Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Gay Marriage Poll

Question: Gay Marriage Poll :: Total Votes:78 Poll choices Votes Statistics Gay marriage should be legal 75  [96.15%] Gay marriage should not be legal 3  [3.85%] Guests cannot vote

Pages: (6) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 >

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,01:38    Oh fo' christ's sake TD just bend over Dover and take it like a man. -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,02:55    Quote Just who is it pining for that contradiction in terms called gay "marriage?" Here are a few: 44 gay and lesbian couples in NY Debra Gold, 43 (and her wife), and Carly Nielsen, 22 and Allie Delaney, 20 Curtis Woolbright and his partner Daniel Reyes, and Michael Elsasser and Doug Robinson Do you get it now TD?  Or should I find some more examples? -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,04:41    Quote (thordaddy @ June 07 2006,03:33) clamboy, Even though you made an honest, but nonetheless highly tenuous argument for gay "marriage," at least you seemed serious about having an intellectual debate.  So answer the following question so we shall continue. Which of the following is a gay "marriage?" a. Adam and Steve b. Chrissy, Missy and Sissy c. Bo and Luke Duke d. All the above You see the conundrum you are in, no? Thordaddy, let's change the subject. Let's have a different intellectual debate. All of us here. RESOLVED: Thordaddy is fabulous! How many of us agree? Now how about that hug! -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Ladlergo Posts: 32 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,04:43    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 07 2006,10:41) Thordaddy, let's change the subject. Let's have a different intellectual debate. All of us here. RESOLVED: Thordaddy is fabulous! How many of us agree? Now how about that hug! I usually poke around on this board because I won't start laughing while at work.  So much for that.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,04:50    Quote (argystokes @ June 07 2006,01:46) Arden, that's quite the facelift! Did you do it for Thordaddy?  I hear he does like those smooth cheeks... Eh, I just felt like it was time for a change of pace. But it's the same person. And believe me, a guy who was much brighter than TD, but who would have completely understood where TD is coming from... -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

clamboy Posts: 299 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,05:31    I understand the conundrum you are in, thor of finland. You're invoking the one argument the "againsts" always and finally use, ye 'ol slippery slope. Sorry, but that dick don't come. Let me just say 4 words: two nonconsanguinous (sp?) rational adults. And I say thordaddy is not only fabulous, but super spiffy, too!

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,05:38    I think if Thordaddy were any further back in the closet, he'd be in Narnia. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

clamboy Posts: 299 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,05:53    Why, he's so thor he can hardly pith!

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,06:48    ...or thit down, athuming he'th a catcher. -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,09:44    He's a hard-drinking, hard-fighting, hard-lovin' man and he chases the fellas whenever he can--- Thordaddy dances on tables wigglin' in panties while posing as hetero and singing sea shanties Hey, oh, hey oh, blow the man down! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13181735/   Gay marriage ban defeated in Senate vote -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Spike Posts: 49 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,11:28    I like how Bush qualified, "The people must be heard," with, "on this issue," lest people think he believes the people must be heard on all issues. This is a good one too: Quote Hatch fumed: “Does he really want to suggest that over half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?” Hey, Orren, bigots are as bigots do. And, besides, it wasn't "over half," otherwise it would have gone to cloture! (Who keeps voting for this idiot?) We have been somewhat lucky in our State of Washington regarding this issue, since our legislature did the right thing and extended the language of some of our non-discriminatory laws to include not only gays and lesbians, but also transgender folks. (Speaking of bigots: There were some folks who tried to get the law repealed via initiative. Fortunately, they could not get enough signatures for the initiative to go onto the ballot.) http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/06/06/07/100loc_a1eyman001.cfm Our two Democrats voted, "Nay." (Lucky for them.)

Rod Posts: 13 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,11:43    Did you guys scare Who's Your Daddy away? I think he's Super-Fantastic

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,12:06    clamboy defines, Quote Let me just say 4 words: two nonconsanguinous (sp?) rational adults. I don't mind you having that definition, but it clearly discriminates against Chrissy, Missy and Sissy and Bo and Luke Duke even though ALL are gay.  Are you not a bigot against some gays?  Isn't your activism leaving some to be discriminated against that don't fit within your new discriminatory and intolerant criteria for marriage?  If gender is an irrelevent criteria for defining marriage then why is "two" and "nonconsanguinous" relevant to defining marriage? If you can approach these questions with honesty then you would be the first. Stephen Elliot, Before we can vote on something, we must know what that something is, no? What is gay "marriage?"

argystokes Posts: 766 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,12:09    Oh no, he's using the Chewbacca Defense! -------------- "Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,12:23    Quote (argystokes @ June 07 2006,17:09) Oh no, he's using the Chewbacca Defense! Indeed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_Defense Poor repressed little T-Daddy. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Spike Posts: 49 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,12:30    Dare I respond? Consanguinity is irrelevant when talking about homosexuals, isn't it? I personally think that if someone can handle more than one spouse, go for it!

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,12:45    Quote (thordaddy @ June 07 2006,17:06) I don't mind you having that definition, but it clearly discriminates against Chrissy, Missy and Sissy and Bo and Luke Duke even though ALL are gay.  Are you not a bigot against some gays? Ok, now it's YOUR turn.  Just who are these threesomes and brothers who are clamoring for the right to get married?  As I've demonstrated, there are plenty of REAL same-sex couples affected by this issue.  So please put up some names/numbers/links for the people you think we're discriminating against. -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,12:46    Spike, You are correct.  Once the criteria of gender becomes irrelevant to marriage then ALL criteria for marriage become irrelevant.  This is why traditional marriage must remain between one man and one woman or we will cease to have an institution at all.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,12:48    Quote (thordaddy @ June 07 2006,17:46) Spike, You are correct.  Once the criteria of gender becomes irrelevant to marriage then ALL criteria for marriage become irrelevant.  This is why traditional marriage must remain between one man and one woman or we will cease to have an institution at all. I change my vote. Thordaddy is the stupidest poster at ATBC. With this poor a grasp of logic and reality, I'm surprised he can eat meals or work a computer. (And he STILL refuses to explain this obsession with homos that seems to afflict him...) -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,13:02    Thordaddy's physics lacks a mu term. All slopes are infinitely slippery.

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,13:07    Yes, eventually even the most important criteria will become irrelevant: the desire to marry someone.  In this post-gay-marriage-apocalyptic world, not even that will matter.  People will just randomly become married to each other, whether they want to or not. -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,13:15    Quote (thordaddy @ June 07 2006,17:46) Spike, You are correct.  Once the criteria of gender becomes irrelevant to marriage then ALL criteria for marriage become irrelevant.  This is why traditional marriage must remain between one man and one woman or we will cease to have an institution at all. My apologies to everybody else for responding to T-D again. But... T-Daddy, for my part I desire for 2 consenting adults to be able to choose each other to enter into marriage. I consider the consent thing important here. I consider them being adults important. I would limit it for 2 simply because of the legal quagmire of permitting marriage to groups of 3+. There is good reason for preventing fertile sibling marriages. These do not aply to homosexuals. Wether homosexual sibblings are allowed or prevented from marrying, I care not. Yes, yes T-Daddy, I realise this makes me much more bigotted than you. EDIT: Sorry T-D I forgot to adress your most excelent point on how all criteria becomes irelevant. In the UK gays have been alowed to "marry" for a little while now (it is actualy called a civil union). Straight couples are still marrying. Weird hey? Maybe slippery slopes are less steep or have more friction here than USA slippery slopes.

Spike Posts: 49 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,15:02    If people become randomly married to each other, will they be able to divorce? Or will that go out the window as well? If it does, then the moral conservatives will at least have won -that- battle. Being in an atheist marriage at this point is probably better than being in a fundie xtian one. The fx's think gay marriage will cause theirs to fall apart. I know it will have no adverse effect on mine. ******* How do I write a poll? I'd like to find out how many wives men honestly think they can handle. The ones who have never been married will probably vote for 5, 6, or 7. The ones who are married will ask, "Is there a vote for less than one?"

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,15:49    Quote How do I write a poll? that's a good question, actually. Is it just me or is the new poll button missing? -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,16:00    LOL like a timeshare wife. That actually might not be a bad idea. Weekend Wife. I could dig it. 5 nights of smoking drinking playoff-watching pizza-eating bachelorhod, and two days of mild-tempered, romantic pleasantness. not bad, not bad. Yeah, I don't see the new poll button either. I commented last night that we were dangerously close to pissing off Wesley. When you behave unorthdoxly on this board, like suddenly starting 5 polls for instance, you irritate him. Occasionally he steps in and enforces some propriety. But, it's better than going somewhere else, all things considered. Why don't you consider all things somewhere else? -we

PennyBright Posts: 78 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,16:01    What I've found interesting is that while I can see no evidence at all that allowing gay folks to marry would muck up mixed gender marriages,   I do know concretely that the legal steps taken to *prevent* gay marriages  can muck up mixed gender relationships. Ohio recently passed a law *edit - not a law, an amendment to the state constitution -*  prohibiting same sex marriage that has had the net effect of eliminating common-law marriage in the state, as well as eliminating domestic violence protections for un-married couples living together. While it's anecdotal,  I also know of one case where a health insurance provider decided on the basis of the state constitution to stop providing insurance to the non-custodial children of unmarried employees.   My neighbors daughter lost her health insurance because her father's  insurance did this.   And speaking personally, my own marriage was royally mucked over by it, since my husband and I had a religious ceremony, but are unable to get legally married to a legal f-ck-up involving my adoption.  We had been comfortable with having a common law marriage --  but now have to go to the expense and trouble of hiring lawyers in two states to try and untangle a mess from 25 years ago. edited for correctness. -------------- Conversation should be pleasant without scurrility, witty without affectation, free without indecency, learned without conceitedness, novel without falsehood. - Shakespeare (reputedly)

Spike Posts: 49 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,16:35    PB- So much for protecting the American Family. I hope that you and others are documenting these "government failures" and sounding off about them throughout the state. Perhaps some lawsuits are in the wings?

PennyBright Posts: 78 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,16:55    I haven't heard of anyone trying to take it to court,  Spike.    I think due to the fact that what's causing the problem is an amendment to the state constitution -- I'm sure if it were just a law,  there probably would be. With regards to the insurance case,  I'm not sure what my neighbors are doing - I know they were talking about trying to sue the ins.  provider,  but haven't heard anything about it since.  I'm not sure they would have grounds -- I just don't know the law that well. -------------- Conversation should be pleasant without scurrility, witty without affectation, free without indecency, learned without conceitedness, novel without falsehood. - Shakespeare (reputedly)

clamboy Posts: 299 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,17:25    thordaddy, which of the following is straight "marriage"? A) Brad and Janet B) Bob, Carol, and Alice C) Bo Duke and Daisy Duke Before we can continue, we must define just what the heck we mean by straight "marriage." But(t) seriously, defend yourself: you grant a particular right/privilege/legal recognition to a certain relationship between a schminkie and a hoohoo (nonconsanguinous, over a certain age, etc.), but when it's two schminkies (nonconsanguinous, over a certain age, etc.) or two hoohoos (nonconsanguinous, over a certain age, etc.), you say, "NYET!" From a traditional American principle of equal standing under the law, it is your duty to justify this arbitrary denial. Come on, hot stuff, let's hear it. Parading around in those short shorts under those lights must be getting tiring, so why not give us the benefit of your 12" of wisdom? I ask again, why do you hate America?

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,18:28    Thanks for the reality check Pennybright it certainly stopped me laughing my socks off, from the run of previous posts...good luck. Clamboy I think I know why TD hates America. It seems to me he would like to indulge in group sex with a)b)c)d)....z) (not that there is anything wrong with that).......but his religion is against it. Poor Frustrated Fundy. -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Pages: (6) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard