Register  |  Sign In
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Jul 21, 2025 4:04 am



Reply to topic  [ 606 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25  Next
 Prop 8 discussion thread: Upheld 
Author Message
All Star Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 9:40 pm
Posts: 4679
Post Re: Prop 8 discussion thread: Yes 52%
Newt:

GINGRICH: Look, I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it. I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion. And I think if you believe in historic Christianity, you have to confront the fact. And, frank -- for that matter, if you believe in the historic version of Islam or the historic version of Judaism, you have to confront the reality that these secular extremists are determined to impose on you acceptance of a series of values that are antithetical, they're the opposite, of what you're taught in Sunday school.


Meanwhile, here in the real world, the exact OPPOSITE happened. Christian Fascism imposed its will on the rest of us.

What a fucking scum bag. And if you're a gay Republican, you deserve a nice hard cock punch.


Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:49 am
Profile WWW
Jordan Mugen-Honda
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 9:53 am
Posts: 13403
Post Re: Prop 8 discussion thread: Yes 52%
Beeblebrox wrote:
Newt:

GINGRICH: Look, I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it. I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion. And I think if you believe in historic Christianity, you have to confront the fact. And, frank -- for that matter, if you believe in the historic version of Islam or the historic version of Judaism, you have to confront the reality that these secular extremists are determined to impose on you acceptance of a series of values that are antithetical, they're the opposite, of what you're taught in Sunday school.


Meanwhile, here in the real world, the exact OPPOSITE happened. Christian Fascism imposed its will on the rest of us.

What a fucking scum bag. And if you're a gay Republican, you deserve a nice hard cock punch.


Does that include Andrew Sullivan?

_________________
Rosberg was reminded of the fuel regulations by his wheel's ceasing to turn. The hollow noise from the fuel tank and needle reading zero had failed to convay this message


Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:58 am
Profile
All Star Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 9:40 pm
Posts: 4679
Post Re: Prop 8 discussion thread: Yes 52%
Gulli wrote:
Does that include Andrew Sullivan?


Sullivan is a classical conservative, NOT a Republican.


Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:22 am
Profile WWW
Site Owner
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:09 pm
Posts: 14631
Location: Pittsburgh
Post Re: Prop 8 discussion thread: Yes 52%
Beeblebrox wrote:
Eagle wrote:
Again, my worry is stability, so I would still argue for that to be taken into account in the vetting process, but certainly I would argue for more couples in Mass to be granted adoptions compared to other states without similar laws.


You worry was not stability, at least according to your prior arguments. It was about outside stigmatization. And the vetting process wouldn't root out anti-gay society concerns at large.

That's why I keep asking, and what makes the stigma argument against gay adoption such a weak one. The stigma will always exist, just as the interracial stigma still exists after 40 years. 100% legalization won't change that. And even if it did, it wouldn't happen overnight. So arguing based on 100% legality, using the stigma argument, also makes no sense.


In this case, stability and the stigma go hand in hand, and will continue to do so until the country makes it legal.

As for what Groucho said, in most cases I would agree, a homosexual couple is likely to be a better situation than no couple at all, which is why I would never support laws not allowing them to adopt, ditto single heterosexual parents. But I do think they need to be at the bottom of the pecking order, and that means they fall below less qualified heterosexual couples. It's wrong, it's not fair, but I think it's best for the child until the government steps in and makes a high court ruling.

_________________
Image


Tue Nov 18, 2008 7:27 am
Profile WWW
Forum General
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 3:53 pm
Posts: 8642
Location: Toronto, Canada
Post Re: Prop 8 discussion thread: Yes 52%
single parents should only adopt if they are well off or have good family relations.

Of course we cannot create a law saying a single mother must have a brother with kids to adopt.

It would be better overall as a single child would have some sort of a father figure and someone to play with.

One of my older aunts is a single mother and our whole family pitched in to fill the father/sibling role.

_________________
The Dark Prince

Image


Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:26 am
Profile WWW
A very honest-hearted fellow
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:02 pm
Posts: 4767
Post Re: Prop 8 discussion thread: Yes 52%
Beeblebrox wrote:

What a fucking scum bag. And if you're a gay Republican, you deserve a nice hard cock punch.

May I ask why you are always wanting people/you to harm other people's genitals? You suggested mdana stick something "deep, deep up his ass." A couple of days ago you suggested someone (paraphrase) "fuck himself with a pogostick." Now, you want to give someone a "nice hard cock punch." Is that a hard punch or a punch to a hard cock, not sure.


Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:40 am
Profile WWW
Jordan Mugen-Honda
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 9:53 am
Posts: 13403
Post Re: Prop 8 discussion thread: Yes 52%
Caius wrote:
Beeblebrox wrote:

What a fucking scum bag. And if you're a gay Republican, you deserve a nice hard cock punch.

May I ask why you are always wanting people/you to harm other people's genitals? You suggested mdana stick something "deep, deep up his ass." A couple of days ago you suggested someone (paraphrase) "fuck himself with a pogostick." Now, you want to give someone a "nice hard cock punch." Is that a hard punch or a punch to a hard cock, not sure.


As long as he doesn't move on to a Donkey Punch I think we are safe :unsure:

_________________
Rosberg was reminded of the fuel regulations by his wheel's ceasing to turn. The hollow noise from the fuel tank and needle reading zero had failed to convay this message


Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:46 am
Profile
Commander and Chef

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 12:56 am
Posts: 30505
Location: Tonight ... YOU!
Post Re: Prop 8 discussion thread: Yes 52%
Mannyisthebest wrote:
single parents should only adopt if they are well off or have good family relations.

.


wait ... provided that thats a valid point, why shouldn't that apply to just about any adopter, single or otherwise? married parents can actually be in a worse situation to adopt financially at times and family values can actually be even more questionable in terms of extended family for married couples.


Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:15 pm
Profile WWW
Some days I'm a super bitch
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 7:22 pm
Posts: 6645
Post Re: Prop 8 discussion thread: Yes 52%
Beeblebrox wrote:
Newt:

GINGRICH: Look, I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it. I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion. And I think if you believe in historic Christianity, you have to confront the fact. And, frank -- for that matter, if you believe in the historic version of Islam or the historic version of Judaism, you have to confront the reality that these secular extremists are determined to impose on you acceptance of a series of values that are antithetical, they're the opposite, of what you're taught in Sunday school.


Meanwhile, here in the real world, the exact OPPOSITE happened. Christian Fascism imposed its will on the rest of us.

What a fucking scum bag. And if you're a gay Republican, you deserve a nice hard cock punch.


The bizarre thing is that centre right political parties (including in other countries like Canada) think they are the guardian of liberty when the opposite is true. They only back it if it suits their personal morality or ideology. So, they have more in common with communists and fascists in that regard. They are more authoritarian (which they claim to be against).

It's shocking that they don't see what is obvious to everyone else. If Republicans had understood this basic thing, they probably wouldn't be so unpopular right now.


Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:20 pm
Profile WWW
All Star Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 9:40 pm
Posts: 4679
Post Re: Prop 8 discussion thread: Yes 52%
Eagle wrote:
In this case, stability and the stigma go hand in hand, and will continue to do so until the country makes it legal.

As for what Groucho said, in most cases I would agree, a homosexual couple is likely to be a better situation than no couple at all, which is why I would never support laws not allowing them to adopt, ditto single heterosexual parents. But I do think they need to be at the bottom of the pecking order, and that means they fall below less qualified heterosexual couples. It's wrong, it's not fair, but I think it's best for the child until the government steps in and makes a high court ruling.


So we have to wait for the whole country to make it legal now and not just look state to state? Ironically, the act of discrimination you describe of putting homosexuals at the bottom of the list IS illegal in some states. What to do then, legally speaking? Get rid of the laws that prevent discrimination against homosexuals?

It's quite the can of worms you get into when you start advocating bigotry, Eagle.


Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:58 pm
Profile WWW
All Star Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 9:40 pm
Posts: 4679
Post Re: Prop 8 discussion thread: Yes 52%
Gulli wrote:
As long as he doesn't move on to a Donkey Punch I think we are safe :unsure:


Now that's just sick. And I'm not saying that I would administer the cock punches. I'm in favor of a bipartisan cock punching committee to determine the severity of said cock punches.


Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:02 pm
Profile WWW
Site Owner
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:09 pm
Posts: 14631
Location: Pittsburgh
Post Re: Prop 8 discussion thread: Yes 52%
It all comes down to the best interest of the child.

_________________
Image


Tue Nov 18, 2008 6:04 pm
Profile WWW
Vagina Qwertyuiop
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:14 pm
Posts: 8767
Location: Great Living Standards
Post Re: Prop 8 discussion thread: Yes 52%
Eagle wrote:
It all comes down to the best interest of the child.

Well said.

Now define what you feel is in the best interest of the child.


Tue Nov 18, 2008 7:52 pm
Profile
Site Owner
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:09 pm
Posts: 14631
Location: Pittsburgh
Post Re: Prop 8 discussion thread: Yes 52%
As I've said before (albeit a bit more defined here), in the case of placing adopted children, the best interest of the child can be defined as the following:

First and foremost it is the duty of the placement agency to provide the most stable environment possible with an eye toward limiting additional placements as much as possible. This issue should be first and foremost in all situations as re-placement has shown to have enormous negative effect. Furthermore, it is equally important that placement ensures to the best of it's ability placement into an environment that doesn't put undue or unneeded stress on the child, and to ensure that, various factors should be taken into account, including but not at all limited to: race, religion, sexual orientation, economic status, home environment, age, and health.

_________________
Image


Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:02 pm
Profile WWW
Indiana Jones IV

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:08 am
Posts: 1879
Post Re: Prop 8 discussion thread: Yes 52%
Eagle wrote:
Furthermore, it is equally important that placement ensures to the best of it's ability placement into an environment that doesn't put undue or unneeded stress on the child, and to ensure that, various factors should be taken into account, including but not at all limited to: race, religion, sexual orientation, economic status, home environment, age, and health.

How do any of the bolded effect unneeded stress. Are you asking an agencyto determine the best race, religion, sexual orientation of teh parents.

Economic Status, Health(within limits I hope you are not incuding self sustaing people with disabilities and age(again within limits...grandparents raise a lot of kids). The key factors are mental health and self sustainability for both the kid and the parent anything else is deciding what si best for the kid.

IMO what you as is home enviroment is a coverall but I hope you meant drug use, prostituion, alcolohism, number of hours they aren't home, adequate living space, interest in education or skills, and low on conflict.

As to the adoption thing. I agree the writers intended it as a work around however I also agree with some here that many who voted on it voted on it because they feel it is neccessary for a child to grow up in a two parent home and the bill as written wasn't interpetted as a gay adoption ban by many of the voters.

_________________
Cromulent!


Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:59 am
Profile WWW
Forum General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:14 am
Posts: 9966
Post Re: Prop 8 discussion thread: Yes 52%
Major Update:

The California Supreme Court has responded. They will be taking up 3 of the lawsuits for review. They have asked both parties to submit written arguments and will most probably schedule oral arguments for March. If they take as much time to deliberate as they did with the case earlier this year, it means we will have a ruling by May.

A few things...

They did not grant a stay on enactment of Prop 8. Basically, they said that while they are reviewing the cases, Prop 8 will go into effect once it's officially declared and all the votes have been counted. One justice voted for the stay, so while we should not make assumptions, it seems we have at least one somewhat clear supporter for overturning Prop 8.

The court will also render the fate of the some 18,000 same-sex couples already married IN THE SAME RULING.

They voted 6-1 to hear the cases. There are alot of questions surrounding the one justice who voted against hearing the case because she was one of the 4 who granted marriage in the ruling earlier this year.

For some reason, Yes on 8 has completely and utterly ran with this news as a victory or a great step... which, um, really confuses me. I think they had like this intense push today to spin it as a victory for their side when it really wasn't.

Also, the Prop 8 supporters have threatened to recall any judge who votes for overturning Prop. 8. ;)

_________________
Top Movies of 2009
1. Hurt Locker / 2. (500) Days of Summer / 3. Sunshine Cleaning / 4. Up / 5. I Love You, Man

Top Anticipated 2009
1. Nine


Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:31 am
Profile
A very honest-hearted fellow
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:02 pm
Posts: 4767
Post Re: Prop 8 discussion thread: Yes 52%
Instead of a stay, I think you mean that the California Supreme Court denied injunctive relief.

I think prop-8 opponents should (not publicly) but in their hearts hope that the California Supreme Court upholds the law and annuls the marriages between the first California case and the passage of prop-8.

Then, that would place tremendous pressure on the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case on appeal, more so (I think), then if the state simply strikes down prop-8. If the U.S. Supreme Court hears, that could open up a nationwide right to gay marriage. However, it could backfire, but I think the odds of that are fairly low, maybe a 25% chance.


Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:46 am
Profile WWW
All Star Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 9:40 pm
Posts: 4679
Post Re: Prop 8 discussion thread: Yes 52%
Caius wrote:
I think prop-8 opponents should (not publicly) but in their hearts hope that the California Supreme Court upholds the law and annuls the marriages between the first California case and the passage of prop-8.

Then, that would place tremendous pressure on the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case on appeal, more so (I think), then if the state simply strikes down prop-8. If the U.S. Supreme Court hears, that could open up a nationwide right to gay marriage. However, it could backfire, but I think the odds of that are fairly low, maybe a 25% chance.


Wouldn't it be just as effective to overturn Prop 8, and have supporters appeal to the SCOTUS? That way In the meantime, gay couples in CA could be getting legally married, which would put the decision on the shoulders of the US court to destroy those marriages.


Thu Nov 20, 2008 2:19 am
Profile WWW
Site Owner
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:09 pm
Posts: 14631
Location: Pittsburgh
Post Re: Prop 8 discussion thread: Yes 52%
Either way gives a path to the Supreme Court because even if Prop 8 is thrown out, California doesn't declare marriages for their state only, so you can get married there, and move to another state.

Doing so means that state has to recognize you are married, and in the case of a state where marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, that clearly creates a blatant federal issue which would quickly rise to the supreme court.

That is actually the best and most likely way the supreme court ever hears this case.

_________________
Image


Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:11 am
Profile WWW
Indiana Jones IV

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:08 am
Posts: 1879
Post Re: Prop 8 discussion thread: Yes 52%
Eagle wrote:
Either way gives a path to the Supreme Court because even if Prop 8 is thrown out, California doesn't declare marriages for their state only, so you can get married there, and move to another state.

Doing so means that state has to recognize you are married, and in the case of a state where marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, that clearly creates a blatant federal issue which would quickly rise to the supreme court.

That is actually the best and most likely way the supreme court ever hears this case.

You obviously never heard of DOMA

_________________
Cromulent!


Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:17 pm
Profile WWW
All Star Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 9:40 pm
Posts: 4679
Post Re: Prop 8 discussion thread: Yes 52%
Could Jerry Brown really be that smart? Remember the wording of Prop 8 that the bigoted wingnuts got all upset over? Well it turns out there's a reason for that:

The lawsuits allege that, on its face, Proposition 8 is an improper revision rather than an amendment of the California Constitution because, in its very title, which was "Eliminates the right to marry for same-sex couples," the initiative eliminated an existing right only for a targeted minority. If permitted to stand, Proposition 8 would be the first time an initiative has successfully been used to change the California Constitution to take way an existing right only for a particular group. Such a change would defeat the very purpose of a constitution and fundamentally alter the role of the courts in protecting minority rights. According to the California Constitution, such a serious revision of our state Constitution cannot be enacted through a simple majority vote, but must first be approved by two-thirds of the Legislature.

I am becoming less reluctant about taking the matter to court. For one thing, the case has merit and almost every civil rights landmark was decided in courts or by a legislature, not at the ballot box.

Also, because of shit like this:

https://store.afa.net/pc-10000122-5-the ... n-dvd.aspx

Quote:
Residents of the small Arkansas town of Eureka Springs noticed the homosexual community was growing. But they felt no threat. They went about their business as usual. Then, one day, they woke up to discover that their beloved Eureka Springs, a community which was known far and wide as a center for Christian entertainment--had changed. The City Council had been taken over by a small group of homosexual activists.

The Eureka Springs they knew is gone. It is now a national hub for homosexuals. Eureka Springs is becoming the San Francisco of Arkansas. The story of how this happened is told in the new AFA DVD “They’re Coming To Your Town.”

One of the first actions of the homosexual controlled City Council was to offer a “registry” where homosexuals could register their unofficial “marriage.” City Council member Joyce Zeller said the city will now be promoted, not as a Christian resort, but a city “selling peace, relaxation, history and sex.”

AFA’s “They’re Coming ToYour Town” documents the story of how and why this happened. And how homosexual activists plan to do the same in other towns.
Order a copy of “They’re Coming To Your Town.” Watch it. Then take the 28-minute DVD and share it with your Sunday School class and local church. This is a story the liberal media will never tell, but one you need to know.


Thu Nov 20, 2008 3:04 pm
Profile WWW
Confessing on a Dance Floor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:46 am
Posts: 5578
Location: Celebratin' in Chitown
Post Re: Prop 8 discussion thread: Yes 52%
^ ha! I know where I'm going on my next vacation!


Thu Nov 20, 2008 3:31 pm
Profile
Stanley Cup
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 1:52 pm
Posts: 6981
Location: Hockey Town
Post Re: Prop 8 discussion thread: Yes 52%
Quote:
Residents of the small Arkansas town of Eureka Springs noticed the homosexual community was growing. But they felt no threat. They went about their business as usual. Then, one day, they woke up to discover that their beloved Eureka Springs, a community which was known far and wide as a center for Christian entertainment--had changed. The City Council had been taken over by a small group of homosexual activists.

The Eureka Springs they knew is gone. It is now a national hub for homosexuals. Eureka Springs is becoming the San Francisco of Arkansas. The story of how this happened is told in the new AFA DVD “They’re Coming To Your Town.”

One of the first actions of the homosexual controlled City Council was to offer a “registry” where homosexuals could register their unofficial “marriage.” City Council member Joyce Zeller said the city will now be promoted, not as a Christian resort, but a city “selling peace, relaxation, history and sex.”

AFA’s “They’re Coming ToYour Town” documents the story of how and why this happened. And how homosexual activists plan to do the same in other towns.
Order a copy of “They’re Coming To Your Town.” Watch it. Then take the 28-minute DVD and share it with your Sunday School class and local church. This is a story the liberal media will never tell, but one you need to know.


Ah good ol Eureka Springs. Only about 40 minutes from where I live. It is a very liberal town. It's a fun little place to hang out on the weekend.


Thu Nov 20, 2008 3:48 pm
Profile
All Star Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 9:40 pm
Posts: 4679
Post Re: Prop 8 discussion thread: Yes 52%
Nite Owl wrote:
Ah good ol Eureka Springs. Only about 40 minutes from where I live. It is a very liberal town. It's a fun little place to hang out on the weekend.


Having never been there, I could only guess that being the "San Francisco of Arkansas" would have to a huge step up from being the "center of Christian entertainment."


Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:25 pm
Profile WWW
Stanley Cup
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 1:52 pm
Posts: 6981
Location: Hockey Town
Post Re: Prop 8 discussion thread: Yes 52%
Beeblebrox wrote:
Nite Owl wrote:
Ah good ol Eureka Springs. Only about 40 minutes from where I live. It is a very liberal town. It's a fun little place to hang out on the weekend.


Having never been there, I could only guess that being the "San Francisco of Arkansas" would have to a huge step up from being the "center of Christian entertainment."


didnt live in arkansas when it was that. it's known state wide as the hippie center of Arkansas


Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:05 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 606 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.