GAY Are gays (like your mom) being too annoying?

dbzeag

Wants to kiss you where it stinks
Jun 9, 2006
16,993
452
298
42
Wasn't Prop 8 JUST a california thing? So now, 46% of a california vote = 50% of the nation being apathetic or voting your way? Considering only 7 million of california's 37 million voted yes to prop 8, that's less than 21% of californians. So, saying it's '50%' of the nation just doesn't swing with me.

Yes Prop 8 was just CA, but I am taking that example. In the 31 states that had a proposition like Prop 8 in CA had, at least 20% of the electorate voted in favor of equal rights. That's more than the gay population. And we should accept that and commend them for that.
 

dbzeag

Wants to kiss you where it stinks
Jun 9, 2006
16,993
452
298
42
I still say the Gay community needs to put forward some hot spokespeople. If you had two playmates on tv asking why is it against the law for them to be married and have hot sex every night every male voter would be at the polls in the next election.

I would love to see this happen. No seriously. I think it would make a lot more traction in the movement.
 

Amstel

The Hoarse Whisperer
Jul 12, 2009
28,172
12,439
473
you're a whore, but in a good way. Kindof.
the issue is that they want to be included in the civil term Marriage where, for the past 1000's of years the term has always meant a man & a woman, the purpose of which was community growth through biological procreation, & raising families - one man - one woman. The term was never designed or used in a manner where people could create their own thing, decide they wanted to call it marriage too & expect everyone to just agree. It's like a boy saying he wants to be called a girl because it's sexist not to, and then having a parade about it. lolx.

I think if they want to make any real accepted progress in the direction they want, they should petition the government (like adults) to change the term marriage to union. In doing so they would then "assign" the all benefits they want from legal union to whoever (individual) they want. They would completely circumvent Prop 8. You wouldn't have to even live together. It would be just be a legal arrangement. Then, the couple could have whatever 'marriage,' 'hookup,' 'chattel,' celebration - in whatever recognized or unrecognized ceremony they wanted to have outside the legal union paperwork. I got married in a church. At the end of the ceremony the wife, a witness, and I all had to sign a marriage cert & it had to be sent in for it to be 'legal.' I would have no problem if it was updated to a certificate of Union, cause really, I really don't give a shit what anyone else calls it - it doesn't change my marriage commitment.

It's almost like their position is to force their beliefs and labels on the rest of the world and they won't be happy unless the rest of the world agrees. It's not like they''ll ever be 100% happy. There's always going to be something.
 

Sarcasmo

A Taste Of Honey Fluff Boy
Mar 28, 2005
34,395
461
648
43
Austin
If all you have to do is change the word marriage to union, then what's the problem with just keeping the word marriage? A word is a word.
 

Sarcasmo

A Taste Of Honey Fluff Boy
Mar 28, 2005
34,395
461
648
43
Austin
Try dumbing it down to the point where you explain why the word would have to change.
 

plot

Morning Boehner
Oct 16, 2006
20,031
4,165
323
kansas city
I could not put chim on my medical insurance while he was between jobs because my company's insurance only recognizes "Individual" or "Spouse" and in Ohio we could not be legally married (not even civil unioned gay or straight, not even Common Law married).

you just work for a shit company, ours fully recognizes and insures life partners or whatever you wanna call them.
 

my little brony

Keep Being A Little Bitch
Oct 15, 2004
34,952
18,763
823
the issue is that they want to be included in the civil term Marriage where, for the past 1000's of years the term has always meant a man & a woman, the purpose of which was community growth through biological procreation, & raising families - one man - one woman. The term was never designed or used in a manner where people could create their own thing, decide they wanted to call it marriage too & expect everyone to just agree.
Yeah, you're fucking wrong. Learn about other cultures and realize that marriage has existed long before the western norms you hold dear. For thousands of years marriages were primarily a financial contract; guess you don't think people should get married because they love each other unless of course there's a goat to be traded.


It's like a boy saying he wants to be called a girl because it's sexist not to, and then having a parade about it. lolx.

I think if they want to make any real accepted progress in the direction they want, they should petition the government (like adults) to change the term marriage to union. In doing so they would then "assign" the all benefits they want from legal union to whoever (individual) they want. They would completely circumvent Prop 8. You wouldn't have to even live together. It would be just be a legal arrangement. Then, the couple could have whatever 'marriage,' 'hookup,' 'chattel,' celebration - in whatever recognized or unrecognized ceremony they wanted to have outside the legal union paperwork. I got married in a church. At the end of the ceremony the wife, a witness, and I all had to sign a marriage cert & it had to be sent in for it to be 'legal.' I would have no problem if it was updated to a certificate of Union, cause really, I really don't give a shit what anyone else calls it - it doesn't change my marriage commitment.

It's almost like their position is to force their beliefs and labels on the rest of the world and they won't be happy unless the rest of the world agrees. It's not like they''ll ever be 100% happy. There's always going to be something.
You clearly don't understand the issue at all. STFU.
 

dbzeag

Wants to kiss you where it stinks
Jun 9, 2006
16,993
452
298
42
the issue is that they want to be included in the civil term Marriage where, for the past 1000's of years the term has always meant a man & a woman, the purpose of which was community growth through biological procreation, & raising families - one man - one woman. The term was never designed or used in a manner where people could create their own thing, decide they wanted to call it marriage too & expect everyone to just agree.

Um no.

The concept of marriage CAN be purposed as a man and a woman bound for community growth through biological procreation. Marriage can also be used symbolically by two people that have no thoughts or abilities to procreate at all. Marriage can also be used to bind two families together in power and land contracts. Marriage can be a spiritual binding of two people, with or without the concept of family multiplication.

Where you there in the invention of the word to determine the original design of it? The concept of it? Even the "clinical" civil version of it does not require blood tests or paternity exams to get a license. Two people can most certainly justify ANY reason to bind themselves together in civil matrimony.

It's like a boy saying he wants to be called a girl because it's sexist not to, and then having a parade about it. lolx.

Um, no it's not. That's transgenderism, something don't choose to have. A marriage is chosen to be involved with, either by the parties involved for even sometimes by families or other outside influences.

I think if they want to make any real accepted progress in the direction they want, they should petition the government (like adults) to change the term marriage to union. In doing so they would then "assign" the all benefits they want from legal union to whoever (individual) they want. They would completely circumvent Prop 8. You wouldn't have to even live together. It would be just be a legal arrangement. Then, the couple could have whatever 'marriage,' 'hookup,' 'chattel,' celebration - in whatever recognized or unrecognized ceremony they wanted to have outside the legal union paperwork. I got married in a church. At the end of the ceremony the wife, a witness, and I all had to sign a marriage cert & it had to be sent in for it to be 'legal.' I would have no problem if it was updated to a certificate of Union, cause really, I really don't give a shit what anyone else calls it - it doesn't change my marriage commitment.

Like Sarc said, if it's just a word, what's the issue keeping it? Also the power of the word is portability. This is the issue the Brits are having with their "Civil Partnership" title for two people bound in a clause. When Elton John came over to the US with his partner, technically he was coming here with a friend, not with his husband, not with anyone that has any automatic power of attorney or anything. Had something happened to Elton, Mr. Furnish might not have been able to visit him in the hospital because the US does not have a concept of "Civil Partnership". If, however, he went to Canada and they got a marriage license, then their marriage would be valid in those few states that recognize same-sex marriages (more than 6).

And, of course, changing the name is setting the precedent for a concept called "separate, but equal" and we all know how well that worked. Hell it didn't even work in front of a federal judge in Mass, stating "civil union" nomenclature is not good enough.

It's almost like their position is to force their beliefs and labels on the rest of the world and they won't be happy unless the rest of the world agrees.

Um no.

We are forcing people to remember the Equal Protect Clause:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Since the construct of marriage has been defined by the federal courts repeatedly as a fundamental right (not just a privilege), it seems to me this right should extend to all citizens of the US.

And it just isn't about marriage, either, although marriage is a big part of it. Even the ability to serve your country is questionable based on your perceived sexuality.

It's not like they''ll ever be 100% happy. There's always going to be something.

Not happy? Have you been to gay pride events? Hundreds of thousands of people from all over the world collaborating and celebrating and we don't even have 100% equal rights (yet). Could you just imagine the party when we are federally accepted as 100% equal citizens?

Like I said earlier, when a gay rights organization has won their battle, they dismantle. When full rights are guaranteed to all legal citizens of this country for all rights and privileges therein, I can definitely see those equal rights groups like Get Equal and others dismantling.
 

dbzeag

Wants to kiss you where it stinks
Jun 9, 2006
16,993
452
298
42
you just work for a shit company, ours fully recognizes and insures life partners or whatever you wanna call them.

That may be, but if marriage was equal, it wouldn't be an issue. I could legally have a "spouse" and it would be a moot point. We have a facility in CT and technically a gay couple can legally mark that check box. I, however, cannot.
 

Amstel

The Hoarse Whisperer
Jul 12, 2009
28,172
12,439
473
you're a whore, but in a good way. Kindof.
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Amstel
the issue is that they want to be included in the civil term Marriage where, for the past 1000's of years the term has always meant a man & a woman, the purpose of which was community growth through biological procreation, & raising families - one man - one woman. The term was never designed or used in a manner where people could create their own thing, decide they wanted to call it marriage too & expect everyone to just agree.
Yeah, you're fucking wrong. Learn about other cultures and realize that marriage has existed long before the western norms you hold dear. For thousands of years marriages were primarily a financial contract; guess you don't think people should get married because they love each other unless of course there's a goat to be traded.

God you're fucking stupid. do you live in Stupid? Are they all like you there? Do you call it something else there?

I don't care if you want your union/marriage/chattel, whatever the your unintelligent ass wants to call it for love or because you bought it, or any other reason.
 

my little brony

Keep Being A Little Bitch
Oct 15, 2004
34,952
18,763
823
You're the one claiming that marriage was meant to be one thing and one thing only when you're flat out fucking wrong. If you don't care what it's called then stop bitching and moaning about it. No one is saying you have to like it so to complain that you're having those beliefs forced on you is goddamn moronic.

Take your tea party idiocy and GTFO.
 

Amstel

The Hoarse Whisperer
Jul 12, 2009
28,172
12,439
473
you're a whore, but in a good way. Kindof.
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Amstel
the issue is that they want to be included in the civil term Marriage where, for the past 1000's of years the term has always meant a man & a woman, the purpose of which was community growth through biological procreation, & raising families - one man - one woman. The term was never designed or used in a manner where people could create their own thing, decide they wanted to call it marriage too & expect everyone to just agree.
Um no.

The concept of marriage CAN be purposed as a man and a woman bound for community growth through biological procreation. Marriage can also be used symbolically by two people that have no thoughts or abilities to procreate at all. You want rights, not symbolism so I'm not sure why you're going there. Marriage can also be used to bind two families together in power and land contracts. In the US we call this incorporating. Gay people can do this unless you can show me they can't. Marriage can be a spiritual binding of two people, with or without the concept of family multiplication. You're not on a spiritual quest or you'd be creating some kind of church.

Where you there in the invention of the word to determine the original design of it? The concept of it? Even the "clinical" civil version of it does not require blood tests or paternity exams to get a license. Two people can most certainly justify ANY reason to bind themselves together in civil matrimony. Incorporating. Get with the program.

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Amstel
It's like a boy saying he wants to be called a girl because it's sexist not to, and then having a parade about it. lolx.
Um, no it's not. That's transgenderism, something don't choose to have. A marriage is chosen to be involved with, either by the parties involved for even sometimes by families or other outside influences. You know how you know you're gay? It's the drama. If a boy wants, for no other reason than he feels that he was born to, to be called a girl and claims sexism if you don't, it's the same thing.

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Amstel
I think if they want to make any real accepted progress in the direction they want, they should petition the government (like adults) to change the term marriage to union. In doing so they would then "assign" the all benefits they want from legal union to whoever (individual) they want. They would completely circumvent Prop 8. You wouldn't have to even live together. It would be just be a legal arrangement. Then, the couple could have whatever 'marriage,' 'hookup,' 'chattel,' celebration - in whatever recognized or unrecognized ceremony they wanted to have outside the legal union paperwork. I got married in a church. At the end of the ceremony the wife, a witness, and I all had to sign a marriage cert & it had to be sent in for it to be 'legal.' I would have no problem if it was updated to a certificate of Union, cause really, I really don't give a shit what anyone else calls it - it doesn't change my marriage commitment.
Like Sarc said, if it's just a word, what's the issue keeping it? So it's more than a word for you. Your 'movement' just got harder. Why do you want to make it harder? Also the power of the word is portability. This is the issue the Brits are having with their "Civil Partnership" title for two people bound in a clause. When Elton John came over to the US with his partner, technically he was coming here with a friend, not with his husband, not with anyone that has any automatic power of attorney or anything. Had something happened to Elton, Mr. Furnish might not have been able to visit him in the hospital because the US does not have a concept of "Civil Partnership". If, however, he went to Canada and they got a marriage license, then their marriage would be valid in those few states that recognize same-sex marriages (more than 6). That is categorically the Worst.Analogy.Evar. If you go to a foreign country you abide by their rules. Not knowing this should revoke your ability to leave your house.

And, of course, changing the name is setting the precedent for a concept called "separate, but equal" and we all know how well that worked. Hell it didn't even work in front of a federal judge in Mass, stating "civil union" nomenclature is not good enough.
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Amstel
It's almost like their position is to force their beliefs and labels on the rest of the world and they won't be happy unless the rest of the world agrees.
Um no.

We are forcing people to remember the Equal Protect Clause:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Since the construct of marriage has been defined by the federal courts repeatedly as a fundamental right (not just a privilege), it seems to me this right should extend to all citizens of the US. Seems? Good luck with that in a courtroom.

Also, it's not a right.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/05/10/us/politics/20100505-kagan-opinions.html
Elena Kagan
“There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”
Elena Kagan at her Solicitor general confirmation hearing, 2009


And it just isn't about marriage, either, although marriage is a big part of it. Even the ability to serve your country is questionable based on your perceived sexuality. I think this is dumb too.


quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Amstel
It's not like they''ll ever be 100% happy. There's always going to be something.
Not happy? Have you been to gay pride events? Hundreds of thousands of people from all over the world collaborating and celebrating and we don't even have 100% equal rights (yet). Could you just imagine the party when we are federally accepted as 100% equal citizens? You will never ever feel 100% accepted for the sole reason you label yourself as different. I have brown hair & you know what, I feel just as accepted as someone with blonde hair. You know why? I don't think me having brown hair makes me different.

Like I said earlier, when a gay rights organization has won their battle, they dismantle. When full rights are guaranteed to all legal citizens of this country for all rights and privileges therein, I can definitely see those equal rights groups like Get Equal and others dismantling.Never.There's always a reason someone owes somebody something. As long as you can claim victimhood.
 

Amstel

The Hoarse Whisperer
Jul 12, 2009
28,172
12,439
473
you're a whore, but in a good way. Kindof.
DON'T TREAD ON ME (with those really cute boots.)
lolz. That post reminds me. . . . were you at TSF? there was this girl there, I think seh was canadian, that posted something along the lines of having met some guy on a subway that claimed he was in wrestling & that he needed to show his trainer that he had great ab strength so he asked her (the girl at TSF) to stand on his stomach & he'd take pics of it for the trainer. so she did, for like 20 minutes, and then barefoot too at the next subway station. She said she wasn't weirded out until she told her friend who advised her he must be a foot fetishist.

carry on. . .
 
Last edited:

my little brony

Keep Being A Little Bitch
Oct 15, 2004
34,952
18,763
823
sure is fucking annoying when they do shit like this

http://www.facebook.com/noh8campaign/posts/173171249361341

The comments are retarded. Instead of taking the time to understand the issue, they simply assume that it's some fascist right wing conspiracy when it was probably just automatically blocked by websense. Badmouthing the military because of an issue you don't understand only serves to make enemies and will not help the cause.

Fucking idiot.
 

Duke

. . first name's "Daisy" boys
May 12, 2008
55,859
18,142
41
Brandon, FL
Also notable was the heavy-duty debate over whether Ron Howard, director of the film "Dilemma," should keep Vince Vaughn's line "electric cars are gay" in the movie even though it was cut from the trailer. The Marquee blog post about this hotly contested issue received 802 comments and 406 Facebook shares. We received many, many comments from both sides. In one powerful thread, JNC33 said: "Gays refer to themselves and each other as 'gays' and when they come out of the closet, presumably they tell people that they are 'gay.' … Yet when someone refers to an inanimate object as being 'gay,' then you insist that the very term you use to describe yourselves is derogatory."



User Razi said in response: "As a gay man I defend Ron Howard's right to use the word in the film, but I don't like it. In this current climate where we're trying to understand why teens and young adults are committing suicide after being outed one way or another; we should not have a protagonist of any movie, no matter how openly flawed that protagonist is, using 'gay' as a pejorative."

:waw: