Author Topic: us californians are at it again (Read 2231 times)

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #30 on:** September 07, 2005, 04:02:36 PM »

This isn't a gay/not gay thing but...

I'm sure you've seen the ghettos and the trailer parks Lazs, I fail to see any strengthening going on there.
-SW

lazs2 · « **Reply #31 on:** September 07, 2005, 04:13:20 PM »

I will agree that some of the trailer parks denizens and ghetto dwellers are no more useful to America than the gay leather bars or aids.

Still... given a ghetto say... the married families are more likely to be a benifiet than the single parent ones or the gay prostitutes...

given a trailer park... the married park families are more likely to be better for the children and America than the single moms living with a series of drunks in the same park...

not allways of course... but enough to generalize.

lazs

SunKing · « **Reply #32 on:** September 07, 2005, 05:45:51 PM »

Who cares... To each their own.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #33 on:** September 07, 2005, 05:58:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy

I've read this sentiment before, back in the 1960s. Back then, the person was usually a white male who was talking about "negroes", and "degenerates" referred to other non-whites. In a way, I can admire the force of conviction behind steadfast bigotry even as I am saddened by the sentiment expressed.

again you keep bringing up rights.....bigotry. I still don't know one right that a strait man has that a gay man doesn't. Name one please?

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #34 on:** September 07, 2005, 06:08:38 PM »

The real question here is Will Arnold veto the bill?

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #35 on:** September 07, 2005, 06:37:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ghosth
If the state choses to acknowledge the fact that the 2 people involved are in a long term relationship, fine. If they want to give them the same rights & priviledges it gives married people, fine.

I just don't think they should call it marriage when its between 2 people of the same sex.

Thats pretty much my feelings about it.
Call it Gayriage, a Homoestic union. Jus dont call it "Marriage"

Personally I think they are foolish for wanting ALL of the rights.
With those benifits also come the consequences of Divorce,alimony etc.

They should be careful what they ask for.
they may just get it LOL

Sandman · « **Reply #36 on:** September 07, 2005, 06:40:48 PM »

IMHO, there's nothing sacred about the word.

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union

GreenCloud · « **Reply #37 on:** September 07, 2005, 07:55:48 PM »

7- Members should remember this board is aimed at a general audience. Posting pornographic or generally offensive text, images, links, etc. will not be tolerated. This includes attempts to bypass the profanity filter.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #38 on:** September 07, 2005, 08:05:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
IMHO, there's nothing sacred about the word.

(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

Which one of the last couple years was that added?

Or did you add that yourself?

I got this

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mar-ij also 'mer-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Old French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a : the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union
- mar·riage·abil·i·ty /"mar-i-j&-'bi-l&-tE also "mer-/ noun
- mar·riage·able /'mar-i-j&-b&l also 'mer-/ adjective

Pronunciation Key

© 2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy

To me the word is sacred
When man on man sex. or woman on woman sex can produce offspring through direct physical intercource and without outside help.
Then and only then will I condone it being called "Marriage"
" the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family"

Why do that HAVE to have it called "marriage" anyway So long as they get all the rights as any normal couple? And no matter what way you slice it. compaired to the rest of the world its not normal.

but so long as they get all these rights. Why should it matter to them. or you what its called?

Sandman · « **Reply #39 on:** September 07, 2005, 08:12:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Which one of the last couple years was that added?

Or did you add that yourself?

Take your pick.

Mirriam-Webster Online
dictionary.com
Your Dictionary.com

Chairboy · « **Reply #40 on:** September 07, 2005, 08:18:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
again you keep bringing up rights.....bigotry. I still don't know one right that a strait man has that a gay man doesn't. Name one please?

I am going to assume that you haven't been paying attention, otherwise I would be forced to conclude that you were somehow special, and that's certainly not something I would want you to think.

A straight man, in a relationship that develops into something special, can choose to marry that person.

A homosexual, in a relationship that develops into something special, cannot legally do the same thing.

I'm typing really slowly and carefully for you here, I hope you're on-board.

GreenCloud · « **Reply #41 on:** September 07, 2005, 08:22:41 PM »

Burn the chi-chi

burn the bwotty

no tight pants crew

and good old arnuld just vetod this crap

thnk cod

as we voters in cali already VOTED NO on this buttpirate crap

Gunslinger · « **Reply #42 on:** September 07, 2005, 08:34:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
I am going to assume that you haven't been paying attention, otherwise I would be forced to conclude that you were somehow special, and that's certainly not something I would want you to think.

A straight man, in a relationship that develops into something special, can choose to marry that person.

A homosexual, in a relationship that develops into something special, cannot legally do the same thing.

I'm typing really slowly and carefully for you here, I hope you're on-board.

The above is incorrect it should read:

"A straight man, in a relationship that develops into something special, can choose to marry that WOMAN."

Gays have THAT RIGHT

topic is marriage and currently a marriage is between a man and a woman. Gays have that right. They arent being descriminated against because they are gay. This isn't about rights. All the talk of bringing up bigotry in the past is irelevent because they HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS and are not descriminated against BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY.

They want special rights. SO AGAIN. all people being equal. Gays want the special right to marry those that they love. Whouldn't this open the door for others that want special rights?

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #43 on:** September 07, 2005, 08:47:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Take your pick.

Mirriam-Webster Online
dictionary.com
Your Dictionary.com

Look at what I put up. I did use mirriam webster.

Thats whyI asked in which one of the last couple years that was added.

And if it was added it was added ONLY in the last couple of years

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #44 on:** September 07, 2005, 09:09:30 PM »

Btw, Arnold will veto the bill because the people did not directly vote for it. Also that past bills the people directly voted for showed anti-homosexual sentiment.