court throws prop 8 out
- Thread starter netrox
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2005
- Messages
- 44,482
- Reaction score
- 448
No, I don't care but I was just saying about reason that I tried to ask a question about your views on gay rights because this thread has went off topic.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 19,035
- Reaction score
- 7
In most cases filing jointly is a bad thing not a good thing..... lol
The hospital visit is a total myth......I visit friends in the hospital all the time.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2005
- Messages
- 44,482
- Reaction score
- 448
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 19,035
- Reaction score
- 7
Nope......it pretty much stayed on topic except for a page of joke between 5-6 people
yagazn
New Member
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 2,949
- Reaction score
- 7
gay/straight/freak people get marry.
gay/straight/freak people get a job.
gay/straight/freak people get a home.
ALL for EQUAL....Hello!!!!.
(FYI: freak is someone who's wearing something different like punk or weird).
"OMG, it's wrong to marry homosexual"!. it is not 1900's....it is 2010!!!!!
enough with so many ignorant, so narrow-minded and soooo old fashion 'boring' way!.
i don't want to hear "na na na na na na whyyyyy marry a homosexual, it is a sinner"!. it's like hitting me with a long 'rainbow' stick by nuns!. turned out that nuns is a lesbo!.
yep, i voted gay marriage last time
peace!
gay/straight/freak people get a job.
gay/straight/freak people get a home.
ALL for EQUAL....Hello!!!!.
(FYI: freak is someone who's wearing something different like punk or weird).
"OMG, it's wrong to marry homosexual"!. it is not 1900's....it is 2010!!!!!
enough with so many ignorant, so narrow-minded and soooo old fashion 'boring' way!.
i don't want to hear "na na na na na na whyyyyy marry a homosexual, it is a sinner"!. it's like hitting me with a long 'rainbow' stick by nuns!. turned out that nuns is a lesbo!.
yep, i voted gay marriage last time
peace!
Last edited:
kokonut
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2006
- Messages
- 16,006
- Reaction score
- 1
Shocking News!!!!! Openly gay Judge rules against gay marriage ban....
Good luck with the SC
PowerON
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 11,266
- Reaction score
- 10
Only problem is that you have to choice one to marry. You cannot marry both male and female.
I guess you should fight to bring bisexual-marriage as legal?
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 19,035
- Reaction score
- 7
Ah....bigamy now
PowerON
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 11,266
- Reaction score
- 10
gay/straight/freak people get marry.
gay/straight/freak people get a job.
gay/straight/freak people get a home.
ALL for EQUAL....Hello!!!!.
(FYI: freak is someone who's wearing something different like punk or weird).
"OMG, it's wrong to marry homosexual"!. it is not 1900's....it is 2010!!!!!
enough with so many ignorant, so narrow-minded and soooo old fashion 'boring' way!.
i don't want to hear 'na na na na na na whyyyyy marry a homosexual, it is a sinner"!. it's like hitting me with a long 'rainbow' stick by nuns!. turned out that nuns is a lesbo!.
yep, i voted gay marriage last time
peace!
I L Y mwahhh!.
up and up got marry!
down and down got marry!
pepper and pepper got marry!
sun and sun got marry!
pen and pen got marry!
Now, that sound un-function. We need salt and pepper please!
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2005
- Messages
- 44,482
- Reaction score
- 448
Hey man, ignore my post about txgolfer but just focus on my situation with discrimination, bullying and death threat due sex orientation.
Txgolfer isn't homophobia so let move on.
Bisexual is just like attract to male and female so I don't need dual marriage and I can pick male or woman to marry if I feel more attracted.
Reba, they are consenting adults, and the quality of their relationships are awesome. To the point if they were hetrosexual, family values orgs would be fawning all over them. Why does ONE little thing suddenly make it an EVIL relationship? If you saw the loving intense intimate relationships that two women or two men can have...you would see their spirits shining through. You do know that a lot of people used the EXACT same argument for denying marriage to black people, interracial people and many others? Even many Christian churches have different definitions of marriage you know. ...and marriage is constantly evolving and changing. Heck marriage in the 60s and 70's is completely different then today
I resent my feelings for another HUMAN BEING being compared to beastiality!!!
An animal cannot consent to sex with a human. They can have a "feel good" relationship.....but the animal is just doing what feels good. Heck dogs hump furniture.
It is not an intimate relationship based on mutual consent and love.
I resent my feelings for another HUMAN BEING being compared to beastiality!!!
An animal cannot consent to sex with a human. They can have a "feel good" relationship.....but the animal is just doing what feels good. Heck dogs hump furniture.
It is not an intimate relationship based on mutual consent and love.
Every civilization rise and fall - everything has a beginning and an end. A lot of homophobic civilizations fell as well (Soviet Russia as a recent example). If a society doesn't have anything to offer in services/products, it will fail. It's that simple.
Love this article:
"The ultimate outcome of the California case cannot be predicted, but appeals court judges and the justices at the highest court in the land could find themselves boxed in by the careful logic and structure of Judge Vaughn R. Walker’s opinion, legal experts said...
Judge Walker wrote, however, that the Supreme Court has stated that government cannot enforce moral or religious beliefs without an accompanying secular purpose. The judge suggested that the defendants shifted their arguments for the courtroom, with a focus on "statistically optimal" child-rearing households and by arguing that they were abiding by the will of California voters.
California’s law, he wrote, demanded discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation. "Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians," he wrote, including the notion that "gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals" and "gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society."
In his ruling, Judge Walker took a conservative approach to his findings of law, said Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law. Judge Walker laid the factual groundwork that might have allowed him to invoke the tough "strict scrutiny" test to Proposition 8 -- a test that most laws flunk.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/us/06assess.html?_r=2&hp
Simply put, you have to prove that gay marriage is bad for the society. The anti-gay people couldn't prove it and that annoyed the judge saying, "fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
Just because homophobia exists doesn't mean gay marriage shouldn't be legalized otherwise we could use that logic of racism against interracial marriages, right?
"The ultimate outcome of the California case cannot be predicted, but appeals court judges and the justices at the highest court in the land could find themselves boxed in by the careful logic and structure of Judge Vaughn R. Walker’s opinion, legal experts said...
Judge Walker wrote, however, that the Supreme Court has stated that government cannot enforce moral or religious beliefs without an accompanying secular purpose. The judge suggested that the defendants shifted their arguments for the courtroom, with a focus on "statistically optimal" child-rearing households and by arguing that they were abiding by the will of California voters.
California’s law, he wrote, demanded discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation. "Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians," he wrote, including the notion that "gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals" and "gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society."
In his ruling, Judge Walker took a conservative approach to his findings of law, said Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law. Judge Walker laid the factual groundwork that might have allowed him to invoke the tough "strict scrutiny" test to Proposition 8 -- a test that most laws flunk.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/us/06assess.html?_r=2&hp
Simply put, you have to prove that gay marriage is bad for the society. The anti-gay people couldn't prove it and that annoyed the judge saying, "fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
Just because homophobia exists doesn't mean gay marriage shouldn't be legalized otherwise we could use that logic of racism against interracial marriages, right?
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2005
- Messages
- 13,291
- Reaction score
- 2,546
Mod note:
Several posts were baited which in turn became argumentative. For those who is for gay and against gay... please debate civilly without baiting others as well as hijacked threads.
I am going to close this up for a review.
Thank you.
Several posts were baited which in turn became argumentative. For those who is for gay and against gay... please debate civilly without baiting others as well as hijacked threads.
I am going to close this up for a review.
Thank you.
- Status