What I wrote back to my gay cousin about prop 8

[wtfent]

Don't take any offense to it, you are just the only gay person I'm close to so you get to here my bitching, we are family and always will be. True family should be that group of people that can always tell you how things really are without all the BS you here from strangers and so called friends. Would you rather have everybody always agree with you or have a few that tell you how it really is? I totally except you for who you are, lol no need to slowly back away, thats taking it to far.

You are so right about this having nothing to do with gays getting married so please don't take offense now that we cleared that up. To you its about civil liberties, to me its about protecting our constitution. I was just proving a point with what I wrote you. Where will the civil liberty fights stop after this? They say be careful what you wish for because it might come true. If this passes every freak in the world will use this as an excuse to defend whatever weird civil liberty they want to defend.

There is a brother and sister couple in Germany right now trying to fight for their civil liberties. They think because they are adults and have kids together they should be allowed to marry even though they are blood related.

Like we both agreed on, this has nothing to do with gays but where will this insanity all stop.

30 years ago nobody ever thought another man would want to marry another man, just imagine in another 30 years what will be going on.

[BlackCrayon]

Originally Posted by wtfent

30 years ago nobody ever thought another man would want to marry another man

Very wrong

[RayVega]

I have to disagree. you are right that people will want to do fucked up shit and use the gay marriage decision as a platform. But that's where the courts come in...to say "NO, that's not the same thing". people against gay marriage always say, "what's next people marrying animals". That's ridiculous in my opinion. This is about having the same rights that a husband-wife would have. Medical coverage, estate rights etc. more importantly, it's about the world recognizing the pair as a legitimate couple. they still do not feel quantified unless they can do what a man and a woman does.

So what!? Let them marry, who is it hurting? I feel the same way about legalizing marijuana. nobody is getting hurt. if they want to sign a legal agreement that allows their partner the same rights a wife would have, so what?

One of the problems with this world today is everyone worrying about everyone else's business. I say mind your own business. These are two people who are grown and can make their own choices. Can you imagine if you couldn't offer your wife the benefits of marriage because she was Jewish or black, or whatever. It's bullshit. just let them be already.

And NO, an animal is not OK, and brother and sister is not OK. not because GOD say's so...because it's dangerous and inhumane.

it's the year 2008 people, let's stop worrying about people trying to live a peaceful life and worry about the soldiers and babies being blown up in Iraq. Seriously.

[_Richard_]

30 years ago nobody ever thought America would want a black president..

[tnaindex]

Its a shame bible thumper's dont belive in evolution.

If "gay" is really genetic. From the bible bigot point of view the best thing is to let it happen. its not exactly a recipe for Darwinian survival.

[RayVega]

Originally Posted by SBR Richard

30 years ago nobody ever thought America would want a black president..

I'm still fucking shocked. Not that I care about color. Any guy who is qualified should be able to apply. The fact that there is enough open minded Americans is what shocked me. I really thought he didn't have a snowballs chance in hell.

funny, we'll elect a Black president, but Gays can't marry. WTF?

[d-null]

funny you bring the constitution into it


where in the constitution does it say anything about special rights for those that are married?

the purpose of a constitution is to protect the rights of an individual

[kane]

I love how you tell him to not take offense and then proceed to tell him if he is allowed to marry another guy that it would lead to all kinds of freaks in the world doing things including brothers and sisters marrying.

That is kind of like saying, "If you allow your dog to sleep on the bed with you, then when will it stop? Soon women will be fucking their dogs in their beds."

One really doesn't have to do with the other.

[NextBigTube]

Originally Posted by SBR Richard

30 years ago nobody ever thought America would want a black president..

30 years from now we would probably be saying -
"30 years ago nobody ever thought America would want a gay president.."

[Fletch XXX]

Originally Posted by wtfent

To you its about civil liberties, to me its about protecting our constitution.

i stopped reading here. LOLOL

you people should become comedians like Steve Lightspeed, the jokes you post are just as funny!

[Don Pueblo]

spell much?

[GetSCORECash]

Originally Posted by NextBigTube

a gay president.."

never in a million years...

We already had the only openly gay state governor in United States history, in New Jersey. So you maybe right. But do look at what happened to him, when he came out of the closet.

[WarChild]

Homosexuality is nature's way of telling you your genes represent an evolutionary dead end and you shouldn't continue them through any form of breeding.

Let them marry, but I say no kids what so ever. Mother nature obviously knows best.

[BradM]

Steve Lightspeed is hilarious, how dare you. If you think he isn't funny, he will whine and yell at you. That will show you!

[Fletch XXX]

Originally Posted by SCORE-Cash

never in a million years...

you do realize they said this about a black one too right?

[Fletch XXX]

Originally Posted by BradM

Steve Lightspeed is hilarious, how dare you. If you think he isn't funny, he will whine and yell at you. That will show you!

I didnt say he wasnt funny, in fact, I claimed he WAS! The OPs line about "protecting the constitution made me laugh, I said Lightspeed was as funny!"

dont twist what I said around

[WarChild]

How come we have to pander to homosexuals, clearly an unnatural act, but we find pedophelia to be disgusting?

I mean granted taking advantage of children doesn't compare to consenting adults of the same sex, but we never say "oh that poor pedophile, he can't fight his urges he was born that way. We must help him!". No, we are disgusted by it and treat pedos with distain.

Sexuality's primary purpose is reproduction of the species. That makes homosexuality unnatural.

[Fletch XXX]

Originally Posted by WarChild

Sexuality's primary purpose is reproduction of the species.

you say reproduction I say porn pages

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Marriage is a primary example of church and state separation being separate a complete falsehood.

If Separation of Church and State were true Gay Marriage would have been fine since the beginning of the United States Of America.

[d-null]

because pedo's are trying to involve kids in their behaviour, and we rightfully have protected minors as they are not mature enough to be consenting, whole complete other concept


what two consenting adults do to each other is their own business, not the morality squad of the state

[WarChild]

Originally Posted by d-null

because pedo's are trying to involve kids in their behaviour, and we rightfully have protected minors as they are not mature enough to be consenting, whole complete other concept


what two consenting adults do to each other is their own business, not the morality squad of the state

No, you're missing the point.

The act, involving children, is of course disgusting.

It's the stigma I'm getting at though. Most people would find a person who was sexually attracted to children to be "sick and digusting" even if they never acted on the urge in any way shape or form. Even though, arguably, they have no control over their desires.

[BradM]

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

I didnt say he wasnt funny, in fact, I claimed he WAS! The OPs line about "protecting the constitution made me laugh, I said Lightspeed was as funny!"

dont twist what I said around

Who's twisting what? You started it.

[d-null]

Originally Posted by WarChild

No, you're missing the point.

....

well, what is your point then?

there are many people that think that masturbation is disgusting

there are many people that think oral sex is sick and disgusting

do we need to have a vote and ban anything that 51% of the public thinks is disgusting even if it is between consenting adults?

the constitution is there to protect individuals from the state wanting to impose their religious views on consenting individuals

[WarChild]

Originally Posted by d-null

well, what is your point then?

there are many people that think that masturbation is disgusting

there are many people that think oral sex is sick and disgusting

do we need to have a vote and ban anything that 51% of the public thinks is disgusting even if it is between consenting adults?

the constitution is there to protect individuals from the state wanting to impose their religious views on consenting individuals

I'm just playing the Devil's advocate here.

I don't actually think Homosexuals should be treated it any different way than anybody else. Do what you want, be with who you want, it really doesn't bother me.

I do think it's interesting that we find one kind of sexual deviancy disgusting while thinking of others as just the way people were made though.

[BradM]

Originally Posted by WarChild

I'm just playing the Devil's advocate here.

I don't actually think Homosexuals should be treated it any different way than anybody else. Do what you want, be with who you want, it really doesn't bother me.

I do think it's interesting that we find one kind of sexual deviancy disgusting while thinking of others as just the way people were made though.

Thanks for putting us pedophiles in the same group as homosexuals. Now I feel dirty and betrayed. Last thing we want is to have a label like that attached to us.

[d-null]

Originally Posted by WarChild

I'm just playing the Devil's advocate here.

I don't actually think Homosexuals should be treated it any different way than anybody else. Do what you want, be with who you want, it really doesn't bother me.

I do think it's interesting that we find one kind of sexual deviancy disgusting while thinking of others as just the way people were made though.

you picked a terrible example to try to illustrate your "deviancy" concept,

the bottom line is the line is crossed for any preference when it involves kids or when it involves force on another individual... these are basic concepts to the issue of rights

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

PS: I hate fags and it is my right to think the way I do.

But they have rights to. States and government have no right to bar Gays from being married. It is hard for folks to realise what really being American is all about and what it actually means.

TO many people have believed what they are told to believe as an American when infact being America is quite contrary to what you see being American in the Media today.

Being an American requires that each Citizen be responsible and tolorant of others. It's OK to hate others in America so long as you do not infringe on the freedoms you enjoy as an American.

[slapass]

Originally Posted by WarChild

How come we have to pander to homosexuals, clearly an unnatural act, but we find pedophelia to be disgusting?

I mean granted taking advantage of children doesn't compare to consenting adults of the same sex, but we never say "oh that poor pedophile, he can't fight his urges he was born that way. We must help him!". No, we are disgusted by it and treat pedos with distain.

Sexuality's primary purpose is reproduction of the species. That makes homosexuality unnatural.

Would it be because one can't act out without injuring children and the other one does it with consenting adults? Read my sig if confused as to the difference.

[Fletch XXX]

Originally Posted by slapass

Would it be because one can't act out without injuring children and the other one does it with consenting adults? Read my sig if confused as to the difference.

when it comes to being gay, in this industry, man people are more far religious right than libertarian.

and i agree with the quote in your sig

[slapass]

Originally Posted by WarChild

No, you're missing the point.

The act, involving children, is of course disgusting.

It's the stigma I'm getting at though. Most people would find a person who was sexually attracted to children to be "sick and digusting" even if they never acted on the urge in any way shape or form. Even though, arguably, they have no control over their desires.

I should have read further. But lets face it you can live without sex. So anyone who harms others by lack of self control can be considered disgusting.

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

When you think about the freedom of Marriage it is a freedom people enjoy, why is the government denying this freedom and right to a select group?

Once you start thinking in those terms you will quickly come to realise that Gays have a right like anyone else to marry, while the governments stance on marriage is appearently intolorant and has decreed Marriage is a freedom only gays may not have...

Thats like saying Interracial Marriage should be illegal, or maybe being a Jew is Illegal. The gay community is just that, It is a segment of American Society that must enjoy the freedoms everyone else has otherwise it proves the principals and freedoms we American's hold as sacred are not true to our society as a whole.

[kane]

Originally Posted by WarChild

I'm just playing the Devil's advocate here.

I don't actually think Homosexuals should be treated it any different way than anybody else. Do what you want, be with who you want, it really doesn't bother me.

I do think it's interesting that we find one kind of sexual deviancy disgusting while thinking of others as just the way people were made though.

The difference is that one act involves two consenting adults and one involves an adult assaulting a child. I agree with you that pedophiles can't control their urges, but their urges are leading them to assault and damage children.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by wtfent

Don't take any offense to it, you are just the only gay person I'm close to so you get to here my bitching, we are family and always will be. True family should be that group of people that can always tell you how things really are without all the BS you here from strangers and so called friends. Would you rather have everybody always agree with you or have a few that tell you how it really is? I totally except you for who you are, lol no need to slowly back away, thats taking it to far.

You are so right about this having nothing to do with gays getting married so please don't take offense now that we cleared that up. To you its about civil liberties, to me its about protecting our constitution. I was just proving a point with what I wrote you. Where will the civil liberty fights stop after this? They say be careful what you wish for because it might come true. If this passes every freak in the world will use this as an excuse to defend whatever weird civil liberty they want to defend.

There is a brother and sister couple in Germany right now trying to fight for their civil liberties. They think because they are adults and have kids together they should be allowed to marry even though they are blood related.

Like we both agreed on, this has nothing to do with gays but where will this insanity all stop.

30 years ago nobody ever thought another man would want to marry another man, just imagine in another 30 years what will be going on.

30 years ago most people didn't want a black guy marrying a white woman. I'm not sure why mos tof my fellows straight pele think marriage is so fuckign sracred. ocnsdiering MOST that do get married get divorced and get amried 2,3 or more times. How fucking sacred is that? WTF are you keeping sacred if the vow "Until death do us part" if you've been divorced 2, 3 or 4 times? I think straights need to look up the words VOW and SACRED.

As far as the Constitution, which part of the US Constitution mentions marriage? Oh that's right it DOESN'T. There's a reason why, because it's a STATE issue. Our founding fathers wanted marriage issues to be dealt with on the STATE level. That being said the people of California spoke that they don't want gay mariage. Gays should have waited 10 years maybe things would have been different. As is now it will be even harder to get it passed. Try again in 2028. Gays never should have started this gay marriage crap 8 years ago and maybe in 2012 or 2016 most states would have been ready. Sometimes you have to know WHEN to fight your battles. Most states were willing to give them domestic partnerships and they should have settled for that until the country was ready. Being in a hurry set their cause back 20 years.

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Originally Posted by GatorB

That being said the people of California spoke that they don't want gay mariage. Gays should have waited 10 years maybe things would have been different.

But you forgot 1 thing. It Violates the Bill Of Rights.
WHich in effect nullifies State Legislation.

Banning Gay Marriage could be construed as Cruel and Unusual Punishment believe it or not.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by AlienQ

But you forgot 1 thing. It Violates the Bill Of Rights.
WHich in effect nullifies State Legislation.

Which part of the Bill of Rights is violated?

[AmeliaG]

Originally Posted by wtfent

Don't take any offense to it, you are just the only gay person I'm close to so you get to here my bitching, we are family and always will be. True family should be that group of people that can always tell you how things really are without all the BS you here from strangers and so called friends. Would you rather have everybody always agree with you or have a few that tell you how it really is? I totally except you for who you are, lol no need to slowly back away, thats taking it to far.

You are so right about this having nothing to do with gays getting married so please don't take offense now that we cleared that up. To you its about civil liberties, to me its about protecting our constitution. I was just proving a point with what I wrote you. Where will the civil liberty fights stop after this? They say be careful what you wish for because it might come true. If this passes every freak in the world will use this as an excuse to defend whatever weird civil liberty they want to defend.

There is a brother and sister couple in Germany right now trying to fight for their civil liberties. They think because they are adults and have kids together they should be allowed to marry even though they are blood related.

Like we both agreed on, this has nothing to do with gays but where will this insanity all stop.

30 years ago nobody ever thought another man would want to marry another man, just imagine in another 30 years what will be going on.

You misunderstand the issue. It is the religious fanatics and bigots who want to change the California state constitution.

Some very competent American judges decided that the California state constitution protected the rights of homosexuals who wish to marry. The people who brought up the whole changing the constitution thing were the ones opposed to gay marriage. Prop 8 was to change the constitution. Permitting gay marriage would merely uphold the California state constitution as it originally stood.

[mozadek]

If gays get the right to marry then brothers should be able to marry sisters.

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Originally Posted by GatorB

Which part of the Bill of Rights is violated?

It can be regarded as Cruel and Unusual Punishment.

"Cruel and unusual punishments

The Bill of Rights in the National Archives.Main article: Cruel and unusual punishment
According to the Supreme Court, the Eighth Amendment forbids some punishments entirely, and forbids some other punishments that are excessive when compared to the crime, or compared to the competence of the perpetrator.

In Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), Justice Brennan wrote, "There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is 'cruel and unusual'."

The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture.
"A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion."
"A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."
"A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary."
Continuing, he wrote that he expected that no state would pass a law obviously violating any one of these principles, so court decisions regarding the Eighth Amendment would involve a "cumulative" analysis of the implication of each of the four principles."

[AmeliaG]

Originally Posted by WarChild

How come we have to pander to homosexuals, clearly an unnatural act, but we find pedophelia to be disgusting?

I mean granted taking advantage of children doesn't compare to consenting adults of the same sex, but we never say "oh that poor pedophile, he can't fight his urges he was born that way. We must help him!". No, we are disgusted by it and treat pedos with distain.

Sexuality's primary purpose is reproduction of the species. That makes homosexuality unnatural.

If you ever use birth control and still have sex, then that whole reproduction argument is just silly.

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by d-null

well, what is your point then?

there are many people that think that masturbation is disgusting

there are many people that think oral sex is sick and disgusting

do we need to have a vote and ban anything that 51% of the public thinks is disgusting even if it is between consenting adults?

the constitution is there to protect individuals from the state wanting to impose their religious views on consenting individuals

laws define what you can and can't do.
not sure why people have a hard time wrapping their minds around that obvious truth.

laws are based on values and what people as a whole find to be acceptable or unacceptable.

gay marriage... well, obviously enough people find it to be unacceptable, hence the failure to change the law.

everyone who does not like the law is free to fight to change it... or leave the country.

welcome to a functioning democracy

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

If you ever use birth control and still have sex, then that whole reproduction argument is just silly.

no... he chooses when to reproduce. homosexuals can't reproduce. nature has told him "hey man, you have some fucking awesome genes and super sperm... so fire at will"

if your argument wasn't silly, every single adult would either be 100% abstinent or having a child every 9 months.

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

You can also go the route of...

"Equality before the law or equality under the law or legal egalitarianism is the principle under which each individual is subject to the same laws, with no individual or group having special legal privileges. Legal egalitarianism admits no class structures entail separate legal practices."

[WhiplashDug]

Well - the thing is, it should be decided by the states. And the people in those states. Thats the rights given to the people and the states by the constitution. And in our democracy - the majority rules. Like it or not.... that's the principle that has made this country great.

So, no matter your position on the issue - people should stand by the will of the people. When public opinion changes - or if the minority opinion becomes the majority... then by all means, bring it to a vote and make it law. That again, is the entire purpose of this democracy.

[AmeliaG]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

no... he chooses when to reproduce. homosexuals can't reproduce. nature has told him "hey man, you have some fucking awesome genes and super sperm... so fire at will"

if your argument wasn't silly, every single adult would either be 100% abstinent or having a child every 9 months.

Or maybe, just maybe, reproduction is not the only purpose for a couple getting together and having sex.

[AmeliaG]

Originally Posted by WhiplashDug

Well - the thing is, it should be decided by the states. And the people in those states. Thats the rights given to the people and the states by the constitution. And in our democracy - the majority rules. Like it or not.... that's the principle that has made this country great.

So, no matter your position on the issue - people should stand by the will of the people. When public opinion changes - or if the minority opinion becomes the majority... then by all means, bring it to a vote and make it law. That again, is the entire purpose of this democracy.

Should Utah be able to spend millions upon millions of dollars to impact what happens in California, if it is up to the individual states? I'm not sure where I personally fall on campaign finance, but it does seem unreasonable that Utah disseminated a lot of inaccurate fear-mongering advertisements to change the course of a California election.

[WarChild]

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

Or maybe, just maybe, reproduction is not the only purpose for a couple getting together and having sex.

It is the primary driving factor in sexuality period, you can't spin it any other way. The NEED to reproduce drives the DESIRE for sex as a species.

Here, I'll try to explain it to you another way maybe it will be a little more clear.

Your body gets hungry because you need food to survive. Food also tastes good, and can be pleasurable to eat. This all reinforces the NEED to eat, take in sustance. Your body does not get hungry because food tastes good. See the difference?

Sex feels good and is something you desire because that's how our species reproduces. So the _fundamental_ driving force behind sex is always reproduction. Now people have sex because it's fun, just as they eat because they're bored, but that doesn't diminish the fact that the whole process begins with reproduction.

In other words, if humans reproduced by peeing in to a pot of hot water, you most likely wouldn't have any desire for what we know as sex but you would sure be driven to pee in a pot of hot water.

[WhiplashDug]

Originally Posted by d-null

well, what is your point then?

the constitution is there to protect individuals from the state wanting to impose their religious views on consenting individuals

No, unfortunately this statement is wrong.

First Amendment
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


That does not say 'FREE FROM RELIGION' it says 'FREEDOM OF RELIGION' this clause establishes that 'NO LAW PROHIBITING A RELIGION' can be imposed.

Religion was a HUGE part of the founding documents of the U.S. You can find the reference to such everywhere - including the writings of its authors. The authors were not interested in excluding Religion - they just did not want the GOV to be allowed to restrict it.


:

[WhiplashDug]

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

Should Utah be able to spend millions upon millions of dollars to impact what happens in California, if it is up to the individual states? I'm not sure where I personally fall on campaign finance, but it does seem unreasonable that Utah disseminated a lot of inaccurate fear-mongering advertisements to change the course of a California election.

True! And I agree. But that is a separate issue all together. If you want campaign finance reform... by all means get it passed, you will have my vote.

But, that does not change the fact, that the funding practices are not currently against any rules, so therefor the election results are what they are. If we as a country continue down this path of using the COURT SYSTEM to overturn every thing the VOTER vote for just because one side didn't like the outcome, where does that leave us?

Basically, that is creating a society where JUDGES not THE PEOPLE (or their representatives) are making the laws. What happens down the road to the laws you hold dear when your opposition party gets into power and throws them all out via the court system?

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by AlienQ

It can be regarded as Cruel and Unusual Punishment.

"Cruel and unusual punishments

The Bill of Rights in the National Archives.Main article: Cruel and unusual punishment
According to the Supreme Court, the Eighth Amendment forbids some punishments entirely, and forbids some other punishments that are excessive when compared to the crime, or compared to the competence of the perpetrator.

In Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), Justice Brennan wrote, "There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is 'cruel and unusual'."

The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture.
"A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion."
"A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."
"A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary."
Continuing, he wrote that he expected that no state would pass a law obviously violating any one of these principles, so court decisions regarding the Eighth Amendment would involve a "cumulative" analysis of the implication of each of the four principles."

do you even know WTF you are talking about?

"Cruel and Unusual Punishment" has to do with CRIMINAL cases. The government is not prosecuting gays.

[WarChild]

Originally Posted by GatorB

do you even know WTF you are talking about?

"Cruel and Unusual Punishment" has to do with CRIMINAL cases. The government is not prosecuting gays.

Of course he doesn't know what he's talking about.

I'd be very, very, very surprised if AlienQ could pass a basic high school equivalency test. In fact I'd almost bet money he couldn't.

That's guy's basically retarded, just keep that in mind when you read his posts.