Voters set to affirm hatred of gays

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: spidey07
Here in KY we've put a nice wording around it..

"protect marriage between one man and one women"

Brilliant! I agree with that and will vote for it.

Looks like they made a mistake with the "one" if they want truly Bible-based marriage, which was polygynous.

Well its what we're voting on. An right now there is about 78% support.

Thank goodness we live in a society where majority rules and we get to vote.

Except you don't. You live in a society protected by a Constitution and a Bill of rights, the purpose of which is to protect individuals from the tyranny of the majority.

No fvcking kidding. Some of you people need to go back to high school, or junior high, or wherever it was you should have been learning these things.

Wait, you trust the public school system to teach kids this stuff? :roll:

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: Excelsior
Where are the people bashing only southern states for this? Fvcking idiots.

77% in GA, 92% MI, last I knew. Why NOT bash the Southern states for this?

<- Georgia boy

I said "only" southern states. We all know that Michigan, Ohio, North Dakota, and Utah are NOT southern states. :roll:

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: Excelsior
Where are the people bashing only southern states for this? Fvcking idiots.

77% in GA, 92% MI, last I knew. Why NOT bash the Southern states for this?<- Georgia boy

I said "only" southern states. We all know that Michigan, Ohio, North Dakota, and Utah are NOT southern states. :roll:

nm, then. WOuld be real funny if it were on all ballots :evil:

 

[Rage187]

And we should feel bad that we disapprove of homosexuality because?

 

[flexy]

:|
This makes a mockery of civil rights.

i love a morale which goes like this:

Claiming to be religious and believe in GOD, and going to church every sunday where they preach tolerance.

And then banning gay marriage because it's against the morals

Some people are so f****d up in their brains....

I am waiting for the ban on mixed race marriages, all in the name of God, too.

Times seems to go backwards in this country and i am truly ashamed.

 

[flexy]

Originally posted by: Rage187
And we should feel bad that we disapprove of homosexuality because?

because intolerant people are stupid !

WHat is it YOUR business what OTHER people's sex orientation, religion or whatever IS ?

Certainly not YOUR business to ban and make laws because YOU <- do not agree with their opinions.
Thats the first step to Nazi-like totalirism !!! ALso, now you work AGAINST the American ideal of freedom for everyone - the ideal SUPPOSEDLY always being brought up but IN REALITY its put in the dirt and people step on it and sh!t on it.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: Excelsior
Where are the people bashing only southern states for this? Fvcking idiots.

77% in GA, 92% MI, last I knew. Why NOT bash the Southern states for this?<- Georgia boy

I said "only" southern states. We all know that Michigan, Ohio, North Dakota, and Utah are NOT southern states. :roll:

nm, then. WOuld be real funny if it were on all ballots :evil:

And I bet it would be at least close to even in a lot of the states....fact is, a large majority of the population believes, and for good reason, that marriage is between a man and a woman.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Rage187
And we should feel bad that we disapprove of homosexuality because?

you should not. but you should feel damned ashamed of yourselves for imposing the arbitrary beliefs of your religion upon others.

 

[nageov3t]

and they call us urbanites elitists.

we're at least willing to live and let live.

 

[gutharius]

Originally posted by: drpootums
oh yes, and for the people calling us bigots, maybe we should be like canada and be jailed for talking out against homosexual marrage.

Sounds like they're getting a bit further away from democracy there...

I demand linkage on that!

 

[xyyz]

i find it disturbing that the right chastizes the left when the left wants to expand the role of government to HELP the less fortunate, because they don't want the government excercise control over others. but then they have no qualm in dictating to others what they can do or can't do to where they actually HURT certain groups of people.

talk about hypocrisy.

 

[xyyz]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

banning gay marriage =/ hatred of gay people.

sure it does. it says that we feel your lifestyle is so disgusting that we need to pass a law to outlaw certain benefits any other person with what we deem a normal lifestyle is privy to.

 

[xyyz]

Originally posted by: loki8481
and they call us urbanites elitists.

we're at least willing to live and let live.

urban elitist = educated and sophisticated

doesn't seem like much of an insult now does it?

 

[Class1]

Pass a domestic partners law that gives gays all the rights of a marriage. Would that solve the problem or does it have to be called a marriage. No christian church will sanctify a gay marriage so pass a domestic partners law.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: Class1
Pass a domestic partners law that gives gays all the rights of a marriage. Would that solve the problem or does it have to be called a marriage. No christian church will sanctify a gay marriage so pass a domestic partners law.

Yeah, that would be OK. But it would have to apply to heterosexual domestic couples too, or else it would be discriminating.

At my workplace, they offer health benefits to same-sex domestic partners of employees. However when my wife was living with me before we were married, I couldn't get her on my insurance. I thought that was discriminating.

However, then you're going to get people upset that anyone living together can get marriage benefits. They'll say, so why get married?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Well, the first part of your statement is true. We all currently have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex... whether we are black, white, gay, straight, big, tall...

Yes, just like in the 1960s, when black people and white people had EXACTLY the same marriage rights -- boths blacks and whites could marry an opposite-sex partner, so long as that partner was from their OWN ETHNIC BACKGROUND... Of course, if a BLACK fell in love with a WHITE, then too f*cking bad, right?

Straight people have the option of having a civil marriage with the partner they fall in love and build a life together with. Gay people do NOT have the right to wed the partner they fall in love and build a life together with. The option of marrying someone of the opposite gender is useless to a gay person. If a right is not meaningful or applicable, then what is it worth?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: xyyz

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

banning gay marriage =/ hatred of gay people.

sure it does. it says that we feel your lifestyle is so disgusting that we need to pass a law to outlaw certain benefits any other person with what we deem a normal lifestyle is privy to.

it says that we feel your lifestyle is so disgusting that we need to pass a law to outlaw certain benefits any other person with what we deem a normal lifestyle is privy to.

Nothing like open Bigotry, Elitism and Hatred.

 

[Sketcher]

Shhhhh, don?t make a sound? The ?tolerant? Left is being intolerant of the Right. There is perhaps no greater one single falsehood of current and historical political value than the hypocrisy of the left reaching for a high ground claiming tolerance the while ensuring that no one else can use the same rope they just climbed up.

The liberals claim a ?Mandate? when their candidate is in office though their percentage of election has been far less than our ?04 elected Oval Office, House and Senate. Mention ?Republican Mandate? in MSM; pointing to the clear and uncontested ballot numbers across the nation and you?ve just filled a full night of broadcasting with the vaudeville antics of left-jumping media hounds arguing that their ?voice? was out there, it just didn?t effectively reach the people. An interesting supposition what with the MSM bias and the ludicrous levels of spending the liberal funded 527?s enjoyed. The only conclusion that can be drawn from that is that either the Democrats are clueless or the potential untapped voters are. Well, that?s what you get when you run an ?Anybody but Bush? campaign and then neglect to run someone who can stand for something.

The Liberals love to say ?The People Voted their Conscience? and applaud our Democracy when one of their own is elected to office yet they are somehow disenfranchised when the vote count does not provide them a key to the oval washroom.

Ron Reagan on Hardball last night offered up the plight of the 45 Million people who didn?t vote as being ?unrepresented? in the ballot numbers and insisted that their interests were not championed. They championed themselves you idiot. They weren?t interested. Silence is a vote and if you can?t in the least fill out an absentee or provisional ballot you have no one but yourself to blame. Historical voter turn-out and historical numbers for BOTH political parties no less. No hanging chad issues or ballot fraud to contest. ?The People? have spoken, people.

11 of 11 states represented ?The People? on the Ban on Gay Marriage. Contrary to the spinsters? opinions, the turnout on that voting issue crossed every demographic line that can be measured. The outcome is not an indication of ?Hate toward Gays? by the intolerant Right-Wing fanatics. It IS a measurement taken on the pulse of society as a whole with no small margin of indecision.

Let the people vote; THEY HAVE.
Let the people decide; THEY DID.
Let the people enjoy the freedom of Democracy; THEY ARE.

If you find yourself standing in spilled milk, perhaps it?s time to quite crying and clean it up.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Sketcher
Shhhhh, don?t make a sound? The ?tolerant? Left is being intolerant of the Right. There is perhaps no greater one single falsehood of current and historical political value than the hypocrisy of the left reaching for a high ground claiming tolerance the while ensuring that no one else can use the same rope they just climbed up.

;thumbsup;

The liberals claim a ?Mandate? when their candidate is in office though their percentage of election has been far less than our ?04 elected Oval Office, House and Senate. Mention ?Republican Mandate? in MSM; pointing to the clear and uncontested ballot numbers across the nation and you?ve just filled a full night of broadcasting with the vaudeville antics of left-jumping media hounds arguing that their ?voice? was out there, it just didn?t effectively reach the people.

Probably true. Ratings have been pitiful these last years. But don't tell them to shorten ads and bring real content, or they'll just whine more.

An interesting supposition what with the MSM bias and the ludicrous levels of spending the liberal funded 527?s enjoyed. The only conclusion that can be drawn from that is that either the Democrats are clueless or the potential untapped voters are. Well, that?s what you get when you run an ?Anybody but Bush? campaign and then neglect to run someone who can stand for something.

First, they are clueless. There is no other good explanation for Dean then Kerry &amp; Edwards, much less the campaign as a whole. Let them have cake, folks. The Republicans are a bit out, but given their love of business, they simply aren't going to be as out of touch as the Democrats.
Second, they alienated the moderates and swing voters with the substanceless anti-bush campaign.
I very much dislike Bush, but the Democratic party, not fixing this early on, reaped what they sowed.

Also, note that Fox should be considered MSM now...

The Liberals love to say ?The People Voted their Conscience? and applaud our Democracy when one of their own is elected to office yet they are somehow disenfranchised when the vote count does not provide them a key to the oval washroom.

Well, duh!
Democrats = fraud.
Republicans = disenfranchisement.

Ron Reagan on Hardball last night offered up the plight of the 45 Million people who didn?t vote as being ?unrepresented? in the ballot numbers and insisted that their interests were not championed. They championed themselves you idiot.

Agreed. Anyone could be in line at 7pm. Anybody.

They weren?t interested. Silence is a vote and if you can?t in the least fill out an absentee or provisional ballot

I can't, BTW, though may lie in the future to do so (GA is 100% computer, except absentee/provisional), depending on how things show out with the machines.

you have no one but yourself to blame. Historical voter turn-out and historical numbers for BOTH political parties no less. No hanging chad issues or ballot fraud to contest. ?The People? have spoken, people.

11 of 11 states represented ?The People? on the Ban on Gay Marriage. Contrary to the spinsters? opinions, the turnout on that voting issue crossed every demographic line that can be measured. The outcome is not an indication of ?Hate toward Gays? by the intolerant Right-Wing fanatics. It IS a measurement taken on the pulse of society as a whole with no small margin of indecision.

Let the people vote; THEY HAVE.
Let the people decide; THEY DID.
Let the people enjoy the freedom of Democracy; THEY ARE.

If you find yourself standing in spilled milk, perhaps it?s time to quite crying and clean it up.

And in this case, that is what the courts are for. The majority was not right, and hopefully it will be overturned, at least in part. This very clearly falls under minority rights.

 

[Netopia]

Would someone please show me what right is taken away? In my VERY VERY Democrat and liberal state of Maryland, one requires a license to get married, just like you need one to drive. It has always been my understanding that anything which required a license was a PRIVILEDGE which you might or might NOT be given based on your qualifications.

Marriage is a priviledge in most states, not a right. For instance, if I'm already married, I do NOT qualify to marry again; I can only be married to one person at a time. What if I want to have 3 wives? TOO BAD, that is neither my right NOR my priviledge because on of the qualifications for marriage is that you are not already married.

We don't have a Bill of Priviledges in the Constitution, we have a Bill of Rights and marriage isn't listed. Since it isn't listed, the 10th Amendment says that the power to decide goes to the states. All of this is legal and in order.

But I have a question for all the people saying that someone's rights are being taken away... do you believe that society has NO RIGHT to decide its own environment? There are laws in most places that keep porn shops and strip joint out of neighborhoods. Does that mean that the people that passed those laws hate people or simply that they think those things are wrong and don't want their children exposed to it? You guys act like people have no right to govern their own communities or to shape the society in which they live. Actually, that's not true... you DO believe in those things, but only if they conform to what you think is right. If they conform to another viewpoint, then those people are bigots and intolerant. Quite a double standard there.

Joe

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Netopia
Would someone please show me what right is taken away? In my VERY VERY Democrat and liberal state of Maryland, one requires a license to get married, just like you need one to drive. It has always been my understanding that anything which required a license was a PRIVILEDGE which you might or might NOT be given based on your qualifications.

Marriage is a priviledge in most states, not a right. For instance, if I'm already married, I do NOT qualify to marry again; I can only be married to one person at a time. What if I want to have 3 wives? TOO BAD, that is neither my right NOR my priviledge because on of the qualifications for marriage is that you are not already married.

We don't have a Bill of Priviledges in the Constitution, we have a Bill of Rights and marriage isn't listed. Since it isn't listed, the 10th Amendment says that the power to decide goes to the states. All of this is legal and in order.

But I have a question for all the people saying that someone's rights are being taken away... do you believe that society has NO RIGHT to decide its own environment? There are laws in most places that keep porn shops and strip joint out of neighborhoods. Does that mean that the people that passed those laws hate people or simply that they think those things are wrong and don't want their children exposed to it? You guys act like people have no right to govern their own communities or to shape the society in which they live. Actually, that's not true... you DO believe in those things, but only if they conform to what you think is right. If they conform to another viewpoint, then those people are bigots and intolerant. Quite a double standard there.

Joe

do you consider procreation to be a right or a priviledge? it's not in the bill of right either...

and btw, porn shops are not equivalent to gay marriage. banning gay marriage doesn't mean gays will be less visible or ungay... i don't believe gays have a negative effect on society, but even if they did, banning gay marriage doesn't do jack sh!t about any negative effects homosexuality might bring.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Netopia
Would someone please show me what right is taken away? In my VERY VERY Democrat and liberal state of Maryland, one requires a license to get married, just like you need one to drive. It has always been my understanding that anything which required a license was a PRIVILEDGE which you might or might NOT be given based on your qualifications.

Joe

marriage license is merely very good proof for probate. (and divorce and adultery etc where marraige needs to be proven as a fact)

 

[Netopia]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Netopia
Would someone please show me what right is taken away? In my VERY VERY Democrat and liberal state of Maryland, one requires a license to get married, just like you need one to drive. It has always been my understanding that anything which required a license was a PRIVILEDGE which you might or might NOT be given based on your qualifications.

Marriage is a priviledge in most states, not a right. For instance, if I'm already married, I do NOT qualify to marry again; I can only be married to one person at a time. What if I want to have 3 wives? TOO BAD, that is neither my right NOR my priviledge because on of the qualifications for marriage is that you are not already married.

We don't have a Bill of Priviledges in the Constitution, we have a Bill of Rights and marriage isn't listed. Since it isn't listed, the 10th Amendment says that the power to decide goes to the states. All of this is legal and in order.

But I have a question for all the people saying that someone's rights are being taken away... do you believe that society has NO RIGHT to decide its own environment? There are laws in most places that keep porn shops and strip joint out of neighborhoods. Does that mean that the people that passed those laws hate people or simply that they think those things are wrong and don't want their children exposed to it? You guys act like people have no right to govern their own communities or to shape the society in which they live. Actually, that's not true... you DO believe in those things, but only if they conform to what you think is right. If they conform to another viewpoint, then those people are bigots and intolerant. Quite a double standard there.

Joe

do you consider procreation to be a right or a priviledge? it's not in the bill of right either...

and btw, porn shops are not equivalent to gay marriage. banning gay marriage doesn't mean gays will be less visible or ungay... i don't believe gays have a negative effect on society, but even if they did, banning gay marriage doesn't do jack sh!t about any negative effects homosexuality might bring.

Last time I checked you didn't need a license for procreation.

No, porn shops and homosexual unions are not the same thing... but then I wasn't trying to make that statement, so what's the point? What I was saying was that people have a right to shape their society and the morals by which it will live. And you know what? If the majority of my state says that homosexual unions or even Homosexual Marriage is ok, then the people have spoken! I'm free to voice my dissent or move to some other place.... the same as everyone else.

Joe

 

[OFFascist]

Gays != a real minority

Blacks = a minority

Asians = a minority

Hispanics = a minority, for now...

Gays need to get over themselves.

Marriage = a man + a woman

Thier more vocal members who were all over television pressing the gay marriage issue cost the Democrats the election because the Republicans used it against them.

 

[Netopia]

Even the Gay Bishop of the Episcopal Church said that the could be no such thing as "Gay Marriage", because marriage was only between a man and a woman.

Joe