Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Thylo · Nov 23, 2004, 11:52 am

I was thinking about it one day, and realized. the gays ruined gay marrige for themselves. they suddenly becames so damned agressive about it during an election year, making people feel threatened. and then proposing to ban it. it they were calmer about it and didn't start those illegal marriges in san fransico, they could've trying to get people to be more accepting.
there are a few things they neeed to fix before people can be more accepting, mainly stopping those retarded gay pride parades. what better way to get peopl eto think that you're normal than by parading throught the streed in womens underwear while a man in leather leads you on a chain.

PatrickHenry · Nov 23, 2004, 11:57 am

heh, heh. Thats a chuckle. True, gay pride parades don't exactly set Joe and Jane Sixpack's minds at ease about how normal gay people are. That said, the parades certainly are colorful and stir commentary...

rcne · Nov 23, 2004, 12:08 pm

I agree, I had discussed this on another board. By trying to force the issue, the gay community created a backlash of protectionism.

With the Judicial in Mass deciding for or in place of the voters, other states were swamped with ballot initiatives - aimed at stopping the judicial in their state from deciding for them.

I agreed that it is and should be an issue for voters - and not the judicial system.

With the San Fran mayor deciding to interpret the law ( just as Mass did) and allow gay marriages - even though it was already against state law in CA he fueled the constitutional amendment push.

I saw it coming - others thought they could impose their will through the courts, but the voters stopped it.

I think if it would have been handled differently - such as a civil union, or legal partnership - the rights could have been granted.

And that is right - the rights haven't been taken away - they never existed.

Osborn F Enready · Nov 23, 2004, 02:41 pm

Did the Christians do this to themselves, by way of opening the door to interpretation of marriage, examining the rights of the individual, and religion being pushed through faith based initiatives to lead to moral decay?

LOL, really.

Gorgo · Nov 23, 2004, 03:02 pm

Gay people handled it just right. It's the rest of us that dropped the ball.

Osborn F Enready · Nov 23, 2004, 03:08 pm

Gorgo, I couldn't agree more.

Thylo · Nov 23, 2004, 03:08 pm

Quote:

Gay people handled it just right. It's the rest of us that dropped the ball.

we were just sittin around minding our own buisiness. they complained about getting maarrried for a week., then turned aggresive. making people defensive. how did straight people do i.
one thing that made me against gay marrige (I'm for it now, but not gonna fight for it) right after hey had the weddings in san fransico, there was a gay pride parade with men wearing weding dresses, and acting like general freaks. they were mocking it!
slightly off topic, who else here has seen "Gay Republicans"? these people got it.

PatrickHenry · Nov 23, 2004, 03:12 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Thylo,
who else here has seen "Gay Republicans"? these people got it.

I don't know what you are referring to....

Thylo · Nov 23, 2004, 03:19 pm

Quote:

I don't know what you are referring to....

it was a documentary on the Trio channel that followed around a few log cabin epublicans. they know how to act in order to be accepte. and wearing womens underwwear while riding a tricycle in a parade isn't one of 'em. they talk about how they ahte the rainbow flag (One of them at least).
only one wore a dress.

Gorgo · Nov 23, 2004, 03:36 pm

Agressive? You were bombed? Planes were hijacked?

Suburbanite · Nov 23, 2004, 03:58 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Thylo,
I was thinking about it one day, and realized. the gays ruined gay marrige for themselves. they suddenly becames so damned agressive about it during an election year, making people feel threatened. and then proposing to ban it. it they were calmer about it and didn't start those illegal marriges in san fransico, they could've trying to get people to be more accepting.
there are a few things they neeed to fix before people can be more accepting, mainly stopping those retarded gay pride parades. what better way to get peopl eto think that you're normal than by parading throught the streed in womens underwear while a man in leather leads you on a chain.

You have it all mixed up there pal. The aggression came from banning it. Homosexuals have been trying to gain their rights for the last 30 or 40 years.

Suburbanite · Nov 23, 2004, 04:02 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Thylo,

Quote:

I don't know what you are referring to....

it was a documentary on the Trio channel that followed around a few log cabin epublicans. they know how to act in order to be accepte. and wearing womens underwwear while riding a tricycle in a parade isn't one of 'em. they talk about how they ahte the rainbow flag (One of them at least).
only one wore a dress.

You like house homoms not field homos, is that it?

Gorgo · Nov 23, 2004, 04:14 pm

I like house homoms. Momma likes house homoms. All God's Chilluns love house homoms.

Milton Bradley · Nov 23, 2004, 05:20 pm

Are people ALL missing the point?

All the gays wanted was to be treated as equals under the law.

Is that not their constitutional right?

Perhaps this was all to bring attention to the fact that certain members of our society are (illegally) deferring their taxes onto others.

The constitution states that taxes shall be levied fairly, and equally.

I don't think current laws live up to that criteria.

Perhaps, when all the dust settles, this might be a topic that should be investigated, and rectified, so as not to create other, similar problems in the future.

rcne · Nov 23, 2004, 05:51 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Milton Bradley,
Are people ALL missing the point?

All the gays wanted was to be treated as equals under the law.

Is that not their constitutional right?

Perhaps this was all to bring attention to the fact that certain members of our society are (illegally) deferring their taxes onto others.

The constitution states that taxes shall be levied fairly, and equally.

I don't think current laws live up to that criteria.

Perhaps, when all the dust settles, this might be a topic that should be investigated, and rectified, so as not to create other, similar problems in the future.

So just where does it say 'Marriage'? - that was the death blow to this movement.

If they would have gone 'civil' rights they might have gotten it - now they have taken a giant step backwards.

Who is at fault - the ones who screamed 'marriage' - You must accept me and my alternative lifestyle as 'normal'.

Sorry it isn't. In fact it may never get to the point it was before the idiots screamed 'marriage' .

Texans 4 Furors · Nov 23, 2004, 06:43 pm

This seems like such a non-issue to me. Get government out of marriage!!! Eliminate any tax structure that gives anyone an advantage or disadvantage in regards to how they choose to live their life...alone or paired/ Gay or "straight". When/if I get married. It's just gonna happen. No signing papers or "registering for a license" or any of that nonsense. Just my girl and our families. No government assistance required....(If gay couples could put as much energy into stuff that actually mattered as they do with arguing over a government issued status symbol, we'd could have a real movement).

OberonDOtherseid · Nov 23, 2004, 08:23 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Milton Bradley,
Are people ALL missing the point?

All the gays wanted was to be treated as equals under the law.

Is that not their constitutional right?

That is just the point, equal to which in family court, a man or a woman? There are distinct differences between the two where one trumps the other. What the politicians didn't think through far enough ahead for is that in divorce court men usually get the boot. Which gay man is going to take that position? Which gay woman is going to take that position? They would have to rewrite the current laws and that would cost votes and that is out of the question.

Think about it, doesn;t it make sense?

Milton Bradley · Nov 23, 2004, 08:43 pm

I would call that an astute observation.

When hypocracy exists within the law, the law cannot stand.

That is why all unconstitutional laws must be abolished.

They are causing the whole house to fall.

I seem to be developing a style of writing one liners. Perhaps it is because the answers are so simple. Follow the original law, the law on which all others rest, the constitution.

What ever happened to the "see rule one" signage?

Thylo · Nov 24, 2004, 10:35 am

when I said only one wore a dress, I meant that only one man wore a dress. which is still weird.
when I said they got aggressive, I was referring to the ilegal marriges in san fransico. if they had been calm they migt have gotten to get some people to be more accepting. but people will never be accepting if they continue to push the image of the flaming weirdo homosexual with those damn pride parades.

Starboy · Nov 24, 2004, 12:29 pm

Is the problem with the so called "normal" people? They mistake the desire of gays for equal treatment under the law as a plea to be seen as "normal". I think if you ask a gay they will tell you that they do not want to be seen as "normal" they just want to have equal rights under the law.

Starboy

Nov 23, 2004, 11:57 am	#2 (permalink) (top)
PatrickHenry 9/11: Inside Job Location: Hawai'i, Big Island Posts: 10,437	heh, heh. Thats a chuckle. True, gay pride parades don't exactly set Joe and Jane Sixpack's minds at ease about how normal gay people are. That said, the parades certainly are colorful and stir commentary... "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams

Nov 23, 2004, 12:08 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
rcne Moderator/nobody Posts: 1,566	I agree, I had discussed this on another board. By trying to force the issue, the gay community created a backlash of protectionism. With the Judicial in Mass deciding for or in place of the voters, other states were swamped with ballot initiatives - aimed at stopping the judicial in their state from deciding for them. I agreed that it is and should be an issue for voters - and not the judicial system. With the San Fran mayor deciding to interpret the law ( just as Mass did) and allow gay marriages - even though it was already against state law in CA he fueled the constitutional amendment push. I saw it coming - others thought they could impose their will through the courts, but the voters stopped it. I think if it would have been handled differently - such as a civil union, or legal partnership - the rights could have been granted. And that is right - the rights haven't been taken away - they never existed. Live Long and Prosper (Genetics and Capitalism)

Nov 23, 2004, 02:41 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
Osborn F Enready Principled Observer Location: Toledo, Ohio Posts: 13,873	Did the Christians do this to themselves, by way of opening the door to interpretation of marriage, examining the rights of the individual, and religion being pushed through faith based initiatives to lead to moral decay? LOL, really. Petition of Redress of Grievances: http://www.givemeliberty.org/default.htm Canadian Lawsuit Against Their National Banks: http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/ Osborn F. Enready

Nov 23, 2004, 03:08 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
Osborn F Enready Principled Observer Location: Toledo, Ohio Posts: 13,873	Gorgo, I couldn't agree more. Petition of Redress of Grievances: http://www.givemeliberty.org/default.htm Canadian Lawsuit Against Their National Banks: http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/ Osborn F. Enready

Nov 23, 2004, 11:52 am	#1 (permalink) (top)
Thylo Sedimentary Rock Posts: 18	I was thinking about it one day, and realized. the gays ruined gay marrige for themselves. they suddenly becames so damned agressive about it during an election year, making people feel threatened. and then proposing to ban it. it they were calmer about it and didn't start those illegal marriges in san fransico, they could've trying to get people to be more accepting. there are a few things they neeed to fix before people can be more accepting, mainly stopping those retarded gay pride parades. what better way to get peopl eto think that you're normal than by parading throught the streed in womens underwear while a man in leather leads you on a chain.

Nov 23, 2004, 03:02 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
Gorgo BANNED-Warned multiple times about instigating. User then reported topics multiple times to mess with staff. Posts: 4,412	Gay people handled it just right. It's the rest of us that dropped the ball.

Nov 23, 2004, 03:36 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
Gorgo BANNED-Warned multiple times about instigating. User then reported topics multiple times to mess with staff. Posts: 4,412	Agressive? You were bombed? Planes were hijacked?

Nov 23, 2004, 04:14 pm	#13 (permalink) (top)
Gorgo BANNED-Warned multiple times about instigating. User then reported topics multiple times to mess with staff. Posts: 4,412	I like house homoms. Momma likes house homoms. All God's Chilluns love house homoms.

Nov 23, 2004, 05:20 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
Milton Bradley BANNED Location: Ohio Province, Rep. of Comerica Posts: 7,320	Are people ALL missing the point? All the gays wanted was to be treated as equals under the law. Is that not their constitutional right? Perhaps this was all to bring attention to the fact that certain members of our society are (illegally) deferring their taxes onto others. The constitution states that taxes shall be levied fairly, and equally. I don't think current laws live up to that criteria. Perhaps, when all the dust settles, this might be a topic that should be investigated, and rectified, so as not to create other, similar problems in the future.

Nov 23, 2004, 06:43 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
Texans 4 Furors BANNED Posts: 179	This seems like such a non-issue to me. Get government out of marriage!!! Eliminate any tax structure that gives anyone an advantage or disadvantage in regards to how they choose to live their life...alone or paired/ Gay or "straight". When/if I get married. It's just gonna happen. No signing papers or "registering for a license" or any of that nonsense. Just my girl and our families. No government assistance required....(If gay couples could put as much energy into stuff that actually mattered as they do with arguing over a government issued status symbol, we'd could have a real movement).

Nov 23, 2004, 08:43 pm	#18 (permalink) (top)
Milton Bradley BANNED Location: Ohio Province, Rep. of Comerica Posts: 7,320	I would call that an astute observation. When hypocracy exists within the law, the law cannot stand. That is why all unconstitutional laws must be abolished. They are causing the whole house to fall. I seem to be developing a style of writing one liners. Perhaps it is because the answers are so simple. Follow the original law, the law on which all others rest, the constitution. What ever happened to the "see rule one" signage?

Nov 24, 2004, 10:35 am	#19 (permalink) (top)
Thylo Sedimentary Rock Posts: 18	when I said only one wore a dress, I meant that only one man wore a dress. which is still weird. when I said they got aggressive, I was referring to the ilegal marriges in san fransico. if they had been calm they migt have gotten to get some people to be more accepting. but people will never be accepting if they continue to push the image of the flaming weirdo homosexual with those damn pride parades.

Nov 24, 2004, 12:29 pm	#20 (permalink) (top)
Starboy BANNED: Repeated insults Posts: 4,828	Is the problem with the so called "normal" people? They mistake the desire of gays for equal treatment under the law as a plea to be seen as "normal". I think if you ask a gay they will tell you that they do not want to be seen as "normal" they just want to have equal rights under the law. Starboy