Fuck You North Carolina

[Skjellyfetti]

[89Hen]

Gender is a dumb reason in determining who can and can't get married.

That is opinion, not everyone agrees with that opinion. Me, I don't give a rats arse, I'm only arguing against those that are wholly opposed to the gov "intruding" when they already "intrude" in many other things without anyone questioning or caring.

[89Hen]

Cute, but again, this person described themself at the end.

[Ibanez]

HAHAHAHA. I'M STEALING THAT.

[Ibanez]

Cute, but again, this person described themself at the end.

No, hen, that's the joke.

[Bronco]

-
BHO doesn't do anything unless it benefits his wallet

Looks like the blind are now starting to see

CBS News Poll Finds An Eye-Popping 67% Believe Obama’s Gay Marriage Endorsement Wasn’t Sincere, Politically Motivated

More than two thirds of Americans believe President Obama’s public endorsement of gay marriage was motivated by politics, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll.

A total of 67 percent overall said it was a political maneuver. That includes 86 percent of Republicans, and — more importantly — 70 percent of independents.

Only 24 percent said they thought he did it “because he thought it was the right thing to do,” CBS News reported.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... over-same-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

sex-marriage/%20%20%20%20http:/www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/cbsnytpoll_051412.pdf

[Bronco]

-
That damn NY Times and CBS... they must have to out for BHO

Obama campaign manager claims bias in gay marriage poll
thehill.com ^ | 5/15/12 | Jonathan Easley


President Obama’s deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said a poll released Monday that showed most Americans believe Obama’s gay-marriage endorsement was done for political reasons can’t be trusted because it’s biased.

We can't put the methodology of that poll aside, because the methodology was significantly biased. It is a biased sample,” Cutter said Tuesday on MSNBC’s "Political Rundown." “They sampled a biased sample, so they re-biased the same sample.”

According to a CBS News-New York Times poll released on Monday, 67 percent said Obama’s recent endorsement of gay marriage was given for political purposes, while only 23 percent said it was done out of personal conviction.

The poll wasn’t only bad for Obama on the gay-marriage issue — it also showed him trailing Mitt Romney by 3 percent nationally, largely due to an erosion of support from female voters.


(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[89Hen]

Cute, but again, this person described themself at the end.

No, hen, that's the joke.

No, that's not. I'm talking about the gov staying out... we just had this discussion in the last few days. He thinks he's poking fun at other people, but he's just as accurately describing his position.

[BDKJMU]

And right now you sound like another crazed left wing bigot who is intolerant towards anyone who disagrees with gay marriage and won't equate it to the civil rights movemt. Just like Dback, resorting to name calling Notice on this thread who started the name calling. Maybe you're the closeted one....

Sounds like? Perhaps. But i'm far from left wing and and far from right wing. I am of the idea that I have no authority and a majority of this country has no authority to persecute other people simply because they are against a long established (even if unjuslty) accepted norm. I'm enlightened and find it amazing that in the 21st Centruy, we sitll have people that are filled with so much bigotry.

I can be a man and admit my mistake of name calling. But to be honest, what percieved threat do you see in allowing gays en to have to enjoy the same rights that you are wife enjoy? Answer that question please. Remember, this country is not a Theocracy, so don't bring religion into it.

So if gay marriage isn't allowed gays are being persecuted? That kind of hyperbole isn't going to win any converts.

Despite the fact that some people can't have kids, or chose not to, for centuries the reason that marriage has existed in civilized societies has been for having children & raising families with a mother & father. That is a benefit to society. The institution of marriage has already been devalued/eroded some for a number of reasons, which hasn't been good for society, and IMHOP having gay marriage will just erode it further.

Another thing. 40-50 years ago the notion of gay marriage would have been ludicrous, just like today the notion of polygamy might seem ludicrous. But with gay marriage we have "evolved" to the point where we are now. Who's to say if we have gay marriage now that society in 40-50 years or so might evolve the same way towards polygamy?

[D1B]

Sounds like? Perhaps. But i'm far from left wing and and far from right wing. I am of the idea that I have no authority and a majority of this country has no authority to persecute other people simply because they are against a long established (even if unjuslty) accepted norm. I'm enlightened and find it amazing that in the 21st Centruy, we sitll have people that are filled with so much bigotry.

I can be a man and admit my mistake of name calling. But to be honest, what percieved threat do you see in allowing gays en to have to enjoy the same rights that you are wife enjoy? Answer that question please. Remember, this country is not a Theocracy, so don't bring religion into it.

So if gay marriage isn't allowed gays are being persecuted? That kind of hyperbole isn't going to win any converts.

Despite the fact that some people can't have kids, or chose not to, for centuries the reason that marriage has existed in civilized societies has been for having children & raising families with a mother & father. That is a benefit to society. The institution of marriage has already been devalued/eroded some for a number of reasons, which hasn't been good for society, and IMHOP having gay marriage will just erode it further.

Another thing. 40-50 years ago the notion of gay marriage would have been ludicrous, just like today the notion of polygamy might seem ludicrous. But with gay marriage we have "evolved" to the point where we are now. Who's to say if we have gay marriage now that society in 40-50 years or so might evolve the same way towards polygamy?

Another southern bigot. Baby St. Wronge.

[Ibanez]

Sounds like? Perhaps. But i'm far from left wing and and far from right wing. I am of the idea that I have no authority and a majority of this country has no authority to persecute other people simply because they are against a long established (even if unjuslty) accepted norm. I'm enlightened and find it amazing that in the 21st Centruy, we sitll have people that are filled with so much bigotry.

I can be a man and admit my mistake of name calling. But to be honest, what percieved threat do you see in allowing gays en to have to enjoy the same rights that you are wife enjoy? Answer that question please. Remember, this country is not a Theocracy, so don't bring religion into it.

So if gay marriage isn't allowed gays are being persecuted? That kind of hyperbole isn't going to win any converts.

Despite the fact that some people can't have kids, or chose not to, for centuries the reason that marriage has existed in civilized societies has been for having children & raising families with a mother & father. That is a benefit to society. The institution of marriage has already been devalued/eroded some for a number of reasons, which hasn't been good for society, and IMHOP having gay marriage will just erode it further.

Another thing. 40-50 years ago the notion of gay marriage would have been ludicrous, just like today the notion of polygamy might seem ludicrous. But with gay marriage we have "evolved" to the point where we are now. Who's to say if we have gay marriage now that society in 40-50 years or so might evolve the same way towards polygamy?

You don't see how limiting a group of our society isn't wrong?

You know what devalues marriage? All the divorces. All the teenagers that are forced by thier uber conservative families (like my wifes cousin) that get married b/c they are too dumb to wear a condom. So now, two 18 yr olds have a child and the marriage fails b/c they want to be kids and have fun. That devalues marriages, not Jon and Alex. Sure, gays will divorce, but thier marriage alone won't devalue what I have. If I allow someone outside my marriage, to affect my marriage, then I have failed and the blame is solely on me.

Another thing, 100 years ago women voting was ludicrous. 200 years ago, women reading and working was ludicrous. Do you wish we go back to those days?

[Ibanez]

So if gay marriage isn't allowed gays are being persecuted? That kind of hyperbole isn't going to win any converts.

Despite the fact that some people can't have kids, or chose not to, for centuries the reason that marriage has existed in civilized societies has been for having children & raising families with a mother & father. That is a benefit to society. The institution of marriage has already been devalued/eroded some for a number of reasons, which hasn't been good for society, and IMHOP having gay marriage will just erode it further.

Another thing. 40-50 years ago the notion of gay marriage would have been ludicrous, just like today the notion of polygamy might seem ludicrous. But with gay marriage we have "evolved" to the point where we are now. Who's to say if we have gay marriage now that society in 40-50 years or so might evolve the same way towards polygamy?

Another southern bigot. Baby St. Wronge.

He's from Philly, we don't claim that.

[kalm]

So if gay marriage isn't allowed gays are being persecuted? That kind of hyperbole isn't going to win any converts.

Despite the fact that some people can't have kids, or chose not to, for centuries the reason that marriage has existed in civilized societies has been for having children & raising families with a mother & father. That is a benefit to society. The institution of marriage has already been devalued/eroded some for a number of reasons, which hasn't been good for society, and IMHOP having gay marriage will just erode it further.

Another thing. 40-50 years ago the notion of gay marriage would have been ludicrous, just like today the notion of polygamy might seem ludicrous. But with gay marriage we have "evolved" to the point where we are now. Who's to say if we have gay marriage now that society in 40-50 years or so might evolve the same way towards polygamy?

You don't see how limiting a group of our society isn't wrong?

You know what devalues marriage? All the divorces. All the teenagers that are forced by thier uber conservative families (like my wifes cousin) that get married b/c they are too dumb to wear a condom. So now, two 18 yr olds have a child and the marriage fails b/c they want to be kids and have fun. That devalues marriages, not Jon and Alex. Sure, gays will divorce, but thier marriage alone won't devalue what I have. If I allow someone outside my marriage, to affect my marriage, then I have failed and the blame is solely on me.

At this point, society doesn't benefit from more children - especially children born into poverty. I think we should ban poor people having kids, divorce, and single parenting.

Who's with me!

[Ibanez]

You don't see how limiting a group of our society isn't wrong?

You know what devalues marriage? All the divorces. All the teenagers that are forced by thier uber conservative families (like my wifes cousin) that get married b/c they are too dumb to wear a condom. So now, two 18 yr olds have a child and the marriage fails b/c they want to be kids and have fun. That devalues marriages, not Jon and Alex. Sure, gays will divorce, but thier marriage alone won't devalue what I have. If I allow someone outside my marriage, to affect my marriage, then I have failed and the blame is solely on me.

At this point, society doesn't benefit from more children - especially children born into poverty. I think we should ban poor people having kids, divorce, and single parenting.

Who's with me!

I never understood the following:

People that barely make enough money to support themselves. They fuck like rabbits, have 2-3 babies(different partners) and then bitch how they can't support them and thier kids. Think for one second fuck nut! Ignorant ass po' people.

[kalm]

At this point, society doesn't benefit from more children - especially children born into poverty. I think we should ban poor people having kids, divorce, and single parenting.

Who's with me!

I never understood the following:

People that barely make enough money to support themselves. They fuck like rabbits, have 2-3 babies(different partners) and then bitch how they can't support them and thier kids. Think for one second fuck nut! Ignorant ass po' people.

Yep. Quite honestly, it's the biggest problem facing our society. The kids are born into state dependency and it becomes generational. Not to mention the typical lack of parenting skills and mental problems that are entrenched at a young age. The only way to curb this is through the public education system including a heavy dose of sex ed.

[Baldy]

At this point, society doesn't benefit from more children - especially children born into poverty. I think we should ban poor people having kids, divorce, and single parenting.

Who's with me!

I never understood the following:

People that barely make enough money to support themselves. They fuck like rabbits, have 2-3 babies(different partners) and then bitch how they can't support them and thier kids. Think for one second fuck nut! Ignorant ass po' people.

Which is why I've always said that the overwhelming majority of "poor" people choose to live that way.

[Ibanez]

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/1 ... ?hpt=hp_c2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is an interesting article, from a scholar and ordained Priest.

We now face religious jingoism, the imposition of personal beliefs on the whole pluralistic society. Worse still, these beliefs are irrational, just a fiction of blind conviction. Nowhere does the Bible actually oppose homosexuality.

In the past 60 years, we have learned more about sex, by far, than in preceding millennia. Is it likely that an ancient people, who thought the male was the basic biological model and the world flat, understood homosexuality as we do today? Could they have even addressed the questions about homosexuality that we grapple with today? Of course not.

[BDKJMU]

Another southern bigot. Baby St. Wronge.

He's from Philly, we don't claim that.

I may live in Yankeeland, but I'm no damn Yankee.

[BDKJMU]

You don't see how limiting a group of our society isn't wrong?

You know what devalues marriage? All the divorces. All the teenagers that are forced by thier uber conservative families (like my wifes cousin) that get married b/c they are too dumb to wear a condom. So now, two 18 yr olds have a child and the marriage fails b/c they want to be kids and have fun. That devalues marriages, not Jon and Alex. Sure, gays will divorce, but thier marriage alone won't devalue what I have. If I allow someone outside my marriage, to affect my marriage, then I have failed and the blame is solely on me.

At this point, society doesn't benefit from more children - especially children born into poverty. I think we should ban poor people having kids, divorce, and single parenting.

Who's with me!

Sure too many people that have kids shouldn't. But that doesn't change the fact that society has to reproduce to sustain itself. If no one had children then the human race would die off. So how does society reproduce? By people having children. And the ideal way for that to happen is in families with a married mother and father. Marriage is a benefit to society by facilitating the reproducing and raising of children. Sure we have lots of one parent households, dysfuctional households, etc, etc, but that doesn't change the fact that marriage overall is a benefit to society by being the ideal way for children to be produced and raised. That is the reason the institution exists- not for a couple to f*** or be happy. It is for the reproduction and raising of children in order to sustain healthy societies. And just because a minority of people who get married can't or don't have children doesn't change that fact.

Gay marriage on the other hand can't provide that same benefit to society of reproducing & raising children.

[BlueHen86]

At this point, society doesn't benefit from more children - especially children born into poverty. I think we should ban poor people having kids, divorce, and single parenting.

Who's with me!

Sure too many people that have kids shouldn't. But that doesn't change the fact that society has to reproduce to sustain itself. If no one had children then the human race would die off. So how does society reproduce? By people having children. And the ideal way for that to happen is in families with a married mother and father. Marriage is a benefit to society by facilitating the reproducing and raising of children. Sure we have lots of one parent households, dysfuctional households, etc, etc, but that doesn't change the fact that marriage overall is a benefit to society by being the ideal way for children to be produced and raised. That is the reason the institution exists- not for a couple to f*** or be happy. It is for the reproduction and raising of children in order to sustain healthy societies. And just because a minority of people who get married can't or don't have children doesn't change that fact.

Gay marriage on the other hand can't provide that same benefit to society of reproducing & raising children.

Why not? Let them adopt. Lots of people can't have kids, but they get married and adopt. Let gay couples adopt if they wish.

They also can reproduce via surrogate.

[CID1990]

At this point, society doesn't benefit from more children - especially children born into poverty. I think we should ban poor people having kids, divorce, and single parenting.

Who's with me!

Sure too many people that have kids shouldn't. But that doesn't change the fact that society has to reproduce to sustain itself. If no one had children then the human race would die off. So how does society reproduce? By people having children. And the ideal way for that to happen is in families with a married mother and father. Marriage is a benefit to society by facilitating the reproducing and raising of children. Sure we have lots of one parent households, dysfuctional households, etc, etc, but that doesn't change the fact that marriage overall is a benefit to society by being the ideal way for children to be produced and raised. That is the reason the institution exists- not for a couple to f*** or be happy. It is for the reproduction and raising of children in order to sustain healthy societies. And just because a minority of people who get married can't or don't have children doesn't change that fact.

Gay marriage on the other hand can't provide that same benefit to society of reproducing & raising children.

So let's recap with a Reader's Digest version of this War and Peace attempt:

If the gays aren't allowed to marry, they'll decide to have kids instead.

Makes perfect sense. How's that been working out so far?


Also Sodomy

[kalm]

At this point, society doesn't benefit from more children - especially children born into poverty. I think we should ban poor people having kids, divorce, and single parenting.

Who's with me!

Sure too many people that have kids shouldn't. But that doesn't change the fact that society has to reproduce to sustain itself. If no one had children then the human race would die off. So how does society reproduce? By people having children. And the ideal way for that to happen is in families with a married mother and father. Marriage is a benefit to society by facilitating the reproducing and raising of children. Sure we have lots of one parent households, dysfuctional households, etc, etc, but that doesn't change the fact that marriage overall is a benefit to society by being the ideal way for children to be produced and raised. That is the reason the institution exists- not for a couple to f*** or be happy. It is for the reproduction and raising of children in order to sustain healthy societies. And just because a minority of people who get married can't or don't have children doesn't change that fact.

Gay marriage on the other hand can't provide that same benefit to society of reproducing & raising children.

Yes it can, but there's no need. More than enough hetero's will kids. You are grasping at straws and totally unrealistic on this one.

[89Hen]

They also can reproduce via surrogate.

Maybe I'm not up on reproductive science, but I need some help with this one.

Did you mean to say that one of them can reproduce via surrogate?

[YoUDeeMan]

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/1 ... ?hpt=hp_c2

Here is an interesting article, from a scholar and ordained Priest.

We now face religious jingoism, the imposition of personal beliefs on the whole pluralistic society. Worse still, these beliefs are irrational, just a fiction of blind conviction. Nowhere does the Bible actually oppose homosexuality.

In the past 60 years, we have learned more about sex, by far, than in preceding millennia. Is it likely that an ancient people, who thought the male was the basic biological model and the world flat, understood homosexuality as we do today? Could they have even addressed the questions about homosexuality that we grapple with today? Of course not.

Uh...that ordained priest probably didn't read much about Roman and Greek history.

I might be going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing that some ancient societies grappled (he said "grappled") with homosexuality a bit more openly than we do today.

And then, along came Christianity.

[BlueHen86]

They also can reproduce via surrogate.

Maybe I'm not up on reproductive science, but I need some help with this one.

Did you mean to say that one of them can reproduce via surrogate?

BDKJMU based an entire anti-gay marriage argument on the idea that marriage should be for people who can have children and gay people can't have children.

But they can. Being gay doesn't mean that their reproductive organs don't work. There is nothing stopping one or both lesbians in a relationship from getting pregnant - just not by each other.

And of course, two men can employ a surrogate mother to have their child.

Since BDK thinks marriage should be for people who can children, and since gay people can have kids, he must be for gay marriage.