"Whites" need only apply!

[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

Does that fact upset you?

no

i am correcting the record, they don't know. we've posted to each other a lot so just filling in the noobies.

[HAL 9000 96]

"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.

Yeah sorry. Slippery slope arguments don't hold enough water. Arguing plural unions in lieu of monogamous unions as its coded now between a man and a woman, with the simple and logical substitution of man and man or woman and woman is indeed down the slope.

Heterosexual unions, homosexual unions. Beyond that, your own personal prejudice shows through your gritting teeth. Equal rights- and that's all there is to it.

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

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.

Ohhhh he will, noooo doubt about it...

[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!

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.

So...since when have homosexuals been capable of breeding? There is no comparison, but you seem to delude yourself thatr there is somehow a comparison. The truth is...there is no comparison. Time to find another arguement.

[IAMX 3,055]

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.

So...since when have homosexuals been capable of breeding? There is no comparison, but you seem to delude yourself thatr there is somehow a comparison. The truth is...there is no comparison. Time to find another arguement.

And since when is breeding a requisite of marriage?

Show it, otherwise try not making sh*t up.

Edited November 21, 2008 by SRVT

[HAL 9000 96]

"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.

Better for brother peejay to leave 1956.

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

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.

So...since when have homosexuals been capable of breeding? There is no comparison, but you seem to delude yourself thatr there is somehow a comparison. The truth is...there is no comparison. Time to find another arguement.

OMFG, where are the cameras??? Am I being punk'd???? seriously!!

I just want to ask 1 question, just one

U own a passport???

Edited November 21, 2008 by TävôLuDô

[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?

no

i am correcting the record, they don't know. we've posted to each other a lot so just filling in the noobies.

Should I be ashamed?

Just to get the record straight...did you marry within your own race? Does it really make a #### to this debate about homosexual marriage?

And...just to set the record straight...there are no miscegenation laws in the USA presently.

[HAL 9000 96]

"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.

Why should the peasants on main street decide on the rights of others. Again I don't get why people care enough to protest something that doesn't affect them.

Exactly. Its just insane. Of course there's an alternate explanation to this... and it involves either 'closets' or Freudian interpretations of the whole matter.

[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!

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.

So...since when have homosexuals been capable of breeding? There is no comparison, but you seem to delude yourself thatr there is somehow a comparison. The truth is...there is no comparison. Time to find another arguement.

OMFG, where are the cameras??? Am I being punk'd???? seriously!!

I just want to ask 1 question, just one

U own a passport???

Only punks can get punked.

[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

Does that fact upset you?

no

i am correcting the record, they don't know. we've posted to each other a lot so just filling in the noobies.

Should I be ashamed?

Just to get the record straight...did you marry within your own race? Does it really make a #### to this debate about homosexual marriage?

And...just to set the record straight...there are no miscegenation laws in the USA presently.

stand down, old man. put the stick down.

ive taken no position in this argument.

a noob said you wouldnt be able to marry if miscegenation laws existed. i corrected him/her.

[HAL 9000 96]

[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!!!

You're OK. Flying Spahetti Monster sends its blessings. If that don't work, HAL 9000 can always consecrate your union.

[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.

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!

you stated that, "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."

I was just letting you know how by your definition, your marriage was actually against what was defined by the vast majority of America and if it wasn't for the SCOTUS many of us, yourself included, would not have been able to marry the one person we love so much.

Join the 20th century. Maybe the 21st someday.

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

Only punks can get punked.

Ohhhhh you funny man! OHHHHH

This will never end, he is back in the 1800s, why try?

Edited November 21, 2008 by TävôLuDô

[IAMX 3,055]

Should I be ashamed?

Just to get the record straight...did you marry within your own race? Does it really make a #### to this debate about homosexual marriage?

And...just to set the record straight...there are no miscegenation laws in the USA presently.

It sure does. Exclusion of a party who is a protected status has a whole lot to do with it. Of course, it isn't convenient to your debate, which really matters not anyways.