Post: #1

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-penn...story.html

A federal judge had decided that PA isn't gay enough and over-turned a same sex marriage ban. Needless to say, the MSM is dancing in the street with rainbow flags.

Post: #2

Hating on gay marriage is gay

Post: #3

Who is hating? Any disagreement with the leftist agenda is automatically classified as hate. One judge overturning a legislature or voter ballot initiatives on marriage is disgusting.

Post: #4

Overturn No Fault divorce (essentially making infidelity a punishable offense) and then see how many homos want to get married.

They want to get married for the perks. Don't for a second think that most of them aren't buttfucking tons of other dudes throughout their marriages. It's a farce. But so is marriage in general when someone can divorce anyone for any reason. Especially women, because most men are stuck in marriages for fear of getting raped in divorce court.

Post: #5

I don't understand people who are against gay marriage. Why do you care? How does it affect you? Because it doesn't. If two grown ups want to sign a legal contract to get married why not let them. Personally I'm against all forms of marriage but to say gay people ruined or are ruining marriage is stupid they didn't heterosexuals have already made marriage a complete joke.

Post: #6

I don't see the problem. I don't support gay marriage but its not like the legislation is forcing me to marry a man, or forcing my church to marry gay people. There are a whole lot of other sins which are currently legal so its not like that foundation is crumbling.

As long as there is religious freedom I think the separation of church and state is a great thing, its not my place to impose punishment on people for doing things that I disagree with, especially when they don't damage me, my family or my property.

I am actually somewhat hopeful for progression on the treatment of marriage through the eventual divorce of homosexual couples. Parental custody, alimony and child support will all have to be truly gender neutral in these cases and will hopefully set some good precedents as they make their way through the system.

All of that being said though, Uzi posts an excellent point, the most disappointing part is the feds stepping in to change something that the majority of people voted for.

Post: #7

It's such a non-issue that it's pathetic. However, I agree with Uzi and Dr. Howard, the government shouldn't be stepping in to eliminate something that the majority of voters supported.

Post: #8

I don't care if gays get "married" it happens all the time and nobody is stopping them. But they don't have the right to a social endorsement from the rest of us. Nobody can force us to recognize something that we the majority sees as harmful to society. There are plenty of threads that cover why we see it as harmful. Get "married" and kindly leave the rest of us alone about it. We're sick of you.

Post: #9

The exact point I was making.
I could care less if Bruce married David. Or if Shelia married Joyce. But te Gey demands acceptance. It's not enough to be allowed to do whatever you want without interference from the outside. What the federal judge has done was destroy the illusion we live in any kind of democracy. If this is such a burning issue, let the monosexualists put it on the ballot.
Because there is no way you can get rid of one man one woman without destroying the whole modern concept of marriage. How can you possibly advocate for SSM without agreeing to polygamy? Polygamy was the standard for years in much of the world. I know several Muslim men who have had to leave their extra wives back in the old country. Are you now going to tell them they have to accept Hashem and Abdul swearing their vows of eternal love in the local mosque?

Post: #10

I don't care about gay marriage and never will. But why should government have a say in my permanent relations anyway?

Get them the fuck out of marriage and then it all becomes legal anyway.

Wald

Post: #11

(05-21-2014 02:31 PM)PrimeTime32 Wrote:  I don't understand people who are against gay marriage. Why do you care? How does it affect you? Because it doesn't. If two grown ups want to sign a legal contract to get married why not let them. Personally I'm against all forms of marriage but to say gay people ruined or are ruining marriage is stupid they didn't heterosexuals have already made marriage a complete joke.

Something similar happened in Virginia. A federal judge overturned an amendment to the state's constitution that the people voted for.

That's patronizing. There are these pinko judges insinuating that the people are too backwards and stupid to know what they prefer. Clearly the courts know what's good for us.

It reminds me of when Bloomberg banned indoor smoking in NYC. I've never smoked in my 28 years (and never will) but I oppose the ban b/c who the hell is the Mayor to tell people where they can't smoke.

The tax perks to marriages are just incentives to make fertile, heterosexuals do it. Without surrogacy/modern fertility treatements, gays were just genetic deadends, which is why some parent get mad when the kids "come out".

Tl;dr, gays want to ape hetero couples legally b/c they can't biologically. You must be new here: gay marriage is just attention-whoring.

Post: #12

Supporting gay marriage is like validating that gay sex is about love. Sorry but anytime a cock goes in an asshole it's not about love. Homo, hetero, beastiality or otherwise.

Gays usually congregate in the cities where nobody cares. The cities must be getting full so they want to expand their rainbow empire into the suburbs.

Post: #13

Gay marriage is great for straight guys in the long run, because now that women have to start taking their girl-on-girl relationships seriously, guys will look like a great option. Until very recently, women almost exclusively looked to each other for casual, care-free flings. The divorce and domestic violence rates for same-sex-female marriages are sky high relative to intersex and male-male marriages.

Post: #14

(05-21-2014 07:59 PM)Goldin Boy Wrote:  Something similar happened in Virginia. A federal judge overturned an amendment to the state's constitution that the people voted for.

But...but...democracy?

Wald

Post: #15

(05-21-2014 09:24 PM)Walderschmidt Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 07:59 PM)Goldin Boy Wrote:  Something similar happened in Virginia. A federal judge overturned an amendment to the state's constitution that the people voted for.

But...but...democracy?

Wald

Thank God we don't live in a democracy in the US. I'll take a constitutional republic any day over a democracy where peoples rights can be voted away by an ignorant populace. I support gay marriage not because I have a soft spot for buggery. I support it because nobody has the right to stop consenting adults from being awarded the same recognition that others have.

Post: #16

(05-21-2014 11:39 PM)Katatonic Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 09:24 PM)Walderschmidt Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 07:59 PM)Goldin Boy Wrote:  Something similar happened in Virginia. A federal judge overturned an amendment to the state's constitution that the people voted for.

But...but...democracy?

Wald

Thank God we don't live in a democracy in the US. I'll take a constitutional republic any day over a democracy where peoples rights can be voted away by an ignorant populace. I support gay marriage not because I have a soft spot for buggery. I support it because nobody has the right to stop consenting adults from being awarded the same recognition that others have.

I'm being sarcastic. The US is not a democracy; was never supposed to be. Still, students in the US are taught that the US is a democracy and that democracy is the best form of a government. Hell, part of the "justification" for the war in Iraq was for making the world safer for democracy.


Speaking of going against the will of the people, they also overturned the people's will by going ahead with the bank bailouts.

I know you don't support buggery - but do you support people who bugger one another harassing a company that refuses to shoot photos for wedding just because they're gay?

Do you believe in freedom of association?

Why not just vote for no government involvement in marriage instead of making it "legal" for gays to be married?

Wald

Post: #17

When two gay men divorce, who gets divorce raped?

Post: #18

(05-22-2014 12:26 AM)germanico Wrote:  When two gay men divorce, who gets divorce raped?

I would imagine the courts would try to figure out who is the pitcher and who is the catcher of the relationship. If neither of them can produce audible flatulence, then the more masculine of the two will get the shaft.

Post: #19

(05-21-2014 02:31 PM)PrimeTime32 Wrote:  I don't understand people who are against gay marriage. Why do you care? How does it affect you? Because it doesn't. If two grown ups want to sign a legal contract to get married why not let them. Personally I'm against all forms of marriage but to say gay people ruined or are ruining marriage is stupid they didn't heterosexuals have already made marriage a complete joke.

With very few exceptions, they can already sign legal contracts. It's called a "civil union" and has all the equivalent rights. They, however, want it to be officially acknowledged that it's just the same as marriage (even though it isn't), which is traditionally limited to heterosexual couples.

It's more an issue of copyright than caring who is living with who. No one's rights are jeopardized, it's all about attention whoring.

Post: #20

Katatonic, respectfully, nobody has a right to anyone else's "recognition" for anything they do. Be it a behavior or body of work. Gays have the right to be gay, but they don't have the right to force society to "recognize" their behavior as productive and beneficial to society.

Post: #21

(05-21-2014 02:00 PM)Uzisuicide Wrote:  Who is hating? Any disagreement with the leftist agenda is automatically classified as hate. One judge overturning a legislature or voter ballot initiatives on marriage is disgusting.

The Pennsylvanians are hating.

(05-21-2014 02:06 PM)Mormon Nailer Wrote:  Overturn No Fault divorce (essentially making infidelity a punishable offense) and then see how many homos want to get married.

They want to get married for the perks. Don't for a second think that most of them aren't buttfucking tons of other dudes throughout their marriages. It's a farce. But so is marriage in general when someone can divorce anyone for any reason. Especially women, because most men are stuck in marriages for fear of getting raped in divorce court.

Why do you care if they are getting married for the perks or if they go to glory holes? Does putting your wee wee into some hoo hoo entitle you to the perks and them having their faggotry buttsexified make them ineligible for the same perks?

(05-21-2014 07:54 PM)ColSpanker Wrote:  The exact point I was making.
I could care less if Bruce married David. Or if Shelia married Joyce. But te Gey demands acceptance.

Why should they not have the same rights to do whatever they want? Because it upsets someone's religion?

(05-22-2014 01:46 AM)Uzisuicide Wrote:  Katatonic, respectfully, nobody has a right to anyone else's "recognition" for anything they do. Be it a behavior or body of work. Gays have the right to be gay, but they don't have the right to force society to "recognize" their behavior as productive and beneficial to society.

Do you have a right to impose your values on others?

Post: #22

(05-22-2014 01:46 AM)Uzisuicide Wrote:  Katatonic, respectfully, nobody has a right to anyone else's "recognition" for anything they do. Be it a behavior or body of work. Gays have the right to be gay, but they don't have the right to force society to "recognize" their behavior as productive and beneficial to society.

It's all about the government and publicly funded institutions seeing all as equal. Other than that I believe everyone can personally discriminate as much as they want to. If you own a business and you don't want to do business with gay people, it should be your right to not do business with them.

Post: #23

(05-22-2014 03:59 AM)calihunter Wrote:  Do you have a right to impose your values on others?

"Might makes right", but in this case the strong are meekly bending their necks in submission to a vocal minority.

There is a strong traditionalist streak on this board, and at present marriage is a terrible idea for men.

Gay marriage doesn't improve the heterosexual marriage situation, and is likely to have a negative impact by moving it even further from the concept of a life-long committment.

Toleration requires putting up with things you don't like, not celebrating them.

"I'd hate myself if I had that kind of attitude, if I were that weak." - Arnold

Post: #24

The admonishment of a judge overturning a law seems hollow here. If it were the reverse situation we would be commending him for being brave in the face of MSM.

Remember "the voting people" nowadays includes women, illegal immigrants, hipster college and grad students, and a multitude of people who pay no income tax yet expect a say and services provided.

Just because 1 in 20 bills voted in are something your average freedom-loving man would agree with doesn't mean the other 19 aren't society wreaking, feminist bullshit!

In general I would trust the decisions of a wise old man more than the current populous eligible to vote...I expect this will only get worse with time, and the only way a man will receive fair consideration in a courtroom is if a judge with a backbone is willing to overturn or overlook all the unjust laws we have currently, and the ones which are no doubt coming...

Post: #25

(05-21-2014 07:59 PM)Goldin Boy Wrote:  Something similar happened in Virginia. A federal judge overturned an amendment to the state's constitution that the people voted for.

1. The Pennsylvania marriage was enacted all the way back in 1996 by the state legislature and contemporary polls show that a clear majority of Pennsylvanian's (and a majority Virginian's too) support legalizing same-sex marriage. A majority of Americans in general have supported legalizing it starting in 2011.

2. Same-sex marriage bans quite clearly in my opinion violate the Fourteenth Amendment, which is why the judge in this ruling held that the ban was unconstitutional. The Equal Protection Clause and similar sections in constitutions around the world were specifically designed to prevent things like same-sex marriage bans from being enacted in the first place, to reign in the "tyranny of the majority" (I may or may not have written a paper about this very subject a few weeks ago...) against out-group minorities. A majority of Southerners once supported slavery and then Jim Crow, and a majority of Saudi's support executing apostates from Islam not to mention countless other examples; but might does not equal right. I don't think anyone here really disagrees with the idea that minority groups should be free from having their rights and liberties infringed upon by the majority, but a lot of people have blinders on when it comes to homosexuals.

EDIT:
I like the idea of getting government out of legislating marriage. The vast majority of people have never even considered that idea in the first place, but I highly doubt most people would support such a change due to the tax and benefits related ramifications that would have for married couples.