Skip to content

Supreme Court Overturns Doma, Skips On Judgement Of Prop 8

Political Discussion
142 11 3.4k
  • I thought you said it actually was normal, woody.

    (even though I agree that's not a useful criteria)

    WSS

    @westside-steve said:

    I thought you said it actually was normal, woody.

    (even though I agree that's not a useful criteria)

    WSS

    I guess it depends on how you want to define "normal". Is it something in the minority? Yeah. Is it something that rarely rarely ever happens and is exclusive to us in nature? No. Its just different from me or you, but not necessarily abnormal. There are things that are more "abnormal" that we allow just fine. In our culture it would be abnormal to eat bugs.

    Either way, I'm rambling on about something inconsequential for this argument. I shouldn't have to convince Cal, Bunker or DieHard its "normal" for it to be legal. Let them think its abnormal. Let then think whatever they want. Its still not a reason to keep hay marriage illegal.

  • @westside-steve said:

    I thought you said it actually was normal, woody.

    (even though I agree that's not a useful criteria)

    WSS

    I guess it depends on how you want to define "normal". Is it something in the minority? Yeah. Is it something that rarely rarely ever happens and is exclusive to us in nature? No. Its just different from me or you, but not necessarily abnormal. There are things that are more "abnormal" that we allow just fine. In our culture it would be abnormal to eat bugs.

    Either way, I'm rambling on about something inconsequential for this argument. I shouldn't have to convince Cal, Bunker or DieHard its "normal" for it to be legal. Let them think its abnormal. Let then think whatever they want. Its still not a reason to keep hay marriage illegal.

    @mld-woody said:

    I guess it depends on how you want to define "normal". Is it something in the minority? Yeah. Is it something that rarely rarely ever happens and is exclusive to us in nature? No. Its just different from me or you, but not necessarily abnormal. There are things that are more "abnormal" that we allow just fine. In our culture it would be abnormal to eat bugs.

    Either way, I'm rambling on about something inconsequential for this argument. I shouldn't have to convince Cal, Bunker or DieHard its "normal" for it to be legal. Let them think its abnormal. Let then think whatever they want. Its still not a reason to keep hay marriage illegal.

    I have nothing against hay marriage.

  • @westside-steve said:

    I thought you said it actually was normal, woody.

    (even though I agree that's not a useful criteria)

    WSS

    I guess it depends on how you want to define "normal". Is it something in the minority? Yeah. Is it something that rarely rarely ever happens and is exclusive to us in nature? No. Its just different from me or you, but not necessarily abnormal. There are things that are more "abnormal" that we allow just fine. In our culture it would be abnormal to eat bugs.

    Either way, I'm rambling on about something inconsequential for this argument. I shouldn't have to convince Cal, Bunker or DieHard its "normal" for it to be legal. Let them think its abnormal. Let then think whatever they want. Its still not a reason to keep hay marriage illegal.

    @mld-woody said:

    I guess it depends on how you want to define "normal". Is it something in the minority? Yeah. Is it something that rarely rarely ever happens and is exclusive to us in nature? No. Its just different from me or you, but not necessarily abnormal. There are things that are more "abnormal" that we allow just fine. In our culture it would be abnormal to eat bugs.

    Either way, I'm rambling on about something inconsequential for this argument. I shouldn't have to convince Cal, Bunker or DieHard its "normal" for it to be legal. Let them think its abnormal. Let then think whatever they want. Its still not a reason to keep hay marriage illegal.

    Really Woody? So it's come down to this...having to explain the birds and the bees to you. Why am I not surprised.

    Nature makes the opposite sexes of the human species attracted to each other for one reason, and one reason only....reproduction.

    Pedophilia, beastiality, and homosexuality are abnormal behaviors.

    You think we should "get with the times" and accept pedophilia too?

    I bet you fuck your dog.

  • @mld-woody said:

    I guess it depends on how you want to define "normal". Is it something in the minority? Yeah. Is it something that rarely rarely ever happens and is exclusive to us in nature? No. Its just different from me or you, but not necessarily abnormal. There are things that are more "abnormal" that we allow just fine. In our culture it would be abnormal to eat bugs.

    Either way, I'm rambling on about something inconsequential for this argument. I shouldn't have to convince Cal, Bunker or DieHard its "normal" for it to be legal. Let them think its abnormal. Let then think whatever they want. Its still not a reason to keep hay marriage illegal.

    Really Woody? So it's come down to this...having to explain the birds and the bees to you. Why am I not surprised.

    Nature makes the opposite sexes of the human species attracted to each other for one reason, and one reason only....reproduction.

    Pedophilia, beastiality, and homosexuality are abnormal behaviors.

    You think we should "get with the times" and accept pedophilia too?

    I bet you fuck your dog.

    @stewy said:

    Really Woody? So it's come down to this...having to explain the birds and the bees to you. Why am I not surprised.

    Nature makes the opposite sexes of the human species attracted to each other for one reason, and one reason only....reproduction.

    Pedophilia, beastiality, and homosexuality are abnormal behaviors.

    You think we should "get with the times" and accept pedophilia too?

    I bet you fuck your dog.

    Fuck off shit stain.

    You're honestly comparing this too beastiality and pedophilia? Are you too stupid to understand the difference?

    So two gay guys or girls can't have a kid together, that means they can't get married? And for all the two sex couples that can't reproduce....?

    It doesn't matter whether you think it is normal or not. Besides the fact that no one has ever given a shit about anything you've said your entire life, your opinion doesn't void the ability for gays to marry. You can think its strange, evil and weird all you want, it shouldn't have to affect them.

  • I thought you said it actually was normal, woody.

    (even though I agree that's not a useful criteria)

    WSS

    @westside-steve said:

    I thought you said it actually was normal, woody.

    (even though I agree that's not a useful criteria)

    WSS

    I believe it is useful criteria because it devalues marriage.

    Two of the 45 goals presented in 1958 by Skousen...

    Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

    and...

    Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

    No fault divorce...that 50% of marriages end in divorce. Easy divorce devalues the institution. Gays being married only further devalues it.

    It's kinda like the feeling you get when you are awarded something special because you qualify....then out of compassion give someone else the very same thing who is not qualified. That makes you feel what you received less valuable.

    Reminds me of another stupid liberal idea based on feelings, compassion, and self esteem...to award trophies, or awards to kids who come in last place...pathetic.

  • Well don't worry, I don't see you winning an award any time soon.

    What makes you more qualified to get married? Because you and your partner can reproduce? Do infertile couples getting married "devalue" marriage?

    How could letting gays marry possibly "devalue" marriage anywhere near what the high divorce rate is? Or the quicky chapels in Vegas and elsewhere?

    Allowing gays that love each other and want to spend the rest of their life together get married will do more harm to marriage than people going through 4 or more spouses?

    What allows you to decide what values and devalues marriage anyway? Make your own "Super Special (insert religion or group) Marriage" if you want, keep it as pure as you like.

    But like I said, luckily I'm not the mminority opinion here

  • 1. Woody - you have a CAR? Who's old enough to drive you around?

    2. I actually might think a MALE hay bale, and a FEMALE hay bale could get married,

    long before perversion reigns. Then they could, if they wanted to, have a bunch of little

    hay bales around. Little Potty Mouth Johnny Woodypeckerhead seems to be getting all

    nasty with his language. Maybe Little Woodypeckerhead needs a timeout... in a gay bar or something.

    3. Devalues the DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE, woodypeckerhead. Your infantile rationalizations rank below

    your usual fourth grade level.

    4. Typical lib - getting all hateful and outraged because other real human beings don't agree with him

    about some subject. haha. Why is it that libs always emotionally claim they are in the majority and so they

    "rule" blah blah stupid blah.... ? Like Mao saying "the people have spoken because that's what I want..."

    5. Have a nice day.

  • I'm honestly sick of some of the stuff on this board, so I'm going to tell you to fuck off.

    Bunker is just a bad person, DieHard is just a crotchety old guy, but you're probably the worst. You are so damn hypocritical in everything you post, but you don't realize it because you're blinded by your one sided, black and white political beliefs.

    No one has given a real reason for why it should be illegal. You thinking it "devalues" marriage, just because its different, is no argument at all. I'm sure decades ago you'd be in the group rallying against interracial marriage.

    Devalues the definition? So the definition can't change? But all those other times it did, that was fine. Its just now that it can't change. Or should we go back to paying for a man's virgin daughter with livestock? Or forcing take victims to marry their attackers?

    I've said it a bunch and I'll say it again, the fact your side isn't the majority at least shows some silver lining

  • Who the hell you calling crotchety you young whipper snapper?

  • We've given you many reasons. You just ignore them and ask

    for reasons you will accept. Which, none. YOU'RE getting sick?

    Why don't you go away and live in heckbunker's closet, maybe he'll take you in

    and support you all your miserable life.

    Woody = zero legit content and whining and bitching and gay stuff = butt of the board.

    blech.

  • We've given you many reasons. You just ignore them and ask

    for reasons you will accept. Which, none. YOU'RE getting sick?

    Why don't you go away and live in heckbunker's closet, maybe he'll take you in

    and support you all your miserable life.

    Woody = zero legit content and whining and bitching and gay stuff = butt of the board.

    blech.

    @calfoxwc said:

    We've given you many reasons. You just ignore them and ask

    for reasons you will accept. Which, none. YOU'RE getting sick?

    Why don't you go away and live in heckbunker's closet, maybe he'll take you in

    and support you all your miserable life.

    Woody = zero legit content and whining and bitching and gay stuff = butt of the board.

    blech.

    "I think its bad and weird" isn't a reason...

    I already described earlier though why you won't get that.

  • The bible says no. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. The guy in the sky who could wiggle his little nose and make all gayness disappear forever but won't hates it. That's why.

  • Maybe woodypeckerhead would like to marry woody woodpecker.

    He makes little genuine contribution to any thread on this entire forum.

    Waste of space, every post of his.

  • Right Cal, but your post ^ was full of intellectual insight

    Its officially, you are out of shit to say and you know you're wrong. Nothing left to do but try to insult me. Isn't that one of those damned "lib tactics" you always go on and on about?

    Oh yeah that's right, you're a hypocritical fuck head

  • You fail to understand the difference between once in a while , and "every single time over an entire year.

    I have many, many facets to my stuff. Extremely versatile most of us are. You are not. The only thing

    you have is little strange pouty one liners most of the time, apparently you think that not really saying anything

    will help you look like something you really aren't. A whole lot like Brad Paisley's song "So Much Cooler Online". Really sad.

  • Still hypocritical

    Still no real reason.

    Congrats.

  • You fail to understand the difference between once in a while , and "every single time over an entire year.

    I have many, many facets to my stuff. Extremely versatile most of us are. You are not. The only thing

    you have is little strange pouty one liners most of the time, apparently you think that not really saying anything

    will help you look like something you really aren't. A whole lot like Brad Paisley's song "So Much Cooler Online". Really sad.

    You "got nothin", and it seems to get less all the time.

    BTW, "Its officially, you are out of shit to say and you know you're wrong" is laughable.

    First graders know better than this bs. "Its" is possessive. "The monkey lost its banana"

    You failed to use "It's", which is a contraction of the two words "it is".

    Go have someone intelligent look it up for you. And "officially" ??? LOL.

    if you said "It's official..." , You would be starting to write properly

    "out of shit" ??? I reckon it takes one who is FULL of crap to come up with that twisted notion.

    And "out of shit to say and ..." ...what? It's okay. I won't LOL. Really. I just feel pity for you if you don't know better.

  • Oh god... typos... oh no... you got me again...

    Insulting me and calling out typos... my argument is ruined! Oh no... I've been bested...

    Seriously, do you have anything of substance on why this should be illegal?

  • Yes. I have explained before, at GREAT LENGTH. I'm tired of doing that, others of us are tired of repeating ourselves.

    As I have explained in the other thread, this stupid crap of asking questions, and getting long discussions

    going on controversial subjects, and instead of taking legit part, you libs sit back and get mad at the answers,

    then you wait til later, and start all over again, until you end up with nobody caring to keep answering.

    Then you libs fraudulently claim vindication at no answers. Very lib childish and dishonest. Must really suck to live that way.

  • ....so, still no actual reason? Just "I don't like it"

    Alright.

    You know with all of your recent posts going on and on about libs, typos and myself you could have just answered.