More in your face queer stuff

All this media about the supreme court decision on gay marriage has gotten me to wondering how people stand on queer stuff in general.
So that's why this poll.

I don't have a problem with gay marriage. I do think its funny though when a woman refers to her 'wife'' or a man to his 'husband'. Why don't they say 'spouse'?

Yella wrote:I don't have a problem with gay marriage. I do think its funny though when a woman refers to her 'wife'' or a man to his 'husband'. Why don't they say 'spouse'?

I couldn't agree more. I cringe when I hear that too. "Spouse" would be a lot less cringe-inducing. lol

I've always liked the term "significant other". It covers a lot of territory and sometimes keeps people from sticking their noses in your business.

Floridatexan wrote:
I've always liked the term "significant other".  It covers a lot of territory and sometimes keeps people from sticking their noses in your business.

That one's good.  So is "partner".  Anything is better than a man calling another man his "husband" (or "wife").   That just invites mockery.

Bob wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
I've always liked the term "significant other".  It covers a lot of territory and sometimes keeps people from sticking their noses in your business.

That one's good.  So is "partner".  Anything is better than a man calling another man his "husband" (or "wife").   That just invites mockery.

You just made a valid point which properly carried to it's logical conclusion means the whole gay marriage thing is just that, a mockery. Like if pirates dressed up in women's clothing and wanted to use the ladies room...plain stupid.

What a bigoted poll.

All it's concerned about is the special privileges that the judicial branch granted to a specific minority grouping thereby violating the 14th Amendment.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1Q7cP3ij5g

 

Damaged Eagle wrote:

What a bigoted poll.

All it's concerned about is the special privileges that the judicial branch granted to a specific minority grouping thereby violating the 14th Amendment.

 

How is it a "special privelege"? I thought heterosexuals were already permitted to get married.

ForgetHell wrote:

Bob wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
I've always liked the term "significant other".  It covers a lot of territory and sometimes keeps people from sticking their noses in your business.

That one's good.  So is "partner".  Anything is better than a man calling another man his "husband" (or "wife").   That just invites mockery.

You just made a valid point which properly carried to it's logical conclusion means the whole gay marriage thing is just that, a mockery. Like if pirates dressed up in women's clothing and wanted to use the ladies room...plain stupid.

I'm going to shock you with this reply. Actually the idea of two men or two women being "married" is creepy to me too. lol

But I'm in the live and let live camp. A lot of other things in society are creepy to me too. But as long as it doesn't hurt me when people do creepy stuff, I don't really give a shit.

Bob wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

What a bigoted poll.

All it's concerned about is the special privileges that the judicial branch granted to a specific minority grouping thereby violating the 14th Amendment.

 

How is it a "special privelege"?   I thought heterosexuals were already permitted to get married.  

If the courts were going to overturn DOMA because it violated marriage rights of one group, then the decision by the courts should have been that it needs to go back to Congress for review because it affects the marriage rights of all mature willing companions.

In the interests of 'equal protection under the laws'.

After all there are more minority groups who wish to marry as they choose affected by DOMA than homosexuals. Otherwise since DOMA was overturned then the decision should have been for all minority groups affected to be granted the same rights by the justice system.

That's the way our system of government is designed.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nO62scTZ7Qk

Damaged Eagle wrote:

If the courts were going to overturn DOMA because it violated marriage rights of one group, then the decision by the courts should have been that it needs to go back to Congress for review because it affects the marriage rights of all mature willing companions.

In the interests of 'equal protection under the laws'.

After all there are more minority groups who wish to marry as they choose affected by DOMA than homosexuals. Otherwise since DOMA was overturned then the decision should have been for all minority groups affected to be granted the same rights by the justice system.

That's the way our system of government is designed.

I see.  And of course at one time it was illegal in some jurisdictions for blacks and whites to marry each other.  And when the court overturned those laws I guess that was "granting a special privelege" to them too.  

But I'm not in disagreement with what I think is your point.  If consenting adults want to engage in polygamy,  I could care less and that should be permitted too.  And if there are other "minority" situations in which consenting adults want to get married I say who cares.  That's their business,  not mine or yours.

But I draw the line with incest. I've seen up close and personal what the result of that is. And it aint purty. lol

Bob wrote:
I see.  And of course at one time it was illegal in some jurisdictions for blacks and whites to marry each other.  And when the court overturned those laws I guess that was "granting a special privelege" to them too.

 
Those Civil Rights that you reference were extended to all racial minority groups and not just the blacks, in one sweeping bit of legislation.

Bob wrote:But I'm not in disagreement with what I think is your point.  If consenting adults want to engage in polygamy,  I could care less and that should be permitted too.  And if there are other "minority" situations in which consenting adults want to get married I say who cares.  That's their business,  not mine or yours.

Thus sounds the cry of prejudice and discrimination.

Civil rights are the concern of all.

Bob wrote:But I draw the line with incest.  I've seen up close and personal what the result of that is.  And it aint purty.  lol

What business is it of yours what mature willing companions do in the privacy of their bedrooms?

However if you're going to interfere because of genetic reasons then you'd best carry through with your purity quest and disallow marriages to people with Hopkins disease, Parkinson's disease, inheritable diabetes, hemophiliacs, and the list goes on... because they have a greater chance of passing on their ailments than two perfectly healthy close relatives.



*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diOuUYcenW0

Damaged Eagle wrote:

Bob wrote:
I see.  And of course at one time it was illegal in some jurisdictions for blacks and whites to marry each other.  And when the court overturned those laws I guess that was "granting a special privelege" to them too.

 
Those Civil Rights that you reference were extended to all racial minority groups and not just the blacks, in one sweeping bit of legislation.

Yes it gave all racial minority groups those rights.  But not the queers.
If it had then there would have been no need for the latest Supreme Court decision now would there.

Bob wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

Bob wrote:
I see.  And of course at one time it was illegal in some jurisdictions for blacks and whites to marry each other.  And when the court overturned those laws I guess that was "granting a special privelege" to them too.

 
Those Civil Rights that you reference were extended to all racial minority groups and not just the blacks, in one sweeping bit of legislation.

Yes it gave all racial minority groups those rights.  But not the queers.
If it had then there would have been no need for the latest Supreme Court decision now would there.

Since you're now saying that sexual preferences should have been considered in that legislation then all sexual preferences need to be considered.

Anything less excludes minority groups, and allows discrimination, and the granting of special privileges to specific minority groups.

Just as the current supreme court ruling did.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2r2nDhTzO4

Damaged Eagle wrote:
Since you're now saying that sexual preferences should have been considered in that legislation then all sexual preferences need to be considered.

Anything less is excludes minority groups and allows discrimination and the granting of special privileges to specific minority groups.

Just as the current supreme court ruling did.

No,  sexual orientation wasn't considered in that legislation at that time because at that time few people gave a shit about doing anything to help queers.  
Just like at the time the Constitution was written few people gave a shit about helping blacks.  

It's not like a "big bang" or a "creation" when it all happens at once.  
A society evolves,  damaged eagle.  Just like those crops you plant.
The seeds don't pop into fully mature plants as soon as you plant them in the ground.  lol

A question for damaged eagle,

Would you have preferred that the Supreme Court had ruled that the states have the discretion to determine whether or not blacks can vote?
Should that be a "states rights" issue?

Believe me,  plenty of people here in the south will answer yes to that including one or two who participate in this forum.  Maybe more.

Society is about growth and renewal. It's about work and production. It's about a life that is worth living. I would say the normal family was great for a life worth living but this deviant branch as poisoned the whole tree. This country is going to shit. Thank you for "progress" deeper into the dark sewage.

Bob wrote:
No,  sexual orientation wasn't considered in that legislation at that time because at that time  few people gave a shit about doing anything to help queers.  
Just like at the time the Constitution was written few people gave a shit about helping blacks.  

It's not like a "big bang" or a "creation" when it all happens at once.  
A society evolves,  damaged eagle.  Just like those crops you plant.
The seeds don't pop into fully mature plants as soon as you plant them in the ground.  lol

As I stated earlier, blacks weren't the only minority group considered, Bob.

So your attempt to make this into a right to grant special privileges to one specific sexual preference being granted the a special privilege is obfuscation at best.

The right for all mature willing companions to make marriage arrangements as they choose should not be infringed on by the government or you.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHIxjzCxeIU&list=PLF83F8D7D0BDF86BA

 

ForgetHell wrote:Society is about growth and renewal. It's about work and production. It's about a life that is worth living. I would say the normal family was great for a life worth living but this deviant branch as poisoned the whole tree. This country is going to shit. Thank you for "progress" deeper into the dark sewage.

Homosexuals don't deserve to live.  We'll put you down as being in the same camp as Adolf Hitler, the Taliban and the Westboro Baptist Church.  lol

I'm curious,  do you have any others on that list?  Or is it just homosexuals who don't deserve to live?

Bob wrote:A question for damaged eagle,

Would you have preferred that the Supreme Court had ruled that the states have the discretion to determine whether or not blacks can vote?
Should that be a "states rights" issue?

Believe me,  plenty of people here in the south will answer yes to that including one or two who participate in this forum.  Maybe more.

No.

However I'm not the one on the current Supreme Court that ruled for special privileges being granted to a specific minority group while ignoring the issue of marriage rights for other mature willing companions.

Here's a question for you...

Should the Asian's, Native Americans, Hispanics, etc... all have to fight for the same voting and marriage rights?

Because that's what you're suggesting with your insistence that special privileges should be granted to a specific minority group over other mature willing companions.

The ruling should have covered all sexual preferences or the court should have sent DOMA back to Congress for review.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ljy6PTbX9I

Bob wrote:

ForgetHell wrote:Society is about growth and renewal. It's about work and production. It's about a life that is worth living. I would say the normal family was great for a life worth living but this deviant branch as poisoned the whole tree. This country is going to shit. Thank you for "progress" deeper into the dark sewage.

Homosexuals don't deserve to live.  We'll put you down as being in the same camp as Adolf Hitler,  the Taliban and the Westboro Baptist Church.   lol

I'm curious,  do you have any others on that list?  Or is it just homosexuals who don't deserve to live?

Maybe god but Nietzsche killed him already. I wouldn't mind the whole mess but it has BLOW back on the rest of us and really for what, so people can act out silly impulses. The schools are starting as soon as possible to indoctrinate the little one's in your fabulous religion so soon the whole place will be one big confused pile-o -shit. Oh wait it already is.

I'm guessing that "Forget Hell" is probably agin abortion.

I wonder what's gonna happen when medical science can use genetics or some such to determine when a fetus is queer.

Man is that boy gonna have a conflict about abortion then. lol

ForgetHell wrote:it has BLOW back on the rest of us

They're blowing themselves. I hate to be the one to break if to you, but if you're getting blown too then you're one of em. lol

Bob wrote:A question for damaged eagle,

Would you have preferred that the Supreme Court had ruled that the states have the discretion to determine whether or not blacks can vote?
Should that be a "states rights" issue?

Believe me,  plenty of people here in the south will answer yes to that including one or two who participate in this forum.  Maybe more.

Since I answered NO to this in my last post...

Are you hearing little voices in you head?

Are you answering them?

*****ROFLMAO*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_1ruZWJigo

 

Yes I am hearing voices.  And the little voice in my head is telling me to ask you the follow-up question.

Do you have a different position on blacks voting than queers marrying?
That blacks voting should not be a state's right to decide.  But that queers marrying should be a state's right to decide?

If so, then help me to understand why you believe there should be a difference?