HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Hated it!!!! :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Today's show is brought to you by Lays... bet you can't eat just one.

And who'd want to?:1orglaugh

i haven't heard that one in a while! :1orglaugh

definitely. it is a grave insult to even bring that up, and considering how this man has handled himself, history etc, this is going to be extremely embarrassing

eat? more like gobble :helpme :1orglaugh let me adjust my wig :Oh crap :1orglaugh that little hat he wore in that skit still brings me to tears. :1orglaugh

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/fYh8qZTspss/0.jpg

sexy! :thumbsup

Rights based on preference are not a given, sorry.

not to go all patriotic, but you happen to have any family die in the great wars?

Religious bullshit. It should be legal. So should gay marriage. That any of this is up for debate is absurd.

Yes I have, but how is that even relevant?

Is it the same massive difference between a man marrying a woman or a man marrying another man? Are you saying polygamy is vastly different? Its just as natural as homosexuality in the animal world.

So let me get this straight. Same sex marriage proponents want no distinction made between straight and heterosexual couples. But these same people want a distinction between straight/heterosexual and polygamy? Self pwnage and hypocrisy for the win! Then they have the balls to say "Who are you to ...."

So he should rule the OPPOSITE way? So if this was 50 years ago and this was about interracial marriage( which WAS in fact illegal in many states ) and the judge was black he should recuse himself?

Figures a retard like you doesn't get it. WTF are you positng here again for anyways? You seriously need a fucking brain check.

Wow, facepalm.

it's relevant because those men believed they were fighting for freedom

you are directly impeding in they're legacy and pissing all over the honour that those people died for every time you point at a minority and tell them they can't have something, or be something, simply for who they are.

we can cut hairs all we want but in the end, what right do we have, as a group of a certain sexuality, to tell another group of a certain sexuality on a LEGAL and GOVERNMENTAL level that they can't ordain their marriages in the eyes of God.

if you're able to get the old fuck down here and straighten a few things out, so be it, but until that day happens, we should leave the religious mumbo jumbo to the people who care to do those things and stay out of other peoples business

or one day, it will be your business that's being gone through, and no one left to defend you

Well, when you have an incompetent inbred like GatorB claiming someone else is stupid, you know your day is made.

Really? So you're saying the men of WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc would have agreed with same sex marriage? If so, you know that's 100% wrong and I can guarantee you what they thought about "marriage".

By your logic, what right does anyone have to tell any other person or group anything? This is the central theme of modern liberalism. Relativism has been debunked time and time again.

Pretty sure you're jumping to an extreme, which is all that's left for you to do to prove your point.

cambaby has already explained that since blacks don't choose to be black but gays choose to be gay there should be some difference in allowing and denying rights... :winkwink:

Only a complete buffoon would compare the oppression of an entire race with banning same sex marriages.

the reason fed judges are basically in for life.Is so they can make the hard choices and not swayed by mob rule. I find it funny when what we do is protected by the federal law. If it was up to the states we as an industry would be fucked.

Sounds to me like cambaby is choosing to stay in the closet...

am i saying for the time? no. but i don't think they asked who's freedom they'd be protecting, and i don't think they died thinking that it should even matter.

furthermore, what i do know is as their children, they expected, if not demanded, that we be more than who they are, be better than who they inspired to be, and uphold the generational agreement that has been in place since the dawn of time

your logic is flawed on the basic assumption that all liberalism is universally unreasonable, using the very same liberalism that gave you the freedom and education to do so

use it.

Comparing things like the the civil rights movement and women's sufferage to the debate over gay marriage is a logical fallacy. It can be proven without a doubt that a person is born a woman or born black, white, latino etc. Until it is proven conclusively that being gay is not a choice, this is an argument over privileges; not rights.

what's next after homosexuals? red headed people?

Prove to me that being heterosexual is not a choice.

I'm just stating a prime example that would partly refute your point of view. I can say with absolute certainty that soldiers and things like same sex marriage rights, do not mix well. But I understand your point.

Weird, here was my explicit statement about the liberalism I'm talking about.

Modern Liberalism=/=Classical Liberalism.

Classical Liberalism bears the most resemblance to modern conservatism.

Playing devils advocate you could make the exact same argument from the other side if he was straight.

Absolutely, and thats why I said right at the start of my post "YA DUN GOOFED". Him being a homosexual HURTS Prop8 opponents more than it helps them all it does is give them a fast track to the Supreme Court to get beat down.

I can't believe this is the 21st century and there are still so many bigots out there...


Jack

this has nothing to do with race.

The only people who think being gay is a choice are straight people. I have never met a gay person that has said they made a choice somewhere in life.

What happened is homophobic straight people tried to win things by insisting it is a choice when they'd have no idea.

So if it's a choice are you saying that you have homoerotic thoughts but choose to sleep with women? If you insist that it is a choice then you must admit that we all lust after each sex. Anything different would mean it is not a choice.

I do not lust after women because I was born gay. I first realized it when I was about five and did not really understand it. I finally admitted it to myself at around 18 and acted at 20. I never "experimented" with a girl because I had no desire, as homosexuality naturally occurs in me.

Lol you "realized" you were born gay at 5 years old.... yeah ok buddy.

Yeah I bet homosexuality occurs IN you. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Look there is no such thing as a "gay" gene its a behavioural deviancy period.

Lol what the fuck does that shit have to do with ANYTHING in this thread? Oh wait are you trying to say you are "kinda gay" but not all the way?

But the LGBT have already earned those rights by going through the courts. You want to take them away, you will have to come up with better arguments for the courts to change that. :2 cents:

And since they are designated as a minority, you can't make laws that discriminate against them, even if you are in the majority. :error

Want to change the constitution go right ahead. :321GFY

This judges rulings look pretty straight forward according to the information he cited. If the homphobes want to challenge the actual decision, they can appeal it up the judicial ladder. :2 cents:

If they want to call bias on the judge because he happens to be gay, that's a whole new pile of shit. :error

A couple of months back I got into a discussion with Tom Hymes about the judge dropping out of the case because there was porn on his computer. If a judge can be removed for his personal likes/dislikes the court system will crash.

An example I mentioned at the time was if the Prop8 people would try to go after this gay judge if they lost.


Can a white judge be biased against a black defendant
Can a white judge be biased against a white defendant
Can a black judge be biased against a black defendant
Can a black judge be biased against a white defendant
Can a female judge be biased against a male defendant
Can a female judge be biased against a female defendant


I was mainly discussing this thought though
Can a judge that likes porn be biased against a porn defendant
Can a judge that dislikes porn be biased against a porn defendant

Going by that logic that a judge might be biased means you would never be able to actually proceed with ANY court case. :helpme

Tom called me a subversive, but he tended to agree

The issue was already voted on and banned in the State of California by the majority of voters. The burden to CHANGE things is on YOU not them.

To protect people from themselves.

I doubt you are going to find quality fudge (candy or otherwise) at a Walgreens.

:1orglaugh

You skipped the part about having to go through the courts, or change the constitution to remove their rights.
Just because your majority of 51% voted that way, doesn't make it so.