lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Gay Marriage
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 02-05-2009, 07:51 PM   #41
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astor Kaine View Post
I don't know about the bigamy thing, but even with the holy Constitution and 'freedom of expression', you have to expect common sense to kick in with things such as marrying children.
I'm just pointing out the legal situation, that would arise, it wouldn't be as big of an issue if they came up with another term to call it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue Nine
Not really, because marrying someone of the same sex is not analogous to an adult marrying a minor.
Some religions dictate as to when the consider a minor to be of age of consent, and if you start playing around with the definition of marriage to satisfy one group (where you can argue back and forth as to religion being in play there), you open the door for legal arguements for everything else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue Nine
Just like one's sexual orientation means nothing.
Marriage is partially so you can have children, 2 men cannot have a child with each other, nor can 2 women have a child with each other, it takes both a man and a woman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quote=Rogue Nine
Meaning your entire argument is fallacious and therefore, wrong.
In your opinion, I don't see the need to completely up-end our cultural heritage when there is a way to fix the issue without doing so. People here say it doesn't affect people whom are straight, well redefining the definition of marriage affects traditional marriages, as well as what is taught in school.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue Nine
I don't quite follow this line of reasoning. What religion is being discriminated against, and how?
That's easy, see the radical offshoots of the Mormon Faith, Islamic Faith where men apparently can have multiple wives.

I've taken a Constitutional Law Class, so I have some knowledge of what can open the door to what, in fact a ruling to open up Gay Marriage can set a precident for other cases.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-05-2009, 08:16 PM   #42
jrrtoken
Senior Member
 
jrrtoken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Marriage is partially so you can have children, 2 men cannot have a child with each other, nor can 2 women have a child with each other, it takes both a man and a woman.
Since when did marriage become coupled with mandatory procreation? Additionally, who cares if they can't have children, there's still adoption, which will never go dead.
Quote:
In your opinion, I don't see the need to completely up-end our cultural heritage when there is a way to fix the issue without doing so. People here say it doesn't affect people whom are straight, well redefining the definition of marriage affects traditional marriages, as well as what is taught in school.
Since when does marriage imply two members of the opposite sex? More importantly, if you're straight, then you're obviously not attracted to the same sex; therefore, there is absolutely no effect being placed upon yourself.
Quote:
That's easy, see the radical offshoots of the Mormon Faith, Islamic Faith where men apparently can have multiple wives.
So, the FLDS, for example, is being unfairly treated, because it promotes wife-swapping and pedophilia?
jrrtoken is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-05-2009, 08:21 PM   #43
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastramiX View Post
Since when did marriage become coupled with mandatory procreation? Additionally, who cares if they can't have children, there's still adoption, which will never go dead.
And I don't have problems with two people of the same gender adopting a kid, just don't call it marriage. Call it something else and I have no objection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PastramiX
Since when does marriage imply two members of the opposite sex? More importantly, if you're straight, then you're obviously not attracted to the same sex; therefore, there is absolutely no effect being placed upon yourself.
Actually it does, because guess where that kind of behavior gets instilled into children... (I'm blaming the school systems, not same-sex couples)

Quote:
Originally Posted by PastramiX
So, the FLDS, for example, is being unfairly treated, because it promotes wife-swapping and pedophilia?
Technically, if you play around with the definition to cater to one group, you open the door for groups like FLDS.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-05-2009, 08:29 PM   #44
jrrtoken
Senior Member
 
jrrtoken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
And I don't have problems with two people of the same gender adopting a kid, just don't call it marriage. Call it something else and I have no objection.
Then what do you want to call it? A "domestic partnership"? A "civil union"? It's all the same thing; a union of two individuals. No matter what you call it, it'll still be the same thing.
Quote:
Actually it does, because guess where that kind of behavior gets instilled into children... (I'm blaming the school systems, not same-sex couples)
How are school corporations the problem? Do they actively support homosexuality? Even if they did, why would it be such a large problem?
Quote:
Technically, if you play around with the definition to cater to one group, you open the door for groups like FLDS.
Okay, except the FLDS thinks that gays are hell spawn. So really, if the US allowed polygamy, then there's no way a several million fundamentalists will allow homosexual marriages.
jrrtoken is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-05-2009, 08:33 PM   #45
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastramiX View Post
Then what do you want to call it? A "domestic partnership"? A "civil union"? It's all the same thing; a union of two individuals. No matter what you call it, it'll still be the same thing.
Then you have no problem with calling it something other than marriage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PastramiX
How are school corporations the problem? Do they actively support homosexuality? Even if they did, why would it be such a large problem?
Because it is trying to indoctrinate children into a particular lifestyle, which is an abusive use of their role as an authority figure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PastramiX
Okay, except the FLDS thinks that gays are hell spawn. So really, if the US allowed polygamy, then there's no way a several million fundamentalists will allow homosexual marriages.
Well, actually the US could, the FLDS can believe that all they want, but the fact is the same sex marriage thing can open the door to their lifestyle of polygamy being legitimized.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-05-2009, 08:38 PM   #46
Rogue Nine
*static*
 
Rogue Nine's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 14,654
Current Game: Bravely Default
10 year veteran! Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Some religions dictate as to when the consider a minor to be of age of consent, and if you start playing around with the definition of marriage to satisfy one group (where you can argue back and forth as to religion being in play there), you open the door for legal arguements for everything else.
That's the thing. Gay couples want the legal, secular rights to marriage. They want nothing to do with the religious institution of marriage. Thus your argument about other religions arguing for their practices to be accepted based on gay marriage is null and void.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Marriage is partially so you can have children, 2 men cannot have a child with each other, nor can 2 women have a child with each other, it takes both a man and a woman.
Nowhere does it say in the law that marriage must produce children. Thus your argument is irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
In your opinion, I don't see the need to completely up-end our cultural heritage when there is a way to fix the issue without doing so. People here say it doesn't affect people whom are straight, well redefining the definition of marriage affects traditional marriages, as well as what is taught in school.
How does redefining marriage affect those heterosexual couples who are already in marriage? And what curriculum changes will there need to be if gay marriage is legalized?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
That's easy, see the radical offshoots of the Mormon Faith, Islamic Faith where men apparently can have multiple wives.
Again, religion. Not relevant to gay couples pursuing secular benefits of marriage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
I've taken a Constitutional Law Class, so I have some knowledge of what can open the door to what, in fact a ruling to open up Gay Marriage can set a precident for other cases.
If you think having taken a Constitutional law class lends any further credence to your position, then you're wrong. Nobody cares that you've taken a class like this because your arguments are flawed and irrelevant. So stop telling us, we don't give a rat's ass.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Because it is trying to indoctrinate children into a particular lifestyle, which is an abusive use of their role as an authority figure.
Describe to me how legalizing gay marriage will force schools to 'indoctrinate children into a particular lifestyle'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Well, actually the US could, the FLDS can believe that all they want, but the fact is the same sex marriage thing can open the door to their lifestyle of polygamy being legitimized.
You have not provided a logical argument as to how legalizing gay marriage would legitimize polygamy. Until you do, people will continue to call you on your terrible, unfounded premise.




have a suggestion for the lf poll? pm me
Rogue Nine is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-05-2009, 08:40 PM   #47
jrrtoken
Senior Member
 
jrrtoken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Then you have no problem with calling it something other than marriage?
Don't turn the question around, I'm asking you why homosexual unions shouldn't be called marriages. Furthermore, consider this: homosexuals are being discriminated, by denying them the title of "marriage", and with that, the rights and benefits that come with it.
Quote:
Because it is trying to indoctrinate children into a particular lifestyle, which is an abusive use of their role as an authority figure.
Then give me proof why the public schools are somehow indoctrinating kids to be gay.
jrrtoken is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-05-2009, 08:57 PM   #48
True_Avery
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Then you have no problem with calling it something other than marriage?
What if someone was to say that autistic people could not marry because it was against their religion, because they weren't equal to other people, etc? That they are inferior, or unnatural and shouldn't be allowed to have children or marry? That marriage was a sacred institution, and allowing such people to marry would harm it?

I'm not attacking you personally. I'm just giving you a hypothetical for you to think on.

Is it man and woman? Yes, but now it is something personal to you. What if someone explained to you that because of the way you were born, you shouldn't be allowed the same privileges, equal rights, etc of other people?

I've read your posts, and you have a strong support for yourself and anyone in a remotely similar situation. If someone were to walk up to you and tell you that you aren't allowed to be married and must this sign for a "civil partnership" instead...

You would rage to high heaven. Don't deny that you wouldn't. You would pop on the forum and give us conservative blogs and news stories to support the fact that you thought the liberals and left-wing propagandists are stealing your rights.

Welcome to my side of this.

I'm not claiming this is conservative. I am not claiming this is liberal, left wing, right wing, etc. I personally believe this issue is a neutral based on the person and their beliefs.

And you, as a person, are discriminating against me and so many others. Discriminating.

dis⋅crim⋅i⋅nate
to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality

I had a gay couple marry in my back yard for the short time it was legal. They have been together for 15 years, and only now have they been allowed the same privileges as you. Since Prop 8, that was taken from them.

What you don't understand. No, what you choose to be ignorant of is that "gays" and "lesbians" and "homosexuals" are not just titles to be thrown around on an internet forum. They are real people. They are people with hopes, dreams, loves, cares and they want to be treated like human beings equal to you.

Not a big deal you say? Man and a woman you say? Religion you say? The title of the union you say?

The title is everything. For a lot of us, the privileges that come along with the name are trivial compared to the title they give you.

Married.

Why not just call it something else?

Because the title is everything. Creating something separate but equal is against the foundations of this country. It is discrimination and oppression by the government.

------

And all this about kids? Marriage is not to make kids. Marriage is a union in which two people share what they have. Nowhere in marriage does it state that the two people are required to have children. There are people who get married who never have kids. Are they going against the foundations of religion? No, they are living out their lives as a married couple. Sorry, but this is not the middle east.

--------

Religion?

Do not twist words to fit your argument. This country has separation from church and state in effect for a reason. You have freedom to practice religion, but you do not have freedom to bring your religion into politics or other people's lives, which is exactly what you are doing.

You are pushing your religious, superstitious beliefs on other people's lives. Plain and simple.

Marriage is religious you say?

No, not in America. Marriage is most certainly not a religious institution, otherwise atheists would not be allowed to marry. You do not, I repeat, do not need a church, priest, etc to get married. That is all for show. You are married when you sign the legally binding paper that says you are married. You an get married in a court house if you'd like.

You walk in, sign in, sit down, say a few vows, then sign the paper. No dress, no bible, no priest.

That is Marriage in the United States of America. This is not the dark ages. This is no the Vatican. This is not a religion ruled land. This is a land that was built on the concept of separation of church and state for reasons exactly like this.

----------

You cannot say "marriage is sacred" and then turn around and ask "why is marriage so sacred to you?" Your answer is right in front of your face. The answer is in your own beliefs and situations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Because it is trying to indoctrinate children into a particular lifestyle, which is an abusive use of their role as an authority figure.
Then take slavery, women's rights, and every other movement out of history class because they are obviously trying to force their beliefs on you. Take science, evolution, medicine, and every single other class out of school for teaching us about life.

It isn't a life style for a lot of us, so stop treating it like it is. Or, I can continue to judge you based on your autism.

Because obviously that was a lifestyle choice.

The fact you call it a lifestyle choice through and through shows just how ignorant you are on the subject, and how far you've gone to close yourself off from the people you discriminate against.

Would you like to know the truth?

For some, yes, it is a lifestyle option. Know what the people said who I know have chosen to change rather than live out a "normal" life? The lesbians I have met claim to have switched due to being molested, raped, beaten, abused, etc. and cannot ever feel comfortable around a man.

It is not a "hey, I think I'll be gay now!" It is less of a "lifestyle" choice for some, and more of a defense mechanism against atrocities that have been committed against them.

There are some who I know have, suddenly one day for one reason or another, fall for someone of the same gender and live out a happy life.

And there are some, like myself, who were not forced or suddenly "changed" by an event. Some of us were just quite simply born this way, and have been who we are from the earliest day we can remember. And before you vomit up "Well, you don't know what you want" let me explain to you that I have only, ever, found girls attractive and only get that pecular feeling from girls. It is not lying to myself. I could not change if I wanted.

And if it was a choice. A lifestyle choice as you so ignorantly state, then why. WHY do we stay this way willingly? Why stay in the lifestyle when it is ripping your family apart? Why continue when your parents disown you? Why continue when you are jumped and beaten after school? Why continue when you are ridiculed, looked down upon, told you're going to hell?

Why continue when you put a gun to your head or pick up a bottle of pills? If it is a choice. A complete, and utter choice then why is the main cause of death in homosexuals suicide?

I knew a man who killed himself when his father disowned him. He couldn't handle the stress of having his family be disgusted with him, and took his own life even though he was trying his hardest to be "normal". If the stress with that intense. That strong and that consuming, then why did he willingly choose to be what he was.

So instead of making an uninformed statement about a group of people, why don't you do some face-to-face research instead of hiding behind your bible, parents, and superstitious beliefs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
indoctrinate children
Typical statement from someone who is ignorant of the situation.

We are not out to "turn" children gay. Guess what? We can't. It is not something you put into a book and then suddenly children say "I wanna be gay now!"

We teach kids about black history so they will be accepting of African Americans. We teach women's rights because we want women to be treated equally and not like dirt. We teach war so that the future generation may avoid it themselves. We teach people not to touch fire because it burns.

We do not want to teach your children how to be gay. We want to teach them that we exist, and we are humans like you and should be treated as such.

Personally, I think more should be in the classroom about autistic, and other conditions people are born with or obtain through certain circumstances so that when they grow up, the kids are less likely to make fun of them, criticize them, pick on them, etc.

Education can and has led to acceptance of different peoples. If you think trying to teach kids that we exist, we will always be here, and that we want to be treated like people is trying to indoctrinate them and "turn" them due to our "agenda"...

Then I don't know what to say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Well, actually the US could, the FLDS can believe that all they want, but the fact is the same sex marriage thing can open the door to their lifestyle of polygamy being legitimized.
They said the same thing about inter-racial marriages.

They were still man and woman you say?

This is a consenting marriage by two men or women of legal age. This is not a dog and a person. This is not a child and a person. The only difference is a person wanting to marry a person of legal age.

The blatant flaw with your argument is that being homosexual is not against the law. Polygamy and pedophilia is illegal in these united states. They both have tried to get their own rights, but failed due to the fact that what they want to do is illegal. If being homosexual was illegal, than your argument would hold water. But it isn't. Homosexual relationships are not illegal. Being that you let us live and love in this country, the least you could do is stop treating us like lesser beings than yourself and give us the same privileges that you have.

Stop creating slippery slopes out of thin air to justify the fact you have no actual argument based on anything but superstition and ignorance towards the people you are taking privileges from.

As a person who has claimed to be different with a condition, and thus treated different... I would have assumed you would not wish to discriminate against others. That, as a person who believes you should be treated equally under the law and socially, you would treat others with the same desire.

It is hypocrisy.

And before you pull some more religious text onto me, read this carefully before proceeding:

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” -Jesus

Last edited by True_Avery; 02-06-2009 at 04:35 AM. Reason: ad hominem remarks removed
True_Avery is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-05-2009, 09:09 PM   #49
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
Then you have no problem with calling it something other than marriage?
Only if you come up with new terms for these other kinds of nontraditional marriages:
  • Marriages decided upon by the couple getting married, not their parents, and made out of love, rather than for the family's economy, status and power*.
  • Inter-racial marriages.
  • Marriages in which the wife isn't basically the property of her husband.
  • Marriages open to teens and young adults**.

*Wiki: For most of European history, marriage was more or less a business agreement between two families who arranged the marriages of their children. Romantic love, and even simple affection, were not considered essential. In fact at some times, too much affection in a marriage was considered a Sin. Historically, the perceived necessity of marriage has been a nearly universal source of stress.

**The average age of marriage in the late 1200s into the 1500s was around 25 years of age. Beginning in the 1500s it was unlawful for a woman younger than 20 years of age to marry.

I have no problem with a 18 year old boy forming a union out of Sinful love (God have mercy) with an 18 year old girl for then to respect her and treat her as his equal, and fine, you can make it a religious matter for whatever inane reason you may have, but please, don't disgust me by calling it marriage. What's wrong with a 'civil union'? Damnit, next they'll want to marry Negroes!

Quote:
Some religions dictate as to when the consider a minor to be of age of consent, and if you start playing around with the definition of marriage to satisfy one group (where you can argue back and forth as to religion being in play there), you open the door for legal arguments for everything else.
We heard you the first ten times.

Quote:
Marriage is partially [emphasis added] so you can have children, 2 men cannot have a child with each other, nor can 2 women have a child with each other, it takes both a man and a woman.
You said it - partially. Which is why sterile people and couples with serious genetic disorders can marry.

There's way too many children out there without loving parents. Allowing more couples to marry would mean more potential stable homes for these children to go to, and studies have found that children of two mothers perform just as well, or better, than children of one mom and one dad. They are also at a far lower risk of sexual abuse. I'll see about getting my references from Kavar's Corner.

Quote:
That's easy, see the radical offshoots of the Mormon Faith, Islamic Faith where men apparently can have multiple wives.
But marriage has nothing to do with religion whatsoever, so the point is moot. If we were allowing gay marriage to please some sect with a positive view of gay marriage, maybe you'd have a point.

Quote:
Actually it does, because guess where that kind of behavior gets instilled into children... (I'm blaming the school systems, not same-sex couples)
Oh, yes, the old "teh gheys are recruiting" sham.

Prove to me that teaching tolerance somehow induces homosexual lust in children. If you cannot, drop it.

Quote:
Because it is trying to indoctrinate children into a particular lifestyle, which is an abusive use of their role as an authority figure.
I see Newspeak has entered the debate:
Heterosexuals have a sexual orientation, gays have a homosexual lifestyle.
Heterosexuals have campaigns to get marriage banned, gays have an agenda to get it legalized.

I could list several more examples than this.


Last edited by Dagobahn Eagle; 02-05-2009 at 09:31 PM.
Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-05-2009, 10:31 PM   #50
Det. Bart Lasiter
obama.png
 
Det. Bart Lasiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: `(.)~
Posts: 7,997
Current Game: all
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Then you have no problem with calling it something other than marriage?
what about gay marriage



"No, Mama. You can bet your sweet ass and half a titty whoever put that hit on you already got the cops in their back pocket." ~Black Dynamite
Det. Bart Lasiter is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-06-2009, 09:04 AM   #51
Astor
It's Thornhill!
 
Astor's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Warwickshire, UK
Posts: 3,632
Current Game: The Old Republic
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
I'm just pointing out the legal situation, that would arise, it wouldn't be as big of an issue if they came up with another term to call it.
And you honestly believe that any court in the civilised world would allow people to marry children?

That's nothing but an alarmist sentiment, thrown up as hasty opposition.

Quote:
Marriage is partially so you can have children, 2 men cannot have a child with each other, nor can 2 women have a child with each other, it takes both a man and a woman.
Thanks for pointing that out - Here I was operating under the assumption that the Stork brought us babies.

Marriage is an expression of commitment and love between two people - it doesn't have to involve children, although a child is often a result of such commitment.

Quote:
People here say it doesn't affect people whom are straight, well redefining the definition of marriage affects traditional marriages, as well as what is taught in school.
As has been pointed out, the 'tradition' of marriage has been so diluted over the past few thousand years it's not even a 'tradition' any more.






Astor is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-06-2009, 11:12 AM   #52
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astor Kaine View Post
And you honestly believe that any court in the civilised world would allow people to marry children?

That's nothing but an alarmist sentiment, thrown up as hasty opposition.
The Court does not make legislation, they interpret legislation, and all you need is the Appeals court in California. Seriously, once you start altering marriage to cater to one group, you have to cater to the others as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Astor Kaine
Thanks for pointing that out - Here I was operating under the assumption that the Stork brought us babies.

Marriage is an expression of commitment and love between two people - it doesn't have to involve children, although a child is often a result of such commitment.
The point remains that there is an argument for marriage as it currently is to care for children that result of that union.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Astor Kaine
As has been pointed out, the 'tradition' of marriage has been so diluted over the past few thousand years it's not even a 'tradition' any more.
In your opinion.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-06-2009, 11:16 AM   #53
Astor
It's Thornhill!
 
Astor's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Warwickshire, UK
Posts: 3,632
Current Game: The Old Republic
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
The Court does not make legislation, they interpret legislation, and all you need is the Appeals court in California. Seriously, once you start altering marriage to cater to one group, you have to cater to the others as well.
Uh, no, you don't, not when children are involved. The very notion that any court/government/whatever in the western world would allow the marrying of children is ludicrous.

Quote:
The point remains that there is an argument for marriage as it currently is to care for children that result of that union.
I'm sure there is, but why should that stop Homosexuals from marrying each other?






Astor is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-06-2009, 11:18 AM   #54
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
The Court does not make legislation, they interpret legislation, and all you need is the Appeals court in California.
Yeah, there's so much support for child marriage in California that it sickens me (please note sarcasm).

Quote:
Seriously, once you start altering marriage to cater to one group, you have to cater to the others as well.
Like, say, the gays?

Quote:
The point remains that there is an argument for marriage as it currently is to care for children that result of that union.
Such as adopted kids.

Quote:
Quote:
As has been pointed out, the 'tradition' of marriage has been so diluted over the past few thousand years it's not even a 'tradition' any more.
In your opinion.
No, not "in his opinion". In documented reality. Marriage, like everything else, is ever-changing.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-06-2009, 11:29 AM   #55
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astor Kaine View Post
Uh, no, you don't, not when children are involved. The very notion that any court/government/whatever in the western world would allow the marrying of children is ludicrous.
There are at least 2 governments in the world that still allow slavery that I can think of.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Astor Kaine
I'm sure there is, but why should that stop Homosexuals from marrying each other?
In catering to one group of people, you end up opening the door to court cases involving other groups of people, such as polygamists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Yeah, there's so much support for child marriage in California that it sickens me (please note sarcasm).
It's actually possible, that court has a tendency for some rather insane rulings.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Like, say, the gays?
Quit trying to imply that I'm a homophobe, it's annoying. I was referring to polygamists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Such as adopted kids.
And I have no problem with same-sex couples adopting kids, just don't call it marriage.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
No, not "in his opinion". In documented reality. Marriage, like everything else, is ever-changing.
Usually it has been between men and women, look if this is so not going to affect straight people, why does it have to be called marriage?
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-06-2009, 11:35 AM   #56
Astor
It's Thornhill!
 
Astor's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Warwickshire, UK
Posts: 3,632
Current Game: The Old Republic
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
There are at least 2 governments in the world that still allow slavery that I can think of.
In the Western world? But that's not relevant to this discussion.

Quote:
In catering to one group of people, you end up opening the door to court cases involving other groups of people, such as polygamists.
So we're not catering to only one group of people (Heterosexuals) now, then?

Quote:
Usually it has been between men and women, look if this is so not going to affect straight people, why does it have to be called marriage?
It's not going to affect straight people, so why can't it be called marriage?






Astor is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-06-2009, 11:54 AM   #57
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
It's not going to affect straight people, so why can't it be called marriage?
I've wondered about this, too.

I think I'll sit the rest of this debate out.

Garfield: Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because then pedophiles will be allowed to marry their daughters!
Everyone: Er, no.
Garfield: Er, yes.
Everyone: No.
Garfield: Yes.
Everyone: No!
Garfield: Yes!
Everyone: Look, just... no.
Garfield: Yes!
Everyone: No.
Garfield: Yes.
Everyone: No, no, no.
Garfield: Yes, yes, yes.
Everyone: ...no.
Garfield: Yes.
Everyone: No.
Garfield: Yes!

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-06-2009, 12:55 PM   #58
True_Avery
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
There are at least 2 governments in the world that still allow slavery that I can think of.
Irrelevant to discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garfield
The Court does not make legislation, they interpret legislation, and all you need is the Appeals court in California.
You mean the same state that banned it with Prop 8?

Pedophiles and polygamists have been trying to get rights a lot longer than gays have. Both, however, are illegal and thus why would they allowed to be married at all?

If you think homosexuals are sane, fit, and "normal" enough to raise children and so on then why can't we have your marriage? We aren't molesting kids, or trying to marry a dozen people. Two consenting adult American citizens want to marry, and right now the separate but equal policy goes against the constitution.

Separate but equal. You took a constitution class. Look it up.

The courts repealed it BECAUSE it was unconstitutional to create a separate but equal policy for a group of people. It is government made discrimination against legally abiding citizens.

Don't insult me by claiming it is anything else but that. Or shall we start creating separate but equal fountains for gays and autistics? I mean, because, well, its all water... right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garfield
In catering to one group of people, you end up opening the door to court cases involving other groups of people, such as polygamists.
So, giving the "gays" their own "marriage", separate but equal, would NOT open up possibilities for separate but equal marriages between children?

Your argument is fallacious because as of right now, polygamy and pedophilia are ILLEGAL. Homosexuality is not. Homosexual relationships are not. Homosexual love is not. Pedophilia and polygamy are.

Stop connecting dots that aren't there to be connected. The reason pedophilia and polygamy are illegal is because the relationship is harmful to the party's involved, are legal nightmares, etc etc. We have reasons to keep both banned.

Are we discriminating against pedophiles and polygamists? Yes, we are. But we do so because of the harm that happens during those relationships, many of which are not consensual.

A child cannot legally consent. Another adult can.

That is why homosexuality is not illegal in the united states, and polygamy and pedophilia are.

Until It is illegal, then you are choosing to discriminate based on something that is legal. Technically, I am "allowed" to be a homosexual. So, why can I not be allowed into a legally binding contract that you have the privilege of?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Garfield
It's actually possible, that court has a tendency for some rather insane rulings.
No, it is not. It has already been ruled that pedophilia and polygamy are illegal in the united states. Homosexuality is not.

Pedophilia and polygamy (particularly pedophilia) is harmful to the person involved, and the person involved cannot legally consent.

Again, a grown adult can. Stop treating us like children.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garfield
Quit trying to imply that I'm a homophobe, it's annoying.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Garfield
And I have no problem with same-sex couples adopting kids, just don't call it marriage.
You've yet to back up your stance on why it -shouldn't- be call marriage. We've told you it is discrimination, and you've replied with the same question over and over again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garfield
Usually it has been between men and women, look if this is so not going to affect straight people, why does it have to be called marriage?
You don't get it!

What if I walked up to you and told you that autistic people are not allowed to marry because of their "condition". That you must sign a civil union, and you are not allowed to marry because married is between a mentally fit man and woman.

Why does it have to be called marriage? Because it is DISCRIMINATION against legally consenting adult citizens of the united states. 2, not many. Legal age, not children.

Separate but equal mentality.

Why don't we just put some fountains and bathrooms in the corners for gays and autistics to drink from instead of the "normal" people. Its all water, right?

Why not create a separate bathroom for gays and autistics. It is still a bathroom, right?

How about different schools entirely? It is still a school, right?

That it goes without saying that all of the above would be enforced just as strictly as the gay marriage bans.

Still sound "fair and balanced" to you?

Last edited by True_Avery; 02-06-2009 at 01:11 PM.
True_Avery is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-06-2009, 01:04 PM   #59
Rogue Nine
*static*
 
Rogue Nine's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 14,654
Current Game: Bravely Default
10 year veteran! Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
There are at least 2 governments in the world that still allow slavery that I can think of.
Irrelevant. This has nothing to do with the United States of America.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
In catering to one group of people, you end up opening the door to court cases involving other groups of people, such as polygamists.
Just because you say it doesn't make it true, no matter how many times you say it. No lawyer will be able to argue for polygamy in court using gay marriage as an affirmative argument because polygamy and gay marriage are two separate topics that have nothing to do with the other. So unless you have logical proof that they do, shut up about this. You say this statement again without proper reasoning, it will be deleted for repetitious trolling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
It's actually possible, that court has a tendency for some rather insane rulings.
You think the Supreme Court of California may legalize child marriage? I knew you were full of ****, but damn, I didn't know you were this full of ****. Congratulations.

Show me how it's even remotely possible that they would consider such a decision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Quit trying to imply that I'm a homophobe, it's annoying.
Quit being a homophobe, it's annoying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Usually it has been between men and women, look if this is so not going to affect straight people, why does it have to be called marriage?
Calling it marriage does not affect straight people. You have not proven how it does, so quit saying it does, or else I will do it for you.

And it has to be called marriage, otherwise it is not equal under the law. There are benefits afforded to married couples by the federal government that are inaccessible to gay couples because of the Defense of Marriage Act, which was a terribly offensive piece of legislation that should have never been passed. This act restricts a lot of rights and benefits to heterosexual couples only, meaning that gay couples are not given the same opportunities that straight couples are. This is wrong and needs to be changed. THAT is why it must be called marriage.




have a suggestion for the lf poll? pm me

Last edited by Darth333; 02-21-2009 at 04:13 PM.
Rogue Nine is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-06-2009, 02:05 PM   #60
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
Just because you say it doesn't make it true, no matter how many times you say it. No lawyer will be able to argue for polygamy in court using gay marriage as an affirmative argument because polygamy and gay marriage are two separate topics that have nothing to do with the other. So unless you have logical proof that they do, shut up about this. You say this statement again without proper reasoning, it will be deleted for repetitious trolling.
There is hope for this thread after all, then.

Quote:
What if I walked up to you and told you that autistic people are not allowed to marry because of their "condition".
You'd perhaps be surprised to hear that people with Down's Syndrome, at least, aren't allowed to marry in the Kingdom of Norway. There was this movie some years ago about a couple with the condition, and it sparked a public debate as it raised the question if the two, who were clearly consenting adults who loved each others, should be allowed to take the vow and become husband and wife. But of course, if we allowed that it'd open the door for pedophiles, bigamists, etc., so that's a no-go, unfortunately .

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-06-2009, 02:39 PM   #61
Det. Bart Lasiter
obama.png
 
Det. Bart Lasiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: `(.)~
Posts: 7,997
Current Game: all
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle View Post
I've wondered about this, too.

I think I'll sit the rest of this debate out.

Garfield: Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because then pedophiles will be allowed to marry their daughters!
Everyone: Er, no.
Garfield: Er, yes.
Everyone: No.
Garfield: Yes.
Everyone: No!
Garfield: Yes!
Everyone: Look, just... no.
Garfield: Yes!
Everyone: No.
Garfield: Yes.
Everyone: No, no, no.
Garfield: Yes, yes, yes.
Everyone: ...no.
Garfield: Yes.
Everyone: No.
Garfield: Yes!
he does that in every thread, this is nothing new. and at least he isn't calling white phosphorous burns "cigarette burns" or "pallywood magic".



"No, Mama. You can bet your sweet ass and half a titty whoever put that hit on you already got the cops in their back pocket." ~Black Dynamite
Det. Bart Lasiter is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-06-2009, 03:09 PM   #62
Alexrd
Senior Member
 
Alexrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Portugal
Posts: 2,170
Current Game: UEFA Euro 2004
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
And I don't have problems with two people of the same gender adopting a kid, just don't call it marriage. Call it something else and I have no objection.
I don't have problems with gay marriage, neither how is it called. I only don't agree that a gay couple can adopt children. Children that live with a gay couple are somewhat "convinced" to be like them. (I have nothing against them, but to me, it's not a normal behaviour). It's just my opinion, respect it as I respect yours...



Star Wars: In Concert - Lisbon - Some pictures of the exhibition accompanying the event.
Alexrd is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-06-2009, 04:13 PM   #63
mur'phon
Whale eating vegetarian
 
mur'phon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Southier than thou
Posts: 1,537
Forum Veteran 
Ask yourself if that is worse than a child growing up in an orphanage. While I don't know if a child born to gay parents are more likely to end up gay themselves. Any experiment showing that will have a hard time proving that they are more likely to be gay rather than simply more likely to admit being gay.
mur'phon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-06-2009, 07:31 PM   #64
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexrdias View Post
I only don't agree that a gay couple can adopt children. Children that live with a gay couple are somewhat "convinced" to be like them.
If I could provide you with data to the contrary, would you be willing to revise your opinion here?

Quote:
(I have nothing against them, but to me, it's not a normal behaviour).
Normal? Why isn't it normal? It's normal for those who are not heterosexual. It's normal in that it appears in nearly every species on the planet. It may not be common, but it is definitely "normal" to such a degree that if homosexuality were not present among Homo sapiens, we should wonder why given that it appears so "normally" in so many other species, particularly other primate species.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-06-2009, 09:45 PM   #65
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue Nine View Post
And it has to be called marriage, otherwise it is not equal under the law. There are benefits afforded to married couples by the federal government that are inaccessible to gay couples because of the Defense of Marriage Act, which was a terribly offensive piece of legislation that should have never been passed. This act restricts a lot of rights and benefits to heterosexual couples only, meaning that gay couples are not given the same opportunities that straight couples are. This is wrong and needs to be changed. THAT is why it must be called marriage.
It's called drafting legislation that says it is some sort of partnership, and the same rights and benefits that married couples get apply to this partnership.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-06-2009, 09:55 PM   #66
Rogue Nine
*static*
 
Rogue Nine's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 14,654
Current Game: Bravely Default
10 year veteran! Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
It's called drafting legislation that says it is some sort of partnership, and the same rights and benefits that married couples get apply to this partnership.
It's called 'IT HASN'T HAPPENED'.




have a suggestion for the lf poll? pm me
Rogue Nine is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-06-2009, 09:56 PM   #67
True_Avery
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
It's called drafting legislation that says it is some sort of partnership, and the same rights and benefits that married couples get apply to this partnership.
Separate but equal is a concept that this country has been trying to get rid of for hundreds of years.

You're just as bad as anyone who looks down on you for your condition. Just as bad as people who wanted African Americans to go to separate schools so they wouldn't corrupt the white kids.
True_Avery is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-06-2009, 10:11 PM   #68
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Should gays also have their own drinking fountains and bathrooms?

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-09-2009, 11:09 AM   #69
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
The subject of gay marriage is a personal freedom issue. Of course it should be legal. And, regardless of anyone's beliefs, legislating from the pulpit is never a good idea because to do so is to violate the rights of nonbelievers, and is in fact nonbiblical because it involves passing judgement on others. Separation of church and state in a nutshell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL, Emphasis mine
There are at least 2 governments in the world that still allow slavery that I can think of.
Haha, ruh-roh.

Do feel free to discuss this subject at length with Niner any time you feel like it.


"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.
Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."
-Toker
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-09-2009, 03:58 PM   #70
Vikinor
600cc
 
Vikinor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Midgard
Posts: 1,232
Current Game: Cataclysm
It just occured to me that we are either borderline flaming or are completely flaming Garfield.

Simple as this. Garfield, I do not agree with any of your views on gay marriage, but I do respect them. Just about everyone in this thread disagrees with you. They have provided reasons, as you have provided yours. There needs to be another piece added to this arguement otherwise it's going to keep going in a circle.




Original member of 2002.
Vikinor is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-09-2009, 05:15 PM   #71
EnderWiggin
Sine Amore Nihil Est Vita
 
EnderWiggin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,395
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qliveur View Post
Do feel free to discuss this subject at length with Niner any time you feel like it.

We agree for once, Q

_EW_



Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black. ~ Prime

Yes, I hate you.

J7 - thanks for accepting me as part of the 'family.'
EnderWiggin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-10-2009, 09:49 AM   #72
Doomie
Do the Black Mage!
 
Doomie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: The black void...
Posts: 2,445
I live in a country that has legalized gay marriage a few years back. Straight marriages haven't somehow devaluated, no one has come to indoctrinate me, no one has called for polygamous or pedophilic marriages and God hasn't smitten us yet. Why would this be any different in America?

Also, if there is supposedly no difference between marriage and domestic partnerships, why does an artificial distinction need to be made between the two? Either call them both marriage, or neither.
Doomie is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-10-2009, 10:43 AM   #73
Rogue Nine
*static*
 
Rogue Nine's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 14,654
Current Game: Bravely Default
10 year veteran! Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doomie View Post
I live in a country that has legalized gay marriage a few years back. Straight marriages haven't somehow devaluated, no one has come to indoctrinate me, no one has called for polygamous or pedophilic marriages and God hasn't smitten us yet. Why would this be any different in America?
Thanks for that example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doomie
Also, if there is supposedly no difference between marriage and domestic partnerships, why does an artificial distinction need to be made between the two? Either call them both marriage, or neither.
That's just the thing, Doomie. There are quite a few differences between marriage and domestic partnerships depending on the state. Some US states don't even recognize domestic partnerships yet whereas others basically equate them to marriage. The federal government recognizes marriage as only between a man and a woman, and as such a whole slew of federal rights and privileges cannot be attained by gay couples.




have a suggestion for the lf poll? pm me
Rogue Nine is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-10-2009, 10:47 AM   #74
Astor
It's Thornhill!
 
Astor's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Warwickshire, UK
Posts: 3,632
Current Game: The Old Republic
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue Nine View Post
The federal government recognizes marriage as only between a man and a woman, and as such a whole slew of federal rights and privileges cannot be attained by gay couples.
Forgive my ignorance, but Federal Law overrides individual State laws, is that right?

If that is the case, then, surely, would it not be better for campaigns to focus on making it a part of Federal Law?






Astor is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-10-2009, 11:05 AM   #75
Det. Bart Lasiter
obama.png
 
Det. Bart Lasiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: `(.)~
Posts: 7,997
Current Game: all
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astor Kaine View Post
Forgive my ignorance, but Federal Law overrides individual State laws, is that right?

If that is the case, then, surely, would it not be better for campaigns to focus on making it a part of Federal Law?
sort of. it doesn't mean the federal laws in place will prevent gay marriages from happening, just that federal law won't recognize the marriage exists. as to the effectiveness of campaigning for gay marriage in individual states, the federal government is a lot more socially conservative than the governments of a few states (such as my home state of massachusetts, where i'll only get a ticket or warning for getting baked at a gay wedding, versus being harassed by police and the protesters at the wedding in some other states), so getting at least a few states to recognize gay marriages is better than none and it will build support for gay marriage nationally.



"No, Mama. You can bet your sweet ass and half a titty whoever put that hit on you already got the cops in their back pocket." ~Black Dynamite
Det. Bart Lasiter is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-10-2009, 11:07 AM   #76
Rogue Nine
*static*
 
Rogue Nine's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 14,654
Current Game: Bravely Default
10 year veteran! Forum Veteran LF Jester 
The definition of marriage has historically been a power reserved to the individual states, which is why every big gay rights movement has been on the state level. However, the federal government defines 'marriage' for its own statutes and laws.

The most pertinent piece of federal legislation is the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996 which basically said the federal government will not recognize same-sex marriages even if they are legal in the state in which the couple was married. It is a terrible and disgusting piece of legislation and the homosexual community as a whole felt betrayed by Bill Clinton when he signed it into law. However, there is hope. President Barack Obama has made mention that he would like to repeal DOMA, which would be awesome in so many ways. I hope he can pull it off.




have a suggestion for the lf poll? pm me
Rogue Nine is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-01-2009, 07:43 PM   #77
Agent_Katarn00
Junior Member
 
Agent_Katarn00's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cloud City,Michigan
Posts: 290
Current Game: Morrowind!
I'm not gay or anything,but i say it's okay gay people get married.It's not like the ending of the world will come.Plus,some people are just like that.They can't help it.So i say it's okay for gays to get married,period.



Jedi Knight Dark Forces 2 Mod Project Leader and Console and PC Gamer
Games i'm looking forward to:
-Red Faction Guerrilla
-Fallout New Vegas
-Diablo 3
Agent_Katarn00 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 12:00 PM   #78
Rogue Nine
*static*
 
Rogue Nine's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 14,654
Current Game: Bravely Default
10 year veteran! Forum Veteran LF Jester 
VT professional organizations back gay marriage
VT lawmakers to push gay marriage law

- Looks like Vermont might be the next state to legalize gay marriage. At this rate, we might have the entire Northeast by the middle of next decade.




have a suggestion for the lf poll? pm me
Rogue Nine is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-03-2009, 09:58 PM   #79
Rogue Nine
*static*
 
Rogue Nine's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 14,654
Current Game: Bravely Default
10 year veteran! Forum Veteran LF Jester 
I was wrong! Iowa beats VT to the punch.

Good job, Iowa.




have a suggestion for the lf poll? pm me
Rogue Nine is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-04-2009, 02:08 AM   #80
EnderWiggin
Sine Amore Nihil Est Vita
 
EnderWiggin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,395
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Good day for civil rights in Iowa.

_EW_



Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black. ~ Prime

Yes, I hate you.

J7 - thanks for accepting me as part of the 'family.'
EnderWiggin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > Gay Marriage

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:49 AM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.