The Conservative Case FOR Gar Marriage

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • jhale667
    DIAMOND STATUS
    • Aug 2004
    • 20929

    #46
    Originally posted by FORD
    Whoever made that poster is going to burn in Hell for their criminal misuse of apostrophes.
    They're only allowed to read the bible...which kinda makes contemporary English difficult...
    Originally posted by conmee
    If anyone even thinks about deleting the Muff Thread they are banned.... no questions asked.

    That is all.

    Icon.
    Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
    I've seen prominent hypocrite liberal on this site Jhale667


    Originally posted by Isaac R.
    Then it's really true??

    The Muff Thread is really just GONE ???

    OMFG...who in their right mind...???
    Originally posted by eddie78
    I was wrong about you, brother. You're good.

    Comment

    • knuckleboner
      Crazy Ass Mofo
      • Jan 2004
      • 2927

      #47
      Originally posted by Unchainme
      Can I say something..

      While I support Gay rights and am rather liberal on the issue, I felt that the judge ruling on the issue had some bias, as he himself is gay. I would say the same thing of say, someone having stock with a bank or something of that nature.

      I just feel it's sort of a dirty way of doing thing.

      Mind you, I'm not against the Prop (No homo), just the way it was handled seems a bit...scummy.
      that's like saying that a white judge couldn't hear a reverse racism workplace discrimination suit. either the judge has valid reasoning and the ruling stands, or the judge has poor reason and it's overturned.

      in this case, the reasoning is fairly solid.

      there shouldn't be much argument that a secular right created by a secular government for 2 consenting single adults shouldn't apply to any 2 consenting single adults. in the knuckleboner's opinion, it's a pretty straightforward reading of the 14th amendment.

      unless, of course, one believes that religous concerns should be enshrined in law. in which case, i'm awaiting the anti-divorce amendment...

      Comment

      • FORD
        ROTH ARMY MODERATOR

        • Jan 2004
        • 59648

        #48
        You know, the judge who ruled on this case was named Walker, and he was a Poppy Bush appointee. Furthermore, he might be more than just a BCE appointee.

        Prescott Bush Sr. was married to Dorothy Walker. Her father, George Herbert Walker is the guy that Poppy and Chimpy were both named after. Judge Walker might literally be a member of the Bush Crime Family.

        Which would mean I would have to amend my previous statement regarding Ted Olson to say this was the first time in history that TWO members of the BCE did something right.
        Eat Us And Smile

        Cenk For America 2024!!

        Justice Democrats


        "If the American people had ever known the truth about what we (the BCE) have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." - Poppy Bush, 1992

        Comment

        • Unchainme
          ROTH ARMY SUPREME
          • Apr 2005
          • 7746

          #49
          Originally posted by FORD
          You know, the judge who ruled on this case was named Walker, and he was a Poppy Bush appointee. Furthermore, he might be more than just a BCE appointee.

          Prescott Bush Sr. was married to Dorothy Walker. Her father, George Herbert Walker is the guy that Poppy and Chimpy were both named after. Judge Walker might literally be a member of the Bush Crime Family.

          Which would mean I would have to amend my previous statement regarding Ted Olson to say this was the first time in history that TWO members of the BCE did something right.
          Well and I read it over, and really my argument against the judge looking over the case was rather weak.

          Again, glad to see the Gays get rights like us straights.

          Perhaps now GAR can get married now?
          Still waiting for a relevant Browns Team

          Comment

          • Seshmeister
            ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

            • Oct 2003
            • 35755

            #50
            Originally posted by FORD
            Whoever made that poster is going to burn in Hell for their criminal misuse of apostrophes.
            What's a Bahi and why is it so high up in his list?

            Google tells me it's a Syrian importer of BMW cars???

            Comment

            • hambon4lif
              Crazy Ass Mofo
              • Jun 2004
              • 2810

              #51
              Originally posted by Seshmeister
              "Loud-Mouthed Women"???

              That's quite a list!
              Druggie's
              Drunkard's
              Adulterer's
              Fornicator's
              Gambler's
              Pervert's


              .......well, it looks like these people have decided my fate for me...I'm going to Hell's

              Comment

              • Seshmeister
                ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

                • Oct 2003
                • 35755

                #52
                You probably also count as a 'high fullutent sophisticated swine'.

                I think most people are compared to this guy.

                Comment

                • Unchainme
                  ROTH ARMY SUPREME
                  • Apr 2005
                  • 7746

                  #53
                  Originally posted by Seshmeister
                  damn..had no idea I was worshipping satan when I watched football on the weekend.
                  Still waiting for a relevant Browns Team

                  Comment

                  • Nitro Express
                    DIAMOND STATUS
                    • Aug 2004
                    • 32942

                    #54
                    Your religion is always the true religion, the other guy's religion is a cult. Welcome to human reasoning 101.
                    No! You can't have the keys to the wine cellar!

                    Comment

                    • Nitro Express
                      DIAMOND STATUS
                      • Aug 2004
                      • 32942

                      #55
                      This whole Prop 8 thing just shows the courts have become more powerful than the ballot. The state voted on the issue, the majority didn't want it. The state's constitution defines marriage as between and man and a woman which means you have to amend the California state constitution to change anything. It's a big deal and the voters don't want to change the amendment. Historically marriage has been between two opposite sexes and that is the historical reality of it. I think it's just too much change, too quick for the majority of the population even in California. Of course the lawyers are going to love debating it so they can make money off of it.
                      No! You can't have the keys to the wine cellar!

                      Comment

                      • Seshmeister
                        ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

                        • Oct 2003
                        • 35755

                        #56
                        It's all a bit silly. The sensible answer is to come up with another word and let gay people do that. Over here it's called a civil partnership with the same legal consequences as marriage but because it has a different name the superstition people found it much more difficult to complain.

                        Comment

                        • FORD
                          ROTH ARMY MODERATOR

                          • Jan 2004
                          • 59648

                          #57
                          Originally posted by Seshmeister
                          What's a Bahi and why is it so high up in his list?

                          Google tells me it's a Syrian importer of BMW cars???
                          I'm assuming it was a misspelling of "Baha'i".



                          Basically it's a Persian based group who don't think Mohammed had the Last Word from God. It started up in the 19th century, so I guess you might say they are to the East what the Mormon church is to Christianity.
                          Eat Us And Smile

                          Cenk For America 2024!!

                          Justice Democrats


                          "If the American people had ever known the truth about what we (the BCE) have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." - Poppy Bush, 1992

                          Comment

                          • bueno bob
                            DIAMOND STATUS
                            • Jul 2004
                            • 22951

                            #58
                            Originally posted by Nitro Express
                            Your religion is always the true religion, the other guy's religion is a cult. Welcome to human reasoning 101.
                            ALL religions are cults.

                            That's enlightened thinking.
                            Twistin' by the pool.

                            Comment

                            • bueno bob
                              DIAMOND STATUS
                              • Jul 2004
                              • 22951

                              #59
                              Realistically, if somebody can make me an argument against gay marriage that is NOT based on religion, I'd be happy to listen to it.

                              I haven't met one person against gay marriage that has ever been able to do that.
                              Twistin' by the pool.

                              Comment

                              • knuckleboner
                                Crazy Ass Mofo
                                • Jan 2004
                                • 2927

                                #60
                                Originally posted by Nitro Express
                                This whole Prop 8 thing just shows the courts have become more powerful than the ballot.
                                not it doesn't. it shows that, as was supposed to be the case in the constitution, the courts decide if laws are constitutional.

                                california is a majority-minority state. in other words, there are more minorities than there are white people. if they passed a referrendum stating that white people could no longer own property in california, do you think the courts should simply let this stand because it was on the ballot? or should they say, "uh...that's not constitutional. you can't do that."

                                which is exactly what happened here. the court ruled on the law's constitutionality. you don't like the system, blame the framers.

                                Comment

                                Working...