Constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriage only if Bush is re-elec - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

jimmyf · 07-13-2004, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tom_PM
Yeah besides which, judges dont make laws. Congress makes laws. Judges edjudicate/interpret. Police enforce.

bingo

Tom_PMs · 07-13-2004, 12:26 PM

Dick Durbin is making a great point, lol.

mardigras · 07-13-2004, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BloodFart
You still have not convinced me to accept tounging asses/getting fisted elbow deep/drinking enema water/ect is normal.. I'm waiting for your win

Well gee, since I don't know anyone straight or gay who's drinking enema water, nor do I do it myself, I see no reason to convince you of it's normalicy.

There are TONS of straight fisting sites out there. What's the percentage of women participating in those activities? Must be pretty high because I see plenty of straight fisting sites to promote.

genomega · 07-13-2004, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tom_PM
Do you know that 43 state constitutions already have defined "marriage" as something that exists between a man and a woman?

Sorry, didnt mean to let an on-topic fact mess up your homophobia, carry on

That means nothing a federal judge can destroy that with his sig.

Calling people names is all that you people have.

Tom_PMs · 07-13-2004, 12:32 PM

genomega, I dont understand your beef.

I'm simply against a completely un needed amendment to the constitution. 43 out of 50 states already have the definition of marriage as something that ONLY exists between a man and a woman.

When you say, "Calling people names is all that you people have." I'm not sure what you mean. Moderates?
Or do you think I'm a homosexual because I dont think an amendment is needed?
lol

NiteRain · 07-13-2004, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo Rizin
I dont understand the major damn problem with people who are so opposed to same sex marriages.

Who the hell are these people hurting?

The way I see it, they are going to be together regardless. And banning them from getting married is just stopping them from the benefits that come with marriage. Hell, I aint in their house so what do I care. Haha, we only care when it involves our lives, I would be pissed if I couldn't marry a woman of a different race.

NiteRain · 07-13-2004, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tom_PM
genomega, I dont understand your beef.

I'm simply against a completely un needed amendment to the constitution. 43 out of 50 states already have the definition of marriage as something that ONLY exists between a man and a woman.

When you say, "Calling people names is all that you people have." I'm not sure what you mean. Moderates?
Or do you think I'm a homosexual because I dont think an amendment is needed?
lol

There are alot of laws out there that could easy be used for computer crimes, but day in and day out they continue making new laws.

mardigras · 07-13-2004, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tom_PM
Dick Durbin is making a great point, lol.

Durbin is rockin'

genomega · 07-13-2004, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tom_PM
Yeah besides which, judges dont make laws. Congress makes laws. Judges edjudicate/interpret. Police enforce.

That's the way it was ment to work but for the last 40 years anything the libs could not get or dare get passed some judge has done it for them.

mardigras · 07-13-2004, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NiteRain
The way I see it, they are going to be together regardless. And banning them from getting married is just stopping them from the benefits that come with marriage. Hell, I aint in their house so what do I care. Haha, we only care when it involves our lives, I would be pissed if I couldn't marry a woman of a different race.

Think about this... What if you left your life's holdings to a woman of a different race but the law gave it to the nearest straight relative of the proper race?

Tom_PMs · 07-13-2004, 12:41 PM

genomega, you make it sound like it was a rogue judge that passed everything that wasnt stamped with approval from "conservatives"

mardigras · 07-13-2004, 12:46 PM

I hope this is archived on the CSPAN site, I would love to see Durbin again and catch some stuff I was pulled away from seeing.

Tera · 07-13-2004, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fishy
I personally don't like gay people, but I'm not against marriage between 2 gayz/lesbians. As long as they don't involve any animals in their private bussinesses

I just wanna know this: How the fuck do lesbians make babies?

Whoa this is nuts, what does animals and gays have to do with eachother.

And why did you only ask about lesbians, do you think that two men can make babies?

Am I missing some humor here?

mardigras · 07-13-2004, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tera
Whoa this is nuts, what does animals and gays have to do with eachother.

And why did you only ask about lesbians, do you think that two men can make babies?

Am I missing some humor here?

Oh Tera, don't you know?
To "fundamentalists" homosexuality=beastiality+pedo

Lesbians create them and we homos recruit them.

BloodFart · 07-13-2004, 01:13 PM

I guess my problem is i've never allowed anyone to shit into my mouth so ive never had a "taste" of the gay lifestyle. I'm not going to do that either so i'll just stay closed minded.

mardigras · 07-13-2004, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BloodFart
I guess my problem is i've never allowed anyone to shit into my mouth so ive never had a "taste" of the gay lifestyle. I'm not going to do that either so i'll just stay closed minded.

If you were truly closed minded you would just stay in your cave and not bother others rather than imagining shit eating and other fantasies that nobody but similar mindset secretly wish to do while loudly proclaiming to others that you are "normal" and would never do such, let's make a law.

Consensual between adults = none of your business.

mardigras · 07-13-2004, 01:39 PM

Rick Santorum

A republican who gets it.

mardigras · 07-13-2004, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mardigras
Rick Santorum

A republican who gets it.

Nevermind, he turned his meant to catch your attention "right for people to have a say" message into a quickly tailored "right to amend the constitution when things go to far" for the "right".

Tom_PMs · 07-13-2004, 04:06 PM

It was gratifying to see sen. Kennedy mention my point of the 1000+ benefits that "married" couples get, and how this is just a dead issue. They brought it to the floor, then when the Dems said they would vote tomorrow, the Repubs said No. It was so important to get it to the senate immediately then they say no to a vote? Excuse me?? fuckers.

Also gratifying to see sen. Clinton mention my point that if this was about "marriage", then why arent we doing something about the horrendous divorce rates? Also the fact that the defense of marriage act from 1996 (guess who's campaign brought that about?) has YET to be challenged.

The republican senators position is set by Hatch from utah. He says he thinks that since one case in Massachusetts allowed same sex marriage there, that it will automatically be adopted throughout the land. Thats pure shit and he can't justify his position. No state has EVER been forced to recognize ANY marriage from ANY other state. Ever. The supreme court supports that position as well.

This is horrible distracting baloney brought on by Bush to try to draw attention away from anything real. Just like his father did.

All the more reason to get rid of that idiot, even if you dont like Kerry.

pxxx · 07-13-2004, 04:14 PM

Great, another reason some people will have to re-elect this ass fucker.

Tom_PMs · 07-13-2004, 04:18 PM

Nah, it's a non-reason.
Almost all of the states already have legal definitions of marriage meaning a union between a man and a woman.
No case has ever been brought to dispute the *existing* federal marriage act enacted in 1996.
No state has ever been forced to recognize a marriage from another state that is contrary to their own state laws. (this is the main reason the republican senators promote this amendment)

It's a made-up issue, lol. Typical fear factor *yawn* issue.

prominent republican john mccain is speaking now AGAINST the ammendment, lol.

mardigras · 07-13-2004, 04:29 PM

Since this has fallen flat maybe we'll finally see an increase in the terror alert?

mardigras · 07-13-2004, 04:49 PM

07-13-2004, 12:26 PM	#52
Tom_PMs Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 2,049	Dick Durbin is making a great point, lol. __________________ You've read it, you can't unread it.

07-13-2004, 12:32 PM	#55
Tom_PMs Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 2,049	genomega, I dont understand your beef. I'm simply against a completely un needed amendment to the constitution. 43 out of 50 states already have the definition of marriage as something that ONLY exists between a man and a woman. When you say, "Calling people names is all that you people have." I'm not sure what you mean. Moderates? Or do you think I'm a homosexual because I dont think an amendment is needed? lol __________________ You've read it, you can't unread it.

07-13-2004, 12:41 PM	#61
Tom_PMs Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 2,049	genomega, you make it sound like it was a rogue judge that passed everything that wasnt stamped with approval from "conservatives" __________________ You've read it, you can't unread it.

07-13-2004, 12:46 PM	#62
mardigras Bon temps! Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: down yonder Posts: 14,194	I hope this is archived on the CSPAN site, I would love to see Durbin again and catch some stuff I was pulled away from seeing. __________________ .

07-13-2004, 01:13 PM	#65
BloodFart Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 728	I guess my problem is i've never allowed anyone to shit into my mouth so ive never had a "taste" of the gay lifestyle. I'm not going to do that either so i'll just stay closed minded. __________________ Jesus = harry potter 2000 years ago.

07-13-2004, 01:39 PM	#67
mardigras Bon temps! Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: down yonder Posts: 14,194	Rick Santorum A republican who gets it. __________________ .

07-13-2004, 04:06 PM	#69
Tom_PMs Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 2,049	It was gratifying to see sen. Kennedy mention my point of the 1000+ benefits that "married" couples get, and how this is just a dead issue. They brought it to the floor, then when the Dems said they would vote tomorrow, the Repubs said No. It was so important to get it to the senate immediately then they say no to a vote? Excuse me?? fuckers. Also gratifying to see sen. Clinton mention my point that if this was about "marriage", then why arent we doing something about the horrendous divorce rates? Also the fact that the defense of marriage act from 1996 (guess who's campaign brought that about?) has YET to be challenged. The republican senators position is set by Hatch from utah. He says he thinks that since one case in Massachusetts allowed same sex marriage there, that it will automatically be adopted throughout the land. Thats pure shit and he can't justify his position. No state has EVER been forced to recognize ANY marriage from ANY other state. Ever. The supreme court supports that position as well. This is horrible distracting baloney brought on by Bush to try to draw attention away from anything real. Just like his father did. All the more reason to get rid of that idiot, even if you dont like Kerry. __________________ You've read it, you can't unread it.

07-13-2004, 04:14 PM	#70
pxxx First African GFY Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 12,114	Great, another reason some people will have to re-elect this ass fucker.

07-13-2004, 04:18 PM	#71
Tom_PMs Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 2,049	Nah, it's a non-reason. Almost all of the states already have legal definitions of marriage meaning a union between a man and a woman. No case has ever been brought to dispute the existing federal marriage act enacted in 1996. No state has ever been forced to recognize a marriage from another state that is contrary to their own state laws. (this is the main reason the republican senators promote this amendment) It's a made-up issue, lol. Typical fear factor yawn issue. prominent republican john mccain is speaking now AGAINST the ammendment, lol. __________________ You've read it, you can't unread it.

07-13-2004, 04:29 PM	#72
mardigras Bon temps! Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: down yonder Posts: 14,194	Since this has fallen flat maybe we'll finally see an increase in the terror alert? __________________ .

07-13-2004, 04:49 PM	#73
mardigras Bon temps! Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: down yonder Posts: 14,194	__________________ .