California high court voids same-sex marriages

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> California high court voids same-sex marriages
Rules San Francisco mayor overstepped his authority by issuing licenses

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 12, 2004
1:32 p.m. Eastern

By a vote of 5-2, the California Supreme Court today voided several thousand same-sex marriages, ruling that San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom overstepped his authority by issuing licenses to homosexual couples earlier this year.

Six months ago, Newsom began issuing the licenses in violation of the law. The city continued the practice from Feb. 12 until March 11 when the high court issued an injunction – but not until over 4,000 same-sex couples had been wed.


Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence argued the case Lewis v. Alfaro before the California Supreme Court on May 25.

"The justices have restored the rule of law in California," Lorence said in a statement. "The decision shows that same-sex 'marriage' is not inevitable. Same-sex 'marriage' loses whenever a state puts it before voters."

Voter-passed Proposition 22 defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

"The justices rightly saw the chaos that could ensue if a local official was allowed to defy the law," Lorence added. "It's common sense that illegally issued documents cannot be valid. The licenses were null and void from day one."

County Clerk Nancy Alfaro was the official Newsom directed to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

During arguments before the Supreme Court in May, it was clear to observers the panel would ultimately rule against Newsom, but it was unclear what the justices would do with the marriage that had taken place during the city's one-month wedding spree.

"Wouldn't that be setting a problematic precedent?" asked Justice Joyce Kennard during arguments. "Presumably, other local officials would be free to say ... I don't like that particular law, be it a ban on guns" or another issue. [/b][/quote]
FANTASTIC NEWS!!!!!!!!!! :: [/b][/quote]
Why it means you cant marry your boyfriend bubba. [/b][/quote]
HAHA, what a hilarious statement.

Now, back to the issue at hand. What do you think of the verdict? [/b][/quote]
I disagree with gay religious marriages Christianity considers homosexuality a sin end of discussion you cant be both gay and a christian.

I do believe that gays should be allowed to have civil unions



But the SF weddings where illegal so it was right for the weddings to be voided. [/b][/quote]
People commit sins all the time anyway according to Christians. Still people can be married or even priests (who include perhaps the biggest % of both gays and pedophiles out of any workmen) [/b][/quote]
People commit sins so what? No one here is perfect.

But gay marriage would be CELEBRATING those sins.

I still haven't heard of Christians celebrating their sins on a mass scale.

Not to mention belittling those who are actually making the effort to live according to christian law. [/b][/quote]
America is the most BACKward country in the world. The issue has nothing to do with being christian, because OK this might be a shock to you now, so please sit down, NOT ALL PEOPLE ARE CHRISTIANS. Land of the free, where a governor has to marry, because he cannot govern as a homosexual person. :angry: [/b][/quote]
The Christian church opposes Homosexuality so it makes no sense that gays want to marry in a christian church .

So unless you are going to rewrite the bible gays cannot marry in a christian service.


Civil unions i have no problem with since that that has nothing to do with religion. [/b][/quote]
Christianity opposes homosexuality but do we know that Jesus himself was not gay? He wore dresses, he hung around 12 other dudes, we never saw him with a broad, had long hair, and went out like a bitch against the Roman soldiers.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Jesus was a fag. He probably grew that beard to hide the stretch marks around his mouth!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> California high court voids same-sex marriages
Rules San Francisco mayor overstepped his authority by issuing licenses

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 12, 2004
1:32 p.m. Eastern

By a vote of 5-2, the California Supreme Court today voided several thousand same-sex marriages, ruling that San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom overstepped his authority by issuing licenses to homosexual couples earlier this year.

Six months ago, Newsom began issuing the licenses in violation of the law. The city continued the practice from Feb. 12 until March 11 when the high court issued an injunction – but not until over 4,000 same-sex couples had been wed.


Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence argued the case Lewis v. Alfaro before the California Supreme Court on May 25.

"The justices have restored the rule of law in California," Lorence said in a statement. "The decision shows that same-sex 'marriage' is not inevitable. Same-sex 'marriage' loses whenever a state puts it before voters."

Voter-passed Proposition 22 defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

"The justices rightly saw the chaos that could ensue if a local official was allowed to defy the law," Lorence added. "It's common sense that illegally issued documents cannot be valid. The licenses were null and void from day one."

County Clerk Nancy Alfaro was the official Newsom directed to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

During arguments before the Supreme Court in May, it was clear to observers the panel would ultimately rule against Newsom, but it was unclear what the justices would do with the marriage that had taken place during the city's one-month wedding spree.

"Wouldn't that be setting a problematic precedent?" asked Justice Joyce Kennard during arguments. "Presumably, other local officials would be free to say ... I don't like that particular law, be it a ban on guns" or another issue. [/b][/quote]
FANTASTIC NEWS!!!!!!!!!! :: [/b][/quote]
Why it means you cant marry your boyfriend bubba. [/b][/quote]
HAHA, what a hilarious statement.

Now, back to the issue at hand. What do you think of the verdict? [/b][/quote]
I disagree with gay religious marriages Christianity considers homosexuality a sin end of discussion you cant be both gay and a christian.

I do believe that gays should be allowed to have civil unions



But the SF weddings where illegal so it was right for the weddings to be voided. [/b][/quote]
People commit sins all the time anyway according to Christians. Still people can be married or even priests (who include perhaps the biggest % of both gays and pedophiles out of any workmen) [/b][/quote]
People commit sins so what? No one here is perfect.

But gay marriage would be CELEBRATING those sins.

I still haven't heard of Christians celebrating their sins on a mass scale.

Not to mention belittling those who are actually making the effort to live according to christian law. [/b][/quote]
America is the most BACKward country in the world. The issue has nothing to do with being christian, because OK this might be a shock to you now, so please sit down, NOT ALL PEOPLE ARE CHRISTIANS. Land of the free, where a governor has to marry, because he cannot govern as a homosexual person. :angry: [/b][/quote]
The Christian church opposes Homosexuality so it makes no sense that gays want to marry in a christian church .

So unless you are going to rewrite the bible gays cannot marry in a christian service.


Civil unions i have no problem with since that that has nothing to do with religion. [/b][/quote]
The bible also opposes stealing, cheating on your wife etc. etc.

If you want to live according to the bible you would have to shoot yourself as a new-born, but the bible also opposes suicide. Dilemma. What has being licensed as a couple to do with marrying in a christian church. You don´t need to marry in a christian church. That should be up to the church, but totally discriminating homosexual marriage is gay, just like a governor that has to resign or fake a marriage to get elected. The mayor of the german capital is gay, the leader of the fourth biggest party and potential foreign minister is gay, nobody cares. Does it hurt any person what private relationships persons have. If a homosexual couple walks down the street, can you look at them and tell whether they are married or not. Does that affect your personal life ? NO, it´s not your business.

 

Back to the subject:

On one hand it is disappointing to see gays discriminated against in the US in 2004. We have so many problems and we have a president who wants to single out gays and change the constitiution to discriminate aginst them. We are still a backwards country and we will be until we stand up to the religious right and run them out.

But on the other hand, what the SF mayor did was setting a bad precedent. you still have to abide by state laws. Just think of all of the backwater areas in this country and imagine what would hapen if we gave local mayors the right to overturn laws he/she didn't see as proper. I wouldn't even want to imagine the outcome.

So I agree with this decison although I still support gay marriage.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> California high court voids same-sex marriages
Rules San Francisco mayor overstepped his authority by issuing licenses

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 12, 2004
1:32 p.m. Eastern

By a vote of 5-2, the California Supreme Court today voided several thousand same-sex marriages, ruling that San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom overstepped his authority by issuing licenses to homosexual couples earlier this year.

Six months ago, Newsom began issuing the licenses in violation of the law. The city continued the practice from Feb. 12 until March 11 when the high court issued an injunction – but not until over 4,000 same-sex couples had been wed.


Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence argued the case Lewis v. Alfaro before the California Supreme Court on May 25.

"The justices have restored the rule of law in California," Lorence said in a statement. "The decision shows that same-sex 'marriage' is not inevitable. Same-sex 'marriage' loses whenever a state puts it before voters."

Voter-passed Proposition 22 defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

"The justices rightly saw the chaos that could ensue if a local official was allowed to defy the law," Lorence added. "It's common sense that illegally issued documents cannot be valid. The licenses were null and void from day one."

County Clerk Nancy Alfaro was the official Newsom directed to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

During arguments before the Supreme Court in May, it was clear to observers the panel would ultimately rule against Newsom, but it was unclear what the justices would do with the marriage that had taken place during the city's one-month wedding spree.

"Wouldn't that be setting a problematic precedent?" asked Justice Joyce Kennard during arguments. "Presumably, other local officials would be free to say ... I don't like that particular law, be it a ban on guns" or another issue. [/b][/quote]
FANTASTIC NEWS!!!!!!!!!! :: [/b][/quote]
Why it means you cant marry your boyfriend bubba. [/b][/quote]
HAHA, what a hilarious statement.

Now, back to the issue at hand. What do you think of the verdict? [/b][/quote]
I disagree with gay religious marriages Christianity considers homosexuality a sin end of discussion you cant be both gay and a christian.

I do believe that gays should be allowed to have civil unions



But the SF weddings where illegal so it was right for the weddings to be voided. [/b][/quote]
People commit sins all the time anyway according to Christians. Still people can be married or even priests (who include perhaps the biggest % of both gays and pedophiles out of any workmen) [/b][/quote]
People commit sins so what? No one here is perfect.

But gay marriage would be CELEBRATING those sins.

I still haven't heard of Christians celebrating their sins on a mass scale.

Not to mention belittling those who are actually making the effort to live according to christian law. [/b][/quote]
America is the most BACKward country in the world. The issue has nothing to do with being christian, because OK this might be a shock to you now, so please sit down, NOT ALL PEOPLE ARE CHRISTIANS. Land of the free, where a governor has to marry, because he cannot govern as a homosexual person. :angry: [/b][/quote]
The Christian church opposes Homosexuality so it makes no sense that gays want to marry in a christian church .

So unless you are going to rewrite the bible gays cannot marry in a christian service.


Civil unions i have no problem with since that that has nothing to do with religion. [/b][/quote]
The bible also opposes stealing, cheating on your wife etc. etc.

If you want to live according to the bible you would have to shoot yourself as a new-born, but the bible also opposes suicide. Dilemma. What has being licensed as a couple to do with marrying in a christian church. You don´t need to marry in a christian church. That should be up to the church, but totally discriminating homosexual marriage is gay, just like a governor that has to resign or fake a marriage to get elected. The mayor of the german capital is gay, the leader of the fourth biggest party and potential foreign minister is gay, nobody cares. Does it hurt any person what private relationships persons have. If a homosexual couple walks down the street, can you look at them and tell whether they are married or not. Does that affect your personal life ? NO, it´s not your business. [/b][/quote]
Where did i say that i have a problem with people being gay ?.

If someone wants to be gay thats up to them

But you cannot be openly gay and a christian at the same time unless you rewrite the bible.

if gays want to marry in a civil union thats up to them but gays cannot be married in a christian church ceremony simple as that.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Explain to me why would a gay couple want to get married in a church, when they get the same benefits from a civil union. The reason is because they want to turn the church into a circus.

Just like that gay group who wore bright rainbow sashes to church. Why do they need to have sashes on telling the whole world they are gay? [/b][/quote]
I'm neither gay or Christian but I can say the church has done a good job of making a mockery and a circus of itself.

The Catholic church has long been run by homosexual pedophiles who cover each other's crimes and send known child molesters into new parrishes to victimize more innocent children in the name of god.

On the subject we can not base decisions on our federal and state laws on the church's rules. Remember, separation of church and state. :huh:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Christianity opposes homosexuality but do we know that Jesus himself was not gay? He wore dresses, he hung around 12 other dudes, we never saw him with a broad, had long hair, and went out like a bitch against the Roman soldiers.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Jesus was a fag. He probably grew that beard to hide the stretch marks around his mouth! [/b][/quote]
Sounds funny but I do believe that there is a strong case for Jesus Christ being a homosexual.

All signs lead to this conclusion.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> I agree with you except I go a step further. I say fuck allowing faggots to have civil unions. I think they should have ZERO rights at all.

And if you're gay bashing or committing a hate crime against faggots, no special treatment. Just send the bruised faggot to hide under the fucken toilet in the holding cell of the county jail.

That's the way it outta be. [/b][/quote]
Do you think being gay is a freely chosen thing, i.e. not genetic? Just curious...given your extreme view....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> I agree with you except I go a step further. I say fuck allowing faggots to have civil unions. I think they should have ZERO rights at all.

And if you're gay bashing or committing a hate crime against faggots, no special treatment. Just send the bruised faggot to hide under the fucken toilet in the holding cell of the county jail.

That's the way it outta be. [/b][/quote]
Do you think being gay is a freely chosen thing, i.e. not genetic? Just curious...given your extreme view.... [/b][/quote]
You didn't ask me but I think being gay is not free chosen NOR genetic. I think it is a behavioristic thing, like if a child grows up without father-figure he can grow into being a gay. That sounds most logical explanation to me.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> I agree with you except I go a step further. I say fuck allowing faggots to have civil unions. I think they should have ZERO rights at all.

And if you're gay bashing or committing a hate crime against faggots, no special treatment. Just send the bruised faggot to hide under the fucken toilet in the holding cell of the county jail.

That's the way it outta be. [/b][/quote]
Do you think being gay is a freely chosen thing, i.e. not genetic? Just curious...given your extreme view.... [/b][/quote]
You didn't ask me but I think being gay is not free chosen NOR genetic. I think it is a behavioristic thing, like if a child grows up without father-figure he can grow into being a gay. That sounds most logical explanation to me. [/b][/quote]
You may be right, but I think there's a genetic predisposition. After all, there's gay sheep...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> I agree with you except I go a step further. I say fuck allowing faggots to have civil unions. I think they should have ZERO rights at all.

And if you're gay bashing or committing a hate crime against faggots, no special treatment. Just send the bruised faggot to hide under the fucken toilet in the holding cell of the county jail.

That's the way it outta be. [/b][/quote]
Do you think being gay is a freely chosen thing, i.e. not genetic? Just curious...given your extreme view.... [/b][/quote]
You didn't ask me but I think being gay is not free chosen NOR genetic. I think it is a behavioristic thing, like if a child grows up without father-figure he can grow into being a gay. That sounds most logical explanation to me. [/b][/quote]
You may be right, but I think there's a genetic predisposition. After all, there's gay sheep... [/b][/quote]
The problem with genetic explanation is: why would such a gene still exist? WHy hasn't the evolution gotten rid of it, what kind of an edge would it give to a human in a survival battle? Non-gay naturally has the edge that he can produce successors to himself but one with gay-gene could not do that so why would there be one. You are right that there are gays in other animals too, but other animals also have genetic diseases that people don't have.

You may be right too, but it just doesn't sound all logical to me

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> I agree with you except I go a step further. I say fuck allowing faggots to have civil unions. I think they should have ZERO rights at all.

And if you're gay bashing or committing a hate crime against faggots, no special treatment. Just send the bruised faggot to hide under the fucken toilet in the holding cell of the county jail.

That's the way it outta be. [/b][/quote]
Do you think being gay is a freely chosen thing, i.e. not genetic? Just curious...given your extreme view.... [/b][/quote]
You didn't ask me but I think being gay is not free chosen NOR genetic. I think it is a behavioristic thing, like if a child grows up without father-figure he can grow into being a gay. That sounds most logical explanation to me. [/b][/quote]
You may be right, but I think there's a genetic predisposition. After all, there's gay sheep... [/b][/quote]
I think it is both: genetic, and learned. Sometimes it is one, sometimes it is the other. There may be psychological factors that could make a person lean in one direction, too, not just genetic ones and especially among women.

But the fact that some animals can participate in what we would call "homosexual" acts is unimportant. After all, it is perfectly possible that they don't know what the hell they are doing.

 

Doesnt genetic imply that it was passed on?

I believe its more of a odd variation in the brain, and it goes along a spectrum of tendency towards full on homosexuality.

If a culture EMBRACES it, I think that is harmful. Acceptance as an inevitable, slight mental defect is more like it. Nothing to celebrate.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Doesnt genetic imply that it was passed on?

I believe its more of a odd variation in the brain, and it goes along a spectrum of tendency towards full on homosexuality.

If a culture EMBRACES it, I think that is harmful. Acceptance as an inevitable, slight mental defect is more like it. Nothing to celebrate. [/b][/quote]
Yes, it could be. It is possible that it was passed on, in some cases. But so far nobody has been able to prove that homosexuality is genetic because if it were, we could find traces of homosexual behavior in particular families, like we find traces of breast cancer in some families, for instance. I mean, it should be traceable. So this is all just speculation.

We don't know...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Doesnt genetic imply that it was passed on?

I believe its more of a odd variation in the brain, and it goes along a spectrum of tendency towards full on homosexuality.

If a culture EMBRACES it, I think that is harmful. Acceptance as an inevitable, slight mental defect is more like it. Nothing to celebrate. [/b][/quote]
Yes, it could be. It is possible that it was passed on, in some cases. But so far nobody has been able to prove that homosexuality is genetic because if it were, we could find traces of homosexual behavior in particular families, like we find traces of breast cancer in some families, for instance. I mean, it should be traceable. So this is all just speculation.

We don't know... [/b][/quote]
In any case, I don't think it's consciously chosen. I agree it shouldn't be celebrated or anything but they shouldn't be denied basic rights.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Doesnt genetic imply that it was passed on?

I believe its more of a odd variation in the brain, and it goes along a spectrum of tendency towards full on homosexuality.

If a culture EMBRACES it, I think that is harmful.  Acceptance as an inevitable, slight mental defect is more like it.  Nothing to celebrate. [/b][/quote]
Yes, it could be. It is possible that it was passed on, in some cases. But so far nobody has been able to prove that homosexuality is genetic because if it were, we could find traces of homosexual behavior in particular families, like we find traces of breast cancer in some families, for instance. I mean, it should be traceable. So this is all just speculation.

We don't know... [/b][/quote]
In any case, I don't think it's consciously chosen. I agree it shouldn't be celebrated or anything but they shouldn't be denied basic rights. [/b][/quote]
they should be treated as any other person would be.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Doesnt genetic imply that it was passed on?

I believe its more of a odd variation in the brain, and it goes along a spectrum of tendency towards full on homosexuality.

If a culture EMBRACES it, I think that is harmful. Acceptance as an inevitable, slight mental defect is more like it. Nothing to celebrate. [/b][/quote]
Yes, it could be. It is possible that it was passed on, in some cases. But so far nobody has been able to prove that homosexuality is genetic because if it were, we could find traces of homosexual behavior in particular families, like we find traces of breast cancer in some families, for instance. I mean, it should be traceable. So this is all just speculation.

We don't know... [/b][/quote]
In any case, I don't think it's consciously chosen. I agree it shouldn't be celebrated or anything but they shouldn't be denied basic rights. [/b][/quote]
Yes, I don't believe for a second that a guy gets up in the morning and says: "Gee, I have decided to become gay today..." that's preposterous.

The only people who have a "choice" are bisexuals. They do not have a choice in their bisexuality, because we can perhaps agree that they were born that way. But they do have a choice on which one to act on. A bisexual person can decide which way to go and if he decides to go the gay route, he ain't gonna be getting many congratulations on my part.

And that's why I consider Governor Mc Greevey's "confesion" pure bullshit and just a stunt to get public sympathy while diverting attention to the real issues for his resignation.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Doesnt genetic imply that it was passed on?

I believe its more of a odd variation in the brain, and it goes along a spectrum of tendency towards full on homosexuality.

If a culture EMBRACES it, I think that is harmful.  Acceptance as an inevitable, slight mental defect is more like it.  Nothing to celebrate. [/b][/quote]
Yes, it could be. It is possible that it was passed on, in some cases. But so far nobody has been able to prove that homosexuality is genetic because if it were, we could find traces of homosexual behavior in particular families, like we find traces of breast cancer in some families, for instance. I mean, it should be traceable. So this is all just speculation.

We don't know... [/b][/quote]
In any case, I don't think it's consciously chosen. I agree it shouldn't be celebrated or anything but they shouldn't be denied basic rights. [/b][/quote]
Yes, I don't believe for a second that a guy gets up in the morning and says: "Gee, I have decided to become gay today..." that's preposterous.

The only people who have a "choice" are bisexuals. They do not have a choice in their bisexuality, because we can perhaps agree that they were born that way. But they do have a choice on which one to act on. A bisexual person can decide which way to go and if he decides to go the gay route, he ain't gonna be getting many congratulations on my part.

And that's why I consider Governor Mc Greevey's "confesion" pure bullshit and just a stunt to get public sympathy while diverting attention to the real issues for his resignation. [/b][/quote]
McGreevey was stuffed full of it all the way around (pun intended)......describing himself as a "Gay American", ducking his pending legal troubles, delaying resignation until November to fend off an election.....

Anyway, I agree that bisexuals should choose the punani. Gays should also choose to be discreet and not "in your face" with it.

 

Yes, being gay is just a heightened form of depravity by genetically inferior individuals.

The big bang didn't design the asshole as a sex hole, it's a poop chute, end of story.

Homosexuals are pathetic.

I hate the way they play up to the generic bendy persona, let everyone know they're a dirty little faggot, and adopt this fake camp persona.

That's why I dont trust them. It's very rare for a fag to just be cool, and be himself. They are so insecure they have to wear their homosexuality on their sleeve.

if I ever saw our resident homo Rock On I'd bash the fuck out of him. Re-arrange his face. Bash him so much his boyfriend wouldn't recognize him when he came home for some ass-loving that night.

I wouldn't want to touch him though, I'd wear black leather killing gloves when I beat the fuck out of him.

I'd be wearing a pork pie hat and a scarf wrapped around my face, to protect me from the inevitable blood spurts.

I'd hit him once in the throat to paralyze him with pain and shock, and inability to breathe, then I'd repeatedly hit him in the eyes and nose to do some damage, not knock him out right away. Then once he was down I'd give him a couple of floppy boot stomps. I usually don't agree with kicking a man when he's down, but I would make an exception with a dirty faggot. I consider them a lower form of life than a rodent.

 

Godfather, you wouldn't even bash Rock On if you were to see him at a casino or something, and he gave you some gib?

 

Also he's a lewis groupie, this has to be taken into consideration. I don't trust lewis fans, even if they claim to be straight.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> I agree with you except I go a step further. I say fuck allowing faggots to have civil unions. I think they should have ZERO rights at all.

And if you're gay bashing or committing a hate crime against faggots, no special treatment. Just send the bruised faggot to hide under the fucken toilet in the holding cell of the county jail.

That's the way it outta be. [/b][/quote]
Do you think being gay is a freely chosen thing, i.e. not genetic? Just curious...given your extreme view.... [/b][/quote]
I don't think they were born that way.

i'll write more on this issue later.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> I agree with you except I go a step further. I say fuck allowing faggots to have civil unions. I think they should have ZERO rights at all.

And if you're gay bashing or committing a hate crime against faggots, no special treatment. Just send the bruised faggot to hide under the fucken toilet in the holding cell of the county jail.

That's the way it outta be. [/b][/quote]
Do you think being gay is a freely chosen thing, i.e. not genetic? Just curious...given your extreme view.... [/b][/quote]
You didn't ask me but I think being gay is not free chosen NOR genetic. I think it is a behavioristic thing, like if a child grows up without father-figure he can grow into being a gay. That sounds most logical explanation to me. [/b][/quote]
You may be right, but I think there's a genetic predisposition. After all, there's gay sheep... [/b][/quote]
I think it is both: genetic, and learned. Sometimes it is one, sometimes it is the other. There may be psychological factors that could make a person lean in one direction, too, not just genetic ones and especially among women.

But the fact that some animals can participate in what we would call "homosexual" acts is unimportant. After all, it is perfectly possible that they don't know what the hell they are doing. [/b][/quote]
I agree with this.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Doesnt genetic imply that it was passed on?

I believe its more of a odd variation in the brain, and it goes along a spectrum of tendency towards full on homosexuality.

If a culture EMBRACES it, I think that is harmful.  Acceptance as an inevitable, slight mental defect is more like it.  Nothing to celebrate. [/b][/quote]
Yes, it could be. It is possible that it was passed on, in some cases. But so far nobody has been able to prove that homosexuality is genetic because if it were, we could find traces of homosexual behavior in particular families, like we find traces of breast cancer in some families, for instance. I mean, it should be traceable. So this is all just speculation.

We don't know... [/b][/quote]
In any case, I don't think it's consciously chosen. I agree it shouldn't be celebrated or anything but they shouldn't be denied basic rights. [/b][/quote]
What about pedofiles or polygamists?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Doesnt genetic imply that it was passed on?

I believe its more of a odd variation in the brain, and it goes along a spectrum of tendency towards full on homosexuality.

If a culture EMBRACES it, I think that is harmful.  Acceptance as an inevitable, slight mental defect is more like it.  Nothing to celebrate. [/b][/quote]
Yes, it could be. It is possible that it was passed on, in some cases. But so far nobody has been able to prove that homosexuality is genetic because if it were, we could find traces of homosexual behavior in particular families, like we find traces of breast cancer in some families, for instance. I mean, it should be traceable. So this is all just speculation.

We don't know... [/b][/quote]
In any case, I don't think it's consciously chosen. I agree it shouldn't be celebrated or anything but they shouldn't be denied basic rights. [/b][/quote]
they should be treated as any other person would be. [/b][/quote]
Pedofiles and polygamists also fall into the category as "any other person".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Yes, being gay is just a heightened form of depravity by genetically inferior individuals.

The big bang didn't design the asshole as a sex hole, it's a poop chute, end of story.

Homosexuals are pathetic.

I hate the way they play up to the generic bendy persona, let everyone know they're a dirty little faggot, and adopt this fake camp persona.

That's why I dont trust them. It's very rare for a fag to just be cool, and be himself. They are so insecure they have to wear their homosexuality on their sleeve.

if I ever saw our resident homo Rock On I'd bash the fuck out of him. Re-arrange his face. Bash him so much his boyfriend wouldn't recognize him when he came home for some ass-loving that night.

I wouldn't want to touch him though, I'd wear black leather killing gloves when I beat the fuck out of him.

I'd be wearing a pork pie hat and a scarf wrapped around my face, to protect me from the inevitable blood spurts.

I'd hit him once in the throat to paralyze him with pain and shock, and inability to breathe, then I'd repeatedly hit him in the eyes and nose to do some damage, not knock him out right away. Then once he was down I'd give him a couple of floppy boot stomps. I usually don't agree with kicking a man when he's down, but I would make an exception with a dirty faggot. I consider them a lower form of life than a rodent. [/b][/quote]
AWESOME!!!!!! I LOVE WHAT YOU WROTE ABOUT ROCK ON!!!!!!!! I AGREE WITH YOU 100%!!!!!!!!!!

I have some really DEVESTATING SHIT on him, if you want, i'll pass it along.