General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
l1dERfRzpRdVmb4SS
Xjagger
It took almost eight months to get here, and Augie had to donate the credit. <3 Kabn.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herne
Yeah, sorry. Been busy the past couple of days and been unable to asorb anything from CNN or other places that wasnt work involved.

I feel it should be left up to the inidividual states. Which is why we should overturn Roe-v-Wade as well...abortion should be state regulated as well.

Announcing this so close to election time is an obvious bid for votes, and he doesnt have the votes in congress to get a 2/3 pass rate on the amendment and he knows it, which is why it's also an obvious political ploy. He knows it wont pass, but is announcing it anyway.

He announced it in a public address a long while ago. Months. It's been in the discussion spot like since.

Boy they keep you isolated huh?
Old 07-12-2004, 09:15 AM l1dERfRzpRdVmb4SS is offline  
Reply With Quote
#16  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

walkingcarpet
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nano
you're just now hearing that?

I just had to say I love your avatar, haha.
Old 07-12-2004, 09:16 AM walkingcarpet is offline  
Reply With Quote
#17  

walkingcarpet
 
I don't mind civil unions but I think marriages should remain in the hands of a man and a woman. I am not even slightly religious, so don't pull that card.
Old 07-12-2004, 09:18 AM walkingcarpet is offline  
Reply With Quote
#18  

Nuntius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herne
Announcing this so close to election time is an obvious bid for votes, and he doesnt have the votes in congress to get a 2/3 pass rate on the amendment and he knows it, which is why it's also an obvious political ploy. He knows it wont pass, but is announcing it anyway.

I don't think anyone would have the votes in congress to get an amendment on it, but yeah, I think its purely political. Same thing with looking strong on steel tariffs and stuff, even though most of them get struck down by the WTO. Hell, the US recently imposed tariffs on lingerie, and there isn't even a domestic industry for it. But it still sounds like you're "protecting" American jobs.
Old 07-12-2004, 09:59 AM Nuntius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#19  

siriusnova
Likes the Wiggles' Cock at 4am
 
siriusnova's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xjagger
Religious fanatics care. They're trying to push their morals and gospel on everyone to "save them" from going to hell. It goes hand-in-hand with racism, homophobia and attempts to sneak religion into government functions.

*cough* Evangelist neocons *cough*

qft++
Old 07-12-2004, 10:02 AM siriusnova is offline  
Reply With Quote
#20  

crazymike
I am a dumb fag who needs a dumb TV show to tell me something thatís common knowledge. Then I make
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren5
Not that I think it's right, but just to answer the question: It's keeping the tax revenue from taking another hit. You get tax breaks from getting married, you know? Military spouse benefits in some cases too.


This is totaly fucking retarded and by your reasoning we should ban straight marriages too. What's to stop two straight people from getting married to scam benefits, etc...

Just because gays can't have kids? Then maybe we should ban married couples who don't plan on having kids, and ban people who are baron/impotent from getting married.
__________________
Just once I'd like to meet a girl whose last name wasn't .jpg

[J]eep Club: Shmoblar, Striker169, Trekman8, Crazymike, Whitefrog, PiMpY, Woe, Gearhead
Old 07-12-2004, 11:14 AM crazymike is offline  
Reply With Quote
#21  

Forrest
I am in serous need of a renovated title.. It's like 2 years old. It would make me and my family ver
 
Point 1. Say a priest want to refuse to marry a gay couple, that is his right, he is upholding his religous beleifs. THe gays say it's their right to be married and sue the church or have some more homo parades. What if the church gets shut down. What if they block traffic. Just one more reason why it's no good for them to be married.

Point 2. Canada allows gay marriage,. Look at them.. nuff said.
__________________
sLeDnEcKs
Old 07-12-2004, 11:49 AM Forrest is offline  
Reply With Quote
#22  

crazymike
I am a dumb fag who needs a dumb TV show to tell me something thatís common knowledge. Then I make
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forrest
Point 1. Say a priest want to refuse to marry a gay couple, that is his right, he is upholding his religous beleifs. THe gays say it's their right to be married and sue the church or have some more homo parades. What if the church gets shut down. What if they block traffic. Just one more reason why it's no good for them to be married.

Point 2. Canada allows gay marriage,. Look at them.. nuff said.


Point 1. Wow you are retarded. The church doesn't marry anyone. They perform the ceremony and have the power to make it official. However, you don't need a priest to marry you, city hall does it just fine. And maybe we should ban childrens rights beacuse some group might get upset and have a parade and block traffic.

Point 2. Some priests rape little boys, lets ban them too.
__________________
Just once I'd like to meet a girl whose last name wasn't .jpg

[J]eep Club: Shmoblar, Striker169, Trekman8, Crazymike, Whitefrog, PiMpY, Woe, Gearhead
Old 07-12-2004, 11:55 AM crazymike is offline  
Reply With Quote
#23  

pyramid
COORS LIGHTSPEED: ENGAGED
 
pyramid's Avatar
 
What is funny is that is isn't even a real election issue because AFAIK the Dems are not for gay marraige either.

Personally I think the idea that we need a constitutional amendment to pretect us from the 2%-4% of our population that may or may not want to live together with some sort of benefits is the stupidest proposal of the century. Of all the problems I see affecting us gay people living together with legal recognition of their bond doesn't even come close to being a real issue.

I don't see how anyone who really loves this country and the values it is supposed to stand for can support changing our constitution to take away rights from some of our citizens. I don't see banning gay people from marrying one another accomplishing anything productive or protecting anyone from any real danger. It is a bunch of stupid nonsense proposed by people who would raise holy fucking hell (no pun intended) if anyone ever proposed a constitutional amendment to take away their rights.

Also., I think the idea that 2%-4% of the population being allowed to marry is going to significantly alter our economy in any way is another stupid idea. That is more nonsense to go allong with the idea that how someone else is allowed to live their private life is going to effect the sanctity of your marriage.
__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsters_Are_Due_on_Maple_Street
Old 07-12-2004, 12:05 PM pyramid is offline  
Reply With Quote
#24  

Wren5
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazymike
This is totaly fucking retarded and by your reasoning we should ban straight marriages too. What's to stop two straight people from getting married to scam benefits, etc...

Just because gays can't have kids? Then maybe we should ban married couples who don't plan on having kids, and ban people who are baron/impotent from getting married.
Needs more reading comprehension, and less angry. Note the part about how I don't think it's right. I was just stating an effect of keeping gay marraige banned.

I could care less, really. We're talking about MAYBE 50% of the homosexual population, which is 1% of the nation. .5% of people getting a tax break of less than 1k per year doesn't bother me too much. I personally find the viewing of male homosexual acts offensive but it's not like they're having mansechs on my lawn so who cares. I also wouldn't do it myself but I wouldn't skydive either, no reason to ban that ...
Old 07-12-2004, 12:10 PM Wren5 is offline  
Reply With Quote
#25  

Sean Roberts
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forrest
Point 1. Say a priest want to refuse to marry a gay couple, that is his right, he is upholding his religous beleifs. THe gays say it's their right to be married and sue the church or have some more homo parades. What if the church gets shut down. What if they block traffic. Just one more reason why it's no good for them to be married.

Point 2. Canada allows gay marriage,. Look at them.. nuff said.

I wasn't aware that we were awarding ourselves points for not understanding the issue. Kudos!
__________________
"History is a set of lies that people have agreed upon."
Old 07-12-2004, 12:31 PM Sean Roberts is offline  
Reply With Quote
#26  

Forrest
I am in serous need of a renovated title.. It's like 2 years old. It would make me and my family ver
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazymike
Point 1. Wow you are retarded. The church doesn't marry anyone. They perform the ceremony and have the power to make it official. However, you don't need a priest to marry you, city hall does it just fine. And maybe we should ban childrens rights beacuse some group might get upset and have a parade and block traffic.

Point 2. Some priests rape little boys, lets ban them too.


did i say the priest does? I'm saying some fags want to get married in a church like normal people.
__________________
sLeDnEcKs
Old 07-12-2004, 01:06 PM Forrest is offline  
Reply With Quote
#27  

JCviggen
 
jeezus fucking christ who gives a shit?

wether a gay couple introduce themselves as a gay couple or as a married gay couple, where's the difference? If people want to officially commit to each other let them do it, they're not hurting anyone.
And as said previously, of the heterosexual marriages like 50% of them get a divorce later on, i would think that already takes enough credibility out of marriage

i cant believe a people can get their panties in a bunch over something so trivial
__________________
A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.
Old 07-12-2004, 01:13 PM JCviggen is offline  
Reply With Quote
#28  

crazymike
I am a dumb fag who needs a dumb TV show to tell me something thatís common knowledge. Then I make
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forrest
did i say the priest does? I'm saying some fags want to get married in a church like normal people.


no you didn't, but you like pulling facts out of your ass so I did too. And some churches permit gay marriage, some don't. The gays goes to the ones that do. I havn't heard too many cases of gays putting up a stink because the church won't accept it, only because the state won't.
__________________
Just once I'd like to meet a girl whose last name wasn't .jpg

[J]eep Club: Shmoblar, Striker169, Trekman8, Crazymike, Whitefrog, PiMpY, Woe, Gearhead
Old 07-12-2004, 03:00 PM crazymike is offline  
Reply With Quote
#29  

terrabyte
I'll suck any cock as long as it's liberal cock
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid
What is funny is that is isn't even a real election issue because AFAIK the Dems are not for gay marraige either.

They aren't for obstructing it, either. Don't forget, Democrats support hate crime legislation and are supportive of Homosexual rights. Kerry might not support homosexual marriage, but he isn't going to stop it, either.

Quote:
Personally I think the idea that we need a constitutional amendment to pretect us from the 2%-4% of our population that may or may not want to live together with some sort of benefits is the stupidest proposal of the century. Of all the problems I see affecting us gay people living together with legal recognition of their bond doesn't even come close to being a real issue.
Well, that's President Bush for you.

Quote:
I don't see how anyone who really loves this country and the values it is supposed to stand for can support changing our constitution to take away rights from some of our citizens. I don't see banning gay people from marrying one another accomplishing anything productive or protecting anyone from any real danger. It is a bunch of stupid nonsense proposed by people who would raise holy fucking hell (no pun intended) if anyone ever proposed a constitutional amendment to take away their rights.
Agreed.

Quote:
Also., I think the idea that 2%-4% of the population being allowed to marry is going to significantly alter our economy in any way is another stupid idea. That is more nonsense to go allong with the idea that how someone else is allowed to live their private life is going to effect the sanctity of your marriage.
Yep.
Old 07-12-2004, 03:16 PM terrabyte is offline  
Reply With Quote
#30  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:53 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.