Gay thread:2-15-07 Democrat Ex-NBA star Tim Hardaway says he hates gays & they should be banned from the world

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: hysperion
There isn't an article of the constitution that applies to marriage in the first place.

Marriage isn't a constitutionally protected right. The only absurd observation is to draw conclusions that the constitution was 'intended' to allow gays the right to marry'.......the constitution gave noone the right to marry.........

Excellent :thumbsup:

Completely destroys any chance of any kind of leg to stand on by the Republicans are are so hell bent on tearing up the Constitution and re-writing their own.

They clearly hate the Constitution, America and anything they used to stand for.

It's their way or the highway.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: lowfatbaconboy
Because gays are not considered a 'suspect class' (a group of people who are recognized by the SC as being historically discriminated against and thus deserve better protections)

This means that there is a lower level of scrutiny in SC cases and would make it harder to declare this type of amendment unconsitutional. So if this gets passed it would not necessarily be thrown out on the basis of equal protection claims. I have heard of a few other ways to argue that its unconstitutional or ways of including gays in the suspect classes but I have no idea how the SC would rule. If strict scrutiny was applied then there would have to be a compelling state interest that infringes on rights in the least restrictive way possible. I doubt that the amendment would be allowed to stand if strict scrutiny was applied even with a conservative leaning court.

Then again this is all irrelevant if it doesn't pass. Though in 2004 when 11 states brought laws to the ballot prevent gay marriage....in all 11 states they were passed by the voters. So either anti-gay marriage legislation is not being brought up in areas that are more amiable towards gays or this gives us an idea of how the rest of the states might vote if this amendment were brought before them.

In other words the SC agrees with Zentroll that Gays are just scum.

Of course; the supreme court only has validity when it agrees with you.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: lowfatbaconboy
Because gays are not considered a 'suspect class' (a group of people who are recognized by the SC as being historically discriminated against and thus deserve better protections)

This means that there is a lower level of scrutiny in SC cases and would make it harder to declare this type of amendment unconsitutional. So if this gets passed it would not necessarily be thrown out on the basis of equal protection claims. I have heard of a few other ways to argue that its unconstitutional or ways of including gays in the suspect classes but I have no idea how the SC would rule. If strict scrutiny was applied then there would have to be a compelling state interest that infringes on rights in the least restrictive way possible. I doubt that the amendment would be allowed to stand if strict scrutiny was applied even with a conservative leaning court.

Then again this is all irrelevant if it doesn't pass. Though in 2004 when 11 states brought laws to the ballot prevent gay marriage....in all 11 states they were passed by the voters. So either anti-gay marriage legislation is not being brought up in areas that are more amiable towards gays or this gives us an idea of how the rest of the states might vote if this amendment were brought before them.

In other words the SC agrees with Zentroll that Gays are just scum.

Of course; the supreme court only has validity when it agrees with you.

The SC has Validity when they uphold the Constitution.

Of course that will no longer be possible filled with Republican Activists.

Of course you love that idea.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: lowfatbaconboy
in 2004 when 11 states brought laws to the ballot prevent gay marriage....in all 11 states they were passed by the voters. So either anti-gay marriage legislation is not being brought up in areas that are more amiable towards gays or this gives us an idea of how the rest of the states might vote if this amendment were brought before them.

The anti-gay amendments banning same-sex marriage and same-sex civil unions were introduced in states where polling, research indicated they would be accepted by voters. So you can't judge the nation's response to the federal amendment based on the results in a handful of states. National polling shows that a most people oppose same-sex marriage, however most people also oppose amending the federal constitution. The support for the federal amendment has dropped a fair bit over the last few years. That's the advantage of getting people talking about the issues. People become more educated.

 

[hysperion]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: hysperion
There isn't an article of the constitution that applies to marriage in the first place.

Marriage isn't a constitutionally protected right. The only absurd observation is to draw conclusions that the constitution was 'intended' to allow gays the right to marry'.......the constitution gave noone the right to marry.........

Excellent :thumbsup:

Completely destroys any chance of any kind of leg to stand on by the Republicans are are so hell bent on tearing up the Constitution and re-writing their own.

They clearly hate the Constitution, America and anything they used to stand for.

It's their way or the highway.

In fairness to Republicans......both parties seem hell bent on twisting the document to suit their political needs. It's a sad time..........It can be seen by democrats claiming the 2nd amendment no longer applies or that it doens't protect an individual right to own firearms as it was intended.And on the Republican side- the domestic spying abuses..........If domestic spying is good for the country and all the people think we should have it- why can't it be added to the constitution?

The point is, both political parties have sold out the people........

 

[dmcowen674]

Alright, go DC Comics :thumbsup:

Joining the Political fray and going against the Republican Regime establishment.

I'm sure Republicans will do everything that they possibly can to shut DC Comics down now because they will be influencing the young.

6-1-2006 Batwoman is back as a lesbian

NEW YORK - Years after she first emerged from the Batcave, Batwoman is coming out of the closet. DC Comics is resurrecting the classic comic book character as a lesbian, unveiling the new Batwoman in July as part of an ongoing weekly series that began this year.

"We decided to give her a different point of view," explained Dan DiDio, vice president and executive editor at DC.

"This is not just about having a gay character," DiDio said. "We're trying for overall diversity in the DC universe. We have strong African-American, Hispanic and Asian characters. We're trying to get a better cross-section of our readership and the world."

The outing of Batwoman created a furor of opinions on Web sites devoted to DC Comics. Opinions ranged from outrage to approval.

DiDio spent most of the morning fielding phone calls from media intrigued by the Batwoman reinvention.

"It's kind of weird," he said. "We had a feeling it would attract some attention, but we're a little surprised it did this much."

 

[herkulease]

this is just some stupid publicity stunt. It'll probably last a few issues than go back to the bin.

with whole fervor from the entertainment industry over Brokeback Mountain(which I see it as nothing more than a basic love story but with two guys instead of guy/girl) they figure what the heck. Might as well cash in on it. This is nothing more than DC Comics not having an original thought.

Create new characters. They killed superman in the 90s which was astronomical then only to have him come back.

But that's the whole entertainment industry lately, tons of remakes and sequels. Hardly any original/interest storyline anymore

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: herkuleaseCreate new characters.

There are lots of new comic characters and titles created all the time. Most of them are not widely well known outside of comic fan circles.

 

[dmcowen674]

6-5-2006 US Republican majority uses gay marriage ban to woo its base

WASHINGTON - Five months before a congressional election that may prove difficult for Republicans, the party of President George W. Bush has decided to move to the forefront an issue dear to its conservative base: a gay marriage ban

Congress has many burning issues on its agenda: it has to unblock emergency funds for Iraq and Afghanistan, adopt a budget, ratify a nuclear deal with India and encourage construction of refineries to lower painfully high gas prices.

But instead, senators will return Monday, after spending a week with their constituents, to hold a debate on a single issue: a ban on gay marriage.

"This fundamental institution is under threat," Senate Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist said of traditional marriage.

"Activist courts are usurping the power to define this social institution. And if marriage is redefined for anyone, it is redefined for everyone. The threat is real."

President Bush spoke against gay marriage in his weekly radio address Saturday and was expected to raise the issue again during a press conference Monday.

"Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society," Bush insisted.

He said the issue required "a national solution" because of "activist judges," who have recently struck down laws upholding traditional marriage in the states of Washington, California, Maryland, New York and Nebraska. Other states could be soon forced to accept matrimony between homosexuals.

"An amendment to the constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our nation with no other choice," the president argued.

 

[blackllotus]

I don't see where they are getting the 2/3rds vote from. Just another stupid political stunt

 

[zendari]

Maybe liberals should let it be and accept the current situation of gay marraige.

 

[XZeroII]

Good. It's unnatural.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: blackllotus
I don't see where they are getting the 2/3rds vote from. Just another stupid political stunt

From Bush and republicans... It can;t be.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Good. It's unnatural.

Lots of things are unnatural but they don't belong in the US Constitution...PERIOD!

If the states want to vote for a ban, fine.

This is 100% political pandering with absolutely no chance of passing. Nothing but a stunt to try to rally the base and get the voters out.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Good. It's unnatural.

Lots of things are unnatural but they don't belong in the US Constitution...PERIOD!

If the states want to vote for a ban, fine.

This is 100% political pandering with absolutely no chance of passing. Nothing but a stunt to try to rally the base and get the voters out.

How is this different from almost ANYTHING else politicians do? At least they're targeting a group that deserves it for once.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Good. It's unnatural.

Lots of things are unnatural but they don't belong in the US Constitution...PERIOD!

If the states want to vote for a ban, fine.

This is 100% political pandering with absolutely no chance of passing. Nothing but a stunt to try to rally the base and get the voters out.

How is this different from almost ANYTHING else politicians do? At least they're targeting a group that deserves it for once.

Yea maybe republicans can get back to basics and get those dirty blacks and slanty eyed peopel as well. Lord knows everything else is going so well right now we don;t have anything better to do.


:roll:

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Good. It's unnatural.

Lots of things are unnatural but they don't belong in the US Constitution...PERIOD!

If the states want to vote for a ban, fine.

This is 100% political pandering with absolutely no chance of passing. Nothing but a stunt to try to rally the base and get the voters out.

How is this different from almost ANYTHING else politicians do? At least they're targeting a group that deserves it for once.

Uh, not it's not. An amendment to the Constituation isn't just ANYTHING. You can keep your hatred and biggotry but it DOES NOT DESERVE A SPOT IN THE US CONSTITUTION.

Why not ban divorce next since it destroys far more marriage than this could ever hope to scratch? eh? Because that's not what this is about. It's about biggotry and hatred...PERIOD!

 

[WHAMPOM]

Just Bush pumping up the Fundies so they will get out and vote. You know the people who never knew a GAY, never seen a GAY, Wouldn't live within fifty miles of a GAY, but hate them anyway.

 

[senseamp]

This is the last resort for GOP, pander to racists on immigration and homophobes on gay marriage. Nothing else is working. I don't think this is going to work either, but they got nothing else left.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Good. It's unnatural.

Lots of things are unnatural but they don't belong in the US Constitution...PERIOD!

If the states want to vote for a ban, fine.

This is 100% political pandering with absolutely no chance of passing. Nothing but a stunt to try to rally the base and get the voters out.

How is this different from almost ANYTHING else politicians do? At least they're targeting a group that deserves it for once.

Yeah and I bet you think the blacks deserved Jim Crowe too. Its always the same ****** thing. "Its ok to discriminate against people who are different from us".

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Good. It's unnatural.

Well you are entitled to your wrong opinion. Research has shown that homosexuality is quite natural, even in the animal kingdom. Quite natural, face it.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Good. It's unnatural.

Lots of things are unnatural but they don't belong in the US Constitution...PERIOD!

If the states want to vote for a ban, fine.

This is 100% political pandering with absolutely no chance of passing. Nothing but a stunt to try to rally the base and get the voters out.

How is this different from almost ANYTHING else politicians do?

At least they're targeting a group that deserves it for once.

At least threads like this bring out the Bigots and Zealots to the forefront.

They are proud Anti-Americans.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Good. It's unnatural.

Lots of things are unnatural but they don't belong in the US Constitution...PERIOD!

If the states want to vote for a ban, fine.

This is 100% political pandering with absolutely no chance of passing. Nothing but a stunt to try to rally the base and get the voters out.

How is this different from almost ANYTHING else politicians do?

At least they're targeting a group that deserves it for once.

At least threads like this bring out the Bigots and Zealots to the forefront.

They are proud Anti-Americans.

So you are saying that I am not allowed to have my own oppinion? I am not allowed to dislike groups of people? Who's the anti-American here? Maybe we should just make you President and you can tell us all how we should think and act. Welcome to the world of communism. If you don't believe what Dave believes, then you will be punished.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: thraashman

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Good. It's unnatural.

Well you are entitled to your wrong opinion. Research has shown that homosexuality is quite natural, even in the animal kingdom. Quite natural, face it.

If you believe in Evolution, then how is homosexuality a survival trait? How could it have possibly evolved? The "gay gene" would have been wiped out long ago because they would not have reproduced.

Plus, just because animals do it doesn't mean that people should do it. That's a stupid argument.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: thraashman

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Good. It's unnatural.

Well you are entitled to your wrong opinion. Research has shown that homosexuality is quite natural, even in the animal kingdom. Quite natural, face it.

If you believe in Evolution, then how is homosexuality a survival trait? How could it have possibly evolved? The "gay gene" would have been wiped out long ago because they would not have reproduced.

Plus, just because animals do it doesn't mean that people should do it. That's a stupid argument.

Heh, you just owned yourself.

Yeah, animals do it, but they also continue to thrive because they do both things. Just as humans, throughout history, have had both homosexual and heterosexual relationships, only now is it becoming more pronounced and accepted.

Heck, look at it this way if you want. Since it's not repressed and gay people won't be in hetereo child-producing relationships, then it will eventually be phased out.

Not a good way of looking at it and I happen to think it's incorrect, but if your mind needs something to grasp, go ahead and grasp that.