Uh Oh

[ConHog]

Wait a minute...

Certain things can't be done, because it's not "decent" enough for society, but yet there is some hidden constitutional right to do these things anyway? How can one have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to do things, and yet have decency laws to outlaw them?

Sounds to me like there is NO MENTION whatsoever about certain things in the COTUS and that society has made decency laws to protect its citizens. Odd, ain't it?

Simple Jim, You have the right to fuck your old lady. You do NOT have the right to do it where my kids can see. Same with gays. They have a right fuck each other in the ass; they don't have the right to do it where my kids can see. Same with poop eaters or whatever else.

Let me throw THIS at you.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,


Is it reasonable to tell people they can't securely have sex that others have deemed abnormal inside their own home? The ONLY way you can get there is to make gay sex illegal, then I suppose if a cop heard to fags moaning in ecstasy he would have probable cause to kick down their down and drag them off.

On the hand you have no such right to be secure in public view PERIOD. The courts have ruled on that time and time again, that is why - for instance - if you get pulled over for a traffic violation and you have drugs in plain view your dumb ass isn't protected by the 4th Amendment. You had no reasonable expectation of privacy there.

[jimnyc]

Simple Jim, You have the right to fuck your old lady. You do NOT have the right to do it where my kids can see. Same with gays. They have a right fuck each other in the ass; they don't have the right to do it where my kids can see. Same with poop eaters or whatever else.

Let me throw THIS at you.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,


Is it reasonable to tell people they can't securely have sex that others have deemed abnormal inside their own home? The ONLY way you can get there is to make gay sex illegal, then I suppose if a cop heard to fags moaning in ecstasy he would have probable cause to kick down their down and drag them off.

On the hand you have no such right to be secure in public view PERIOD. The courts have ruled on that time and time again, that is why - for instance - if you get pulled over for a traffic violation and you have drugs in plain view your dumb ass isn't protected by the 4th Amendment. You had no reasonable expectation of privacy there.

The point is - you're stating that society has a right to determine what is indecent and what isn't. SOCIETY is determining what is decent and what isn't. Reread that a 3rd time now.

If society ALREADY is deeming what is indecent and what isn't, then it's not much of a stretch to recognize that society deems what is acceptable for society. In fact, it's pretty much the same thing. Unless of course you're saying that polygamy is fine behind closed doors but not in public.

[ConHog]

The point is - you're stating that society has a right to determine what is indecent and what isn't. SOCIETY is determining what is decent and what isn't. Reread that a 3rd time now.

If society ALREADY is deeming what is indecent and what isn't, then it's not much of a stretch to recognize that society deems what is acceptable for society. In fact, it's pretty much the same thing. Unless of course you're saying that polygamy is fine behind closed doors but not in public.

No sir, I'm saying society has a right to determine was is indecent in public, not what is indecent in private.

Let's use this example,

The FCC has an absolute "right" to decide what is aired on tv. No argument there right? Good

Now my question is. Do they have the right to edit your home movies before you watch them?





Oh, as for polygamy. I don't give a shit if 20 guys run around telling people they are married. Whatever. Now if they start groping each other or other such nonsense in public I care. By the same token, I care if you and your wife start groping and such in public.

[jimnyc]

Even there, again, you deem the FCC fine to arbitrarily determine what is and what isn't good for us. But use the same standards against things you disagree with and you cry foul.

Bottom line is, society has ALWAYS made laws and such to protect society as a whole - and that's why polygamy is not allowed currently.

But back to your argument. I should be able to snort cocaine and shoot up heroin all night long, and invite hookers for the party too, and smear shit on one another - just so long as we don't harm anyone else, correct?

[fj1200]

I don't believe so myself, as Loving had nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriage or marriages that were not recognized. You can't unilaterally toss in more plaintiffs and claim they are covered.

Interracial marriage was the question before the court so of course they didn't mention gay marriage. I can unilaterally toss in more plaintiffs if the principle is the same. I'll look more if Loving has been used specifically But Olson and Boies argued the Prop 8 case in CA:


To commemorate the 44th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court's decision that that struck down laws that forbade African Americans and whites from marrying, AFER's co-counsel in the Prop. 8 case, Ted Olson and David Boies, recorded a special message. They talk about how the Loving case set an important precedent for the current fight for marriage equality.

Read more: http://www.towleroad.com/2011/06/olsonloving.html#ixzz1wwj4IN4k

Unfortunately it's in video form.


Yep, out of 1 side of their mouth they claim its not covered in COTUS but when a state votes to ban they will say it violates COTUS..........quite a dishonest tactic.

No, you're the one claiming some sort of straight marriage "right" where one is clearly absent. A ban certainly can violate COTUS if someone is denied Equal Protection. You're trying to have it both ways.

[OCA]

The point is - you're stating that society has a right to determine what is indecent and what isn't. SOCIETY is determining what is decent and what isn't. Reread that a 3rd time now.

If society ALREADY is deeming what is indecent and what isn't, then it's not much of a stretch to recognize that society deems what is acceptable for society. In fact, it's pretty much the same thing. Unless of course you're saying that polygamy is fine behind closed doors but not in public.

Exactly, as i've said all along, the COTUS was written not to be set in stone and unmoveable, it left many things up to common sense and for cities, counties and states to decide.

The law says you can't posess a lb of weed in your house whether its for sale or not, thats not hurting anybody but its an example of a law set by society which is thought to be best.

(no pot legalization conversations now please)

[jimnyc]

Interracial marriage was the question before the court so of course they didn't mention gay marriage. I can unilaterally toss in more plaintiffs if the principle is the same. I'll look more if Loving has been used specifically But Olson and Boies argued the Prop 8 case in CA:


Unfortunately it's in video form.

This isn't precedent in a legal form, but rather from an attorneys POV. The court didn't rule on a case based on Loving is what I'm saying. And YOU think the principle is the same, not everyone, so you cannot just change things 30+ years down the road - that's what we have courts for. "Maybe" someday the SC will rule on a gay marriage case, and they'll use Loving as precedent, and THEN your argument will be valid. But until such time, right now, Loving has nothing to do with gay marriage - it's only a comparison that many like to make, and a legal reference of sorts with no weight whatsoever, 'cept to interracial marriage.

[logroller]

No sir, I'm saying society has a right to determine was is indecent in public, not what is indecent in private.

Let's use this example,

The FCC has an absolute "right" to decide what is aired on tv. No argument there right? Good

Now my question is. Do they have the right to edit your home movies before you watch them?





Oh, as for polygamy. I don't give a shit if 20 guys run around telling people they are married. Whatever. Now if they start groping each other or other such nonsense in public I care. By the same token, I care if you and your wife start groping and such in public.
Govt does not have the right, the People have granted unto govt the power. I think you know that; might as well use the correct terminology.

[jimnyc]

Govt does not have the right, the People have granted unto govt the power. I think you know that; might as well use the correct terminology.

Do you mean society has deemed certain things on public TV to be wrong for society as a whole?

[fj1200]

I don't think it's there either, but MANY gays think it does and think their "rights" to marry are based on the amendment.

The Federal government has chosen to create privileges based on straight marriage. As gays are not able to have the same privilege based on them marrying whomever they love, they are denied the equal protection of the law, no?

[ConHog]

Even there, again, you deem the FCC fine to arbitrarily determine what is and what isn't good for us. But use the same standards against things you disagree with and you cry foul.

Bottom line is, society has ALWAYS made laws and such to protect society as a whole - and that's why polygamy is not allowed currently.

But back to your argument. I should be able to snort cocaine and shoot up heroin all night long, and invite hookers for the party too, and smear shit on one another - just so long as we don't harm anyone else, correct?

Again, DRUGS have been deemed harmful to more than just those who take them. I didn't make that determination, and I'm not 100% in agreement with it, but it is what it is. The burden is on YOU to prove that gay sex is as well.

And I want clarification anyway, are you now saying that gay sex should be illegal? Because I thought you were only anti gay marriage.........

[OCA]

The Federal government has chosen to create privileges based on straight marriage. As gays are not able to have the same privilege based on them marrying whomever they love, they are denied the equal protection of the law, no?

No, they are not denied equal protection.

Its simple:
woman+woman=no
Man+man=no
Woman+man=yes.


You see at birth they have every protection available to them, they CHOOSE to engage in a lifestyle where laws already set in place do not offer that protection except through acceptable means which are still available to them.

I have a solution: a queer can marry a dyke, then they just do whatever they like. Technically they will be cheating but not really since and there is no emotional attatchment neither will care since all they want is the benefits attatched to marriage.

There, problem solved....where is my Nobel?

[fj1200]

This isn't precedent in a legal form, but rather from an attorneys POV. The court didn't rule on a case based on Loving is what I'm saying. And YOU think the principle is the same, not everyone, so you cannot just change things 30+ years down the road - that's what we have courts for. "Maybe" someday the SC will rule on a gay marriage case, and they'll use Loving as precedent, and THEN your argument will be valid. But until such time, right now, Loving has nothing to do with gay marriage - it's only a comparison that many like to make, and a legal reference of sorts with no weight whatsoever, 'cept to interracial marriage.

But that's how you cite prior cases as precedent. Loving may be used and it might not be used, I don't know but I'm sure we'll find out eventually. Just because they haven't yet does not make the principle any less valid until it has been decided.

[fj1200]

No, they are not denied equal protection.

Its simple:
woman+woman=no
Man+man=no
Woman+man=yes.


You see at birth they have every protection available to them, they CHOOSE to engage in a lifestyle where laws already set in place do not offer that protection except through acceptable means which are still available to them.

I have a solution: a queer can marry a dyke, then they just do whatever they like. Technically they will be cheating but not really since and there is no emotional attatchment neither will care since all they want is the benefits attatched to marriage.

There, problem solved....where is my Nobel?

Your premise is faulty as usual:

man loves woman = marriage
man loves man = none
woman loves woman = none

It's no longer the mere matching of biology that should determine public policy. You'd be better off arguing that gay marriage is harmful to society and so should not be allowed because fitting all of society into your ideal is not valid or workable. But since you've already devalued marriage anyway by letting them "marry" to get benefits...

[logroller]

Do you mean society has deemed certain things on public TV to be wrong for society as a whole?
Not at all. Society has consented to public affairs being regulated to protect the rights of all. The 'deeming' of what is right or wrong is still open to public criticism via the administrative law process. Most don't participate, that's their choice; but their right to participate is intact.

[ConHog]

Govt does not have the right, the People have granted unto govt the power. I think you know that; might as well use the correct terminology.

of course, which is why I quoted it the first time around, just forgot to in the second instance. You're correct. The gov't. has no rights.

[jimnyc]

The Federal government has chosen to create privileges based on straight marriage. As gays are not able to have the same privilege based on them marrying whomever they love, they are denied the equal protection of the law, no?

Many jobs and other privileges, like scholarships, are granted to minorities. Don't I deserve these privileges/protections? Adults over 40 can sue their employer based on age discrimination, but those under cannot. Are not younger people entitled to the same protections based on age?

But if you would like to say that government shouldn't grant them to begin with, that people should afford their own protections with contracts and such, I can go along with that.

[ConHog]

Many jobs and other privileges, like scholarships, are granted to minorities. Don't I deserve these privileges/protections? Adults over 40 can sue their employer based on age discrimination, but those under cannot. Are not younger people entitled to the same protections based on age?

But if you would like to say that government shouldn't grant them to begin with, that people should afford their own protections with contracts and such, I can go along with that.

Bingo zappo. that is what we've been saying for months. But I understand how the message could have gotten lost with WindSong in here screaming that that wasn't good enough either.

Oh PS Young people most assuredly can sue for age discrimination if they are discriminated on for being young. Would be a hard case to win for sure, but the 14th guarantees equal protection for all.

[jimnyc]

Again, DRUGS have been deemed harmful to more than just those who take them. I didn't make that determination, and I'm not 100% in agreement with it, but it is what it is. The burden is on YOU to prove that gay sex is as well.

And I want clarification anyway, are you now saying that gay sex should be illegal? Because I thought you were only anti gay marriage.........

Who deemed drugs not good for society? Society. If 99.99% of the nation wanted drugs legal, they would be. I don't know what is so difficult to understand about that. Especially considered since the beginning of time it's been societies dictating what is best for them as a whole. The burden is on voters aka society, to determine what they think is best for their neighborhoods/society/country.

And I have no clue where you get that crap from. I never said being a queer should be illegal. No skin off my back if people, in their privacy, want to work in destructive ways.

[fj1200]

Many jobs and other privileges, like scholarships, are granted to minorities. Don't I deserve these privileges/protections? Adults over 40 can sue their employer based on age discrimination, but those under cannot. Are not younger people entitled to the same protections based on age?

But if you would like to say that government shouldn't grant them to begin with, that people should afford their own protections with contracts and such, I can go along with that.

I would like to say that but you're getting into the CRA which might be its own thread. I don't believe that gays should be given Title VII protection today while blacks should have been back in the day.

[jimnyc]

But that's how you cite prior cases as precedent. Loving may be used and it might not be used, I don't know but I'm sure we'll find out eventually. Just because they haven't yet does not make the principle any less valid until it has been decided.

But it's a principle not yet rooted in a legal decision. There is no connection between Loving and gay marriage, other than in discussions or debates. No case that I'm aware of, has a judge referenced Loving as precedent. Things change each time a judge makes a decision based on prior court rulings. Each time they do so they are affirming the original decision to be applicable to the current one. Your desire to link the 2, Loving and gay marriage, is only theory at this point.

[fj1200]

But it's a principle not yet rooted in a legal decision. There is no connection between Loving and gay marriage, other than in discussions or debates. No case that I'm aware of, has a judge referenced Loving as precedent. Things change each time a judge makes a decision based on prior court rulings. Each time they do so they are affirming the original decision to be applicable to the current one. Your desire to link the 2, Loving and gay marriage, is only theory at this point.

I stated nothing different, or didn't mean too if I did. :hide:

[ConHog]

I would like to say that but you're getting into the CRA which might be its own thread. I don't believe that gays should be given Title VII protection today while blacks should have been back in the day.

this forum would be a good place for a discussion about that unconstitutional law.

[jimnyc]

Bingo zappo. that is what we've been saying for months. But I understand how the message could have gotten lost with WindSong in here screaming that that wasn't good enough either.

Oh PS Young people most assuredly can sue for age discrimination if they are discriminated on for being young. Would be a hard case to win for sure, but the 14th guarantees equal protection for all.

Won't happen unless you have incompetent counsel for the defendant and an incompetent judge. If anything, they would need to have federal law reversed. Age discrimination, based on EEOE standards, ONLY applies to those over the age of 40. Only in very rare cases, in certain states, in certain jobs, would someone have a hope in hell of winning such a case.

[fj1200]

this forum would be a good place for a discussion about that unconstitutional law.

Ring it up!

[ConHog]

Who deemed drugs not good for society? Society. If 99.99% of the nation wanted drugs legal, they would be. I don't know what is so difficult to understand about that. Especially considered since the beginning of time it's been societies dictating what is best for them as a whole. The burden is on voters aka society, to determine what they think is best for their neighborhoods/society/country.

And I have no clue where you get that crap from. I never said being a queer should be illegal. No skin off my back if people, in their privacy, want to work in destructive ways.

and if the people voted to make drugs legal, that would IMO not be unconstitutional. It would only be unconstitutional to tell someone they can't do something that is NOT illegal. Not the other way around. So if we made drugs legal then told gays they couldn't partake. ILLEGAL.

As for that "crap" I was asking a question, not claiming you were saying something.

[jimnyc]

I stated nothing different, or didn't mean too if I did. :hide:

My bad then. But in reality, and I suppose against my argument, it won't surprise me if in the future the SC decides that Loving set the legal precedent and meets the burden for gays to legally marry as well. I don't know. THEN, if they did, there would be actual "rights" granted to them, as per the OP. But I'm of the belief, that as it stands now, they have no standing to use the 14th.

[ConHog]

Won't happen unless you have incompetent counsel for the defendant and an incompetent judge. If anything, they would need to have federal law reversed. Age discrimination, based on EEOE standards, ONLY applies to those over the age of 40. Only in very rare cases, in certain states, in certain jobs, would someone have a hope in hell of winning such a case.

I agree it would take the right set of circumstance, but it could be won.

And I'm against ANY law which dictates who someone may hire or serve in the private sector.

[ConHog]

My bad then. But in reality, and I suppose against my argument, it won't surprise me if in the future the SC decides that Loving set the legal precedent and meets the burden for gays to legally marry as well. I don't know. THEN, if they did, there would be actual "rights" granted to them, as per the OP. But I'm of the belief, that as it stands now, they have no standing to use the 14th.

You're still quite correct the 14th does not apply. They SHOULD be using the first and then you would as a fair man have to admit that yes they have that right.

[jimnyc]

You're still quite correct the 14th does not apply. They SHOULD be using the first and then you would as a fair man have to admit that yes they have that right.

I don't see any protection under the 1st either. Where has the government made any laws about legal/illegal in a religion? I think that's what you were getting to earlier...

[ConHog]

I don't see any protection under the 1st either. Where has the government made any laws about legal/illegal in a religion? I think that's what you were getting to earlier...

How is it not protected under the first

gays : "our church wants to marry gays"
california : "sorry our population has voted that your religion is sick"

Now in order for that to be kosher CA now has the burden of showing that denying that particular religious freedom has some benefit to society as a whole. So far, they have not.

IMO if the gays are ever going to win they are going to have to drop the 14th amendment argument and get behind the first amendment, of course perversely the most vocal gays hate Christians so much that they would rather cut off their nose and destroy the first amendment to spite their face.

That's where the impasse is, you refuse to let them define marriage however they want and they insist that you define marriage however THEY want. Yall are two sides of the same coin. Both being stubborn for no real reason.

Why do you care what THEY call marriage and why do they insist that you accept their marriage? I sure don't accept Buddha as a God so why do I care if Buddhists perform gay marriages?

[OCA]

I don't see any protection under the 1st either. Where has the government made any laws about legal/illegal in a religion? I think that's what you were getting to earlier...

There is no protection under the 1st either.:laugh2:

[OCA]

How is it not protected under the first

gays : "our church wants to marry gays"
california : "sorry our population has voted that your religion is sick"

Now in order for that to be kosher CA now has the burden of showing that denying that particular religious freedom has some benefit to society as a whole. So far, they have not.

IMO if the gays are ever going to win they are going to have to drop the 14th amendment argument and get behind the first amendment, of course perversely the most vocal gays hate Christians so much that they would rather cut off their nose and destroy the first amendment to spite their face.

That's where the impasse is, you refuse to let them define marriage however they want and they insist that you define marriage however THEY want. Yall are two sides of the same coin. Both being stubborn for no real reason.

Why do you care what THEY call marriage and why do they insist that you accept their marriage? I sure don't accept Buddha as a God so why do I care if Buddhists perform gay marriages?

What if a church wants to human sacrifice willing participants?

There is no coverage for queers under the 1st, its not a religious issue.

[jimnyc]

How is it not protected under the first

gays : "our church wants to marry gays"
california : "sorry our population has voted that your religion is sick"

Now in order for that to be kosher CA now has the burden of showing that denying that particular religious freedom has some benefit to society as a whole. So far, they have not.

IMO if the gays are ever going to win they are going to have to drop the 14th amendment argument and get behind the first amendment, of course perversely the most vocal gays hate Christians so much that they would rather cut off their nose and destroy the first amendment to spite their face.

That's where the impasse is, you refuse to let them define marriage however they want and they insist that you define marriage however THEY want. Yall are two sides of the same coin. Both being stubborn for no real reason.

Why do you care what THEY call marriage and why do they insist that you accept their marriage? I sure don't accept Buddha as a God so why do I care if Buddhists perform gay marriages?

They struck down part of a religion somewhere? Nope, I believe it was JUST gay marriage. Wasn't anything to do with religion. You WANT it to be purely a religious institution, but as of now, it's not. Atheists can get married too, just not if they are gay in certain states.

[OCA]

They struck down part of a religion somewhere? Nope, I believe it was JUST gay marriage. Wasn't anything to do with religion. You WANT it to be purely a religious institution, but as of now, it's not. Atheists can get married too, just not if they are gay in certain states.

How about when you go to the JOP for a civil ceremony, is that a religious ceremony too?:laugh2:

[Missileman]

Apples and oranges. You are better than that.

No he's not...really.

[jimnyc]

No he's not...really.

Like I tell everyone else, he's a scorpion. As soon as you reach your hand out and trust the fucker, he'll sting you in a NY minute and let you drown like the frog!

[Missileman]

Myself I believe the bisexual people who switch back and forth like you or I would change socks destroys the entire "they were born that way" argument. However, it is irrelevant to THIS discussion. You have a right to do such things if you so choose.

Why? If some folks are attracted to the same gender and some(most) are attracted to the opposite, I see no reason why it's not logical that there are some who are attracted to both. It in no way establishes that those who are attracted to one or the other are choosing their attraction.

[ConHog]

Why? If some folks are attracted to the same gender and some(most) are attracted to the opposite, I see no reason why it's not logical that there are some who are attracted to both. It in no way establishes that those who are attracted to one or the other are choosing their attraction.

See that's my issue though. It just seems like everyday another kind of weirdo is claiming they were born that way.

I admit I'm just giving my opinion on this topic.

[Missileman]

Like I tell everyone else, he's a scorpion. As soon as you reach your hand out and trust the fucker, he'll sting you in a NY minute and let you drown like the frog!

You assign him way too much credit. A scorpion has game(stinger). OCA comes in blustering like he's some hurricane and then posts with all the force of a flea fart.

[Missileman]

See that's my issue though. It just seems like everyday another kind of weirdo is claiming they were born that way.

I admit I'm just giving my opinion on this topic.

We have no problem believing that people are born more or less intelligent, creative, sane, athletic, coordinated, etc.

[Kathianne]

Why? If some folks are attracted to the same gender and some(most) are attracted to the opposite, I see no reason why it's not logical that there are some who are attracted to both. It in no way establishes that those who are attracted to one or the other are choosing their attraction.

From all I've read and observed, including the weird boys and girls as a kid, not too mention some observations as a teacher in ps-8 grades. Lots of observations that at least some seem way more than predisposed towards gay.

[ConHog]

We have no problem believing that people are born more or less intelligent, creative, sane, athletic, coordinated, etc.

Well, as I've said I think the whole born that way/choice thing is a giant red herring anyway. Americans have the RIGHT to CHOOSE to be gay if they want even if it is a choice.

It is really no different than if someone said " show me the has to have a 500 HP sports car" gene. Oh you can't? Then you can't have one.

[fj1200]

My bad then. But in reality, and I suppose against my argument, it won't surprise me if in the future the SC decides that Loving set the legal precedent and meets the burden for gays to legally marry as well. I don't know. THEN, if they did, there would be actual "rights" granted to them, as per the OP. But I'm of the belief, that as it stands now, they have no standing to use the 14th.

I will admit to possible having stated an opinion strongly. :) At this point all we can do is argue about it because the Supremes have not weighed in but the case has been used in the debate.

In the August 4, 2010 federal district court decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_v._Schwarzenegger), which overturned California's Proposition 8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)) (which restricted marriage to opposite-sex couples), Judge Vaughn Walker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaughn_R._Walker) cited Loving v. Virginia to conclude that "the [constitutional] right to marry protects an individual's choice of marital partner regardless of gender".[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia#cite_note-13) On more narrow grounds, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia#cite_note-14)[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia#cite_note-9th-15)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia


How is it not protected under the first

Marriage, and the state "benefits," have zero to do with the First in this day and age.

[ConHog]

I will admit to possible having stated an opinion strongly. :) At this point all we can do is argue about it because the Supremes have not weighed in but the case has been used in the debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia



Marriage, and the state "benefits," have zero to do with the First in this day and age.

no, but the should. and that is the argument that gays should be making instead of getting embroiled in the "gay gene" debate.

[fj1200]

no, but the should. and that is the argument that gays should be making instead of getting embroiled in the "gay gene" debate.

I'm not sure what argument you think they should be making. I haven't seen every point they've been using to argue but equal protection seems valid to me as it speaks to government preferencing one group over another. Now of course, I think they should remove all reference to marriage, especially at the Federal level, but that is not a Constitutional question IMO.

[ConHog]

I'm not sure what argument you think they should be making. I haven't seen every point they've been using to argue but equal protection seems valid to me as it speaks to government preferencing one group over another. Now of course, I think they should remove all reference to marriage, especially at the Federal level, but that is not a Constitutional question IMO.

If marriage is a religious institution and the government is picking and choosing with marriages they will recognize that is certainly a first amendment issue as that is PRECISELY what the first was written to prevent.

[gabosaurus]

If marriage is a "religious institution," then how does one account for marriages performed as civil ceremonies?
My sister and her husband were married by a JP in a banquet hall. The ceremony contained no references to God or religion.
If a legal marriage ceremony can be performed outside of religion, why should religious beliefs restrict who can be married?
Also, if you look online, you can find perfectly legal marriage ceremonies were men and women are "married" to trees, buildings and inflatable dolls. But yet consenting adults of the same sex can't marry each other?

As to the point of people "choosing" to be gay, why be so selective? Can a person also "choose" to have cancer?
"I'm sorry dear, but I have chosen to have lung cancer and I will die within a couple of years. I hope you understand my choice."

[Nell's Room]

Denying something based on a LIFESTYLE CHOICE is NOT denying someone something based on their gender.

Homosexuality is an orientation, not a lifestyle choice.

[OCA]

You assign him way too much credit. A scorpion has game(stinger). OCA comes in blustering like he's some hurricane and then posts with all the force of a flea fart.

I've handed you your ass so many times that your ass is gone and your colon is now tan from exposure to the sun.

You are and have always been a joke.

[OCA]

Homosexuality is an orientation, not a lifestyle choice.

Please show us the genetic link you've discovered.

[fj1200]

If marriage is a religious institution and the government is picking and choosing with marriages they will recognize that is certainly a first amendment issue as that is PRECISELY what the first was written to prevent.

IF. But it's not and nobody is clamoring to be married in a church for state benefits.

[jimnyc]

Well, as I've said I think the whole born that way/choice thing is a giant red herring anyway. Americans have the RIGHT to CHOOSE to be gay if they want even if it is a choice.

It is really no different than if someone said " show me the has to have a 500 HP sports car" gene. Oh you can't? Then you can't have one.

And if that were the case, and they were CHOOSING a certain lifestyle, then there goes the "born this way" bullshit AND then I would stand my ground even more stating they don't deserve jack shit as far as "rights". One doesn't get to choose to go down a certain path in life and then demand rights to meet that choice.

[jimnyc]

I will admit to possible having stated an opinion strongly. :) At this point all we can do is argue about it because the Supremes have not weighed in but the case has been used in the debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Yep, haven't read that one yet! And I counter with what is just below that:


The historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. [...] But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.

But agreed, I think it matters little at this late stage of the game. I think this entire saga sees the SC within 1-3 years for conclusion.


Marriage, and the state "benefits," have zero to do with the First in this day and age.

Agreed.

[jimnyc]

no, but the should. and that is the argument that gays should be making instead of getting embroiled in the "gay gene" debate.

IF you can get government out of the game, and they are no longer the ones granting benefits, and licenses, and the judgements cite religious reasons - THEN you might have a 1st argument. Until that miraculously happens, this has zilch to do with the 1st.

[jimnyc]

If marriage is a religious institution and the government is picking and choosing with marriages they will recognize that is certainly a first amendment issue as that is PRECISELY what the first was written to prevent.

Individuals consider marriage to be a religious institution, but as far as the government is concerned right now, it's simply a contract between a man and a woman. They don't give a flying fuck what church or belief you have. So no go there.

[jimnyc]

Homosexuality is an orientation, not a lifestyle choice.

Until such time that can be proven, neither side can say factually. And outside of SOME sort of medical proof, a logical person would assume that it's not medically related, or it's a learned behavior. But feel free to show me the errors of my ways and how this orientation came to be?

[jimnyc]

If marriage is a "religious institution," then how does one account for marriages performed as civil ceremonies?
My sister and her husband were married by a JP in a banquet hall. The ceremony contained no references to God or religion.
If a legal marriage ceremony can be performed outside of religion, why should religious beliefs restrict who can be married?
Also, if you look online, you can find perfectly legal marriage ceremonies were men and women are "married" to trees, buildings and inflatable dolls. But yet consenting adults of the same sex can't marry each other?

As to the point of people "choosing" to be gay, why be so selective? Can a person also "choose" to have cancer?
"I'm sorry dear, but I have chosen to have lung cancer and I will die within a couple of years. I hope you understand my choice."

As far as the government is concerned, marriage is not a religious institution, so your rant is a waste.

As for you other references, choice and such - can one prove that another has cancer? Can medical teams show it in the body and how it came to be? They sure as hell can! Can they do the same with homosexuality? Not a damn thing can they find. But even if they did, what you're stating is that homosexuality is on the same plane as disease.

[logroller]

Please show us the genetic link you've discovered.

Is there a straight gene? Cause if there is, then if it's missing, then you've found the genetic link for homosexuality.

[OCA]

And if that were the case, and they were CHOOSING a certain lifestyle, then there goes the "born this way" bullshit AND then I would stand my ground even more stating they don't deserve jack shit as far as "rights". One doesn't get to choose to go down a certain path in life and then demand rights to meet that choice.

That is absolutely fucking correct Jimmy! Whether its a choice or not is the issue, if it is(which i'm certain it is) then they are not being denied any rights they don't already posess unless its the right to break laws and bans...if its not then they are a legitimate minority but until its proven its by birth...........................................:n o:

[OCA]

Is there a straight gene? Cause if there is, then if it's missing, then you've found the genetic link for homosexuality.

Thats the silliest question ever, how many times is it gonna be asked before I have to bring a freshman biology 101 major on here to tell you about inherent opposite sex attraction at birth?

[OCA]

Individuals consider marriage to be a religious institution, but as far as the government is concerned right now, it's simply a contract between a man and a woman. They don't give a flying fuck what church or belief you have. So no go there.

Exactly, you can choose to have a religious or civil ceremony...the CIVIL BEING SANCTIONED BY THE STATE, and if that state bans queer marriage by a vote of the people then queers are shit out of luck, no recourse through COTUS.

[jimnyc]

Is there a straight gene? Cause if there is, then if it's missing, then you've found the genetic link for homosexuality.

So are you saying it's a choice or a learned behavior? :)

[Missileman]

I've handed you your ass so many times that your ass is gone and your colon is now tan from exposure to the sun.

You are and have always been a joke.

Only in your wildest dreams, clown.

[Missileman]

Thats the silliest question ever, how many times is it gonna be asked before I have to bring a freshman biology 101 major on here to tell you about inherent opposite sex attraction at birth?

Post a single excerpt from any biology text that says 100% of all human beings are born heterosexual.

[logroller]

Thats the silliest question ever, how many times is it gonna be asked before I have to bring a freshman biology 101 major on here to tell you about inherent opposite sex attraction at birth?
youre the one asking silly questions. I just answered it. but hey, bring on the bio major--I'd specifically like to have it explained how babies express sexual desire. I've three kids, not one has done so-- perhaps they have an asexual gene... and with two daughters, I certainly hope so.

[OCA]

Only in your wildest dreams, clown.

Oh Missile, you are so silly. Stupid but silly still.

[OCA]

youre the one asking silly questions. I just answered it. but hey, bring on the bio major--I'd specifically like to have it explained how babies express sexual desire. I've three kids, not one has done so-- perhaps they have an asexual gene... and with two daughters, I certainly hope so.

Its not fully matured at birth but its there. Ever heard og young adults reaching full sexual maturity? How about our legs? They are there at birth but don't reach full maturity until maybe the late teens or early 20's when you stop growing....same thing.

[ConHog]

Oh Missile, you are so silly. Stupid but silly still.

For all of your blustering I can't find a single person that agrees that you ever out debated ANYONE on ANY subject.

[Abbey Marie]

And if that were the case, and they were CHOOSING a certain lifestyle, then there goes the "born this way" bullshit AND then I would stand my ground even more stating they don't deserve jack shit as far as "rights". One doesn't get to choose to go down a certain path in life and then demand rights to meet that choice.

:clap:

[OCA]

Post a single excerpt from any biology text that says 100% of all human beings are born heterosexual.

Here you go Cletus, it ain't the biology book at your local H.S. but it is a study widely viewed as credible and well researched.

It says that homosexuality is not innate nor is it enviromental....it is "unique reactions to personal experiences"...IOW choice.

Now as for the 100% opposite sex attraction, not many studies out there because why study "what has been, what is and what will always be?"

Now unless of course you are the exception to the rule and you were born to eat pipes....HOLY HELL! BINGO! I finally understand you kid!

[OCA]

For all of your blustering I can't find a single person that agrees that you ever out debated ANYONE on ANY subject.

How about...well you?:laugh2:
:laugh2:

I got a pm from a new member congratulating me the other day. I'd love to share it if Jimmy said ok.

[jimnyc]

youre the one asking silly questions. I just answered it. but hey, bring on the bio major--I'd specifically like to have it explained how babies express sexual desire. I've three kids, not one has done so-- perhaps they have an asexual gene... and with two daughters, I certainly hope so.

I don't think someone is born with a gay gene nor do I think anyone is born with a hetero gene. I'll stick with it being learned behavior until proven otherwise as it makes the most sense given what we know today. Does this mean that in EVERY case where a child is exposed to more "girly" things or more homosexuality that they in turn will be the same? Nope.

[logroller]

Its not fully matured at birth but its there. Ever heard og young adults reaching full sexual maturity? How about our legs? They are there at birth but don't reach full maturity until maybe the late teens or early 20's when you stop growing....same thing.
So show it to me then. Because I've also heard of people realizing they were gay at sexual maturity.
And legs, really--that's your best analogy? I was born with hair and nails that keep growing; suppose that means I should let it grow out-- it's genetic you know. Cutting them is aberrant behavior.:rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

It says that homosexuality is not innate nor is it enviromental....it is "unique reactions to personal experiences"...

That's my take to date.

[OCA]

Hell I forgot that link to Missile:

http://www.mygenes.co.nz/whitehead_twinjhs.pdf

[OCA]

So show it to me then. Because I've also heard of people realizing they were gay at sexual maturity.
And legs, really--that's your best analogy? I was born with hair and nails that keep growing; suppose that means I should let it grow out-- it's genetic you know. Cutting them is aberrant behavior.:rolleyes:

The legs analogy is completely appropo, if you want long nails and hair dudes like highlights and a french manicure!:slap:

[Shadow]

For all of your blustering I can't find a single person that agrees that you ever out debated ANYONE on ANY subject.

I actually believe there was a poll regarding the OCA/ConHog debate. Didn't it end up practically a 50/50 split? Why does there need to be this "us" against "them" competition? I don't get it.

[logroller]

The legs analogy is completely appropo, if you want long nails and hair dudes like highlights and a french manicure!:slap:

I get it--you're a leg man. I'm a boobman myself. I do have great legs, but no go dude-- I'm married. Perhaps that's why you don't gays getting married, cuts your options. :poke::lol:

Seriously though, sexual procreation doesn't necessitate sexual desire; its no more genetically necessary than marriage is.

[jimnyc]

I get it--you're a leg man. I'm a boobman myself. I do have great legs, but no go dude-- I'm married. Perhaps that's why you don't gays getting married, cuts your options. :poke::lol:

Seriously though, sexual procreation doesn't necessitate sexual desire; its no more genetically necessary than marriage is.

:beer:

[OCA]

I actually believe there was a poll regarding the OCA/ConHog debate. Didn't it end up practically a 50/50 split? Why does there need to be this "us" against "them" competition? I don't get it.

Neither do I, you would think that Connie would comfortably fit into his own skin and not aspire to heights he cannot reach.

[Shadow]

I get it--you're a leg man. I'm a boobman myself. I do have great legs, but no go dude-- I'm married. Perhaps that's why you don't gays getting married, cuts your options. :poke::lol:

Seriously though, sexual procreation doesn't necessitate sexual desire; its no more genetically necessary than marriage is.

I'm going to have to disagree with you. Procreation is a natural instinct...survival of the fittest...self preservation...the reason beind the sexual drive. Just because a group of people try to rationalize going against nature in this area,doesn't mean that the instinct is not there.

[Missileman]

Here you go Cletus, it ain't the biology book at your local H.S. but it is a study widely viewed as credible and well researched.

It says that homosexuality is not innate nor is it enviromental....it is "unique reactions to personal experiences"...IOW choice.

Now as for the 100% opposite sex attraction, not many studies out there because why study "what has been, what is and what will always be?"

Now unless of course you are the exception to the rule and you were born to eat pipes....HOLY HELL! BINGO! I finally understand you kid!

Here we go again...OCA posts another link which he neglected to read. HEY STUPID! What's the title of the article you posted? You sticking with the IOW above?

[fj1200]

Hell I forgot that link to Missile:

http://www.mygenes.co.nz/whitehead_twinjhs.pdf


It says that homosexuality is not innate nor is it enviromental....it is "unique reactions to personal experiences"...IOW choice.

You do realize the title already eliminates your conclusion:

Neither Genes nor Choice:
Same-Sex Attraction Is Mostly a Unique Reaction to Environmental Factors

[fj1200]

Yep, haven't read that one yet! And I counter with what is just below that:

Pfft, New York, nothing good comes out of there. :poke:

My only comment on the historical correlation between the two is the Lovings were legally married in a separate jurisdiction and prosecuted in their home state. Gay marriage is legal in some states and for other jurisdictions, including the Feds, to ignore one states definition of marriage is what runs afoul of Equal Protection. But we may be beating a dead horse here.


And if that were the case, and they were CHOOSING a certain lifestyle, then there goes the "born this way" bullshit AND then I would stand my ground even more stating they don't deserve jack shit as far as "rights". One doesn't get to choose to go down a certain path in life and then demand rights to meet that choice.

I believe that particular argument is going to have less and less effect because even if you are correct, society has moved to a point where it is accepting of gays, will be accepting of gay marriage, and will eventually have all the benefits therein.

[OCA]

You do realize the title already eliminates your conclusion:

Hey slick..........."unique reaction to personal experiences"=choice.......the author just doesn't have the balls to say it.

[OCA]

Here we go again...OCA posts another link which he neglected to read. HEY STUPID! What's the title of the article you posted? You sticking with the IOW above?

Read post #336 you fucking moron.

[OCA]

I believe that particular argument is going to have less and less effect because even if you are correct, society has moved to a point where it is accepting of gays, will be accepting of gay marriage, and will eventually have all the benefits therein.

And your evidence of this is?

My example of you being dead wrong is , well hell just look at the vote in NC for proof.

Anywhere this issue has been put to the people a ban has passed, is that what you mean by accepting?

[fj1200]

Hey slick..........."unique reaction to personal experiences"=choice.......the author just doesn't have the balls to say it.

So you post a study that you agree with and then denigrate the author because he doesn't agree with you... Classic.

Maybe he understands all that sciencey stuff better than you.

[OCA]

So you post a study that you agree with and then denigrate the author because he doesn't agree with you... Classic.

Maybe he understands all that sciencey stuff better than you.

Nah he agrees, like I said just pressured into not saying it is more likely.

Nah, he doesn't understand it better than I.

[fj1200]

And your evidence of this is?

My example of you being dead wrong is , well hell just look at the vote in NC for proof.

Anywhere this issue has been put to the people a ban has passed, is that what you mean by accepting?



Overall, 53 percent of Americans say gay marriage should be legal, steady the past year but up from 36 percent in just 2006. Thirty-nine percent “strongly” support it, while 32 percent are strongly opposed – the first time strong sentiment has tilted positive. Six years ago, by contrast, strong views on the issue were negative by a broad 27-point margin.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/strong-support-for-gay-marriage-now-exceeds-strong-opposition/

It's a matter of time.

[fj1200]

Nah he agrees, like I said just pressured into not saying it is more likely.

Nah, he doesn't understand it better than I.

Yeah, nah, I mean you're argument is overwhelming per usual. :rolleyes:

[OCA]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/strong-support-for-gay-marriage-now-exceeds-strong-opposition/

It's a matter of time.

But damn when it comes time to vote those stats never pan out!:laugh2:

[fj1200]

My example of you being dead wrong is , well hell just look at the vote in NC for proof.

My example of people being idiots when voting on certain issues is Alabama finally getting around to voting down the interracial marriage ban in their state constitution happened 40? years after Loving, 40% voted to keep the ban. :slap:

[OCA]

My example of people being idiots when voting on certain issues is Alabama finally getting around to voting down the interracial marriage ban in their state constitution happened 40? years after Loving, 40% voted to keep the ban. :slap:

When people realize that they are discriminating against an ACTUAL MINORITY they correct the wrong, peopole know this time around they are being hoodwinked and they aren't falling for it.

Your theory holds no water.

[fj1200]

When people realize that they are discriminating against an ACTUAL MINORITY they correct the wrong, peopole know this time around they are being hoodwinked and they aren't falling for it.

Your theory holds no water.

526,000 idiots (http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/12/weekinreview/november-5-11-marry-at-will.html) in Alabama validate my theory.

[OCA]

526,000 idiots (http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/12/weekinreview/november-5-11-marry-at-will.html) in Alabama validate my theory.

And they were idiots because you say so?

And no i'm not advocating what they voted for but I won't denigrate their vote.

[fj1200]

And they were idiots because you say so?

No, because you say so.


When people realize that they are discriminating against an ACTUAL MINORITY they correct the wrong, peopole know this time around they are being hoodwinked and they aren't falling for it.

Your theory holds no water.


And no i'm not advocating what they voted for but I won't denigrate their vote.

You already have.

Your tacit agreement is acknowledged.

[OCA]

No, because you say so.





You already have.

Your tacit agreement is acknowledged.

LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!

I bet your favorite musician is "Muddy Waters".

[fj1200]

LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!

I bet your favorite musician is "Muddy Waters".

Can this "Muddy Waters" identify the flaws in your logic and words?

[OCA]

Can this "Muddy Waters" identify the flaws in your logic and words?

No and neither can you.

[fj1200]

No and neither can you.

See post #348. You claimed people would "correct the wrong." They did no such thing.

[OCA]

See post #348. You claimed people would "correct the wrong." They did no such thing.


You are missing something, they corrected the wrong or are you looking for a unanimous vote?

[fj1200]

You are missing something, they corrected the wrong or are you looking for a unanimous vote?

No. 1% or 40%, they defy your statement.

[OCA]

No. 1% or 40%, they defy your statement.

Again...Muddyin' the waters..thats your specialty.

You'd be a great used car salesman.

[fj1200]

Again...Muddyin' the waters..thats your specialty.

You'd be a great used car salesman.

Whatever. Movin' on. My point has been made.

Actually I think my specialty was identified in #350. ;)

[OCA]

Whatever. Movin' on. My point has been made.

Actually I think my specialty was identified in #350. ;)

Run along little boy, your brand of obfuscation doesn't sell here.

[ConHog]

So far I haven't seen anything beyond "it's icky" and "it's not natural" to explain why people feel gay marriage is wrong.

Sorry folks but we don't get to take away peoples' freedoms for those reasons.

Funniest part is I'm willing to bet that both OCA and Jim dabble in the anal sexes when they can. :lol:

[fj1200]

Run along little boy, your brand of obfuscation doesn't sell here.

:laugh:

[jimnyc]

So far I haven't seen anything beyond "it's icky" and "it's not natural" to explain why people feel gay marriage is wrong.

Sorry folks but we don't get to take away peoples' freedoms for those reasons.

And yet there are TONS of laws currently on the books that are designed to protect society, that do no harm to others, or children. That's 100% contrary to your statement above. The majority of the nation is FOR these laws as well. You can argue this literally forever, because that's about how long society has been protecting society by deeming what is and what is not good for society. You seem to think someone needs to come up with an argument that YOU like. Sorry, they don't.

[OCA]

And yet there are TONS of laws currently on the books that are designed to protect society, that do no harm to others, or children. That's 100% contrary to your statement above. The majority of the nation is FOR these laws as well. You can argue this literally forever, because that's about how long society has been protecting society by deeming what is and what is not good for society. You seem to think someone needs to come up with an argument that YOU like. Sorry, they don't.

Jimmy you are wasting your breath, Connie is like a teenager who will keep arguing and pissing and moaning until he gets the answer he wants. He will turn a blind eye, no, probably not even read evidence, which there has been tons of, that blows holes in his argument...wait, he has an argument?:laugh2:

[jimnyc]

Jimmy you are wasting your breath, Connie is like a teenager who will keep arguing and pissing and moaning until he gets the answer he wants. He will turn a blind eye, no, probably not even read evidence, which there has been tons of, that blows holes in his argument...wait, he has an argument?:laugh2:

Unfortunately, I think "his" argument will reach the SC and they will overturn what is now a 32-0 record when the states vote. And then the gays will have reached societal acceptance that they so badly desire.

Only they won't.

[fj1200]

And yet there are TONS of laws currently on the books that are designed to protect society, that do no harm to others, or children. That's 100% contrary to your statement above. The majority of the nation is FOR these laws as well. You can argue this literally forever, because that's about how long society has been protecting society by deeming what is and what is not good for society. You seem to think someone needs to come up with an argument that YOU like. Sorry, they don't.

But those laws are at least applied equally to all. Your argument though comes down to gay marriage being bad for society which is a long-term no-go IMO as acceptance becomes more the norm.

[gabosaurus]

While we are at it, why not pass a constitutional amendment banning smoking? We could greatly lower our health care costs.
Or else create ghettos for smokers. They would have to stay in smoker's lodging, eat at smoker's restaurants and sit at the back of the bus (so us normal people wouldn't have to smell them). Employers would be free not to hire smokers.
We could even form organizations that went out and torched businesses owned by smokers. Or make it so smokers couldn't talk to the daughters of us normal people. Otherwise, we could legally lynch them.

http://www.tobacco-news.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Addiction-to-smoking.jpg

[jimnyc]

But those laws are at least applied equally to all. Your argument though comes down to gay marriage being bad for society which is a long-term no-go IMO as acceptance becomes more the norm.

I'm sure those who do drugs feel they are discriminated against. I'm sure those who like to sleep with women think prostitution laws are discriminatory against them. I'm sure you see my point... And then we already have quite a few laws/restrictions, as I noted earlier, that already do more or less discriminate - scholarships, age laws for discrimination, age of consent laws... They are of course applied equally, but someone is always going to feel discriminated against.

And no difference with gays. The laws apply equally to every US citizen - but then you have some people who feel it's discriminatory towards them as they do partake in what's being denied. As bad of analogy as it may be, I'm sure pot smokers feel that their past time is discriminatory towards them, even though the law is equal towards all.

And FWIW - I really don't think gay marriage is more of the norm just yet. Sure, people have supported it and people are voting against the bans - but all in all a 32-0 record where people have had the right to vote on the matter sure speaks volumes.

[ConHog]

And yet there are TONS of laws currently on the books that are designed to protect society, that do no harm to others, or children. That's 100% contrary to your statement above. The majority of the nation is FOR these laws as well. You can argue this literally forever, because that's about how long society has been protecting society by deeming what is and what is not good for society. You seem to think someone needs to come up with an argument that YOU like. Sorry, they don't.

Jim, start threads about those laws and I bet I would be against them to. That is my point. I am against ANY law that prohibits freedom, even the freedom to do things I think are yucky.

[jimnyc]

Jim, start threads about those laws and I bet I would be against them to. That is my point. I am against ANY law that prohibits freedom, even the freedom to do things I think are yucky.

No offense, but what YOU personally might be against is not the point. The point is, it's FACT that society has made laws and guidelines to protect society from what it deems "bad". Some people like these and some people like those. But it doesn't change the fact that society can and will make laws and guidelines that are in the best interest of the "people". It's ALWAYS been that way.

[ConHog]

No offense, but what YOU personally might be against is not the point. The point is, it's FACT that society has made laws and guidelines to protect society from what it deems "bad". Some people like these and some people like those. But it doesn't change the fact that society can and will make laws and guidelines that are in the best interest of the "people". It's ALWAYS been that way.

True enough, but when society passes those laws the burden is on US to show why we passed those laws. "It's icky" isn't a valid reason.

[jimnyc]

True enough, but when society passes those laws the burden is on US to show why we passed those laws. "It's icky" isn't a valid reason.

What burdens have they shown for the hundreds of other laws that don't harm anyone? Start with prostitution and marijuana for starters....

Sorry, but there are TONS of things deemed by society to not be good for society - and have pretty much no bearing on anyone but the individual.

[ConHog]

What burdens have they shown for the hundreds of other laws that don't harm anyone? Start with prostitution and marijuana for starters....

Sorry, but there are TONS of things deemed by society to not be good for society - and have pretty much no bearing on anyone but the individual.

As I said, start a thread on those laws you think are unconstitutional and I'd probably agree with you.

[ConHog]

Jimmy you are wasting your breath, Connie is like a teenager who will keep arguing and pissing and moaning until he gets the answer he wants. He will turn a blind eye, no, probably not even read evidence, which there has been tons of, that blows holes in his argument...wait, he has an argument?:laugh2:

Speaking of laughing


http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?35443-What-a-Great-Vacation


Care to enter the thread and comment?

[jimnyc]

As I said, start a thread on those laws you think are unconstitutional and I'd probably agree with you.

Why start a new thread? We're discussing it here, and I'm showing that society hasn't met that burden you speak of on MANY, MANY things, and yet the majority agree with this, myself included on most. And it's just that, I DON'T think these other things are unconstitutional as they had no protections to begin with and the bans/laws don't go against - society just deemed them no good and made laws. For example, drug laws - most don't hurt others, especially marijuana - yet laws were passed - and I don't believe they are unconstitutional - nor do the courts.

[fj1200]

I'm sure those who do drugs feel they are discriminated against. I'm sure those who like to sleep with women think prostitution laws are discriminatory against them. I'm sure you see my point... And then we already have quite a few laws/restrictions, as I noted earlier, that already do more or less discriminate - scholarships, age laws for discrimination, age of consent laws... They are of course applied equally, but someone is always going to feel discriminated against.

And no difference with gays. The laws apply equally to every US citizen - but then you have some people who feel it's discriminatory towards them as they do partake in what's being denied. As bad of analogy as it may be, I'm sure pot smokers feel that their past time is discriminatory towards them, even though the law is equal towards all.

And FWIW - I really don't think gay marriage is more of the norm just yet. Sure, people have supported it and people are voting against the bans - but all in all a 32-0 record where people have had the right to vote on the matter sure speaks volumes.

You're right about that, I misspoke and should have said homosexuality in general, gay marriage is certainly not the norm. But of course the issue is that the laws apply equally from your perspective. Not all agree with that.

[ConHog]

Why start a new thread? We're discussing it here, and I'm showing that society hasn't met that burden you speak of on MANY, MANY things, and yet the majority agree with this, myself included on most. And it's just that, I DON'T think these other things are unconstitutional as they had no protections to begin with and the bans/laws don't go against - society just deemed them no good and made laws. For example, drug laws - most don't hurt others, especially marijuana - yet laws were passed - and I don't believe they are unconstitutional - nor do the courts.

Because if we start discussing drugs or prostitution eventually people will start discussing whether they actually ARE harmful to society and thus muddle this thread up even more. So why not keep THIS thread about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans and have another thread about the constitutionality of making prostitution illegal so each can be discussed properly and in understandable threads?

[Kathianne]

Because if we start discussing drugs or prostitution eventually people will start discussing whether they actually ARE harmful to society and thus muddle this thread up even more. So why not keep THIS thread about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans and have another thread about the constitutionality of making prostitution illegal so each can be discussed properly and in understandable threads?

Well because the constitution and issues are broader and narrower than your pet topics?

[jimnyc]

Because if we start discussing drugs or prostitution eventually people will start discussing whether they actually ARE harmful to society and thus muddle this thread up even more. So why not keep THIS thread about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans and have another thread about the constitutionality of making prostitution illegal so each can be discussed properly and in understandable threads?

I made a very clear reference, regarding THIS topic, as to why certain things have been deemed "no go" by society, even though they don't harm others, or children, and I find them to be constitutional - as do the courts. Demanding over and over that a new thread be created, separating my argument from THIS debate, does nothing, other than allow my debate to disappear. No thanks. Based on YOUR thinking and logic, these other laws should be unconstitutional, or they would need to harm others - and both myself and the courts disagree.

[ConHog]

Well because the constitution and issues are broader and narrower than your pet topics?

no because I'd like to give each topic its own due diligence.

[Nell's Room]

And if that were the case, and they were CHOOSING a certain lifestyle, then there goes the "born this way" bullshit AND then I would stand my ground even more stating they don't deserve jack shit as far as "rights". One doesn't get to choose to go down a certain path in life and then demand rights to meet that choice.

Don't most people choose to go down the 'straight path' of life, though? And they demand rights to meet that choice?

[jimnyc]

Don't most people choose to go down the 'straight path' of life, though? And they demand rights to meet that choice?

I believe it's also a learned behavior of sorts, one that encompasses likely over 90-95%+ of the nation. And the rights were created over a long, long, long time, based on those lifestyles. Then someone skips along many years later, chooses a lifestyle outside of the requirements to be granted such benefits, but then wants the rules changed to meet their choice.

Also like I said earlier, government has created lots of things where there is a 'qualifier' before one qualifies for benefits and/or protection, and IMO, this one is no different - unless the SC states otherwise, then I will respect such a decision, but I won't accept the lifestyle.

[fj1200]

I believe it's also a learned behavior of sorts, one that encompasses likely over 90-95%+ of the nation. And the rights were created over a long, long, long time, based on those lifestyles. Then someone skips along many years later, chooses a lifestyle outside of the requirements to be granted such benefits, but then wants the rules changed to meet their choice.

Also like I said earlier, government has created lots of things where there is a 'qualifier' before one qualifies for benefits and/or protection, and IMO, this one is no different - unless the SC states otherwise, then I will respect such a decision, but I won't accept the lifestyle.

Can we at least agree that they are not Rights? And just because I'm spacing this morning, what are those other qualifiers? Not to rehash anything because I think all arguments have been made. :)

[ConHog]

I believe it's also a learned behavior of sorts, one that encompasses likely over 90-95%+ of the nation. And the rights were created over a long, long, long time, based on those lifestyles. Then someone skips along many years later, chooses a lifestyle outside of the requirements to be granted such benefits, but then wants the rules changed to meet their choice.

Also like I said earlier, government has created lots of things where there is a 'qualifier' before one qualifies for benefits and/or protection, and IMO, this one is no different - unless the SC states otherwise, then I will respect such a decision, but I won't accept the lifestyle.

That's the entire point Jim. No one is saying that if gay marriage is legalized YOU have to accept anything. No skin off your nose if two gay dudes want to be "married", no skin makes it none of your business.

[jimnyc]

Can we at least agree that they are not Rights? And just because I'm spacing this morning, what are those other qualifiers? Not to rehash anything because I think all arguments have been made. :)

Yes, I've been brainwashed by the queers into thinking they were "rights" when they are merely privileges.

And I'm referring to scholarships for blacks, affirmative action, age based discrimination for employment, age of consent laws... <---- All sort of discriminate against others, but it's legal discrimination.

[jimnyc]

That's the entire point Jim. No one is saying that if gay marriage is legalized YOU have to accept anything. No skin off your nose if two gay dudes want to be "married", no skin makes it none of your business.

Sure it's my business, unless the marriage certificate is fake. As a member of society, I feel it's my business to protect society, and that's by not accepting the abnormal as normal, and not extending rights/privileges to people that are outside the scope of what these privileges have been made for. Just because YOU don't have an issue with it doesn't mean you can unilaterally tell others it is none of their business. What affects society as a whole is the business of all of society. Society has a duty, IMO, to protect itself and it's citizens, and to "police" itself for the greater good. It's always been that way, as I've stated many times already. I'll fight for what I think is best for society as a whole until the ultimate law says otherwise. And if that happens, then I'll back off of my arguments, revert to solely protecting my family, and not be accepting of it anyway.

[fj1200]

Yes, I've been brainwashed by the queers into thinking they were "rights" when they are merely privileges.

And I'm referring to scholarships for blacks, affirmative action, age based discrimination for employment, age of consent laws... <---- All sort of discriminate against others, but it's legal discrimination.

Ah, I remember now. Age of consent, drugs, prostitution, etc. are equally applied to all; drug dealers may not appreciate the application of the law but it is consistent. Discrimination, etc. are to correct past wrongs; not sure those are an equal correlation though, might need some thought on that.

[ConHog]

Sure it's my business, unless the marriage certificate is fake. As a member of society, I feel it's my business to protect society, and that's by not accepting the abnormal as normal, and not extending rights/privileges to people that are outside the scope of what these privileges have been made for. Just because YOU don't have an issue with it doesn't mean you can unilaterally tell others it is none of their business. What affects society as a whole is the business of all of society. Society has a duty, IMO, to protect itself and it's citizens, and to "police" itself for the greater good. It's always been that way, as I've stated many times already. I'll fight for what I think is best for society as a whole until the ultimate law says otherwise. And if that happens, then I'll back off of my arguments, revert to solely protecting my family, and not be accepting of it anyway.

You're entire argument is "I am protecting society from gay marriage" fine then, please 30 pages later post ONE way that gay marriage is bad for society.

[jimnyc]

You're entire argument is "I am protecting society from gay marriage" fine then, please 30 pages later post ONE way that gay marriage is bad for society.

I've done so, you just disagree, no point me rehashing it.

[jimnyc]

Ah, I remember now. Age of consent, drugs, prostitution, etc. are equally applied to all; drug dealers may not appreciate the application of the law but it is consistent. Discrimination, etc. are to correct past wrongs; not sure those are an equal correlation though, might need some thought on that.

Prostitution is equally applied to all? Depends on how you look at it, but it would seem to me that the ladies feel discriminated against, when they aren't harming anyone. Just as younger people feel discriminated against both in the workplace and for consent. There are many more similar restrictions as well where one must fit a certain criteria in order to qualify for benefits and such, and sometimes it's easier for some to qualify than others. It all always "seems" equally applied in these examples, until you're being the one "denied" something.

[ConHog]

I've done so, you just disagree, no point me rehashing it.

No you haven't Jim.

For example, if you ask me how is marijuana bad for society, I will point to examples such as the lady who was stoned and left her baby on top of her car as she drove off to point out how MJ affects people other than those who smoke it.

Now I ask you again, how SPECIFICALLY is gay marriage harmful to society.

[fj1200]

Prostitution is equally applied to all? Depends on how you look at it, but it would seem to me that the ladies feel discriminated against, when they aren't harming anyone. Just as younger people feel discriminated against both in the workplace and for consent. There are many more similar restrictions as well where one must fit a certain criteria in order to qualify for benefits and such, and sometimes it's easier for some to qualify than others. It all always "seems" equally applied in these examples, until you're being the one "denied" something.

I really don't follow prostitution laws but I'd say yes. You might have different penalties for Johns versus hookers but the application is likely equal. We may agree on much of the discrimination laws and effects but I don't see gay marriage as being equal. For that I guess you'd have to explain how you are being denied something or how gay marriage would be harmful to society.

[jimnyc]

No you haven't Jim.

For example, if you ask me how is marijuana bad for society, I will point to examples such as the lady who was stoned and left her baby on top of her car as she drove off to point out how MJ affects people other than those who smoke it.

Now I ask you again, how SPECIFICALLY is gay marriage harmful to society.

Yes, I have. You continue to ignore what I say, for 26 pages apparently. It's destructive in all forms unless you're interested in the perversion. Furthermore, we've already discussed "burdens", and you bailed back then and told me to start another thread, remember? Society deems many things 'bad for society', and have subsequent bans/laws, and its not a burden to prove what you're asking. The ONLY way that would be the case would be if they were "due" any type of equal protection, which has never even been established.

[jimnyc]

I really don't follow prostitution laws but I'd say yes. You might have different penalties for Johns versus hookers but the application is likely equal. We may agree on much of the discrimination laws and effects but I don't see gay marriage as being equal. For that I guess you'd have to explain how you are being denied something or how gay marriage would be harmful to society.

I'm speaking of the ladies not being able to enter "the worlds oldest profession", when no one is harmed and it's between consenting adults. And age of discrimination laws in which those under 40 are "discriminated" against themselves without "equal protection" of that law. Age of consent laws - one can get killed in a foreign country at 18 but must be 21 to drink. Discriminatory to one set of persons until they meet certain criteria. Several drug laws, which hurt absolutely no one. Laws against things like paraphernalia, which hurt no one. Laws that allow certain things for minorities, or maybe even promote in fact, but not available to white people. The Feds and States discriminate against certain people and certain groups of people all the time, it's just legal discrimination. The only burden due at this time is on gay people, to show they are being illegally discriminated against, or unconstitutionally, which has not happened yet.

[Nell's Room]

I believe it's also a learned behavior of sorts, one that encompasses likely over 90-95%+ of the nation. And the rights were created over a long, long, long time, based on those lifestyles. Then someone skips along many years later, chooses a lifestyle outside of the requirements to be granted such benefits, but then wants the rules changed to meet their choice.

Also like I said earlier, government has created lots of things where there is a 'qualifier' before one qualifies for benefits and/or protection, and IMO, this one is no different - unless the SC states otherwise, then I will respect such a decision, but I won't accept the lifestyle.

Fair enough, but I shall comment on the last point you make. You say you won't 'accept the lifestyle'. That's fine - but just because you don't accept something, doesn't mean that something should be banned. I don't accept prostitution, for example, but because it doesn't affect me, I don't oppose it.

[Abbey Marie]

Fair enough, but I shall comment on the last point you make. You say you won't 'accept the lifestyle'. That's fine - but just because you don't accept something, doesn't mean that something should be banned. I don't accept prostitution, for example, but because it doesn't affect me, I don't oppose it.

Seems kind of self-centered. What if something causes a lot of suffering to others? No sweat; doesn't affect you?

[Missileman]

Seems kind of self-centered. What if something causes a lot of suffering to others? No sweat; doesn't affect you?

That door swings the other way also. What if something can end the suffering(and yes, suffering may be too strong a word for some cases, but maybe not) of others, doesn't affect you in the slightest, yet you would stand in the way because of your personal feelings on the matter?

[Abbey Marie]

That door swings the other way also. What if something can end the suffering(and yes, suffering may be too strong a word for some cases, but maybe not) of others, doesn't affect you in the slightest, yet you would stand in the way because of your personal feelings on the matter?

I find a big exception to that when it comes to children. While a particular behavior may not affect me, because I am old enough to resist its influence, I cannot say the same for kids. And I still think the bigger issue is why should we not care about something just because it doesn't affect us directly?

[Shadow]

Seems kind of self-centered. What if something causes a lot of suffering to others? No sweat; doesn't affect you?

I agree with you Abbey. Unfortunately I have seen this attitude in others way more that I would have expected in recent years.

[gabosaurus]

Let's go to another point, shall we...

How would your life be negatively affected if gays and lesbians were given the right to marry? Would it cost you money? Would it jeopardize your marriage or relationship with your family? Would it cost you your job?

[ConHog]

Let's go to another point, shall we...

How would your life be negatively affected if gays and lesbians were given the right to marry? Would it cost you money? Would it jeopardize your marriage or relationship with your family? Would it cost you your job?

Irrelevant



IT'S FUCKING ICKY!!!!!!!!!!!!!





:poke:

[gabosaurus]

Nonsense! I know you have secret feelings for Jim.

[ConHog]

Nonsense! I know you have secret feelings for Jim.

If you know then they aren't much of a secret are they?

[Nell's Room]

Seems kind of self-centered. What if something causes a lot of suffering to others? No sweat; doesn't affect you?

How does homosexual marriage cause a lot of suffering to someone else?

[jimnyc]

Let's go to another point, shall we...

How would your life be negatively affected if gays and lesbians were given the right to marry? Would it cost you money? Would it jeopardize your marriage or relationship with your family? Would it cost you your job?

Are all of our laws based on how they personally affect others? Or how it would jeopardize others? Or how it might affect ones job? Nope, they aren't, and there are tons of laws on the books meant to protect society that harm neither the individual or anyone in their lives or any other person for that fact.


Irrelevant



IT'S FUCKING ICKY!!!!!!!!!!!!!





:poke:

Speaking of the broken record. You're so one minded that you look at 27 pages of discussion and that's all you see. But it doesn't matter, EVEN IF society wanted to do so with that being the primary reason, it would still be society protecting itself and it would still be constitutional - AND - it would not be setting precedent, as there are tons of laws already on the books that have done so, that you like to ignore.

Oh, and thanks for making the huge letters and in color, so as to scream out "look at me, I have little class, like to use the word pu*** in front of the ladies and worse, and will make my cussing as huge as possible to show others I bathe in my crassness"

[ConHog]

Are all of our laws based on how they personally affect others? Or how it would jeopardize others? Or how it might affect ones job? Nope, they aren't, and there are tons of laws on the books meant to protect society that harm neither the individual or anyone in their lives or any other person for that fact.



Speaking of the broken record. You're so one minded that you look at 27 pages of discussion and that's all you see. But it doesn't matter, EVEN IF society wanted to do so with that being the primary reason, it would still be society protecting itself and it would still be constitutional - AND - it would not be setting precedent, as there are tons of laws already on the books that have done so, that you like to ignore.

Oh, and thanks for making the huge letters and in color, so as to scream out "look at me, I have little class, like to use the word pu*** in front of the ladies and worse, and will make my cussing as huge as possible to show others I bathe in my crassness"

Oh, you're going to lecture me on being crass? That's rich.

By the way, welcome back from NJ.

[jimnyc]

Oh, you're going to lecture me on being crass? That's rich.

By the way, welcome back from NJ.

Yep, I can be quite nasty when pushed. But the overwhelming majority of times I do so, I realize it and make amends. I don't post like that daily, and even in funny threads. It's not a way of talking for me as a general rule. Additionally, I do not use certain vulgar words out of respect for the women here. Lastly, you like to start those little polls in the Steel Cage, why not start another and ask the ladies here who gives them more respect? I'm betting that even those who I have had knock 'em down brawls and fights with would say that it's me.

YOU make your own stance that "it's fucking icky", and then turn around and try to make it sound as if this is someone's actual argument, when it's not. Oh, and then the fact that you have to make it in huge red letters, to highlight your own incorrect assumptions of others and 'try' and ridicule their positions. In turn, I ridicule you, but the difference is that what I am saying, is true.

[ConHog]

Yep, I can be quite nasty when pushed. But the overwhelming majority of times I do so, I realize it and make amends. I don't post like that daily, and even in funny threads. It's not a way of talking for me as a general rule. Additionally, I do not use certain vulgar words out of respect for the women here. Lastly, you like to start those little polls in the Steel Cage, why not start another and ask the ladies here who gives them more respect? I'm betting that even those who I have had knock 'em down brawls and fights with would say that it's me.

YOU make your own stance that "it's fucking icky", and then turn around and try to make it sound as if this is someone's actual argument, when it's not. Oh, and then the fact that you have to make it in huge red letters, to highlight your own incorrect assumptions of others and 'try' and ridicule their positions. In turn, I ridicule you, but the difference is that what I am saying, is true.

Jim, the topic of this thread aside. I don't appreciate you implying that I disrespect women on here. I do not; and it just Gunnyish of you to use that tactic in a debate. I have the utmost respect for all females on this board , or elsewhere.

I resent the hell out of your accusations. I have a foul mouth, I admit that, but it's just the way I talk it's not disrespecting ANYONE.

[jimnyc]

Jim, the topic of this thread aside. I don't appreciate you implying that I disrespect women on here. I do not; and it just Gunnyish of you to use that tactic in a debate. I have the utmost respect for all females on this board , or elsewhere.

I resent the hell out of your accusations. I have a foul mouth, I admit that, but it's just the way I talk it's not disrespecting ANYONE.

We must disagree then - because I think anyone who uses the pu##y word as many times as you do, is being disrespectful to the ladies. I push the boundaries, but not that way. You don't see a problem with using the P word, which isn't too awfully far from the C word? I don't think the ladies are too too turned off with "boobies" and the "fuck" word, but I don't know many ladies that like to hear the P word or ever use it themselves.

[ConHog]

We must disagree then - because I think anyone who uses the pu##y word as many times as you do, is being disrespectful to the ladies. I push the boundaries, but not that way. You don't see a problem with using the P word, which isn't too awfully far from the C word? I don't think the ladies are too too turned off with "boobies" and the "fuck" word, but I don't know many ladies that like to hear the P word or ever use it themselves.

I guess that's a matter of opinion than. Sort of like I think it's completely disrespectful when you call gays queers. Well, almost anyway the difference is I don't run around calling women pussies, you sure don't mind calling a gay a queer though.

I will gladly and 100% apologize for my language, which no doubt DOES offend people. But you owe me an apology for accusing me of disrespecting women.

[Dilloduck]

We must disagree then - because I think anyone who uses the pu##y word as many times as you do, is being disrespectful to the ladies. I push the boundaries, but not that way. You don't see a problem with using the P word, which isn't too awfully far from the C word? I don't think the ladies are too too turned off with "boobies" and the "fuck" word, but I don't know many ladies that like to hear the P word or ever use it themselves.

Seriously Jim-----do you ever read what the ladies post here ? They're not shrinking violets.

[jimnyc]

I guess that's a matter of opinion than. Sort of like I think it's completely disrespectful when you call gays queers. Well, almost anyway the difference is I don't run around calling women pussies, you sure don't mind calling a gay a queer though.

I will gladly and 100% apologize for my language, which no doubt DOES offend people. But you owe me an apology for accusing me of disrespecting women.

So you think a term that gay people basically applied to themselves, and still rampantly use it to describe themselves today, is somehow similar to the P word which is pretty much considered "vulgar" by anyone and everyone? Do you often use the C word too?

And an apology? Keep dreaming. This is fact, you do use these words, and I think it's disrespectful to women.

[jimnyc]

Seriously Jim-----do you ever read what the ladies post here ? They're not shrinking violets.

Yep, I sure do. I've seen some of them use the term "queer". I've some of them use the term "boobs" or "boobies". I've NEVER seen any of the ladies use the "P" word, and ONE "lady" I know of used the C word for effect bypassing the filter. And I'm an old fashioned kind of guy, and while I love to be respected by women, I was raised and taught to be respectful and mindful of what I say in front or to them. While the times are changing in America, I don't think going out of ones way to avoid such terms in front of the ladies is a lost art just yet.

[ConHog]

So you think a term that gay people basically applied to themselves, and still rampantly use it to describe themselves today, is somehow similar to the P word which is pretty much considered "vulgar" by anyone and everyone? Do you often use the C word too?

And an apology? Keep dreaming. This is fact, you do use these words, and I think it's disrespectful to women.

Of course it's a fact that I use the word. However, I DON'T use it to disrespect anyone (not based on sexuality anyway) I've had women call me a dick, is that based on sexuality as well? No, of course not. And yes, I think you just disrespected me by making such accusations.

[Dilloduck]

Yep, I sure do. I've seen some of them use the term "queer". I've some of them use the term "boobs" or "boobies". I've NEVER seen any of the ladies use the "P" word, and ONE "lady" I know of used the C word for effect bypassing the filter. And I'm an old fashioned kind of guy, and while I love to be respected by women, I was raised and taught to be respectful and mindful of what I say in front or to them. While the times are changing in America, I don't think going out of ones way to avoid such terms in front of the ladies is a lost art just yet.

How about "dicks" and "cocks"? Terms for old fashioned ladies to use?
I think the gals can dish out as much as they take.

[ConHog]

So you think a term that gay people basically applied to themselves, and still rampantly use it to describe themselves today, is somehow similar to the P word which is pretty much considered "vulgar" by anyone and everyone? Do you often use the C word too?

And an apology? Keep dreaming. This is fact, you do use these words, and I think it's disrespectful to women.

No, I think what you is worse Jim. I don't call women pussies. You do call gays queers. That's like saying that saying the word nigger is the same as calling a black person a nigger. It's not the same.

You're picking a fight where none need exist. Especially given that you could make a rule that pussy is no longer allowed and I would abide ( I don't use the word near as often as you imply anyway)

Oh, and another thing, I would suggest that repeatedly asking women for booby pics is at least as disrespectful as using the word pussy is, but you do it all the time.............

[jimnyc]

Of course it's a fact that I use the word. However, I DON'T use it to disrespect anyone (not based on sexuality anyway) I've had women call me a dick, is that based on sexuality as well? No, of course not. And yes, I think you just disrespected me by making such accusations.

You only prove what I say. It's not saying it TO them - it's just repeatedly using the term at all in front of them that is disrespectful. The fact that you don't get that speaks volumes.

[jimnyc]

How about "dicks" and "cocks"? Terms for old fashioned ladies to use?
I think the gals can dish out as much as they take.

I don't think I've ever seen any women use that second word here. But I'll just speak for myself then, "I" try not to ever use the terms in front of the ladies, regardless of what others may do.

[Abbey Marie]

Seriously Jim-----do you ever read what the ladies post here ? They're not shrinking violets.

You must be thinking of that other board. The women here are mostly pretty well spoken. There are always exceptions. I do not think it is a good idea to play to the lowest common denominator in any case.

[ConHog]

You must be thinking of that other board. The women here are mostly pretty well spoken. There are always exceptions. I do not think it is a good idea to play to the lowest common denominator in any case.

Doesn't change the fact that it is a lie that I have ever disrespected a woman, and I don't appreciate Jim's accusations given that he knows what went down at that other board.

[jimnyc]

Doesn't change the fact that it is a lie that I have ever disrespected a woman, and I don't appreciate Jim's accusations given that he knows what went down at that other board.

Maybe in your neck of the woods, but even here in city area it is considered disrespectful to continually speak vulgar words in front of ladies. YOU think this is not disrespectful to women to do so in front of them.

[ConHog]

Maybe in your neck of the woods, but even here in city area it is considered disrespectful to continually speak vulgar words in front of ladies. YOU think this is not disrespectful to women to do so in front of them.

Jim, I've already proven that you have said the same and worse.......

Look everyone Jim is a Democrat, wanting others persecuted for the very behavior he himself participates in..

[fj1200]

I find a big exception to that when it comes to children. While a particular behavior may not affect me, because I am old enough to resist its influence, I cannot say the same for kids. And I still think the bigger issue is why should we not care about something just because it doesn't affect us directly?

Are they being harmed?

[jimnyc]

Jim, I've already proven that you have said the same and worse........

And unlike you, I have acknowledged that it is disrespectful to have done so, and I haven't done it directly to women as you have done. I'm not ignorant to the fact that when I do so, even out of anger, it IS disrespectful to women.

[ConHog]

And unlike you, I have acknowledged that it is disrespectful to have done so, and I haven't done it directly to women as you have done. I'm not ignorant to the fact that when I do so, even out of anger, it IS disrespectful to women.

Bullshit you're just flat lying now. I can find examples where you have directed the words towards women. Bet you can't find an example of me calling a poster a whore though . Note I admit to calling Kath a variation on her name once, that wasn't cool and I apologized . So if apologies make it all better than you can't hold that one against me.

You need to sober up. You're going Gunny here.

[jimnyc]

Bullshit you're just flat lying now. I can find examples where you have directed the words towards women. Bet you can't find an example of me calling a poster a whore though . Note I admit to calling Kath a variation on her name once, that wasn't cool and I apologized . So if apologies make it all better than you can't hold that one against me.

You need to sober up. You're going Gunny here.

Rather than spout your typical nonsense - SHOW ME where I have used the P word directly to a woman on this board. Every example you posted was towards the guys, still not great, but better than directing your language right at a woman.

[ConHog]

Rather than spout your typical nonsense - SHOW ME where I have used the P word directly to a woman on this board. Every example you posted was towards the guys, still not great, but better than directing your language right at a woman.

I'm done discussing this with you Jim. You're being a hypocrite, end of story.

[jimnyc]

I'm done discussing this with you Jim. You're being a hypocrite, end of story.

Oh, the beginning of when someone knows they're going down the wrong avenue. And I'm not a hypocrite. ONE of us acknowledges they have said bad things. ONE of us acknowledges that it's disrespectful towards women. ONE of us truly thinks it's normal to talk like that with women. That ONE, is not me.

[ConHog]

Oh, the beginning of when someone knows they're going down the wrong avenue. And I'm not a hypocrite. ONE of us acknowledges they have said bad things. ONE of us acknowledges that it's disrespectful towards women. ONE of us truly thinks it's normal to talk like that with women. That ONE, is not me.

So your argument boils down to "hey its all good as long as you admit it was wrong to say?"

LOL

[jimnyc]

So your argument boils down to "hey its all good as long as you admit it was wrong to say?"

LOL

Mostly boils down to one guy who talks vulgar to and in front of ladies and thinks it's acceptable and no disrespect involved. Admitting it was wrong doesn't absolve one of their actions, but it helps when others know it's out of the norm for that person. No need for that with you though as you think it's perfectly acceptable to talk the vulgarity with women. It's not out of the norm for you, just typical behavior that you defend.

[ConHog]

Mostly boils down to one guy who talks vulgar to and in front of ladies and thinks it's acceptable and no disrespect involved. Admitting it was wrong doesn't absolve one of their actions, but it helps when others know it's out of the norm for that person. No need for that with you though as you think it's perfectly acceptable to talk the vulgarity with women. It's not out of the norm for you, just typical behavior that you defend.

Jim, let's just cut the bullshit.

You will talk to any woman any way you want if you don't like her or if she makes you mad. You've called WS every name in the book; as an example including a 2 dollar whore. You did later apologize; just as I apologized when I called Kath a variation of her name. Does that make it any less respectful? Of course it doesn't; BUT you know what; in a way it IS showing them respect; it's saying "hey you're equal to one of the guys and so I will talk to you in the same manner"

Now, if you want certain words left off the board completely, pass a fucking rule and I'll abide by that rule, you know I will. But just to come out of the blue and say "hey it's wrong when YOU say words that I use myself when I'm mad" doesn't cut it with me.

Oh, and using foul language IN posts whether than directed AT certain posters is not the same thing anyway. 99% of my cursing is not directed at any person. IOW I may say "it's fucking icky" in a post, but i rarely post "fuck you" to a poster. IMHO one is disrespectful , the other is not.

I recognize that it is an opinion, you should do the same.

[OCA]

BUT you know what; in a way it IS showing them respect; it's saying "hey you're equal to one of the guys and so I will talk to you in the same manner"



Where the hell is the shaking your head in disbelief and amazement smiley?

[ConHog]

Where the hell is the shaking your head in disbelief and amazement smiley?


That's a fact OCA . If I'm willing to say "OCA you're out of your fucking mind" why wouldn't I also be willing to say "Shadow you're out of your fucking mind" just as an example? Shadow is not some delicate little flower who needs to be protected from foul language.

[OCA]

That's a fact OCA . If I'm willing to say "OCA you're out of your fucking mind" why wouldn't I also be willing to say "Shadow you're out of your fucking mind" just as an example? Shadow is not some delicate little flower who needs to be protected from foul language.

I guess chivalry is dead in the South, eh?

Oh btw...that poll is 2-0, not looking good for ya.

[ConHog]

I guess chivalry is dead in the South, eh?

Oh btw...that poll is 2-0, not looking good for ya.

yeah and I bet 2 women voted...............

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I guess chivalry is dead in the South, eh?

Oh btw...that poll is 2-0, not looking good for ya.

Make it 3-0 because I disagree with Conhog on this.
He defends his blithering comments like crack addicts defend their drug habit.
Conhog straighten up dude, no spin will work on this one.. -Tyr

[OCA]

yeah and I bet 2 women voted...............

I didn't vote.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I didn't vote.

My bad, I had only read this last page and saw the discussion between Jimmy and Conhog about using foul language directly about and to women here. My reply was against Conhog's stand that it shows respect to the woman to speak that way. When you stated 2-0 I mistakenly thought you were speaking of that and had indicated that you and Jimmy thought /voted 2-0 against the little boy wonder's stand.--Tyr

[fj1200]

Can someone show me where individuals who choose the homosexual lifestyle are at birth denied any rights guaranteed by the 14th amendment?

Can we all agree it was in the 14th the whole time? :poke:

[OCA]

Now we are dredging up old threads? Somebody needs prep h.

#winning

[fj1200]

Now we are dredging up old threads? Somebody needs prep h.

#winning

:laugh: Not dredging, just happened to notice it under the who's online tab.

[hjmick]

Now we are dredging up old threads? Somebody needs prep h.

#winning


Apparently fj missed the thread discussing your change of political heart...


I imagine that the OP does not represent your current position...

[OCA]

Apparently fj missed the thread discussing your change of political heart...


I imagine that the OP does not represent your current position...

My current position is while i don't condone i also don't think it's government business to legislate it.

[fj1200]

Apparently fj missed the thread discussing your change of political heart...


I imagine that the OP does not represent your current position...

I recall the change but I don't recall the why. I was just having some fun. :)