Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 101

Thread: McCain Conceds.

  1. #61
    "my president is black, my lambo's blue...

    disgusting

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    1,922
    Quote Originally Posted by x[lonewolf] View Post
    lol alright bud, keep labeling me but that doesn't add any more credence to your arguement, rather it makes you look like an idiot.
    how does it make him look like an idiot? there's no legs in your argument whatsoever.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    1,922
    Quote Originally Posted by x[gunmanelite] View Post
    Is the name calling entirely necessary? You've essentially reduced yourself to calling everyone who disagrees with your ideology "fag haters", and is that REALLY how you want your point of view represented? Come on now...
    What else would you call voting yes on prop 8? Give me one reason why you would vote yes that doesnt have to do with discrimination or bigotry.
    Last edited by x[method]; 11-09-2008 at 06:32 PM.

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by x[gunmanelite] View Post
    Is the name calling entirely necessary? You've essentially reduced yourself to calling everyone who disagrees with your ideology "fag haters", and is that REALLY how you want your point of view represented? Come on now...
    Calling someone a homophobe -- especially when they exhibit homophobic tendencies -- is not "name calling". "Homophobe" is not the same thing as calling someone a "fucking moron".

    I guess I just struck a nerve.

  5. #65
    sorry guys, i personally know steve (lonewolf) he is in no way a fag hater as you so elloquently put it. he just feels that marriage should be between a man and a woman.


    I just punched a hurricane! WOOOOO!!!!

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Irvine, Cali
    Posts
    2,176
    Images
    22
    is he option 2?
    Especially religious?

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sacramento, ca
    Posts
    2,426
    Images
    22
    lol logan that isn't the case at all.

    This was put on the ballot for a reason. People voted back in 2000 to ban gay marriage. The majority voted. To have that overturned, to have the will of the people overturned by 4 people is not right. I do not like the fact that the gay community went behind the back of the people of california and had 4 robes overturn it. Put it up for vote, let the people of the state decide.
    It wasn't even like it was overturned by all the supreme court justices, but was a 4-3 split.

    How is that bigoted? That I want them to go through the same hoops and the same process as everyone else...? How is that discriminatory?

    If I wanted judges to make my laws for me then why the eff do we even get to vote? What then is the purpose of our legislative system?
    "....everyone wants to come to my house to RAGE."

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Irvine, Cali
    Posts
    2,176
    Images
    22
    I agree the judges should not write the laws or overturn the decision.

    Hell, I'm against Marbury vs. Madison altogether (establishing judicial review).

  9. #69
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

    There are probably states in the union that would still to this day outlaw interracial marriage, if left to the voters to decide.

    But yeah man fuck those activist judges

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    DPRK, Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    4,297
    Images
    19
    There's a reason to vote yes on 8 and it has nothing to do with homos getting married.

    US Constitution, Article IV, Section 2:

    The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
    If homo marriage is legal in California, and the couple moves to Utah, does Utah have to recognize them? If Utah has to, then essentially Californians wrote laws for Utah.

    Let's use my favorite subject, guns. I live in Florida with a "shall issue" concealed carry permit. I passed the test, paid the fees, and have the permit that allows me to carry a weapon in the public anywhere except government agencies. Does California allow me, a Florida citizen, to carry a weapon in California with a Florida license?

    Another reason is that "marriage" is by legal definition as a "union between a man and a woman." That is the definition. The definition did not say "a union between 2 people." Homos can get a civil union that has all the rights and priviledges as marriage, except it's not called marriage. It's a civil union.
    Trust me. I know what I am doing.

    -- Sledge Hammer

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    vancouver
    Posts
    1,743
    Images
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by x[con] View Post
    There's a reason to vote yes on 8 and it has nothing to do with homos getting married.



    If homo marriage is legal in California, and the couple moves to Utah, does Utah have to recognize them? If Utah has to, then essentially Californians wrote laws for Utah.

    Let's use my favorite subject, guns. I live in Florida with a "shall issue" concealed carry permit. I passed the test, paid the fees, and have the permit that allows me to carry a weapon in the public anywhere except government agencies. Does California allow me, a Florida citizen, to carry a weapon in California with a Florida license?

    Another reason is that "marriage" is by legal definition as a "union between a man and a woman." That is the definition. The definition did not say "a union between 2 people." Homos can get a civil union that has all the rights and priviledges as marriage, except it's not called marriage. It's a civil union.

    im no expert but i read that line of the constitution as "federal" and "state" being destinctly different. ie federal laws apply everywhere, state laws specific to states apply in their respective areas?

    its an interesting discussion above the name calling nonetheless.

    i have several gay friends 1 of which i dont have the heart to tell ease up on the cologne, that being said marriage in the biblical sense is between a man and a woman, marriage in the modern sense is between whoever wants to get married. it really is 2 different things. its my personal opinion that this is a stretch from another minority brought about by years of torment from the mainstream. why do gay people need for their union to be callled marriage? its just not the same given that all our beliefs and laws are built from the bible and a christian background. are we all christian/religious? no.
    "24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence? I think not."

  12. #72
    Why do whites and coloreds need to drink from the same drinking fountain? They both provide the same water.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    DPRK, Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    4,297
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by x[jenny] View Post
    im no expert but i read that line of the constitution as "federal" and "state" being destinctly different. ie federal laws apply everywhere, state laws specific to states apply in their respective areas?

    its an interesting discussion above the name calling nonetheless.
    Article IV, Section 2, states that each state has to recognize each other's rights and priviledges. This article governs the relationship between states. The rights granted to me by one state shall be recognized by another state. That's why it's legal for me to drive in Nevada with a California driver's license.

    Under this article, a married couple with a marriage license from one state shall enjoy all the legal protection and rights in another. But the problem is not all states recognize homosexual marriage. Do you force that state to recognize something they don't agree with? Doesn't that mean you make up their laws?

    As with my previous example, why isn't a concealed carry permit issued by Nevada or Florida grant me the right to carry a gun in public in California?

    We can't just pick and choose the rules we want to follow. There are other people here who disagree but have just as much right to complain.

    Quote Originally Posted by x[jenny] View Post
    i have several gay friends 1 of which i dont have the heart to tell ease up on the cologne, that being said marriage in the biblical sense is between a man and a woman, marriage in the modern sense is between whoever wants to get married. it really is 2 different things. its my personal opinion that this is a stretch from another minority brought about by years of torment from the mainstream. why do gay people need for their union to be callled marriage? its just not the same given that all our beliefs and laws are built from the bible and a christian background. are we all christian/religious? no.
    My question has always been "why is a civil union not enough?" Heterosexual couples can't get a civil union. They have to get married. It's the definition.

    Why can't I be called African American? Just because I'm not black? What kind of racist attitude is that? I'm not African American because my recent ancestors weren't from Africa. That's by definition. It's not racist or bigotry.
    Trust me. I know what I am doing.

    -- Sledge Hammer

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    DPRK, Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    4,297
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by cosyg View Post
    Why do whites and coloreds need to drink from the same drinking fountain? They both provide the same water.
    Because it's more expensive to build 2 when 1 would work.

    How about this? Why do we have ballots in different languages? They all say the same thing.
    Trust me. I know what I am doing.

    -- Sledge Hammer

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    vancouver
    Posts
    1,743
    Images
    9
    apples and oranges cosyg. you need to take a breath.
    "24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence? I think not."

  16. #76
    Man, this thread has provided some major

    Where to begin?

    Quote Originally Posted by x[con]
    If homo marriage is legal in California, and the couple moves to Utah, does Utah have to recognize them?
    According to this map (pdf), no.
    If Utah has to, then essentially Californians wrote laws for Utah.
    Well good thing we dodged that bullet. Do you have another rationale?
    Let's use my favorite subject, guns. I live in Florida with a "shall issue" concealed carry permit. I passed the test, paid the fees, and have the permit that allows me to carry a weapon in the public anywhere except government agencies. Does California allow me, a Florida citizen, to carry a weapon in California with a Florida license?
    Was this question rhetorical? Why not just answer it? You of course know that it varies state to state:
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    Reciprocity
    Reciprocal recognition of concealed-carry privileges and rights vary state-to-state, are negotiated between individual states, and sometimes additionally depend on the residency status of the license holder.[12] While 37 states have reciprocity agreements with at least one other state and several states honor all out-of-state concealed carry permits, some states have special requirements like training courses or safety exams, and therefore do not honor permits from states that do not have such requirements for issue.
    Knowing that, I really don't understand your argument here. You know that concealed-carry laws aren't universally recognized, yet you compare the two issues, implying that gay marriages will have to be recognized universally? Huh?
    Quote Originally Posted by x[con]
    Another reason is that "marriage" is by legal definition as a "union between a man and a woman." That is the definition. The definition did not say "a union between 2 people." Homos can get a civil union that has all the rights and priviledges as marriage, except it's not called marriage. It's a civil union.
    The definition according to who? Which states? How about federally?

    Hey and did you know black men were once legally defined as 3/5 of a person? It must be okay because it's the law!

    Oh and hey could you give us a list of all the places where civil unions grant full rights and privileges such as provided to married couples, and then reconcile that with the federal Defense of Marriage Act?
    Quote Originally Posted by x[con]
    Article IV, Section 2, states that each state has to recognize each other's rights and priviledges. This article governs the relationship between states. The rights granted to me by one state shall be recognized by another state. That's why it's legal for me to drive in Nevada with a California driver's license.

    Under this article, a married couple with a marriage license from one state shall enjoy all the legal protection and rights in another. But the problem is not all states recognize homosexual marriage. Do you force that state to recognize something they don't agree with? Doesn't that mean you make up their laws?

    As with my previous example, why isn't a concealed carry permit issued by Nevada or Florida grant me the right to carry a gun in public in California?

    We can't just pick and choose the rules we want to follow. There are other people here who disagree but have just as much right to complain.
    I already poked a massive hole in your "omg gay marriage will be forced upon Utah!" assertion, so let's skip to the rest here:

    So, by your logic here, no state should ever grant a new privilege unless dictated by federal mandate? Let's go back a few decades or so. Marriage between the races is largely illegal, not to mention a criminal offense. Let's say a state passed a law allowing interracial marriage, but there was no federal mandate. You would have a problem with that?

    Quote Originally Posted by x[jenny]
    i have several gay friends 1 of which i dont have the heart to tell ease up on the cologne, that being said marriage in the biblical sense is between a man and a woman, marriage in the modern sense is between whoever wants to get married.
    Ok you're on the right track here -- there's a difference between biblical concept and actual modern society...
    it really is 2 different things. its my personal opinion that this is a stretch from another minority brought about by years of torment from the mainstream. why do gay people need for their union to be callled marriage? its just not the same given that all our beliefs and laws are built from the bible and a christian background. are we all christian/religious? no.
    .....and you've lost it.

    Gay people need their union to be called marriage because that's what everybody else gets. If you offered a trade -- the gays get the word 'marriage' and the hetero couplings will now be called 'civil unions' -- it would be refused. Gay couples don't want the word marriage because it's 'marriage'. They want full equality.

    And please spare us the whole "this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values" nonsense. Apart from not really being true, this nation was also founded with an explicit tolerance of slavery, an explicit assertion that slaves were property, and some strange rule that didn't allow women the vote for another century or so.

    Times change, and as we strive to form a more perfect union we have to make up for some of our forefathers' shortcomings.
    Quote Originally Posted by x[con]
    Because it's more expensive to build 2 when 1 would work.
    Oh ok, it's an economics thing. Otherwise it's ok.

    Quote Originally Posted by x[jenny]
    apples and oranges cosyg. you need to take a breath.
    No hyperventilation here.

    But no, it's not apples and oranges. Nearly every argument that was used against allowing interracial marriage -- natural order of things, God's intent, states' rights, endangerment of 'traditional' marriage, tradition in general -- is now being used against gay marriage. And the assertion that gay couples should just be happy being called something else as long as the rights are the same just screams of Jim Crow laws in the South in the all-too-recent past. Hence the separate water fountains.

    It just baffles me that the same people who presumably read their history books and say, "Wow, people sure were ass backwards back then! Slavery? Codified second class citizenship? What were they thinking?" can in the next moment ignore everything our society has learned to willfully support the oppression of another group of people.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    1,922
    Quote Originally Posted by cosyg View Post
    It just baffles me that the same people who presumably read their history books and say, "Wow, people sure were ass backwards back then! Slavery? Codified second class citizenship? What were they thinking?" can in the next moment ignore everything our society has learned to willfully support the oppression of another group of people.
    Exactly.

  18. #78
    the people have spoken. why do they keep trying to drag this shit up. put it on the ballot next year and try again. seriously this is fucking rediculous.


    I just punched a hurricane! WOOOOO!!!!

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,282
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by x[con] View Post
    That's why it's legal for me to drive in Nevada with a California driver's license.
    I have a friend studying abroad here with me in Chile that is from North Dakota. In that state you can get your driver's license at 14, but she said that until she was 16 her license was not valid in neighboring Minnesota. Same thing would apply to gay marriage (and showed up in the example of the concealed weapons permit).

    And lonewolf....I understand how why you voted yes on prop 8, but how did you vote on prop 22 in 2000? (22 was the other gay marriage ban, right?)

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    DPRK, Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    4,297
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by cosyg View Post
    Man, this thread has provided some major
    Typical liberal condescention. Assuming a self superior attitude, then proceeds to "educate" people who don't agree with you instead of carrying on a rational debate with different view points. Same behavior we can observe from the religious fundamentalists.

    Quote Originally Posted by cosyg View Post
    Where to begin?

    According to this map (pdf), no. Well good thing we dodged that bullet. Do you have another rationale?
    Was this question rhetorical? Why not just answer it? You of course know that it varies state to state:Knowing that, I really don't understand your argument here. You know that concealed-carry laws aren't universally recognized, yet you compare the two issues, implying that gay marriages will have to be recognized universally? Huh?
    The definition according to who? Which states? How about federally?
    Well, maybe concealed carry law should be universally recognized under the constitution. That way you can get your homo marriage universally recognized. I think it's a fair trade.

    Quote Originally Posted by cosyg View Post
    Hey and did you know black men were once legally defined as 3/5 of a person? It must be okay because it's the law!
    Was it overturned by a single judge or was it by the legislature?

    Quote Originally Posted by cosyg View Post
    Oh and hey could you give us a list of all the places where civil unions grant full rights and privileges such as provided to married couples, and then reconcile that with the federal Defense of Marriage Act?
    It's easy to do that. No one is against civil unions with all the rights as marriages. People just want to keep the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.

    Quote Originally Posted by cosyg View Post
    I already poked a massive hole in your "omg gay marriage will be forced upon Utah!" assertion, so let's skip to the rest here:
    More liberal condescention. Let me pat myself on the back here because I am so righteous. Whatever I say is so right that other view points are automatically wrong. I am tolerant of other people, except for those who disagree with me.

    Quote Originally Posted by cosyg View Post
    So, by your logic here, no state should ever grant a new privilege unless dictated by federal mandate? Let's go back a few decades or so. Marriage between the races is largely illegal, not to mention a criminal offense. Let's say a state passed a law allowing interracial marriage, but there was no federal mandate. You would have a problem with that?
    I don't see the connection between interracial marriage and homo marriage. Interracial marriage is between a man and a woman. It satisfies the definition of marriage. Homo marriage does not satisfy the definition of marriage. You are welcome to try to change the definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by cosyg View Post
    Gay people need their union to be called marriage because that's what everybody else gets. If you offered a trade -- the gays get the word 'marriage' and the hetero couplings will now be called 'civil unions' -- it would be refused. Gay couples don't want the word marriage because it's 'marriage'. They want full equality.
    I want to claim "African American" on government forms. Can I do that? My ancestors came out of Africa too, just a few hundred thousand years before the recent slaves. You do believe Africa is the cradle of humanity, right? We all came out of Africa. Some of us earlier than others.

    Quote Originally Posted by cosyg View Post
    Times change, and as we strive to form a more perfect union we have to make up for some of our forefathers' shortcomings.
    Oh ok, it's an economics thing. Otherwise it's ok.
    I agree. Times change. But the people have spoken, twice, on homo marriage. Shouldn't those different opinions count for something? To have a single judge throw out 2 legislative processes is what we call "tyranny of the minority."
    Trust me. I know what I am doing.

    -- Sledge Hammer

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Loooong McCain article
    By x[fragnome] in forum Political / Religious B.S.
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-13-2008, 10:10 AM
  2. An Ugly Fact About McCain
    By x[adambomb] in forum Political / Religious B.S.
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-03-2008, 09:28 AM
  3. If McCain Wins... USA is pretty fuxed, IMO
    By Hydrus in forum Political / Religious B.S.
    Replies: 110
    Last Post: 08-17-2008, 10:09 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •