Kablammo!

[Target Practice]

KABLAMMO! (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/04/california.same.sex.ruling/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1)

[behemoth]

k.

[maxama10]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zHVW7Zy_vg

??

[Ratt]

WTF...?? :tard:

[bornl33t]

welp, this doesn't change my mind lol gays are so *****

[Warwitch]

It wouldnt be such a big deal..... if people would stop making a big deal out of it. I mean, really, who cares?

[cockerpunk]

another win for libratarianism and the consistution!

i really hope that this makes it to the supreme court, so that gay marrage bans can be struck down across the nation. the government cannot deny you rights becuase of whom you feel an emotion for.

[Warwitch]

I love my goat.

[maniacmechanic]

I love my goat.

Haven't you allways ??

[maxama10]

another win for libratarianism and the consistution!

i really hope that this makes it to the supreme court, so that gay marrage bans can be struck down across the nation. the government cannot deny you rights becuase of whom you feel an emotion for.



I agree, I'm excited to marry my multiple girlfriends.

[Beemer]

I love my goat.


:spit_take

[Ratt]

I agree, I'm excited to marry my multiple girlfriends.

I felt the same way, but then realized that I already married one set of problems. Don't need to marry more... :ninja:

[going_home]

I love my goat.

Thats sure to be next after this tommyrot.
Someone will want to marry their favorite animal.
I mean after all shouldnt bestiality have the same rights as the rest ?










God is a just God, if He doesnt destroy this country for that perversion, He will be morally obligated to bring Sodom and Gomorrah back again and apologize to them for burning them up.





:mad:

[cockerpunk]

I felt the same way, but then realized that I already married one set of problems. Don't need to marry more... :ninja:

self regulating solution!

plural marriages are illegal because of there abusive and sexist nature, and an animal or object can't consent to marriage, so there is no slippery slope to worry about. what two consenting adults do and legally agree to should not the be governments concern.

fight for smaller government right? :rofl:

anyone can have multiple girlfriends, the government doesn't currently restrict that. why would they? "girlfriend" isn't a legal title.

[maxama10]

self regulating solution!

plural marriages are illegal because of there abusive and sexist nature, and an animal or object can't consent to marriage, so there is no slippery slope to worry about. what two consenting adults do and legally agree to should not the be governments concern.

fight for smaller government right? :rofl:

anyone can have multiple girlfriends, the government doesn't currently restrict that. why would they? "girlfriend" isn't a legal title.


I think you need to step back and look again at polygamy. Why shouldn't three consenting adults be able to marry within the eyes of the government?

[Warwitch]

Polygamy is fail. 5 wives is not the same as 5 girlfriends. Unless you prefer 5 times the obligations, headaches, guilt, and long conversations about nothing while spooning. :rolleyes:

The big plus? Well, Im guessing theres always something on the table for dinner.

[Ando]

Polygamy is fail. 5 wives is not the same as 5 girlfriends. Unless you prefer 5 times the obligations, headaches, guilt, and long conversations about nothing while spooning. :rolleyes:

The big plus? Well, Im guessing theres always something on the table for dinner.

This gets a big.... A+ ...in my book!!!

[classicmagplayer]

plural marriages are illegal because of there abusive and sexist nature

how are they abusive and sexist? they are illegal because they majority of the population would rather not hear about them, so politicians appease the majority in order to stay in office.

How can a plural marriage be described as abusive and sexist while plural relationships are fine and dandy? The only difference between them is the legal and public recognition of the bond of marriage.

The only time plural marriages should be generally considered abusive and sexist is when someone tries to broadly define them... e.g. "a man can take as many wives as he pleases". If the people involved make the decisions and define the relationship, then I dont see how you can call it abusive and sexist.

[Frizzle Fry]

how are they abusive and sexist? they are illegal because they majority of the population would rather not hear about them, so politicians appease the majority in order to stay in office.

How can a plural marriage be described as abusive and sexist while plural relationships are fine and dandy? The only difference between them is the legal and public recognition of the bond of marriage.

The only time plural marriages should be generally considered abusive and sexist is when someone tries to broadly define them... e.g. "a man can take as many wives as he pleases". If the people involved make the decisions and define the relationship, then I dont see how you can call it abusive and sexist.

Thanks CMP.

Polygamy isn't my bag of chips (it's bad enough just dealing with one person you'll eventually grow to hate...) but that statement, like so many others fro... er... well it definitely needed to be corrected.

[cockerpunk]

how are they abusive and sexist? they are illegal because they majority of the population would rather not hear about them, so politicians appease the majority in order to stay in office.

How can a plural marriage be described as abusive and sexist while plural relationships are fine and dandy? The only difference between them is the legal and public recognition of the bond of marriage.

The only time plural marriages should be generally considered abusive and sexist is when someone tries to broadly define them... e.g. "a man can take as many wives as he pleases". If the people involved make the decisions and define the relationship, then I dont see how you can call it abusive and sexist.

the point i was making about plural relationships is that the government doesn't police relationships, they are not legal and no rights are granted for being in a relationship. IE, plural relationships are also sexist and abusive, however, relationships are not legally binding, therefore the government doesn't need to get involved. its just as abusive and just as sexist and insulting and disrespectful and everything else ... just there are no rights exchanged with the government, so the government doesn't need to get involved.

the ruling is in accordance with the Constitution, and i think its great. i also enjoy the hypocrisy on the right about things of this nature "government should be smaller and not tell people what to do" ... "but you gay people, yeah, we want the government to strip you of your rights"

[SCpoloRicker]

God is a just God, if He doesnt destroy this country for that perversion, He will be morally obligated to bring Sodom and Gomorrah back again and apologize to them for burning them up.

Why do you hate America? TM

[maxama10]

the point i was making about plural relationships is that the government doesn't police relationships, they are not legal and no rights are granted for being in a relationship. IE, plural relationships are also sexist and abusive, however, relationships are not legally binding, therefore the government doesn't need to get involved. its just as abusive and just as sexist and insulting and disrespectful and everything else ... just there are no rights exchanged with the government, so the government doesn't need to get involved.

the ruling is in accordance with the Constitution, and i think its great. i also enjoy the hypocrisy on the right about things of this nature "government should be smaller and not tell people what to do" ... "but you gay people, yeah, we want the government to strip you of your rights"



Yeah, hypocrisy!
Wait what?

[classicmagplayer]

the point i was making about plural relationships is that the government doesn't police relationships, they are not legal and no rights are granted for being in a relationship. IE, plural relationships are also sexist and abusive, however, relationships are not legally binding, therefore the government doesn't need to get involved. its just as abusive and just as sexist and insulting and disrespectful and everything else ... just there are no rights exchanged with the government, so the government doesn't need to get involved.

the ruling is in accordance with the Constitution, and i think its great. i also enjoy the hypocrisy on the right about things of this nature "government should be smaller and not tell people what to do" ... "but you gay people, yeah, we want the government to strip you of your rights"

Replace "plural" with "homosexual" and I think you will notice some hypocrisy in your own statements. Denying the ultimate sign of devotion in a relationship is policing relationships, albeit not directly. Telling multiple partners they cannot marry is no different than telling homosexuals they cannot marry, which is the same thing as telling interracial couples they cannot marry. No matter the situation, the government is telling consenting adults their relationship will not be legally recognized, even when the participants are willing to commit to a lifelong relationship(riiiiiight, whats the divorce rate at now?).

[teufelhunden]

who cares? you do what you want in your house, i'll do what i want in mine, and we leave each other alone.

fair?

[bornl33t]

Replace "plural" with "homosexual" and I think you will notice some hypocrisy in your own statements. Denying the ultimate sign of devotion in a relationship is policing relationships, albeit not directly. Telling multiple partners they cannot marry is no different than telling homosexuals they cannot marry, which is the same thing as telling interracial couples they cannot marry. No matter the situation, the government is telling consenting adults their relationship will not be legally recognized, even when the participants are willing to commit to a lifelong relationship(riiiiiight, whats the divorce rate at now?).

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_P0tP2Xo86Zg/TF4z8Xgd8tI/AAAAAAAAAwU/W1MQKL5E4PQ/s800/specialstupid.jpg

[Frizzle Fry]

"but you gay people, yeah, we want the government to strip you of your rights"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the voters did that.. Just playing devils advocate here, and pointing out your mistake.

[sjrtk]

From what i have been able to gather through all of the gay marriage debate is, it isn't so much of the rights involved, it seems to be about the word marriage. So we change things, marriage is no longer a legal term only a religious one. The Civil Union becomes the ONLY legal term. This solves the problem that it seems like (most of) the anti gay marriage people have. All people are in a civil union with no biased view on weather straight or gay. Just my .02.

[bornl33t]

From what i have been able to gather through all of the gay marriage debate is, it isn't so much of the rights involved, it seems to be about the word marriage. So we change things, marriage is no longer a legal term only a religious one. The Civil Union becomes the ONLY legal term. This solves the problem that it seems like (most of) the anti gay marriage people have. All people are in a civil union with no biased view on weather straight or gay. Just my .02.

As a straight person I want to be able to claim sexual harassment when I am propositioned AND if I kick him in the nuts I don't want it to be a hate crime either. IF they wanna be equal then be equal...but that's not what they want and they know it.

[Warwitch]

Yep. They wanna be special. Juuuuuuuust like everybody else. I tell ya', activists and special interest groups are destroying America.

The problem is people arent special. With almost 7 billion people how unique can we really be? Humanity has long been overdue for getting over itself IMO. Both on an individual and social level.

[ProblemKinder]

self regulating solution!

plural marriages are illegal because of there abusive and sexist nature, and an animal or object can't consent to marriage, so there is no slippery slope to worry about. what two consenting adults do and legally agree to should not the be governments concern.

fight for smaller government right? :rofl:

anyone can have multiple girlfriends, the government doesn't currently restrict that. why would they? "girlfriend" isn't a legal title.

agreed. government should step away from marriage altogether.

[athomas]

Changing the terms to civil union is a good way to go about it. That way, religion is out of it. Marriage is a religious thing. States/provinces/countries have just adopted it because the majority of people in power were religious. That is changing, and specific religions have less of an impact on daily life. The law has to be more generic so that all religions can coexist, but basic human rights can be protected, even if it doesn't represent the majority. Gay marriage doesn't need to be performed by any religion that does not support it. Thats fine. Religions have their rules. However, civil unions need to be accepted because governments should legislate protection for everyone and allow their freedom to choose.

Marriage and gay rights are very similar to the debates about slavery. Just because the majority of society accepted slavery and blacks did not have any rights because the majority of voters where white, didn't make it right. Gay marriage is the same. Many don't agree with it, but we don't need to. We do need to accept it though.


As for sexual harassment and the right to kick someone in the nuts for being propositioned. Think about it from an equal rights perspective. If you proposition a woman, then she has a right to do the same. That would just be bad for all us guys, giving women the right to inflict harm on guys just for asking. :cry:

[Warwitch]

Its always religion that throws a monkey wrench into the machinery isnt it? I would think that, as a civilization, we would be past the need for it. But I guess people still need to be told "it will be OK."

Dont get me wrong. Im not saying all religious people are bad. Or even religions themselves for that matter. What sucks are the atrocities commited in their names. And the wars fought over their differences.. Which, ironicly are much fewer than their similarities.

Man certainly is more intelligent than wise.

[athomas]

Religions in their pure form are fundamental beliefs that people can use to give them strength in a time of need. Unfortunately, there are people that use religion to belittle others with different beliefs. Many powerful people in many different governments have used religion to control the masses. Even people that did not believe in the government at the time would support the church/religion. Many atrocities have been committed in the name of religion. This continues today. It is usually a few radical participants that cause the problem, but everyone associated gets painted with the same brush.

[going_home]

JAMES 1:27
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, [and] to keep himself unspotted from the world.

[teufelhunden]

This is something I never really understood about "conservatives" - one of the core beliefs of conservatism is that the government should be small and out of people's lives. But the same "conservatives" are ready to go to war to speed up the gov't to tell people who they may and may not marry.

This stupid thing also cuts against fiscal conservatism, because fyi, it costs money to have the votes and then the 450 legal challenges.

Then again, I think a lot of "conservatives" really just want everybody to live how they want them to live, a lot like the left. Just a different type of living.

Sucks to actually be conservative and be surrounded (and lumped in) with these goons.

[cockerpunk]

This is something I never really understood about "conservatives" - one of the core beliefs of conservatism is that the government should be small and out of people's lives. But the same "conservatives" are ready to go to war to speed up the gov't to tell people who they may and may not marry.

This stupid thing also cuts against fiscal conservatism, because fyi, it costs money to have the votes and then the 450 legal challenges.

Then again, I think a lot of "conservatives" really just want everybody to live how they want them to live, a lot like the left. Just a different type of living.

Sucks to actually be conservative and be surrounded (and lumped in) with these goons.

this is becuase the conservative party has been hijacked by the evangelical chruch, and evagelical faith is fundamentally opposed to true conservative ideals. they are gonna mandate there religion on you, and do it under the cloak of "small gervernment" which as you pointed out, is simply nonsensical. they are also trying to re-write history to make america a christian nation, which it was not and never has been.

they are also against freedom of religion, and all about the federal government stepping in and taking away people of other faiths right to build a privatly funded building on private property.

they are all about government taking away other poeples rights, but government should stay out of there lives!

[ProblemKinder]

Its always religion that throws a monkey wrench into the machinery isnt it? I would think that, as a civilization, we would be past the need for it. But I guess people still need to be told "it will be OK."

Dont get me wrong. Im not saying all religious people are bad. Or even religions themselves for that matter. What sucks are the atrocities commited in their names. And the wars fought over their differences.. Which, ironicly are much fewer than their similarities.

Man certainly is more intelligent than wise.

considering marriage existed among religion long before the government adopted it as some kind of legal civil union, it appears as if the government threw the monkey wrench in this one.

[ProblemKinder]

This is something I never really understood about "conservatives" - one of the core beliefs of conservatism is that the government should be small and out of people's lives. But the same "conservatives" are ready to go to war to speed up the gov't to tell people who they may and may not marry.

This stupid thing also cuts against fiscal conservatism, because fyi, it costs money to have the votes and then the 450 legal challenges.

Then again, I think a lot of "conservatives" really just want everybody to live how they want them to live, a lot like the left. Just a different type of living.

Sucks to actually be conservative and be surrounded (and lumped in) with these goons.


I think you're thinking in extremes. The Conservatives don't beleave in 0% government involvement, just as the liberals don't believe in 100% government involvement. Of course the conservatives are going to have certain things they want the governement involved in. Just like the liberals probably have a coule things they don't want the governement involved in.

this is why I refuse to call myself a conservative/liberal/republican/democrat. I can't commit myself to one broad set of ideals. I'm a consiberal republicrat :headbang: