This is disgraceful

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
well, my argument is:

why have gay marriage when domestic partnership confers every single last right and protection? I say nothing about god or jeebus or allah or whatever. It is my contention and long held personal view that marriage is between a man and a woman. that's all. that's all the law states, there is no discrimination or stripping of rights of any kind whatsoever in any capacity.
 
Perhaps they call you a bigot or hateful because you're calling homosexuals and protesters for homosexual rights dumbasses and bitches. Did you really expect protests not to happen? Did you not expect people to be upset, hurt and offended when they're told "well, you can have equal rights but I don't really want you having the same name on it as it is for me." Do you understand how that sounds and makes people feel? It's like treating gays as a disease that will taint the name of marriage if they're allowed to use it.
 
The Sebastian Express said:
Perhaps they call you a bigot or hateful because you're calling homosexuals and protesters for homosexual rights dumbasses and bitches. Did you really expect protests not to happen? Did you not expect people to be upset, hurt and offended when they're told "well, you can have equal rights but I don't really want you having the same name on it as it is for me." Do you understand how that sounds and makes people feel? It's like treating gays as a disease that will taint the name of marriage if they're allowed to use it.
Click to expand...

Again, all protesters are lame, especially when they're in front of my fucking car fucking traffic up.

I personally find no difference between marriage and a domestic partnership. I prefer the term marriage for a man and a woman.
 
Xericx said:
I personally find no difference between marriage and a domestic partnership.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like you do . . . wait, I have an idea: Why don't we call a union between two gays "marriage," and one between two htereosexuals, a "domestic union?" That would be kind of cool. Then whenever I moved to another state, I'd have to get unioned all over again! Think of all the dishes I'd own! Score!
 
Why stop there? Why not have a black-marriage and a white-marriage and an asian-marriage and a xerix-only-marriage?

It's a word. Let go of it.
 
Dumpy said:
Sounds to me like you do . . . wait, I have an idea: Why don't we call a union between two gays "marriage," and one between two htereosexuals, a "domestic union?" That would be kind of cool. Then whenever I moved to another state, I'd have to get unioned all over again! Think of all the dishes I'd own! Score!
Click to expand...

Again, you make no sense.
 
hoojacks said:
Why stop there? Why not have a black-marriage and a white-marriage and an asian-marriage and a xerix-only-marriage?

It's a word. Let go of it.
Click to expand...

Its what I believe, I am not just going to "let go of it". I have always personally considered a married couple to be a man and a woman.
 
Xericx said:
well, my argument is:

why have gay marriage when domestic partnership confers every single last right and protection? I say nothing about god or jeebus or allah or whatever. It is my contention and long held personal view that marriage is between a man and a woman. that's all. that's all the law states, there is no discrimination or stripping of rights of any kind whatsoever in any capacity.
Click to expand...
If it's all the same, why amend your fucking constitution over it?
 
STOMP said:
sure he does... plus he's funny :smile:

STOMP
Click to expand...

thanks stomp. you should have heard marv albert and the Czar laughing at me Tuesday night.

What I don't get is why the onus should be on gays and their supporters to provide an adequate reason why they should NOT be discriminated against. That is so assbackwards it is like an ass . . . walking backwards. In the rain. Holding hoofs with a horse. A MALE horse.
 
Dumpy said:
thanks stomp. you should have heard marv albert and the Czar laughing at me Tuesday night.

What I don't get is why the onus should be on gays and their supporters to provide an adequate reason why they should NOT be discriminated against. That is so assbackwards it is like an ass . . . walking backwards. In the rain. Holding hoofs with a horse. A MALE horse.
Click to expand...

Again, there is no discrimination. All rights, across the board, top to bottom, left to right, start to finish remain the same. Its the use of the term that is the only difference. That is not a right, its just the term for the structure.
 
#1_War_Poet_ForLife said:
I'd say he's been quite successful injecting humor into an otherwise non-humorous discussion.
Click to expand...

I don't know; I think I was funnier in the thread on the Lakers forum. It's hard to keep track of all the anti-gay threads these days.
 
Xericx said:
We're just correcting for the will of the people.
Click to expand...

Xericx said:
Again, there is no discrimination. All rights, across the board, top to bottom, left to right, start to finish remain the same. Its the use of the term that is the only difference. That is not a right, its just the term for the structure.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with your signature, in the first post.
 
Dumpy said:
I don't know; I think I was funnier in the thread on the Lakers forum. It's hard to keep track of all the anti-gay threads these days.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's hard for him to see threads outside the Blazer board. But he will if he wants to! :ghoti::devilwink:
 
GMJ said:
It's a matter of putting yourself in their shoes. It doesn't make sense when heterosexuals have to settle for unions.
Click to expand...

I don't even support prop 8 but I think people have been harsh on Xericx. His position is different from that of CK's for example.
 
Xericx said:
The will of the people was overturned by 4 judges. So they put the measure on the ballot to overturn the 4 judges and guess what, the will of the people was upheld.
Click to expand...

If the will of the people were to make black people slaves again?

The answer to this rhetorical question is obvious - it's unconstitutional, the courts would and should strike it down. Same as the 4 judges did, and rightly so.
 
Denny Crane said:
If the will of the people were to make black people slaves again?

The answer to this rhetorical question is obvious - it's unconstitutional, the courts would and should strike it down. Same as the 4 judges did, and rightly so.
Click to expand...

Come on now, slavery?
 
Xericx said:
Again, there is no discrimination. All rights, across the board, top to bottom, left to right, start to finish remain the same. Its the use of the term that is the only difference. That is not a right, its just the term for the structure.
Click to expand...

Fine, lets get serious then.

You keep saying that "there is no discrimination." Prove it. I believe that there ARE fundamental differences between marriage and civil unions, even in California. I will provide the same number of citations as you have for the opposite proposition. . . . Done.

Prove me wrong. Just three reputable cites will do.
 
Denny Crane said:
If the will of the people were to make black people slaves again?

The answer to this rhetorical question is obvious - it's unconstitutional, the courts would and should strike it down. Same as the 4 judges did, and rightly so.
Click to expand...

put it to a vote and see what happens. my guess is that it won't pass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top