Steely Dan Posted December 22, 2008 Author Share Posted December 22, 2008 Tell me about it. I caught it from just sitting on a toilet seat! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 Beware the Homosexual is on the prowl That was fuc#ing great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted December 22, 2008 Author Share Posted December 22, 2008 Beware the Homosexual is on the prowl How to treat loose women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 How to treat loose women. I smack her ass, use her tramp stamp as a target, then give her a bogus phone number Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted December 22, 2008 Author Share Posted December 22, 2008 I smack her ass, use her tramp stamp as a target, then give her a bogus phone number Man you did extra credit work! A++ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 While I agree that too much time/money/etc is spent on the issue, considering other problems that are much more urgent, at some point in time a federal amendment to the constitution to allow gays their full rights as US citizens needs to be passed to STOP all the time/money/etc being spent on this issue. It needs to be put to bed (snicker) once and for all, IMO. And, we must know different gay couples. Clue me in. What rights are they not intitled to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 Clue me in. What rights are they not intitled to? Your Google busted? For starters THESE rights: http://www.hrc.org/issues/5585.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 Your Google busted? For starters THESE rights: http://www.hrc.org/issues/5585.htm Sorry, being here in CA with all the Prop 8 hoopla I was thinking more of their rights here in the state. Prop 8 would give them essentially no additional rights that they don't already have, they're arguing over a word which I feel is silly and childish. They should be taking their fight to Washington which I've been saying all along and is pretty much what you've said. So.....I ......agree......with.......you....... Damn, that was one of the hardest things I've ever had to type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 This bit at the bottom of that link is actually more striking, in that the bigoted pigs that supported the Yes on Hate proposition are filing to nullify the 18,000 existing, legal marriages that had already taken place. These people are scum, and anyone that supports these POS are supporting bigotry, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with morals, and it has nothing to do with your bullsh!t religious superstitions. It has everything to do with hate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomer860 Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 And the second clown in the bigot circle jerk pops up. Nothing to say? Just a thumbs up for your mouthpiece, the coward in Alaska? Its that time of the month huh? I now pronounce you and your boyfriend "queers" . It seems that the bigots in CA are in the majority and the queers are in the minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 Sorry, being here in CA with all the Prop 8 hoopla I was thinking more of their rights here in the state. Prop 8 would give them essentially no additional rights that they don't already have, they're arguing over a word which I feel is silly and childish. They should be taking their fight to Washington which I've been saying all along and is pretty much what you've said. So.....I ......agree......with.......you....... Damn, that was one of the hardest things I've ever had to type. I disagree that it's just a word--the laws have precedent that applies to married people and less precedent that applies to those who are civilly joined. If there is a difference in the word, there is arguably a legal distinction. Lawyers all over California will be prepared to argue this. Further, if it's just a word, why retroactively try to remove the word's usage in describing people who already married? But, even if it's just a word as you argue, what kind of government passes a law to tell people what word they can or cannot use. Could a law be passed that immigrants cannot refer to themselves as "people"? Prop 8 was born of bigotry and hate. I understand that you don't care but can you give a good reason to a gay couple who wants to marry in a church why they should be prohibited from doing so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 It seems that the bigots in CA are in the majority and the queers are in the minority. That's something to be proud of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 I understand that you don't care but can you give a good reason to a gay couple who wants to marry in a church why they should be prohibited from doing so? First a question, do you have any idea which way I voted on prop 8? Second, there are very little, if any California states rights that my wife and I enjoy that a domestic partnership do not. Sounds like they're arguing over just a word to me. Domestic partners in California are subject to many of the same rights and protections and obligations as married couples, including those under probate law, employment law and discrimination law, provided those are California state laws. This means that in California, any right extended to a married couple under California law, has to be extended to a domestic partnership. Furthermore, domestic partnerships are subject to the community property rules and support obligations should the relationship dissolve. The parties must even file a formal termination petition, just as married couples do. The biggest difference between domestic partnerships and marriage is recognition, by the federal government and by other states. So, once again they're barking up the wrong tree. It's their rights under Federal laws that need addressing, not California. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 First a question, do you have any idea which way I voted on prop 8? Yes. Second, there are very little, if any California states rights that my wife and I enjoy that a domestic partnership do not. Let me sketch a scenario. Imagine two people are fighting for custody of a child. One of the parents is married (M-F). One is unioned or whatever the !@#$ it's called (F-F). They go to court. The F-F lawyer tells the court that there's no reason why his client (F) should be less entitled to the kids because civilly unioned people have all the same rights as a married couple. On the flip side, the lawyer for the M-F couple argues that this is BS: if there was no difference between married couples and civilly unioned couples, there wouldn't be a law that specifically coined a term that is inapplicable to joined couples. And that's just one scenario. That the people of CA enacted a law (for God's sake!) specifically noting a different word for one relationship over another means there is a de facto difference. I know you don't care. I know you voted No. I am just pointing out that Prop 8 IS a problem and it is born of bigotry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 First a question, do you have any idea which way I voted on prop 8? Second, there are very little, if any California states rights that my wife and I enjoy that a domestic partnership do not. Sounds like they're arguing over just a word to me. So, once again they're barking up the wrong tree. It's their rights under Federal laws that need addressing, not California. We agree that this should, ultimately, be handled on a Federal level. But, to suggest that, until it is handled on a federal level it shouldn't be handled on the state level, is shortsighted. Can you see this argument being made about anti-slavery regulations at a state level, before their won they freedom nationally? Typically these state initiatives are important in order to force action at the federal level. Not only that, but the very existence of this amendment to BAN same-sex marriage suggests that their "civil union" rights might be the next target of the hate crowd. Obviously, the homo haters think it is important to argue over this "word". If same-sex couples can't be married, maybe the next change is they can't adopt children...just make that the provenance of married couples, only...etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomer860 Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 That's something to be proud of. Nope , thats just the way its is and always will be for obvious reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 Yes. Let me sketch a scenario. Imagine two people are fighting for custody of a child. One of the parents is married (M-F). One is unioned or whatever the !@#$ it's called (F-F). They go to court. The F-F lawyer tells the court that there's no reason why his client (F) should be less entitled to the kids because civilly unioned people have all the same rights as a married couple. On the flip side, the lawyer for the M-F couple argues that this is BS: if there was no difference between married couples and civilly unioned couples, there wouldn't be a law that specifically coined a term that is inapplicable to joined couples. And that's just one scenario. That the people of CA enacted a law (for God's sake!) specifically noting a different word for one relationship over another means there is a de facto difference. I know you don't care. I know you voted No. I am just pointing out that Prop 8 IS a problem and it is born of bigotry. It is a pretty messed up situation I agree. Oh and BTW you're correct I did vote no. But it's not because I'm not a bigot (I am ) I just vote no on all of them. They're usually so poorly written that they're either to hard to even understand and follow or they'll just be overtuned in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 Nope , thats just the way its is and always will be for obvious reasons. It's obvious to you why people currently vote to prohibit homosexual marriage. It's obvious to me too. But before long, old people will die, churches will continue to lose influence, and the tide will turn, so you're wrong to think Prop 8 "always will be" the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomer860 Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 It's obvious to you why people currently vote to prohibit homosexual marriage. It's obvious to me too. But before long, old people will die, churches will continue to lose influence, and the tide will turn, so you're wrong to think Prop 8 "always will be" the case. The queers wont have enough off spring to vote , get over it , you are in the minority and always will be. Did you know queers are prone to violence , anger and suicide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 The queers wont have enough off spring to vote , get over it , you are in the minority and always will be. Did you know queers are prone to violence , anger and suicide. So are parents, police officers, the unemployed, and marines. What's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts