Prop 8 Losers In Denial

Oh, brother, I wonder how many times tradition has been redefined, already!

But, hell no, we can't change, that would be too progressive!
 
Dixie imagines that everyone in the future will be just as bigoted as he--this guy has never operated in reality.
 
Dixie said:
Not completely true with homosexuality. There is no way to "breed" them, and it apparently happens randomly, and that percentage is probably not going to change as a percentage of the population with time, as have other minority activist groups. In 100 years, we will still have a relatively small homosexual community, and hopefully we will have come to an age where we realize we can't redefine traditions to accommodate them.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous and exactly the kind of ridiculous "can't face truth" kinda comment that dooms republicans.

Don't look now but gays haven't reduced in numbers or political power in spite of all the efforts of the religious knuckledraggers.

In 100 years America will be a completely different country .. in fact, in about 20 years or so it will be different as it will no longer be majority white.

In the first run of Prop 8 type legislation it passed with 62% of the vote .. this time it passed with 52% of the vote .. when it comes back again .. and it will be back .. and after the consequences of the boycott sets in, the smart money will be on the failure of such legislation.

The most beautiful thing about this last election was not so much what I heard .. it was what I didn't hear .. like, christian conservatives .. and Ralph Reed .. both inconsequential and their silence was beautiful.

Don't look now, but it's you that's shrinking.

... gays ain't going anywhere.
 
In 100 years America will be a completely different country .. in fact, in about 20 years or so it will be different as it will no longer be majority white.
Click to expand...

Well this doesn't bode well for your agenda, does it? I mean, considering Hispanics and African-Americans were overwhelmingly opposed, and most of your support came from the white voters. Seems to me, a growing Hispanic population is the certain kiss of death for this initiative over time.

As I have said before, you keep pushing... keep having your judicial activists force this on the people against their will, and you will end up getting a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage. If you really want to do something to "help" the gay community, you should try to find a way to accept 'civil unions' proposals, and moderate your viewpoint. ....But, what's the fun in that, right?
 
Don't look now but gays haven't reduced in numbers or political power in spite of all the efforts of the religious knuckledraggers.
Click to expand...

Well, knuckledraggers and religion doesn't have much effect on nature. Gays haven't reduced nor gained in numbers, as percentage of the population, they remain about the same. There are probably more people who will admit they are gay today, but the actual numbers of homosexual people are a small percentage of whatever the population is, and that is probably not going to ever change. Perhaps one day, we can discover what causes homosexuality in humans, but then... would liberal activists be opposed to allowing people to be treated or given preventative vaccinations against homosexual offspring? You have to wonder! Could we actually see the reverse of the "pro-choice" argument?
 
ib1yysguy said:
Gee, you just got done telling us again how gay marriage won't effect "traditional marriage." You just revealed yourself (again).
Click to expand...

It's because you keep trying to untwist what has gone through your twisted mind. I can't help you with that. I said that I have never argued Gay Marriage would effect Traditional Marriages. "Protecting Traditional Marriage" from activist judges who seek to redefine it, is not me saying anything contradictory.
 
So gay marriage isn't a threat to traditional marriage, but traditional marriage needs to be protected from gays getting married.

You, sir, are retarded.
 
ib1yysguy said:
So gay marriage isn't a threat to traditional marriage, but traditional marriage needs to be protected from gays getting married.

You, sir, are retarded.
Click to expand...

No, are you really so retarded you can't read a fucking paragraph? That's the question!

A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WOULD PROTECT TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE FROM ACTIVIST JUDGES, YOU NIT-WIT!!!

You see.... A judge, or Supreme Court of Justices, can't overrule a Constitutional Amendment. They can't step in and dictate law from the bench, like they have repeatedly done with Gay Marriage, and like they did with Abortion, for that matter. A Constitutional Amendment PROTECTS something from ACTIVIST JUDGES!

Now for God's sake... please find something worthy of me responding to, and stop trying to "catch me" in some contradiction I've never made. You are about as pathetic as Waterhead with this stupid shit.
 
Dixie said:
Traditional Marriage IS threatened... BY ACTIVIST JUDGES! DIMWIT!
Click to expand...

Says the thrice divorced gentleman.

Any sane person does not base the sanctity of his marriage on whether or not a couple of queens can do the same.

Sane people base their marriage on the sanctity of their relationship and their god(s). Thats how I'll do it anyhow. I'm not going to fear losing merit because some gay dudes got married also.
 
Beefy, would you be so kind as to move your lazy fat ass to the beginning of the thread and read all of the posts leading up to the one you are replying to? If you would bother to take the time and actually READ what I have posted, instead of reacting to the last page of distortion from iBreallystupid, you might actually understand my position regarding gay partnerships and traditional marriage. I don't have the time or patience to go through the entire debate with you all over again, once was enough for me, and it would only confuse the pinhead idiots more.

The quick summary:

Dixie does not hate gay people.
Dixie does not oppose gay people having a 'wedding ceremony'.
Dixie does not oppose government sanctioned civil unions for any two adults.
Dixie does oppose redefining 'marriage' to include sexual behavior or preferences.
Dixie does oppose judicial fiat against the will of the people.

Dixie's personal life is not defined or evaluated by his viewpoints on this topic.

Changing a fundamental religious ceremony is not something our government or legislature should ever be allowed to do, regardless of how much they have already encroached into the tradition itself. Doing so, is a direct mockery and undermining of the sanctity of the religious tradition, and (I believe) a violation of the 1st Amendment.
 
Dixie said:
Traditional Marriage IS threatened... BY ACTIVIST JUDGES! DIMWIT!
Click to expand...

So gay marriage does not threaten traditional marriage. But activist judges allowing gay marriage DOES threaten traditional marriage?

I haven't had enough coffee to follow that logic.
 
Beefy said:
Says the thrice divorced gentleman.

Any sane person does not base the sanctity of his marriage on whether or not a couple of queens can do the same.

Sane people base their marriage on the sanctity of their relationship and their god(s). Thats how I'll do it anyhow. I'm not going to fear losing merit because some gay dudes got married also.
Click to expand...

Beefy is he really divorced three times?

You know, divorced people spouting off about traditional values is always gag-inducing, but three times and still spouting about their values being insulted and their marriages under attack?

That's enough to make a person cry from the frustration of it all.
 
Solitary said:
So gay marriage does not threaten traditional marriage. But activist judges allowing gay marriage DOES threaten traditional marriage?

I haven't had enough coffee to follow that logic.
Click to expand...

Well it's really very simple... one thing does threaten and another thing doesn't. What is hard to follow about that? You can comprehend the difference between two gay people getting hitched and a judge using his power and position to pass a law based on a redefinition in contradiction to the public he serves, can't you? If you can't distinguish the difference in those two things, we really have nothing else to talk about until you get some mental help.
 
Darla said:
Beefy is he really divorced three times?

You know, divorced people spouting off about traditional values is always gag-inducing, but three times and still spouting about their values being insulted and their marriages under attack?

That's enough to make a person cry from the frustration of it all.
Click to expand...

Beefy doesn't know if I've even been married before. My personal life has absolutely nothing to do with this issue or my viewpoints on this issue, nor is it my personal relationships which are being discussed here. As I have said on any number of occasions, I'm not like a fascist liberal, I don't expect society to live by my standards and uphold my personal views. I have never stated that gay marriage personally insulted me or attacked my marriage, and your insinuations, as well as Beefy's, are deplorable, cheap and sickening. No wonder you earned the nickname "Cunt!"

It fits you!
 
Dixie said:
Well it's really very simple... one thing does threaten and another thing doesn't. What is hard to follow about that? You can comprehend the difference between two gay people getting hitched and a judge using his power and position to pass a law based on a redefinition in contradiction to the public he serves, can't you? If you can't distinguish the difference in those two things, we really have nothing else to talk about until you get some mental help.
Click to expand...

Slippery slope nonsense. I sure that if a judge ruled that all Americans have the right to marry you'd be eying up that ??? and your real values would just go out the window, cause jeez, gays have equal rights. LMAO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top