# First legally married gays in the US



## iMan323 (Aug 31, 2007)

First gay couple legally married in Iowa - Yahoo! News

My iniatial reaction is: *NOooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO*

Even though I see some good things about this like further separation of church & state, and a drastic step away from the neanderthal thinking that's prevalent in our government, I'm still very disappointed


----------



## iMan323 (Aug 31, 2007)

I think our chances of having a Democrat President were just reduced by half.  The good news is, of course, that Albob can now marry WillBrink 

Sorry, cheap shot, couldn't resist


----------



## NordicNacho (Aug 31, 2007)




----------



## NordicNacho (Aug 31, 2007)




----------



## KelJu (Aug 31, 2007)

NordicNacho said:


>



Lawl, thats good shit.


----------



## NeilPearson (Aug 31, 2007)

Who the hell cares?  I say let them get married.  Why should gay guys be immune from making stupid mistakes?


----------



## Jodi (Aug 31, 2007)

iMan323 said:


> First gay couple legally married in Iowa - Yahoo! News
> 
> My iniatial reaction is: *NOooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO*
> 
> Even though I see some good things about this like further separation of church & state, and a drastic step away from the neanderthal thinking that's prevalent in our government, I'm still very disappointed


Give me a break   How about stop concerning yourself with the way others choose to live their lives.  Leave the gay community alone.  They aren't harming anyone.  Just because you don't like it, who gives a shit.  It's their choice and they have accepted it, why can't you?


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 31, 2007)

it's about time.


----------



## KelJu (Aug 31, 2007)

Little Wing said:


> it's about time.



I second that. With any luck, other states will follow suit.


----------



## DOMS (Aug 31, 2007)

It's going to be just like San Francisco.  They'll overturn it and null all of the marriages.


----------



## bio-chem (Aug 31, 2007)

DOMS said:


> It's going to be just like San Francisco.  They'll overturn it and null all of the marriages.



one can only hope reason prevails


----------



## iMan323 (Aug 31, 2007)

Jodi said:


> Give me a break   How about stop concerning yourself with the way others choose to live their lives.  Leave the gay community alone.  They aren't harming anyone.  Just because you don't like it, who gives a shit.  It's their choice and they have accepted it, why can't you?



You're right, they aren't harming anyone.  I'm just upset that they keep fucking with the dictionary.  Marriage to me is a contract between a man and a woman.


----------



## FishOrCutBait (Aug 31, 2007)

NEWS FLASH

IT DOESNT MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

jeez.


----------



## DOMS (Aug 31, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> one can only hope reason prevails



Who said I was against gay marriage?  I'm just pointing out the obvious.


----------



## FishOrCutBait (Aug 31, 2007)

As a Christian, i see people do shit on a day to day basis that I disagree with morally,

HOWEVER, as a member of a secular culture, if they are law abiding, tax paying citizens who contribute to society, and neither harm people through their actions nor harm people through their inaction, then I see no reason to deny them their desires.


----------



## DOMS (Aug 31, 2007)

FishOrCutBait said:


> As a Christian, i see people do shit on a day to day basis that I disagree with morally,
> 
> HOWEVER, as a member of a secular culture, if they are law abiding, tax paying citizens who contribute to society, and neither harm people through their actions nor harm people through their inaction, then I see no reason to deny them their desires.



I just want to go to a lesbian bachelorette party.


----------



## KelJu (Aug 31, 2007)

iMan323 said:


> You're right, they aren't harming anyone.  I'm just upset that they keep fucking with the dictionary.  Marriage to me is a contract between a man and a woman.



Yeah I'm sure your problem with gay marriage is because the dictionary doesn't agree.


----------



## NeilPearson (Aug 31, 2007)

I wish they would make it illegal for straight people


----------



## iMan323 (Aug 31, 2007)

KelJu said:


> Yeah I'm sure your problem with gay marriage is because the dictionary doesn't agree.



Yeah, I don't like flamers.  So?  Why should I like people who pride themselves on living the role of the stereotype?  I only know one gay guy that I genuinly respect and I really dislike coming into contact with most of them.


----------



## bio-chem (Aug 31, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Who said I was against gay marriage?  I'm just pointing out the obvious.



i was talking of myself


----------



## KelJu (Aug 31, 2007)

iMan323 said:


> Yeah, I don't like flamers.  So?  Why should I like people who pride themselves on living the role of the stereotype?  I only know one gay guy that I genuinly respect and I really dislike coming into contact with most of them.



So nothing. Its your choice and your right. I was just making the point that the literal definition of the word marriage wasn't why you have a problem with gay marriage. 

I also don't care for flamers. I find the Richard Simmons type of gay people to be intolerable. But, you know those gays probably make up less than a quarter of all gays. I work for two gay guys. If no one told you they were gay you would never figure it out. Its hilarious how many women come in our shop and start trying to flirt with the them. Working for gay guys means meeting their gay friends. I can tell you first hand that you interact with people everyday who are gay, only you don't know, because it is not advantageous for them to tell you. 

The stereotype hurts gays, and gays such as my boss really can't stand flamers, because it makes it harder for them.


----------



## bio-chem (Aug 31, 2007)

i dont think you have the right equiptment 





DOMS said:


> I just want to go to a lesbian bachelorette party.


----------



## DOMS (Aug 31, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> i dont think you have the right equiptment



I have eyes.


----------



## min0 lee (Aug 31, 2007)

*These gays approve!*


----------



## DOMS (Aug 31, 2007)

So very, very wrong...


----------



## Jodi (Aug 31, 2007)

iMan323 said:


> Yeah, I don't like flamers.  So?  Why should I like people who pride themselves on living the role of the stereotype?  I only know one gay guy that I genuinly respect and I really dislike coming into contact with most of them.


You make it sound like you are going to catch "Gay" from them or something


----------



## NordicNacho (Aug 31, 2007)

DOMS said:


> I just want to go to a lesbian bachelorette party.




Really?


----------



## clemson357 (Aug 31, 2007)

I really couldn't care less.  The whole gay marriage debate is a fucking joke.  Gays want it as if it is some symbol of public acceptance.  A piece of paper isn't going to change anyones mind about anything.


----------



## KelJu (Aug 31, 2007)

clemson357 said:


> I really couldn't care less.  The whole gay marriage debate is a fucking joke.  Gays want it as if it is some symbol of public acceptance.  A piece of paper isn't going to change anyones mind about anything.



So you are an expect in what gays want?


----------



## min0 lee (Aug 31, 2007)

clemson357 said:


> I really couldn't care less. The whole gay marriage debate is a fucking joke. Gays want it as if it is some symbol of public acceptance. A piece of paper isn't going to change anyones mind about anything.


There's more to that.


----------



## min0 lee (Aug 31, 2007)

I made love to all the gay people in Iowa, so I'm really getting a kick out of these replies...


----------



## goob (Aug 31, 2007)

min0 lee said:


>


 
My view was to say, who the fuck cares. Live and let live.

But....


----------



## tallcall (Aug 31, 2007)

All I know is that I hate the stereotypes, and from what I've seen and experienced, there are a lot of non-flamers in the crowd who agree with me. I think the news media focuses too much on the stereotypes just because they are sometimes easier to get to. 

When I came out to my friends, I shocked everyone, no one thought that I could ever have been gay. I never gave off any of the stereotypical signs and am usually a very private / socially conservative person (registered Democrat, but I keep my opinions to myself). My best friend is also gay (I work with him), he is very much the same way, although if you get him with some other friends it gets very entertaining. I like to spend time with other people, but it's so hard for me to dig up the courage to ask someone if they mind being a friend of a gay person. It shouldn't really matter, but I do fear rejection like most people.


----------



## Fetusaurus Rex (Aug 31, 2007)

Ohhhh Fuck, not in Iowa.....


----------



## min0 lee (Aug 31, 2007)

Fetusaurus Rex said:


> Ohhhh Fuck, not in Iowa.....


Your gay, but you just didn't know it.
You can thank me for showing you the light.

Now be a good intern and clean those airport bathrooms.


----------



## MCx2 (Aug 31, 2007)

min0 lee said:


>


----------



## Fetusaurus Rex (Aug 31, 2007)

min0 lee said:


> Your gay, but you just didn't know it.
> You can thank me for showing you the light.
> 
> Now be a good intern and clean those airport bathrooms.





ssssssssssssttthhhhhhop iiiiit


----------



## FishOrCutBait (Aug 31, 2007)

tallcall said:


> All I know is that I hate the stereotypes, and from what I've seen and experienced, there are a lot of non-flamers in the crowd who agree with me. I think the news media focuses too much on the stereotypes just because they are sometimes easier to get to.




The media has made it popular to live out the stereotype of a flamer.

many [gay people without identities] (this is one phrase, specifically referring to homosexuals with little self-identity) other than their homosexuality try to find themselves in that stereotype


----------



## fufu (Sep 1, 2007)

Really enthusiastic in-your-face homosexuals would annoy me. However, really enthusiastic in-your-face heterosexual would annoy me as well, and I don't care care if they get married, no reason to give a shit either way.


----------



## Fetusaurus Rex (Sep 1, 2007)

fufu said:


> Really enthusiastic in-your-face homosexuals would annoy me. However, really enthusiastic in-your-face heterosexual would annoy me as well, and I don't care care if they get married, no reason to give a shit either way.





I agree, really the only reason I care is because I am from Iowa and this opens a whole new spectrum of jokes and a reason I see people having for making fun of Iowa


----------



## SYN (Sep 4, 2007)

NordicNacho said:


> Really?



False.  there's a site called pinkcupid and it's a lesbian dating site. there are some pretty hot lesbians running around.


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 4, 2007)

Fetusaurus Rex said:


> I agree, really the only reason I care is because I am from Iowa and this opens a whole new spectrum of jokes and a reason I see people having for making fun of Iowa


Be proud it's the first.


----------



## NeilPearson (Sep 4, 2007)

SYN said:


> False.  there's a site called pinkcupid and it's a lesbian dating site. there are some pretty hot lesbians running around.



Yes there are lots of softball playing mullet heads out there too


----------



## NeilPearson (Sep 4, 2007)

Fetusaurus Rex said:


> I agree, really the only reason I care is because I am from Iowa and this opens a whole new spectrum of jokes and a reason I see people having for making fun of Iowa



I don't think anyone cares enough about Iowa to make fun of it...


----------



## Lynch (Sep 4, 2007)

Gay marriage is immoral and wrong. The liberals just wont let it end until they have run this country into the ground.


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 4, 2007)

Lynch said:


> Gay marriage is immoral and wrong. The liberals just wont let it end until they have run this country into the ground.


Let them be, it doesn't hurt you does it.


----------



## tucker01 (Sep 4, 2007)

min0 lee said:


> Let them be, it doesn't hurt you does it.



Funny how Lynch is against something that has no bearing on anyone except the individuals involved, but supports mexicans stealing money from the system?


----------



## Lynch (Sep 4, 2007)

min0 lee said:


> Let them be, it doesn't hurt you does it.


Yes, it hurts everyone. People can do what they want in their own home I guess, but gay marriage is wrong and goes against every religion in the world.


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 4, 2007)

IainDaniel said:


> Funny how Lynch is against something that has no bearing on anyone except the individuals involved, but supports mexicans stealing money from the system?


I know.


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 4, 2007)

Lynch said:


> Yes, it hurts everyone. People can do what they want in their own home I guess, but gay marriage is wrong and goes against every religion in the world.


How does it hurt anyone, homosexuality has probobly been around since the dawn of time.

That crack about the liberals....they say that while the liberals are openly gay the conservative are like to hide it.
Gays are all over buddy.


----------



## tucker01 (Sep 4, 2007)

Like this guy?

Republicans demand Idaho senator resign over washroom scandal


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 4, 2007)

One of the few.


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 4, 2007)

He states he's not gay...reminds me of Kefe..tehee


> While Craig was taking criticism from fellow Republicans, he was also attacked by gay activists, who said Craig is a prime example of hypocrisy ??? a man who they say engages in same-sex liaisons while consistently opposing gay-rights measures as a politician.
> Craig has voted against same-sex marriage and has opposed special protections for gay and lesbian crime victims.
> "He may very well not think of himself as being gay, and these are just urges that he has,'' said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
> "It's the tragedy of homophobia. People create these walls that separate themselves from who they really are.''
> But Lynch er um Craig, a married father of three, insists he is straight.


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 4, 2007)

*Busted Florida Republican state rep's "black gay panic" defense on soliciting charge*

Another Republican sexual hypocrite out of control. Florida State Representative Bob Allen (R-of course) is clearly shooting for worst defense of the year after being caught trolling for a same sex encounter. Earlier this month he was arrested at Veteran's Memorial Park in Titusville for soliciting an undercover male officer inside the restroom after offering to perform oral sex for $20.


Allen, who also served as the McCain campaign's co-chairman in Florida, has decided that he would come out of this scandal looking better if he is perceived as a racist rather than a homo. Sweet! 




State Rep. Bob Allen told police he was just playing along when a undercover officer suggested in a public restroom that the legislator give him oral sex and $20 *because he was intimidated*, according to a taped statement and other documents released Thursday.​ 

..."*This was a pretty stocky black guy, and there was nothing but other black guys around in the park," Allen, who is white, told police in a taped statement after his arrest. Allen said he feared he "was about to be a statistic" and would have said anything just to get away*. Allen, who couldn't be reached for comment Thursday, has repeatedly declared his innocence, his intention to fight the charges and his desire to stay in office.​OK. Let's look at what the police report says about the encounter and you decide whether Allen was acting like a man desperate to escape the terrifying big black buck by saying (or in this case, _doing_) anything. 

​ 

The officer: "I was standing against the far wall of the stall. Allen closed the door behind him and stood against it. I said "what's up" and Allen said "Hi." Allen then said "this is kind of a public place isn't it." I said "do you have somewhere else where we can go?" Allen said "How about across the bridge it's quite [sic] over there." Allen engaged me in a conversation in which he agreed to pay me $20.00 in order to perform a "blow job" on me."​ 



​The above exchange took place after Allen entered the restroom twice cruising, peeped over the stall wall at the officer and then _pushed open the door_ to join the officer to proposition him. That's some incredible acting on Allen's part.

By the way, when Allen was being put in the paddy wagon, the officer said Allen asked whether "it would help" matters if he was a state legislator. The officer said, "No." I'm sure that it wouldn't surprise you to learn that Allen voted with the Christian Coalition over 90% of the time between 2003 and 2006.

More entertainment on Allen's record can be found at Joe.My.God, including the fact that he is the author of Florida House Bill #1475, the "Lewd Or Lascivious Exhibition Act."


Allen may seem insane for coming up with something this ridiculous to avoid being labeled as gay, but he wouldn't be alone. American University anthropology Professor William Leap has spent more than a decade researching male sex in public places. In 1999, he edited an academic compilation called Public Sex/Gay Space. His conclusion is that up to half of the men who seek this kind of sex are not gay.​Another lawyer interviewed for the piece said that most of the men he represents on public restroom sex charges aren't gay. ''_The percentage of people I represent on the charges, the vast number of them turn out to be very straight and very married. They're looking for moments of instant gratification_.''


----------



## Lynch (Sep 4, 2007)

min0 lee said:


> How does it hurt anyone, homosexuality has probobly been around since the dawn of time.
> 
> That crack about the liberals....they say that while the liberals are openly gay the conservative are like to hide it.
> Gays are all over buddy.


Well here are a few rerasons.

It is not natural
Gay marriage is not supported by religion
Gay marriage will change the foundation of society in a bad way
Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior...are pets next?
Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay
Straight marriage will be less meaningful
It will be a tax burden on society

I never said liberals or conservatives  were gay or not gay. You are going off topic  and seem to be angery, I did not intend to insult you and your way of living. I am just doing what everyone else herwe is doing....voicing an opinion.


----------



## goob (Sep 4, 2007)

Lynch said:


> Well here are a few rerasons.
> 
> It is not natural
> Gay marriage is not supported by religion
> ...


 
Live and let live dude.  Who the fuck cares?  It dose'nt effect me, and it won't effect you.  Let them do what they want.

By the way.....

Religeon dose'nt accept it because religeon is effectively social control....a list of commands/ rules laid down by people (not god)  to shape society.  These rules were laid down long before society evolved to the level it is at now.


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 4, 2007)

Lynch said:


> Well here are a few rerasons.
> 
> It is not natural--*To you and I it isn't but tell them that.*
> Gay marriage is not supported by religion---*Talk to your local fudge packing priest about that.*
> ...


I don't get angry that easy, your just new and I am bored.
I am not gay by the way, not that there's anything wrong with that.


----------



## bio-chem (Sep 4, 2007)

Lynch said:


> Gay marriage is immoral and wrong. The liberals just wont let it end until they have run this country into the ground.



now you have done it


----------



## Lynch (Sep 4, 2007)

goob said:


> Live and let live dude.  Who the fuck cares?  It dose'nt effect me, and it won't effect you.  Let them do what they want.
> 
> By the way.....
> 
> Religeon dose'nt accept it because religeon is effectively social control....a list of commands/ rules laid down by people (not god)  to shape society.  These rules were laid down long before society evolved to the level it is at now.


A very simple and apathetic view of the situation.


----------



## KelJu (Sep 4, 2007)

Lynch said:


> Gay marriage is immoral and wrong. The liberals just wont let it end until they have run this country into the ground.



Lawl!


----------



## Lynch (Sep 4, 2007)

min0 lee said:


> I don't get angry that easy, your just new and I am bored.
> I am not gay by the way, not that there's anything wrong with that.



Not my business what you are, nore do I care


----------



## goob (Sep 4, 2007)

Lynch said:


> A very simple and apathetic view of the situation.


 
Of course.  You did'nt expect an epic like the _dead see crawls_ on the subject did you?


----------



## Lynch (Sep 4, 2007)

min0 lee said:


> I don't get angry that easy, your just new and I am bored.
> I am not gay by the way, not that there's anything wrong with that.



Yeah, 'cuz I'm single, I'm thin and I'm neat


----------



## KelJu (Sep 4, 2007)

Lynch said:


> Yes, it hurts everyone. People can do what they want in their own home I guess, but gay marriage is wrong and goes against every religion in the world.



No it doesn't. I am quite shur that someone as small minded as yourself knows anything about any religion other than your own. There are lots of religions that do not give a shit about guys. Your opinion is yours to have, but don't start spouting off nonsense lie kit is fact.

I have a feeling we are going to be making fun of you a whole lot in the near future.


----------



## Lynch (Sep 4, 2007)

KelJu said:


> No it doesn't. I am quite shur that someone as small minded as yourself knows anything about any religion other than your own. There are lots of religions that do not give a shit about guys. Your opinion is yours to have, but don't start spouting off nonsense lie kit is fact.
> 
> I have a feeling we are going to be making fun of you a whole lot in the near future.


Best to check your spelling and grammar before you call people names.


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 4, 2007)

Lynch said:


> Not my business what you are, nore do I care


Not gay, but I am a cross dresser......silk panties....yummy!


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 4, 2007)

Lynch said:


> Yeah, 'cuz I'm single, I'm thin and I'm neat


Well two out of three ain't bad.
If you read the stickies you can learn what to eat and bulk right.

Hmm...you do fit the gay description ....it's ok with me, I won't tell anyone.


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 4, 2007)

Lynch said:


> Best to check your spelling and grammar before you call people names.


I bet your a real fancy dancer.


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 4, 2007)

KelJu said:


> I have a feeling we are going to be making fun of you a whole lot in the near future.


It already started.


----------



## KelJu (Sep 4, 2007)

Lynch said:


> Well here are a few rerasons.
> 
> It is not natural
> Gay marriage is not supported by religion
> ...



So, you are scared that if gays are allowed to marry, you might start getting the urge to suck dick! Well, at least we know why you are so passionate about this issue. So when exactly did you start repressing your homosexual urges?

When are we going to start getting people like you professional help before you go crazy and start fucking little boys like so many other conservative Christians that spew such hate towards their fellow human beings.


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 4, 2007)

KelJu said:


> So, you are scared that if gays are allowed to marry, you might start getting the urge to suck dick! Well, at least we know why you are so passionate about this issue. So when exactly did you start repressing your homosexual urges?
> 
> When are we going to start getting people like you professional help before you go crazy and start fucking little boys like so many other conservative Christians that spew such hate towards their fellow human beings.


 
Nothing wrong with his spelling and grammar, he came in loud and clear.


----------



## Lynch (Sep 4, 2007)

Such anger and agression over one persons opinion. That is as sad as it is pathetic. I will pray for you.


----------



## Lynch (Sep 4, 2007)

min0 lee said:


> I bet your a real fancy dancer.


I can cut a rug when the time is right.


----------



## bio-chem (Sep 4, 2007)

Lynch said:


> Such anger and agression over one persons opinion. That is as sad as it is pathetic. I will pray for you.



damn dude. im as conservative as it comes on this board and even i can see your going down a path that is going to get you eaten alive if you continue on like this


----------



## Lynch (Sep 4, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> damn dude. im as conservative as it comes on this board and even i can see your going down a path that is going to get you eaten alive if you continue on like this


That might be so, but these anti-God liberals attacked me for just posting my opinions. I will not yeild to that kind of bullying.


----------



## bio-chem (Sep 4, 2007)

Lynch said:


> That might be so, but these anti-God liberals attacked me for just posting my opinions. I will not yeild to that kind of bullying.



so instead of just throwing out a bunch of opinions on what this will do to society, choose one and back it up


----------



## Fetusaurus Rex (Sep 4, 2007)

Lynch said:


> That might be so, but these anti-God liberals attacked me for just posting my opinions. I will not yeild to that kind of bullying.



I believe in God, and I am not into politics, and I acted a bit like this under my first account in which I got banned hahah, it is easiest just to play along...


----------



## KelJu (Sep 4, 2007)

Lynch said:


> That might be so, but these anti-God liberals attacked me for just posting my opinions. I will not yeild to that kind of bullying.



Wait a second. You came in this thread to attack gays and spread your hate, and somehow you are the victim?

There are a lot of conservatives and Christians on this board who don't spread hate like you are doing. Also, coming from a Baptist mother, I spent much of my childhood in church. In church I learned that, as Christians, you are suppose to love your brother, not spread hate. Also, God is to be the judge, not you. But, like so many warped religious fanatics, you people have forgotten that lessen. Its easier to hate than forgive. You give you fellow Christians a bad name with with your behavior, and you should be ashamed of yourself. Leave the gays alone, they haven;t done anything to you. 

Oh, one other thing. Most of the members of this board are educated and very intelligent. You will seldomly find a group of people as great as the regular posters on this board. I warn you now, that we don't buy into your bullshit, and we will make fun of your ass until you stop posting like the hundred other retards that came before you. You're just another nut, and you will not find no symapthies for your cause here. 

If I were you I would focus on your own life more, and less on what other people are doing. Your hate will eat you alive. I don't prey, but I do hope you find some peace within yourself, if not for you, then for the health of our culture and nation.


----------



## Lynch (Sep 4, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> so instead of just throwing out a bunch of opinions on what this will do to society, choose one and back it up


When someone presents an intelligent argument I will do so. So far it is just anger and personal attacks.


----------



## KelJu (Sep 4, 2007)

Lynch said:


> When someone presents an intelligent argument I will do so. So far it is just anger and personal attacks.




"Said the kettle to the pot."


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 4, 2007)

Fetusaurus Rex said:


> I believe in God, and I am not into politics, and I acted a bit like this under my first account in which I got banned hahah, it is easiest just to play along...


You were banned for showing a penis. Fetus.
Hey that ryhmes...
Penis Fetus
Penis Fetus
Penis Fetus


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 4, 2007)

Lynch said:


> That might be so, but these anti-God liberals attacked me for just posting my opinions. I will not yeild to that kind of bullying.


Oh don't get your panties in a bunch.


----------



## KelJu (Sep 4, 2007)

min0 lee said:


> Oh don't get your panties in a bunch.



One nut gets banned, and another takes their place in less than a week.


----------



## Fetusaurus Rex (Sep 4, 2007)

min0 lee said:


> You were banned for showing a penis. Fetus.
> Hey that ryhmes...
> Penis Fetus
> Penis Fetus
> Penis Fetus




hahah sort of, I got an infraction for that, and threatened to be banned, then I argued and dug myself into a hole and tried some ultra neat reverse psychology and asked to be banned, and then it backfired


----------



## Fetusaurus Rex (Sep 4, 2007)

KelJu said:


> One nut gets banned, and another takes their place in less than a week.



I took my own place  

better me than some other n00b job though right?  






right.....?


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 4, 2007)

KelJu said:


> One nut gets banned, and another takes their place in less than a week.


Exactly, this one is acting all innocent but I have a feeling he's an old member.
I have no problem him at all though, he's funny.


----------



## KelJu (Sep 4, 2007)

Fetusaurus Rex said:


> I took my own place
> 
> better me than some other n00b job though right?
> 
> ...




I wasn't around when all that shit went down about the picture you posted. I was surprised, because I had never known you to cause trouble.


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 4, 2007)

Fetusaurus Rex said:


> hahah sort of, I got an infraction for that, and threatened to be banned, then I argued and dug myself into a hole and tried some ultra neat reverse psychology and asked to be banned, and then it backfired


I remember it well.

Next time you show your penis like that  at least photoshop it to make it look *bigger.......*ok stubby*?*


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 4, 2007)

Fetusaurus Rex said:


> I took my own place
> 
> better me than some other n00b job though right?
> 
> ...


He wasn't talking to you.


----------



## Fetusaurus Rex (Sep 4, 2007)

KelJu said:


> I wasn't around when all that shit went down about the picture you posted. I was surprised, because I had never known you to cause trouble.



lol well, it was mostly an accident as to what I posted, I didnt see 'said penis' (Ill send you the pic, it is not a blatant cock in your face trust me) and then I argued a little about it, and dug myself in a hole kind of like this guy is doing...not good times


really Im just a joker, and this is one of two messageboards that I goto regularly, but the other one is virtually un-modded, anything is game....

so sometimes it is hard to turn off being a joker on another level on the other board because you have to be gritty lol

this bored is a blast in other ways, it is a lot more mature and intelligent than the other, the other board is like a crazy party for special ed  rebels and I fit right in


----------



## KelJu (Sep 4, 2007)

Fetusaurus Rex said:


> lol well, it was mostly an accident as to what I posted, I didnt see 'said penis' (Ill send you the pic, it is not a blatent cock in your face trust me) and then I argued a little about it, and dug myself in a hole kind of like this guy is doing...not good times
> 
> 
> really Im just a joker, and this is one of two messageboards that I goto regularly, but the other one is virtually un-modded, anything is game....
> ...




If it is a picture of an underage child with his penis visible, please please please don't send it to me. As a matter of fact, I would delete it if I were you. Dude, you can go to jail over shit like that.


----------



## Fetusaurus Rex (Sep 4, 2007)

KelJu said:


> If it is a picture of an underage child with his penis visible, please please please don't send it to me. As a matter of fact, I would delete it if I were you. Dude, you can go to jail over shit like that.



lol well I dont have it saved

it was an "Owned" picture

a kid in the top bunk shining a flashlight on a kid in the bottom bunk with his hand in his pants....and sure enough, his pecker is out, and I truly didnt see it....I thought he was owned masturbating with his hand in his pants...not with his pecker out

but Im not going to get into that again

I would actually guess that you might have seen it before if you ever look up "Owned" pictures....I have seen it all over the place


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 4, 2007)

I thought that was you showing off your 1 inch pecker.


----------



## KelJu (Sep 4, 2007)

Fetusaurus Rex said:


> lol well I dont have it saved
> 
> it was an "Owned" picture
> 
> ...



Lawl, that is actually sounds pretty funny. Dave Attel said that if you ever get caught jerking off to say this:

"Quick, get some help! My hand and penis is fighting!" 

"laugh:


----------



## Lynch (Sep 4, 2007)

KelJu said:


> "Said the kettle to the pot."


Case and point, no intelligent life discovered yet.


----------



## Fetusaurus Rex (Sep 4, 2007)

KelJu said:


> Lawl, that is actually sounds pretty funny. Dave Attel said that if you ever get caught jerking off to say this:
> 
> "Quick, get some help! My hand and penis is fighting!"
> 
> "laugh:



hahah well it was funny until someone noticed that the kids pecker was out, and then I got the "pedo" treatment, and felt like fighting that, because in a way you know, it does make you feel guilty, granted it was probably more in a razz type of way, but at the time I didnt even see the kids pecker and was fighting over that fact.....

so anyways you know the wolves were hungry and attacked and I kept feeding them....

but anyways, back to this guy hahah


----------



## tallcall (Sep 4, 2007)

This is very entertaining... (munches on popcorn)... Please Continue


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 4, 2007)

Lynch said:


> Case and point, no intelligent life discovered yet.


What is your point?


----------



## tallcall (Sep 4, 2007)

I have to admit that I think his point is moot.


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 4, 2007)

Fetusaurus Rex said:


> so anyways you know the wolves were hungry and attacked and I kept feeding them....
> 
> but anyways, back to this guy hahah


Burp, yes I remember that meal.

you provided me with good photoshop material.


----------



## Jodi (Sep 4, 2007)

I'll give you all 1 guess as to who that loser Lynch is or should I say WAS............

Your one and only hint:  The biggest loser of IM history.


----------



## KelJu (Sep 4, 2007)

Lynch said:


> Case and point, no intelligent life discovered yet.




So, do you get off on making enemies? You haven't been a member very long, and so far, you are a laughing stock. Stop embarrassing yourself. 

Actually, on second thought, keep it up. The forums have been slightly stale since our last troll was banned, and we could a little comic relief.


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 4, 2007)




----------



## Fetusaurus Rex (Sep 4, 2007)

min0 lee said:


>



   

I look forced, Kefe is into dom(s)inatrix

hahah


----------



## KelJu (Sep 4, 2007)

min0 lee said:


>



 

How the hell did I miss that one?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Sep 4, 2007)

Jodi said:


> I'll give you all 1 guess as to who that loser Lynch is or should I say WAS............
> 
> Your one and only hint:  The biggest loser of IM history.



Hey, why does KEFE get to have 2 usernames?


----------



## Jodi (Sep 4, 2007)

Dale Mabry said:


> Hey, why does KEFE get to have 2 usernames?


Wrong......you lose


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 4, 2007)

You missed it, I made a few of Bazooka tooth when he wanted to get banned. I placed his head on Saddams body.


----------



## Fetusaurus Rex (Sep 4, 2007)

min0 lee said:


> You missed it, I made a few of Bazooka tooth when he wanted to get banned. I placed his head on Saddams body.



nuh uh....you missed it...pfffft

now back to this guy


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 4, 2007)

I think they banned him. 
Apparently he was a former member....I think I know who it is now.


----------



## KelJu (Sep 4, 2007)

min0 lee said:


> I think they banned him.
> Apparently he was a former member....I think I know who it is now.



Why do you think that? 

Did the mods do an IP check? 

Who do you think it was?


----------



## maniclion (Sep 4, 2007)

Lynch said:


> Case and point, no intelligent life discovered yet.


That's Jack Ass, he's the only person I know who says 'Case and Point" instead of "Case in Point"


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 4, 2007)

KelJu said:


> 1-Why do you think that?
> 
> 2-Did the mods do an IP check?
> 
> 3-Who do you think it was?


1- This post.
2- I guess.
3-I'm guessing from the post it was Foreman.

Jodi


> I'll give you all 1 guess as to who that loser Lynch is or should I say WAS............
> 
> Your one and only hint: The biggest loser of IM history.




I would have never guess it though, if it was him he fooled me.


----------



## KelJu (Sep 4, 2007)

maniclion said:


> That's Jack Ass, he's the only person I know who says 'Case and Point" instead of "Case in Point"



Do you really think he would go to the trouble to invent a religious conservative nut just to troll?


----------



## KelJu (Sep 4, 2007)

KelJu said:


> Do you really think he would go to the trouble to invent a religious conservative nut just to troll?



Nevermind. That was a dumb question.


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 4, 2007)

maniclion said:


> That's Jack Ass, he's the only person I know who says 'Case and Point" instead of "Case in Point"


I never noticed that.
I know a lot of people didn't like him here but he was a friend to me, it's a shame things turned out the way they did.


----------



## KelJu (Sep 4, 2007)

min0 lee said:


> I never noticed that.
> I know a lot of people didn't like him here but he was a friend to me, it's a shame things turned out the way they did.



Hey, I liked him too, because he was funny. He was also academically intelligent.  But, I lost all respect for him after all the shit he pulled when he was banned. I think everyone did.


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 4, 2007)

KelJu said:


> Do you really think he would go to the trouble to invent a religious conservative nut just to troll?


Yes!


----------



## tallcall (Sep 4, 2007)

I'll take it as a good thing that I don't know most of these people. Though I have read from some of them, there were certainly some _interesting_ people around here before my time!


----------



## KelJu (Sep 4, 2007)

tallcall said:


> I'll take it as a good thing that I don't know most of these people. Though I have read from some of them, there were certainly some _interesting_ people around here before my time!



Yes, they were very interesting. I wish some of them were still here, but they were dumbasses and posted shit about our mods on another forum. I don't think MyK was a trouble maker, but he got caught up in Foreman's shit, so he was taken out with the rest of the trash.


----------



## tucker01 (Sep 4, 2007)

Jodi said:


> I'll give you all 1 guess as to who that loser Lynch is or should I say WAS............
> 
> Your one and only hint:  The biggest loser of IM history.



Hmmm how did you figure that out?

I had a suspicion earlier.  But couldn't prove it.


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 4, 2007)

IainDaniel said:


> Hmmm how did you figure that out?
> 
> I had a suspicion earlier. But couldn't prove it.


If it was him he fooled the crap out of me. 
He had me going with the religious stuff that he is so against, I actually thought it was blooming lotus for a reason.


----------



## tucker01 (Sep 4, 2007)

I dunno something just raised my curiousity.

Every post lynch made was trying to stir the pot.

Incline bench stimulating upper chest.  Gays being immoral.  Mexicans are great.  

Someone had to have a good deal of understanding of the board to address those issues they way they did.


----------



## Jodi (Sep 4, 2007)

IainDaniel said:


> Hmmm how did you figure that out?
> 
> I had a suspicion earlier.  But couldn't prove it.



Super Mods   We can use the admin control panel to look things up.


----------



## Jodi (Sep 4, 2007)

For instance.

Lynch joined IM using an ISP located in Mexico which happens to be the very same ISP that TOM used.  Which by the way, no other member has ever joined with that same ISP.  Now he sits on his account for a bit and then starts posting today in Open Chat only.  He immediately starts digging in where he knows many of our members passionately discuss just to rock the boat.  

So during IP check, he has the same ISP and almost same IP (one octet off) as he always has which is located in Phoenix.  Coincidence?  I think not.

So do I have an exact IP match?  No and I never will because its real easy to change your IP whenever you want.


----------



## KelJu (Sep 4, 2007)

Jodi said:


> For instance.
> 
> Lynch joined IM using an ISP located in Mexico which happens to be the very same ISP that TOM used.  Which by the way, no other member has ever joined with that same ISP.  Now he sits on his account for a bit and then starts posting today in Open Chat only.  He immediately starts digging in where he knows many of our members passionately discuss just to rock the boat.
> 
> ...





Good work Jodi! I feel dumb for having argued with him now.


----------



## bio-chem (Sep 4, 2007)

Jodi said:


> For instance.
> 
> Lynch joined IM using an ISP located in Mexico which happens to be the very same ISP that TOM used.  Which by the way, no other member has ever joined with that same ISP.  Now he sits on his account for a bit and then starts posting today in Open Chat only.  He immediately starts digging in where he knows many of our members passionately discuss just to rock the boat.
> 
> ...



whoa, your smart.  (this is not said sarcastically, but in awe)


----------



## maniclion (Sep 4, 2007)

Jodi said:


> For instance.
> 
> Lynch joined IM using an ISP located in Mexico which happens to be the very same ISP that TOM used.  Which by the way, no other member has ever joined with that same ISP.  Now he sits on his account for a bit and then starts posting today in Open Chat only.  He immediately starts digging in where he knows many of our members passionately discuss just to rock the boat.
> 
> ...


The "Case and Point" is what got me thinking, but an close ISP/IP match works too....


----------



## DOMS (Sep 4, 2007)

Jodi said:


> I'll give you all 1 guess as to who that loser Lynch is or should I say WAS............
> 
> Your one and only hint:  The biggest loser of IM history.



I figured that out.  That's why I never bothered to respond to him even once.


----------



## NordicNacho (Sep 4, 2007)

Some one got 








New Avatar for Jodi?


----------



## Witchblade (Sep 5, 2007)

I don't see why the fuck gays couldn't get married.


----------



## iMan323 (Sep 5, 2007)

KelJu said:


> So nothing. Its your choice and your right. I was just making the point that the literal definition of the word marriage wasn't why you have a problem with gay marriage.



No, actually, that's exactly why I have a problem with gay marriage.  Marriage implies a traditional relationship and a legal bond between a man and a woman.  A same sex couple is not traditional.  I'm not against gay people forming legal bonds with one another, but to call it a marriage is obsurd....cuz it's not.


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 5, 2007)

I have more of a problem with divorce than gay marriages.

I bet they would probably have a lower divorce rate than the straight couple.


----------



## bio-chem (Sep 5, 2007)

min0 lee said:


> I have more of a problem with divorce than gay marriages.
> 
> I bet they would probably have a lower divorce rate than the straight couple.



i'm having trouble believing that line of reasoning.


----------



## bio-chem (Sep 5, 2007)

Witchblade said:


> I don't see why the fuck gays couldn't get married.



America is not ready for it. i would assume when america is ready it will change like other things have


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 5, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> i'm having trouble believing that line of reasoning.


It's what I think.


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 5, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> America is not ready for it. i would assume when america is ready it will change like other things have


Why? I don't see why now would be a bad time.
It's not like we live in the dark ages.


----------



## bio-chem (Sep 5, 2007)

min0 lee said:


> Why? I don't see why now would be a bad time.
> It's not like we live in the dark ages.



i hardly consider this an issue of the dark ages vs the enlightenment.  i think its pretty obvious with half the states in the union pushing their representatives to amend their constitutions defineing marriage as between man and a woman shows that people in america are not ready to recognise gay marriage.  the only states that have any kind of law allowing this have come from judicial legistlation.  thats something i personally find as a grey area when in my opinion the judicial branch is overstepping its bounds.  men who are not elected are not supposed to be making laws


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 5, 2007)

Most of them being closet homosexuals.

I wonder why they would do that to their on people.

The priests are also guilty of this.

The time is right. I think it's more acceptable nowadays.


----------



## bio-chem (Sep 5, 2007)

min0 lee said:


> It's what I think.



and a percentage of america agrees with you.  its not something you can really show statistics for at the moment, its just one of those personal points of view things.  not to say some gay relationships are not as committed as heterosexual ones, but as a majority i would disagree. thats all i was trying to say


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 5, 2007)

Paul's uncle is gay and Lee's brother is gay, one has been with his loved one for over 22 years while the other one has been together for 17 years.
One is a well respected NYC Police officer, you would never guess he was gay.....only after a couple of shots.

Tell something about the gays....they can party and have a good time, oh and they dance really good.


----------



## bio-chem (Sep 5, 2007)

min0 lee said:


> Most of them being closet homosexuals.
> 
> I wonder why they would do that to their on people.
> 
> ...



yes, it is more accepted compared to what it was, yet not enough to change law. and while i agree we have closet homosexual congressmen and senators as well as priests i would hardly consider them in the majority. 

 and why they would do this to their own people?  their own people are the people they represent. if they want a job in the future they better damn well vote as they were told to by their electorate. i could give a damn about their opinion or personal life as long as they vote the way i tell them to. thats what representation is all about.  and when my opinion is in the minority my guy doesnt get elected.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 5, 2007)

min0 lee said:


> I have more of a problem with divorce than gay marriages.
> 
> I bet they would probably have a lower divorce rate than the straight couple.



When San Francisco, for a brief time, allowed gay marriages, the first divorce took less than 2 days.


----------



## Fetusaurus Rex (Sep 5, 2007)

Lynch said:


> Not my business what you are, nore do I care


----------



## Fetusaurus Rex (Sep 5, 2007)

you know what I find weird about that user account is that he has pics in his profile...and of course they aren't pics of Tom

seems really really pathetic that an old member would go THAT far to make a fake account, but yea the evidence adds up


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 6, 2007)

Move along folks, nothing too see...


----------



## DOMS (Sep 6, 2007)

min0 lee said:


> Move along folks, nothing too see...



But we're talking about gay marriage, man!  There'd be Nazis riding dinosaurs!!!


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 6, 2007)

DOMS said:


> But we're talking about gay marriage, man! There'd be Nazis riding dinosaurs!!!


Oh no that can continue, I meant fetus talking about the ex member.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 6, 2007)

min0 lee said:


> Oh no that can continue, I meant fetus talking about the ex member.



Fetus likes to talk about members.


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 6, 2007)

We know, he even keeps pictures.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 6, 2007)

Don't feel bad Fetus, we're still glad that you're a _member _of IM.


----------



## tallcall (Sep 6, 2007)

I don't think getting married is the big issue at all here. I think it is what appens when I die and decide to leave everything to my partner. The State of Florida allows the family of same sex couples to fight and overturn Wills and other legal documents (and this has happened before, which has many of us demanding legal protection - my Will is a signed statement and no one has any place trying to overturn it).

Besides, change NEVER comes easy in this country, just look at the Civil Rights struggle that still continues today in some areas, that shit had to be made into law and forced on the states before any real change occurred (debate it's effectiveness all you want, it was a good step).

Another thing is that think amendment 14 of the US Constitution forbids the state from abridging anyone's rights:



> Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights
> 
> 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. - U.S. Constitution - Amendment 14 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net



The only argument here is whether or not Marriage is a right, I can only say that if one person has the ability to choose to marry, everyone should.


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 6, 2007)

tallcall said:


> I don't think getting married is the big issue at all here. I think it is what appens when I die and decide to leave everything to my partner. The State of Florida allows the family of same sex couples to fight and overturn Wills and other legal documents (and this has happened before, which has many of us demanding legal protection - my Will is a signed statement and no one has any place trying to overturn it).
> 
> Besides, change NEVER comes easy in this country, just look at the Civil Rights struggle that still continues today in some areas, that shit had to be made into law and forced on the states before any real change occurred (debate it's effectiveness all you want, it was a good step).
> 
> ...


 
There you go Bio, there goes one of the main reasons.


----------



## bio-chem (Sep 6, 2007)

min0 lee said:


> There you go Bio, there goes one of the main reasons.



i dont feel the 14th amendment applies to marriage.  the government has been regulating marriage from the get go.  marriage is completly different than being born black. the right to marry is different in my mind than what school a little boy or girl gets to go to


----------



## KelJu (Sep 6, 2007)

Fetusaurus Rex said:


>



Lawl!


----------



## tallcall (Sep 6, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> i dont feel the 14th amendment applies to marriage.  the government has been regulating marriage from the get go.  marriage is completly different than being born black. the right to marry is different in my mind than what school a little boy or girl gets to go to



It's true that it is a real gray area, but like I said, marriage really isn't the main point. Being legally bound and having meaningful paperwork in the event of a tragedy, which will stand in a court of law, is what most of us are after (some states may low this but for the others, we need the Federal Gov to step in).


----------



## bio-chem (Sep 6, 2007)

tallcall said:


> It's true that it is a real gray area, but like I said, marriage really isn't the main point. Being legally bound and having meaningful paperwork in the event of a tragedy, which will stand in a court of law, is what most of us are after (some states may low this but for the others, we need the Federal Gov to step in).



hell, someone wants to sign over POA and have it stick in court.  ill get behind that.


----------



## tallcall (Sep 6, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> hell, someone wants to sign over POA and have it stick in court.  ill get behind that.



All we really want is legal documents to hold up in court, and I think Civil unions (or whatever you call them) is one of the best and most comprehensive ways to go.

About marriage being a sacred institution, I read somewhere that the divorce rate is about 55% - hmmm, it seems that the majority of straight people (55%) don't see marriage as "sacred." If they did, they might not be so likely to split up.

The separation rate of gay people is almost the same (~55%), the only difference is that it occurs after about 7-10 years, whereas straight people tend to divorce after about 20-30 years (kids are out of college and there is nothing left).


----------



## brogers (Sep 7, 2007)

Gays are not being rounded up and thrown in jail, last time I checked.  I could care less about a will, or any other similar document.  If such things are a problem for gays, then they can seek to address those specific problems.  I'm not familar enough with the legal aspects, but I never thought giving your estate to a non relative was a problem...  a crazy old rich woman just gave her dog 12 million in her will.  "Gay Marriage" is not about rights.


----------



## tallcall (Sep 7, 2007)

brogers said:


> "Gay Marriage" is not about rights.



If you like, we could always go back to the "it's about love" argument. I just think that arguing legality is much cleaner and easier, plus it is more likely to succeed than trying to force churches to accept things they shouldn't have to accept. Although, from what I've experienced and been told by others, most religions don't really have any problem with gay people, many now offer special programs (don't really know what that means, but they're out there).

Oh well, I love you anyways, Brogers! (love thy neighbor)


----------



## maniclion (Sep 8, 2007)

My girlfriends gay brother married his life partner.  It may not be legal but they had a ceremony and wear the rings.  I think that since it happens already they may as well get the legal rights as well.  I think people shouldn't be worrying about whether the people marrying are straight or gay, they should be more concerned with if they are serious or whether it's gonna just be a huge waste of paperwork for them to then turn around and get divorced in a short time....


----------



## bio-chem (Sep 8, 2007)

maniclion said:


> they should be more concerned with if they are serious or whether it's gonna just be a huge waste of paperwork for them to then turn around and get divorced in a short time....



thats a different thread


----------



## KelJu (Sep 8, 2007)

brogers said:


> Gays are not being rounded up and thrown in jail, last time I checked.  I could care less about a will, or any other similar document.  If such things are a problem for gays, then they can seek to address those specific problems.  I'm not familar enough with the legal aspects, but I never thought giving your estate to a non relative was a problem...  a crazy old rich woman just gave her dog 12 million in her will.  "Gay Marriage" is not about rights.



Yes it is. It is about the right to marry, you moron.


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 8, 2007)




----------



## brogers (Sep 9, 2007)

KelJu said:


> Yes it is. It is about the right to marry, you moron.


 
Could you please find the "right to marry" in the US Constitution for me?  Also, while you're at it, find the "right to murder your unborn children."

Thanks in advance.

Considering the level of intellect you consistently put on display, I'd avoid calling others "morons."


----------



## KelJu (Sep 9, 2007)

brogers said:


> Could you please find the "right to marry" in the US Constitution for me?  Also, while you're at it, find the "right to murder your unborn children."
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> Considering the level of intellect you consistently put on display, I'd avoid calling others "morons."



You are always trying to derail the discussion. You get flamed in almost every thread you post in. You are as dumb as a blooming lotus. You make no sense, and frankly I am just going ot put you on ignore, because your stupidity annoys me. I am sad that people as dumb as you are even sharing my air!


----------



## bio-chem (Sep 9, 2007)

KelJu said:


> You are as dumb as a blooming lotus. !



  thats an amazing put down. i love references to the past


----------



## brogers (Sep 9, 2007)

KelJu said:


> You are always trying to derail the discussion. You get flamed in almost every thread you post in. You are as dumb as a blooming lotus. You make no sense, and frankly I am just going ot put you on ignore, because your stupidity annoys me. I am sad that people as dumb as you are even sharing my air!


 
I must say, that's a great response to my request to find a "Right to marry" in the US Constitution, as you certainly implied there was one.

I'm quite happy that you find me to be unintelligent, and that my 'stupidity' annoys you.  I would be rather disturbed if you felt my views were inline with yours, since I think you have no grasp of any subject which I have seen you discuss, other than 2nd Amendment rights.

I frankly don't mind the insults at all, but I'd love it if you'd actually put an intelligent thought, comment, or argument along with it.  However, judging by past posts, I certainly won't get my hopes up.


----------



## KelJu (Sep 9, 2007)

Lawl, there is a message that says brogers posted something, but I don't have to have my senses offended by reading it.


----------



## tucker01 (Sep 9, 2007)

brogers said:


> I must say, that's a great response to my request to find a "Right to marry" in the US Constitution, as you certainly implied there was one.
> 
> I'm quite happy that you find me to be unintelligent, and that my 'stupidity' annoys you.  I would be rather disturbed if you felt my views were inline with yours, since I think you have no grasp of any subject which I have seen you discuss, other than 2nd Amendment rights.
> 
> I frankly don't mind the insults at all, but I'd love it if you'd actually put an intelligent thought, comment, or argument along with it.  However, judging by past posts, I certainly won't get my hopes up.



Here now you can read it Kelju


----------



## Pylon (Sep 9, 2007)

IainDaniel said:


> Here now you can read it Kelju



Now that's service!


----------



## Pylon (Sep 9, 2007)

brogers said:


> Could you please find the "right to marry" in the US Constitution for me?  Also, while you're at it, find the "right to murder your unborn children."
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> Considering the level of intellect you consistently put on display, I'd avoid calling others "morons."



You clearly haven't noticed that today's leaders don't consider the Constitution to be a sacred or meaningful document anymore...unless, of course, they find it convenient.  So using that logic, I can promise you that defending the rights of gays to marry is vital to the security of our country!  We know the enemy hates gays.  So the only way to be sure who out there are the enemy is to make everyone enter into a same-sex marraige.  Those who refuse must hate gays, and therefore be the enemy, and hate America!

Now come on...you don't hate America....do you?


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 9, 2007)

IainDaniel said:


> Here now you can read it Kelju


Lol ... you beat me too it.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 9, 2007)

Pylon said:


> You clearly haven't noticed that today's leaders don't consider the Constitution to be a sacred or meaningful document anymore...unless, of course, they find it convenient.  So using that logic, I can promise you that defending the rights of gays to marry is vital to the security of our country!  We know the enemy hates gays.  So the only way to be sure who out there are the enemy is to make everyone enter into a same-sex marraige.  Those who refuse must hate gays, and therefore be the enemy, and hate America!
> 
> Now come on...you don't hate America....do you?


Somehow you just managed to make it un-American *not* to suck a dick.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 9, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> i dont feel the 14th amendment applies to marriage.  the government has been regulating marriage from the get go.  marriage is completly different than being born black. the right to marry is different in my mind than what school a little boy or girl gets to go to


Why is that?  Our desire to reproduce is our strongest drive and marriage is formed around that drive.  Not to consider marriage as a protected right makes no sense.  The individual right of WHO to marry is not anyone's business.  How is it the business of some congressman to intrude upon the right of the individual to chose according to his/her own needs?

The biggest thing I object to is that the laws are based on a morality built upon a uniquely Christian perspective.  If I am a Muslim I cannot bring all four of my wives into my legal transition of assets any more than if I was a gay man leaving my wealth to my same sex partner.  How does that serve ALL of America?

BC you as a Cristian have no right to tell me as a gay man or as a Muslim who to leave my wealth too.  In America that choice is my fundamental right.  It's no different than if I were black or born on the moon ... my rights are exclusive of your perspectives.


----------



## brogers (Sep 9, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> Why is that? Our desire to reproduce is our strongest drive and marriage is formed around that drive. Not to consider marriage as a protected right makes no sense. The individual right of WHO to marry is not anyone's business. How is it the business of some congressman to intrude upon the right of the individual to chose according to his/her own needs?
> 
> The biggest thing I object to is that the laws are based on a morality built upon a uniquely Christian perspective. If I am a Muslim I cannot bring all four of my wives into my legal transition of assets any more than if I was a gay man leaving my wealth to my same sex partner. How does that serve ALL of America?
> 
> BC you as a Cristian have no right to tell me as a gay man or as a Muslim who to leave my wealth too. In America that choice is my fundamental right. It's no different than if I were black or born on the moon ... my rights are exclusive of your perspectives.


 
There is no law forbidding who you can, or can't leave your wealth to...  If you're gay, or an unmarried heterosexual couple, you just need a will to make it happen.  This argument is often used, but it's not really valid.

Taken from a USA Today article:


> Unlike some other legal hurdles, this is one problem unmarried partners can easily avoid, says Frederick Hertz, an Oakland attorney and co-author of _A Legal Guide for Lesbian and Gay Couples_. There's no law against leaving your property to your partner ??? or anyone, for that matter. "This is one area where couples do have control if they take control," he says.
> You don't need a lawyer to prepare a will. There are several do-it-yourself Internet sites that will help you prepare a will for less than $200. If your estate is large, or you fear your relatives will raise a ruckus, you should consult an estate-planning lawyer.


 
This is why I say that it has nothing to do with "rights."


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 9, 2007)

brogers said:


> There is no law forbidding who you can, or can't leave your wealth to...  If you're gay, or an unmarried heterosexual couple, you just need a will to make it happen.  This argument is often used, but it's not really valid.
> 
> Taken from a USA Today article:
> 
> ...


You speak from the orifice located where you sit regarding this issue.  In any marriage of legal standing my assets go to my wife upon my untimely demise with or without a will.  In any gay union this right is denied.  Legal protection is the issue I am concerned with.  Morally there is no issue as far as I'm concerned.

That will you posted has and will continue to get beaten in court time and time again.


----------



## Pylon (Sep 9, 2007)

brogers said:


> There is no law forbidding who you can, or can't leave your wealth to...  If you're gay, or an unmarried heterosexual couple, you just need a will to make it happen.  This argument is often used, but it's not really valid.
> 
> Taken from a USA Today article:
> 
> ...



There are more rights at stake than just wealth.  What about family?  If a woman gives birth to a child and dies, her husband would still be the legal guardian of the child.  If that woman is in a lesbian marraige, however, that child may instead be given to her parental family, with whom she may or may not still have a relationship.  This can lead to children being taken away from one loving mother after losing another, and being sent to a home that they no only do not know, but may resent the very sight of them.

All in the name of "family".


----------



## brogers (Sep 9, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> You speak from the orifice located where you sit regarding this issue. In any marriage of legal standing my assets go to my wife upon my untimely demise with or without a will. In any gay union this right is denied. Legal protection is the issue I am concerned with. Morally there is no issue as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> That will you posted has and will continue to get beaten in court time and time again.


 
If assets are really the problem, have a "will signing ceremony" instead of a marriage.  It does stand up in court, and countless lawyers would love to assist you if you're not comfortable doing it yourself.  No right is being denied here.  Different means accomplish the same goal, and signing a will is much easier than getting married, in my opinion.


----------



## KelJu (Sep 9, 2007)

IainDaniel said:


> Here now you can read it Kelju



Fucker!


----------



## Pylon (Sep 9, 2007)

KelJu said:


> Fucker!


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 9, 2007)

I'm with Bonecrusher and Pylon, Brogers makes it sound so easy.....


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 9, 2007)

brogers said:


> If assets are really the problem, have a "will signing ceremony" instead of a marriage.  It does stand up in court, and countless lawyers would love to assist you if you're not comfortable doing it yourself.  No right is being denied here.  Different means accomplish the same goal, and signing a will is much easier than getting married, in my opinion.


You really should actually read up a little on case history before you form an opinion.  Your idea of what should be done vs. the reality of what has happened to people in same sex relations is not the same in the real world.   Judges and courts seldom see the law literally these days.  

Place your self in that same position you choose to discriminate against and then ask if your rights should be different than anyone else's ... if you posses the mental capacity to do so.

The point that the majority of IM members have made here through out this thread is that the bigoted concepts of a small minded person with a selfish and shallow perspective should not be allowed to dictate to another what is to be his or her right.


----------



## KelJu (Sep 9, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> You really should actually read up a little on case history before you form an opinion.  Your idea of what should be done vs. the reality of what has happened to people in same sex relations is not the same in the real world.   Judges and courts seldom see the law literally these days.
> 
> Place your self in that same position you choose to discriminate against and then ask if your rights should be different than anyone else's ... if you posses the mental capacity to do so.
> 
> The point that the majority of IM members have made here through out this thread is that the bigoted concepts of a small minded person with a selfish and shallow perspective should not be allowed to dictate to another what is to be his or her right.





Lawl, his opinions come from the same place his shit does. Could be why they stink so much.


----------



## brogers (Sep 9, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> You really should actually read up a little on case history before you form an opinion. Your idea of what should be done vs. the reality of what has happened to people in same sex relations is not the same in the real world. Judges and courts seldom see the law literally these days.
> 
> Place your self in that same position you choose to discriminate against and then ask if your rights should be different than anyone else's ... if you posses the mental capacity to do so.
> 
> The point that the majority of IM members have made here through out this thread is that the bigoted concepts of a small minded person with a selfish and shallow perspective should not be allowed to dictate to another what is to be his or her right.


 
Estates are contested in homosexual and heterosexual relationships, it isn't some strange phenomenon that only happens to gays (a somewhat current and notorious example would be Anna Nicole Smith).

Once again, you fail to show how any rights are being infringed.  Gays CAN pass their estates on to whomever they want, just like straight people can, and just like the crazy old woman can give her $12 million to her f'n dog.  This was the point you made in your post, that their rights are being infringed because they CANNOT pass their estate on to their gay partner, this is false.  

From your post, which I was addressing:
"BC you as a Cristian have no right to tell me as a gay man or as a Muslim who to leave my wealth too. In America that choice is my fundamental right."

So once again, you can infact leave your wealth to whomever you want.  Sure, there are cases which overturn poorly written wills, no doubt, however this is not unique to gays, which you seem to think it is.


----------



## KelJu (Sep 9, 2007)

Lawl, brogers is still posting. I am gonna kick your ass Iain if you quote him again!


----------



## tallcall (Sep 9, 2007)

brogers said:


> Estates are contested in homosexual and heterosexual relationships, it isn't some strange phenomenon that only happens to gays (a somewhat current and notorious example would be Anna Nicole Smith).
> 
> Once again, you fail to show how any rights are being infringed.  Gays CAN pass their estates on to whomever they want, just like straight people can, and just like the crazy old woman can give her $12 million to her f'n dog.  This was the point you made in your post, that their rights are being infringed because they CANNOT pass their estate on to their gay partner, this is false.
> 
> ...



Here, I got this one for you KelJu


----------



## KelJu (Sep 9, 2007)

tallcall said:


> Here, I got this one for you KelJu


----------



## tallcall (Sep 9, 2007)

All I know is that if my family hates the guy I'm with, and they fight to have the will overturned to screw him out of what I want him to have - and win (with a properly written will that is), then I'm gonna be pissed   and haunt all the people who caused pain to my guy!

I have only heard through other gay friends that this has happened on more that a few occasions (at least in Florida - Judges should not be allowed to dictate laws from the bench - judicial oversight does have it's limits), I just have no concrete information.


----------



## tallcall (Sep 9, 2007)

KelJu said:


>



Sorry man, I just had to do it.


----------



## Pylon (Sep 9, 2007)

brogers said:


> Estates are contested in homosexual and heterosexual relationships, it isn't some strange phenomenon that only happens to gays (a somewhat current and notorious example would be Anna Nicole Smith).



Are you referring to the recent custody case (where she wasn't married)?  Or the much older case of her husband, who will was contested and ended up having the estate split (though she got a good chunk, only because they were _actually married)_?

Also, you haven't addressed the non-financial ramifications.  Or do you not have a simple justification?  If you need to call a friend for help, we can wait...


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 9, 2007)

brogers said:


> Estates are contested in homosexual and heterosexual relationships, it isn't some strange phenomenon that only happens to gays (a somewhat current and notorious example would be Anna Nicole Smith).
> 
> Once again, you fail to show how any rights are being infringed.  Gays CAN pass their estates on to whomever they want, just like straight people can, and just like the crazy old woman can give her $12 million to her f'n dog.  This was the point you made in your post, that their rights are being infringed because they CANNOT pass their estate on to their gay partner, this is false.
> 
> ...



No in fact you can not just "leave your wealth" to whom ever you choose.  Members of the descendent's family can and have in many cases contested the wills of same sex couples and wlaked away with that wealth against the wishes expressed in the will. 

My last response to you is to request that you study how the *OPINION* you hold actually affects the rights of other other Americans.   Back the opinion you hold with reality.  Put your self in their place, if you can, and ask if your rights as an American were being served.

You obviously lack the initiative to research your opinions so here are some of the facts that surround the transition of assets on the death of a partner in a same sex relationship that are denied them by being disallowed to legally wed.  I've also included some of the other problems that people in a same sex partnership face.

Right to many of ex- or late spouse's benefits,,      including:
Social Security pension
veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for       service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to       burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational       assistance, and housing
survivor benefits for       federal employees
survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor       workers, railroad workers
additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die       of black lung disease
$100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed       in the line of duty
continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits
renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights       on death of spouse
continued water rights of spouse in some       circumstances
payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker       death
making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts

Right to benefits while married:
employment assistance and transitional services for       spouses of members being separated from military service; continued       commissary privileges
per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service       employees when relocating
Indian Health Service care for spouses of       Native Americans (in some circumstances)
sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits

Larger benefits under some programs if married,      including:
veteran's disability
Supplemental Security Income
disability payments for federal employees
medicaid
property tax       exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans
income tax       deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates

Joint and family-related rights:
joint filing of bankruptcy permitted
joint parenting rights, such as access to children's       school records
family visitation rights for the spouse and       non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or       prison
next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or       filing wrongful death claims
custodial rights to children, shared property, child       support, and alimony after divorce
domestic violence intervention
access to "family only" services, such as       reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in       certain neighborhoods

Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in      government jobs
Tax-free transfer of property between spouses      (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.
Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens
Spouse's flower sales count towards meeting the      eligibility for Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut      Greens Promotion and Information Act
Threats against spouses of various federal employees is      a federal crime
Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse      by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse
Court notice of probate proceedings
Domestic violence      protection orders
Existing homestead      lease continuation of rights
Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants      exemption
Funeral and bereavement leave
Joint adoption and foster care
Joint tax filing
Insurance licenses,      coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits      society
Legal status with stepchildren
Making spousal medical decisions
Spousal non-resident tuition deferential      waiver
Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased      spouse, including burial or cremation
Right of survivorship of custodial trust
Right to change surname upon marriage
Right to enter into prenuptial agreement
Right to inheritance of property

Spousal privilege in      court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial      privilege)
potential loss of couple's home from medical expenses      of one partner caring for another gravely ill one
costs of supporting two households, travel, or emigration out of the US for an American citizen unable to legally marry a non-US citizen. If a lesbian woman meets and falls in love with a woman from Chechnya they have no legal rights
higher cost of purchasing private insurance for partner and children if company is not one of 18% that offer domestic partner benefits
higher taxes: unlike a company's contribution to an employee's spouse's health insurance, domestic partner benefits are taxed as additional compensation
legal costs associated with obtaining domestic partner documents to gain some of the power of attorney, health care decision-making, and inheritance rights granted through legal marriage
higher health costs associated with lack of insurance and preventative care: 20% of same-sex couples have a member who is uninsured compared to 10% of married opposite-sex couples
current tax law allows a spouse to inherit an unlimited amount from the deceased without incurring an estate tax but an unmarried partner would have to pay the estate tax on the inheritance from her/his partner
same-sex couples are not eligible to file jointly or separately as a married couple and thus cannot take the advantages of lower taxes via the marriage bonus
For the record dumbass, I'm hetro.


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 9, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> For the record dumbass, I'm hetro.


I guess people think that those who defend homosesexuals must be gay.


----------



## KelJu (Sep 9, 2007)

min0 lee said:


> I guess people think that those who defend homosesexuals must be gay.



We must be. We are fag loving heathens, and we will burn in hell!


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 9, 2007)

KelJu said:


> We must be. We are fag loving heathens, and we will burn in hell!


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 9, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


>


----------



## brogers (Sep 9, 2007)

Fact is, you were bitching about gays not being able to pass property/wealth on.  This simply isn't true, and now you copy/paste some list from a website, and expect me to respond to all that garbage after I already refuted the shit you originally said?

Let me be very clear and simple:  None of the things you posted are rights provided for by the US Constitution.  Bottom line, it's really that easy.  If you want to change it, you can propose amendments to the Constitution to include all of those things as rights of all Americans.  Good luck.

You know what, I think it would be ok if gays get those benefits, but why stop there?  What if I happen to like to fuck sheep or pigs, and I want them to get my social security benefits, when I die?  Who is the government to tell me who I can or can't marry, yada yada yada?

Speaking on a non Constitutional (read: meaningless) basis, which apparently everyone here is doing, my opinion is that some behaviors don't need to be subsidized by the government.  I don't think it's right biologically (duh) or morally (the relativists will disagree, of course).  So, I don't want the government to encourage homosexuals to wed on the same level it encourages heterosexuals to wed, because I most certainly believe they are not equal.  I don't hate gay people, but I certainly don't think their behavior is something that needs to be encouraged by the government.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 9, 2007)

brogers said:


> *Moronic response #1:*
> Fact is, you were bitching about gays not being able to pass property/wealth on.  This simply isn't true, and now you copy/paste some list from a website, and expect me to respond to all that garbage after I already refuted the shit you originally said?
> 
> *Moronic response #2:
> ...


*1.* Yes.  If you come in here to debate an issue then you are expected to hold up your side of your opinion; however, all that shit I posted is in fact the law.  There is nothing there for you to refute.  Your opinion does nothing to change the FACT that people in same sex marriages are denied their equal rights as provided for in our constitution.
*
2.* Where in the US Constitution does it say that these rights are exclusive to the moral majority?  NOWHERE!!!  The laws that discriminate against anyone are all being struck down or abolished albeit slowly and with setbacks proped up by bigoted closet freaks.  Don't like that?  Then YOU try to amend the constitution.  Bad luck trying.  
*
3.* If you want to fuck sheep then go rock your world with regular a farm animal orgy.  Until the sheep or pigs you find attractive can legally consent to a wedding license you will have a hard time getting one to the chapel so you're stuck going the common law route.  
*
4.* Now we really get down to the meat of the issue with you.  Your ideals of what is morally acceptable is all you care about.  _*Your*_ idea of America is all that matters to you.  From that point on you become a bigoted fruitcake with no voice.  Seriously ... no single person who matters is interested in what you have to say.  With that perspective you become nothing more relevant to the growth of this nation than the character played by Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory.  So go lock your refrigerator and line the walls with tinfoil because like it or not people that chose to live in same sex relationships *are* protected by the same laws as you are.  Don't like that?  Too bad ... get over your self because there is a correction rolling slowly your way and I for one will vote for it.  Think 10 to 20 years from now.  Like black suffrage and women's rights ... it will take time but equality will eventually overtake bigotry.


----------



## brogers (Sep 9, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> *1.* Yes. If you come in here to debate an issue then you are expected to hold up your side of your opinion; however, all that shit I posted is in fact the law. There is nothing there for you to refute. Your opinion does nothing to change the FACT that people in same sex marriages are denied their equal rights as provided for in our constitution.
> 
> *2.* Where in the US Constitution does it say that these rights are exclusive to the moral majority? NOWHERE!!! The laws that discriminate against anyone are all being struck down or abolished albeit slowly and with setbacks proped up by bigoted closet freaks. Don't like that? Then YOU try to amend the constitution. Bad luck trying.
> 
> ...


 
Still waiting for you to provide me with the constitutional right to marry.

"Moronic response 2" from you demonstrates your lack of legal knowledge. You really don't understand what a "RIGHT" is, do you? The things you listed are not Constitutional rights... duh! Why do you think people who agree with me were pushing for a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man+woman? Because it simply isn't covered in the document... duh!

I never said a word about my opinion until just now, because it seemed that was all anybody cared about. So you can call me a bigot all you want, if it makes you feel better, more power to you. Because I don't think homosexual relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships I guess I'm some sort of militant bigot, damn.

Look who's spewed the hate here... I've simply stated that the whole bullshit argument that it's about "passing wealth on" is ridiculous and false, which is clear to anyone with even the slighest grasp of the law and that's what everyone was crying about (now you're crying about other BS in that list you found off of google). I just now expressed my personal opinion on the matter since I was already being called all those names by the PC crowd, I thought I'd at least share what I actually think, and I hardly think it's unreasonable to hold the opinion that the government shouldn't endorse homosexual behavior on the same level it does heterosexual marriage. Is it really that offensive? 

I think it's just easier to call someone a bigot than it is to address the point they make. How about I just call you a fag, and discount your opinion that way...?

edit: I hope you realize all the shit you said in your own moronic reply #4, can apply right back to *YOU *and *YOUR *opinion.

edit 2:  Comparing gays to Blacks/Women has got to be one of the most ridiculous and sad comparisons.  Why don't you compare them to the Jews in Nazi Germany too?  Are you really that warped?


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 10, 2007)

brogers said:
			
		

> Still waiting for you to provide me with the constitutional right to marry.


Check out the 14th Amendment ... Citizenship Rights. 



> 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. *No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State **deprive** (* *deprive v. 1. To take something away from; divest. 2. To keep from the possession of something. [<Med. Lat. deprivare] Source: AHD*) *any person of life, liberty, or property, without **due process** of law;**nor deny to any person within its **jurisdiction** the equal protection of the laws.*


This guarantees that what ever rights and privileges you enjoy are to be equally enjoyed by all US citizens and that would obviously include marriage. You can call it a privilege if that floats your boat but if you can legally do it so can anyone else.

Why do you continue to act as tough marriage is somehow a right that requires constitutionally specific language. WTF is up with that? ALL actions we allow under American law are to be equally allowed to all American citizens ... period. You do not get to pick and choose who can and cannot do a thing respective of your own brain fart of an ideology brogers and PLEASE spare us your obvious response about bestiality and pedophilia. We are talking about acts between legally consenting human adults.

Really ... who the hell do you think you are to tell a woman who pays her taxes that she is not allowed to have the same tax benefits you enjoy because her spouse is also a woman? She has the constitutional right to each and every privilege you have.

The rest of your post was so full of nonsense that I feel less intelligent for having read it.  Why do you post as though you are a moron?  Have you really no ability to wrap your mind around a concept that is not aligned with your own belief system or lifestyle?  

I am no more gay than you are, yet even though it would kill me if my son came home and declared he was a fag it would still be his RIGHT to do so.  I would expect him to get the same rights and privileges as a straight person would.  

Step away from this self absorbed quasi religious ideology of yours brogers and look at this from the humanistic perspective ...


----------



## maniclion (Sep 10, 2007)

KelJu said:


> Lawl, brogers is still posting. I am gonna kick your ass Iain if you quote him again!


The best part of waking up is brogers in your cup!1!!


----------



## brogers (Sep 10, 2007)

14th Amendment doesn't apply, gay people can get married, they just can't marry someone from the same sex, likewise, I can't marry a sheep or pig, as previously mentioned.  Marriage is, was, and for now, will be defined as being between a man and a woman in the United States.  That is reality.  Try to "wrap your head around it"


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 10, 2007)

brogers said:


> What if I happen to like to fuck sheep or pigs, and I want them to get my social security benefits, when I die? Who is the government to tell me who I can or can't marry, yada yada yada?


What's wrong with that? Damn your prude.


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 10, 2007)

brogers said:


> 14th Amendment doesn't apply, gay people can get married, they just can't marry someone from the same sex, likewise, *I can't marry a sheep or pig, as previously mentioned. *Marriage is, was, and for now, will be defined as being between a man and a woman in the United States. That is reality. Try to "wrap your head around it"


OK, now your freaking me out.
You sound so disappointed you can't marry a sheep.


----------



## Pylon (Sep 10, 2007)

brogers said:


> The things you listed are not Constitutional rights... duh! Why do you think people who agree with me were pushing for a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man+woman? Because it simply isn't covered in the document... duh!
> 
> I hardly think it's unreasonable to hold the opinion that the government shouldn't endorse homosexual behavior on the same level it does heterosexual marriage. Is it really that offensive?
> 
> edit 2:  Comparing gays to Blacks/Women has got to be one of the most ridiculous and sad comparisons.  Why don't you compare them to the Jews in Nazi Germany too?  Are you really that warped?



If the right to marry whomever you choose is not protected by the Constitution, then why is an amendment needed to stop it from happening?  

Your opinion here is flawed.  To think that the government should not endorse a lifestyle of your choosing is not only close-minded, it's silly and scary at the same time.  What if the old men who can't use computers, but have gotten themselves elected, decided not to "endorse" your online lifestyle because of all the pedophiles and decide to take the Internet away.  Still reasonable?

And comparing this situation to another where a group is being singled out because of their genetic/lifestyle/skin color and having their rights arbitrarily taken away by the majority?  That seems to make more sense than comparing it to interspecies lovin.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 10, 2007)

brogers said:


> 14th Amendment doesn't apply, gay people can get married, they just can't marry someone from the same sex, likewise, I can't marry a sheep or pig, as previously mentioned.  Marriage is, was, and for now, will be defined as being between a man and a woman in the United States.  That is reality.  Try to "wrap your head around it"


Nice dodge but no it doesn't work like that.  Your sheep is not a consenting human type sheep ... it's just your love slave.   I know you really want to keep on the blinders and plug your ears while you scream nahnahnahnah ... but it won't work.  They're not going to just go away.  Men are gonna marry men and women are gonna marry women. 

In that 14th amendment it says ALL citizens ... not all straight citizens.  You can't bend the 14th to fit your vision of how it should read any more than the KKK could ... try as you may.  

Have you considered that being gay is just as much a result of birth as being Asian or being Caucasian?   There are a million studies on gayness.  The gay gene has been proven and disproved and re-proven ... but some physical traits do tend to prevail among the gay crowd.






*EXAMPLE A: Hair Whorl (Men)* 
Gay men are more likely than straight men to have a counterclockwise whorl. 

Rest of the article on gay traits.


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 10, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> *EXAMPLE A: Hair Whorl (Men)*
> Gay men are more likely than straight men to have a counterclockwise whorl.
> 
> Rest of the article on gay traits.


 

My father had the countercockwise whorl, that might explain why dad and "uncle Bruce" hid in the basement for so long while mommy cried in her room.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 10, 2007)

min0 lee said:


> My father had the countercockwise whorl, that might explain why dad and "uncle Bruce" hid in the basement for so long while mommy cried in her room.


Erph.  Ehhhyuuuh uh how does your head wohrl?  Did you look over the rest of it?  There are several interesting lil traits on the other pages of that link.  Having one would prolly not freak me out but several?


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 10, 2007)

Both of our hairs are straight back.


----------



## maniclion (Sep 10, 2007)

brogers said:


> 14th Amendment doesn't apply, gay people can get married, they just can't marry someone from the same sex, likewise, I can't marry a sheep or pig, as previously mentioned.  Marriage is, was, and for now, will be defined as being between a man and a woman in the United States.  That is reality.  Try to "wrap your head around it"


Not long ago it was defined as between a white man and a white woman, or black man/ black woman; then one day a inter-racial couple decided they wanted the same rights and they got'em 
it's only a matter of time and you'll be able to marry that pig or sheep you've had your eye on for sometime....


----------



## maniclion (Sep 10, 2007)

min0 lee said:


> Both of our hairs are straight back.


Mullets are very queer!


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 10, 2007)

maniclion said:


> Mullets are very queer!


I think they bring out the best in us.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 10, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> Have you considered that being gay is just as much a result of birth as being Asian or being Caucasian?   There are a million studies on gayness.  The gay gene has been proven and disproved and re-proven ... but some physical traits do tend to prevail among the gay crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




My boyfriend said that the hairs on my balls have a counterclockwise whorl.  

Does that mean that I'm gay.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 10, 2007)

DOMS said:


> My boyfriend said that the hairs on my balls have a counterclockwise whorl.
> 
> Does that mean that I'm gay.


Do you have all of Barbra Streisand's CD's?


----------



## DOMS (Sep 10, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> Do you have all of Barbra Streisand's CD's?




For karaoke...


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 10, 2007)

DOMS said:


> For karaoke...


Well you do her very well ...






YouTube Video


----------



## chadstallion (Jan 21, 2015)

a blast from the past; this topic will be settled by the SCOTUS by summer time.


----------

