This is Why Homosexuality is Wrong. . .

[Ramona]

Yeah. Just LOOK at those PANTS. They're, like, Kmart pajama aisle super stock!

You're just jealous cos Nina gets all the hotties.

 

[TheManeki]

Is that "99 Luftballons" Nina? She looks different than she did back then...

 

[Ramona]

Is that "99 Luftballons" Nina? She looks different than she did back then...

No, that's Nena Hagen. Subtle difference in their names, but they're two entirely different people.

 

[fanatiquefou]

I'd smash HER super cooled cockroach ANYtime

Best innuendo EVER.

 

[TheManeki]

Anyone see this?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/30/iowa.samesexmarriage/index.html

An Iowa district court ruled Thursday that same-sex couples can marry based on the state constitution's guarantee of equal treatment, court documents show.

The ruling was in response to a December 2005 lawsuit brought by six same-sex couples seeking to wed. They were denied marriage licenses and claimed such treatment violates equal-protection and due-process clauses in the Iowa constitution.

Good for Iowa!

 

[selfinflikted]

Anyone see this?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/30/iowa.samesexmarriage/index.html



Good for Iowa!

Yes.. I'm kind of torn on the issue. On the one hand, it's awesome to see "rogue" judges and the like standing up for what is right and paving the way for equal rights. On the other hand, I wish this battle could be won on a level that didn't require "rogue" judges. What I mean is, I wish we could just put this to a vote, and have equal rights win by a landslide fair and square. Even further, I wish this issue was something so rediculous that it wouldn't even require voting.. but alas, that is wishful thinking because as we all know, there are still hateful people out there in the world... some that even frequent this very board.

EDIT: I fear that these people who are fighting the good fight, are going to suffer a lot of backlash in that states might take drastic measures in preventing OMGZORZ TEH GAYZ! from marrying and enact some BS law banning same-sex marriage. I sincerely hope this doesn't happen at all, but I'm only being realistic. I dunno.. maybe I just have a defeatest attitude today

 

[meebs]

Heterosexuality is not the problem. Our sex saturated society IS the problem.

Not suprising - as sex is very much part of our everyday life and in our genetic makeup. How do you think people are born?

Why does sex get so much stigma?

Why do we poke our noses in other peoples lives? What business is it ours about what 2 or more consenting adults do in the bedroom?

Sex is an everyday thing, i think we just blow it out of proportion.

 

[meebs]

Oh, and MercyBust?

I actually appreciate the thought of returning to the Earth and providing nourishment for all kinds of worms and insects again. It's an integral part of life, and it's the way we give back some of what we've taken from the cycle.
It's a matter of give-and-take.

some?

You mean all

techinally we are doing that while alive too...

 

[TheManeki]

Awww...the ruling in Iowa got stayed. But one couple was able to get married. Let's hope this stay expires and people are able to get married again.

More at http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/...a1cf260b446720&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

 

[Mumei]

Yes.. I'm kind of torn on the issue. On the one hand, it's awesome to see "rogue" judges and the like standing up for what is right and paving the way for equal rights. On the other hand, I wish this battle could be won on a level that didn't require "rogue" judges. What I mean is, I wish we could just put this to a vote, and have equal rights win by a landslide fair and square. Even further, I wish this issue was something so rediculous that it wouldn't even require voting.. but alas, that is wishful thinking because as we all know, there are still hateful people out there in the world... some that even frequent this very board.

EDIT: I fear that these people who are fighting the good fight, are going to suffer a lot of backlash in that states might take drastic measures in preventing OMGZORZ TEH GAYZ! from marrying and enact some BS law banning same-sex marriage. I sincerely hope this doesn't happen at all, but I'm only being realistic. I dunno.. maybe I just have a defeatest attitude today

I'm not torn in any way on this issue. The job of the courts is to interpret the laws. If the laws state that there should be gay marriage, then the fundies can get over it, quite frankly. That is a judge legislating from the bench, it is a judge interpreting the laws that the legislators legislated. If they "screwed up," somehow, it is not the judge's fault.

 

[selfinflikted]

I'm not torn in any way on this issue. The job of the courts is to interpret the laws. If the laws state that there should be gay marriage, then the fundies can get over it, quite frankly. That is a judge legislating from the bench, it is a judge interpreting the laws that the legislators legislated. If they "screwed up," somehow, it is not the judge's fault.

Hi Mumei

You've read enough of my posts by now to know where I stand on gay marriage (I hope ). The thing I'm torn about, is the backlash effect that I mentioned earlier. For instance: One judge somewhere decides, "Hey, gays should be allowed to marry" (correct choice, imo) and so starts issuing marriage licenses. Next, the moral majority is taken aback by this judges ruling, and scrambles to ensure that this won't continue to happen, and will never happen again. So they amend their laws to prohibit gay marriage.

That's the thing I'm afraid of.

 

[TheOutsider]

Next, the moral majority is taken aback by this judges ruling, and scrambles to ensure that this won't continue to happen, and will never happen again. So they amend their laws to prohibit gay marriage.

That's the thing I'm afraid of.

They can attempt to make whatever laws against gay marriage they want but they will (almost) always be found to be unconstitutional. They can try to change the state constitution, but that is very hard work that takes years and years to do. By then, hopefully, there will be a federal ruling that would supercede all state constitutions.

 

[Beanieboy]

Congrats. The US has almost caught up to Canada, who legalized it back in 2003.

 

[selfinflikted]

They can attempt to make whatever laws against gay marriage they want but they will (almost) always be found to be unconstitutional. They can try to change the state constitution, but that is very hard work that takes years and years to do. By then, hopefully, there will be a federal ruling that would supercede all state constitutions.

Indeed, that is what I hope for as well.

 

[TheManeki]

Then there's the next struggle, getting the mainline churches to come around....

 

[Phred]

Then there's the next struggle, getting the mainline churches to come around....

If they don't it's time to start new ones.

 

[TheManeki]

Works for me. Let the dinosaurs die off, excluding others until nobody's left.

 

[Sapphos]

Bingo! Just the words I was looking for!

Eh um, sexual attraction is what homosexuality is all about. It's not love, in other words, it's L-U-S-T. Homosexuality is all about the physical attraction; it has nothing to do with the emotional. Did you not get that from reading the article?

So you are not sexually attracted to women at all? Straight women are not sexually attracted to men?
If you remove the sex bit, its called friendship!!!!

 

[Sapphos]

Bingo! Just the words I was looking for!

Eh um, sexual attraction is what homosexuality is all about. It's not love, in other words, it's L-U-S-T. Homosexuality is all about the physical attraction; it has nothing to do with the emotional. Did you not get that from reading the article?

So you are not sexually attracted to women at all? Straight women are not sexually attracted to men?
If you remove the sex bit, its called friendship!!!!