PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Republican Senator: "F**k it, Gays Should Marry"


DA_T_84
06-17-2011, 02:59 PM
http://www.tmz.com/2011/06/17/republican-senator-roy-mcdonald-new-york-gay-marriage-bill-f-it-right-thing-quote/

Republican New York State Senator Roy McDonald has SHATTERED party lines in support of gay marriage -- telling reporters, "F**k it, I don't care what you think. I'm trying to do the right thing."

The battle rages on in New York to legalize gay marriage -- but McDonald threw his hat in the ring earlier this week ... with the greatest statement of all time, claiming, "You get to the point where you evolve in your life where everything isn't black and white, good and bad, and you try to do the right thing."

"You might not like that. You might be very cynical about that. Well, f**k it, I don't care what you think. I'm trying to do the right thing."

"I'm tired of Republican-Democrat politics. They can take the job and shove it. I come from a blue-collar background. I'm trying to do the right thing, and that's where I'm going with this."

With McDonald's support, the gay marriage bill is only ONE vote shy of being made into law -- which would make New York the sixth state to legalize gay marriage.



Well, this is a refreshing perspective. Good for him.

durtyrute
06-17-2011, 03:28 PM
Why in the fuck is it a law that gay people can't be married?

Fish
06-17-2011, 03:33 PM
Good on that guy...

stevieray
06-17-2011, 03:34 PM
Well, this is a refreshing perspective. Good for him....and, if a dem decided not to support it? would it still be refreshing?

jidar
06-17-2011, 03:43 PM
Looks like it's not going to take the conservatives too long to change on this issue. It's just too incredibly obvious what the right thing is and how this is going to be perceived by history.

There is almost no chance that gay marriage doesn't eventually win out everywhere, and the longer that homophobes stick to their guns on this one the worse they're going to look.

Easy 6
06-17-2011, 03:44 PM
Heres a guy actually worth voting for, love the bolded part of his statement.

Donger
06-17-2011, 03:59 PM
Fine, let them marry. But I draw the line at them breeding.

Ebolapox
06-17-2011, 04:24 PM
eh, good for him. shouldn't be a big fucking deal anyway.

Brock
06-17-2011, 04:26 PM
...and, if a dem decided not to support it? would it still be refreshing?

When is not supporting liberty ever refreshing?

Jaric
06-17-2011, 04:28 PM
Fine, let them marry. But I draw the line at them breeding.

LMAO

stevieray
06-17-2011, 04:38 PM
Looks like it's not going to take the conservatives too long to change on this issue. It's just too incredibly obvious what the right thing is and how this is going to be perceived by history.

There is almost no chance that gay marriage doesn't eventually win out everywhere, and the longer that homophobes stick to their guns on this one the worse they're going to look.

I think this is how it will go down.

stevieray
06-17-2011, 05:04 PM
When is not supporting liberty ever refreshing?I'm referring to the liberty to choose to support/not support.

Dallas Chief
06-17-2011, 05:12 PM
All for civil unions being allowed. You should be able to be with whomever you want and be legally recognized as a couple, partnership, family, whatever.

However, iMHO, marriage is an institution of the church and should remain as such lest we cross that ever-feared line in the separation between church and state.

Brock
06-17-2011, 05:14 PM
I'm referring to the liberty to choose to support/not support.

Yes, I understand people have the liberty to not support other people's liberties.

jiveturkey
06-17-2011, 05:15 PM
All for civil unions being allowed. You should be able to be with whoever you want and be legally recognized as a couple, partnership, family, whatever.

However, iMHO, marriage is an institution of the church and should remain as such lest we cross that ever-feared line in the separation between church and state.Aren't churches still free to decide who they'll marry even if "gay marriage" is made legal?

Brock
06-17-2011, 05:16 PM
All for civil unions being allowed. You should be able to be with whoever you want and be legally recognized as a couple, partnership, family, whatever.

However, iMHO, marriage is an institution of the church and should remain as such lest we cross that ever-feared line in the separation between church and state.

Your concern is that churches would be forced to perform gay marriages?

Fish
06-17-2011, 05:44 PM
All for civil unions being allowed. You should be able to be with whomever you want and be legally recognized as a couple, partnership, family, whatever.

However, iMHO, marriage is an institution of the church and should remain as such lest we cross that ever-feared line in the separation between church and state.

That ever-feared line in the separation between church and state? But what about normal marriages? It's OK to mix church and state for heteros, but when homos are involved it's off limits?

Easy 6
06-17-2011, 05:48 PM
Aren't churches still free to decide who they'll marry even if "gay marriage" is made legal?

If its made legal, a justice of the peace cant refuse, maybe not as romantic as a big church wedding, but a legal wedding just the same.

Dave Lane
06-17-2011, 05:55 PM
Marriage is not a religious institution. And even if it was it has evolved so much as to be meaningless.

Barak Obuttocks
06-17-2011, 06:21 PM
Let me be perfectly clear. I blew Larry Sinclair. That doesn't mean I want to marry him.

listopencil
06-17-2011, 06:22 PM
...and, if a dem decided not to support it? would it still be refreshing?

If a Dem was supporting it only because his party did, then said ,"Fuck it. I don't believe in it and I'm not voting for it." then yeah. It would a refreshing break from partisan politics. I would disagree with him but I would respect his honesty. I doubt that it happens though. Political career on the line with a statement like that.

listopencil
06-17-2011, 06:23 PM
Fine, let them marry. But I draw the line at them breeding.

That's racist.

stevieray
06-17-2011, 06:27 PM
If a Dem was supporting it only because his party did, then said ,"**** it. I don't believe in it and I'm not voting for it." then yeah. It would a refreshing break from partisan politics. I would disagree with him but I would respect his honesty.
twice in one day....mass hysteria!!!

KILLER_CLOWN
06-17-2011, 07:52 PM
Man the entire landscape of America would change if only Gays could marry, who gives a flying Fukushima, You can marry a pole if ya want now can we get back to issues that actually affect all of our lives?

HonestChieffan
06-17-2011, 08:05 PM
Marriage is not a religious institution. And even if it was it has evolved so much as to be meaningless.

You are a nitwit.

Ive been married 38 years. If you think its meaningless, shame on you.

Bump
06-17-2011, 08:50 PM
there are more important issues at hand, who gives a shit who gets married, it's a stupid ritual anyways.

ILChief
06-17-2011, 10:26 PM
Why in the fuck is it a law that gay people can't be married?

Because there are 5 conservative judges on the supreme court

Dallas Chief
06-17-2011, 10:40 PM
That ever-feared line in the separation between church and state? But what about normal marriages? It's OK to mix church and state for heteros, but when homos are involved it's off limits?

I never said anything about traditional and same sex marriage, now did I Tuna? I think I clearly stated that I think homos ought to be allowed to get legally hitched, if that's what they want. It's the same thing that hetero couples do, the only difference is that many of them have the ceremony in a church where marriage is recognized as a holy union between a man and a woman. That ceremony has nothing to do with the government, nor should it. If homos want to get married in a church, then they need to find one that is cool with it. There are plenty of them.

LiveSteam
06-17-2011, 10:41 PM
Fine, let them marry. But I draw the line at them breeding.

This.

Dave Lane
06-17-2011, 11:14 PM
You are a nitwit.

Ive been married 38 years. If you think its meaningless, shame on you.

Apparently your intellect is meaningless since has nothing to do with you or your marriage.

Dave Lane
06-17-2011, 11:16 PM
I never said anything about traditional and same sex marriage, now did I Tuna? I think I clearly stated that I think homos ought to be allowed to get legally hitched, if that's what they want. It's the same thing that hetero couples do, the only difference is that many of them have the ceremony in a church where marriage is recognized as a holy union between a man and a woman. That ceremony has nothing to do with the government, nor should it. If homos want to get married in a church, then they need to find one that is cool with it. There are plenty of them.

Agreed. Churches shouldn't be forced to marry gay couples if they don't want the cash.

Thig Lyfe
06-17-2011, 11:24 PM
...and, if a dem decided not to support it? would it still be refreshing?

You're an idiot.

|Zach|
06-17-2011, 11:31 PM
Just a matter of time on this stuff.

Mr. Flopnuts
06-17-2011, 11:42 PM
Man the entire landscape of America would change if only Gays could marry, who gives a flying Fukushima, You can marry a pole if ya want now can we get back to issues that actually affect all of our lives?

You mean politicians should focus on the ills that actually affect people's lives, rather than continuing to push these emotional driven "moral" issues that pull the wool over our eyes while they steal from us? Nonsense.

|Zach|
06-17-2011, 11:48 PM
You mean politicians should focus on the ills that actually affect people's lives, rather than continuing to push these emotional driven "moral" issues that pull the wool over our eyes while they steal from us? Nonsense.

This issue's effect seems about as direct as it gets for some.

Count Alex's Losses
06-18-2011, 12:17 AM
Look at these disgusting perverts.


or thinks a civil union is "good enough" please take a look at my friends. They have been together for 10 years and are raising a 7 year old autistic son and a 2 year old. This is what love looks like. This is what being gay is about. This is why people are fighting so hard to make marriage and equality for all a reality. I know I troll about being gay a lot but in reality I'm just like most of you and I want a loving family some day. Take a minute to look at these pics before you judge another gay person. I know there is a lot of flamboyant gays out there but those are the ones you are going to see, you'll rarely see the quiet family men.

http://i.imgur.com/LxMF8.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/e7ejz.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/7CKO8.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/8dj3m.jpg

These guys are probably better parents then a lot of "straight" couples that are granted the right to a concrete marriage. Please, if you have the chance to vote for gay marriage...do so.

listopencil
06-18-2011, 12:34 AM
This issue's effect seems about as direct as it gets for some.

I consider it a civil rights issue. I don't think it's anyone's business what happens in my bedroom, as long as it's between consenting adults, and I want that same respect given to every other American citizen. Also- there are a precious few moments for life affirming acts that one can engage in. Sing, dance, paint, sculpt, laugh, make love, give glory to your God, love one another and form lifelong bonds. Be alive, for ****'s sake, and allow others to live. That's what it's all about.

|Zach|
06-18-2011, 12:53 AM
I consider it a civil rights issue. I don't think it's anyone's business what happens in my bedroom, as long as it's between consenting adults, and I want that same respect given to every other American citizen. Also- there are a precious few moments for life affirming acts that one can engage in. Sing, dance, paint, sculpt, laugh, make love, give glory to your God, love one another and form lifelong bonds. Be alive, for ****'s sake, and allow others to live. That's what it's all about.

Agreed.

pr_capone
06-18-2011, 12:57 AM
However, iMHO, marriage is an institution of the church and should remain as such lest we cross that ever-feared line in the separation between church and state.

Just like the church is choosing to ignore the common law and wed two people of the same sex, the state can choose to ignore the validity of a religious ceremony.

This isn't a religious issue. This is a Constitutional issue.

Why the fuck did the colonists revolt if it was not for "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

That is the cornerstone of our entire country and it is being ignored by the people in charge. Neither the state nor the federal government should not impede upon a person's pursuit of Happiness. I realize those words appear on the Declaration of Independence and is not an amendment of the constitution but the sentiment remains.

Fishpicker
06-18-2011, 04:58 AM
Fine, let them marry. But I draw the line at them breeding.

...slippery slopes.

I got nuthin

patteeu
06-18-2011, 08:09 AM
Why in the **** is it a law that gay people can't be married?

It's not.

patteeu
06-18-2011, 08:13 AM
Yes, I understand people have the liberty to not support other people's liberties.

This isn't about people's liberties. It's about benefits, both financial and psychological. No one is going to come to your home and arrest you or levy a fine against you if you and your gay lover decide to commit to a permanent partnership and have it blessed by a willing church.

patteeu
06-18-2011, 08:21 AM
Just like the church is choosing to ignore the common law and wed two people of the same sex, the state can choose to ignore the validity of a religious ceremony.

This isn't a religious issue. This is a Constitutional issue.

Why the **** did the colonists revolt if it was not for "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

That is the cornerstone of our entire country and it is being ignored by the people in charge. Neither the state nor the federal government should not impede upon a person's pursuit of Happiness. I realize those words appear on the Declaration of Independence and is not an amendment of the constitution but the sentiment remains.

Surely you don't think the founding fathers intended to establish a nation that embraced gay marriage?

Simplex3
06-18-2011, 08:25 AM
Surely you don't think the founding fathers intended to establish a nation that embraced gay marriage?

They allowed slaveholders and dueling too. Ready to bring those back?

Ace Gunner
06-18-2011, 09:08 AM
All for civil unions being allowed. You should be able to be with whomever you want and be legally recognized as a couple, partnership, family, whatever.

However, iMHO, marriage is an institution of the church and should remain as such lest we cross that ever-feared line in the separation between church and state.


you get your marriage cert from the state - not the church. in fact, you can get married in the city hall if you choose. the idea of separation is not between governance of marriage but governance & institutions of belief

Simplex3
06-18-2011, 10:46 AM
you get your marriage cert from the state - not the church. in fact, you can get married in the city hall if you choose. the idea of separation is not between governance of marriage but governance & institutions of belief

It's the same argument every time. A bunch of Christians refusing to accept that the word marriage has two different meanings.

1. The act of some religious practitioner performing some ritual that joins 2+ people.

2. The legal contract recognized by the state.

They can't or won't acknowledge the clear, obvious distinction. The only way they can continue with their dumbass moral outrage argument is to pretend that "gay marriage" equals flaming homosexuals being married in their church tomorrow.

It's no problem. Within the next 25 years they'll be the old, wrinkly bigoted asshole sitting on a porch yelling at people walking past on the sidewalk while everyone ignores them.

patteeu
06-18-2011, 11:01 AM
They allowed slaveholders and dueling too. Ready to bring those back?

We amended the constitution to deal with that. If you were to cite the original language of the constitution or the declaration to support your argument that slavery is wrong and anti-American, I'd point out your error too.

And I don't want to bring anything back. I'm in favor of gay marriage. I'm just not in favor of making misplaced arguments about liberty and pursuit of happiness in support of it. Surely you don't think special government tax treatment is necessary to pursue happiness or that pre-defined, government-imposed, default rules of inheritance are necessary for liberty? If anything, the "liberty" and "pursuit of happiness" position is to keep government out of marriage altogether instead of creating a class of people, however defined, who get a set of government benefits that single people don't get.

Simplex3
06-18-2011, 11:09 AM
We amended the constitution to deal with that. If you were to cite the original language of the constitution or the declaration to support your argument that slavery is wrong and anti-American, I'd point out your error too.

And I don't want to bring anything back. I'm in favor of gay marriage. I'm just not in favor of making misplaced arguments about liberty and pursuit of happiness in support of it. Surely you don't think special government tax treatment is necessary to pursue happiness or that pre-defined, government-imposed, default rules of inheritance are necessary for liberty? If anything, the "liberty" and "pursuit of happiness" position is to keep government out of marriage altogether instead of creating a class of people, however defined, who get a set of government benefits that single people don't get.

I'd be all for removing the government from marriage.

Barak Obuttocks
06-18-2011, 11:17 AM
Where is the precedent for "gay marriage"? Is there a chronology of events throughout history or is this a recent phenomenon?

patteeu
06-18-2011, 11:23 AM
I'd be all for removing the government from marriage.

Yeah, I understand that. I hope you can be all for honest arguments in favor of gay marriage rather than appeals to constitutional imperatives that don't exist too. And speaking of bigotry (as you did in your earlier post), I always sense plenty of bigotry on both sides of this issue, both against gays and against some more conservative forms of religion.

patteeu
06-18-2011, 11:25 AM
Where is the precedent for "gay marriage"? Is there a chronology of events throughout history or is this a recent phenomenon?

I don't know the answer to your question, but does there have to be a precedent? It's OK if we try something new here and there isn't it?

Barak Obuttocks
06-18-2011, 11:37 AM
I don't know the answer to your question, but does there have to be a precedent?

No, but it helps to know ground zero of the issue.

How did it emerge and why is it so important? Is it really a priority, now or ever?

Jaric
06-18-2011, 12:19 PM
I'd be all for removing the government from marriage.

This, this, a thousand times this.

Simplex3
06-18-2011, 12:20 PM
...And speaking of bigotry (as you did in your earlier post), I always sense plenty of bigotry on both sides of this issue, both against gays and against some more conservative forms of religion.

The only times I can think of when people lash out against religion is when religion is trying to insert itself into policy.

Pitt Gorilla
06-18-2011, 12:21 PM
And speaking of bigotry (as you did in your earlier post), I always sense plenty of bigotry on both sides of this issue, both against gays and against some more conservative forms of religion.Nice to see you, Kotter.

Jaric
06-18-2011, 12:22 PM
Yeah, I understand that. I hope you can be all for honest arguments in favor of gay marriage rather than appeals to constitutional imperatives that don't exist too. And speaking of bigotry (as you did in your earlier post), I always sense plenty of bigotry on both sides of this issue, both against gays and against some more conservative forms of religion.

All the more reason to remove the govt from it.

If a church (or whatever they want to call it) doesn't want to marry Gay people, BOOM they don't have to. If they do, then they can.

You aren't forcing anyone to do something they don't want to, and gay people can now be as miserable as the rest of us heteros who decided to take the plunge. Everyone wins!

Brock
06-18-2011, 01:02 PM
All the more reason to remove the govt from it.

If a church (or whatever they want to call it) doesn't want to marry Gay people, BOOM they don't have to. If they do, then they can.

You aren't forcing anyone to do something they don't want to, and gay people can now be as miserable as the rest of us heteros who decided to take the plunge. Everyone wins!

How do you remove the government from it when the government provides benefits to married couples?

patteeu
06-18-2011, 01:02 PM
The only times I can think of when people lash out against religion is when religion is trying to insert itself into policy.

And the religious bigotry you were talking about only comes up when advocates of gay marriage try to insert their beliefs into policy. There's nothing wrong with either side doing that. The definition of the types of relationships that we as a society want to encourage is the kind of issue that ought to be decided by the prevailing beliefs of our society.

Saul Good
06-18-2011, 01:11 PM
The only times I can think of when people lash out against religion is when religion is trying to insert itself into policy.

You must have Dave Lane on ignore.

patteeu
06-18-2011, 01:12 PM
You must have Dave Lane on ignore.

LMAO

Saul Good
06-18-2011, 01:14 PM
How do you remove the government from it when the government provides benefits to married couples?

By getting the government out of the marriage business and into the legal union business. The government doesn't recognize baptisms nor Bar Mitzvahs. Why do they recognize marriages. Let the marriage be a religious thing, and let legal unions be a civic thing. This goes for both same sex and different sex pairings.

Brock
06-18-2011, 01:21 PM
By getting the government out of the marriage business and into the legal union business. The government doesn't recognize baptisms nor Bar Mitzvahs. Why do they recognize marriages. Let the marriage be a religious thing, and let legal unions be a civic thing. This goes for both same sex and different sex pairings.

I thought legal unions were what we were talking about. I doubt anybody really cares whether a given church is willing perform marriage ceremonies for gay people or not.

Mr. Flopnuts
06-18-2011, 01:47 PM
You suck cock? NO TAX BREAK FOR YOU!!!!

Dallas Chief
06-18-2011, 01:57 PM
The only times I can think of when people lash out against religion is when religion is trying to insert itself into policy.

Let's see.. Prayer in public schools, no more Christmas parties in schools, the ten commandments being displayed at a city hall in some podunk town. All under the banner of the separation of church and state. How are those inserting themselves into policy???

stevieray
06-18-2011, 02:00 PM
You suck cock? NO TAX BREAK FOR YOU!!!!or, you suck cock, you deserve a tax break.


funny how we keep talking about money and sex, when it's supposed to be about l.o.v.e.

Mr. Flopnuts
06-18-2011, 02:03 PM
or, you suck cock, you deserve a tax break.


funny how we keep ralking about money and sex, when it's supposed to be about l.o.v.e.

I just don't think people who are married should get an extra tax break over anyone. This isn't just about gays. Why should we punish ugly, socially inept people as well? Or how about people who are unable to have children? I'd do away with the child tax break as well.

stevieray
06-18-2011, 02:04 PM
I just don't think people who are married should get an extra tax break over anyone. This isn't just about gays. Why should we punish ugly, socially inept people as well? Or how about people who are unable to have children? I'd do away with the child tax break as well.not getting a tax break isn't a punishmnet.

Mr. Flopnuts
06-18-2011, 02:07 PM
not getting a tax break isn't a punishmnet.

It is too me. The reason being, someone is getting money for being married, or having kids, that someone else isn't able to get for whatever reason. That's not equitable IMO. But, shit, life isn't equitable. And honestly, no tax breaks are equitable. Fuck, I hate taxes. :D

stevieray
06-18-2011, 02:10 PM
But, shit, life isn't equitable. And honestly, no tax breaks are equitable. ****, I hate taxes. :D

...can't argue with that.

Simplex3
06-18-2011, 02:34 PM
How do you remove the government from it when the government provides benefits to married couples?

You just answered your own question. If the government is out then it won't be providing benefits, will it?

Simplex3
06-18-2011, 02:38 PM
And the religious bigotry you were talking about only comes up when advocates of gay marriage try to insert their beliefs into policy. There's nothing wrong with either side doing that. The definition of the types of relationships that we as a society want to encourage is the kind of issue that ought to be decided by the prevailing beliefs of our society.

Stupid secular beliefs like "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal". Clearly the founders meant "except those homos. Screw those guys. I mean, not really. Oh - you know what I meant."

Simplex3
06-18-2011, 02:43 PM
Let's see.. Prayer in public schools, no more Christmas parties in schools, the ten commandments being displayed at a city hall in some podunk town. All under the banner of the separation of church and state. How are those inserting themselves into policy???

The religion was never supposed to be there. If my child is compelled to be in school (and they are), and I can't afford to send them anywhere other than public schools, and you have school-sponsored prayer...

I'm sure you can make that leap.

Or we'll just open it up to everyone. The Christian kids can be praying to Mohammed, I can sue to have the Flying Spaghetti Monster recognized (who wouldn't want their lives touched by his noodly appendage?)... you see where this all winds up.

Tyranny by majority doesn't cease to be tyranny because the people doing say it's in the name of their magical invisible guy(s).

pr_capone
06-18-2011, 03:30 PM
Surely you don't think the founding fathers intended to establish a nation that embraced gay marriage?

The founding fathers never intended the federal government to hold as much power as they do right now but here we are with bullshit like the Patriot Act stepping all over basic rights.

Check out the 9th Amendment.

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

So why would gays not have the right to marry if not for a person's religious belief that they shouldn't?

Calcountry
06-18-2011, 03:31 PM
Fine, let them marry. But I draw the line at them breeding.Maybe God drew the line there bud.

Calcountry
06-18-2011, 03:43 PM
Just a matter of time on this stuff.Keep waiting.

go bowe
06-18-2011, 04:09 PM
All for civil unions being allowed. You should be able to be with whomever you want and be legally recognized as a couple, partnership, family, whatever.

However, iMHO, marriage is an institution of the church and should remain as such lest we cross that ever-feared line in the separation between church and state.

marriage is both an institution of the church and of the state because of the special legal status it gives to married people...

as far as the church is concerned, if gay marriage becomes legal there will be enough gay churches and gay pastors to marry every gay in the country twice over...

so gay marriage would be an institution of both the church and state, just as straight marriages are now...

and no harm will come to straight marriages or the institution of marriage or whatever...

so why not? as a matter of law, not intolerance, why not allow gay marriage?

patteeu
06-18-2011, 04:28 PM
Stupid secular beliefs like "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal". Clearly the founders meant "except those homos. Screw those guys. I mean, not really. Oh - you know what I meant."

I'm used to better arguments from you. Religion really seems to knock you off your game.

patteeu
06-18-2011, 04:32 PM
The founding fathers never intended the federal government to hold as much power as they do right now but here we are with bullshit like the Patriot Act stepping all over basic rights.

Check out the 9th Amendment.

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

So why would gays not have the right to marry if not for a person's religious belief that they shouldn't?

First, I object to your use of the word "right" above, but leaving that aside:

We could probably come up with lots of reasons why. You may not agree with any of them. One off the top of my head is that we may want to encourage two parent, male/female families because we think it will be the best way to raise the next generation.

Jaric
06-18-2011, 05:30 PM
How do you remove the government from it when the government provides benefits to married couples?

No more benefits. It's not the government's job to engage in social engineering.

Jaric
06-18-2011, 05:32 PM
You suck cock? NO TAX BREAK FOR YOU!!!!

Which is actually a shame. Despite the negative connotations, cocksuckers make this world a much better place to live in.

As exhibit A, when was the last time you ever heard a dude say "I had to leave my boyfriend/girlfriend because he/she just wouldn't stop blowing me."

I'll tell you when, never. Because those words have never been uttered in this country.

Brock
06-18-2011, 05:35 PM
No more benefits. It's not the government's job to engage in social engineering.

No more benefits as in, taxes are the same for any couple, married or not, and no social security survivor benefits for anyone? I mean, how realistic do you think you're being?

Jaric
06-18-2011, 05:37 PM
No more benefits as in, taxes are the same for any couple, married or not, and no social security survivor benefits for anyone? I mean, how realistic do you think you're being?

Not realistic at all. I also think it's unrealistic to think we're going to pay off our debt but I'm going to continue to say that we should.

Just my opinion. I expect to be in the minority with it.

pr_capone
06-18-2011, 05:44 PM
We could probably come up with lots of reasons why. You may not agree with any of them. One off the top of my head is that we may want to encourage two parent, male/female families because we think it will be the best way to raise the next generation.

So we can give the 9th amendment a big **** you in order to press what is flatly an unconstitutional social policy. Awesome.

There was a time when blacks were not allowed to vote too. People thought them uneducated and sub-human. People came up with lots of reasons to keep them from voting as well as segregated from the populous. Thankfully the government finally wised up and passed the 14th amendment and stopped that nonsense.

I would be willing to wager that the next amendment to the Constitution will be that people cannot be discriminated against based on sexual preference / orientation.

|Zach|
06-18-2011, 05:45 PM
Keep waiting.

Keep being on the wrong side of the history.

Oh and trashing our country. You are good at that as well.

Baby Lee
06-18-2011, 06:15 PM
GOD DAMN IT. Stop with the 'no right to marry'

The issue is whether or not the Federal government will officially recognize the marriage and accord it benefits.

Unless someone can cite cases of couples being sanctioned by the government for calling themselves married or performing a marriage ceremony.

patteeu
06-18-2011, 07:17 PM
So we can give the 9th amendment a big **** you in order to press what is flatly an unconstitutional social policy. Awesome.

There was a time when blacks were not allowed to vote too. People thought them uneducated and sub-human. People came up with lots of reasons to keep them from voting as well as segregated from the populous. Thankfully the government finally wised up and passed the 14th amendment and stopped that nonsense.

I would be willing to wager that the next amendment to the Constitution will be that people cannot be discriminated against based on sexual preference / orientation.

This is laughable. Why is it always the teachers?

The 9th amendment has nothing to do with this because we're talking about government granting special privileges not about government taking away inalienable rights. And as I mentioned earlier in the thread, we had a series of constitutional amendments specifically intended to address race issues so reference to that special case doesn't have much relevance here.

pr_capone
06-18-2011, 07:36 PM
This is laughable. Why is it always the teachers?

The 9th amendment has nothing to do with this because we're talking about government granting special privileges not about government taking away inalienable rights. And as I mentioned earlier in the thread, we had a series of constitutional amendments specifically intended to address race issues so reference to that special case doesn't have much relevance here.

I'm done. Not gonna argue with you. We see it differently and we should leave it at that. Nothing fruitful will come out of continuing this.

Saul Good
06-18-2011, 07:51 PM
or, you suck cock, you deserve a tax break.


funny how we keep talking about money and sex, when it's supposed to be about l.o.v.e.

As perhaps the most vocal person of faith on this board, what are your thoughts on gay marriage? I don't know that I've ever heard you articulate your actual position. (I'm not saying that you haven't. I'm just not familiar with it if you have.)

I guess this would be a two part question.
1. What do you think of it from a personal level.
2. What do you think of it in terms of policy?

For example, it could be that you are against it from a religious moral standpoint while still feeling that the government should allow it because it isn't the government's place to legislate morality.

Barak Obuttocks
06-18-2011, 07:59 PM
Keep being on the wrong side of the history.

Oh and trashing our country. You are good at that as well.

Not as much as me. :thumb:

Saul Good
06-18-2011, 08:00 PM
Not as much as me. :thumb:

Your mult was funny at first. It has since stopped being funny.

pr_capone
06-18-2011, 08:03 PM
BTW... do a google search for gay marriage and you get this

http://i.imgur.com/MJqIn.png

Barak Obuttocks
06-18-2011, 08:22 PM
Your mult was funny at first. It has since stopped being funny.

Who's trying to be funny? I'm turning the United States into a Jurassic Park of Communism.

Backwards Masking
06-18-2011, 08:22 PM
This is laughable. Why is it always the teachers?

we're talking about government granting special priveledges. we had a series of constitutional amendments specifically intended to address race issues so reference to that special case doesn't have much relevance here.

LMAO Great point!

patteeu
06-18-2011, 09:46 PM
I'm done. Not gonna argue with you. We see it differently and we should leave it at that. Nothing fruitful will come out of continuing this.

OK, sorry about the teacher crack. Kotter and Noswad have me on a hair trigger.

wazu
06-18-2011, 10:28 PM
Which is actually a shame. Despite the negative connotations, cocksuckers make this world a much better place to live in,

You done patting yourself on the back, yet? AAAHAHAHAHA! I got you good you fucker!

Dallas Chief
06-18-2011, 10:48 PM
The religion was never supposed to be there. If my child is compelled to be in school (and they are), and I can't afford to send them anywhere other than public schools, and you have school-sponsored prayer...

I'm sure you can make that leap.

Or we'll just open it up to everyone. The Christian kids can be praying to Mohammed, I can sue to have the Flying Spaghetti Monster recognized (who wouldn't want their lives touched by his noodly appendage?)... you see where this all winds up.

Tyranny by majority doesn't cease to be tyranny because the people doing say it's in the name of their magical invisible guy(s).

Whoa hoss! You asked for examples of how people jumped up and down about religion being involved in "government" and I gave you a few. Did you just assume I supported prayer in public schools? FWIW, I don't support it. There are schools that provide that if a parent is so inclined to pay for it.

Dallas Chief
06-18-2011, 10:58 PM
Aren't churches still free to decide who they'll marry even if "gay marriage" is made legal?

Yes they are.

Dallas Chief
06-18-2011, 11:04 PM
Your concern is that churches would be forced to perform gay marriages?

Not forced, but regulated into it. Any involvement of the government in churches really. I say this because that influence can flow both ways. A clear and consistent separation of both.

pr_capone
06-18-2011, 11:17 PM
Not forced, but regulated into it. Any involvement of the government in churches really. I say this because that influence can flow both ways. A clear and consistent separation of both.

No, the church has the right to marry the couple or not. The government cannot force a change within religion. If a church wants to marry gays then then would be able to, those that don't want to don't have to.

Backwards Masking
06-18-2011, 11:24 PM
Anybody here watch Al Bundy's new show Modern Family? Those guys who play the gay couple are alright. Personally think the skinny one's a whiny b*tch, but the big fat one's a riot. And they're both flamboyant as all get out. If they were a real life couple and I knew them even a little I wouldn't have a problem with them getting married.

|Zach|
06-18-2011, 11:33 PM
Not forced, but regulated into it. Any involvement of the government in churches really. I say this because that influence can flow both ways. A clear and consistent separation of both.

lol.

Nobody is forcing churches to do anything.

VAChief
06-18-2011, 11:47 PM
One off the top of my head is that we may want to encourage two parent, male/female families because we think it will be the best way to raise the next generation.

Encourage? Should we really be concerned if gay marriages are legal that somehow it may discourage someone from pursuing a heterosexual union?

Dallas Chief
06-18-2011, 11:48 PM
lol.

Nobody is forcing churches to do anything.

I didn't say anybody was being forced to do anything. Could they be regulated into recognizing it? Yes absolutley. No different than companies being regulated into providing benefits for same sex couples (and rightfully so, for companies). So lol all you want...

Backwards Masking
06-19-2011, 12:37 AM
Could they be regulated into recognizing it? Yes absolutley. No different than companies being regulated into providing benefits for same sex couples (and rightfully so, for companies). So lol all you want...

Companies pay taxes though, churches don't. Personally think institutions that help pay off the national debt should be LESS regulated in providing benefits than institutions that don't. But that's just me.

|Zach|
06-19-2011, 12:46 AM
I didn't say anybody was being forced to do anything. Could they be regulated into recognizing it? Yes absolutley. No different than companies being regulated into providing benefits for same sex couples (and rightfully so, for companies). So lol all you want...

There is no difference. Neither is happening.

lol @ last ditch talking points from the religious right.

patteeu
06-19-2011, 08:01 AM
Encourage? Should we really be concerned if gay marriages are legal that somehow it may discourage someone from pursuing a heterosexual union?

Yes encourage. Encourage by making advantageous or convenient. If everyone has the same advantages and conveniences there is no longer encouragement. That's a pretty well understood concept, not rocket science.

As for your second question, as a supporter of gay marriage, I obviously don't think we should. But reasonable people can disagree with that position.

Edit: BTW, I think that if gay marriage is legitimized, there will definitely be some people who would otherwise have married someone of the opposite sex and have kids who will instead opt for a childless, same sex marriage. I just don't think the numbers will be large enough to be a concern in terms of generating a next generation.

notorious
06-19-2011, 08:28 AM
I'd be all for removing the government from everything except defense and law enforcement.

FYP

Jaric
06-19-2011, 11:26 AM
Who's trying to be funny? I'm turning the United States into a Jurassic Park of Communism.

Ok, that was funny.

LMAO