Hear that great slurping sound? What is it?!? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Hear that great slurping sound? What is it?!?


Skyhook
05-08-2012, 09:45
Well, I think this will let you discover the source of the great sucking sound of the decade... http://thehill.com/homenews/house/225983-larson-vast-majority-of-house-dems-with-biden-on-gay-marriage

"..An overwhelming majority of House Democrats sides with Vice President Biden in support of gay marriage, the chairman of the Democratic Caucus said Tuesday."

G29Reload
05-08-2012, 11:02
Its been voted down by every state that had it up for referendum.

Only activist courts have let it stand, or forced the issue.

Gunhaver
05-08-2012, 11:16
Its been voted down by every state that had it up for referendum.

Only activist courts have let it stand, or forced the issue.

That's because it's a civil rights issue and the vote of the majority shouldn't affect the civil rights of the minority so on this matter the courts are correct when they do that and you would agree if they reversed a referendum to ban guns.

This isn't a matter of majority opinion. It's a matter of "what the hell do you care if someone is treated the same way as you?"

Skyhook
05-08-2012, 16:25
That's because it's a civil rights issue and the vote of the majority shouldn't affect the civil rights of the minority so on this matter the courts are correct when they do that and you would agree if they reversed a referendum to ban guns.

This isn't a matter of majority opinion. It's a matter of "what the hell do you care if someone is treated the same way as you?"

There's some merit in what you say, yet, the legislation via judicial appointees catches in the craws of many of us.

All too often we have seen appointed suck-up political judges virtually negate legislation and even some Constitutional Laws.

Been watching that ninth circuit (circus)?

JohnnyReb
05-08-2012, 17:25
Marriage is a religious institution. If two gay people (as much as I disagree with that behavior upon my personal beliefs) want to be joined in union, lets call it something else.

"Civil unions"

Just1More
05-08-2012, 17:59
That's because it's a civil rights issue and the vote of the majority shouldn't affect the civil rights of the minority so on this matter the courts are correct when they do that and you would agree if they reversed a referendum to ban guns.

This isn't a matter of majority opinion. It's a matter of "what the hell do you care if someone is treated the same way as you?"

Marriage isn't a civil right.

fortyofforty
05-08-2012, 18:12
This isn't a matter of majority opinion. It's a matter of "what the hell do you care if someone is treated the same way as you?"

Just curious if you support polygamy.

Jonesee
05-08-2012, 18:12
All the arguments made against gay marriage are the same as the arguments against interracial marriages and civil rights in general in the 50s and 60s.

Almost identical. Some of you that remember the 50s and 60s know this too.

Unnatural, against god's way, not covered by any of the bill of rights, state laws pre-empt federal court, cannot be legislated, etc. In time all these objections were shot down. Alabama and Mississippi did not walk quietly into recognizing civil rights, but they got there just the same.

We have been down this road before but it was much more bloody then. The end-point will be the same for all the same reasons. It is just a matter of time before it is accepted. Gay marriage may not be spelled out in the constitution, but civil rights are and have been thoroughly tested in the the courts of the land including the Supreme Court. Marriage is no more than the legal recognition of a civil union (relationship).

Skyhook
05-08-2012, 18:24
Marriage is a religious institution. If two gay people (as much as I disagree with that behavior upon my personal beliefs) want to be joined in union, lets call it something else.

"Civil unions"

Yes, that should work.

Unless the aim of the movement is to destroy "redefine" traditional marriage.

When 'marriage' is destroyed, ah, er, redefined (fundamentally transformed)- I intend to marry my 'best friend'.. my hunting dog.:supergrin: Then the furry Mrs. Hook can receive all the bennies of human women who are foolish enough to actually participate in a traditional marriage.

An-n-n-nd, anyone objecting will be labelled 'racist' or 'intolerant'.. ewwwwww.

frank4570
05-08-2012, 18:34
A wedge issue that politicians use to get emotional people to vote for them. Then they can ignore this minor issue and get down to the real agenda, with the blessings of their supporters.

Jonesee
05-08-2012, 18:43
Yes, that should work.

Unless the aim of the movement is to destroy "redefine" traditional marriage.

When 'marriage' is destroyed, ah, er, redefined (fundamentally transformed)- I intend to marry my 'best friend'.. my hunting dog.:supergrin: Then the furry Mrs. Hook can receive all the bennies of human women who are foolish enough to actually participate in a traditional marriage.

An-n-n-nd, anyone objecting will be labelled 'racist' or 'intolerant'.. ewwwwww.



Quite simply, your dog, an animal, is not afforded rights as you are.

But make that illogical leap if you choose to.

beforeobamabans
05-08-2012, 18:49
All the arguments made against gay marriage are the same as the arguments against interracial marriages and civil rights in general in the 50s and 60s.

Almost identical. Some of you that remember the 50s and 60s know this too.

Unnatural, against god's way, not covered by any of the bill of rights, state laws pre-empt federal court, cannot be legislated, etc. In time all these objections were shot down. Alabama and Mississippi did not walk quietly into recognizing civil rights, but they got there just the same.

We have been down this road before but is was much more bloody then. The end-point will be the same for all the same reasons. It is just a matter of time before it is accepted. Gay marriage may not be spelled out in the constitution, but civil rights are and have been thoroughly tested in the the courts of the land including the Supreme Court. Marriage is no more then the legal recognition of a civil union (relationship).

Here you see the success of the pretzel logic of the "gay rights" movement. Unfortunately, they have been successful equating a behavioral abnormality with a genetic civil right. And herein lies the ultimate difference and why no one should be able to get away with this equation. Being "gay" in no way equates to being a member of a certain race. It equates with other deviant behavior such as adultery, alcoholism, drug addiction, pedophilia and any other behavioral perversity. Do not attempt to equate a behavioral perversion to a civil right. They are not the same.

RC-RAMIE
05-08-2012, 18:54
Here you see the success of the pretzel logic of the "gay rights" movement. Unfortunately, they have been successful equating a behavioral abnormality with a genetic civil right. And herein lies the ultimate difference and why no one should be able to get away with this equation. Being "gay" in no way equates to being a member of a certain race. It equates with other deviant behavior such as adultery, alcoholism, drug addiction, pedophilia and any other behavioral perversity. Do not attempt to equate a behavioral perversion to a civil right. They are not the same.

Homosexuality is not the same as adultery, alcoholism, drug addiction, pedophilia.


....

Jonesee
05-08-2012, 18:56
Here you see the success of the pretzel logic of the "gay rights" movement. Unfortunately, they have been successful equating a behavioral abnormality with a genetic civil right. And herein lies the ultimate difference and why no one should be able to get away with this equation. Being "gay" in no way equates to being a member of a certain race. It equates with other deviant behavior such as adultery, alcoholism, drug addiction, pedophilia and any other behavioral perversity. Do not attempt to equate a behavioral perversion to a civil right. They are not the same.


Keep trying. You are confusing your moral stance with civil rights afforded to all citizens. You directly equated being gay with criminal activity.

Being gay is not a crime. Homosexuality has already been upheld as protected for civil rights. The argument is not if they are afforded rights,,, they are. The question is will their unions be recognized as marriage.

BORNGEARHEAD
05-08-2012, 18:56
Why people care what other people do is simply, laughable. Live and let live.

frank4570
05-08-2012, 19:41
Here you see the success of the pretzel logic of the "gay rights" movement. Unfortunately, they have been successful equating a behavioral abnormality with a genetic civil right. And herein lies the ultimate difference and why no one should be able to get away with this equation. Being "gay" in no way equates to being a member of a certain race. It equates with other deviant behavior such as adultery, alcoholism, drug addiction, pedophilia and any other behavioral perversity. Do not attempt to equate a behavioral perversion to a civil right. They are not the same.

Your logic is kind of silly.

Gunhaver
05-08-2012, 19:46
Marriage isn't a civil right.

Really? What would you say if you see people all around you getting married without any issues and then when you and a woman decided to do it you were denied simply because somebody said they didn't like something about you? What if you did get married and were denied the ability to visit your wife in the hospital or file taxes together while you see other married couples do it all the time? Wouldn't you feel discriminated against?

fortyofforty
05-08-2012, 19:52
Just curious if you support polygamy. :popcorn:

Jonesee
05-08-2012, 20:02
Just curious if you support polygamy. :popcorn:

Where is on the ballot or in the court system?

fortyofforty
05-08-2012, 20:05
Where is on the ballot or in the court system?

Where did I say it was on the ballot or in the court system?

Just curious if you support polygamy. :popcorn:

janice6
05-08-2012, 20:08
Marriage is a religious institution. If two gay people (as much as I disagree with that behavior upon my personal beliefs) want to be joined in union, lets call it something else.

"Civil unions"



This.

Gays using the term "Marriage" want the "implied" approval of the religious community.

Jonesee
05-08-2012, 20:14
Where did I say it was on the ballot or in the court system?

Just curious if you support polygamy. :popcorn:


I don't see your point. I don't worry about things that aren't at issue.

Nice try though.

Jonesee
05-08-2012, 20:16
This.

Gays using the term "Marriage" want the "implied" approval of the religious community.

Hmmm, I thought agnostics and atheists get married too. They don't appear to be the types to worry about gaining the "implied" approval of the religious community".

It is about rights not religion.

JBnTX
05-08-2012, 20:25
Why people care what other people do is simply, laughable. Live and let live.


Except when they try to force me to accept what they're doing as normal and condemn me for refusing to accept it.

Jonesee
05-08-2012, 20:28
Except when they try to force me to accept what they're doing as normal and condemn me for refusing to accept it.

Who has personally forced you or personally condemned you?

steveksux
05-08-2012, 20:39
All the arguments made against gay marriage are the same as the arguments against interracial marriages and civil rights in general in the 50s and 60s.

Almost identical. Some of you that remember the 50s and 60s know this too.

Unnatural, against god's way, not covered by any of the bill of rights, state laws pre-empt federal court, cannot be legislated, etc. In time all these objections were shot down. Alabama and Mississippi did not walk quietly into recognizing civil rights, but they got there just the same.

We have been down this road before but it was much more bloody then. The end-point will be the same for all the same reasons. It is just a matter of time before it is accepted. Gay marriage may not be spelled out in the constitution, but civil rights are and have been thoroughly tested in the the courts of the land including the Supreme Court. Marriage is no more than the legal recognition of a civil union (relationship).This.

Randy

Gunhaver
05-08-2012, 20:41
Just curious if you support polygamy.

Polygamy has nothing to do with the discussion as our current government isn't recognizing polygamy for some and not for others based purely on the sex of the individuals involved.

Marriage started out as a religious institution between a man and woman and the decision of who could be married was up to the churches. Once the government got involved in recognizing marriage legally they had an obligation to afford the same benefits to all couples that choose to enter into that contract.

The only reason they aren't doing so is because gay marriage makes a great boogyman to rally the biggots around voting time.

Gunhaver
05-08-2012, 20:55
Here you see the success of the pretzel logic of the "gay rights" movement. Unfortunately, they have been successful equating a behavioral abnormality with a genetic civil right. And herein lies the ultimate difference and why no one should be able to get away with this equation. Being "gay" in no way equates to being a member of a certain race. It equates with other deviant behavior such as adultery, alcoholism, drug addiction, pedophilia and any other behavioral perversity. Do not attempt to equate a behavioral perversion to a civil right. They are not the same.

If you take a look at the protected classes you'll see a common theme.
Race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability and familial status.
These are all things that people cannot change about themselves or in the case of religion and familial status, cannot reasonably be expected to change. Sexual orientation is just one more of those things. It's not that hard to understand why someone wouldn't want to hire an alcoholic, pedophile or drug addict but if you really wanted or needed a particular job or loan or anything and you were refused simply because you liked to sleep with women I think you could easily make the case that that affects them in no way and shouldn't be a reason for denial.

You could call it behavioral perversion if someone happens to be single and atheist where you are married and Christian and decide not to offer them the job or the loan or apartment but the argument only holds water in your bigoted, fevered little brain.

Gunhaver
05-08-2012, 21:21
Yes, that should work.

Unless the aim of the movement is to destroy "redefine" traditional marriage.

When 'marriage' is destroyed, ah, er, redefined (fundamentally transformed)- I intend to marry my 'best friend'.. my hunting dog.:supergrin: Then the furry Mrs. Hook can receive all the bennies of human women who are foolish enough to actually participate in a traditional marriage.

An-n-n-nd, anyone objecting will be labelled 'racist' or 'intolerant'.. ewwwwww.

What reason would gay people have to destroy anyone's marriage? It must take a whole lot of lying to yourself to think that's the agenda rather than equal treatment. This is all about legal aspects and there are many hundreds of benefits afforded to married couples through case law and set legal precedents with regards to marriage and it's much better to fall under the legal umbrella of that term than have to hash things out in court every time somebody decides it's in their best interest to make the point that something doesn't pertain because the language says "marriage" and these people are in a "civil union".

fortyofforty
05-09-2012, 05:10
I don't see your point. I don't worry about things that aren't at issue.

Nice try though.

OK, so you refuse to answer. That's fine.

Skyhook
05-09-2012, 05:47
Homosexuality is not the same as adultery, alcoholism, drug addiction, pedophilia.


....

What's the name of that great bastion of caring and morality-- NMBLA,? What is it they do? To whom do they do it?

But, hey, it's love, right, and love is so hard to find anymore...:faint:

Skyhook
05-09-2012, 05:58
What reason would gay people have to destroy anyone's marriage? It must take a whole lot of lying to yourself to think that's the agenda rather than equal treatment. This is all about legal aspects and there are many hundreds of benefits afforded to married couples through case law and set legal precedents with regards to marriage and it's much better to fall under the legal umbrella of that term than have to hash things out in court every time somebody decides it's in their best interest to make the point that something doesn't pertain because the language says "marriage" and these people are in a "civil union".

I think there are several groups of 'different' folks whose differences make them uneasy. Gay folks at peace with themselves (and we've all known some) do not need the title of 'marriage' to justify their existence to anyone. Those uncomfortable in their skins, well, that's another story- they attempt to force us all to accept their ideas as to what equality means rather than accepting their strangeness, biologically,historically and about all other respects.

If folks just would STFU and go about their private lives in a private fashion, who would know or care what they do to each other and how- as long as no one is raped, pillaged or burned? But to call what gays do for their jollies equivalent to procreating children is outlandish and stupid. And marriage is an institution- tried & proven- for the raising of children. But, hey, that's just lil ole traditional me speaking.:cool:

RC-RAMIE
05-09-2012, 06:35
This.

Gays using the term "Marriage" want the "implied" approval of the religious community.

Me and my wife got married outside of a church I'm a atheist and want no implied approval of the religious community at all, I want to be treated the same that's all. Once the government got involved marriage is no longer a religious only affair. The problem is not gays it's government being involved in marriage in the first place.


....

RC-RAMIE
05-09-2012, 06:38
What's the name of that great bastion of caring and morality-- NMBLA,? What is it they do? To whom do they do it?

But, hey, it's love, right, and love is so hard to find anymore...:faint:

NMBLA is about pedophile not gay marriage between two consenting adults. You do know straight people touch little kids to.


....

Skyhook
05-09-2012, 06:45
NMBLA is about pedophile not gay marriage between two consenting adults. You do know straight people touch little kids to.


....


I had to touch two little kids.. how else could I change their diapers, clean up their messes, teach them right from wrong? My two children do not complain even to this day.

Is that what you meant?

.

. Probably not, right?:whistling:

frank4570
05-09-2012, 06:47
What's the name of that great bastion of caring and morality-- NMBLA,? What is it they do? To whom do they do it?

But, hey, it's love, right, and love is so hard to find anymore...:faint:

Children are not capable of giving consent. NAMBLA promotes criminal activity.


There will be gay marriage in this country eventually and it will be no big deal except for the gay people.
This subject exactly mirrors the gun issue. "But if we let people carry concealed guns it will tear our country apart, blood in the streets!!!!!!" Turns out it has no effect on anybody except the people who carry the guns.

ken grant
05-09-2012, 06:47
I would like to know how the word GAY became the PC word for QUEER?

Skyhook
05-09-2012, 07:14
I would like to know how the word GAY became the PC word for QUEER?

Those who are of the homosexual bent are frequently noted for their verbal prowess. Writers, play writers, (most) lawyers :supergrin:, movie moguls, etc., etc.- you know, the artsy-craftsy types.

Of all the homosexuals I have met (mostly in a professional contact arena) almost all were or appeared to be average or above average intellectually. My anecdotal thoughts on why they could pervert a word like 'GAY'.

Skyhook
05-09-2012, 07:16
Children are not capable of giving consent. NAMBLA promotes criminal activity.


There will be gay marriage in this country eventually and it will be no big deal except for the gay people.
This subject exactly mirrors the gun issue. "But if we let people carry concealed guns it will tear our country apart, blood in the streets!!!!!!" Turns out it has no effect on anybody except the people who carry the guns.

"Exactly mirrors.." a struggle to maintain a right as delineated in the Bill of Rights? Naw, that's just a big, big, stretch, frank.