"Whites" need only apply!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well Im sure the pope would dis approve.. Marriage is basically for support and children, or in some cases here helping a temporary friend to immigrate... Adam and Steve cant procreate. and not jane and Jill .. steve needs to hook up with Jill, and adam with jane. .Biology / ALLAH in pairs. even the scientists can get this one right...HELLOOO freaks

Plenty of people who get married don't have kids. Does that make them failures for having different priorities?

[IAMX 3,055]

Well Im sure the pope would dis approve.. Marriage is basically for support and children, or in some cases here helping a temporary friend to immigrate... Adam and Steve cant procreate. and not jane and Jill .. steve needs to hook up with Jill, and adam with jane. .Biology / ALLAH in pairs. even the scientists can get this one right...HELLOOO freaks

Plenty of people who get married don't have kids. Does that make them failures for having different priorities?

It sure does!

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

[Good thing the pope doesn't issue marriage licenses in the U.S. Nor does God, or Allah, or Buddha, Zeus, or the Giant Spaghetti Monster.

ohhhh ohhhh my marriage is fake!!!

[t0+ 1]

Homosexual marriage is no more of a right than is plural marriage or marriage between close family members. Society at large deems what is culturally acceptable or societal norm. So far, when the states hold referendums that define what marriage is, the definition in the vast majority of America is that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman.

Only 50 years ago interracial marriages were deemed outside of "what is culturally acceptable or societal norm". It wasn't until the courts got involved that all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States were removed.

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

If it wasn't for the US Supreme Court stepping in, BY YOUR LOGIC, your marriage and that of many people on this site would be outside of what is culturally acceptable or a societal norm (act was actually a felony) and should not have taken place.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

[Good thing the pope doesn't issue marriage licenses in the U.S. Nor does God, or Allah, or Buddha, Zeus, or the Giant Spaghetti Monster.

ohhhh ohhhh my marriage is fake!!!

#######. no one told me that, either :blink:

But I've heard Coatlicue is THE WOMAN when it comes to marriage licenses..... so we're cool Tavo

[peejay 327]

"Whites" need only apply!

I brought this same observation up months ago while debating the gay marriage movement with Fishdude (aka: Number 6, Paul Daniels). It is basically an upper class White liberal movement of the left and right coasts and the gated community crowd in the otherwise flyover zones in-between in the USA. Try as they may to tie it to the Black civil rights movement...that dog don't hunt.

While I don't harbor any hate for homosexuals personally this attempt at cultural parity with the heterosexual mainstream is lame. "Leave it to Beaver" with 2 Ward's or 2 June's is too weird and disgusting to contemplate, but that is the goal. "Heather's Two Mommies" is no figment of the imagination. As far as I'm concerned it is a Lib nightmare most of America wants no part of.

No, its an equal rights movement. What the racial demographics is of said lifestyle choice is altogether something different.

Homosexual marriage is no more of a right than is plural marriage or marriage between close family members. Society at large deems what is culturally acceptable or societal norm. So far, when the states hold referendums that define what marriage is, the definition in the vast majority of America is that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman.

One judges' court ruling does not define societal norms, customs, or culture. There is no precedent that homosexual marriage is a right or a civil right. Funny how the Libs hold Western civilization in contempt, but it is in decadent Western civilization that homosexuality is even contemplated to be in parity with heterosexuality. "Heather's Two Mommies"? That's not even biologically possible, much less accepted in the vast majority of the world's cultures. While many cultures may tolerate homosexuals and homosexuality this is no consensus for homosexual parity with heterosexuality or societal embrace of homosexuality.

Personally I could care less if homosexuals cohabitate or have sex, but to elevate homosexuality to the same level as heterosexuality is biologically absurd. I find it equally disgusting that homosexuals bring children into the debate and somehow try to assert that homosexuality is compatible with a nuclear family.

I have personally observed closeted gay guys that had children through marriage with a woman and then decided to come out of the closet. It not only wounds the woman, but it scars the kids as well. In the 3 instances that I have observed the kids were screwed up and I believe it was directly due to having their world rocked by the fact that daddy was a homosexual. I have no experiences with lesbians with children. Personally I think it is a selfish and f*cked up thing to do to a kid.

Time for Len's pic

Dude, wait....

What?

P.S. and to think we live in the same state *sigh*

Maybe you delude yourself into believing the whole world is just like your little cloistered life in liberal academia. It ain't. The peasants on Main Street neither want or desire your vision of America. You will find that out when you get out into the real world.

no, I've already been halfway around the world, it's you who will find out when you leave Main Street USA.

Gee, I'm just sh*tting all over myself. I'm so impressed. I bow to your superiority. Have you ever been to Possum Kingdom, Cut and Shoot, or Lukenbach? No? Then you ain't traveled everywhere have ya?

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Homosexual marriage is no more of a right than is plural marriage or marriage between close family members. Society at large deems what is culturally acceptable or societal norm. So far, when the states hold referendums that define what marriage is, the definition in the vast majority of America is that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman.

Only 50 years ago interracial marriages were deemed outside of "what is culturally acceptable or societal norm". It wasn't until the courts got involved that all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States were removed.

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

If it wasn't for the US Supreme Court stepping in, BY YOUR LOGIC, your marriage and that of many people on this site would be outside of what is culturally acceptable or a societal norm (act was actually a felony) and should not have taken place.

Exactly hermano. I pointed this out earlier to some VJer who went on a rampage and is married to someone from a different ethnicity. But it is easier to just ignore the obvious for some people. Oh well.

Gee, I'm just sh*tting all over myself. I'm so impressed. I bow to your superiority. Have you ever been to Possum Kingdom, Cut and Shoot, or Lukenbach? No? Then you ain't traveled everywhere have ya?

Constantly, yes.

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

[Good thing the pope doesn't issue marriage licenses in the U.S. Nor does God, or Allah, or Buddha, Zeus, or the Giant Spaghetti Monster.

ohhhh ohhhh my marriage is fake!!!

#######. no one told me that, either

But I've heard Coatlicue is THE WOMAN when it comes to marriage licenses..... so we're cool Tavo

ufffff, thank Huitzilopochtli, we have aztec blood

[peejay 327]

Homosexual marriage is no more of a right than is plural marriage or marriage between close family members. Society at large deems what is culturally acceptable or societal norm. So far, when the states hold referendums that define what marriage is, the definition in the vast majority of America is that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman.

Only 50 years ago interracial marriages were deemed outside of "what is culturally acceptable or societal norm". It wasn't until the courts got involved that all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States were removed.

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

If it wasn't for the US Supreme Court stepping in, BY YOUR LOGIC, your marriage and that of many people on this site would be outside of what is culturally acceptable or a societal norm (act was actually a felony) and should not have taken place.

Are you for real? What does race have to do with something that is not biologically correct? Do you know the difference? What next? Inter-species marriages? Where do you draw the line?

Double for you too!

[t0+ 1]

Exactly hermano. I pointed this out earlier to some VJer who went on a rampage and is married to someone from a different ethnicity. But it is easier to just ignore the obvious for some people. Oh well.

Glad someone is pointing out how absurd some of these arguments are. This thread makes me feel like I woke up in the wrong century today. Fridays are supposed to be the good days.

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

Gee, I'm just sh*tting all over myselfI'm so impressed. I bow to your superiority. . Have you ever been to Possum Kingdom, Cut and Shoot, or Lukenbach? No? Then you ain't traveled everywhere have ya?

Some Depends may help

you are not the first B)

Edited November 21, 2008 by TävôLuDô

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If it wasn't for the US Supreme Court stepping in, BY YOUR LOGIC, your marriage and that of many people on this site would be outside of what is culturally acceptable or a societal norm (act was actually a felony) and should not have taken place.

peejay's marriage would not fall foul of miscegenation laws

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Homosexual marriage is no more of a right than is plural marriage or marriage between close family members. Society at large deems what is culturally acceptable or societal norm. So far, when the states hold referendums that define what marriage is, the definition in the vast majority of America is that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman.

Only 50 years ago interracial marriages were deemed outside of "what is culturally acceptable or societal norm". It wasn't until the courts got involved that all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States were removed.

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

If it wasn't for the US Supreme Court stepping in, BY YOUR LOGIC, your marriage and that of many people on this site would be outside of what is culturally acceptable or a societal norm (act was actually a felony) and should not have taken place.

Are you for real? What does race have to do with something that is not biologically correct? Do you know the difference? What next? Inter-species marriages? Where do you draw the line?

Double for you too!

Back in the day, this country thought inter-racial relationships and breeding of mongrel children was considered not natural or biologically correct. Maybe your history book is missing a few pages?

Keep digging.

[peejay 327]

If it wasn't for the US Supreme Court stepping in, BY YOUR LOGIC, your marriage and that of many people on this site would be outside of what is culturally acceptable or a societal norm (act was actually a felony) and should not have taken place.

peejay's marriage would not fall foul of miscegenation laws

Does that fact upset you?

[IAMX 3,055]

Are you for real? What does race have to do with something that is not biologically correct? Do you know the difference? What next? Inter-species marriages? Where do you draw the line?

As mentioned by me, race is a protected status, so is sexuality, so is gender. That's what it has to do with it. Has nothing to do with your subjective beliefs of homosexuality being "not biologically correct". Has everything also to do with judicial precedence now favoring gays as well. If you have a problem with the way judges see things, file an amicus (curiae) briefing and convince them of your so-called logic.