Homosexuals have lost thier minds

[FMJeff]

<p><a href="http://www.nwcn.com/statenews/washington/stories/NW_020507WABinitiative957SW.546c6a4d.html">http://www.nwcn.com/statenews/washington/stories/NW_020507WABinitiative957SW.546c6a4d.html</a></p><p>This is by far and away the most ludicrious strategy to legalize gay marraige I have ever seen in my entire life. </p><p>Way to go homos...cause you know this initiative will sail right on through...</p>

[A.J.]

That's pretty funny actually.

[Dan 'Hampton]

Don't they realize it'd be much easier to have an ammendment adopted by an extremely liberal state supreme court, and then fight as hard as they can to never let it be voted on by the public.&nbsp; Then disreguard any polls that show the public wants to vote on it. Hey it worked here.

[cupcakelove]

They have a point.&nbsp; If its really about protecting the institution so you can raise children, why are childless couples, or people who can't have kids also allowed to marry?&nbsp; They're just pointing out how crazy a marriage ban sounds when its applied to other types of couples.

[Death Metal Moe]

I'm for Gay Marriage, but this is just stupid.&nbsp; I think it's a foolish way to get people aware of it.&nbsp; Just gonna get people mad.

[FUNKMAN]

<p><font size="2">i think it's fag um i mean fair...</font></p><p><font size="2">abolish marriage all-together, it's not necessary... two people can love remain monogamous to each other without the document</font></p>

[Doctor Manhattan]

<p><font face="comic sans ms,sand" size="2" color="#000080"><font face="times new roman,times" size="3">&ldquo;If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage.&quot;</font> </font></p><p><font face="comic sans ms,sand" size="2" color="#000080">They have a good point but DMM is right. This will just piss off people.</font></p>

[cupcakelove]

<strong>Doctor Manhattan</strong> wrote:<br /><p><font face="comic sans ms,sand" size="2" color="#000080"><font face="times new roman,times" size="3">&ldquo;If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage.&quot;</font> </font></p><p><font face="comic sans ms,sand" size="2" color="#000080">They have a good point but DMM is right. This will just piss off people.</font></p><p>Maybe that's what they're trying to do.&nbsp; I agree that it isn't going to accomplish anything, but can you blame them for going to this after they've been shit on so much? </p>

[Gvac]

<p>&nbsp;</p><hr width="100%" size="2" /><font face="verdana" size="1" color="black"><strong>Homosexuals have lost thier minds</strong></font><hr width="100%" size="2" /><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Duh!</p><p>They like COCK!&nbsp;</p>

[Dougie Brootal]

<strong>Gvac</strong> wrote:<br /><p>&nbsp;</p><hr width="100%" size="2" /><font face="verdana" size="1" color="#000000"><strong>Homosexuals have lost thier minds</strong></font> <hr width="100%" size="2" /><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Duh!</p><p>They like COCK!&nbsp;</p><p>beat me by a minute!</p>

[Yerdaddy]

I think the crazy ballot initiative is a great idea and they should have been using the idea in the last three election cycles. I think the point they make however sort of misses the mark. The homophobe lobby has successfully framed the&nbsp;debate as a &quot;defense of marriage&quot; yet nobody has ever demonstrated how two men or women getting married somehow does harm to anyone else's marriage. The real issue is that the majority opinion in America is being allowed who consenting adults are and are not allowed to marry. In other words, the majority gets to limit the freedoms of a minority without demonstrating how that freedom impinges their own. What they should have done is proposed a lottery for marriages - everyone who wants to get married in the state can register and let floating ping pong ball decide who they can an cannot marry. Britteny Spears couldn't do any worse that way. And who the fuck wouldn't watch that on TV?

[burrben]

i like the point they're trying to make, but they just seem silly

[Yerdaddy]

<p><img src="http://mooiness.com/images/big-gay-al.jpg" border="0" alt="Oops! Forgot to spit on it. Sorry Alkey!" title="Oops! Forgot to spit on it. Sorry Alkey!" width="140" height="213" /></p><p>... silly gooses!</p>

[Snacks]

<p>How can there even be a defense of &quot;traditional&quot; marriage? You cant defend it and try to protect something that has become a joke in this country anyway. More then 50% of couples get divorced. Thats a failing grade. If gays want to get married let them. The religious right says this makes a mochery (SP)&nbsp;of marriages. Well straight people have done that themselves. </p><p>&nbsp;</p>

[narc]

<strong>cupcakelove</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Doctor Manhattan</strong> wrote:<br /><p><font face="comic sans ms,sand" size="2" color="#000080"><font face="times new roman,times" size="3">&ldquo;If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage.&quot;</font> </font></p><p><font face="comic sans ms,sand" size="2" color="#000080">They have a good point but DMM is right. This will just piss off people.</font></p><p>Maybe that's what they're trying to do. I agree that it isn't going to accomplish anything, but can you blame them for going to this after they've been <strong>shit on so much</strong>? </p><p>&nbsp;Yeah but that was consensual. </p><p>Aztec showers anyone?&nbsp;</p>

[SatCam]

<strong>FUNKMAN</strong> wrote:<br><p><font size="2">i think it's fag um i mean fair...</font></p><p><font size="2">abolish marriage all-together, it's not necessary... two people can love remain monogamous to each other without the document</font></p><p></p>

yes but the real question is can they share each other's insurance benefits?

[Kevin]

Horsepants in 3... 2.... 1.......<img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/bye.gif" border="0" />

[JohnWC]

I totally thought this was gonna be about the Snickers ads...<br />

[Bulldogcakes]

<p>I get the point they're trying to make, but a few more of these and they'll end up looking like PETA. Where even people who would otherwise support their cause just cant support thier organization because of their tactics. </p><p>There's really no good argument I've ever heard as to why Gays cannot enter into legal (NOT CHURCH) marriages. They can engage in any other legal activites that straight people can. They can open Corporations, they can enter into contracts of any kind, why is this one any different? </p><p>A better way to test the &quot;Marriage is for child rearing&quot; theory (which doesn't hold up anyway) would be with lesbian couples. They CAN have children (through IVF) just like many hetero couples do. </p><p>All that being said, I <em>personally </em>wouldn't get married unless I was with someone I wanted to have kids with. Love comes and goes, and marriage is almost never what most people think it will be, especially if you ask most other married couples about it. Kids deserve two parents who are committed to each other, not doing so is IMO very selfish. But most people who get married will tell you nothing changes from dating to being married, it all changes when the kids show up, and thats the tough part. Thats where you need something to encourage couples to stay together. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

<span class=post_edited>This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 2-7-07 @ 7:28 PM</span>

[Bulldogcakes]

<strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<p>&quot;Marriage is for child rearing&quot;</p><p>&nbsp;Come to think of it, Gays could give that phrase a whole new meaning . . . . .&nbsp; </p>

[SatCam]

<strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br><strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<p>"Marriage is for child rearing"</p><p> Come to think of it, Gays could give that phrase a whole new meaning . . . . . </p><p></p>

you know that's just a stereotype.....................

[undressa]

<p>but it was funny</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

[FezPaul]

<p><strong><font face="courier new,courier" size="2">Why would we the people allow the government to validate or invalidate <em>anyone's</em> marriage?</font></strong></p><p><strong><font face="Courier New" size="2">It's none of the government's business.</font></strong></p>

[Bulldogcakes]

<strong>SatCam</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<p>&quot;Marriage is for child rearing&quot;</p><p> Come to think of it, Gays could give that phrase a whole new meaning . . . . . </p><p>&nbsp;</p> you know that's just a stereotype.....................Whats even worse is I just quoted MYSELF for the 3rd time. Awful. &nbsp;<p>&nbsp;</p>

[boeman]

<strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>SatCam</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote: <p>&quot;Marriage is for child rearing&quot;</p><p>Come to think of it, Gays could give that phrase a whole new meaning . . . . . </p><p>&nbsp;</p>you know that's just a stereotype..................... Whats even worse is I just quoted MYSELF for the 3rd time. Awful. &nbsp;<p>&nbsp;</p><p>a little self love don't make you a bad person.</p>

[SatCam]

<strong>boeman</strong> wrote:<br><strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>SatCam</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote: <p>"Marriage is for child rearing"</p><p>Come to think of it, Gays could give that phrase a whole new meaning . . . . . </p><p> </p>you know that's just a stereotype..................... Whats even worse is I just quoted MYSELF for the 3rd time. Awful. <p> </p><p>a little self love don't make you a bad person.</p><p></p>

This thread is about homosexuals, not autosexuals. Take your hand love agenda somewhere else, fuckin selflover.

Autosexuals have lost thier minds

[Bulldogcakes]

<strong>SatCam</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>boeman</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>SatCam</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote: <p>&quot;Marriage is for child rearing&quot;</p><p>Come to think of it, Gays could give that phrase a whole new meaning . . . . . </p><p>&nbsp;</p>you know that's just a stereotype..................... Whats even worse is I just quoted MYSELF for the 3rd time. Awful. <p>&nbsp;</p><p>a little self love don't make you a bad person.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> This thread is about homosexuals, not autosexuals. Take your hand love agenda somewhere else, fuckin selflover. Autosexuals have lost thier mindsI love my car, but not that way. &nbsp;<p>&nbsp;</p>

[keithy_19]

In many states, don't gays have the same benefits as married couples? Isn't that what a civil union does, or am I terribly mistaken. I very well may be. I haven't done much research about this.

[briarhawk]

<strong>Snacks</strong> wrote:<br /><p>How can there even be a defense of &quot;traditional&quot; marriage? You cant defend it and try to protect something that has become a joke in this country anyway. More then 50% of couples get divorced. <span style="background-color: #999999">Thats a failing grade.</span> If gays want to get married let them. The religious right says this makes a mochery (SP) of marriages. Well straight people have done that themselves. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;Do they get an F minus in your book?</p><p>hehehe&nbsp;</p>

[briarhawk]

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; <strong>SatCam</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<p>&quot;Marriage is for child rearing&quot;</p><p> Come to think of it, Gays could give that phrase a whole new meaning . . . . . </p><p>&nbsp;</p> you know that's just a stereotype.....................<p>&nbsp;</p><p>Yeah, but I agree, it's DAMN FUNNY!</p><p>and that's coming from a Packer!&nbsp;</p>

[torker]

<p>Already a <a href="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/viewmessages.cfm/Forum/81/Topic/56621/page/Am_I_normal_" target="_blank">thread</a>.&nbsp; </p><p><img src="http://www.nesl.edu/interface/lock.gif" border="0" width="16" height="17" />it up.</p>

[FUNKMAN]

<strong>torker</strong> wrote:<br /><p>Already a <a href="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/viewmessages.cfm/Forum/81/Topic/56621/page/Am_I_normal_" target="_blank">thread</a>.&nbsp; </p><p><img src="http://www.nesl.edu/interface/lock.gif" border="0" width="16" height="17" />it up.</p><p>NICE!</p>