that mean people who aren't just that and get their rights voted away when the majority says so is right?
Of course not. No one but a moron would be in favor of repealing womens right to vote or the civil rights movement. And yes, I hate it when people say gay marriage somehow cheapens "real" marriage. If we are going to put laws into effect that reflect Biblical teaching, we better make divorce, adultery and pre-marital sex illegal too. I dont hear talk radio bemoaning the evils of adultery or unmarried sex.

[Gilpesh]

Of course not. No one but a moron would be in favor of repealing womens right to vote or the civil rights movement. And yes, I hate it when people say gay marriage somehow cheapens "real" marriage. If we are going to put laws into effect that reflect Biblical teaching, we better make divorce, adultery and pre-marital sex illegal too. I dont hear talk radio bemoaning the evils of adultery or unmarried sex.

Yeah... that's why I on a general "how things should be" basis agree with the states rights to decide... but thinking about it, shows that there is no way it could actually work the way it should, and those crazy idiots that think gay marriage ruins marriage would probably get enough people to go along to make sure that it always gets voted down.

[The Senator]

But is it fair to let a minority decide something when the majority is against it? Democracy is rule by the majority,not rule by the majority as long as everyone is cool with it.

And this is where democracy is flawed. A government should be looking out for the interests of all people-- not most people. If we let the majority decide everything, then black people would still face institutional discrimination. Legal experts should be in charge of civil rights issues; not a bunch of slack-jawed yokels who are only literate in Biblical theology.

[Hobgoblin]

And this is where democracy is flawed. A government should be looking out for the interests of all people-- not most people. If we let the majority decide everything, then black people would still face institutional discrimination. Legal experts should be in charge of civil rights issues; not a bunch of slack-jawed yokels who are only literate in Biblical theology.

Sounds good to me, but what about the well organized and very motivated slack jawed yokels? Like it or not, they will have their say. They may be ignorant, but sadly, they have a right to be and their votes count just as much as ours.

[wiegeabo]

And this is where democracy is flawed. A government should be looking out for the interests of all people-- not most people. If we let the majority decide everything, then black people would still face institutional discrimination. Legal experts should be in charge of civil rights issues; not a bunch of slack-jawed yokels who are only literate in Biblical theology.

Which is why we don't live in a democracy. The US is a republic. It makes the tyranny of the majority much harder. Obviously not impossible, but much harder.

As for civil rights, that shouldn't even be an issue the people decide directly. Hell, it shouldn't be an issue at all. If it's not a crime, all people should be allowed equal rights. And sometimes, even if it is a crime because it's only been defined that way to disallow equal rights.

[Marx]

GAY MUSICIANS TO PLAY INAUGURATION PARADE
http://www.ktvu.com/news/18272695/detail.html

[Pink Ranger]

That the U.S. cannot even bring itself to support condemnation of anti-gay persecution makes me even more happy I'm not American.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/081219/world/bc_un_gay_rights

Seriously, to my American brothers and sisters on board, come to Canada. We could use more dynamic, creative and hardworking people up here. Between this, California and Rick Warren swearing in Barack Obama, the hardcore bigots and soft bigots in your country need to one day realize the price they pay for their ignorance.

[Marx]

That the U.S. cannot even bring itself to support condemnation of anti-gay persecution makes me even more happy I'm not American.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/081219/world/bc_un_gay_rights

Seriously, to my American brothers and sisters on board, come to Canada. We could use more dynamic, creative and hardworking people up here. Between this, California and Rick Warren swearing in Barack Obama, the hardcore bigots and soft bigots in your country need to one day realize the price they pay for their ignorance.

If only...

[Marx]

PROP 8 PROPONENTS SEEK TO NULLIFY SAME-SEX MARRIAGES
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/19/california.proposition/index.html

Sponsors of the California ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage are seeking to nullify thousands of marriages between gay and lesbian couples performed after the state Supreme Court ruled them constitutional.

The passge of Proposition 8 left the future of thousands of marriages between same-sex couples unclear.

The sponsors Friday filed responses to three anti-Proposition 8 lawsuits with the state Supreme Court. The briefs also defend Proposition 8 against opponents' legal challenges, including an argument that the amendment needed a constitutional convention to be added to the state's constitution.

"We are confident that the will of the voters and Proposition 8 will ultimately be upheld," said Andrew Pugno, General Counsel for ProtectMarriage.com and the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund.

California Attorney General Edmund "Jerry" Brown called on the court to reject the initiative.

"Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification," Brown said in a written statement.

Rick Jacobs, founder and chair of the anti-Proposition 8 Courage Campaign, said he was "appalled" that the initiative's supporters wanted to nullify the same-sex marriages that are already on the books.

"The motivation behind this mean-spirited and heart-breaking action should not be allowed to be buried in legal brief," he said. "If Proposition 8's sponsors plan to destroy lives, they should at least have the courage to admit it publicly."

Disgusting. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif

[Anita18]

PROP 8 PROPONENTS SEEK TO NULLIFY SAME-SEX MARRIAGES
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/19/california.proposition/index.html

Disgusting. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif
If we point out that additional weddings (and divorces :oldrazz: ) would boost the economy, would it get people to vote for gay marriage?

I don't care if it's low, I still want to try it. Maybe then it would actually get by the conservatives. :o

[cerealkiller182]

If we point out that additional weddings (and divorces :oldrazz: ) would boost the economy, would it get people to vote for gay marriage?

No, I've never seen so many people act so stubbornly. I think if somehow there was all of a sudden a way for homosexuals to reproduce biologically that those same people would still say no.

[Marx]

No, I've never seen so many people act so stubbornly. I think if somehow there was all of a sudden a way for homosexuals to reproduce biologically that those same people would still say no.

I believe it was Mike Huckabee who said that 'marriage is an institution used for the creation of life' and that's why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married.

:dry:

[wiegeabo]

I believe it was Mike Huckabee who said that 'marriage is an institution used for the creation of life' and that's why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married.

:dry:

Someone better tell my mom's friends, who decided not to have children, that their on Huckabee's **** list.

[Addendum]

And tell that to married couples that are unable to have children due to medical complications, Huckabee

[cerealkiller182]

I believe it was Mike Huckabee who said that 'marriage is an institution used for the creation of life' and that's why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married.

:dry:

Right, and if homosexuals proved to be able to create life, he'd probably find another scapegoat. I was just exaggerrating their stubbornness

[wiegeabo]

PROP 8 PROPONENTS SEEK TO NULLIFY SAME-SEX MARRIAGES
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/19/california.proposition/index.html


Disgusting. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif


Well, let's hope the state court follows the Constitution prohibition of ex post facto laws.

[Mister Sinister]

PROP 8 PROPONENTS SEEK TO NULLIFY SAME-SEX MARRIAGES
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/19/california.proposition/index.html



Disgusting. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif

Now, regardless of their actions in the past, how DARE they try to take away the happiest day of someone's life, something they waited their whole lives for and spent a lot of money, someone explain to me how that is not barbaric, evil and downright cruel.

[Handsome Rob]

Well, let's hope the state court follows the Constitution prohibition of ex post facto laws.

I agree with this. Retroactively applying laws is downright scary . . . these homosexuals married when it was legal in California. They shouldn't go back and then nullify their marriages--that violates contract law, because the marriage contract was neither void nor voidable at the time it was entered into.

[Schlosser85]

PROP 8 PROPONENTS SEEK TO NULLIFY SAME-SEX MARRIAGES



Banning gay marriage is one thing...but trying to go back in time and nullify thousands of marriages that were already performed is just downright cruel. Those gay couples waited their entire lives, not knowing if they would live long enough to see their dream of being able to get married come along, and then some self-righteous people who don't like it, as if it has anything to do with them, stick their noses in and say "oh, nope, you're not married".

How would these people feel if someone came along a few months after they got married and told them their marriage was suddenly invalid?

I don't know what these people are, but they're not Christians, that much is pretty clear.

[Schlosser85]

someone explain to me how that is not barbaric, evil and downright cruel.

You've pretty much summed up the entire conservative Christian/evangelical movement in this country. They're on a lower evolutionary scale than we are.

[BlackLantern]

I don't think any judge or judges, in their right minds, would even consider this

[danoyse]

That would actually affect someone I know who married his partner in CA before Prop 8 was passed. I can't imagine any court allowing those marriages to be overturned.

[Marx]

Right, and if homosexuals proved to be able to create life, he'd probably find another scapegoat. I was just exaggerrating their stubbornness

Oh I have no doubt about that Cereal.

[Marx]

If we point out that additional weddings (and divorces :oldrazz: ) would boost the economy, would it get people to vote for gay marriage?

I don't care if it's low, I still want to try it. Maybe then it would actually get by the conservatives. :o

Well, let's hope the state court follows the Constitution prohibition of ex post facto laws.

Now, regardless of their actions in the past, how DARE they try to take away the happiest day of someone's life, something they waited their whole lives for and spent a lot of money, someone explain to me how that is not barbaric, evil and downright cruel.



Banning gay marriage is one thing...but trying to go back in time and nullify thousands of marriages that were already performed is just downright cruel. Those gay couples waited their entire lives, not knowing if they would live long enough to see their dream of being able to get married come along, and then some self-righteous people who don't like it, as if it has anything to do with them, stick their noses in and say "oh, nope, you're not married".

How would these people feel if someone came along a few months after they got married and told them their marriage was suddenly invalid?

I don't know what these people are, but they're not Christians, that much is pretty clear.

I honestly cannot see any judge overturning the marriages that we conducted prior to the ban.

[BlackLantern]

I'm the furthest thing from a Judge, but if I'm sitting in my courtroom and this comes across the docket the first words out of my mout at the petitioners are "Are you ****ing serious....?? Is this what you've spent months and months doing?...get the **** out of here before I have my 6'2 240lbs bailiff, who is gay, beat you retarded"