Boycott of Iowa

[ClydeR]

At church this morning we discussed how to punish Iowa for ruining the marriages of Iowa's normal citizens. At first we thought about boycotting corn, but that seemed impractical. In lieu of the corn boycott, we settled on a three-pronged approach that will send a clear message. We're going to boycott Iowa as a vacation destination, stop spending Iowa quarters or accepting them as change, and boycott all movies starring either Elijah Wood or Ashton Kutcher, who are the most famous people from Iowa.

It's high time everybody stands up puts a stop to this.

[radamanthys]

That's so gay.

[Paradii]

Didn't the world already start boycotting movies with Ashton Kutcher like seven years ago?

[Jahira]

Read the ruling the Iowa Supreme Court handed down. It was very well written and even the most conservative of people must agree that its rationale is sound.

Get off your religious high horse and respect people.

[kookiegod]

You serious???

Your church discussed this???

You racist bastard. (credit: Achmed the Dead Terrorist)

Whatever two (or more) people (of either sex) want to do in the privacy of their home, who gives two clams about it?

Heck, I've gotten into church, been going to bible study, and I am far (REALLY FAR) from being perfect (Ok, lets go really far, I ain't anywhere near close and I'm gonna be me and I'll violate a whole ton of the scriptures)...

But who are you to judge what people do?

Let he without sin cast the first stone...


~Paul

[Gan]

iowa quarters... LOL

[Jorddyn]

I know ClydeR isn't serious, but I've gotten several facebook notifications from relatives who wrote something similarly bigoted, while knowing that not only do we have an openly gay family member, we have an aunt who was taken care of in her final years by an openly gay couple. The hate makes me sick.

[Drunken Durfin]

I don't see what the big effing deal is.

On a related note, if anyone is planning on coming to Des Moines and get hitched drop me a PM. I can set you up with a great wedding photographer.

~ Durfin
Iowa Resident.

[Tea & Strumpets]

I know ClydeR isn't serious,

You are just saying that for insurance in case it turns out ClydeR isn't real. You think he's real even though he said that his church had an open discussion about not watching Ashton Kutcher movies as a form of protest.

Also I am going to anonymous negative rep Kookiegod for asking if ClydeR was serious (don't tell him it was me).

[Clove]

I love how ClydeR mocks the concept of boycotting. There's something deliciously funny about it. It's as if to insinuate that these ultra-conservative fundamentalist viewpoints are so fringe that organized public expressions of disapproval by them is ridiculous and futile; but then, why bother parodying them at all?

[Celephais]

I don't see what the big effing deal is.

On a related note, if anyone is planning on coming to Des Moines and get hitched drop me a PM. I can set you up with a great wedding photographer.

~ Durfin
Iowa Resident.
Speaking of... I know a great wedding photographer in CT if anyone comes this way for said reason... oh and if you're hot lezzers you're welcome to use my bedroom as a bridal suite.

[Danical]

I love how ClydeR mocks the concept of boycotting. There's something deliciously funny about it. It's as if to insinuate that these ultra-conservative fundamentalist viewpoints are so fringe that expressions organized publicly disapproval by them is ridiculous and futile; but then, why bother parodying them at all?


He does it for the lulz.

[radamanthys]

I love how ClydeR mocks the concept of boycotting. There's something deliciously funny about it. It's as if to insinuate that these ultra-conservative fundamentalist viewpoints are so fringe that expressions organized publicly disapproval by them is ridiculous and futile; but then, why bother parodying them at all?

Because as 'fringe' as they seem, they've been our lawmakers for a while. Which is really really sad.

[diethx]

iowa quarters... LOL

:yeahthat:

This was definitely one of the funnier ClydeR submissions. I still don't understand why people still respond to him like he's real, though (not in this thread, but all the rest lately it seems).

[Tisket]

None of you are real to me.

[Jayvn]

THAT'S FUCKING HILARIOUS..... your church is so fucking insane..they boycotted a state? a mother fucking state... who the FUCK vacations in IOWA to begin with?.... dude... you should take like 10 feet back and watch your church.... except this time don't drink the special kool aid.

[radamanthys]

:yeahthat:

This was definitely one of the funnier ClydeR submissions. I still don't understand why people still respond to him like he's real, though (not in this thread, but all the rest lately it seems).

Because as crazy as his posts seem, there is a significant portion of the population who subscribes to his belief system. It's not necessarily HIM that we respond to, but the entire represented subculture.

[Clove]

Because as 'fringe' as they seem, they've been our lawmakers for a while. Which is really really sad.I think you meant "they've been among" our lawmakers. I challenge you to prove that attitudes similar to ClydeR's are representative of our lawmakers (even conservative ones).

I realize he does it for the lulz but telling the same joke over and over again just isn't funny (despite my original comment). It's just old now and it would be fine if he posted a new thread once a month or once a week, but she's just gunking up the politics folder at this point.

[Clove]

Because as crazy as his posts seem, there is a significant portion of the population who subscribes to his belief system. It's not necessarily HIM that we respond to, but the entire represented subculture.That's the beauty (and horror) of the freedom to think and express anything you believe. Fortunately a more significant portion of the population subscribes to more moderate, reasonable beliefs.

As for responding to "them" be serious; do you really think there are many (if at all) genuine "ClydeR's" participating in the PC politics folder? This just us saying, "those people are fucked-up" to each other; we're not actually engaged in real argument or debate. Now if you were posting on some hard-core conservative fundamentalist board you might be responding to that "subculture". This is just a waste of text preaching to the converted.

[Tsa`ah]

It's got to suck being a right wing nut job in Iowa right now. A unanimous ruling by the state's supreme court ... an appointment/election based body.

All morning it's been "activist judges" from the right.

[ElvenFury]

It's just old now and it would be fine if he posted a new thread once a month or once a week, but she's just gunking up the politics folder at this point.

Then start a boycott of ClydeR threads. If no one responded to his threads, he'd eventually get bored and move on.

[g++]

Then start a boycott of ClydeR threads. If no one responded to his threads, he'd eventually get bored and move on.

SUP DAWG WE HEARD YOU LIKE BOYCOTTS SO WE BOYCOTTED YOUR BOYCOTT SO YOU CAN BOYCOTT WHILE YOU BOYCOTT

[Stanley Burrell]

SUP DAWG WE HEARD YOU LIKE BOYCOTTS SO WE BOYCOTTED YOUR BOYCOTT SO YOU CAN BOYCOTT WHILE YOU BOYCOTT

Tru dat.

I throw up the "C" for Cedar Rapids. Holler.

[ClydeR]

As for responding to "them" be serious; do you really think there are many (if at all) genuine "ClydeR's" participating in the PC politics folder?

No, that's your big mistake. As Glenn Beck eloquently said, we surround you (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKKUfmFL3Cs). You may not see the silent majority of Christians that protect you and this country, but we are there.

[holocene]

Glenn Beck "eloquent"?

If I wasn't certain before, now I am: ClydeR is simply being provocative...

[Clove]

SUP DAWG WE HEARD YOU LIKE BOYCOTTS SO WE BOYCOTTED YOUR BOYCOTT SO YOU CAN BOYCOTT WHILE YOU BOYCOTTDammit, I couldn't rep you- I gotta get on that :(.

[Clove]

No, that's your big mistake. As Glenn Beck eloquently said, we surround you (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKKUfmFL3Cs). You may not see the silent majority of Christians that protect you and this country, but we are there.As long as you stay silent...

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

SUP DAWG WE HEARD YOU LIKE BOYCOTTS SO WE BOYCOTTED YOUR BOYCOTT SO YOU CAN BOYCOTT WHILE YOU BOYCOTT

:rofl:

[Keller]

That's the beauty (and horror) of the freedom to think and express anything you believe. Fortunately a more significant portion of the population subscribes to more moderate, reasonable beliefs.

As for responding to "them" be serious; do you really think there are many (if at all) genuine "ClydeR's" participating in the PC politics folder? This just us saying, "those people are fucked-up" to each other; we're not actually engaged in real argument or debate. Now if you were posting on some hard-core conservative fundamentalist board you might be responding to that "subculture". This is just a waste of text preaching to the converted.

We should invade their forums and have a competition to see who can rile them up the most.

[radamanthys]

We should invade their forums and have a competition to see who can rile them up the most.

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/resources/2008/03/chadrickgayjesus.jpg

[Drunken Durfin]

Any "Christian" who makes this issue a higher priority than poverty, hunger and war needs to re-read the parts in red.

[Methais]

We're going to boycott Iowa as a vacation destination

FUCK there goes my exotic summer vacation plans. :(

Basically the "duty" of Christians is to inform others about God, Jesus, try to show them the "way", etc. It's not their job to impose their will on others who don't agree. If you tell a gay dude banging other dudes is wrong and why the bible says it's wrong, and he keeps banging dudes anyway, you've done your "job" and are not obligated to be up the guy's ass (pun intended) about it trying to force him to stop being gay.

With that said, hot lesbians are awesome and dudes banging dudes is gross.

[Daniel]

We should invade their forums and have a competition to see who can rile them up the most.

This is a fucking brilliant idea. Who knows where to start?

[Methais]

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/resources/2008/03/chadrickgayjesus.jpg

That guy's shirt is ridiculously appropriate.

How long has Jesus had nipple rings for anyway?

And since the search function seems broken right now, I'm posting this here cause I'm too lazy to find the funny picture thread without a search:
http://www.motifake.com/demotivational-poster/0812/-demotivational-poster-1229640909.jpg

[radamanthys]

Haha, instead of facepalmed, she got facebellied.

[ClydeR]

Glenn Beck "eloquent"?

You're falling for the groupthink that afflicts so many in this forum. Beck's teevee program is the third most watched on cable news. The first is O'Reilly and the second is Hannity. If you think the opinions expressed in this forum are representative of the whole nation, then you are completely out of touch with reality.

[Warriorbird]

That's right! That's why we have an rightwing evangelical president!

[Ravenstorm]

I think you meant "they've been among" our lawmakers. I challenge you to prove that attitudes similar to ClydeR's are representative of our lawmakers (even conservative ones).

Just google:

Michelle Bachman
Sally Kern
Chris Buttars

All elected officials.

[holocene]

You're falling for the groupthink that afflicts so many in this forum. Beck's teevee program is the third most watched on cable news. The first is O'Reilly and the second is Hannity. If you think the opinions expressed in this forum are representative of the whole nation, then you are completely out of touch with reality.

Nah. I've seen Beck cry...and curse the 9/11 families. He may get ratings, but that man is a fraud.

[Jorddyn]

Basically the "duty" of Christians is to inform others about God, Jesus, try to show them the "way", etc. It's not their job to impose their will on others who don't agree. If you tell a gay dude banging other dudes is wrong and why the bible says it's wrong, and he keeps banging dudes anyway, you've done your "job" and are not obligated to be up the guy's ass (pun intended) about it trying to force him to stop being gay.


This is where those of us who don't care what others do run in to trouble.

Xtian: Homosexuality is a sin! It's against nature! This is so sad for our country!
Me: It is sad that we're so bigoted.
Xtian: Help! I'm being opressed!

[Methais]

This is where those of us who don't care what others do run in to trouble.

Xtian: Homosexuality is a sin! It's against nature! This is so sad for our country!
Me: It is sad that we're so bigoted.
Xtian: Help! I'm being opressed!

You forgot to respond to the important part of my post:


With that said, hot lesbians are awesome and dudes banging dudes is gross.

[radamanthys]

ClydeR's right. The demographic represented on these forums is most certainly not that of the rest of the country.

It's not even a matter of education. Hell, my dad has o'rly and Glen Beck on the DVR daily, and he's got a PhD.

It's an overwhelmingly christian nation. However, the point of its foundation was to prevent a single ideology from villianizing anyone based upon their beliefs (or lack thereof). Which is why I think that any lawmaker who pushes a christian (or any such) agenda should be given the "passion" treatment. I would feel the same if an atheist majority attempted to oust religion entirely.


Basically, the country is filled with a bunch of fuckwits. I'm sick of them breathing my air.

[Tisket]

I realize he does it for the lulz but telling the same joke over and over again just isn't funny (despite my original comment). It's just old now and it would be fine if he posted a new thread once a month or once a week, but she's just gunking up the politics folder at this point.

If I, or anyone else actually, didn't respond to things that were obviously intentionally inflammatory there'd be about three posts in the Politics folder.

[ElanthianSiren]

Maybe we should encourage this of the RR for each and every state that decides that legislating lifestyle and morality based on religion isn't the best idea ever.

Welcome to the Pious Country of Utah, formerly a USA affiliate.

[holocene]

Oh noes!!!! ClydeR is going to have to boycott Vermont, too!

Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override (AP)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090407/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_vermont_3

Where's he going to buy his maple syrup now - from socialisti Canada?

[Jorddyn]

Bunch of copycats. They're just trying to get in on our gay wedding industry.

[Clove]

If I, or anyone else actually, didn't respond to things that were obviously intentionally inflammatory there'd be about three posts in the Politics folder.That's why chicks should keep in the kitchen and STFU... (Just doing my part for content).

[ClydeR]

Oh noes!!!! ClydeR is going to have to boycott Vermont, too!

Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override (AP)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090407/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_vermont_3

Where's he going to buy his maple syrup now - from socialisti Canada?

Thank you for posting about that. It looks like they overrode the Vermont governor's veto by a single vote.

I don't know if we will boycott Vermont. There's not much there to boycott. Maple syrup I guess. Crazy people are already boycotting their teddy bears because of the "crazy" Vermont Teddy Bear. If we do boycott, I'll write about it here to let everybody know.

This is a disturbing trend. But I think the California Supreme Court will reverse the trend in a few weeks.

[holocene]

Thank you for posting about that. It looks like they overrode the Vermont governor's veto by a single vote.



Sure...if by a single vote you mean by 100 for overriding vs. 49 against.

[Fallen]

Does anyone believe any of the states who had their laws reversed will attempt to pass an amendment? Does anyone think they might actually succeed?

[holocene]

In California, Prop 8 is going down, but I not sure when the counter-prop will be put on the ballot. Ever since it was found that Utah/Nevada (read: Mormon) money was behind the pro-8 movement, public opinion has shifted against it.

Most Californians are embarassed by the current situation.

[ClydeR]

Does anyone believe any of the states who had their laws reversed will attempt to pass an amendment? Does anyone think they might actually succeed?

Vermont will not because the people who live there are so liberal. Iowa might. It's not easy to amend the Iowa constitution. It takes a vote of the legislature in two consecutive sessions followed by a popular vote by the people. The Democrats who control Iowa's legislature have already said (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=7277498) they will not allow a vote this year.

What state goes first in the Republican presidential primaries and, therefore, has outsized influence over the selection of the Republican nominee? Did you say Iowa? If so, you're right. This issue will weigh heavily in the 2012 Iowa Republican primary, where you can be sure that Iowa Republicans will want a president who will take action if their state legislature will not. Republican candidates visiting Iowa will make promises that will stick with them for the rest of the election.

[Fallen]

Vermont will not because the people who live there are so liberal. Iowa might. It's not easy to amend the Iowa constitution. It takes a vote of the legislature in two consecutive sessions followed by a popular vote by the people. The Democrats who control Iowa's legislature have already said (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=7277498) they will not allow a vote this year.

What state goes first in the Republican presidential primaries and, therefore, has outsized influence over the selection of the Republican nominee? Did you say Iowa? If so, you're right. This issue will weigh heavily in the 2012 Iowa Republican primary, where you can be sure that Iowa Republicans will want a president who will take action if their state legislature will not. Republican candidates visiting Iowa will make promises that will stick with them for the rest of the election.

Is it scary that this post could plausibly be attributed to a "normal" religious Republican?

[ClydeR]

Most Californians are embarassed by the current situation.

Most Californians voted for the current situation. Can you point to any polls or other objective information that says they have changed their minds?

California supreme court judges know that if they vote to override the constitutional amendment, then they will face a recall vote. That's why they will uphold the constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage.

[Fallen]

...Wait, judges can override an amendment?

[ClydeR]

...Wait, judges can override an amendment?

In 2000, Californians voted to change their state law to clarify that marriage could only be between a man and a woman.

In 2008, the California Supreme Court said the California law, as enacted in the 2000 vote, violated the California constitution, and the court ordered the state to allow homosexual "marriages."

Later in 2008, Californians voted to amend the state constitution to clarify, once and for all, that marriage could only be between a man and a woman.

This year, the California supreme court is considering if the amendment procedure in 2008 was proper. There are two ways to amend the California constitution. One way requires the legislature to approve the amendment followed by a popular vote. The other way, which was used in 2008, requires only a popular vote. The issue before the court is if the amendment in 2008 used the wrong procedure. The court should decide soon. If they decide wrong, then there will be an effort to recall the judges, who otherwise have a secure job as long as they want it.

[Parkbandit]

Can't the people of Iowa simply vote on something like California did.. basically that Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman?

[Parkbandit]

So.. even though the majority of the people of Iowa don't want it (http://www.marriagedebate.com/2009/04/iowa-polls-on-gay-marriage.htm).. they are forced to have it because of 7 judges?

[ClydeR]

If parts of the constitution contradict each other, yes--the legal argument goes. As in--an anti-gay marriage amendment violates the pre-existing equal rights amendment, and is therefore invalid.

Nobody thinks that's a good argument. If two parts conflict, then the most recently enacted part controls.


Or--as Clyde says, the other legal argument is that it counts as a "revision" (requiring a 60% margin) rather than a simple "amendment" requiring 50%, and that Prop 8 was procedurally invalid and must be done over to the new standard.

I didn't say that exactly. The "revision" procedure requires a 2/3 vote of both houses of the California legislature followed by a majority vote of the people. The "amendment" procedure, which was used in 2008, skips the legislature and just requires a majority vote of the people. You can't tell from reading (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_18) the California constitution when you have to use which procedure. The experts on California law say that the revision procedure is used for big changes, and the amendment procedure is used for everything else.


Likewise, the US Supreme Court can also invalidate the amendments of state constitutions--the SCOTUS invalidated one of Colorado's a few years ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans).

I agree that the homosexual "marriage" issue will ultimate be decided by the US Supreme Court. So far, homosexual groups are doing everything possible to keep cases from going to the US Supreme Court, where they know they would lose based on the current membership of the court.

[ClydeR]

Can't the people of Iowa simply vote on something like California did.. basically that Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman?

No, they can't. The Iowa legislature must initiate all state constitutional amendments. Once every ten years, Iowans vote on calling a state constitutional convention to rewrite their whole constitution. The next convention vote will be on the 2010 ballot. Most people are reluctant to call a convention because you never know what sorts of crazy things will get put in your constitution, and there's no guarantee that the delegates to the constitutional convention would consider marriage or what they would think about it, since the legislature decides how the delegates are chosen. But this time there's a good possibility that Iowans will call a convention and get to vote on marriage in that way. If Iowans call a convention in 2010, the earliest they would then get to vote on their new constitution would be in 2011, assuming the convention actually writes a new constitution in time for a 2011 vote.

[Warriorbird]

So.. even though the majority of the people of Iowa don't want it (http://www.marriagedebate.com/2009/04/iowa-polls-on-gay-marriage.htm).. they are forced to have it because of 7 judges?

Majorities have stood against a lot of court decisions... some questionable, some not so quesionable.

[Drunken Durfin]

So.. even though the majority of the people of Iowa don't want it (http://www.marriagedebate.com/2009/04/iowa-polls-on-gay-marriage.htm).. they are forced to have it because of 7 judges?

I have not been following it closely, but apparently there is some vote going on and if the people vote it down the soonest it can be reversed is 2012.

[Parkbandit]

How many gays were actually "beaten to death" because they didn't hide in a closet.. compared to just other beatings that had nothing to do with being gay?

Just wondering..since most of your posts on the gay subject sound rather.. flamboyant, embellished and full of hyperbole?

[Mabus]

Same sex couples should have the same right to be miserable that opposite sex couples have. ;)

My opinion:
Get government the hell out of all marriages.

Let the government officials only decide the legality of contracts. Let them license civil unions, for both same-sex and opposite sex couples, and then let the couple decide which non-governmental social organization they want to do their little ceremony (as long as that social organization agrees with the ceremony).

It is such a non-issue. Who cares who someone decides to spend their life with?

Gays should have the same property rights, hospital visitation rights and other rights as straights.

I voted against the ban in Ohio, but I was on the losing side. I applaud each victory toward the liberty of those being oppressed.

[radamanthys]

I wonder, to the anti-gay marriage people out there:

Option 1: Is the issue the government forcing the church to accept someone that is deemed unacceptable? (The bible defines marriage as between a man and a woman- how dare anyone say differently!)

Option 2: Or, is the argument against gays in general? (The bible says it's a sin, so stop buggering your lover right now! No gay rights! Make life difficult for gays and they'll stop!)


The solution to both are easy. If it's number 1, then mabus' idea is correct. The government has no business interfering in religion. No more marriage licenses. Everything is a civil union. Then the church can go ahead and marry whoever the hell they want.

If it's the second argument... well... I know someone who sells white sheets and gasoline-soaked crosses at a discount.

[Keller]

Is there anyone on this forum who opposes gay marriage?

[Gan]

How many gays were actually "beaten to death" because they didn't hide in a closet.. compared to just other beatings that had nothing to do with being gay?

Just wondering..since most of your posts on the gay subject sound rather.. flamboyant, embellished and full of hyperbole?

Insert SouthPark "Trapped in the closet" episode here.

[ClydeR]

Tuesday, April 7, 2009; 3:23 PM

The D.C. Council voted today to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, on the same day that Vermont became the fourth state to legalize same-sex unions.

More... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/07/AR2009040702200.html")

This is getting out of hand. We need a national constitutional amendment like President Bush said.

[holocene]

Most Californians voted for the current situation. Can you point to any polls or other objective information that says they have changed their minds?



In last November’s election voters approved Proposition 8 by a 52% to 48% margin, limiting marriage in California to opposite sex couples.

...

The latest statewide Field Poll conducted February 20 – March 1 again updated this time-series, ... If a new constitutional amendment about same-sex marriage qualified for the ballot, 48% of the state’s registered voters say they would vote Yes to permit such marriages, 47% would vote No to oppose them and 5% are undecided.


source:

http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2301.pdf

[Fallen]

I don't like the idea that the majority of people in a state NOT getting their way, despite passing amendments and such. I couldn't give a shit about gay people marrying each other. I just want the will of the MAJORITY of the people to be done.

[diethx]

I just want the will of the MAJORITY of the people to be done.

I don't believe the majority of people have a right to say who can and can't get married. Mind their own fucking business, I say. A person is a person is a person, and we all deserve equal rights.

[radamanthys]

Apparently, people didn't understand how the voting in california worked.

By voting no to the amendment, they were voting yes to gays, etc. It was dissonant. Or something like that.

[Warriorbird]

I don't like the idea that the majority of people in a state NOT getting their way, despite passing amendments and such. I couldn't give a shit about gay people marrying each other. I just want the will of the MAJORITY of the people to be done.

The Civil War, Massive Resistance to Segregation, The Japanese American Internment Camps....we don't always want to go with the majority...

[Fallen]

Eh, sounds like quite a lot of, "It's for your own good.", arguments could be grown from ignoring the will of the people.

1. Ban smoking
2. Seat Belt laws made into a federal law (if it isn't already)
3. Ban MSG
4. Ban Drinking
5. Ban Guns
6. Ban Red Meat

etc etc

[Drisco]

I love how all these church goers try to stand behind the bible and quote the no homo verse. Anyone who has ever studied the bible and how it is translated knows that it is a massive false hood taken out of pretenses.

[Warriorbird]

And there's nothing against lesbians at all.

[Parkbandit]

And there's nothing against lesbians at all.

That's because 2 hot women exploring each other is natural and beautiful.

Dudes banging each other up the ass is gross and should be banned.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Eh, sounds like quite a lot of, "It's for your own good.", arguments could be grown from ignoring the will of the people.


I tend to feel that while the majority should decide the issues that are relevant/need to be decided, the minority should get an equal say.

[Warriorbird]

Eh, sounds like quite a lot of, "It's for your own good.", arguments could be grown from ignoring the will of the people.

1. Ban smoking
2. Seat Belt laws made into a federal law (if it isn't already)
3. Ban MSG
4. Ban Drinking
5. Ban Guns
6. Ban Red Meat

etc etc

Those are totally NOT similar to the examples I cited.

[radamanthys]

That's what the bicameral legislature was supposed to accomplish; the house of representatives was supposed to represent individual regional demographics. This was before urbanization, though. Today, with the population at this level, it's impossible.

Bottom line is: this is the land of the free, or did people forget that? If it doesn't actively infringe upon the rights of others it shouldn't be limited. That's what freedom is all about. The greater good be damned. If we were to legislate for the greater good, we'd kill the retarted, we'd kill the unemployable. Any population center that grew too far above capacity would be culled. This is not a greater good system. This is a system of basic freedom. It's not fair, it's not orderly. Fuck order, fuck equality. It's about freedom. Not the freedom of one group to subjugate another. That'd be gassing the Kurds. What's the difference?

[Back]

The way things are going ClydeR is eventually going to have to ban America. At the rate things are going around the world he’s going to have to move to a third world country or Vatican City.

[radamanthys]

At the rate things are going, we will be third world.

Edit after WB posted. (This is a bit hyperbolized.) I forget that inflection doesn't work.

[Warriorbird]

No. We are going to have to reassess a bunch of things, however.

[Tisket]

I love how all these church goers try to stand behind the bible and quote the no homo verse. Anyone who has ever studied the bible and how it is translated knows that it is a massive false hood taken out of pretenses.

I've got to say it amuses and dismays me when people speak in favor of gay rights by condemning religion. There's a good number of moderates and liberals who still have deeply held religious beliefs (even while supporting gay rights!) and maybe insulting their faith isn't the best way to keep them on your side.

edit: this isn't so much directed at Drisco as a general rant and pet peeve of mine.

[Ravenstorm]

There are many religions that have no problem with same-sex marriage as well. The UCC for one. The MCC. The Old Catholic Church. Many Episcopalian branches (and soon, I expect, the entire church). Then of course there's Reform Judaism and just about every pagan religion.

All these religions are quite willing to perform legal, same sex marriage ceremonies. Laws banning it infringe on their religious freedom.

[Drisco]

I've got to say it amuses and dismays me when people speak in favor of gay rights by condemning religion. There's a good number of moderates and liberals who still have deeply held religious beliefs (even while supporting gay rights!) and maybe insulting their faith isn't the best way to keep them on your side.

edit: this isn't so much directed at Drisco as a general rant and pet peeve of mine.

I'm not insulting their religion by any mean. I'm simply stating they don't understand it fully, or are going on what the priest or pastor tells them and not doing their own homework.

The bible was originally written in Hebrew and translated into English. There is a fine line of the translation and those who translated it were "Wrong". What the passage actually is talking about is male prostitution in the pagan temple. Because men dressed up in gowns and prostitute during a certain time. The Hebrew words.... I uno what they are off hand but they are clearly (Or I guess maybe not...) talking about the prostitution in the pagan churches. In the previous passages the same Hebrew words were used to explain the prostitution in the churches. But when used in the the quoting in Homosexuality it was changed into a whole different meaning which is wrong.

This is just what I remember of the research done awhile ago. Don't quote me because it was a good year ago that I did this.

[radamanthys]

I've got to say it amuses and dismays me when people speak in favor of gay rights by condemning religion. There's a good number of moderates and liberals who still have deeply held religious beliefs (even while supporting gay rights!) and maybe insulting their faith isn't the best way to keep them on your side.

edit: this isn't so much directed at Drisco as a general rant and pet peeve of mine.

I condemn religious people pushing their values when enthroned in positions of power. And I disagree with many of their assumptions. Does that count as amusing and dismaying?

I don't really have a vested interest in the Gay community. I just don't care what people do between their sheets- it's up to them. I have no reason nor wish to advocate upon that ideal solely.

I do however, have a vested interest in keeping the passive-aggressive near-authoritarian views of the church out of the government. In this circumstance, those two happen to merge.

Problem here is, every argument on this topic is the same:
Gay: "We want to get married and have the same governmental benefits that all couples share."

Anti-gay: "No. The bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman."

Gay or anti-christian advocate: "The bible is [silly/stupid/fake/good for rolling joints]"

Gay and Christian: "We're being discriminated against! Feel bad for us!"

*shrug* It's worse than the goddamned sorc folder.


Just make the semantic change to Civil Union. That way, government isn't discriminating against anyone, and the church can keep their man/woman marriage thing.

It'll make sure that 'couples' are committal. Gays can have the same horrific divorce experiences that everyone else does.

[Drisco]

I think the government should hire a group of experts that are unbiased to the whole procedure and untainted by any interest group or religion and re study that section and translate it into its intended meaning.

That way we can settle this whole thing once and for all.

[radamanthys]

I think the government should hire a group of experts that are unbiased to the whole procedure and untainted by any interest group or religion and re study that section and translate it into its intended meaning.

That way we can settle this whole thing once and for all.

You mean the supreme court?


Hehe, That was a total 'book rental fail'. (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3280/2572408869_2ce7249094_o.jpg)

[Drisco]

Uh... the supreme court?


That was a total 'book rental fail' (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3280/2572408869_2ce7249094_o.jpg)



The supreme court doesn't look back into the religion and how the bible was translated, in fact they aren't even suppose to consider religion.

What I'm talking about is basically to amend the bible.

[radamanthys]

The supreme court doesn't look back into the religion and how the bible was translated, in fact they aren't even suppose to consider religion.

What I'm talking about is basically to amend the bible.

ohhhhh, haha. You see where I'm coming from, though, right? Taken in context (section translation meaning section of law regarding gay marriage), that was pretty funny. Then again, it might be 2am and I might be nuts. Yea, probably the latter.

I can't imagine the wars that would go on over an attempt to amend the bible. *shudder*

Disregard the above. That was a me fail. Carry on.

[Drisco]

Ahaha I totally got where you were coming from now... Ahahaha that's pretty funny.

But really why not amend it? If it's wrong fix it, don't just keep spewing the wrong information. Amending the bible is nothing new, different versions come out all the time with tiny changes or differently phrased words. I'm sure if you put a new one out that said Thou shalt not lie with a man as they do with a woman for financial gain for it is considered an abomination, people wouldn't notice.

Okay they might but I think we shouldn't keep spreading around the word of some translators when it actually isn't the word of god.

Lets all just learn Hebrew. Lets do it!

[radamanthys]

You then have to choose the "right" manuscript, though.

The Vatican and Sinai codices are popular alternatives to the Textus Receptus Greek that was used for the KJV. Try and get a King James Only movement person to agree to that one.

I dunno, it'd be harder to accomplish than it seems at the outset. I would move that if it were possible, it'd have been done 1000 years ago. But alas, we're still arguing today. Shit, there's a whole virulent debate over how many nails got hammered into Jesus (the triclavianists and anti-triclavianists).

[Mabus]

I think the government should hire a group of experts that are unbiased to the whole procedure and untainted by any interest group or religion and re study that section and translate it into its intended meaning.

That way we can settle this whole thing once and for all.
It is pretty clear that the verses from Roman's 1 (specifically Romans 1:21-27) do condemn homosexuality.

Romans 1:27
_________________________________________________
Greek:
ομοιως τε και οι αρσενες αφεντες την φυσικην χρησιν της θηλειας εξεκαυθησαν εν τη ορεξει αυτων εις αλληλους αρσενες εν αρσεσιν την ασχημοσυνην κατεργαζομενοι και την αντιμισθιαν ην εδει της πλανης αυτων εν εαυτοις απολαμβανοντες

Aramaic:
ܘܬܘܒ ܐܦ ܕܟܪܝܗܘܢ ܗܟܢܐ ܫܒܩܘ ܚܫܚܬܐ ܕܟܝܢܐ ܕܢܩܒܬܐ ܘܐܫܬܪܚܘ ܒܪܓܬܐ ܚܕ ܥܠ ܚܕ ܘܕܟܪܐ ܥܠ ܕܟܪܐ ܒܗܬܬܐ ܥܒܕܘ ܘܦܘܪܥܢܐ ܕܙܕܩ ܗܘܐ ܠܛܥܝܘܬܗܘܢ ܒܩܢܘܡܗܘܢ ܩܒܠܘܗܝ ܀

Hebrew:
וכן גם הזכרים עזבו את תשמיש האשה כדרכה ויחמו זה בזה בתשוקתם ויעשו תועבה זכר עם זכר ויקחו שכר משובתם הראוי להם בעצם גופם׃

English:
and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
_________________________________________________

But I could give a rat's ass what a religion says, as we are talking about a modern society's laws.

I also don't care about what people say the UFO's do to backwoods yokels when I am examining the constitution.

[ElanthianSiren]

He's speaking to a larger problem, however, regarding the Bible. It's not just homosexuality; there are a whole host of issues that have been translated, retranslated, and passed along wrong. I had a really interesting (eccentric) prof whose sole idea of fun was reading hebrew and translating to compare to the church.

And you know, I think even if we hired a bunch of people who could read aramaic (good luck with that), the same people who use religion to support bigotry would find another way to be bigoted.

As I mentioned before and some here have said, civil unions for everybody. Let religious institutions handle "marriage."

[Jorddyn]

I've got to say it amuses and dismays me when people speak in favor of gay rights by condemning religion. There's a good number of moderates and liberals who still have deeply held religious beliefs (even while supporting gay rights!) and maybe insulting their faith isn't the best way to keep them on your side.

edit: this isn't so much directed at Drisco as a general rant and pet peeve of mine.

I don't condemn religion. I condemn people who excuse their bigotry by citing their religion.

[Tsa`ah]

He's speaking to a larger problem, however, regarding the Bible. It's not just homosexuality; there are a whole host of issues that have been translated, retranslated, and passed along wrong. I had a really interesting (eccentric) prof whose sole idea of fun was reading hebrew and translating to compare to the church.

And people wonder why I smirk when they use words like Jehova or Yaweh.


And you know, I think even if we hired a bunch of people who could read aramaic (good luck with that), the same people who use religion to support bigotry would find another way to be bigoted.

Aramaic has never been dead ... not even as a spoken language. And I agree with the last sentiment. The practice of bigotry wouldn't die with accurate translations ... context and omission, just as Mabus demonstrated, will always be the tools of validation.


As I mentioned before and some here have said, civil unions for everybody. Let religious institutions handle "marriage."

Agreed. The word marriage should probably be removed from federal and state language.

[Tsa`ah]

I don't like the idea that the majority of people in a state NOT getting their way, despite passing amendments and such. I couldn't give a shit about gay people marrying each other. I just want the will of the MAJORITY of the people to be done.

Our constitution has been framed (both in conception and through the ages) in such a way that protects the minority from being marginalized by the majority.

From your post, one could assume that you would be ok with slavery, against inter-racial marriages, against women's suffrage, against black people voting, accepting of the marginalization of black people (only worth 2/3 of a white person), and for only land owners being able to vote.

The constitution protects us from ourselves as much as it is intended to protect us from the government.

[Fallen]

From you post, one could assume that you would be ok with slavery, against inter-racial marriages, against women's suffrage, against black people voting, accepting of the marginalization of black people (only worth 2/3 of a white person), and for only land owners being able to vote.

One could assume that, but then one would be an idiot.

I guess I like to live in a fantasy world where if the majority of the people that live in a given area feel strongly enough to amend the constitution..the same constitution that is used to protect the minority, to change the way things work in the area they live, it should actually have a shot at taking place. If the majority of the people want to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, I say let them. So gay people cannot get "married". Who cares? The majority of the people want that word to be left to its original implied meaning. Let them have the exact same rights, just not the same word. It is what the Majority of the people want. I don't think it is the court's place to say, "No."

[Jorddyn]

If the majority of the people want to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, I say let them. So gay people cannot get "married". Who cares?

Gay people?


The majority of the people want that word to be left to its original implied meaning. Let them have the exact same rights, just not the same word. It is what the Majority of the people want. I don't think it is the court's place to say, "No."

The court disagrees.

And why do people keep suggesting that the government should be the ones discriminating? Allow the government to issue marriage licenses/civil union licenses/OMG you're stuck with this person licenses - the same, to everyone. Let the churches do the discriminating - they can decide whose marriages/civil unions they recognize.

[Tsa`ah]

One could assume that, but then one would be an idiot.

Everything listed would fall under the will of the majority at one point or another in history.


I guess I like to live in a fantasy world where if the majority of the people that live in a given area feel strongly enough to amend the constitution..the same constitution that is used to protect the minority, to change the way things work in the area they live, it should actually have a shot at taking place. If the majority of the people want to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, I say let them. So gay people cannot get "married". Who cares? The majority of the people want that word to be left to its original implied meaning. Let them have the exact same rights, just not the same word. It is what the Majority of the people want. I don't think it is the court's place to say, "No."

So if the majority of people in the south suddenly decided to bring back slavery ... you'd be cool with it? Who cares right?

Oh ya ... the black people would probably care ... but fuck them and their civil rights.

[Fallen]

So gay people using the word marriage is suddenly a civil right? That's silly. And hell, even if the people WANTED to change it so it WASN'T a civil right by amending the bill specifically to state otherwise, they couldn't.

Because... I want slavery back. Yah. That works.

[Tsa`ah]

You miss the point entirely.

Gay people/couples want the same rights as straight people/couples ... something they currently do not have.

And by your very own words, you're ok with the will of the majority being done and very not ok with the courts intervening.

But let's drop the more extreme example ... even though by admission, you're ok with it so long as it's the will of the majority. Let's go with inter-racial marriage.

So what if blacks and whites can't marry ... or any race and white. We'll allow them the fuck and make babies ... even live together (though we'll shame them for it), but marriage and the rights included in the institution are forbidden.

In the case of gays, and gay couples, well male couples, they're even prevented from adoption and fostering. But what the hell right ... it's the majority's will.

You've got some fucked up notions of constitutional rights and civil liberties.

[Fallen]

You miss the point entirely.

Gay people/couples want the same rights as straight people/couples ... something they currently do not have.

And by your very own words, you're ok with the will of the majority being done and very not ok with the courts intervening.

But let's drop the more extreme example ... even though by admission, you're ok with it so long as it's the will of the majority. Let's go with inter-racial marriage.

So what if blacks and whites can't marry ... or any race and white. We'll allow them the fuck and make babies ... even live together (though we'll shame them for it), but marriage and the rights included in the institution are forbidden.

In the case of gays, and gay couples, well male couples, they're even prevented from adoption and fostering. But what the hell right ... it's the majority's will.

You've got some fucked up notions of constitutional rights and civil liberties.

You love straw man arguments, don't you? "You see this thing I just made? Lets pretend it's you. I am now going to attack this thing I made to show how i'm right."

Now i'm against inter-racial marriages. Huh. Good to know, I always wondered how I felt about that.

[Tsa`ah]

You love straw man arguments, don't you? "You see this thing I just made? Lets pretend it's you. I am now going to attack this thing I made to show how i'm right."

Now i'm against interacial marriages. Huh. Good to know, I always wondered how I felt about that.

No, you fail to follow along.

These are examples of things you're ok with so long as it's the will of the majority. A much simpler translation would be ... things you don't give a shit about because they don't infringe upon your rights.

[Fallen]

My point is I don't see it as inherently wrong for the majority of the people to wish to have a word defined a certain way. Setting aside the issue of rights entitled to those who are "Married" versus those in a "civil union", we basically have people wanting to define their concept of an idea as resolute.

Honestly, if gay people put as much effort into ensuring the civil unions had the exact same laws and protections afforded to them as those that were married, they likely would have been done with this nonsense by now. I don't think ANYONE here wants them NOT to have equal protection/rights under the law. I am merely saying that when I believe the majority of the people in this country feel strong enough to want to define 1 word..one concept the way they choose, it shouldn't be the Court's place to over rule them when they have such a majority to CHANGE the CONSTITUTION over it.

If you can address this concept without tying me to believing that all black people should be executed in front of their houses as a lesson to the other minorities..that would be just peachy.

[Fallen]

No, you fail to follow along.

These are examples of things you're ok with so long as it's the will of the majority.

No, Tsa'ah, they're really not, and I hope you're just trying to "win" the argument and not truly believing that is true. If that isn't the case, then you have lost all objectivity and I likely wont respond to you for the remainder of this thread.

[Tsa`ah]

Because separate but equal isn't equal? 14th anyone?

[Fallen]

Because separate but equal isn't equal? 14th anyone?

That I had considered, and will admit is a valid point. "Separate but equal" didn't work, but no one had presented that argument thus far. They've only tried to claim I want to euthanize the chinese and break out the branding irons for those uppity negros. However, I think a law, or a definition of a word or concept is unequal to the quality of two different drinking fountains. If something is identical on paper, it should be identical in practice.

[Tsa`ah]

That I had considered, and will admit is a valid point. "Separate but equal" didn't work, but no one had presented that argument thus far. They've only tried to claim I want to euthanize the chinese and break out the branding irons for those uppity negros. However, I think a law, or a definition of a word or concept is unequal to the quality of two different drinking fountains. If something is identical on paper, it should be identical in practice.

No one claimed anything. What I demonstrated, or rather pointed out, was your apathetic approach.

Defining marriage as anything other than a union between consenting adults not only violates the 14th and marginalizes a minority ... but it also pulls from very bad theological interpretation, and guess what part of the constitution that violates.

[CrystalTears]

Marriage should be what you're granted from your church. Civil unions should be what you're granted from the government. Everyone should have the same benefits regardless of who you marry. Marriage should only be a religious perk, nothing more.

[Mabus]

Marriage should be what you're granted from your church. Civil unions should be what you're granted from the government. Everyone should have the same benefits regardless of who you marry. Marriage should only be a religious perk, nothing more.
:yeahthat:

[Parkbandit]

Our constitution has been framed (both in conception and through the ages) in such a way that protects the minority from being marginalized by the majority.

From your post, one could assume that you would be ok with slavery, against inter-racial marriages, against women's suffrage, against black people voting, accepting of the marginalization of black people (only worth 2/3 of a white person), and for only land owners being able to vote.

The constitution protects us from ourselves as much as it is intended to protect us from the government.

You shouldn't assume.. since it's never worked out for you.

PS - Look up the historical reference of 2/3rds and who was pushing it and why. You've assumed you know what the deal was.. but clearly you don't from this post.

[g++]

Marriage should be what you're granted from your church. Civil unions should be what you're granted from the government. Everyone should have the same benefits regardless of who you marry. Marriage should only be a religious perk, nothing more.

We should go the opposite way and force the government to recognize bat mitzvahs.

[Jorddyn]

We should go the opposite way and force the government to recognize bat mitzvahs.

And have them install bugs in confessionals. Imagine all the criminals we'd catch!

[g++]

And have them install bugs in confessionals. Imagine all the criminals we'd catch!

Everything I know about the criminal justice system, which I learned entirely from law and order, says they already do.

[Jorddyn]

Everything I know about the criminal justice system, which I learned entirely from law and order, says they already do.

Which sadly makes you more informed than a good portion of the population.

[Parkbandit]

That's the reason why supporters of same-sex marriage call the opponents "bigots"--because the opponent's argument is not about the conference of legal rights at the DMV or hospital. It's about their perceived legitimacy of the relationship itself--a fight that the hysterically religious already lost when gays became able to live openly in communities without being beaten to death (and no, PB, this isn't "hyperbole") and became iconic in popular culture.

Sure sounds like it is... especially if you compare the number of beatings that have nothing to do with being gay to those that have something to do with being gay.



It becomes even more complicated when you consider the slew of anti-gay constitutional amendments credited to Karl Rove in 2004--gays were strung up as the popular scapegoat of the day, "destroying marriage," in order to get people likely to vote Republican to the voting booth.

:rofl:

How did I know someone would blame Bush for this! BUSH HATES GAY PEOPLE!!!111oneone

[Fallen]

In any case, being small doesn't mean that crimes specifically targeted against them are irrelevant--so I'm not sure where you're getting this from. However, the history of violence against gays is pretty extensive, and runs the full gamut from harassment (which happens almost universally in today's youth--try enjoying a day in our nation's schools, or on Xbox Live, PSN or random PC multiplayer game servers), to attacks, to murder, and state-sanctioned murder as still happens in the Middle East.

You're comparing kids calling one another fags to state-sanctioned murder?

[Fallen]

Are.. you.. braindead? I said that anti-gay discrimination runs the full gamut, ranging from casual harassment (kids in school, video games) to assault, to murder, to state-sanctioned murder. I didn't say one was tantamount to the other. What the fuck is wrong with you?

Apparently, what was wrong with me is I asked clarification on a point you made. Let me try responding in kind, You sound like an irrational, ranting lunatic.

[ClydeR]

That's the reason why supporters of same-sex marriage call the opponents "bigots"--because the opponent's argument is not about the conference of legal rights at the DMV or hospital. It's about their perceived legitimacy of the relationship itself--a fight that the hysterically religious already lost when gays became able to live openly in communities without being beaten to death (and no, PB, this isn't "hyperbole") and became iconic in popular culture.

Complete mischaracterization of our position. First of all, homosexuals already have the right to get drivers licenses, and they can easily get the right to visit each other in the hospital with a simple legal form that any lawyer can prepare. Our objection to homosexual "marriage" is because it would bad for society.

Let's look at a related issue that is simpler to discuss than marriage. Homosexuals want to join the military, but Congress and President Clinton said they can't, at least not if we know they're homosexual. A lot of people think that was bigotry because they wrongly assume that it was all about how the heterosexual soldiers would feel about the homosexual "soldiers." But that was not the primary issue. The primary issue was that homosexuals would be bad soldiers. They would perform their duties poorly, and they would interfere with the other soldiers' performance of their duties. It had nothing to do with the attitudes of the heterosexual soldiers. It's not bigotry.

[Fallen]

I don't stay current with the policy of modern online gaming and the homosexual culture, so I am afraid I didn't catch your reference. Not everyone is here to blast you for little reason, though I am beginning to see why some might. You need to calm the fuck down.

[Parkbandit]

I never mentioned, in any regard, the proportion of "gay:not gay" beatings. There obviously wouldn't be many in any comparative number, since gays are a small part of our population.

In any case, being small doesn't mean that crimes specifically targeted against them are irrelevant--so I'm not sure where you're getting this from. However, the history of violence against gays is pretty extensive, and runs the full gamut from harassment (which happens almost universally in today's youth--try enjoying a day in our nation's schools, or on Xbox Live, PSN or random PC multiplayer game servers), to attacks, to murder, and state-sanctioned murder as still happens in the Middle East.

What you're essentially saying is that hate crimes against--say, Quakers--are irrelevant because there are so few of them to be targeted, and that the vast majority of beatings are non-Quakers. So Quakers aren't targeted? Makes zero sense.

Not at all. I'm not saying that hate crimes are ok.. I'm just saying that you keep posting how poor gays are being beaten because they are gay.. when pretty much anyone who is not "normal" is beaten. It's not a gay thing... it's a non-"normal" thing.

Fat people are beaten because they are fat.
Nerds are beaten because they are nerds.
Muslims are beaten because they are Muslims.
Short people are beaten because they are short.

It's not a special circumstance when a gay person is beaten.. no more than when a kid with glasses gets beaten up because he wears glasses.



You do realize that the dominant political party of the last 10+ years is just a tiny bit relevant in political discussions? The numerous anti-gay amendments that swept through during the '04 election are widely thought to have been a deciding factor in the conservative turnout.

You do realize that gay discrimination didn't begin in 2000, right?

It's funny though.. while you want to blame it all on those evil conservatives.. it was the overwhelming majority of black voters that struck it down in California. But hey... criticising them wouldn't be PC.. now would it.

[Methais]

From your post, one could assume that you would be ok with slavery, against inter-racial marriages, against women's suffrage....

Women are against women's suffrage too, ya know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uPcthZL2RE

[Jorddyn]

It's funny though.. while you want to blame it all on those evil conservatives.. it was the overwhelming majority of black voters that struck it down in California. But hey... criticising them wouldn't be PC.. now would it.

Sure it would. It's sickening that they don't see the relationship between the civil rights fight of the gay community and the civil rights fight they endured (and to some extent still do). But, everyone has to have someone to hate. Irish, Blacks, Mexicans, Gays...

I really think gays will pick the "fashion challenged" as their group to hate.

/stereotyping

[Methais]

Sure it would. It's sickening that they don't see the relationship between the civil rights fight of the gay community and the civil rights fight they endured (and to some extent still do). But, everyone has to have someone to hate. Irish, Blacks, Mexicans, Gays...

I really think gays will pick the "fashion challenged" as their group to hate.

/stereotyping

Maybe in 100 years, gays can play the sexuality card on blacks and will have their own Al Sharpton and Jesse Jacksoff.

Then a gay president will be elected, but he'll act too straight to be considered a real gay by the gay community.

[Methais]

http://forum.gsplayers.com/images/reputation/reputation_neg.gifBoycott of Iowa 04-08-2009 04:15 PM Are you bitter you didn't get to participate in the NYC Draft Riots?

Just pointing out some hypocrisy, something you probably excel at, oh anonymous person of questionable sexuality.

Btw your parents hate you.

[Warriorbird]

It's funny though.. while you want to blame it all on those evil conservatives.. it was the overwhelming majority of black voters that struck it down in California. But hey... criticising them wouldn't be PC.. now would it.

Conservatives sure didn't vote against it much.

[Parkbandit]

Conservatives sure didn't vote against it much.

They didn't.. but did you expect them to?

The voting block that made the difference was the black voter who came out in droves for Obama.. yet voted against gay marriage.

[Warriorbird]

I sure didn't expect them to. I sure expected to see Republicans saying, "It was the blacks!" too. I've been proven right.

[radamanthys]

They didn't.. but did you expect them to?

The voting block that made the difference was the black voter who came out in droves for Obama.. yet voted against gay marriage.

Yea, the reason for that wasn't based upon the issue. Exit polls showed that blacks were voting for the proposition, thinking it was voting for gay rights.

It's a truth that nobody in their right mind would say publicly.


*from a story I read right after the vote. I've looked at no other research since. I just felt like being inflammatory.

[Parkbandit]

I sure didn't expect them to. I sure expected to see Republicans saying, "It was the blacks!" too. I've been proven right.

It's a damn rare occurance when you've ever been proven right on this forum.. and this is no exception.

70% of black voters, who voted overwhelmingly for Obama, voted for Prop 8 in California.

Proposition 8 failed by less than 5% of the vote (52 to 48)

[Ravenstorm]

70% of black voters, who voted overwhelmingly for Obama, voted for Prop 8 in California.

Proposition 8 failed by less than 5% of the vote (52 to 48)

Except the black vote was not very significant taken as a whole. Yes, 70% of blacks who voted did so in favor of Prop 8 but they comprised a small fraction of the total vote. It's much more accurate to say that the religious vote is what passed it as an extremely high percentage of church goers voted in favor of it.

[Warriorbird]

I'll spell it out so you can follow it more easily, Parkbandit. I predicted that black people and Republicans would vote against gay marriage and that Republicans would say, "It was the blacks!"

And yes... the percentage of the total vote that was black voters was pretty small.

[Drisco]

It is pretty clear that the verses from Roman's 1 (specifically Romans 1:21-27) do condemn homosexuality.

Romans 1:27
_________________________________________________
Greek:
ομοιως τε και οι αρσενες αφεντες την φυσικην χρησιν της θηλειας εξεκαυθησαν εν τη ορεξει αυτων εις αλληλους αρσενες εν αρσεσιν την ασχημοσυνην κατεργαζομενοι και την αντιμισθιαν ην εδει της πλανης αυτων εν εαυτοις απολαμβανοντες

Aramaic:
ܘܬܘܒ ܐܦ ܕܟܪܝܗܘܢ ܗܟܢܐ ܫܒܩܘ ܚܫܚܬܐ ܕܟܝܢܐ ܕܢܩܒܬܐ ܘܐܫܬܪܚܘ ܒܪܓܬܐ ܚܕ ܥܠ ܚܕ ܘܕܟܪܐ ܥܠ ܕܟܪܐ ܒܗܬܬܐ ܥܒܕܘ ܘܦܘܪܥܢܐ ܕܙܕܩ ܗܘܐ ܠܛܥܝܘܬܗܘܢ ܒܩܢܘܡܗܘܢ ܩܒܠܘܗܝ ܀

Hebrew:
וכן גם הזכרים עזבו את תשמיש האשה כדרכה ויחמו זה בזה בתשוקתם ויעשו תועבה זכר עם זכר ויקחו שכר משובתם הראוי להם בעצם גופם׃

English:
and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
_________________________________________________

But I could give a rat's ass what a religion says, as we are talking about a modern society's laws.

I also don't care about what people say the UFO's do to backwoods yokels when I am examining the constitution.


Once again this is so wrong. It's not talking about homosexuality itslef clearly if you look at the passages before this one.

Paul starts the passage by talking about people who refuse to worship God. Then they talk of people that make images of animals and worship those animals.

The passage in question is about the worship of other gods by engaging in homosexual acts in temples built to glorify pagan gods.

People open your eyes. Back in the day homosexual acts and homosexual prostitution happened in pagan churches and these are what god condemns.

[Mabus]

Once again this is so wrong. It's not talking about homosexuality itslef clearly if you look at the passages before this one.
Here (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201&version=9;) is the full KJV of Romans 1.

Easy enough to read.


Paul starts the passage by talking about people who refuse to worship God. Then they talk of people that make images of animals and worship those animals.

The passage in question is about the worship of other gods by engaging in homosexual acts in temples built to glorify pagan gods.
And how does Paul feel about these homosexual acts?

"32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."

Seems pretty straight forward.

But as a stated earlier I grant as much credence to the "Bible" as I do to UFO and Bigfoot sightings. None of them should be considered the basis for a civilization's laws.

If people said "Bigfoot hates chronic masterbaters!" we should not ban ClydeR from being in public just because of his obsession.
;)

People open your eyes. Back in the day homosexual acts and homosexual prostitution happened in pagan churches and these are what god condemns.
Define "pagan". Do you mean "any religion not considered one of the 'Big Five' (Christian, Muslim, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism)"?

Many ancient and modern religions have absolutely nothing to do with sexuality. Are you trying to state that homosexuality only happened in "pagan" temples at the time Romans was written?

Homosexuality has likely existed as long as humans have existed. Humans, and most mammals, enjoy sexual gratification. While mating for procreation is a drive of most animals (or they would cease to exist as a species) other forms of gratification certainly exist (masturbation, cross-species, homosexuality, etc.).

I could care less what adult, consenting people do with their own genitalia. If two "peanut butter jar fuckers" wanted to form a lifelong partnership with all the legal trappings of marriage I would be all for it.

Who cares? Who the hell should care?

[Parkbandit]

Except the black vote was not very significant taken as a whole. Yes, 70% of blacks who voted did so in favor of Prop 8 but they comprised a small fraction of the total vote. It's much more accurate to say that the religious vote is what passed it as an extremely high percentage of church goers voted in favor of it.

Of the people voting for Barack Obama, blacks voted highest for Prop 8 than any other voting block. They account for 10% of all voters in the state.. and with the prop passing by only 5%, even you can do the math.

[Parkbandit]

I'll spell it out so you can follow it more easily, Parkbandit. I predicted that black people and Republicans would vote against gay marriage and that Republicans would say, "It was the blacks!"

And yes... the percentage of the total vote that was black voters was pretty small.

Where is this post you claim you made, predicting this? If you actually made such a prediction, you might actually be semi-right on this message board.. and that is something to celebrate! The streak is over! THE STREAK IS OVER!!

I await the link.. then the festivities can commence!!

[Parkbandit]

OMG! You mean that everyone that voted for Prop 8 played a part in it passing? HOLY FUCK! I NEVER THOUGHT OF THAT!

This type of insight and analysis is greatly missing from these forums. I do hope end up sticking around and pointing out the obvious!!

PS - Don't worry.. I'm sure the liberal judges in California will somehow overturn it.

[Tsa`ah]

You shouldn't assume.. since it's never worked out for you.

PS - Look up the historical reference of 2/3rds and who was pushing it and why. You've assumed you know what the deal was.. but clearly you don't from this post.

Dear god you're more of an idiot than I thought possible.

[Parkbandit]

Dear god you're more of an idiot than I thought possible.

Come on Shit4Brains.. you are the resident googlexpert.. You can do better than that.

Answer the question, my pseudo-intellectual wanna-be friend. :)

[Warriorbird]

I guess it can go up there with all the "evidence" you put up regarding global warning, PB. Given as there isn't any, we have to fall back to crb... and well, I wouldn't call that evidence.

Here you rely on a weak ass political science/historical argument that entirely neglects this whole 'realignment election' concept.

Not quite pseudo science. Pseudo intellectual? As the day is long.

[Parkbandit]

I guess it can go up there with all the "evidence" you put up regarding global warning, PB. Given as there isn't any, we have to fall back to crb... and well, I wouldn't call that evidence.

Here you rely on a weak ass political science/historical argument that entirely neglects this whole 'realignment election' concept.

Not quite pseudo science. Pseudo intellectual? As the day is long.

Dude.. you should restrict your stupidity to ONE topic. Maybe "Fun with Crayons" or "I R PASTE ETER!"

I apologize that I am relying on history and facts and that you simply can't grasp such concepts.. but I promise.. if you start up a new thread where you can actually participate, I'll play there with you! Hell, maybe we can find a topic where you could actually be RIGHT for a change! Wouldn't THAT be nice!?

[Warriorbird]

I simply can't grasp? You're a fucking idiot.

What history and facts? You're going to make some sort of 'Democratic' allusion with that post... yet, the Dixiecrats fled the Democratic Party in droves for the comfortable bastions of Republicanism during the 20th century.

I'm sorry. This is one area you're going to completely fucking fail at.

Next.

[Parkbandit]

I simply can't grasp? You're a fucking idiot.

What history and facts? You're going to make some sort of 'Democratic' allusion with that post... yet, the Dixiecrats fled the Democratic Party in droves for the comfortable bastions of Republicanism during the 20th century.

I'm sorry. This is one area you're going to completely fucking fail at.

Next.

HOLY SHIT BOY! I think you are batting a THOUSAND!! (Sorry Tsa'ah, I used your famous quote.. only I used it properly).

If you could make money from being so consistently wrong as you've been here.. you'd be a billionaire.

[Back]

HOLY SHIT BOY! I think you are batting a THOUSAND!! (Sorry Tsa'ah, I used your famous quote.. only I used it properly).

If you could make money from being so consistently wrong as you've been here.. you'd be a billionaire.

Actually, my money would be on you being wrong. Of course, money on me being right has been fruitful.

[Gan]

Actually, my money would be on you being wrong. Of course, money on me being right has been fruitful.

Seriously?

Please tell me you meant to put that last part in Italics.

[Back]

Seriously?

Please tell me you meant to put that last part in Italics.

No.

[Gan]

No.

Then I laugh at your delusion sir. I laugh. Heartily.

:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:

[Parkbandit]

Actually, my money would be on you being wrong. Of course, money on me being right has been fruitful.

I didn't miss your sarcasm Backlash.. thank you for your support.

[Cephalopod]

Random bump of Iowa...

http://imgur.com/o7Uu9.png

[Jorddyn]

I really thought this was a fake, so I went to Time's website. Oh no, it's real. And even missing some that are even funnier.

I now believe there are about 100 meth heads in SW Iowa with too much time on their hands so they're purposely making us look ridiculous. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[Proxy]

Didn't you know, Twin City is the "Meth Capitol of the Mid-West" well it was when I moved from CB to Denver years ago.

[ClydeR]

Random bump of Iowa...

Iowans should not think that we have forgotten about them. Because we haven't (http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=30883).

[Jorddyn]

Iowans should not think that we have forgotten about them. Because we haven't (http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=30883).

Awesome.

Best part of the article:


Michael Foust is an assistant editor of Baptist Press. To read how "gay marriage" impacts parental rights and religious freedom click here. (http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=30209)


HELP! I'M BEING OPRESSED!

[ClydeR]

Awesome.

Best part of the article:

The best part was how the article always puts the word "marriage" in quotation marks when referring to homosexual "marriage." Those of you who follow my posts closely have undoubtedly noticed that I have always done that. It shows that a homosexual "marriage" isn't a real marriage, even if that government chooses to call it one, because it does not meet the traditional definition of the word.

[ViridianAsp]

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/resources/2008/03/chadrickgayjesus.jpg

Damn, I didn't realize how gay Jesus is...

Anyway, yeah good for Iowa. Guess this means less people in front of the Michael Jackson butter sculpture at the fair this year...SCORE!!!!

[ClydeR]

At church this morning, we used our extra hour to reconsider the boycott of Iowa. Since Iowans voted out (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/us/politics/04judges.html) the judges who redefined marriage, we decided to end the boycott. From now on, it's okay to vacation in Iowa, and we'll accept Iowa quarters and go to movies by Iowa's two famous actors.

[diethx]

Iowa has famous actors?

[Firestorm Killa]

Iowa has famous actors?

God damn I hate the jersey shore.(Talkin bout your sig Pic.)
I still don't believe Iowa exist personally, never met anyone from there, and I never heard of anyone famous from there. It's gotta be a conspiracy.

[diethx]

Jorddyn is from Iowa.

[Jorddyn]

Iowa exists. I swear.

But you don't have to come here.

[Drew]

Iowa exists. I swear.

But you don't have to come here.

We're all hanging out at your place (you provide the corn).

[Ardwen]

Clearly Iowa exists, Children of the Corn is the whole history of the state

[CrystalTears]

Clearly Iowa exists, Children of the Corn is the whole history of the state
Children of the Corn was in Nebraska.

The SyFy remake was crap, btw.