It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is NJ govenor Mcgreevey a gay mole?

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 04:24 AM
There will be acceptance for our gay Bro's, if there isn't, walk up to my window.

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 05:18 AM
What is the problem? Ill play whatever card i like from my hand...and im not buying what your selling...
Hamilton asked, hunted me down cross thread, (in the spirit of debate no doubght) and i had agreed to give him an answer....
THIS IS THE CORE OF THE DEBATE. the cultures right thru democratic means to say NO to ANY SIMG, especially ones that devicively steal voters power to allow a SINGLE person to enact legislations for everyone ILLEGALLY...or to LIE about sexuality to protect a political career/adgenda.
why dont you talk about the court case info i posted
explain that away too.

Ill leave it up to you to explain away the first amendment protections for these forms of legalized discriminations.
if you can....
and you seem SOO eager to continue to strip democratic principals and actual rights away from all citizens in favor of your SIMG agenda...
dont tell me you know why I oppose this, because your getting ready to join the ranks of subversive people that want to hijack democracy and other peoples rights for their hidden agenda's.
now now boys and nice

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 05:51 AM
intrepid says,

There will be acceptance for our gay Bro's

Actually, if you look at polls (which i dont have time to research and provide now) they gennerally show that the overall populace has little problem with people being gay
but would NOT favor gay marriage....

I accept gay people just fine, have gone to gay nightclubs many times with friends, since they come to straight clubs with seems only fair,
yet i wouldnt support gay marriage either.
(unless your using the bible and judging them evil)
Almost noone (other than truly biggoted radicals), is advocating removal of any existing abillities for gays...
but gays asking for a new privilage under existing laws is not society attempting to deny them anything.
(so we'll attempt to steal all the votes and laws concerning this in california, and mabey get a secretly gay politician to back us before he uses being gay as a shield to deflect away attentions into his crooked politics and cronyism)

but boo hoo we suffer like the blacks did...
bullsiht and an insult to blacks! gays were NEVER considered property, denied rights to own property, segregated by law, or denied the rght to vote....

and all the crying about gay marriage being a right doesnt change the fact that its not. NOONE has marriage as a civil right.

But OHH lets keep perpetuating the secret agenda....LOL

[edit on 3-9-2004 by CazMedia]

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 07:37 PM

Originally posted by CazMedia
the kkk is a legally recognized and PROTECTED SIMG...they have the rights to their philosophy and its exposition to anyone that will listen....while some individules have committed violations under the law using this mentality, the group itself is perfectly legal, they own lots of land, have big printing/distribution centers, and lots of legal guns..
the same is true of NAMBLA, they can legally expouse their ideas all day long legally, but if they are caught actually DOING them its a different story.

First off, gays are not a SIMG, they are a segment of our diverse society, people generally (excluding those who use sexuality as an expression of some kind) do not "join" the gay club, they may just be males who have a physiology (possibly a greater level of female hormones, then straight men that cause them to behave more like females), that being said, you seem to fully support the rights of organizations that promote and obviously engage in criminal activity and behavior that harms others, but you are against the rights of gays, who do not harm others in their behavior and are NOT a SIMG, if you say they are, than you must also say that we straight people are a special interest majority group, no? So if that's the case, then EVERYBODY belongs to a special interest group at birth, and none of us should have any rights, unless they are approved of by the "majority", right?

Are you sure you live in the USA?

Let me check the address on my drivers license.........yep, I live in the USA.

i used christians as i knew id get agreement that that SIMG is also trying questionable manuvers with laws/process...LMAO too.

Yeah, and George W Bush is their mole, I'm glad you see that now, LOL.

Again are you saying that a democratic society, thru established methods of the democracy does NOT have the right to say "this is not for our culture"? can this be a yes or no answer.

Through what established methods have we been given the right to choose if this is for our culture? I must have missed that vote. Really the answer is no, this country is supposed to be the land of the FREE, you're suggesting that we should be able to vote people's rights away because we don't agree with their lifestyle? No, we should not "vote" for what our culture will allow, this is the melting pot, remember? Our culture is one of diversity, a mixture of MANY cultures, and as long as the basic laws of our civilization are followed (killing, stealing, etc.), what people do, or who they marry, is none or our business.

lets look at the proof

please note a few things from exerpts,

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California's Supreme Court annulled more than 4,000 gay marriages in San Francisco on Thursday after finding the city acted improperly in granting marriage licenses earlier this year in defiance of state law.

What did McGreevey have to do with this?

"Local officials in San Francisco exceeded their authority by taking official action in violation of applicable statutory provisions," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote. "The same-sex marriages authorized by the officials are void and of no legal effect."

Or this?

In its decision, the justices focused on whether the mayor had the authority to marry gays rather than on the broader arguments whether the state constitution must allow gay marriage

Or this? But let's look further into this one, there is an ARGUMENT as to whether there is ANYTHING in the state constitution prohibiting gay marriage, so obviously, it's not a clear violation of statutory provisions, is it? Which laws are being broken here? There aren't any, no matter how hard the courts are trying to find them.

In an unusual twist on the day of the California decision, New Jersey Democratic Gov. James McGreevey, an opponent of gay marriage, abruptly resigned, announcing that he was gay and had had a homosexual affair.

Yeah, but the hidden agenda you claimed may have existed, was that he was forcing gay rights, this clearly states he was opposing them. So, I guess his hidden gay agenda was to ensure they are denied rights, now I get it, it was all so clear!

[edit on 4-9-2004 by 27jd]

posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 12:09 PM
You're stretching it. And sorry, heard that argument before and it didn't fly back then either. I'm not even going the route that issues such as driver's licenses, and cigarettes, or alcohol etc can be dangerous in the hands of someone younger, even though it would be an easy enough argument to make. But explain me this.

Is there anyway a 10 year old white girl can get a driver's license here? No?

Is there anyway an 8 year old Hispanic boy can legally buy cigarettes? No?

Is there anyway a 13 year old African-American kid can legally walk into a bar and buy a beer? No?

Is there anyway a 27 year old gay man can get married? No? Err wait, yes! He can just play it straight and marry a girl (and destroy his family down the road when it founds out he is really gay). How many other 'discriminations' work out like that? Hmm?

Do you see how silly that is? Do you realize that a gay man marrying another man he wants to be with is far less a detriment to society and the family structure than a gay man marrying a woman just to 'play it straight' (ESPECIALLY as evidenced by these two outted politicians)?

No one has said anything about privated, 'instutionalized' discriminations. In fact, I've said just the opposite. If a private church does not want to marry a gay couple, that's no problem. That's up to them. But the government is not a private institution like the ones you listed. You know this already. That's why some of those places are able to get away with those types of discriminations while the government cannot.

As for your arguments about marriage not being a civil rights issue on some level, then why allow interracial marriage? Why did they bow down to those pressures? They could have just left a ban on it as well, or better yet use valuable time fighting for a Constitutional ban on it

Whether you are able to find a man/woman to marry you is of no consequence to the government. However, if you do get married, and the government provides special rights and privileges for those that are married, it is its duty to provide those benefits equally, for reasons I already stated. Civil rights IS the fight for equal rights.

posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 05:13 PM
CazMedia"Id rather have a perv that wants to give a 12 yr old a BJ walking around"
Wow, a guy giving 12 year olds bjs........ I'm sorry, that is wrong. How is that better then the guy who would kill him? The guy who kills him will go to jail, the guy who gives him head will be let go after a couple months of therapy and next time rape a boy. Then next time kill a boy. Like with drugs, it all takes that one step. Caz, using pedophilia to throw the arguement off your bigot veiws and dislike of gays isn't going to work.

You state earlier that gays bad, bible says so. Then you say if gays allowed to marry then world will end. Then you say gay marrige bad because society will fall. Now you are saying...... something. Caz, either stick with your first arguement or start a new discussion.

posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 01:29 AM
James, WTF!!! Stop reading what you WISH i said!
I have NEVER advocated sexual assault against ANYONE including minors as acceptable behaivior! EVER!
I NEVER said that one of these criminals should be walking around more/less than the other.

James asks,

How is that better then the guy who would kill him?
AGAIN people....if you cant see thru your sexual zeal to see that a child that has been molested is still ALIVE, can live another 60+ years, be helped to come to terms with the assault, and go on to lead a full and productive life...possibly discovering a cure for cancer or some other great deed for mankind is a hell of a lot better place in life than being 6ft under in a box being eaten by worms is absolutly beyond me.
One of these paths has hope for a brighter future, one of these paths ENDS.
The fact that the punnishments under the law reflect this difference in MAGNITUDE of the 2 crimes also suggests that you guys are on a different planet.

As far as your assertation that the perv will get out, THEY NEVER WILL!
While a perv MIGHT get released from prison, they must allow big brother to track them FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES, they will have flyers about their presence in the neighborhood given to neighbors, their debt to society will NEVER be repayed.
UNLIKE a murderer, who might also be released from prison, yet he will NOT have this same type of situation follow him forever..(a scarlet letter)..YES he will legally have to disclose this to get a job, but other than that, the PD wont be knocking on neighbors doors telling folks about him, and he wont have to register with big brother everytime he changes addresses.
This is a fundamental difference in the way these 2 convicts are being treated. (we are not talking about probation here)

I did NOT use this issue to throw anything off, IF YOU ACTUALLY READ, then you would have heard me ranting because after i put the term NAMBLA in a post...OTHER people grabbed this erroniously and tried to run with it. they read NAMBLA and their minds switched off, their zeal blinded them to a point, NOT an advocation of NAMBLA or use of it to sidetrack or link to gays in ANY way. I clearly stated this.

James, again reading what he wants to see says,

You state earlier that gays bad, bible says so. Then you say if gays allowed to marry then world will end.
PLEASE show me a cut and paste of where I EVER said this. Do you have memory problems? You and I have discussed this issue on several threads and ill bet on EVERY one of them ive said, DONT BRING THE BIBLE INTO THIS ISSUE!!! I have stood firm WITH YOU on this point.
I have NEVER said/used god as a way to say gays were bad/evil.
Ill bet i can count multiple examples in this thread where ive said this and also where ive said stop using devisive terms like homobhobe etc...ive asked that both sides refrain from this behaivior...and discuss the points not the emotions behind them.
typical read only what you want and attack the messenger instead of the message.

Society will fall....
HMM, i believe i said i agree that society would not fall because gays get to marry, but that if it was done by throwing out the constitution, laws and principals of democratic process in order to allow this, that is could. Those are fundamental principals of this civilization, but your narrow focus refuses to see this is the basis of my stance, not a fear, dislike, or condemnation of being gay.
Lets cut and paste from my responce on page 5 to be sure,

No it wont, but it can fall because we throw the principals that society is founded upon like democracy, rule of law, and cultural identity out the window. Which is what it appears is being asked of by this special interest minority group.
OMG!!! How in the F james did you NOT read this....OH YEAH, your too busy trying to project your lables on me to actually SEE these points, all you see is homophobe, and not the actual argument.
STOP attacking me and start addressing the POINTS James. this would be the 10th time in this thread alone i have asked for this but all of you with weak ass, no brained responces can still only avoid my points and attack me. Come up with something new or shut the hell up.

And NO james, i dont suspect you'll be a big person and actually admit that you misread/quoted what i said...just skip over it like it never happened right? no one will notice your mistake....right?

Honestly james, I feel that you are incapable of logically adressing the issues i raise and can only resort to attacking/demonizing me.

[edit on 5-9-2004 by CazMedia]

posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 02:56 AM
You say Im stretching this, yet the interpretations of the 1rst amendment would indicate that SOME amount of exclusion, or inclusion based on defined criteria are constitutional.
Also, please dont skip over the examples i gave that are federal in nature....its not just private groups that have these "discriminations".

Also lets look at the first sentance of the Declaration of Independance, which also indicates the idea of "seperation"....I.E. discriminating between them and us.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

What does this mean?
It is a statment which says, we have the right to be seperate and different than you, and were going to declare the reasons why.

Now heres the line your using, the second sentance.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Notice it says CERTAIN rights, and then begins a vauge but nobel list citing 3.
What does this mean?
It means that not everything IS a right...there are certain, specific rights.

Follow carefully now,
At this point in the timline of our nation, we have made 2 important documents, one a declration of ideals, and another the framework for how we will do this democraticaly.

Time marches on, and the laws evolve, from using this "frame" to base cultural change upon.

Today, a Special Intrest Minority Group, is able to influence politicians overtly, and potentially covertly, to try to circumvent our cultural rights as citizens (this democratic republic) ALL CITIZENS would have the fundamental principals of this democratic society yanked out from under their feet, by allowing ANY SIMG to do so.

The courts, and polls indicate most citizens have said NO to this activity. (yet opinion about the SIMG itself is high)

Why is it wrong for this nation to define itself this way?

Why is it ok for this SIMG to use devicive language and tactics to get what it is seeking, at the expense of others rights?

Why is it ok for a quest for suggested rights superceed preexisting ones?

We have the rights as a democracy to do this.

We do not have the right to do this at the expense of our society.
(IE violating others rights to do so by throwing out the law/constitution which is the basis of our democracy.)

Democracy is not perfect, in fact i believe "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union..." means that our founding fathers understood this as well....but also realizing the this type of governance was the best chance for power of/for the citizens of all govermental forms.

IF we decide they are no longer going to recognize these founding principals, then what are we as a nation?
How is this society defined when compared to others?
Heck if we've stopped using the constitution, then i want to become the monarch!!! You want to become dictator, james wants to become a socialist nation....butthead wants to raise the third riecht.

Suddenly there are no rules and society collapses. Simply because we the people forgot that United We Stand.

We have the right to stand up, use democracy, and determine who we are and what we represent. This includes the rights to say NO to an idea put before the nation.

This would hold true for ANY SIMG not just the Gay agenda.

I must stand up for ALL citizens rights here, weather they can see this dilema or not. Weather they desire this or not.
WE are all diminished in our rights as citizens when this style of subvertive action is taken, and should be alert for apparent signals that this could be occuring. (hence Mcgreevey mole theory and example of this in California)

Now call me devicive names all day, assume my motive however it fits your projected bias,
Dont try to steal my rights, my constitution , and ultimatly my culture.

Or are you advocating that this is appropriate behaivior?
If you do, then you worked for Saddam Hussain. Because these things are what mankind (society) will devolve to if the rules are removed. We've seen plenty of examples of cultural collapse thru corruption, complacency, and dilution of cultural values to not know this.

We think were so smart that we can ignore the past 230+ years of our culture and just make things up as we go now eh?

posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 03:10 AM
I didn't skip over anything, but you did manage to not counter any of the points I made in my other post. If you want to let the rule of government decide this course, then don't bitch and moan when courts decide that due to the Constitution, or their state Constitution, that you can't legally get away with providing marriage benefits to heterosexual couples and not gay couples. The court's job is to interpret the laws. Why such an outrage at them doing what they are appointed to do? It's not governing from the bench. Anyone with any common sense knows this. That is why they want to seek a Constitutional amendment, because they know that the Constitution does provide equal rights, and that if gay marriage issues go to court, most will rule in favor of this, so Bush and co. know they need to make it a law if they want to ensure discrimination. End of discussion really.

PS Caz, no one is trying to take any of your rights away, look at how defensive you are already, imagine if they were?

But I agree with you, let the government way run it's course. Which means there won't be enough support for a Constitutional amendment, which means gay marriages will be challenged in courts around the country, and most will rule in that the Constitution does provide equal rights, and preventing gays from marrying is not providing equal rights. So the end result will be the same, it will just take longer, and put another black eye on our nation and people such as yourself that do not support equal rights for a fellow American.

posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 12:25 PM

Originally posted by CazMedia
Also lets look at the first sentance of the Declaration of Independance, which also indicates the idea of "seperation"....I.E. discriminating between them and us.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

What does this mean?
It is a statment which says, we have the right to be seperate and different than you, and were going to declare the reasons why.

Now you're quoting the Declaration of Independence? The seperation they were referring to was FROM ENGLAND! They were not using that as a disclaimer saying that in the country, that would be founded on freedom, we may decide somebody is not equal to us, state our reasons, and they would no longer be equal. OMG are you serious? If so, then the precidence would be set for anybody to declare a segment of society they do not agree with, unequal. That is NOT EVEN CLOSE to what they meant in that declaration we sent to the monarchy of England, declaring that we wanted to seperate from it. Period. They WERE NOT using that to define our freedoms once we were independent.

posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 02:15 AM
Forming a nation based on drawing a line and distinguishing between US and THEM is ok,
Defending that nation by doing the same is not?

If you can say, we are different than you and will be recognized because of this,
you can say, we will remain different from you, and opt not to be recognized like you.

posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 02:55 AM
We are soo off thread now, yet weve whittled down reasons why politicians pushing this agenda in violation of others isnt appropriate.

This seems to be the fundamental difference in views when all is said and done...marriage, right or SIMG

so lets look at an example

Adam and Eve are lovers....
Adam wants to marry Eve....Eve does not want to marry Adam (for whatever reason)

Can Adam now sue Eve for violating his civil rights to marry because Eve says no?

Doesnt Eve have a right to NOT be married?

How does the government enforce civil rights violations against Adam when noone can be forced to provide him with/as a spouce?

Wouldnt making marriage a civil right mean that everyone that is not married is not equal to those that are? After all they are not able to enjoy the same entitlements. If you eleiminate the entitlements, then what is marriage?

How is marriage mandatory for equal status/pursuit of happieness?
This implies that those that never marry are not as happy as those that do, or have less status.

Do couples that live together yet do not marry become seccond class citizens to those that do marry?

A civil right is something that is inherent in just being alive
it does not depend on someone else giving you something, or capitulating to you, which is what marriage agreement.
Not all entitlement situations are rights.

Why would politicians that hijack this issue for their own gain not be doing a greedy disservice for the ones they claim to represent, especially when done in covert or overt fashion thru violations of others to get what they want?

posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 08:15 AM
I think your problem is that you don't know the definition of a civil right. I'll give you the definition again:

civil rights - right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of Congress including the right to legal and social and economic equality


civil rights - The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination.

Nowhere in those definitions does it say a civil right is something inherent. Read over them again. I do see that it mentions something about the right to legal / social / economic equality. I do see that it mentions freedom from discrimination.

It's easy enough to just to toss your entire argument to the side, because I'm sure even you see how silly it is.


Is that really that difficult to understand?

posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 12:57 AM
try this,

165 U.S. 578, 589 (1897). ''The liberty mentioned in that [Fourteenth] Amendment means not only the right of the citizen to be free from the mere physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties, to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or avocation, and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary and essential to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purposes above mentioned.''
Notice this says enter into contracts which are NESSISARY and ESSENTIAL to the successful conclusion of the pursuit of his freedoms...

Are you telling me that marriage is NESSISARY for a person to enjoy the pursuit of happieness?
If you say YES, Doesnt this belittle the people that are unmarried? Does this make them unequal?
I think that plenty of people that either never marry, or are divorced have the same equality to pursue happienness that people that are married do. (Social equality does not hing on marriage status)

Again you skirt the fact that marriage is NOT nessisary for anyone to equally pursue happieness. If it were so, then EVERYONE would have to be married so that they would all be equal.
Marriage is a contract, an agreement, a promise.
Man is not born married. Does this mean that until you get someone to agree to marry you that you are less capable, less status, less of a person, or less of a citizen than those that are married?

You insult every person that is not married INCLUDING gays by answering YES to this statement.

How can the government legislate that being married is a civil right if marriage is not nessisary for the individual to have the same capasity to pursue liberty?

You confuse SIMG entitlements with civil rights.
Hamilton states,

Again i say SO WHAT? Ive given plenty of examples where the feds/private groups do not have to recognize 2 citizens in the same way when it comes to getting some entitlement based upon certain criteria.

The extrapolations from interpretations of 1rst amendment cases also support these "exclusionary" groupings of people under their rights to freedom of assembly...Marriage is no different of a grouping by people assembling according to stated beliefs, or their right to exclude those that dont expouse the same beliefs.

I could not force a gay rights group to take me as a member because i do not expouse their fundamental principals that they have grouped together under. NOR can gays force a gay into the boy scouts organization because gays do not expouse the same principals as the scouts. The supreme court has said so....this works both ways, protecting the rights of these groups to assemble as they choose with out interfearance or disruptions from within by those that dont "belong with that group".

Get a grip here. Marriage is not a right. it is a group of people gathered together to expouse a union between a man and a woman. just like any other SIMG, "marrieds" have the right to remain exclusive to people sharing the same views.

And politicians should NOT steal this right away from citizens in order to support ANY SIMG agenda....Nor should they give the appearance that they did/would.
To do so robs every citizen of their rights and is obviously pandering by the politician, which is innapropriate in and of itself.

[edit on 7-9-2004 by CazMedia]

[edit on 7-9-2004 by CazMedia]

[edit on 7-9-2004 by CazMedia]

[edit on 7-9-2004 by CazMedia]

posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 10:38 AM
Caz, you're as delusional as Tachyon. Really you are. You didn't understand the purpose of the Declaration of Independence. You don't understand what civil rights are. You don't understand the difference between a private and a public institution. And you don't understand the fact that no one is arguing over your silly point that they can't find a partner, they are arguing that once they do find a partner they are not afforded the same benefits as a heterosexual coupling.

I'm pretty much thru with this thread since I thought being as adamant as you were on the subject, you would have some eye-opening proof as to why rights should be witheld from gay couples. Unfortunately you haven't provided that. If I continued on in this thread, it would be like ... what's that saying? Don't argue with an idiot, they will only take you down to their level and beat you with experience?

posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 01:21 PM
Wait, using the Dec. of Ind.? You do realize that was a war to be seperate from the British, not gays. It wasn't gays wearing purple coats shooting fancy things at the Yanks, it was the red coat British shooting bullets at the Yanks. It was to SEPERATE FROM ENGLAND! Not the ability to make people seperate but equal or anything. Man, what the hell have you been smoking?

posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 01:38 PM
Caz is just going to continue to post completely insane, ignorant things, in order to get the most resposes possible, I think he's just trying to gain as many points as he can from this thread, I'm done here, hopefully everbody else will be too.

posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 05:04 PM
27jd, if it was so easy to stop coming here I would have. But Caz just sucks you in with the ignorance that must be corrected.

posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 05:07 PM
I agree completely, I have wanted to stop for some time, his ignorance is unprecidented, but I'm afraid we are rewarding him for it.

posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 12:54 AM
First let me state that I invite my first ever warning for this post, as i too tire of seeing 5 responces to the issues i raise become basically personal attacks against me and NOT the ISSUE!!!

You have provided NOTHING, no research, no intelligent counters, no links to unbiased (generally neutral) ponts to consider, and frankly REFUSE to answer the questions i pose either because you are incapable of thought at a higher level than emotionalism or because you fear that the true answer will sink your arguments outright. (it does)

I on the other hand have dispelled MANY LIES that you people have used in support of your agenda..(there is no affect to anyone ring a bell? should i make the list? I noticed that after pointing out these myths, they went away) I have shown 1rst amendment considerations that support my contentions, I have cited case history of the 14th amendment that also support this idea, I have shown real examples of social discrimination in both government and private situations all of which ARE LEGAL and protected. and ultimatly i have shown that marriage is an agreement not a right. I have asked again and again why is it wrong for a society to say NO to adopting any idea institutionally into the culture if they do not wish it, thru democratic means, and have supported this contention.

I question the motives and devicive politics of those politicians and citizens that in their blind zeal to force feel good politically correct garbage upon those that neither wish it NOR must take it. You people seem to think its ok to allow the laws to be circumvented if it fits their agenda and is more conveniant than legitimate means and inclusion/concensus building to reach their goal. Whats next VIGILANTE JUSTICE? DICTATORSHIP INSTEAD OF DEMOCRACY?

The refusal by any of you to actually stand up and say the politicians/judges (in question) DID act inappropriatly (agreeing with the higher court ruling) is disturbing as well, because it implies that you advocate THEFT of rights and legal process to achieve your goal. If you are pro gay agenda, you should be INSULTED that someone took it upon themselves to smudge what little honor you had by taking such actions in your causes name...this was a DISSERVICE to your cause, not a heroic act. It was devicive, seperating you from the rest of the voters that legally and democratically passed legislation that you didnt like, and you will label them with names!!
astounding arrogance.

Now after refusing to answer/address key points, when the details of my stance pile up and seemingly cannot be countered logically or legally, I suffer PAGES of personal attacks, suffering your projections of bigotry, hate and any other negative, devicive, emotive crap when i have never stated ANYTHING OF THE KIND (hint hint James your pathetic, your happy to misquote me and twist things around to continue to bash ME and not the points and you seem truely ignorant of politics, history, legal issues and life in general.)

What is your bottom line of the argument? FLEE, RUN, HIDE, try to ignore these points because we cant counter them with anything more that personal attacks....
Whiney losers all!!!

27jd SEEMED to at least learn how to be civil and try to stick to the points more (thankfully as so many members seemed to question his abrasive avoidance policy) Yet 27jd too has fallen back not upon some research, or links to supporting theories or something more than emotive assumptions, but has regressed to attacking the messenger instead of daring to answer questions i pose with a simple yes or no. (dont wory 27jd, im going to # these questions and DARE any of the mental midgets to answer them in a yes/no fashion so that we can gauge where people really stand)

Im MOSt disapointed in Hamilton, as this member has always seemed to be willing to delve deeper into the issue, has occasionally cited something to support the position, and i feel has not been devicive, overly emotional, nor personally offensive.....until now, when they have no defense to offer other than a bash and run.....

AS I PREDICTED IN A SEPERATE THREAD, the situation in california WAS thrown out and gay marriages nullified. WHY? because any retard that passed basic civics should have seen this comming. It was wrong for many reasons, not the first of which was that it stole all the votes on the issue and allowed rule by an elite few instead of by/for the people.
OHH but thats ok for you to trample others to selfishly get what you want right? Is this the crap you teach your kids too? What a positive example this sets.

Lets make another prediction here,
the courts will NOT find that marriage is nessisary as a factor of "social equality", thus it will not become a right. This alone will sink this issue, and NO constitutional amendment is nessisary (i was NEVER for that idea, as i feel it wouldnt have worked and was not nessisary to see that marriage is not a right, or to defend marriage as defined.)

Hmm shall we play yes or no?
Ill bet NONE of you have the balls to do this, put a simple yes or no down, nothing more. Let your ultimate judgment call expose your true position.

1) is it wrong for a democratic society to define itself by adopting/rejecting proposed idealoy.

2)is it ok for ANY SIMG to use devicive language and tactics to get what it is seeking, at the expense of others rights?

3)Is it ok for a quest for suggested rights to superceed preexisting ones?

4)is it ok to use illegal means to enact a political agenda?

5)Is marriage nessisary for a citizen to be equal to another citizen?

6)Are those that are married, "more equal" as citizens to those that are single?

7)Are there legal forms of discrimination in effect in the USA now?

8)Do people have the right to gather into groups as they choose without accepting people that do not expouse the groups core values?

Again, I DARE YOU to just put yes or no next to these, then on a seperate post we can talk about who is believing in fantasy, wishful, greedy self centered intrests and who really understands the issues.

I suspect that you will all flee and have secretly (u2u) decided behind closed doors (much like corrupt politicians) to just VANISH and not actually talk about the points.
Go on, get into the bash CAZ line....demonize me, tell me im bad/evil/bigot because ive used my RIGHT to disagree with you (without using judgmental lables of similar nature).... tell me im ignorant but provide nothing to back up your allegation but personal attacks, avoid the issue in hopes it will go away.... deny deny deny, not ignorance but the truth.
The truth is usually far more brutal, honest, and painful than any lie could be.

Take your personal attacks against me and have fun with them!
Print them out, roll them up and place into the rectal cavity and then sit and spin.
lets talk about the issue/points, lets try using something like a link to information to support wild and often false allegations, lets actually rub your 2 brain cells together to get an intelligent thought to pass from one neuron to the other and then debate the issue, not bash another member.
That is if you can exersize this kind of self control, which i doubght as i read the total waste of electrons that most of the replies have been.

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in