FEDERAL JUDGE knocks down PRO 8 in CA...

[Behshad]

It's people like Bobby with their hatred who give the gay community the bad reputation and cause more hatred than actually helping people to accept them.
Bobby , I'd tell you to go fuck yourself , but we all know you'd take it as a compliment. I don't have a problem with your lifestyle. It's your hate towards anyone with any opinions that doesn't match yours that I got problems with. .

With all due respect to everyone on these forums, I honestly don't give a damn about opinions of me, I simply want what is right and that's equal rights for everyone in America to marry who they love and not be discriminated against of harassed for it.

You cant fight hate with more hate . Simple as that .

And if you think that people will always use an excuse to hate and you can not change their minds, then whats the point of gettin all worked up over it ???

Let me ask you this, if youre given the RIGHTS you deserve to marry your boyfriend, then will you support a mother's RIGHTS wanting to marry his son or nephew ? Theyre both human and have the rights to marry who they love, right?

That's such bullshit and a pussy way out of the argument. And actually a mother could marry her son at any JOP or in Vegas or anywhere she wanted to as long as they didn't tell anyone. So until you can come up with a better argument, you should stay clear of this conversation.

I dont wanna see you type PUSSY again if you dont appreciate it , you hear ?

Whats not valid about my argument ? Oh , Just cause YOU think its different??? To some , marriage is sacred as union of a man and a woman. But you demand your rights to marry your boyfriend. If youre granted that , why wouldnt you support a mother and son or a father and daughter getting married.
As far as your Vegas suggestion, I guess you could also just have a local hidden cermony for you & your boyfriend and dont tell anyone either that you got married.

Again, its not your lifestyle that is making you look bad,,, its your attitude combined with hate,,,, and the more hate you bring to the table, the more you will get back.
Last I checked, you had no say in what conversation I can participate in or not . so , Eat pussy !

Last but not least , Learn to fucking quote before demanding anymore rights !

[Behshad]

I'll calm down when every American has equal rights.

See, the problem is, your version of equal rights is to have everyone accept your worldview and acquiesce in it 100% with nary a protest. That's not America.

Another winner! Spot on !

[Behshad]

I'll calm down when every American has equal rights.

Good luck with that one,,, cause there are other equal rights Americans are fighting for daily , which you have no idea of nor any control over....

[Behshad]

I'll calm down when every American has equal rights.

See, the problem is, your version of equal rights is to have everyone accept your worldview and acquiesce in it 100% with nary a protest. That's not America.

Bullshit. I don't accept the "worldview" of Christians, but I believe they have a right to believe as they wish to.

I don't accept the "worldview" of Mormons, but they have their rights.


I don't accept the "worldview" of sports nuts or vegans or heterosexual couples who swing, who have three-ways, who watch porn, but they all have the right to do as they please as long as they're not hurting anyone.


If you can't accept homosexuals, that's your problem not mine. But you do not have the right to tell me how to live or who I can or can't marry.

Im sure you dont accept a 50 year old man marrying a 12 year old girl, but with your logic, they should have the rights to do so, eh !?

[Behshad]

So let me get this "straight". LOL

It's okay for the haters to say what they will and enact laws that discriminate and create second class citizens, but those who are discriminated against and made second class citizens should just say "thank you so much, you're so kind" and not care at all about what's being done?

Didn't say that, did I?

This isn't just about the rights of homosexuals it's about the rights of everyone and every minority who could have laws enacted against them by the "majority"

I already agreed with you on that but you seem to have purposely skipped over that.

Dont worry Dave,,,,
This usually happens, anytime this subject is discussed and Bobby tries to respond to all posts, while redfaced and typing at 1200 words per minute....we're all the bad guys, and his are holy "happy" savior ....

[KenTheDude]

I don't particularly agree with the gay lifestyle, but I'm much more willing to give them rights than illegal aliens. That's for damn sure.

[BobbyinTN]

It's people like Bobby with their hatred who give the gay community the bad reputation and cause more hatred than actually helping people to accept them.
Bobby , I'd tell you to go fuck yourself , but we all know you'd take it as a compliment. I don't have a problem with your lifestyle. It's your hate towards anyone with any opinions that doesn't match yours that I got problems with. .

With all due respect to everyone on these forums, I honestly don't give a damn about opinions of me, I simply want what is right and that's equal rights for everyone in America to marry who they love and not be discriminated against of harassed for it.

You cant fight hate with more hate . Simple as that .

And if you think that people will always use an excuse to hate and you can not change their minds, then whats the point of gettin all worked up over it ???

Let me ask you this, if youre given the RIGHTS you deserve to marry your boyfriend, then will you support a mother's RIGHTS wanting to marry his son or nephew ? Theyre both human and have the rights to marry who they love, right?

That's such bullshit and a pussy way out of the argument. And actually a mother could marry her son at any JOP or in Vegas or anywhere she wanted to as long as they didn't tell anyone. So until you can come up with a better argument, you should stay clear of this conversation.

I dont wanna see you type PUSSY again if you dont appreciate it , you hear ?

Whats not valid about my argument ? Oh , Just cause YOU think its different??? To some , marriage is sacred as union of a man and a woman. But you demand your rights to marry your boyfriend. If youre granted that , why wouldnt you support a mother and son or a father and daughter getting married.
As far as your Vegas suggestion, I guess you could also just have a local hidden cermony for you & your boyfriend and dont tell anyone either that you got married.

Again, its not your lifestyle that is making you look bad,,, its your attitude combined with hate,,,, and the more hate you bring to the table, the more you will get back.
Last I checked, you had no say in what conversation I can participate in or not . so , Eat pussy !

Last but not least , Learn to fucking quote before demanding anymore rights !

Here’s a quote for ya, “suck my cock”! LOL

If you don’t understand what I’ve quoted, why respond to me?

I’m angry and have every right to be.

If your premise were anything close to intelligent you’d realize that your definition of “one man, one woman” doesn’t stop mother and son, or father and daughter from being married.

Two consenting adults who want to marry should be allowed.

I really don’t care if a mother marries her son or a father marries his daughter, do you know why? Because they don’t affect me in the least. Your marriage or divorce or “lifestyle” has no bearing on me what-so-ever.

[BobbyinTN]

Yes, you are the bad guys if you try to enact laws that keep people from being equal. Accept it and move on.

[parfait]

Jeesh. Being gay or straight isn't some lifestyle choice. Now I get why the church doesn't want any homos getting married there, as it's against Christian moral or whatever you wanna call it. One can't, and shouldn't, force other people to agree with you, but what one should expect is for a understanding or a toleration. Seriously, who the fuck cares what a gay couple does in the privacy of their own home? Give me a break. If MG likes to dress up dudes in diapers and feed 'em store bought breast milk, while queefing out the melody to Shaft; then I'd say go for it - cause it's really none of my concern. To denounce someone based upon what turns them on, is really, really stupid.

Even more, to take away a persons rights just cause he/she born a certain way, is just wrong and immoral. It's wrong, and kinda retarded, to think that everyone has to agree with you, but we're also come a long enough way to give people equal rights.

[bluejeangirl76]

Seriously, who the fuck cares what a gay couple does in the privacy of their own home? Give me a break. If MG likes to dress up dudes in diapers and feed 'em store bought breast milk, while queefing out the melody to Shaft; then I'd say go for it - cause it's really none of my concern. To denounce someone based upon what turns them on, is really, really stupid.

Even more, to take away a persons rights just cause he/she born a certain way, is just wrong and immoral. It's wrong, and kinda retarded, to think that everyone has to agree with you, but we're also come a long enough way to give people equal rights.

Despite your disgusting analogy, I do agree with you.

[SF-Dano]

If your premise were anything close to intelligent you’d realize that your definition of “one man, one woman” doesn’t stop mother and son, or father and daughter from being married.

Two consenting adults who want to marry should be allowed.

I really don’t care if a mother marries her son or a father marries his daughter, do you know why? Because they don’t affect me in the least. Your marriage or divorce or “lifestyle” has no bearing on me what-so-ever.

This is the "pandora's box" that does strike fear into some. It has been argued here that the people have no say in making laws that would limit a person's "constitutional rites". Well then I ask, how is it "constitutional" to place an age limit on marriage? Why is bigamy un-lawful? Why are inter-family marriages not lawful? It seems we limit or deny "constitutinal rites" in this area all the time.

Just posing the questions. I personally think this has everything to do with religion and what the definition of the word "marriage" is to very religious people.

[Since 78]

If your premise were anything close to intelligent you’d realize that your definition of “one man, one woman” doesn’t stop mother and son, or father and daughter from being married.

Two consenting adults who want to marry should be allowed.

I really don’t care if a mother marries her son or a father marries his daughter, do you know why? Because they don’t affect me in the least. Your marriage or divorce or “lifestyle” has no bearing on me what-so-ever.

This is the "pandora's box" that does strike fear into some. It has been argued here that the people have no say in making laws that would limit a person's "constitutional rites". Well then I ask, how is it "constitutional" to place an age limit on marriage? Why is bigamy un-lawful? Why are inter-family marriages not lawful? It seems we limit or deny "constitutinal rites" in this area all the time.

Just posing the questions. I personally think this has everything to do with religion and what the definition of the word "marriage" is to very religious people.

I see where some country's allow females to marry at 9 years old. Maybe we should change our laws regarding that, we could cut down on the prison population.

[BobbyinTN]

Jeesh. Being gay or straight isn't some lifestyle choice. Now I get why the church doesn't want any homos getting married there, as it's against Christian moral or whatever you wanna call it. One can't, and shouldn't, force other people to agree with you, but what one should expect is for a understanding or a toleration. Seriously, who the fuck cares what a gay couple does in the privacy of their own home? Give me a break. If MG likes to dress up dudes in diapers and feed 'em store bought breast milk, while queefing out the melody to Shaft; then I'd say go for it - cause it's really none of my concern. To denounce someone based upon what turns them on, is really, really stupid.

Even more, to take away a persons rights just cause he/she born a certain way, is just wrong and immoral. It's wrong, and kinda retarded, to think that everyone has to agree with you, but we're also come a long enough way to give people equal rights.

Exactly!

[BobbyinTN]

If your premise were anything close to intelligent you’d realize that your definition of “one man, one woman” doesn’t stop mother and son, or father and daughter from being married.

Two consenting adults who want to marry should be allowed.

I really don’t care if a mother marries her son or a father marries his daughter, do you know why? Because they don’t affect me in the least. Your marriage or divorce or “lifestyle” has no bearing on me what-so-ever.

This is the "pandora's box" that does strike fear into some. It has been argued here that the people have no say in making laws that would limit a person's "constitutional rites". Well then I ask, how is it "constitutional" to place an age limit on marriage? Why is bigamy un-lawful? Why are inter-family marriages not lawful? It seems we limit or deny "constitutinal rites" in this area all the time.

Just posing the questions. I personally think this has everything to do with religion and what the definition of the word "marriage" is to very religious people.

It's hyperbole that strikes fear. If those under age marriages were gonna happen and interelative marriages were gonna happen, they would already be happening.


The difference is, there aren't a whole lot of people under age asking to be married and there aren't a whole lot of family members asking to be married.



And if marriage were a religious event, no one would be allowed to get married at a city hall and anyone that wasn't "religious" wouldn't be allowed to marry.




Repubicans and conservatives always take things to the extreme and they usually fail.

[conversationpc]

It's hyperbole that strikes fear. If those under age marriages were gonna happen and interelative marriages were gonna happen, they would already be happening.

The difference is, there aren't a whole lot of people under age asking to be married and there aren't a whole lot of family members asking to be married.

If you're going to use that logic, then you could also apply that to gay marriage, couldn't you? At the MOST, homosexuals make up 10% of the population. Of that 10% there are a lot who do not support gay marriage and who want nothing whatsoever to do with the concept. Therefore couldn't it be said there aren't really even all that many homosexual couples asking to be married? How many couples is enough to merit the distinction?

Repubicans and conservatives always take things to the extreme and they usually fail.

Yeah, Democrats and liberals NEEEEEEEEEVER do that, do they?

[BobbyinTN]

It's hyperbole that strikes fear. If those under age marriages were gonna happen and interelative marriages were gonna happen, they would already be happening.

The difference is, there aren't a whole lot of people under age asking to be married and there aren't a whole lot of family members asking to be married.

If you're going to use that logic, then you could also apply that to gay marriage, couldn't you? At the MOST, homosexuals make up 10% of the population. Of that 10% there are a lot who do not support gay marriage and who want nothing whatsoever to do with the concept. Therefore couldn't it be said there aren't really even all that many homosexual couples asking to be married? How many couples is enough to merit the distinction?

Repubicans and conservatives always take things to the extreme and they usually fail.

Yeah, Democrats and liberals NEEEEEEEEEVER do that, do they?

It doesn't matter the numbers of homosexuals that want to get married, it matters that some do and they can't. I've been with my partner for 18 years come this October. Any state that forbids gay marriage will not honor our relationship or any legal documents we have drawn up giving each other the right to either pull the plug, visitation or inheritance, etc.


Do you think that's okay?

[BobbyinTN]

And no, liberals don't have a need for everything to stay the same and nothing ever change. Republicans and conservatives fear change.

[Duncan]

If MG likes to dress up dudes in diapers and feed 'em store bought breast milk, while queefing out the melody to Shaft.

Can I get this on I-Tunes?

[conversationpc]

I've been with my partner for 18 years come this October. Any state that forbids gay marriage will not honor our relationship or any legal documents we have drawn up giving each other the right to either pull the plug, visitation or inheritance, etc.

Do you think that's okay?

I've never understood that. Anybody that prohibits a gay partner from visiting their loved one should be shot (figuratively, of course).

[conversationpc]

And no, liberals don't have a need for everything to stay the same and nothing ever change. Republicans and conservatives fear change.

That's bullcrap. It depends on what it is. If I think a change is for the worse, then I'm obviously going to oppose it. If it's for the better, I'm all for it. Your statement above is the same kind of warped logic that nutbag politicians use when they say stuff like "The conservatives want all people without insurance to die because they're against healthcare reform".

[Behshad]

It's hyperbole that strikes fear. If those under age marriages were gonna happen and interelative marriages were gonna happen, they would already be happening.

The difference is, there aren't a whole lot of people under age asking to be married and there aren't a whole lot of family members asking to be married.

If you're going to use that logic, then you could also apply that to gay marriage, couldn't you? At the MOST, homosexuals make up 10% of the population. Of that 10% there are a lot who do not support gay marriage and who want nothing whatsoever to do with the concept. Therefore couldn't it be said there aren't really even all that many homosexual couples asking to be married? How many couples is enough to merit the distinction?

It doesn't matter the numbers of homosexuals that want to get married, it matters that some do and they can't. ?

Main Entry: hyp·o·crite
Pronunciation: \ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit\
Function: noun

a person , Like BobbyTN who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

[Behshad]

If MG likes to dress up dudes in diapers and feed 'em store bought breast milk, while queefing out the melody to Shaft.

Can I get this on I-Tunes?

Only if you purchase the iQueef App

[bluejeangirl76]

If MG likes to dress up dudes in diapers and feed 'em store bought breast milk, while queefing out the melody to Shaft.

Can I get this on I-Tunes?

Only if you purchase the iQueef App

That's just wrong! And it's even more wrong that I thought that same joke when I read this.

[kgdjpubs]

If MG likes to dress up dudes in diapers and feed 'em store bought breast milk, while queefing out the melody to Shaft.

Can I get this on I-Tunes?

more than likely, youtube

[donnaplease]

Any state that forbids gay marriage will not honor our relationship or any legal documents we have drawn up giving each other the right to either pull the plug, visitation or inheritance, etc.

Do you think that's okay?

No, it's not ok, because it's not true (the bolded part at least). It's called a MPOA, or medical power of attorney and it can stand alone or be part of other advance directives such as a living will. You can designate ANYONE that you want to make that decision on your behalf. In fact, if you want your significant other to make that decision (God forbid it ever be necessary), I encourage you to get it in writing NOW. If not, that decision will fall to your next of kin. I have never worked in TN, but I have been a nurse in Virginia, Connecticut and California, and in each of those states a MPOA is the way to go. It could potentially be challenged by a family member, but that's the case in any situation, not just because you're gay.

I said this on facebook, and I'll repeat it here. There are lots of reasons given for opposing gay marriage. Some of it is sheer bigotry, and some of it is religious beliefs. I would like to see a compromise, whereby homosexuals are given 'separate but equal' rights (don't like that term for historical reasons, but it serves the purpose here), just call it something other than 'marriage'. It would accomplish what most gays would like legally, but it would preserve the sanctity of marriage for those that have strong personal and/or religious beliefs in that regard.

Bobby, would that be acceptable to you? Would you be satisfied with a 'civil union' if it would grant you the things you asked for above?

[Saint John]

I would like to see a compromise, whereby homosexuals are given 'separate but equal' rights (don't like that term for historical reasons, but it serves the purpose here), just call it something other than 'marriage'. It would accomplish what most gays would like legally, but it would preserve the sanctity of marriage for those that have strong personal and/or religious beliefs in that regard.

would that be acceptable to you? Would you be satisfied with a 'civil union' if it would grant you the things you asked for above?

Yes. Seems like a perfect compromise to me.

[SF-Dano]

I would like to see a compromise, whereby homosexuals are given 'separate but equal' rights (don't like that term for historical reasons, but it serves the purpose here), just call it something other than 'marriage'. It would accomplish what most gays would like legally, but it would preserve the sanctity of marriage for those that have strong personal and/or religious beliefs in that regard.

would that be acceptable to you? Would you be satisfied with a 'civil union' if it would grant you the things you asked for above?

Yes. Seems like a perfect compromise to me.

I agree with this compromise also. However, I have a strong feeling that this will not be acceptable to Bobby or to most gays and lesbians. This idea has been brought up before and has really gone nowhere each time.

In my opinion, no entity other than a religious one should perform marriages. From the beginning, ceremonies done by the state, a sea captain, whatever - should have been called "civil unions" or something like that. Having the same civil/societaly benefits of religious marriage. However, I am sure our founding fathers never dreamed things would go this far.

[donnaplease]

However, I have a strong feeling that this will not be acceptable to Bobby or to most gays and lesbians. This idea has been brought up before and has really gone nowhere each time.

I understand that, but if the purpose for this is to have equal "rights" and that would do the trick, I'm not sure what objection there realistically should be. It would just be semantics. Unless it's objecting just for the sake of objecting, which IMO lots of liberals get a kick out of.

[Babyblue]

I would like to see a compromise, whereby homosexuals are given 'separate but equal' rights (don't like that term for historical reasons, but it serves the purpose here), just call it something other than 'marriage'. It would accomplish what most gays would like legally, but it would preserve the sanctity of marriage for those that have strong personal and/or religious beliefs in that regard.

would that be acceptable to you? Would you be satisfied with a 'civil union' if it would grant you the things you asked for above?

Yes. Seems like a perfect compromise to me.

I agree with Saint John Bobby, i do not feel any hate from anyone here hon.But i do feel it from you.I am sorry and i am sure its not easy for you either.And for hate i don't think anyone hates you here.I know i don't i am sure you are a good & kind man. But you need to get rid of the hate hon.And i know you will come back with something.Stand your ground but without all the hate hon.

[BobbyinTN]

Any state that forbids gay marriage will not honor our relationship or any legal documents we have drawn up giving each other the right to either pull the plug, visitation or inheritance, etc.

Do you think that's okay?

No, it's not ok, because it's not true (the bolded part at least). It's called a MPOA, or medical power of attorney and it can stand alone or be part of other advance directives such as a living will. You can designate ANYONE that you want to make that decision on your behalf. In fact, if you want your significant other to make that decision (God forbid it ever be necessary), I encourage you to get it in writing NOW. If not, that decision will fall to your next of kin. I have never worked in TN, but I have been a nurse in Virginia, Connecticut and California, and in each of those states a MPOA is the way to go. It could potentially be challenged by a family member, but that's the case in any situation, not just because you're gay.

I said this on facebook, and I'll repeat it here. There are lots of reasons given for opposing gay marriage. Some of it is sheer bigotry, and some of it is religious beliefs. I would like to see a compromise, whereby homosexuals are given 'separate but equal' rights (don't like that term for historical reasons, but it serves the purpose here), just call it something other than 'marriage'. It would accomplish what most gays would like legally, but it would preserve the sanctity of marriage for those that have strong personal and/or religious beliefs in that regard.

Bobby, would that be acceptable to you? Would you be satisfied with a 'civil union' if it would grant you the things you asked for above?

Sorry Donna, with all due respect, you’re wrong. About 4 years ago a lesbian couple we know had this very thing happen. One of them died, they had everything made legal years before, they were together for 30 years, and because it “resembled heterosexual marriage” it was declared unlawful and the surviving partner was tossed out of her home and only allowed to take what she could prove she purchased. The dead partner’s family came in and took everything else and sold the house.

Any state that has a law against gay marriage can refuse any legal arrangement that resembles heterosexual marriage. Look it up, every state that has the bigoted laws has the provisions listed.

My partner and I have all the legal stuff done too, but it wouldn’t matter if his or my family challenged it or the state said it “resembled marriage”.

And no, I do not agree. Separate can never be equal.

Again, a “civl union” that is performed in a state that says “nothing but one man, one woman” would mean nothing.

All states must abide by the law and nothing but marriage will be accepted.


I don’t think anyone should be made a second class citizen or be told how to live their lives.