W's supporters homophobic Kerry ad...

[memyselfI]

http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/gaymarriage.htm

As bad as it is, I've got to credit them for sending conservative and moderate gays flocking to the Kerry camp. :thumb:

[Calcountry]

This thread is worthless without anything.

[MadProphetMargin]

I don't see what the big deal is. Why shouldn't the gays suffer like the rest of us?

[Calcountry]

Oh yeah, I forgot, I got you on iggy. lmao.

[OldTownChief]

http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/gaymarriage.htm

As bad as it is, I've got to credit them for sending conservative and moderate gays flocking to the Kerry camp. :thumb:

eh...hum, there are no conservative and moderate gays.

[memyselfI]

eh...hum, there are no conservative and moderate gays.

Surely you jest... :rolleyes:

www.andrewsullivan.com

http://www.logcabin.org/logcabin/index.html

[MadProphetMargin]

eh...hum, there are no conservative and moderate gays.

http://logcabinrepublicans.com

[OldTownChief]

Surely you jest... :rolleyes:

www.andrewsullivan.com

http://www.logcabin.org/logcabin/index.html

Thanks for the link....and don't call me Shirly
http://home.earthlink.net/~eglweb/kerry.jpg

[OldTownChief]

http://logcabinrepublicans.com


That's just wrong man.

[MadProphetMargin]

That's just wrong man.

But there you have it.

Of course, they'll look just FABULOUS at the inaugural ball!

[WilliamTheIrish]

That was funny as all hell.

[Mr. Kotter]

Translation:

Even if conscientious people of sincere moral conviction refuse to embrace the radical, extremist gay rights agenda....even when it's based on heartfelt and deeply religious principles, those people are

HOMOPHOBES!!! :cuss:

Such condescension and arrogance. :rolleyes:

:shake:

[BIG_DADDY]

Translation:

Even if conscientious people of sincere moral conviction refuse to embrace the radical, extremist gay rights agenda....even when it's based on heartfelt and deeply religious principles, those people are

HOMOPHOBES!!! :cuss:

Such condescension and arrogance. :rolleyes:

:shake:

What else would you expect from a bloody box living off the system?

[Mr. Kotter]

What else would you expect from a bloody box living off the system?

Nothing else.

Her ignorance is exceeded only by her arrogance. :shake:

[OldTownChief]

Nothing else.

Her ignorance is exceeded only by her arrogance. :shake:

She is ignorantly arrogant.

[Baby Lee]

I do my level best to seperate the Kerry campaign from the likes of Ted Rall, Michael Moore, Greg Palast, Andrea Dworkin, Noam Chomsky, the socialists, the communists, the nihilists, etc.

Thanks for extending us the same decency.

[Mr. Kotter]

I do my level best to seperate the Kerry campaign from the likes of Ted Rall, Michael Moore, Greg Palast, Andrea Dworkin, Noam Chomsky, the socialists, the communists, the nihilists, etc.

Thanks for extending us the same decency.

Dammit, BL....haven't you LEARNED? Duhnise has NO decency.... :shake:

:p

[OldTownChief]

I do my level best to seperate the Kerry campaign from the likes of Ted Rall, Michael Moore, Greg Palast, Andrea Dworkin, Noam Chomsky, the socialists, the communists, the nihilists, etc.

Thanks for extending us the same decency.

She's fishing

[Baby Lee]

She's fishing
MoF, with this being a purely internet entity, it wouldn't surprise me that it was put up by Kerry supporters pretending to be Bush supporters. Kinda like the middle-aged fat dudes pretending to be teenage girls in a chat room.
Either way, it's about as relevant to the Bush campaign as that homeless guy screaming dire predictions on the street corner.

[RINGLEADER]

Surely you jest... :rolleyes:

www.andrewsullivan.com

http://www.logcabin.org/logcabin/index.html


Andrew Sullivan endorsed Kerry, didn't he?

[Mr. Kotter]

Andrew Sullivan endorsed Kerry, didn't he?

I think he did; solely because of the proposed ban on Gay Marriage Amendment...

And liberals complain about "one issue" voters on the right? :rolleyes:

:shake:

[Baby Lee]

Andrew Sullivan endorsed Kerry, didn't he?
And I seem to recall a division of the log cabin republicans getting their charter revoked for endorsing Bush this time 'round.

The whole gay issue is such a clusterf@ck. 2% on the left and 2% on the right, both of them lying to the 96% in the middle who could care less, until they are whipped up by the lies.

[Brando]

And I seem to recall a division of the log cabin republicans getting their charter revoked for endorsing Bush this time 'round.

The whole gay issue is such a clusterf@ck. 2% on the left and 2% on the right, both of them lying to the 96% in the middle who could care less, until they are whipped up by the lies.

Exactly! Nicely stated.

[Mr. Kotter]

Translation:

Even if conscientious people of sincere moral conviction refuse to embrace the radical, extremist gay rights agenda....even when it's based on heartfelt and deeply religious principles, those people are

HOMOPHOBES!!! :cuss:

Such condescension and arrogance. :rolleyes:

:shake:

DUHnise??? ROFL

[MadProphetMargin]

What else would you expect from a bloody box living off the system?

Hey! Leave Noelle Bush out of this.

[MadProphetMargin]

Translation:

Even if conscientious people of sincere moral conviction refuse to embrace the radical, extremist gay rights agenda....even when it's based on heartfelt and deeply religious principles, those people are

HOMOPHOBES!!! :cuss:

Such condescension and arrogance. :rolleyes:

:shake:

I don't think they want you to embrace them, SD. I also doubt they want to walk in the park, or dance the tango with you.

I think they just want to get married to each other.

That doesn't sound too complicated, and I can't see how it harms you.

[Mr. Kotter]

I don't think they want you to embrace them, SD. I also doubt they want to walk in the park, or dance the tango with you.

I think they just want to get married to each other.

That doesn't sound too complicated, and I can't see how it harms you.

Askin' people of moral conviction who feel profoundly that gay marriage is not right to "look the other way," IS equivalent to askin' America to "embrace" them in my book....but reasonable people may disagree. :)

[KCWolfman]

I don't think they want you to embrace them, SD. I also doubt they want to walk in the park, or dance the tango with you.

I think they just want to get married to each other.

That doesn't sound too complicated, and I can't see how it harms you.
Ahh, the it doesn't affect you so why should you care mantra.

My kids use that one too.

[MadProphetMargin]

Askin' people of moral conviction who feel profoundly that gay marriage is not right, IS equivalent to askin' America to "embrace" them in my book....but reasonable people may disagree. :)

If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay. It's really that easy.

To push this sort of "morality" on other people is, IMO, fundamentally un-American.

Your opinion is your opinion...but to pass laws restricting the freedom of others, when that freedom harms no one, strikes me as something that would be more appropriate for the Taliban to do, rather than the USA.

[KCWolfman]

If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay. It's really that easy.

To push this sort of "morality" on other people is, IMO, fundamentally un-American.

Your opinion is your opinion...but to pass laws restricting the freedom of others, when that freedom harms no one, strikes me as something that would be more appropriate for the Taliban to do, rather than the USA.
There is no law restricting gays from getting married.

There is a law that defines marriage.

Honesty is so tough when you have an agenda.

[Mr. Kotter]

If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay. It's really that easy.

To push this sort of "morality" on other people is, IMO, fundamentally un-American.

Your opinion is your opinion...but to pass laws restricting the freedom of others, when that freedom harms no one, strikes me as something that would be more appropriate for the Taliban to do, rather than the USA.

How about, if you wanna get married...marry someone of the opposite sex? It's really that easy.

To push this sort of "morality" on other people, IMO, by fundamentally changing the DEFINITION of "marriage" is Un-American.

Your opinion is your opiniion....but to pass laws opening marriage to some "new" definition that no one else (that matters) accepts, strikes me as something that would be more appropriate for hedonists and moral relativists undermining societies throughout the world would do, rather than the USA.

JMHO. :)

[MadProphetMargin]

How about, if you wanna get married...marry someone of the opposite sex? It's really that easy.

To push this sort of "morality" on other people, IMO, by fundamentally changing the DEFINITION of "marriage" is Un-American.

Your opinion is your opiniion....but to pass laws opening marriage to some "new" definition that no one else (that matters) accepts, strikes me as something that would be more appropriate for hedonists and moral relativists undermining societies throughout the world would do, rather than the USA.

JMHO. :)

How is homosexuality hedonistic? For that matter, what's wrong with hedonism?

If *I* can get my nasty on with my wife, a crotchless wetsuit, 30 gallons of Jello, and BIG RED STRAPS, who am *I* to tell other consenting adults what they may or may not do? :D

Fact is, you wish to restrict the rights of others (that are, again, doing you no harm), for no reason other than what they do offends your sense of morality?

If we accept this as the standard, where does it end? Drinking, smoking, playing cards all offend certain people. Are we to outlaw these things?

For that matter, there are rumored to be people who are offended by football, as they see it as mindless violence (not just the Raiders, but all teams). What then? Gosh, we can't OFFEND these people's moral codes...we'll just have to do away with the old gridiron.

So, tell me, SD, when did you enroll in Berkeley? :D

[Mr. Kotter]

...So, tell me, SD, when did you enroll in Berkeley? :D

Bottom-line for me, if you wanna call it "domestic partnership," if you wanna call it "civil union," then fine. :hmmm:

But don't try to elevate your perverse relationship to the moral equivalent of the world's standard for "marriage" (check any non-politically correct dictionary). :shake:

Don't demean a historically and traditionally sacred union by expanding the definition to include something that it is clearly not...

[MadProphetMargin]

Bottom-line for me, if you wanna call it "domestic partnership," if you wanna call it "civil union," then fine. :hmmm:

But don't try to elevate your perverse relationship to the moral equivalent of the world's standard for "marriage" (check any non-politically correct dictionary). :shake:

Don't demean a historically and traditionally sacred union by expanding the definition to include something that it is clearly not...

What is it?

There is no "sanctity" of marriage. Seen the divorce rates, recently?

Seen "Who wants to marry a millionaire"?

It's a legal issue, nothing more. As far as calling them something else, we tried "separate but equal". It didn't work then, it doesn't work now.

[Hel'n]

What is it?

There is no "sanctity" of marriage. Seen the divorce rates, recently?

Seen "Who wants to marry a millionaire"?

It's a legal issue, nothing more. As far as calling them something else, we tried "separate but equal". It didn't work then, it doesn't work now.

We're studying the history of marriage in my human sexuality class. Quite interesting that marriage was simply, in the beginning before the existence of a formal religious institution, a contract between two people (usually a man and a woman) with a vow before their diety. That's it. The contract stood for as long as the culture and family allowed.

In the beginning, even women had some rights in the contract. It took the entrance of organized religion and thousands of years of rule-making, for women to become disenfranchised and for marriage to take on the semblance of a moral code and legal rights concerning property. Marriage did not have those underpinnings in the beginning.

The action of organized religion was in order to take control of sexual behavior. In the beginning, sexual behavior was not a MORAL issue nor viewed as such. It was a NATURAL occurrance between two consenting individuals, usually a man and a woman, but NOT always a man and a woman.

Bottom line, for an institution to obtain power it must control people. In order to control people, you must control sex.

[MadProphetMargin]

In the beginning, sexual behavior was not a MORAL issue nor viewed as such. It was a NATURAL occurrance between two consenting individuals, usually a man and a woman, but NOT always a man and a woman.

Bottom line, for an institution to obtain power it must control people. In order to control people, you must control sex.


1. That's before 3 really weird religions came screaming out of the Middle East. Weird people...any man who doesn't like to get laid has a screw loose.

2. Or television, which is even more effective.