California and Gay Marriage

Bardock42

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
*sigh*

I'm happy for all the gay marriages and the victory for the homosexual community and so..and so.... and so...good for you guys...well done...

K

Can California please now give priority to things like:

Illegal Immigrants work permits.

More strict laws for graffitti.

Power Energy Problems (don't throw us back to black outs since the summer is upon us)

Gang control programs.

School programs for needed children.

Gas prices for our state (since we're the state with the most vehicles)

Water for Southern Califonia.

etc..etc.. and etc...

we could really use help with these problems. Can they get priority now? Please... Well, those are harder issues. Gay Marriage really just needs a "Yeah, sure you can marry, why not, we don't want to create a problem by banning you from it, now do we, lulwtf!"

Devil King

I would only point out that it's only an issue because some people chose to make it one.

ThorofThunder

Originally posted by Devil King
This is what I like to call "San Francisco values". I'm currently waiting for Hillary Clinton to take credit for it.

Whether the Hillary Clinton portion is sarcastic or not, it's pretty funny. She's a nut.

And with regards to the topic of this thread: a law that actually makes me proud to be a Californian, woohoo!

BruceSkywalker

Blax_Hydralisk

True, I honestly don't even see a very valid solution for stopping them aside from shooting first and asking questions later...

Darth Vicious

I guess im glad I dont live in CA.

Devil King

Originally posted by Darth Vicious
I guess im glad I dont live in CA.

If you're referring to gay marriage, California is glad you don't live in it too.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by Devil King
If you're referring to gay marriage, California is glad you don't live in it too.

Don't you think it's just a little bit more likely he's talking about gang violence like the people above him?

Quiero Mota

Originally posted by Robtard
Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban
Constitutional initiative drive under way in state to restrict unions

SAN FRANCISCO - The California Supreme Court has overturned a ban on gay marriage, paving the way for California to become the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24649689

This is good news for Equal Rights. Maybe Utah or Texas will be next.

Is it really surprising that California legalized gay marriage? I saw it coming a mile away. If Tennessee or West Virginia legalizes it, give me a call.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Don't you think it's just a little bit more likely he's talking about gang violence like the people above him?

Most likely...but DK started his statement out with an "if" because he can't be 100% sure. DK would rather err on the side of defending homosexuality rather than gangs because he is obviously a little more biased to the former.

No harm done. happy

Devil King

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Don't you think it's just a little bit more likely he's talking about gang violence like the people above him?

There's a reason I qualified the statement. If he was addressing gang violence, then I'm sure he's bright enough to dismiss my comment.

Devil King

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
California

Careful, you'll end up a pillar of salt if you look back.

BackFire

On the radio today I heard some spokesperson from one of the various anti gay organizations, complaining about the ruling, saying "Gay marriage being forced on the people of California is unfair" and yadda yadda. As if straight people are being forced to wed gays. The idiocy of some people who oppose this amazes me.

WrathfulDwarf

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
Well you know that gangs will never die here

Trust me Bruce I want to see it end in my lifetime.

Devil King

Originally posted by BackFire
On the radio today I heard some spokesperson from one of the various anti gay organizations, complaining about the ruling, saying "Gay marriage being forced on the people of California is unfair" and yadda yadda. As if straight people are being forced to wed gays. The idiocy of some people who oppose this amazes me.

"If there are any here who would object to this union, let them speak now, or forever hold their peace."

See, it was god's way of institutionalizing interference in the lives of others who harm no one.

BackFire

Damn gays.

BruceSkywalker

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Trust me Bruce I want to see it end in my lifetime.

That would be very nice if it could really happen. There's been way too much damage done by gangs iver the years.

spidey-dude

Originally posted by Robtard
Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban
Constitutional initiative drive under way in state to restrict unions

SAN FRANCISCO - The California Supreme Court has overturned a ban on gay marriage, paving the way for California to become the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24649689

This is good news for Equal Rights. Maybe Utah or Texas will be next. better not be texas unless they make lezbos only can marry i wont mind that.

Devil King

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
That would be very nice if it could really happen. There's been way too much damage done by gangs iver the years.

So, what causes gangs in the first place?

Mexican machismo or American inequality? Or perhaps your own answer?

Blax_Hydralisk

Neither.

Blatant stupidity.

Devil King

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Neither.

Blatant stupidity.

See, you have to explain what blatant stupidity you're addressing.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Devil King
See, you have to explain what blatant stupidity you're addressing.

He is saying that gangs are caused by blatant stupidity.

Quiero Mota

Poverty causes gangs.

Devil King

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Poverty causes gangs.

ding-ding-ding!

Obviousness for the win.

Strangelove

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Good for them.

Darth Vicious

Originally posted by Devil King
If you're referring to gay marriage, California is glad you don't live in it too.

I was referring to gay marriage. While I dont have a problem with gay people (have a few friends myself and they are pretty cool), I draw the line at marriage. As for gangs, im hispanic, gangs are a common thing were im from(NY, CT). As for California, its not a place I would like to live in. Not for the gays or the gangs or even Ahnold, its just not appealing to me.

Devil King

Originally posted by Darth Vicious
I was referring to gay marriage. While I dont have a problem with gay people (have a few friends myself and they are pretty cool), I draw the line at marriage. As for gangs, im hispanic, gangs are a common thing were im from(NY, CT). As for California, its not a place I would like to live in. Not for the gays or the gangs or even Ahnold, its just not appealing to me.

If you draw any lines for another person based on them being gay, not only do you have a problem with homosexuality, but you have a problem with these so-called "friends".

It's not your place to draw any "lines" for another human being. The notion that it's your business is propoganda furthered by the national media and politicians.

Blax_Hydralisk

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Poverty causes gangs.

I hope you're not serious. no expression

Darth Vicious

Originally posted by Devil King
If you draw any lines for another person based on them being gay, not only do you have a problem with homosexuality, but you have a problem with these so-called "friends".

It's not your place to draw any "lines" for another human being. The notion that it's your business is propoganda furthered by the national media and politicians.

No, I do not have any problems with my gay friends but I would be the first one to tell them that i dont agree with gay marriage.

Im not drawing the line on another human being. Only in marriage, which is the union between a man and a woman. I dont think being against gay marriage is propaganda. Until gay people started coming out more openly and recently desiring to marry, it was common belief that marriage was between a man and a woman. Since gay marriage appeared in the picture(at least publicly) isnt it better to think that saying that its ok for gays to be marry propaganda? Im sure that for 1 person that dont see anything wrong with gay marriage, there are thousands that dont agree with it.

At the end of the day is about personal preference. Just because u agree with it doesnt mean I have to.

BTW and I dont mean any disrespect with the question, Are u gay?

dadudemon

Originally posted by Darth Vicious
BTW and I dont mean any disrespect with the question, Are u gay?

He is. He is available if you're looking for someone. He's handsome as well.

Devil King

Originally posted by Darth Vicious
No, I do not have any problems with my gay friends but I would be the first one to tell them that i dont agree with gay marriage.

Im not drawing the line on another human being. Only in marriage, which is the union between a man and a woman. I dont think being against gay marriage is propaganda. Until gay people started coming out more openly and recently desiring to marry, it was common belief that marriage was between a man and a woman. Since gay marriage appeared in the picture(at least publicly) isnt it better to think that saying that its ok for gays to be marry propaganda? Im sure that for 1 person that dont see anything wrong with gay marriage, there are thousands that dont agree with it.

At the end of the day is about personal preference. Just because u agree with it doesnt mean I have to.

BTW and I dont mean any disrespect with the question, Are u gay?

If it's personal, then why is it any of your business? You're the one who said "I draw the line". I didn't say having an opinion on the issue was propoganda, I said you thinking it's up to you is a product of the media and politicians telling you it's up to you. And you being the first person to tell your gay friends they will simply have to do without the same rights you have, doesn't sound like much of a friend.

Devil King

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
I hope you're not serious. no expression

Why wouldn't he be serious? If you look at every member of a gang, be they black or white or hispanic, you see that as one of the most common unifying factors in their lives.

BackFire

Originally posted by Darth Vicious
I was referring to gay marriage. While I dont have a problem with gay people (have a few friends myself and they are pretty cool), I draw the line at marriage. As for gangs, im hispanic, gangs are a common thing were im from(NY, CT). As for California, its not a place I would like to live in. Not for the gays or the gangs or even Ahnold, its just not appealing to me.

I hear you.

I have a few black friends, so clearly I'm not racist. But it bothers me that they can use the same bathrooms and drinking fountains as me.

I have nothing against blacks, though.

ElvesRule24/7

So JW, if it said in the bible that only two men and two women were allowed to be married, and that it would be a sin for a man and a women to be married, would anyone think thats fair or right? And what do you people think is a bigger sin in the eyes of Jesus or God, two people of the same-sex who are in love and want the same rights as everyone else? Or..... George W. Bush sending men and women off to fight in an unjust war so that he and his buddies ( Dick Cheney) can become more and more rich. Maybe its just me but I think the whole war for oil is much more of a sin, than gay- marriage.

dadudemon

Originally posted by ElvesRule24/7
So JW, if it said in the bible that only two men and two women were allowed to be married, and that it would be a sin for a man and a women to be married, would anyone think thats fair or right? And what do you people think is a bigger sin in the eyes of Jesus or God, two people of the same-sex who are in love and want the same rights as everyone else? Or..... George W. Bush sending men and women off to fight in an unjust war so that he and his buddies ( Dick Cheney) can become more and more rich. Maybe its just me but I think the whole war for oil is much more of a sin, than gay- marriage.

I was sort of following you until you mentioned George W.

I think that God made most homosexuals homosexual. (Genetically or maybe even when he formed their spirit.) From here, the line is blurred for me as far as right or wrong when it comes to homosexuality. What I do know is that it WOULD be a sin to deny someone the basic rights they deserve for just being human. Some of the nicest and altruistic (Christ-Like) people I have ever met were homosexuals.............I just can't see God punishing them for the way HE made them.

When we get to the next life, will they be homosexual? Maybe? Why would God damn a person to hell for something he created in them? That doesn't make sense. If homosexuality IS something that is to be overcome int this life or the next, then I will leave that up to God and not worry about it because I don't want to be judged harshly.

This is/was going towards the religion forum.

Darth Vicious

Originally posted by Devil King
If it's personal, then why is it any of your business? You're the one who said "I draw the line". I didn't say having an opinion on the issue was propoganda, I said you thinking it's up to you is a product of the media and politicians telling you it's up to you. And you being the first person to tell your gay friends they will simply have to do without the same rights you have, doesn't sound like much of a friend.

Just because i, against it doesnt mean I go telling everyone that would listen that im against gay marriage. If any of my gay friends came and say they wanted to f*** the crap out of each ohter, I would say go ahead, I dont care. If any of them say they wanna have a fruit cake party, I would say go ahead, I dont care. However if they say that they wanted to get married, I probably wouldnt say anything. If asked, I would say that im against it. I dont know ur friends but my friends would tell me if they dont agree with a choice I might make even if I aint gonna like what they have to say.

Originally posted by Devil King
Why wouldn't he be serious? If you look at every member of a gang, be they black or white or hispanic, you see that as one of the most common unifying factors in their lives.

Im sorry but "poverty" is a cheap excuse. Being poor doesnt give u the right to go around hurting people, selling drugs. On the contrary, it should drive u to better urself. Is it easier said than done? Probably not. Peer pressure can be a ***** sometimes tough.

Devil King

Originally posted by Darth Vicious
Just because i, against it doesnt mean I go telling everyone that would listen that im against gay marriage. If any of my gay friends came and say they wanted to f*** the crap out of each ohter, I would say go ahead, I dont care. If any of them say they wanna have a fruit cake party, I would say go ahead, I dont care. However if they say that they wanted to get married, I probably wouldnt say anything. If asked, I would say that im against it. I dont know ur friends but my friends would tell me if they dont agree with a choice I might make even if I aint gonna like what they have to say.

Im sorry but "poverty" is a cheap excuse. Being poor doesnt give u the right to go around hurting people, selling drugs. On the contrary, it should drive u to better urself. Is it easier said than done? Probably not. Peer pressure can be a ***** sometimes tough.

"Cheap" is an odd choice of words. "Giving people the right" is as well. Giving rights and the explanation for certain actions are not neccessarily the same thing. I doubt gang member, themselves, would cite poverty as their motivation to join a gang, or even ego. I'm sure they would also cite brotherhood or maybe peer pressure. But, as an objective outside observer, you would have to consider the shared factors. And if all you've ever known is poverty, betterment will likely not come through the option of education or hard work. They've wathed their parents work themselves to the bone, and still they're poor. So, where does advancement come? How do they make enough money to not have to kill themselves as they see their parents doing? How do they provide for their parents, and ease their suffering? From selling drugs and hurting people.

As for your position on gay marriage, all I have to work off are your own words. But, what you would or wouldn't say to one of your friends, aside, what would you do when you walk into a voting booth when faced with casting a vote on the matter? And how is you being asked to vote on it, NOT the propogation of the idea that it is up to you what another person does with their life?

Darth Vicious

I cant speak for everyone but my advancement came from going to school/college to make sure I didnt made the same mistakes my parents did and dont even say that not all people can afford college because theres financial aid, specially for poor people. Besides, half the drug dealers sell drugs to satisfy their needs, not their families. How is hurting people. How is hurting people benefiting anyone? It doesnt.

As for the booth, U already know my answer. Hell since we are both from the US, Dont u think it should be left to the people to vote on the matter? I would rather the people voted on the matter than a few politicians that may have something to gain on the matter.

BackFire

When it comes to people's rights it shouldn't be a matter of voting, because then people's illogical prejudices are allowed to dictate the outcome.

I really don't see why straight people should even be voting on gay marriage, as it won't affect them in the least.

Devil King

Originally posted by Darth Vicious
I cant speak for everyone but my advancement came from going to school/college to make sure I didnt made the same mistakes my parents did and dont even say that not all people can afford college because theres financial aid, specially for poor people. Besides, half the drug dealers sell drugs to satisfy their needs, not their families. How is hurting people. How is hurting people benefiting anyone? It doesnt.

As for the booth, U already know my answer. Hell since we are both from the US, Dont u think it should be left to the people to vote on the matter? I would rather the people voted on the matter than a few politicians that may have something to gain on the matter.

So, you had the option of going to AND paying for college. What might be considered access to "more conventional" means of betterment? Family might not be the motivating factor, but a generalized "betterment". Often, hurting others IS a method for benefitting the one who is hurting others.

Yes, I do know what you would do in the booth. Again, you are buying into the propoganda that you are to be consulted when it comes to the rights of another human being. Read the Declaration of Independance. Rights are not yours to give or revoke. But, neither are they the domain of a god, as most people think is the claim of the declaration. Rights are ours, devoid of a creator or a subscription to one. If you paint a picture, what rights does it have other than those you give it? Not to sound cliche, but Tyler Durden was right when he said our parents were our models for god. To you it's a matter of giving and taking. But what do you do when no one asked for you to give them anything? What do you do when someone finally realizes for themselves that what they want they already have, and don't need anyone to give it to them?

In your own words, it's personal. If you wouldn't tell your gay friends they shouldn't be allowed to get married, then it's not your place to walk into that booth and pass judgement on them. Don't cast a vote you're not willing to defend to others. When you decide to get married, make sure you ask the guy sitting next to you on the subway if he's okay with it.

Strangelove

Originally posted by BackFire
I hear you.

I have a few black friends, so clearly I'm not racist. But it bothers me that they can use the same bathrooms and drinking fountains as me.

I have nothing against blacks, though. Let me just say, brilliant laughing

Gov. Schwarzenggar has said that he will not support any constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and that he will uphold the CA Supreme Court's decision. Here

Leave the Republican Party already, Arnie.

Darth Vicious

Originally posted by Devil King
So, you had the option of going to AND paying for college. What might be considered access to "more conventional" means of betterment? Family might not be the motivating factor, but a generalized "betterment". Often, hurting others IS a method for benefitting the one who is hurting others.

Yes, I do know what you would do in the booth. Again, you are buying into the propoganda that you are to be consulted when it comes to the rights of another human being. Read the Declaration of Independance. Rights are not yours to give or revoke. But, neither are they the domain of a god, as most people think is the claim of the declaration. Rights are ours, devoid of a creator or a subscription to one. If you paint a picture, what rights does it have other than those you give it? Not to sound cliche, but Tyler Durden was right when he said our parents were our models for god. To you it's a matter of giving and taking. But what do you do when no one asked for you to give them anything? What do you do when someone finally realizes for themselves that what they want they already have, and don't need anyone to give it to them?

In your own words, it's personal. If you wouldn't tell your gay friends they shouldn't be allowed to get married, then it's not your place to walk into that booth and pass judgement on them. Don't cast a vote you're not willing to defend to others. When you decide to get married, make sure you ask the guy sitting next to you on the subway if he's okay with it.

So u have no answer for how hurting somebody really benefits anybody? In what way, shape of form does it benefit them?

You were the one that brought up the booth. All I meant is that something of this magnitude should be left out for the people to decide but I guess its better for the Rosies and the Ellens of the world to have a person decide whats right( be it the judge or whoever) than half the country saying they will not stand for that kinda marriage.

The subway comment really makes no sense because before I got married I asked my friends(gay, straight) if it was the right choice. I didnt mind their input. Some like the girl, some didnt. It was a matter of opinion.

The US Constitution gives me the right to say, I dont like gay marriage. It gives me the right to say, Im against it.

And thats that. No matter what u say or how u say it, my opinion wont change.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Darth Vicious
...And thats that. No matter what u say or how u say it, my opinion wont change.

Why?

Mr. Love

Why do gays need to marry? Can't they "live in sin"? shifty

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Mr. Love
Why do gays need to marry? Can't they "live in sin"? shifty

They just want the same privileges that marred people have.

Mr. Love

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
They just want the same privileges that marred people have.

What are those?

Robtard

Originally posted by Mr. Love
What are those?

Tax Deductions
Property Rights
Rigths to act on behalf of the spouse. Eg, cases of injury or death.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Mr. Love
What are those?

Joint tax returns; The ability to be with their partner if that partner was in the hospital; Joint ownership; Inheritance...

Mr. Love

Originally posted by Robtard
Tax Deductions
Property Rights
Rigths to act on behalf of the spouse. Eg, cases of injury or death.

Seems fair then they should recieve these. Can't gays marry in the U.S. then?

Robtard

Originally posted by Darth Vicious

The US Constitution gives me the right to say, I dont like gay marriage. It gives me the right to say, Im against it.

It's not an issue of you just saying it, say whatever you like, you're welcome to your opinion. But as a voter, you should have a sensible/valid reason to vote against (or support of) denying others equal rights.

So, why are you personally against it as to where you'd deny others equal rights?

Robtard

Originally posted by Mr. Love
Seems fair then they should recieve these. Can't gays marry in the U.S. then?

Only in Massachusetts so far, California might be next. This was said in the thread start, sock.

Mr. Love

Originally posted by Robtard
Only in Massachusetts so far, California might be next. This was said in the thread start, sock.

? What?

So how come so little love for the gays..... Back at you "sock". What's a sock by the way?

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Mr. Love
? What?

So how come so little love for the gays..... Back at you "sock". What's a sock by the way?

1. Christianity.
2. A sock is a person with more then one account, or a person who opens a new account when their old account is banned.

Mr. Love

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
1. Christianity.
2. A sock is a person with more then one account, or a person who opens a new account when their old account is banned.

1) Christians = Gays? wtf
2) thanks, why would he call me a sock?

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Mr. Love
1) Christians = Gays? wtf
2) thanks, why would he call me a sock?

1) No, I was saying that Christianity does not love gays.

2) He thinks you are a sock.

Mr. Love

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
1) No, I was saying that Christianity does not love gays.

2) He thinks you are a sock.

1) thumb up

2) Y

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Mr. Love
1) thumb up

2) Y

Your name, I guess.

Mr. Love

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Your name, I guess.

But he doesn't know my name. confused

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Mr. Love
But he doesn't know my name. confused

Mr. Love... are you really the dense?

Mr. Love

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Mr. Love... are you really the dense?

the what?

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Mr. Love
the what?

Thank you for that honest answer. wink

Mr. Love

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Thank you for that honest answer. wink

Devil King

Originally posted by Darth Vicious
So u have no answer for how hurting somebody really benefits anybody? In what way, shape of form does it benefit them?

You were the one that brought up the booth. All I meant is that something of this magnitude should be left out for the people to decide but I guess its better for the Rosies and the Ellens of the world to have a person decide whats right( be it the judge or whoever) than half the country saying they will not stand for that kinda marriage.

The subway comment really makes no sense because before I got married I asked my friends(gay, straight) if it was the right choice. I didnt mind their input. Some like the girl, some didnt. It was a matter of opinion.

The US Constitution gives me the right to say, I dont like gay marriage. It gives me the right to say, Im against it.

And thats that. No matter what u say or how u say it, my opinion wont change.

There is apparently no such thing as a victimless crime and if crime pays...it can't be that hard for you to understand. And I'm not saying the gang members end up living the life of Tony Montana. Most bearly get by, but they use their criminal activities as a means to keep themselves from starving to death.

My knee-jerk reaction is to just call you an idiot for not being able to understand. But, you understand what I'm saying. You just think you have something that others want to take from you. You think rights are yours to give. You suffer from that same arrogant ****ing mindset where you think you can keep your knee on someone's throat until they say uncle.

You claim to have gay friends (which I'm certain is bullshit) for whom you claim to care and respect, yet you have failed to treat them with the dignity or respect anyone else here would extend to their friends. You have no respect for them. You have no concern for their happiness or equality. You like that you think they're second class to you.

You're too ****ing arrogant to understand, I'm not trying to CHANGE your opinion, I'm trying to get you to understand it's important only to YOU. The subway comment makes perfect sense. Sure you asked your friends for advice, but did you ask them for permission? For that matter, did you walk up to a complete stranger and ask him for permission? Or even better still, did you walk up to half a ****ing country of strangers and ask for their permission? No, you didn't do any of those things. Sure the constitution guarentees you can have your opinion (...but you go on thinking you know what it says) but it does not guarentee you the right to hit someone else over the head with it.

And I appreciate you telling me that's that, mr. the man. But I'm not your wife, so I think I won't be telling people I fell down the stairs again.

Mr. Love

Originally posted by Devil King
There is apparently no such thing as a victimless crime and if crime pays...it can't be that hard for you to understand. And I'm not saying the gang members end up living the life of Tony Montana. Most bearly get by, but they use their criminal activities as a means to keep themselves from starving to death.

My knee-jerk reaction is to just call you an idiot for not being able to understand. But, you understand what I'm saying. You just think you have something that others want to take from you. You think rights are yours to give. You suffer from that same arrogant ****ing mindset where you think you can keep your knee on someone's throat until they say uncle.

You claim to have gay friends (which I'm certain is bullshit) for whom you claim to care and respect, yet you have failed to treat them with the dignity or respect anyone else here would extend to their friends. You have no respect for them. You have no concern for their happiness or equality. You like that you think they're second class to you.

You're too ****ing arrogant to understand, I'm not trying to CHANGE your opinion, I'm trying to get you to understand it's important only to YOU. The subway comment makes perfect sense. Sure you asked your friends for advice, but did you ask them for permission? For that matter, did you walk up to a complete stranger and ask him for permission? Or even better still, did you ask half the ****ing country for their permission? No, you didn't do any of those things. Sure the constitution guarentees you can have your opinion (...but you go on thinking you know what it says) but it does not guarentee you the right to hit someone else over the head with it.

And I appreciate you telling me that's that, mr. the man. But I'm not your wife, so I think I won't be telling people I fell down the stairs again.

Whoah... Why the hissy fit dude?

Devil King

Originally posted by Mr. Love
Whoah... Why the hissy fit dude?

blow me sock.

Mr. Love

Originally posted by Devil King
blow me.

laughing

Darth Vicious

Originally posted by Devil King
There is apparently no such thing as a victimless crime and if crime pays...it can't be that hard for you to understand. And I'm not saying the gang members end up living the life of Tony Montana. Most bearly get by, but they use their criminal activities as a means to keep themselves from starving to death.

My knee-jerk reaction is to just call you an idiot for not being able to understand. But, you understand what I'm saying. You just think you have something that others want to take from you. You think rights are yours to give. You suffer from that same arrogant ****ing mindset where you think you can keep your knee on someone's throat until they say uncle.

You claim to have gay friends (which I'm certain is bullshit) for whom you claim to care and respect, yet you have failed to treat them with the dignity or respect anyone else here would extend to their friends. You have no respect for them. You have no concern for their happiness or equality. You like that you think they're second class to you.

You're too ****ing arrogant to understand, I'm not trying to CHANGE your opinion, I'm trying to get you to understand it's important only to YOU. The subway comment makes perfect sense. Sure you asked your friends for advice, but did you ask them for permission? For that matter, did you walk up to a complete stranger and ask him for permission? Or even better still, did you walk up to half a ****ing country of strangers and ask for their permission? No, you didn't do any of those things. Sure the constitution guarentees you can have your opinion (...but you go on thinking you know what it says) but it does not guarentee you the right to hit someone else over the head with it.

And I appreciate you telling me that's that, mr. the man. But I'm not your wife, so I think I won't be telling people I fell down the stairs again.

laughing

I never said they have to ask for my permission and I never said I asked for their permission. I asked for their OPINION and gave my OPINION on the subject and no matter how u may try to rationalize it to get ur belief that gay people should marry, is not going to change my opinion that GAY MARRIAGE IS A DISGRACE TO THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. If 2 homosexuals wanna go play house, bake a fruit cake, go ahead but they shouldnt get married.

Do I have to agree with every single thing a friend of mine do because I respect them? Hell no! If they wanna get married, I aint going to stop them but I will tell them that I dont agree with their decision and because I respect them, I will tell them to their face.

As for the gang members, I have never met not one that have said "I think Ill join a gang, beat up people and steal their money because I need to pay some bills". Most the gang members I know(yes, I know a few) get into gangs for either it makes them cool, they protection they think the gang brings and to make money for themselves. For the cars, the jewelry, the clothes etc. Do they give some of that money to their families? Probably but thats not their main reason to do it.

Devil King

Originally posted by Darth Vicious
I never said they have to ask for my permission

You do if you think it's up to you, which you clearly do when you walk into a voting booth.

Originally posted by Darth Vicious
:and I never said I asked for their permission.

I never said you did. In fact, I said you didn't. But you seem to think gay people should be forced to ask you for permission, which you have clearly stated you would deny them. If you would deny them, then clearly permission is being asked.

Originally posted by Darth Vicious
:GAY MARRIAGE IS A DISGRACE

BUT, you apparently

Originally posted by Darth Vicious
:respect them?

Originally posted by Darth Vicious
THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN.

It's sanctified when it's between a man and a woman. But if any of your supposed gay friends want to get married, it's really just

Originally posted by Darth Vicious
play house bak a fruit cake

While I'm sure they appreciate your permission in these instances, life involves more than this for most human beings. I bet all your gay friends really appreciate how you feel about them.

Originally posted by Darth Vicious
Do I have to agree with every single thing a friend of mine do because I respect them? Hell no! If they wanna get married, I aint going to stop them but I will tell them that I dont agree with their decision and because I respect them, I will tell them to their face.

You don't have to agree with them on what they wear, who they want to be president, how much money they invest in stocks, which car insurance to go with, what type of bread to buy or any number of other things. But it would likely help if you agreed they were human beings that deserve the same right you do. And if you'd vote to ban gay marriage, you are stopping them. If these so-called gay friends even exist, I doubt you've told them they're second class to yourself. And if you have and they stuck around, they're desperate friendless idiots.

Originally posted by Darth Vicious
:As for the gang members, I have never met not one that have said "I think Ill join a gang, beat up people and steal their money because I need to pay some bills". Most the gang members I know(yes, I know a few) get into gangs for either it makes them cool, they protection they think the gang brings and to make money for themselves. For the cars, the jewelry, the clothes etc. Do they give some of that money to their families? Probably but thats not their main reason to do it.

I'm sure you would honestly ask them why they're in a gang, and more over, I'm sure they'd answer it honestly. In fact, your response shows a clear desire not to understand the point. But, then again, you think your friends are beneath you, so you likely don't have much in the way of scruples.

Darth Vicious

Originally posted by Devil King
You do if you think it's up to you, which you clearly do when you walk into a voting booth.
Again u were the one that brought up the f*ing booth in the first place. I said something like this should be let to the people to decide. Whos to say the judge that lifted the ban has a gay lover somewhere and in the long run it benefits him. Defend him, I knowu will!

I never said you did. In fact, I said you didn't. But you seem to think gay people should be forced to ask you for permission, which you have clearly stated you would deny them. If you would deny them, then clearly permission is being asked.

Since u so good at dissecting posts. Look through all mine and tell me when I said they have to ask me or anyone else for that matter for permission.

BUT, you apparently

If by me not agreeing with them getting married means not respecting them. I guess I dont.

It's sanctified when it's between a man and a woman. But if any of your supposed gay friends want to get married, it's really just

Like I said before, its up to them. I WONT AGREE with it but is up to them. They dont have to like my opinion or not get married because I dont agree with it.

While I'm sure they appreciate your permission in these instances, life involves more than this for most human beings. I bet all your gay friends really appreciate how you feel about them.

The permission subject was already covered. I dont feel any diffrent than when the ban was still in place. My OPINION on gay marriage still stand!

You don't have to agree with them on what they wear, who they want to be president, how much money they invest in stocks, which car insurance to go with, what type of bread to buy or any number of other things. But it would likely help if you agreed they were human beings that deserve the same right you do. And if you'd vote to ban gay marriage, you are stopping them. If these so-called gay friends even exist, I doubt you've told them they're second class to yourself. And if you have and they stuck around, they're desperate friendless idiots.

Like I said already, I dont always like their opinion/stand on a particular subject and Im sure they feel the same. Maybe in ur fruity loops world everybody agrees with everybody and nobody has a diffrent opinion.

I'm sure you would honestly ask them why they're in a gang, and more over, I'm sure they'd answer it honestly. In fact, your response shows a clear desire not to understand the point. But, then again, you think your friends are beneath you, so you likely don't have much in the way of scruples.

Im inclined to call u a f*ing moron but im sure u r just too arrogant to understand. Im hispanic. I a lot of this guys. If u knew anything, when u have boys in the street, there aint need to lie. They pretty upfront. Will they be upfront with a cop? Hell no but theres no need to lie to one of the boys, specially when the 2 of u have known each other since kids. This I dont expect u to understand.

And frankly thats it. Theres no need to be discussing the subject because neither me nor u will change our stand on the subject,no matter what the other says.

Robtard

BackFire

Why should people with prejudices decide what rights other people are allowed to have while not having to worry about sacrificing their own rights?

Answer: They shouldn't.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by BackFire
Why should people with prejudices decide what rights other people are allowed to have while not having to worry about sacrificing their own rights?

Because it's a democracy . . .

Robtard

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because it's a democracy . . .

So Blacks should go back to being slaves, or at the very least, riding in back of the bus and using a different toilet, because it's a democracy?

smoker4

B - black people use my toilet?

Schecter

screw that. i aint catchin no negroid crabs

Robtard

Originally posted by smoker4
B - black people use my toilet?

Relax, don't worry yourself. They only drink out of it.

Quiero Mota

Originally posted by Devil King
blow me sock.

He has a point though; you did fly off the handle.

Originally posted by Robtard
So Blacks should go back to being slaves, or at the very least, riding in back of the bus and using a different toilet, because it's a democracy?

Comparing the gay rights movement of today to the Civil Rights movements of the 1960's is ridiculous and an insult to those black people. It isn't even a fair a comparison, Carlos Mencia did a segment a couple years ago saying what I'm saying, and he had two video clips. With the first one he said "This is what happened when black people marched:" and the video was old black-&-white footage of blacks in the street being sprayed by water-cannons and sicked-on by police dogs. In the next clip he said "Now this is what happens when gay people march:" and the video showed a bunch of half-naked gays marching in some San Fransisco street to "I Will Survive" and twirling batons. And Carlos said "Yeah...kind of a difference, right?". And he's right on the money. Other than not being able to get married or join the military, gays aren't really missing out on too much.

Schecter

way to oversimplify

Robtard

Quiero Mota

Originally posted by Robtard

Edit: Let me ask you a question, if Latinos were suddenly denied the same marriage tax breaks, would it be wrong for them to complain about not having equal rights, because aferall, the Blacks had it worse in the past?

It would be a violation of the 1965 Civil Rights Act.

Robtard

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It would be a violation of the 1965 Civil Rights Act.

So, they wouldn't be really missing out on too much, just a few marriage tax breaks.

Quiero Mota

Originally posted by Robtard
So, they wouldn't be really missing out on too much, just a few marriage tax breaks.

You're both missing the point and being a smart-ass. You're example would violate an in-place law, gays not being able to marry doesn't.

And my original point was comparing this to the 60's is absurd.

Schecter

ok, let me play.

so blacks weren't able to march and hollar or vote. boohoo life goes on.

everything can seem ridiculous when you oversimplfy the problem and fudge the premise.

lets see how a gay rights march pans out in kansas or memphis.

Robtard

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
You're both missing the point and being a smart-ass. You're example would violate an in-place law, gays not being able to marry doesn't.

And my original point was comparing this to the 60's is absurd.

Gays not being able to marry is a violation of equal rights, they're being discriminated against because of sexual preference. Simple fact.

Just because it wasn't illegal to bar blacks from schools and women from jobs prior to the Civil Rights act of 1964, didn't make it right, just or equal, did it?

It's about equal rights, so why not compare it to another (albeit worse) equal rights violation of the past?

Devil King

Originally posted by Darth Vicious
Again u were the one that brought up the f*ing booth in the first place. I said something like this should be let to the people to decide. Whos to say the judge that lifted the ban has a gay lover somewhere and in the long run it benefits him. Defend him, I knowu will!

Yes, I did bring it up. It was a good way to illustrate how you think your opinion should matter to the legality of another person getting married. And I also said you think it's up to you because the media and the politicians have told you it should be. My point is and always has been that it's none of your business. If it were the business of anyone other than the two people involved, then you should remember when your right to get married was an issue placed on a ballot being voted on by people you don't know and who do not know you. If it were the business of anyone other than the two people involved, you should, having gotten married yourself, remember when you asked a complete stranger for his or her opinion on your descision to get married. As it is, you don't seem to recall either of those things happening.

Originally posted by Darth Vicious
Since u so good at dissecting posts. Look through all mine and tell me when I said they have to ask me or anyone else for that matter for permission.

Originally posted by Darth Vicious
As for the booth, U already know my answer.

Originally posted by Devil King
Yes, I do know what you would do in the booth. Again, you are buying into the propoganda that you are to be consulted when it comes to the rights of another human being. Rights are not yours to give or revoke.

Originally posted by Darth Vicious
If by me not agreeing with them getting married means not respecting them. I guess I dont.

Nope, you don't respect them because you think they're destroying the sanctity of your marriage and the institution of marriage by daring to want one of their own.

Originally posted by Darth Vicious
Like I said before, its up to them. I WONT AGREE with it but is up to them. They dont have to like my opinion or not get married because I dont agree with it.

Again, my aim is not for you to change your mind, it's to convey the reality that it is none of your business, despite you having said that you would walk into a voting booth and cast a ballot for the continued prevention of their rights.

Originally posted by Darth Vicious
The permission subject was already covered. I dont feel any diffrent than when the ban was still in place. My OPINION on gay marriage still stand!

Yes, it was covered, but I don't recall you explaining to me which strangers granted you and your wife the permission to get married. Your OPINION doesn't need to change. That has not been my intention.

Originally posted by Darth Vicious
Like I said already, I dont always like their opinion/stand on a particular subject and Im sure they feel the same. Maybe in ur fruity loops world everybody agrees with everybody and nobody has a diffrent opinion.

For the third time in one post, I will tell you that I don't care if you agree or disagree with gay marriage. I will also reiterate that your opinion should not magically give you the right to prevent another person from getting married, and that is exactly what voting on the issue implies.

Originally posted by Darth Vicious
Im inclined to call u a f*ing moron but im sure u r just too arrogant to understand. Im hispanic. I a lot of this guys. If u knew anything, when u have boys in the street, there aint need to lie. They pretty upfront. Will they be upfront with a cop? Hell no but theres no need to lie to one of the boys, specially when the 2 of u have known each other since kids. This I dont expect u to understand.

And frankly thats it. Theres no need to be discussing the subject because neither me nor u will change our stand on the subject,no matter what the other says.

So, there are a lot of rich gay hispanic gang members running the streets? What's hard to understand about lying to a cop and telling your friend the truth?

Oh, and I realize you think you're insulting me by throwing out "fruity" and "fruit cake" every time you referrence homosexuals, but all you're really doing is proving you have no gay friends and really DO have a problem with them.

BackFire

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
He has a point though; you did fly off the handle.

Comparing the gay rights movement of today to the Civil Rights movements of the 1960's is ridiculous and an insult to those black people. It isn't even a fair a comparison, Carlos Mencia did a segment a couple years ago saying what I'm saying, and he had two video clips. With the first one he said "This is what happened when black people marched:" and the video was old black-&-white footage of blacks in the street being sprayed by water-cannons and sicked-on by police dogs. In the next clip he said "Now this is what happens when gay people march:" and the video showed a bunch of half-naked gays marching in some San Fransisco street to "I Will Survive" and twirling batons. And Carlos said "Yeah...kind of a difference, right?". And he's right on the money. Other than not being able to get married or join the military, gays aren't really missing out on too much.

You spectacularly miss the point.

There is one glaring and HUGE thing in common. There are rights being withheld! This idea that "well, marriage isn't that big of a deal, so who cares" is bunk. Withholding rights from someone is unacceptable, regardless of the magnitude.

Also, Mencia - a thrid rate comedian - is not a real source to base an argument on. Just because gay people aren't being beaten doesn't mean it's okay to deny them rights.

Quiero Mota

Originally posted by Schecter

lets see how a gay rights march pans out in kansas or memphis.

It would be a circus in Kansas, because that's home of the WBC.

I think Memphis would be friendlier to it. Memphis is a historical hotspot of social movements, as a matter of fact, its where Dr. King was killed.

Originally posted by Robtard
Gays not being able to marry is a violation of equal rights, they're being discriminated against because of sexual preference. Simple fact.

Just because it wasn't illegal to bar blacks from schools and women from jobs prior to the Civil Rights act of 1964, didn't make it right, just or equal, did it?

It's about equal rights, so why not compare it to another (albeit worse) equal rights violation of the past?

Because its an insult to the blacks who were marching in Birmingham in the 60's, and were being beaten by cops and mauled by dogs.

Robtard

Originally posted by BackFire
You spectacularly miss the point.

There is one glaring and HUGE thing in common. There are rights being withheld! This idea that "well, marriage isn't that big of a deal, so who cares" is bunk. Withholding rights from someone is unacceptable, regardless of the magnitude.

It'd be nice if every "what's the big deal, it's just one thing" crowd were to step up and do away with one 'equal righ't they have, be it their marriage rights, right to vote, freedom of speech or what have you.

Schecter

Originally posted by Quiero Mota

Because its an insult to the blacks who were marching in Birmingham in the 60's, and were being beaten by cops and mauled by dogs.

thats a particular incident and not the culmination of the civil rights movement. civil rights movement: the demanding of a minority to have the same rights bestowed upon them as the majority.

i would like to see a quote where anyone claimed that gays suffer the same abuse from police as those protesters, since that is clearly what you are implying and arguing against.

Devil King

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because it's a democracy . . .

And what vote was taken to guarentee the rights of white heterosexual couples to marry?

Schecter

"its a democracy" has no place in an ethics debate.

Robtard

Originally posted by Quiero Mota

Because its an insult to the blacks who were marching in Birmingham in the 60's, and were being beaten by cops and mauled by dogs.

Odd that you ignore my other two points, oh well.

No one is saying, "gays are worse off than the blacks were", but just, it's a violation of equal rights, like in the past. I fail to see the insult.

Quiero Mota

Originally posted by Schecter
thats a particular incident and not the culmination of the civil rights movement. civil rights movement: the demanding of a minority to have the same rights bestowed upon them as the majority.

i would like to see a quote where anyone claimed that gays suffer the same abuse from police as those protesters, since that is clearly what you are implying and arguing against.

Robtard brought it up, and I pointed out that it was no where equal. Not even close.

Robtard

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Robtard brought it up, and I pointed out that it was no where equal. Not even close.

My response was to the "it's a democracy" comment, which was in response to BF's 'people shouldn't have the right to vote in oppressing people.'

It had nothing to do with me saying "gays are suffering as bad or worse than the blacks did", as you seem to think I did.

Edit: A lesser equal rights violation, is still an equal rights violation. Then again, it could all be subjective, who's to say there isn't a gay couple who couldn't care less about voting, but would really want to be married.

Schecter

Originally posted by Robtard
So Blacks should go back to being slaves, or at the very least, riding in back of the bus and using a different toilet, because it's a democracy?

he was simply bringing up the point that:

Originally posted by Schecter
"its a democracy" has no place in an ethics debate.

then you went off on a carlos mencia tangent

Devil King

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
the video showed a bunch of half-naked gays marching in some San Fransisco street to "I Will Survive" and twirling batons.

and that's pretty much all you see when you think of a gay man, isn't it?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Other than not being able to get married or join the military, gays aren't really missing out on too much.

So, other than being equal citizens, they're equal in every way?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
And my original point was comparing this to the 60's is absurd.

Why do you think the blacks got all uppity in the 60's?

Devil King

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Because its an insult to the blacks who were marching in Birmingham in the 60's, and were being beaten by cops and mauled by dogs.

Since homosexuals have no nerve endings, I'm sure Matthew Shepard or any number of other beaten and murdered gays didn't feel a thing.

chillmeistergen

Always pretty entertaining. It's a prime example of the hypocritical approach of some people, "I'm for one equal rights issue, as long as it isn't against a deity, or something I wouldn't do". ****ing pathetic, equal rights are equal rights - they're not f*cking you, your wife or your post man - why do you care what other people do?

Schecter

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Aor your post man

i BETTER not be gettin no faggity mail!!!

Quiero Mota

Originally posted by Devil King
and that's pretty much all you see when you think of a gay man, isn't it?

No. I've known gay men who dress, talk and act straight.

He juxtaposed the two clips to make a point.

Originally posted by Devil King

So, other than being equal citizens, they're equal in every way?

Have you ever had to eat in a gay-only section of a restaurant? Drink out of a gay-only fountain? Use a gay-only bathroom? I rest my case.

Your state has legalized gay marriage, and I really don't see you wanting to join the Army, so you have nothing to complain about.

Originally posted by Devil King

Why do you think the blacks got all uppity in the 60's?

Because Plessy v. Ferguson was bullshit.

chillmeistergen

Actually, they could be ****ing your post man. Don't worry though, you'll know from his strut if he's gay.

Robtard

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Have you ever had to eat in a gay-only section of a restaurant? Drink out of a gay-only fountain? Use a gay-only bathroom? I rest my case.

He's lucky being a *** and all (and probably grateful) that other people had to fight for those rights to be equal to all.

Again, if it's a matter of "it's only two things, marriage and the army, why are you complaining". Would you please be the first to give up two rights, like voting and the right to a trial?

Devil King

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Have you ever had to eat in a gay-only section of a restaurant? Drink out of a gay-only fountain? Use a gay-only bathroom? I rest my case.

Your state has legalized gay marriage, and I really don't see you wanting to join the Army, so you have nothing to complain about.

Because Plessy v. Ferguson was bullshit.

So Plessy was it? That's where it all started?

Has anyone like me ever been murdered, beaten or denied rights based on something they have no control over?

Oh, so California (read: batton spinning ****) is going to do it, I shouldn't worry about it being illegal in everywhere else? That's a leap. Gosh, blacks were free in Illinois, why did they get all uppity in Alabama?

Devil King

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
No. I've known gay men who dress, talk and act straight.

And they're the only ones who should be accepted?

And, I'm fairly certain that as a "stright" man, you've never stuck your erect penis into another man's anus. So, I'm not sure I subscribe to the idea that there is such a thing as a "straight acting" gay man.

Schecter

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Actually, they could be ****ing your post man. Don't worry though, you'll know from his strut if he's gay.

cant be too careful. just to be safe im going to invite my mailman up to my apartment and butt**** him. if he even hints like he's enjoying it i'll kick his teeth in.

Quiero Mota

Originally posted by Devil King
And they're the only ones who should be accepted?

And, I'm fairly certain that as a "stright" man, you've never stuck your erect penis into another man's anus. So, I'm not sure I subscribe to the idea that there is such a thing as a "straight acting" gay man.

What do I mean by a "straight acting" gay man?

This: they wear t-shirts and jeans (and clothing otherwise considered "male" wink

Devil King

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
What do I mean by a "straight acting" gay man?

This: they wear t-shirts and jeans (and clothing otherwise considered "male" wink

. Don't dye their hair bright, neon, unnatural colors. Don't talk with a lisp or sound like they're holding their nose shut. Don't have effeminate hand movements, and aren't extremely animated and hyper.

In other words, you'd never guess that they're gay, and be pretty surprised when you learned that they were. I'm sure you've known gay guys like that.

I know what you mean by "straight acting". I've simply never encountered a gay man that would meet your requirements on every level; which is why the term is complete bullshit.

And what does it matter that you guessed they are gay and actually are? Is this the basis on which you would deny that person rights? Male doesn't exist in quotation marks. Macho might, but not male. And what does it matter if they are gay? You speak with such disdain about these characteristics, but would likely find them attractive and acceptable from a woman? And the fact that you speak of them with such disdain addresses how ignorant and subservient you must think women are and should be. I'm really not trying to put words or intention in your mouth, but it's the same reason you thought I was incapable of getting in someone's face or standing up for myself because I'm gay.

Quiero Mota

Originally posted by Devil King
I know what you mean by "straight acting". I've simply never encountered a gay man that would meet your requirements on every level; which is why the term is complete bullshit.

And what does it matter that you guessed they are gay and actually are? Is this the basis on which you would deny that person rights? Male doesn't exist in quotation marks. Macho might, but not male. And what does it matter if they are gay? You speak with such disdain about these characteristics, but would likely find them attractive and acceptable from a woman? And the fact that you speak of them with such disdain addresses how ignorant and subservient you must think women are and should be. I'm really not trying to put words or intention in your mouth, but it's the same reason you thought I was incapable of getting in someone's face or standing up for myself because I'm gay.

That's not why I can't see you getting in people's faces. Its because I've seen photos of you, and you're not very intimidating.

Being gay has nothing to do with it. If Mike Tyson one day came out, I could still see him mad-dogging people and getting into bar brawls.

Devil King

That isn't a response to my point. You think less of an effiminate gay man than you do a "straight acting" gay man, because you seem to think they not conforming to your definition of social norms is some sort of personal affront to you doing it.

As for my phyiscal stature, it is a continuation of your stereotyping that a man has to be 6 and a half feet tall, broad shouldered and macho to be intimidating. Try being 5'7, skinny and shit on by public opinion and you'd develop a different approach. In fact, it's that assumption that has led to them thinking because they are 6'5 and straight that they're caught off guard and reduced to uncomfortable shifting and starring at their own hands. A man isn't a man because he sleeps with women, is tall or physically strong. And by the same virtue, he isn't dismissable because he's short, listens to dance music or trims his eyebrows.

Adam_PoE

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Comparing the gay rights movement of today to the Civil Rights movements of the 1960's is ridiculous and an insult to those black people. It isn't even a fair a comparison, Carlos Mencia did a segment a couple years ago saying what I'm saying, and he had two video clips. With the first one he said "This is what happened when black people marched:" and the video was old black-&-white footage of blacks in the street being sprayed by water-cannons and sicked-on by police dogs. In the next clip he said "Now this is what happens when gay people march:" and the video showed a bunch of half-naked gays marching in some San Fransisco street to "I Will Survive" and twirling batons. And Carlos said "Yeah...kind of a difference, right?". And he's right on the money. Other than not being able to get married or join the military, gays aren't really missing out on too much.

Prior to 1962, homosexuality was a felony in every state, punishable by a lengthy term of imprisonment, with or without hard labor.

Between 1962 and 2003, homosexuality was reduced to a misdemeanor in many states, with punishments varying widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, e.g. in Idaho, homosexuality could theoretically earn a life sentence; and in Michigan, homosexuality was punishable by a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment, with a life sentence for repeat offenders.

It was not until 2003 that the the US Supreme Court ruled that private sexual conduct is protected by the liberty rights implicit in the due process clause of the United States Constitution, decriminalizing noncommercial conduct in private between consenting civilian adults, and overruling an earlier ruling from 1986 in which the law had been upheld.

The ruling followed from an incident in 1998 in which two men were arrested in their home because they were alleged to have been engaging in consensual anal sex.

In the past 145 years, one could not be arrested in his home and sentenced to life in prison simply because he is black. Yet, this has been happening to gays as recently as 5-10 years ago.

Devil King

1IHdaJOZe7E&hl

dadudemon

Originally posted by Schecter
"its a democracy" has no place in an ethics debate.

Unfortunately, it has a place. Else there be debate?

Edit- And before anyone says it (Robtard), I get the point of his post.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Prior to 1962, homosexuality was a felony in every state, punishable by a lengthy term of imprisonment, with or without hard labor.

Between 1962 and 2003, homosexuality was reduced to a misdemeanor in many states, with punishments varying widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, e.g. in Idaho, homosexuality could theoretically earn a life sentence; and in Michigan, homosexuality was punishable by a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment, with a life sentence for repeat offenders.

It was not until 2003 that the the US Supreme Court ruled that private sexual conduct is protected by the liberty rights implicit in the due process clause of the United States Constitution, decriminalizing noncommercial conduct in private between consenting civilian adults, and overruling an earlier ruling from 1986 in which the law had been upheld.

The ruling followed from an incident in 1998 in which two men were arrested in their home because they were alleged to have been engaging in consensual anal sex.

In the past 145 years, one could not be arrested in his home and sentenced to life in prison simply because he is black. Yet, this has been happening to gays as recently as 5-10 years ago.

Awesome points. thumb up

I didn't know it was that shitty so recently on the books for homosexuals.

Robtard

Originally posted by dadudemon
Unfortunately, it has a place. Else there be debate?

Edit- And before anyone says it (Robtard), I get the point of his post.

Awesome points. thumb up

I didn't know it was that shitty so recently on the books for homosexuals.

I don't think you did, but okay.

Read up on:

Bowers v. Hardwick 1986

Lawrence v. Texas 2003

chithappens

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Prior to 1962, homosexuality was a felony in every state, punishable by a lengthy term of imprisonment, with or without hard labor.

Between 1962 and 2003, homosexuality was reduced to a misdemeanor in many states, with punishments varying widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, e.g. in Idaho, homosexuality could theoretically earn a life sentence; and in Michigan, homosexuality was punishable by a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment, with a life sentence for repeat offenders.

It was not until 2003 that the the US Supreme Court ruled that private sexual conduct is protected by the liberty rights implicit in the due process clause of the United States Constitution, decriminalizing noncommercial conduct in private between consenting civilian adults, and overruling an earlier ruling from 1986 in which the law had been upheld.

The ruling followed from an incident in 1998 in which two men were arrested in their home because they were alleged to have been engaging in consensual anal sex.

In the past 145 years, one could not be arrested in his home and sentenced to life in prison simply because he is black. Yet, this has been happening to gays as recently as 5-10 years ago.

And yet there are two major points you are leaving out in comparing it to black people and the civil rights movement:

1) I can't look at a gay person from the jump and not without a doubt that said person is gay. You can't say the same for a race.

2) "I'm not gay, i just have sex with other men" is a large part of culture that is often looked over. So often times, homosexuality is defined very broadly.

Robtard

Once again, I don't think anyone is saying "this is worse", but they are similar, they're both civil rights violations.

1) If you had 'gaydar' you could.

2) That is something ONLY Conservatives would use, usually when they get caught with their pants down and being hypocrites. . I also doubt it's highly used, so I don't know how "large" it is in society.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't think you did, but okay.

I don't want to get in a long ass debate about this, ergo my comment.

I understand his point and I agree with it. I was commenting on the fact that opposers of giving homosexuals equal rights ARE given an influential political forum and even exercise their authority to voice and vote with their opinions which has, "unfortunately", delayed homosexuals the rights they should of had in the first place.

Originally posted by Robtard
Read up on:

Bowers v. Hardwick 1986

Lawrence v. Texas 2003

Thanks for the links...I'm readin' 'em now.

chithappens

Originally posted by Robtard
Once again, I don't think anyone is saying "this is worse", but they are similar, they're both civil rights violations.

1) If you had 'gaydar' you could.

2) That is something ONLY Conservatives would use, usually when they get caught with their pants down and being hypocrites. . I also doubt it's highly used, so I don't know how "large" it is in society.

1) Well, if it works like Halo, once they stop moving they are undetectable.

2) By large I mean in comparison to how it is discussed.

Historical speaking, Greek fraternities were built on the philosophies of Plato (or Socrates, I forget which one) who said that men could not trust other men because they would seek their status. Men could only have friendships with young boys because they would not aspire to overthrow them. This friendship was consummated at toga parties and blah blah blah.

Recently, there is a underground culture among black males that's been called the "down low."

Down Low (Wiki)

Basically it's when a black man is having sex with both men and women but does not tell his girlfriend and so on. These men claim they have sex with men but they don't "want" men. Don't ask, I'm not sure either.

It's not as rare a thing as I had once thought even two years ago before doing a little research.

Robtard

I first learned about the "down low" bit from an episode of CSI, sometime back.

Those men are either gay or bisexual, I don't buy that "I'm not gay, I just prefer a male's anus." If anything truly deserves a "nigga please" remark, it's that.

chithappens

Wow, they talked about that on CSI. That's gone a long way since first discussed on Oprah in 2005, I think it was.

Robtard

A man had murdered his friend, because they were having sex and he had given him HIV, which in turn the man gave to his wife, who wasn't aware that her husband was "down low", with his friends.

chithappens

I think I saw that one! Weren't they saying they were playing poker with the guys but they ended up having sex?

Killer was the bald black guy?

dadudemon

Originally posted by Robtard
If anything truly deserves a "nigga please" remark, it's that.

laughing

Robtard

Originally posted by chithappens
I think I saw that one! Weren't they saying they were playing poker with the guys but they ended up having sex?

Killer was the bald black guy?

Yes, sounds about right.

chithappens

Wow, I do remember that.

Funny that the whole thing is forgotten, in popular culture, as quickly as it came.

Robtard

Conspiracy by Blacks (males) to hide the fact thay they're all gay for cock?

chithappens

Honestly, hip hop is embedded with lots of "suggestive" lyrics.

In the 90s, west coast rappers used "suck my dick" as an insult. To this day, my friends try to say, "it's just how they talk," but seriously, there are plenty of ways to insult a man. That's not one of them.

ragesRemorse

Are gay people really concerned about being legitimately married or do they just want the same rights that the partnership of marriage brings?

I can understand peoples point of view when it comes to allowing gay marriage. I don't agree with it. If it's going to make someone happy to say that they are married to another human being then let them have that right. If people can marry their pets, yet, gay marriage is illegal that seems to be sending the message that gay people are lower than dogs. However, i do not understand when people argue that gay partners cannot share the same rights that a straight married couple has. They contribute as much to this society as anyone else. They pay for their rights, why are they denied them?

Devil King

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
Are gay people really concerned about being legitimately married or do they just want the same rights that the partnership of marriage brings?

I can understand peoples point of view when it comes to allowing gay marriage. I don't agree with it. If it's going to make someone happy to say that they are married to another human being then let them have that right. If people can marry their pets, yet, gay marriage is illegal that seems to be sending the message that gay people are lower than dogs. However, i do not understand when people argue that gay partners cannot share the same rights that a straight married couple has. They contribute as much to this society as anyone else. They pay for their rights, why are they denied them?

Lot's of rage, but very little remorse.

You're just trying to stir the turd.

Are straight people really concerned about the supposed disappearance of sanctity in their own marriages that they would deny that legality to another couple based on sexual orientation? Yes.

The intimacy of your marriage shouldn't be effected by the marriage of your brother's marriage, yet that is the argument of most who deny rights to homosexuals. Marriage is supposedly sacred only when entered into by a man and a woman, but you can never justify why it can't be sacred between two women, without falling back on god.