gftChris Posted January 15, 2014 Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/oklahoma-ban-on-gay-marriage-ruled-unconstitutional/article_85e88366-7d68-11e3-ab41-001a4bcf6878.html Oklahoma passed the amendment in 2004 with a 75% majority, but 10 years later it's overturned. Said the judge of one of the plaintiff couples: "The Bishop couple has been in a loving, committed relationships for many years," the judge said. "They own property together, wish to retire together, wish to make medical decisions for one another, and wish to be recognized as a married couple with all its attendant rights and responsibilities." But Oklahoma's constitutional amendment "excludes the Bishop couple, and all otherwise eligible same-sex couples, from this privilege without a legally sufficient justification," Kern said. ...aaaaand go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted January 15, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 btw, I thought this deserved a new topic because a supreme court ruling saying something is unconstitutional is probably a landmark judgement, and you'll struggle to pass a law banning gay marriage anywhere in the US now, assuming the ruling survives appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 15, 2014 Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 I have no problem with gay marriage what so ever. But I do think it's probably time the United States of America removed "democracy" from our list of ingredients. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyceRolls Posted January 15, 2014 Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 It's all fluff. The government has no place in marriage to begin with. Want to marry a pair of Charlie's angels toe socks? I'll throw the fucking rice. Numerous meaningless distractions going on but no one wants to talk about the fact that the majority of our income tax isn't going towards infrastructure or public welfare, but instead to pay down interest on a debt we (the American citizens) never incurred. The military industrial complex is making obscene amounts of money with no investment apart from Human lives and debt that falls upon the citizens. It's a brilliant scheme, evil as all hell, but brilliant. Unfortunately the president of the United States is just a commodity that is bought and paid for like a gallon of milk. All the while the corporate media is perpetuating the laughable notion that voting matters even though here are many things that we don't have a say in (George W. Obama's criminal foreign policy, our fiat currency system etc. etc.) Ehhh, but who cares as long as we have the NFL, a new iPhone every year and ice cream cake. Goddamn this country is going down the shitter. I know I'm way off topic here, but the gay marriage thing is a done deal, the writing is on the wall. Of course they'll milk it for all it's worth before drumming up another distraction/fear tactic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted January 15, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 I have no problem with gay marriage what so ever. But I do think it's probably time the United States of America removed "democracy" from our list of ingredients. WSS Democracy isn't always the best option. People are stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dste Ace Posted January 15, 2014 Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 Democracy isn't always the best option. People are stupid. "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." --Winston Churchill Boy, if that ain't the fuckin' truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted January 15, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Another churchill classic. My favourite, though, has to be when Lady Astor said to Churchill, "If you were my husband, I'd poison your tea," to which he responded, "Madam, if you were my wife, I'd drink it!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted January 15, 2014 Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 I've read all of his supposed comebacks and insults on the internet. Dude was a clever, funny asshole lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted January 15, 2014 Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 And his parrot may still be alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 So would you like to ban all bad ideas? Who gets to decide what a bad idea is? I think religion is a bad idea, can I ban that too? Luckily it is a matter of public opinion, and it looks like your side is fading away like record players and black and white TV. So, if it does not affect you, why do you care? It does not affect me directly either, but I am not so wrapped up in outdated ideals that I can tell when something is right or wrong. What perverted crap are your kids gonna see? Do you think two dudes banging in the butt will be part of their next science class? No need to be so paranoid. You are going to go out into the forest with your kids and which birds fuck? Weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 which ? At least they would be heterosexual, normal birds, Why would you WATCH birds get it on, anyways, you idiot? The feathers would get in the way of seeing anything. Have you ever even been near a tree in your life? birdbrain woodpecker. Watch it, woodpecker, you just used "which" instead of "watch". Watch your "whiches", learn to "reason" and get which word to use, and "which" wasn't it. No go call somebody a "exists" again. That very woodypeckerheadish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 The judge was probably gay, or has a relative or close friend who is. That's how liberal judges rule. Oh, btw,... http://news.yahoo.com/spain-39-cardinal-says-homosexuality-39-defect-39-135809123.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted January 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 Oh, btw,... http://news.yahoo.com/spain-39-cardinal-says-homosexuality-39-defect-39-135809123.html In fairness, you have to agree that it isn't "natural" - after all, in terms of evolution the number one priority for existing is to get the next generation to exist, so homosexuality is "unnatural." If we're using that as a basis to make it illegal - or make it illegal for people to get married - I think it's quite pathetic though. There are loads of natural defects that occur, that evolution would say is a bad thing - albinos, short people, fat people, people with genetic illnesses etc. Nobody is saying that these people shouldn't be allowed to marry. It's a ridiculous jump, yes, but so is going from "it's a defect of nature" to "we must stone the gays" from the church or "the gays cannot have the same rights as straights" from the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 Oh god a typo! Noooooo! A very religious person said something ignorant About homosexuality. Your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 Gay marriage = An Extension chord with 2 male ends. It's just a bad idea and quite frankly doesn't work. I always hear the same liberal shit over and over. "It doesn't affect me, why should I care". That is the problem with this country, nobody cares unless it affects them directly. Technically, I don't want my kids to see this perverted crap. Have to teach my kids about the "bird's and the bee's" by going out into the forest and actually watch the birds and the bees. Why are you taking your kids to watch gay dudes bang? Because otherwise I don't see how they would be privy to "perverted crap" unless you are taking them down to watch the stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 albinos, short people, fat people, people with genetic illnesses etc. *********************************************************** Genetics - people can't help it. We're talking about behavior. That isn't the same thing. But libs love to redefine words to try to make some kind of dumbass point. Look at what logic just posted. Don't be stupid. Please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 oh... so we arent even at the point where you think homosexuality is genetic? Awesome... Also, isnt there a study out there that shows homosexuality exists as an offset to a gene that makes the mothers more fertile? The women in the family have a better chance to reproduce and it is offset by a homosexual male. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 Cal, you used the word of a rep for an organization that knowingly hid child rapists (homosexual ones at that) to try to prove your point. Do you not see where there would be an issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 I don't think sexuality should really have anything to do with the constitution. But I also don't think gays should be prevented from getting married either. I'd prefer the gov't not recognize my relationship. $400 bucks for tax purposes or whatever? Gee thanks, dicks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 oh... so we arent even at the point where you think homosexuality is genetic? Awesome... Also, isnt there a study out there that shows homosexuality exists as an offset to a gene that makes the mothers more fertile? The women in the family have a better chance to reproduce and it is offset by a homosexual male. There is nothing that says it is genetic. It is just perverse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 I don't think sexuality should really have anything to do with the constitution. But I also don't think gays should be prevented from getting married either. I'd prefer the gov't not recognize my relationship. $400 bucks for tax purposes or whatever? Gee thanks, dicks. This is how I feel. Government should be out of the marriage business all together. Let people decide if they want to be legally bound to one another. I don't need the federal government to be involved at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 I realize it's hard for some of you guys to understand but natural doesn't necessarily mean right or wrong. Pedophilia is "natura"l because it happens in nature. Same way as sadism or masochism or bestieality or a lot of stuff you may or may not approve of. If indeed that's the definition you what to use for natural. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted January 22, 2014 Report Share Posted January 22, 2014 I would be on the side that basing our laws solely off of what is "natural" or "normal" in nature are both bad ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 22, 2014 Report Share Posted January 22, 2014 Actually, Steve, sorry, but "normal" is generally accepted, dominant activity. Abnormal is an aberation to the above. Whether something occurs in nature, doesn't make it natural. A small meteor lands in forest? Not normal. Maybe once in a century? aberation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted January 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2014 Actually, Steve, sorry, but "normal" is generally accepted, dominant activity. Abnormal is an aberation to the above. Whether something occurs in nature, doesn't make it natural. A small meteor lands in forest? Not normal. Maybe once in a century? aberation. I think we can agree that homosexuality is not normal - the norm is that you're straight, clearly. But does that mean that anything that isn't 'normal' should be illegal? If most people choose to act in one way, should the other way be illegal? Like, most people in America are Christian of some description - catholic, protestant, mormon, whatever. That's a belief, a way of life, like you said being gay is. Should the minority religions be outlawed? Nobody's forcing you to go to a mosque and kneel before allah, much in the same way that I'd hope nobody is forcing to suck a dick (if they are then perhaps your view is more understandable!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 22, 2014 Report Share Posted January 22, 2014 Cal and Chris. That's my point and the reason I put quotation marks around the word natural. Often people, like somebody here, have used the argument that homosexuality should be accepted because it is natural since it happens in nature. Another reason given by some is that people are born that way or that it might be genetic. I'm not making a value judgement I'm just saying that none of those conditions make it right or wrong.. People are born with many different traits that we wouldn't consider proper. I would say that a case could be easily made that giving perks or benefits two married people of any sex should be unconstitutional since unmarried people are denied those same things. But I will leave that lawsuit to the people who give more of a shit about it than I do. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 22, 2014 Report Share Posted January 22, 2014 Point well taken, Mr. Steve. btw, I heard an interesting interview on the radio the other day... Hannity. She was gay, and was aghast that gay orgs continued to press for "marriage", that she felt it was fair to have civil unions, which did get them rights they wanted. She said the gay "marriage" battle was not constructive, and quite counter-productive, and was causing significant backlash in her own life. I've never been against civil unions. Don't agree with em, but I understand the fairness. But the controversy over gay "marriage" - redefining real marriage, and slapping people in the face with lawsuits over baking wedding cakes? Forcing pastors/etc. to recognize and perform services that they know are not real? And pushing the perversion behavior in the face of society? Sounds like perverted gay rebels without a genuine cause to most folks. That gal was correct, and she and Hannity had a great talk. Civil unions were society's correction to unfairness to a very small minority. The only thing left, what the conservation didn't get, is politics. vicious, self-destructive, in-your-face-if-you-are-a-conservative political aggression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted January 22, 2014 Report Share Posted January 22, 2014 Government should not be involved in any marriage, straight or gay. Let it be a religious ceremony if two people want to do that. If two consenting adults, of any sex, want to be legally bound then let them sign on the line. It would kill this whole debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted January 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2014 It depends on what you call marriage I guess. If you mean it in the legal sense, then sure, a guy's "husband" should automatically have the same rights as another guy's wife, in terms of medical decisions, taxes, etc. But if you want to force a church to bless you, that's ridiculous. I'm not going to take a cheeseburger around to a hindu/muslim/jewish guy and ask him to bless it because I have the right to eat it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.