Obama hid 'gay life' to become president........MOOCHELLE IS A BEARD!!!!! LOL!!!

I've voted Republican for my entire adult life with only a few exceptions, like 2008 when I voted Libertarian for president. And i love my country, though you, apparently, hate large parts of it.Voted R? I don't believe it.....you are lying! You can't even bring yourself to lie and say you voted for Sarah Palin! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!


The article apparently is from WorldNetDaily (WND), which is the National Enquirer for the crackpot right wing fringe, and it cited a guy who runs a gossip website and that supported Hillary Clinton. That's the dumb leading the dumber. And I particularly like the so-called "investigative journalist" Wayne Madsen, who worked with the NSA from 1984 to 1988. What's he been doing fo rthe LAST 22 YEARS? Doesn't want to talk about that part of his resume? You sound just like the liberal scum discrediting sources......I don't believe you voted R ever.....can any of my fellow conservatives vouch for this guy? I never saw a post of his where he sounded conservative.......

Do you even know what credible means? If there a single reputable person quoted in any of your articles? Do you even know what "circumstantial" means? So far the evidence is circumstantial that you are not a conservative!

And again, I'm not "liberal scum". I'm a conservative. A REAL conservative. Not a Bible thumping, Conservatives don't speak ill of the bible people, even atheist conservatives like myself.....gay-hating Conservatives don't hate gays and don't usually throw out "gay hater" accusations, that's what liberals do......redneck like you. Redneck? Really LOL! Certainly conservatives don't throw that one around......


And Ambassador Stevens was never raped. No? Do you have a link for that? Do you have access to the coroner's report which has not been released yet? What about the FBI investigation which hasn't gotten started yet because it's "TOO DANGEROUS" for them to go in? HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! Busted again!!!!! You liberals trying to pretend to be conservative so you can try and attack true conservatives......Another stupid Internet rumor that only a dumb-ass hillbilly like you would believe. In fact, the attackers never even touched him. He was locked in a safe room and died of smoke inhalation/suffocation caused by other parts of the building burning.

He was found by other Libyan forces who didn't even know who he was and that brought him to the hospital - too late. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Well, well, well......I have never seen a post by you before that demonstrated you're conservative......Can anyone vouch for this ass-clown? You see cocksucker, conservatives have never attacked me on this board, so I don't believe you are conservative......I haven't really checked back on any of your prior posting history and don't plan on it......maybe someone I trust as a conservative will vouch for you.....we shall see......

From the posts I have seen, you sure don't look like a conservative, and from the baseballs I've seen Odumbo throw, he sure don't look like a heterosexual......

Also, you claim you're living in Texas, but identify yourself as an ex-New Yorker......Texas is a conservative state and New York is very liberal.........I find that very weird........you tie your identity to liberal NY....do conservatives do that?

Let's hear you support the Constitution, Federalism, Free-Market Capitalism and the Founding Fathers......How about condemning abortion and gay marriage?.......

Conservative? I think not.....
Liberal? probably.....
Libertarian? possible.....

Fess up bitch, what are you?

Well, well, well......I have never seen a post by you before that demonstrated you're conservative......Can anyone vouch for this ass-clown? You see cocksucker, conservatives have never attacked me on this board, so I don't believe you are conservative......I haven't really checked back on any of your prior posting history and don't plan on it......maybe someone I trust as a conservative will vouch for you.....we shall see......

From the posts I have seen, you sure don't look like a conservative, and from the baseballs I've seen Odumbo throw, he sure don't look like a heterosexual......

Also, you claim you're living in Texas, but identify yourself as an ex-New Yorker......Texas is a conservative state and New York is very liberal.........I find that very weird........you tie your identity to liberal NY....do conservatives do that?

Let's hear you support the Constitution, Federalism, Free-Market Capitalism and the Founding Fathers......How about condemning abortion and gay marriage?.......

Conservative? I think not.....
Liberal? probably.....
Libertarian? possible.....

Fess up bitch, what are you? Originally Posted by ChoomCzar

The rank stupidity you demonstrate never fails to amaze me.

There is no need for me to "fess up". I've already TOLD you I'm conservative. And it makes my skin crawl that someone like you thinks he is conservative. You appear to have a shit load of racist and homophobic opinions that YOU and ONLY YOU seem to think are the conservative positions.

You say you won't go back and look at my posting history, but you also want to hear my support for the Constitution, federalism, capitalism, and the Founding Fathers. Well, if you weren't so lazy and you DID review my posting history, you would find the support you are looking for.

I'm not going to do your work for you. I get tired of moochers like you wanting everything handed to you without putting in any effort. That's why I am a conservative. You must be part of the 47%, right?

Also, you claim you're living in Texas, but identify yourself as an ex-New Yorker......Texas is a conservative state and New York is very liberal.........I find that very weird........you tie your identity to liberal NY....do conservatives do that? Originally Posted by ChoomCzar

Wow. Where does one begin to address the idiocy of that comment?

Well, let me try. I'll use small words and short, simple sentences so you don't get lost. Even though Texas is a mostly conservative state, not every Texan is a conservative. And even though NY is a mostly liberal state, not every NYer is a liberal. Are you with me so far? I used "mostly" instead of "predominantly" so you would be able to understand.

So, my saying that I'm an ExNYer is a simple statement of fact. It identifies me as a former NYer. It does NOT identify me as a liberal.

So, yes, conservatives DO identify themselves by where they come from, just as liberals do. For example, Ronald Reagan, a conservative, had no problem identifying himself as a Californian, despite the fact that is a "mostly" liberal state.

How about condemning abortion and gay marriage?... Originally Posted by ChoomCzar

OK. Condemning gay marriage is NOT a conservative position, it is a religious position. And those things ARE different. Political conservatives support federalism, which places the POWER to make laws regarding marriage in the hands of the STATES, not the federal government. So, if Maine wants to legalize gay marriage, Maine has the power to do so and that marriage should be recognized.

On a personal note, I support gay marriage because it is better than the alternative and there is no good, NON-RELIGIOUS reason not to recognize it. All people are better off living in families where they have legal rights that are provided by marriage laws (i.e., inheritance, hospital visitation, health benefits). And gay people are BORN that way. It is genetic, not a lifestyle choice. Why should society discriminate over something gays cannot control anymore than straights can control their sexuality?

Abortion? To me it is an abhorrent thing. But if you outlaw it, you will have a far greater number of illegal abortions and unwanted children born out of wedlock. We are already suffering from hordes of dysfunctional families and fatherless boys. The prisons are full of them. Do you really want to increase that segment of the population?

A TRUE conservative recognizes that government programs can't do everything. There are no good choices. Abortions may be least evil option.

Woa, looks like Marshall just met his conservative match.

Dude, the ex-new yorker just handed you your ass. LOL

The rank stupidity I demonstrate never fails to amaze me.

There is no need for me to "fess up". I've already TOLD you I'm conservative. And it makes my skin crawl that someone like you thinks he is conservative. You appear to have a shit load of racist and homophobic opinions that YOU and ONLY YOU seem to think are the conservative positions.
Racist and homophobic opinions?.....Me? You're gonna have to show me a post where I ever made a comment that was racist or homophobic......you can't do it.....of course, just like a liberal you have no problem throwing that out........

You say you won't go back and look at my posting history, but you also want to hear my support for the Constitution, federalism, capitalism, and the Founding Fathers. Well, if you weren't so lazy and you DID review my posting history, you would find the support you are looking for.can't find one good word to say about the Constitution, federalism, capitalism or the Founding Fathers, can you, you immoral liberal......

I'm not going to do your work for you. I get tired of moochers like you wanting everything handed to you without putting in any effort. That's why I am a conservative. You must be part of the 47%, right? Jeez, the only point I was trying to make is that liberal filth like you didn't deserve the investment of time......


Wow. Where does one begin to address the idiocy of that comment?

Well, let me try. I'll use small words and short, simple sentences so I don't get lost. Even though Texas is a mostly conservative state, not every Texan is a conservative. And even though NY is a mostly liberal state, not every NYer is a liberal. Are you with me so far? I used "mostly" instead of "predominantly" so you would be able to understand.

So, my saying that I'm an ExNYer is a simple statement of fact. It identifies me as a former NYer. It does NOT identify me as a liberal. Circumstantial evidence of liberalism........everybody catch that........

So, yes, conservatives DO identify themselves by where they come from, just as liberals do. For example, Ronald Reagan, a conservative, had no problem identifying himself as a Californian, despite the fact that is a "mostly" liberal state.but it was a conservative state when he was the California governor.....you're a goober.......



OK. Condemning gay marriage is NOT a conservative position, it is a religious position. it's both dumbass......[here's where he starts to get real liberal]...........hey dumbass, marriage is government regulation of a personal relationship......are you telling me that the conservative position is more regulation......HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! I don't think so......When a man and a woman fuck, a baby can be the by-product of that fucking.......when your boyfriend fucks YOU in the ass, there's zero chance that you will produce a baby.......children need to be protected and raised properly......The government has a compelling govermental interest in regulating heterosexual relationships but no compelling governmental interest in regulating homosexual relationships.....And those things ARE different. Political conservatives support federalism, which places the POWER to make laws regarding marriage in the hands of the STATES, not the federal government. So, if Maine wants to legalize gay marriage, Maine has the power to do so and that marriage should be recognized.you mean Maine should force other states to recognize their gay marriages through the "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution?......you're trying to tell me that the US Constitution should be used to force all states to recognize another state's gay marriage but the Federal government should stay the fuck out of it?!!! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! Consider yourself intellectually destroyed......

On a personal note, I support gay marriage because it is better than the alternative and there is no good, NON-RELIGIOUS reason not to recognize it. government has a compelling governmental interest in protecting children and ensuring that the burden of raising a child falls mainly on the parents and not society in general.......Gee, I articulated a non-religious reason for the regulation of heterosexual relationships and not homesexual relationships....go figure.....All people are better off living in families where they have legal rights that are provided by marriage laws (i.e., inheritance, hospital visitation, health benefits).hey dumbass, marriage is not required to ensure those rights.....inheritance can be handled with a will, hospital visitation is called visiting hours, health benefits is called a fucking health insurance policy which you can buy.........gay people fucking doesn't create those tax payers, employers and employees of the future that heterosexual fucking produces.....I guess straight sex is more valuable than gay sex....... And gay people are BORN that way. It is genetic,really? If it was genetic, wouldn't the trait have extincted itself? Perhaps it is in utero? Maybe we can treat fetuses and prevent homosexuality....... not a lifestyle choice. for liberals it is....many straight liberals engage in gay sex to keep their liberal card......Why should society discriminate over something gays cannot control anymore than straights can control their sexuality?

Abortion? To me it is an abhorrent thing.I think that GREAT CONSERVATIVE Bill Clinton said "safe, legal and rare!" HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! You are for abortion and claim to be conservative? In what parallel universe do you live in? But if you outlaw it, you will have a far greater number of illegal abortions and unwanted children born out of wedlock.Don't the female babies get to choose what to do with their bodies?! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! We are already suffering from hordes of dysfunctional families and fatherless boys.then we should make divorces harder to get and reimpose the stigma of single motherhood.... The prisons are full of them. Do you really want to increase that segment of the population?you sound exactly like Margaret Sanger!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A TRUE conservative recognizes that government programs can't do everything. There are no good choices. Abortions may be least evil option. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Dude, stop pretending to be a conservative....I just destroyed you in this response.....anybody on my side of the board want to defend this piece of shit? I'm betting NO.........Fuck off........

Look, I honestly don't care who this guy, or any of the politiicans screw (as long as they're legal age), I'm just tired of 'em screwing the rest of us. I will say, looking at the first Klingon, Hussein is likely either gay, blind, or a moosloom hoping to get virgins for bringing down the great satan because daaaammmmnnn.

Look, I honestly don't care who this guy, or any of the politiicans screw (as long as they're legal age), I'm just tired of 'em screwing the rest of us. I will say, looking at the first Klingon, Hussein is likely either gay, blind, or a moosloom hoping to get virgins for bringing down the great satan because daaaammmmnnn. Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Agreed....I don't care who he's fucking either.....I just am amazed at the liberal frothing at the mouth every time a post an article about Odumbo being gay.......they're so funny.......

Dude, stop pretending to be a conservative....I just destroyed you in this response.....anybody on my side of the board want to defend this piece of shit? I'm betting NO.........Fuck off...... Originally Posted by ChoomCzar

You didn't destroy anything except your own credibility - if in fact you have any left

And your obsessiveness about believing you "win" every argument when you clearly do not strongly indicates a case of narcissistic personality disorder. Notice the way you say "my side of the board" instead of "conservative positions". Because it is all about you, right?

Also, notice that NO ONE has yet chosen to be on your "side of the board". No one want to claim that "honor".

So, it is doubtful that any argument will persuade you about anything. You are a sociopath.

Proof of homophobia? This board is FULL of homophobic posts by you, including your posts in this thread in which you called people "cocksuckers" and "faggots". Only YOU could believe you are not a homophobe. But then, that is what a narcissist would do, right?

You present the false argument that government has an interest in regulating heterosexual marriage because they (the government) have to protect children.

This ignores the fact that government permits heterosexual marriage even if there is NO CHANCE of a child being born, such as sterile partners or elderly partners getting married.

And hospital visitation rights doesn't mean visiting hours. It means the hospital cannot bar a gay partner from visiting his or her sick spouse in the hospital because they are not "family". Right now, many hospitals have regulations that permit only spouses of heterosexuals from staying with their spouse after normal visiting hour are over. The gay spouses must leave. Permit gays to marry legally and the hospitals have to treat gays equally.

Do you not see the difference? Do you not see the discrimination? Or do you just not want to admit you are wrong?

And, no health benefits is NOT called "a fucking health insurance policy which you can buy". A LOT of people in this country cannot afford their own health insurance because their jobs don't pay enough. BUT a women with no job or a poorly-paying job can STILL get health benefits through her husband's health insurance plan. However, a gay person with no job or a poorly-paying job CANNOT get health benefits through his or her spouse's health insurance.

Do you not see the difference? Do you not see the discrimination? Or do you just not want to admit you are wrong?

And government does NOT have an interest in regulating "heterosexual relationships". That is just changing the subject. Government has an interest in regulating MARRIAGE, whether heterosexuals or homosexuals are involved. Stop hiding behind the "protect the children" shield. There are lots of reasons to regulate marriage that are NOT related to raising children.

Oh, and learn some history. California was already a pretty liberal state when Regan was elected in 1966. IT WAS THE 1960s. Reagan was preceded by a liberal Democrat, Edmund "Pat" Brown, and followed by another liberal Democrat, Jerry Brown, the son of Pat Brown.

You didn't destroy anything except your own credibility.

And your obsessiveness about believing you "win" every argument when you clearly do not indicates a clear case of narcissistic personality disorder. So, it is doubtful that any argument will persuade you about anything.

Proof of homophobia? This board is FULL of homophobic posts by you, including your posts in this thread in which you called people "cocksuckers" and "faggots". Only YOU could believe you are not a homophobe.

You present the false argument that government has an interest in regulating heterosexual marriage because they (the government) have to protect children.

This ignores the fact that government permits heterosexual marriage even if there is NO CHANCE of a child being born, such as sterile partners or elderly partners getting married.

And hospital visitation rights doesn't mean visiting hours. It means the hospital cannot bar a gay partner from visiting his or her sick spouse in the hospital because they are not "family". Right now, many hospitals have regulations that permit only spouses of heterosexuals from staying with their spouse after normal visiting hour are over. The gay spouses must leave. Permit gays to marry legally and the hospitals have to treat gays equally.

Do you not see the difference? Do you not see the discrimination? Or do you just not want to admit you are wrong?

And, no health benefits is NOT called "a fucking health insurance policy which you can buy". A LOT of people in this country cannot afford their own health insurance because their jobs don't pay enough. BUT a women with no job or a poorly-paying job can STILL get health benefits through her husband's health insurance plan. However, a gay person with no job or a poorly-paying job CANNOT get health benefits through his or her spouse's health insurance.

Do you not see the difference? Do you not see the discrimination? Or do you just not want to admit you are wrong?

And government does NOT have an interest in regulating "heterosexual relationships". That is just changing the subject. Government has an interest in regulating MARRIAGE, whether heterosexuals or homosexuals are involved. Stop hiding behind the "protect the children" shield. There are lots of reasons to regulate marriage that are NOT related to raising children.

Oh, and learn some history. California was already a pretty liberal state when Regan was elected in 1966. IT WAS THE 1960s. Reagan was preceded by a liberal Democrat, Edmund "Pat" Brown, and followed by another liberal Democrat, Jerry Brown, the son of Pat Brown. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Marshall should quit while he's behind.

And Ambassador Stevens was never raped. Originally Posted by ExNYer

No, but he was murdered after we apologized - an apology that I for one do not wish to extend - after we bought the ruse of the hokey, hatie-hate movie on 9/11!

I doubt that Obama's gay. I wouldn't care if he was. The funny thing is that he were proven to be gay he and the media would spin it so hard that it would shame the weak minded sound-bite idiots that are the American people into voting for him again just because they don't want to seem anti-gay just like they didn't want to seem racist these last four years.

This kind of thing only reinforces those that have their minds made up and pisses off the few that don't. Who cares. The key to winning this is the economy stupid; it's the economy. His presidency is a nightmare rife with poor or undecided decisions, apologies for the country that we don't want to make and using the presidency to execute illegal executive orders - talk about a bully pulpit, but winning the election is targeting the economy and hitting him hard on his negative campaigning, and Romney isn't doing that.

[QUOTE=ExNYer;1051689678]You didn't destroy anything except your own credibility - if in fact you have any left
THANK GOD YOU STOPPED TRYING TO EMBRACE THE LIE THAT YOU ARE CONSERVATIVE....I HAVE READ THIS POST AND SEE THAT IT WILL BE EASIER TO DESTROY YOU THIS TIME THAN LAST TIME....CONSIDER YOURSELF DESTROYED BEFORE I EVEN START!!!!!! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
And your obsessiveness about believing you "win" every argument when you clearly do not strongly indicates a case of narcissistic personality disorder. NARCISM? OH, I AM A NARCIST BECAUSE I DESTROYED YOU IN DEBATE......IS EVERYONE WHO BESTS YOU A NARCIST? WHAT DO WE CALL THAT?! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!Notice the way you say "my side of the board" instead of "conservative positions". Because it is all about you, right? EVERY CONSERVATIVE CAN CALL "OUR SIDE OF THE BOARD" "MY SIDE OF THE BOARD" AND WE'D ALL BE CORRECT......YOU'RE GETTING DESPERATE!!!! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

Also, notice that NO ONE has yet chosen to be on your "side of the board". No one want to claim that "honor".I DIDN'T ASK ANY CONSERVATIVE TO SUPPORT ME, I DON'T NEED ANY SUPPORT.....I ASKED THEM IF ANY SUPPORT YOU....NONE OF THEM RESPONDED....MORE DESPERATION BY YOU!!!! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

So, it is doubtful that any argument will persuade you about anything. You are a sociopath.SO, BY YOUR DEFINITION, ANYONE WHO IS RIGHT WHILE YOU ARE WRONG IS A SOCIOPATH? HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! I SURE HOPE YOU AGREE THAT THE SKY IS BLUE AND THE GRASS IS GREEN.....OH GOD, I JUST MENTIONED GRASS TO A LIBERAL!!!! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

Proof of homophobia? This board is FULL of homophobic posts by you, including your posts in this thread in which you called people "cocksuckers" and "faggots". ONLY A HOMOPHOBE WOULD CONSIDER BEING CALLED A "COCKSUCKER" OR "FAGGOT" AN INSULT.....IF ANYONE WAS OFFENDED BY MY USE OF THOSE TERMS I SUGGEST THEY STOP HATING GAY PEOPLE....Only YOU could believe you are not a homophobe. But then, that is what a narcissist would do, right?

You present the false argument that government has an interest in regulating heterosexual marriage because they (the government) have to protect children.SAYING IT'S FALSE DOESN'T MAKE IT FALSE.....THAT'S VERY NARCISTIC OF YOU!!!! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

This ignores the fact that government permits heterosexual marriage even if there is NO CHANCE of a child being born, such as sterile partners or elderly partners getting married.IN MOST, IF NOT ALL STATES, HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES ARE ALLOWED TO ADOPT CHILDREN AND HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES ARE NOT....STATES RIGHTFULLY BELIEVE THAT A HOMOSEXUAL FAMILY IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE BEST INTERESTS OF CHILDREN....INFERTILE COUPLES BECOME PARENTS ALL THE TIME.....ELDERLY COUPLES BECOME PARENTS ALL THE TIME....DON'T YOU KNOW ANY GRANDPARENTS WHO ADOPTED THEIR GRANDCHILDREN?........

And hospital visitation rights doesn't mean visiting hours. It means the hospital cannot bar a gay partner from visiting his or her sick spouse in the hospital because they are not "family". Right now, many hospitals have regulations that permit only spouses of heterosexuals from staying with their spouse after normal visiting hour are over. The gay spouses must leave. Permit gays to marry legally and the hospitals have to treat gays equally.IF THIS IS YOUR BITCH, WHY CHANGE A UNIVERSAL HUMAN INSTITUTION THAT HAS BEEN AROUND FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS?.....WHY NOT JUST PASS A SIMPLE LAW THAT MAKES VISITING HOURS WHAT YOU WANT? YOU JUST USE THIS EXCUSE AS A RED HERRING TO ADVANCE YOUR ANTI-FAMILY LIBERAL AGENDA......YOU SCUM

Do you not see the difference? Do you not see the discrimination? Or do you just not want to admit you are wrong? GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND LAW DISCRIMINATE ALL THE TIME......YOU EVER HEAR HOW COURTS DESIDE WHICH DISCRIMINATION IS ACCEPTABLE AND WHICH IS NOT? STRICT SCRUTINY TEST? RATIONAL BASIS TEST? IT'S JUST A RED HERRING WHEN LIBERALS ARGUE DISCRIMINATION AND FAIRNESS.......

And, no health benefits is NOT called "a fucking health insurance policy which you can buy". A LOT of people in this country cannot afford their own health insurance because their jobs don't pay enough. BUT a women with no job or a poorly-paying job can STILL get health benefits through her husband's health insurance plan. However, a gay person with no job or a poorly-paying job CANNOT get health benefits through his or her spouse's health insurance.IF THIS IS YOUR BITCH, WHY CHANGE A UNIVERSAL HUMAN INSTITUTION THAT HAS BEEN AROUND FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS?.....WHY NOT JUST PASS A SIMPLE LAW THAT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO ADD ONE OTHER ADULT, REGARDLESS OF RELATIONSHIP, TO THEIR HEALTH PLAN? YOU JUST USE THIS EXCUSE AS A RED HERRING TO ADVANCE YOUR ANTI-FAMILY LIBERAL AGENDA......YOU SCUM

Do you not see the difference? Do you not see the discrimination? Or do you just not want to admit you are wrong?GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND LAW DISCRIMINATE ALL THE TIME......YOU EVER HEAR HOW COURTS DECIDE WHICH DISCRIMINATION IS ACCEPTABLE AND WHICH IS NOT? STRICT SCRUTINY TEST? RATIONAL BASIS TEST? IT'S JUST A RED HERRING WHEN LIBERALS ARGUE DISCRIMINATION AND FAIRNESS.......

And government does NOT have an interest in regulating "heterosexual relationships". That is just changing the subject. HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!Government has an interest in regulating MARRIAGE, whether heterosexuals or homosexuals are involved.MARRIAGE REGULATION IS TO PROTECT CHILDREN AND TO PROTECT A PERSON FROM THE BURDENS OF PARENTHOOD [FOR EXAMPLE: A WOMAN WHO RUINS HER EMPLOYMENT CHANCES BECAUSE SHE DEDICATED HER LIFE TO MOTHERHOOD]...... perhaps you can articulate what they are because i can't think of any......DO YOU BELIEVE THAT HOMOSEXUAL SEX RESULTS IN CHILDREN? THAT'S CRAZY IF YOU DO......HOMOSEXUAL SEX IS NOT NEARLY AS VALUABLE AS HETEROSEXUAL SEX......Stop hiding behind the "protect the children" shield. WTF!!!!! YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN PROTECTING CHILDREN?!!!! YOU ARE FUCKED UP.....There are lots of reasons to regulate marriage that are NOT related to raising children.THEN TELL US WHAT THE FUCK THEY ARE.....IF YOU HAD AN ANSWER, YOU WOULD HAVE GIVEN IT ALREADY.....

Oh, and learn some history. California was already a pretty liberal state when Regan was elected in 1966. IT WAS THE 1960s. Reagan was preceded by a liberal Democrat, Edmund "Pat" Brown, and followed by another liberal Democrat, Jerry Brown, the son of Pat Brown.HEY DUMBASS, GO BACK AND READ WHAT I SAID....I SAID CALIFORNIA WAS CONSERVATIVE UNDER REAGAN'S GOVERNORSHIP....I SAID NOTHING ABOUT BEFORE OR AFTER!!!!! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
I CAN BITCH SLAP YOU DOWN ON EVERY POINT YOU BRING UP.....YOU WANNA GET ANOTHER SHIT SANDWICH SHOVED DOWN YOUR THROAT?! HUH BITCH?

[/QUOTE]

Look, I honestly don't care who this guy, or any of the politiicans screw (as long as they're legal age), I'm just tired of 'em screwing the rest of us. I will say, looking at the first Klingon, Hussein is likely either gay, blind, or a moosloom hoping to get virgins for bringing down the great satan because daaaammmmnnn. Originally Posted by Iaintliein

ONLY A HOMOPHOBE WOULD CONSIDER BEING CALLED A "COCKSUCKER" OR "FAGGOT" AN INSULT.....IF ANYONE WAS OFFENDED BY MY USE OF THOSE TERMS I SUGGEST THEY STOP HATING GAY PEOPLE.... Originally Posted by ChoomCzar

HUH?????

You say some stupid ignorant shit Marshall, but that one is award winning.

SMFH

Am I supposed to believe that California was liberal before and after Reagan, but became conservative for 8 years while he was governor?

And you can try all you want to tie government regulation of marriage to protecting children, but that is a straw man argument no matter how many times you raise it.

Government doesn't ask straights if they are going to have kids or adopt kids before it permits them to marry, it just does that automatically. So, a man and a woman in their 70s who have already had their kids are permitted to marry by government, even though the husband has had a vasectomy and the wife has had a hysterectomy, and even though they don't want more kids - they just want to enjoy their retirement in peace.and won't be doing any adopting.

And why do gays have to jump through hoops to get benefits straights get just by marrying? Why do we need to pass a special law allowing a person to name any other person on a health plan as a beneficiary? Straights can already do that by marrying. Why can't gays?

If government is only interested in protecting children by regulating marriage, why do so many laws and institutions that have nothing to do with children favor marriage? Or at least straight marriage?

Probate laws - if a spouse dies without a will (like many if not most people), current laws leave the assets of the decedent to the surviving spouse. But only if they are straight. A gay spouse is out of luck. The family of the dead gay spouse can take all of the property of the marriage unless the surviving spouse can prove it belonged to him. Gays MUST get wills drawn up. Straights do not have to. How does screwing gays in that situation protect children?

Rent laws - Similar situation as above. The lease is in the name of one spouse, who dies. For straights, the surviving spouse takes over the lease. The landlord cannot evict the widow or widower. For gays, the surviving spouse gets evicted. And writing a will won't change that. How does screwing gays in that situation protect children?

Estate taxes - A husband dies and his assets become the wife's assets. No taxes are due at that point. When the wife finally dies, THEN the estate taxes are due. But not so for gays. Even is you have a will that leaves the estate of the decedent to the surviving gay spouse, estate taxes must be paid THEN. This typically forces the sale of some assets in order to pay the IRS. How does screwing gays in that situation protect children?

Health benefits - We've already covered this, but rather than permit gays to marry, you want to create more laws that allow everyone to name one other person as a beneficiary. Why? Why jump through hoops? Why not just let them marry.

Hospital visitation - What do you mean "just pass a law that makes visiting hours what you want?" The point is the HOSPITAL discriminates unless you are married. Are you saying pass a law that recognizes gay marriage only for the purpose of hospital visitations?

Also, despite what you wrote above, many states DO permit gays to adopt children. If being raised by gay parents is a bad thing as you apparently believe, why would states permit gay adoption at all? Can you point to any study or survey that concluded that being raised by gay parents harmed children, where the study was prepared by an unbiased source and NOT by some religious group or anti-gay marriage activists?

And many, many children are already being born to at least one gay parent. Some gays, especially closeted ones, do have sex the old-fashioned, heterosexual way. What do we do about the children who are the biological offspring of a gay parent? If the gay parent has custody, perhaps because the straight partner died or abandoned the family, what do we do about the child? If government has an interest in "protecting children" by having them raised by couples, what do we do about the kids being raised by a gay biological parent? Do we take them away forcibly and put the up for adoption?

I don't deny that being raised by a father and a mother might be BETTER than being raised by two parents of the same sex. But that is a FAR different thing than saying that being raised by two parents of the same sex is an outright BAD thing. And being raised by two gay parents, especially if one is an actual biological parent, is a FAR better thing than being raised by foster parents. And it is still probably better than being shuffled off to grandparents and/or aunts or uncles. And what if the aunts, uncles or grandparents think that their gay relative SHOULD be allowed to raise his or her own child? Can the government force them to take custody or put the kid into foster care instead? Do you even pause to consider these things?

There are a host of other areas where society bestows benefits on couples that have NO relationship to protecting children. But you want to deny those benefits to gays nonetheless.

And that "universal institution" that you mistakenly believe has been around for thousands of years actually hasn't been. Polygamy has probably been around longer than our current definition of monogamous marriage. And marriages in the past were often imposed on children, particularly women, in order to form alliances between families and to provide a social safety net that didn't exist yet.

It is clear you won't permit gay marriage under any circumstances. You grasp at every straw to deny its benefits and to conjure up all kinds of imaginary harms that will be caused by it. Secular reasoning won't lead to that conclusion. Only homophobia and Bible-thumping stupidity will.

And lastly, I doubt you've ever won an argument in your life. You certainly haven't won any on this board, except in your own mind. You've posted at least 3 god-awful, homophobic threads in the last couple of days and in every one of them you have been hammered by commentators. And your sad, pathetic reaction in each one is to call everyone who disagrees with you a bunch of dirty names (scumbag, cocksuckers, liberal scum, bitches, and so on).

I disagree with the lefties on a whole lot of issues, especially economic ones. But I try to refrain (though I am not always successful) from calling folks names. Name-calling doesn't persuade anyone and it make you look like a loser.

LOL... these weirdo's that are drawn to the president like moths to a flame. They seem to dispise him but just cant ignore him. Like violent wife beaters... why don't they just go away and be happy somewhere? Too funny (funny peculariar, not funny ha-ha).

BC

People seem to miss the big picture on both sides:

"Marriage" was historically a religious term and in theory "the Church" (Catholic, historically) made the rules and perhaps they (and spin offs?) should still have a say in the "definition" of the term they invented... BUT!!! Religions ALSO imposed themselves and infused themselves in government... giving special breaks and imposing their own ideas in laws and legislation.

AND THAT is currently why they have lost the control over what originally was a "religious" ceremony or "rite"... they imposed it and instilled it in the government. If NOT, then religions and churches would still control they whole idea of marriage.