Protesting against Freedom - Rally against Gay marriage.............

Andre1969 said:
I told her there's an old saying along the lines of people who give up freedom for protection deserve neither.

She just looked at me like I was an idiot and asked, perplexed "Who said that?"

"Oh, I don't know", I replied. "I think it was Thomas Jefferson!"

I think it was Benjamin Franklin.

Mike D.
 
OldAgePensioner said:
Amendment I - Freedom of Group Sex

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of group sex, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of group sex, or of the horses; or the right of the people peaceably to sex in groups, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Be careful here.  Pretty soon some court will interpret this to mean you can't have statues of horses in front of court houses.  Group groping will be forbidden, a couple in the back seat of a car will be suspect (not that I can even get in the back seat anymore) and the Kentucky Derby will be found to be group sex with horses.  It's a slippery slope we are on.

and Justin, thank you.  No one has called me a liberal in 20 years, let alone an uberliberal.  I wear the badge proudly and remember Hubert Humphrey (the last real liberal) affectionately.

setab
 
HaHa said:
In WA, it has recently become the business of law enforcement. Some guy married a horse, and died in the consummation ceremony.

Our press, and legislators were appalled, and now we have some new laws. Kind of amazed me that these laws didn't already exist.

So you believe its prudent to put laws in place to prevent someone who thinks its a good idea to marry a horse and be humped to death by it from doing so and removing himself from the gene pool?

Sometimes a little self-bleaching is a good thing... :)
 
justin said:
I'm protesting freedom itself right now.  I'm against freedom.  Gay marriage?  Doesn't concern me.  But all this freedom going around is crazy!!!
If there's one thing I can't tolerate, it's intolerance. :eek:
 
setab said:
I know better than to do this, especially with this crowd, but for the sake of balance, isn't it the right of those protesting to say what they think too? Free speech is not free speech if it is limited to what is currently politically correct. Perhaps, just perhaps, the protesters feel that homosexuality is wrong and that gay marriage is wrong. Isn't it their right to advocate that position just as strongly as some of you have advocated your position here? Just a thought.

setab

It is their right to advocate that position, but the OP said they were wanting to amend the state constitution to forbid gay marriage. Having a belief or opinion and expressing it is a different apple than passing a constitutional amendment to impose it on everyone else.

Reminds me of a radio comedian who was apparently mocking a particular party: "Yes, they have the right to create and express rap music, but I have the right to pass a constitutional amendment to ban it."
 
BigMoneyJim said:
It is their right to advocate that position, but the OP said they were wanting to amend the state constitution to forbid gay marriage. Having a belief or opinion and expressing it is a different apple than passing a constitutional amendment to impose it on everyone else.

But BMJ, these protestors feel that gay marriage is the root of all evil. What if this is the issue that defines their very existence. Can't a civilly organized society democratically decide on the fundamental laws (constitutional amendments) that define their morals, values and beliefs? The protesters are only asking that the state refrain from recognizing gay marriages and codify this as a constitutional amendment. Only inaction is required of the state, not action.

Let them protest. Obviously these folks got up in the morning and felt it an important use of their day. The issue of gay marriage is important to them and they want to have their voice heard, even though it is not politically correct.
 
I hate that we're free to hate freedom. I want to be told that I cant have that freedom. Then I'll be able to hate that.
 
Well, I am a conservative, married, Republican voter. But I fall into the camp of getting the Government out of marriage. People should be free to find what happiness they can in this life as long as they hurt no one else.

It would require that the tax codes be neutered so there was no difference in the treatment of single vs. people in relationships.

I think the greatest complication is kids. Who pays? As long as its not the taxpayer and someone is responsible I can probably go along.
 
Cute 'n' Fuzzy Bunny said:
I hate that we're free to hate freedom. I want to be told that I cant have that freedom. Then I'll be able to hate that.

You can't have the freedom to hate freedom. Hate that!
 
The protesters are only asking that the state refrain from recognizing gay marriages and codify this as a constitutional amendment. Only inaction is required of the state, not action.

Enacting new constitutional amendments hardly qualifies as inaction. These people are going out of their way to create or strengthen discrimination, and using the state as a means to do so.

Bpp
 
The quote from Ben Franklin reads:  "They that would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
 
Cute 'n' Fuzzy Bunny said:
I hate that we're free to hate freedom.  I want to be told that I cant have that freedom.  Then I'll be able to hate that.
I hate hatred. :eek:
 
Nords said:
Would the horse someday be eligible for Social Security & Medicare from its spouse's work credits

given that gays make up maybe 10% of population (not counting straights wearing sweaters over their shoulders--what's up with that?), and most of these play until 4am at the disco/leather bar instead of at home wooing me, the added cost should be negligible.

OldAgePensioner said:
Damn, after a quick scan I see someone married a gay horse at gunpoint and Minasotans are protesing.

reminds me of the "nuke a gay whale for jesus" button i used to wear in college

Andre1969 said:
Well, the reason that she gets "persecuted" is because she feels that she can say ANYTHING that's on her mind and nobody can disagree with it.  If they do, they're persecuting her!...a gay couple will move in upstairs from her, two of the butchest lesbians on earth will move in next door, and a few transexuals will move in across the street!

interesting observation & i think an accurate assessment on the persecution part. as to her just reward, way back, i had a highly intelligent friend, extremely charming when he wanted to be but a bit of a bigot. i used to tell him good luck on finding a soul mate because his mate has been born as an ethiopian lesbian jew.

yes, even gays can be bigots. me? i'm just prejudiced against anyone who isn't me. but i deal with it.

ps, your gay-dog routine is very funny.

MJ said:
well, you just broke another myth of mine, I always thought lazygood4nothinbums were always straight.  ;) I know I am .... ?

yea, you could be pretty sure i wasn't gonna let this one pass without comment.

what's the difference between a straight guy and a gay one?

three beers.

why are all the good looking guys gay?

because a good looking guy wakes up in the morning, looks in the mirror and says to himself: "what, waste this on a chic?"


oh, and by the way, of the 29 of us who have chimed in on this so far, only 1 has fessed up. so if that 10% holds true, there's 1.9 of you who should be offering me a drink. (and again, i don't mean the sweater guy).
 
lazygood4nothinbum said:
oh, and by the way, of the 29 of us who have chimed in on this so far, only 1 has fessed up. so if that 10% holds true, there's 1.9 of you who should be offering me a drink. (and again, i don't mean the sweater guy).
Apparently we have to get at least three beers ahead of you first...
 
what's the difference between a straight guy and a gay one?

three beers.

When I was in college it was a six-pack. Straight men are getting easier and easier.

Bpp
 
bpp said:
Enacting new constitutional amendments hardly qualifies as inaction. These people are going out of their way to create or strengthen discrimination, and using the state as a means to do so.

Bpp

I view state constitutional amendments as coming from the people of that state. Not from the state itself. At least that is the case if const'l amendments are passed by referendum. The const'l amendment in question would prevent the state from enacting legislation to allow gay marriage. The state itself wouldn't have to do anything, but the citizenry would in order to pass a referendum.
 
You know, I've enjoyed this thread, but I'm surprised that a board with the average age being significantly over 19 years of age doesn't have anyone willing to take an opposing view on this issue. I wonder if those who want a ban on gay marraige are just keeping quiet, perceiving they are in the minority view.
 
They're afraid that someone will approach them with a six pack...

they're really afraid that it wont take that much...
 
justin said:
I view state constitutional amendments as coming from the people of that state. Not from the state itself. At least that is the case if const'l amendments are passed by referendum. The const'l amendment in question would prevent the state from enacting legislation to allow gay marriage. The state itself wouldn't have to do anything, but the citizenry would in order to pass a referendum.

That seems to me a rather fine distinction. I am assuming that you equate "the state" with the legislature? Who, theoretically, represent the will of the people, right?

Bpp
 
Back
Top Bottom