October 03, 2005
Connecticut Joins The Fray
Connecticut sets itself square into the middle of one of the stickiest battles our country has ever faced by granting Civil Unions to homosexual couples.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
The whole time that this has been a fight, I have felt that it is wrong, but wasn't sture why. Now I think I've figured it out, at least for me. Procreation. Heterosexual relationships are the only relationships that offer the ability to procreate and continue the survival of the human species. That's not to say that every human couple is able to procreate, but there is at least an underlying reason for the attraction. Other forms of sexual perversion don't even have this to fall back on.
Now, with that being said, if a state wishes to recognize two people, regardless of gender and cohabitating as a couple for all legal purposes such as medical treatment, living wills, etc. Then so be it. But you better be careful when you word the statute because you could be leaving the door open for your state to provide a civil union between he and his sixteen wives. Or a man and his dog. Think it won't happen? It's already happening in some of the same-sex marriage states. A woman is sueing the state to get a marriage license issued between her and her dog. All I'm saying is that if you want to grant special priviliges to one sexual deviation while leaving others out, you had better be prepared for the firestorm that will percipitate.
Posted by: Drew at
05:28 AM
| Comments (54)
| Add Comment
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.
1
And the dual gender couple is the most generically diverse group making it optimal for raising children in a pluralistic society.
Posted by: Paul Deignan at October 03, 2005 06:14 AM (kom0z)
2
Hm, I don't really care who enters into a civil union with whom, as long as they aren't trying to enter anything in my bedroom.
Posted by: IO ERROR at October 03, 2005 07:45 AM (vhWf1)
3
I have become partial to my goat. I would like to marry my goat. Since CT allows Huuoomoos to have a civil union, I think I should be able to have a civil union with my goat. Before any of you say Baaaah to my idea, you should meet my goat.
Posted by: Filthy Allah at October 03, 2005 07:58 AM (5ceWd)
4
Filthy,
And you should have the right to marry your cuddly goat. After all, you are a Muslim, right?, and we all know that the great prophet gave specific instructions about a man and his goat. And really, who's to say how many goats might really be in hiding behind those burkas.
Posted by: jesusland joe at October 03, 2005 08:45 AM (rUyw4)
5
Stupid politicians always doing something for the usial amount of riff raff and i,ll bet they would oppse tax cuts and support gun control
Posted by: sandpiper at October 03, 2005 09:01 AM (zj1n9)
6
Oh yeah, living wills, health directives, get to visit someone in the hospital, blah, blah, blah. It's all about benefits; SSI and health insurance. In other words, money! And, I actually heard someone that was arguing for same sex marriage say that on TV. Then, she got a look on her face like she had allowed something to escape from her mouth!
Posted by: babs at October 03, 2005 09:11 AM (fAmiP)
7
drew, drew, drew....homosexuality is not a sexual deviation, it has a biological basis, in part and very probably in all. fMRI scans of homosexual brains show a difference both in form and function from hetero-XX and hetero-XY brains. denying marriage to homosexuals on the basis of their genetics is equivalent to denying marriage to blacks or asians. ;-)
Posted by: matoko kusanagi at October 03, 2005 09:41 AM (LHCy/)
8
and, for those of you concerned about marriage with pets, just add a same species requirement to the law. that should work until we disprove Fermat's theorem and encounter alien intelligences.
the inter-species clause would also prevent unions between homo sapiens and silicon intelligences, now that the Singularity is Near.
Posted by: matoko kusanagi at October 03, 2005 09:46 AM (LHCy/)
9
According to the Koran, it is permissable in Islam to Bugger young boys and to have hot relations with girls under the age of 9.
Buggery is Buggery. Degenerate lefties will find a way to excuse any occasion of immorality as long as it suits them.
But God help you if you run a business and make a profit. Then, you are evil.
Posted by: Filthy Allah at October 03, 2005 09:47 AM (5ceWd)
10
Hmm... If the gay-crap is in their brains, then it is a syndrome or brain-damage-caused insanity after all, just like it was before the eighties. So since they're sick in the head, they must be taken away to places meant for such "special" people.
Posted by: A Finn at October 03, 2005 09:51 AM (lGolT)
11
Oh, brother, I knew this thread was going to bring out the moonbats.
Filthy,
Unless your profit-making business is pornographic or homosexual, or both, and then, Mister, you have a free pass from the Left to make all the money you can on debauchery.
Posted by: jesusland joe at October 03, 2005 09:57 AM (rUyw4)
12
Then, matoko, what makes a pervert get his jollies off on 6 year old girls? Is that just a deviation of the chromosones that we have to justify as well? And if not, then why is one sort of sexual deviation "genetic" and another not? It wouldn't seem to make sense that sexual arousal was determined by different things according to what the deviation is.
Posted by: Drew at October 03, 2005 10:00 AM (Ml8z/)
13
I'd say that sexual preferences are determined by childhood influences. Especially people who have been using medication or been in constant contact with traumatizing "different" people as a kid are effected by them. For example, boy + harsh discipline + gentle malefigure = very gay boy
The other typical ones:
fanatically religious + fanatically religious = crazy kids with infinite possibilities of wierd sexual preferences due to trauma and/or defiance towards parents
submissive mother + violent father = wife-beater xy/lesbian xx
gay + gay = very very gay of opposite than "parents'" sex / very anti-gay of the same as "parents'" sex.
Posted by: A Finn at October 03, 2005 10:16 AM (lGolT)
14
My goat has been cheating on me with a badger. Damn Goat with her sagging udders. What was I thinking.
Posted by: Filthy Allah at October 03, 2005 10:20 AM (5ceWd)
15
Well, I'll make a comment after remarking on the sewer-like opinions of some here. Really, people, is your distaste and dislike of gay people so bad that you have to bring it up everywhere? Get a grip, get a life, or whatever. Anyway, OF COURSE it's about money and property. What other reson do you think gay couples care about this? No one needs a license to love or be loved. But when you have two people, gay or straight, who have dedicated their lives to each other, it stands to reason that they want to be sure the surviving one is taken care of when one dies. Gay marriage, civil unions, domestic partnership, or whatever you call then, are to make sure that two gay people can be secure in their property and assests when one of them dies. That's it. How would straight couples like it if, when a husband died, his family came into the house, took all the stuff inside, all the assets, and then threw the widow out onto the street? Well, that's they way it is for gay couples in many states. That's all this is about.
Posted by: Scott in CA at October 03, 2005 10:24 AM (pbWbx)
16
Scott,
Let us have a little fun and don't take everything you read so seriously.
As for the scenario you describe in regard to property subject to probate, all you have to do is go to a lawyer and tell him how you want your property disposed of after your death. It's called a will.
Posted by: jesusland joe at October 03, 2005 10:34 AM (rUyw4)
17
I will lure Scott Baio to Connecticut, slip him a roofie and weekend at Bernie his ass to the court house to make it legal.
You will then have to address me as: FIlthy Allah- Baio. Yes, I will be doing the hyphen.
Posted by: Filthy Allah at October 03, 2005 10:54 AM (5ceWd)
18
I love third rail discussions!
Just remember the 'official' Jawa position on the gays: We're all for 'good' gay everything and against 'bad' gay everything.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at October 03, 2005 12:49 PM (JQjhA)
19
Is my plan for Scott Baio falling under the bad gay thingy?
Posted by: Filthy Allah at October 03, 2005 01:09 PM (5ceWd)
20
Drew, there is a biological basis for all behavior. Altho that must be a truly difficult concept for someone with no background in high school biology to grasp. Sure, pedophiles have a biological basis for their behavior--the difference is in our treatment of their actions. Pedophiles are different from homosexuals, in that their behavior damages other members of society. Homosexuals are generally law abiding productive members of society. I believe there is a biological basis for the number of serial killers spawned in our society also. That doesn't mean we should enable them.
Posted by: matoko kusanagi at October 03, 2005 01:09 PM (LHCy/)
21
Harm is relative. I believe seeing two men kissing in public is harmful to my children. A child rapist doesn't believe he's doing any harm at all. If you go judging on the basis of harm, then you have no firm ground to stand on. That plus the fact you'd have a hard time pressing the fact that a man screwing a horse is harming the horse.
It's amazing how, when someone disagrees with you they automatically have no education. Personally, I feel that you have no education other than the fact that you can spew back incorrect information that you have managed to memorize through mainstream sources. Get out and do a little research for yourself for a change and you might see that some things just don't make much sense.
Posted by: Drew at October 03, 2005 01:13 PM (Ml8z/)
22
Filthy,
You are truly filthy, you whore. And bitch slap matoko, or in the alternative, at least let him be the best man/women in your wedding, whatever the FMRI scan says his brain wants him to be.
Posted by: jesusland joe at October 03, 2005 01:16 PM (rUyw4)
23
Drew, please offer empirical data on my incorrect information. I doubt your education because of your anti-evolution arguments, for example, ninth grade earthworm dissection should have taught you about sexual reproduction in androgynes. But that is just me. ;-)
Also the possibility that you cannot read...society makes the rules--it is society's estimation that harm is done by the child rapist.
And there are many, many things that your children will see in life that could be harmful to them. Do you plan on raising them in a closet? It is your job as the parent to make sure they are armored against memetic attacks with a sound upbringing. Is seeing two men expressing affection more dangerous than seeing a hetero high school couple sucking face in the hall before fifth period? Is it worse than the evening news? Let's face it, we're all nasty hobbesian barbarians under the skin and your kids will see a whole lot of evil stuff--that you should be preparing them for. Do your job, Drew.
Posted by: matoko kusanagi at October 03, 2005 01:27 PM (LHCy/)
24
jesusland joe - in many states, a will can be overturned by a judge. A family member has higher standing to break a will than a "legal stranger" partner does. In the eyes of the law, the gay couple were roommates, nothing else. And really, why on earth is any of this a concern of anyone other than the couple involved? Is it really a problem to cover domestic partners with healthcare? Inheriting a pension? Little things like not having the house reassessed upon the death of a partner, as with spouses? What is REALLY the problem? Sorry, but to me and lot of other people, the objection to gay unions of any kind is really about trying to make sure gay people stay "other" and not really part of society. Sorry, but you're going to have to go back in time a long way for that.
Posted by: Scott in CA at October 03, 2005 01:29 PM (CesRF)
25
matoko, You have to be one of the stupidest fuckers I have ever met in my entire life. Even if I presented you with evidence as I have in the past, you wouldn't accept it. Go soak your head. For a REALLY long time.
Posted by: Drew at October 03, 2005 01:32 PM (Ml8z/)
26
Steady lads. Potty mouth does not help anyone.
Now, Hands up who thinks Charles in Charge should be put back into production?
Posted by: Filthy Allah at October 03, 2005 01:36 PM (5ceWd)
27
tch, tch.
Drew, the first one to resort to profanity loses the argument.
Please give an example of evidence that you presented in the past that was, umm, viable.
And i may be many things, but stupid ain't one. Shall we match IQ's?
Posted by: matoko kusanagi at October 03, 2005 01:39 PM (LHCy/)
28
No, the first one to invoke Hitler loses the argument.
IQ? Sure. 165.
Can you show me some evidence that is viable? Because that seems to be quite a relative term to me.
Posted by: Drew at October 03, 2005 01:41 PM (Ml8z/)
29
Filthy,
Two guys = bad gay--even Scott Baio.
Two girls = bad gay.
Two HOT girls = good gay.
Because the argument for or against gay anything (rights, marriage, etc.) is simply an aesthetic argument. Two hot chicks making out is aesthetically pleasing to me, two butch chicks making out is not aesthetically pleasing to me.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at October 03, 2005 01:42 PM (JQjhA)
30
I see. What if I put a wig on him?
Posted by: Filthy Allah at October 03, 2005 01:52 PM (5ceWd)
31
let's change viable to irrefutable, drew. Does that help? I believe i refuted all your anti-evolution arguments, except for the one pixy got. ;-)
165? impressive, if true. However, as a grrrl, i am well aware that IQ is one of two things that men nearly always exagerate. ;-)
Posted by: matoko kusanagi at October 03, 2005 01:53 PM (LHCy/)
32
So now I'm a liar? Yeah, that's about par for the course for you. You present evidence that has been disputed, reputed and flat out busted and call it "irrefutable." Then, when anyone disagrees with you, you call them a liar and an idiot. There's no way I can prove anything to you, nor do I need to prove anything to you. People like you are going to go through life blissfully ignorant until they crash into a wall that is reality.
So what happened to comparing IQ? I showed you mine, aren't you going to show me yours?
Posted by: Drew at October 03, 2005 02:01 PM (Ml8z/)
33
Scott,
A will completed by a competant attorney is almost impossible to overturn. I can't think of any state where that would not be most unusual.
Matoko,
Your FMRI scan must show that you are a her. I did not mean to give you a masculine depiction, but my IQ level is very low and I did not want to exagerate it. I have never met any Matokos, so hey, who knew?
Posted by: jesusland joe at October 03, 2005 02:10 PM (rUyw4)
34
Drew, we were discussing YOUR evidence. I SAID, show where your anti-evolution arguments were NOT refuted by either me or pixy.
But i am willing to have you show me an example of my evidence that has been refuted. go ahead.
And i have five points on you, if you are telling the truth. You may or may not be a liar, but you most certainly are an idiot. Didn't you argue for evolution NOT BEING TAUGHT AT ALL IN HIGH SCHOOL CURRICULAE?
Q.E.D.
Posted by: matoko kusanagi at October 03, 2005 02:12 PM (LHCy/)
35
jesusland joe, you could google Ghost in the Shell.
Posted by: matoko kusanagi at October 03, 2005 02:15 PM (LHCy/)
36
Yes, sure. Let's make sure and attempt to make ME prove my side while letting you rest on your laurals. After all, you and pixy are both "experts." As I said, I have no reason to attempt to prove anything to a twit such as you. Do me a favor. STFU. You continue to believe in ignorant theories which have no basis and attempt to force the other person on the defensive so that you don't actually have to face your lack of solid evidence. I grow weary of your presence as simply reading what you post causes me to become dumber by the minute.
Posted by: Drew at October 03, 2005 02:20 PM (Ml8z/)
37
ItÂ’s about time we started saying no to the vocal minority in our country. I for one am sick and tired of the Gay agenda being forced upon this country.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states this about homosexuality:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."
A Catholic who is aware of Church teaching and continues to support such "intrinsically disordered" behavior is in a state of sin.
Call me ignorant, call me dumb, all I can do is voice my opinion and use my vote. I recommend the rest of you who feel as I do use your vote and voice before we have no standards of behavior to uphold in this country.
Posted by: Brad at October 03, 2005 02:22 PM (3OPZt)
38
JJ googled Ghost in a Shell, and decided that his low IQ could not comprehend this, so has decided to wait for his 10-year old daughter to get home from school and explain it to him. She is well versed in Inu Yasha, and jj believes she will understand Matokos that star in Ghost in Shell.
Posted by: jesusland joe at October 03, 2005 02:29 PM (rUyw4)
39
Rusty,
Two hot chicks are aesthetically pleasing to me. They do not need to make out to attain that stature in my eyes. As for the gay union kerfluffle in which we are engaged, I see that no amount of arguement or persuation will affect the opinions on either side.
I am against it because my mind set and morals tell me that it is wrong. But I am not going to condemn anybody for it, nor do I expect to be condemned for my opinion. If select states want to do this, and the people's representatives in that state approve, then I have no right to complain, but every right to try to get it changed.
Here is the problem I have. I do not want a Court forcing the beliefs of one state onto another. For instance, I would vehemently oppose a Court using the Commerce Clause or the 14th Amendment to make another state recognize gay unions if that state opposed it. And this is the crux of the problem, now isn't it. Because gays want to use the Courts to force this on the entire country, and this is where I part company with them.
Posted by: jesusland joe at October 03, 2005 02:52 PM (rUyw4)
40
FILTHY ALLAH: Most who wish to have civil unions look like goats so why not?
Posted by: greyrooster at October 03, 2005 02:52 PM (ywZa8)
41
MATOKO: Child molestors and killers have a problem with their brains. There is something different in their genes than the rest of us. They cannot be happy without molesting children. Is denying them the right to molest and kill children the same as denying blacks and asians the right to marry? THE LINE MUST BE DRAWN SOMEWHERE.
Also your example is poorly done. Playing race card. You should know better.
Posted by: greyrooster at October 03, 2005 03:04 PM (ywZa8)
42
Brad, those of us who are not Catholic really don't care. Neither the RCC or you have the authority to declare anything 'Instrinsically disordered". The RCC doesn't like divorce, either, but it exists quite happily without the RCC's consent. And Brad, this isn't about anyone's "agenda". Civil unions allow people to regualarize their personal and financial affairs. And jesusland joe, why should a gay couple have to spend a bunch of money on lawyers when others get to sign a piece of paper at city hall? For what it's worth, I would prefer a system where the state issued civil union licenses ONLY. Those couples who want a "marriage" can find a religous denomination that will perform the ceremony. Those that don't want "marriage" can just go about their business. This threatens no one, except those who seem to be obsessed with making sure that gay couples remain completely outside the mainstream of society. Isn't going to happen. Those day are over.
Posted by: Scott in CA at October 03, 2005 03:38 PM (HBIMj)
43
I have lived in the heart of soddom, Chelsea NYC.
You must only hang out with ugly gays. Most of the gay men in Chelsea are down right how. Like, Scott Baio hot but with nipple rings.
They are all buff and cut and look pretty damn good mind you. That aside, they are still degenerates and I moved from that area so that my little Filthys would not have to see such debauched behavior. I do not want them to think it is normal for men to blow eachother in the apartment lobby.
I will not judge them. I will let my God judge them as he did JFK and Re-Run from TVS "whats happening"
Posted by: Filthy Allah at October 03, 2005 03:45 PM (5ceWd)
44
Scott - I have to admire you. You put up a good fight however, I am in a heterosexual relationship and we paid a bundle to an attorney to protect our assets in the event of death and to insure that our medical wishes are enforced, etc. The idea that gay couples need to go to extraordinary measures to protect assets and provide for a widow/widower is just not true. WE ALL HAVE TO because the gov't and greedy relatives are standing by ready to take a piece of the pie and it doesn't matter what your sexual proclivity is.
Health insurance is offered to "families" to provide for, typically, a mother and children. SSI ditto, if the wage earner is not collecting it. If a couple do not have children then both should be able to work and secure these benefits for themselves. If someone is disabled the gov't will provide benefits independent of the person's sexual orientation. So, I say again, the idea of gay unions is all about feeding off the public trough that was set up to protect families that procreate, not unions that are absolutely destined to be childless.
Posted by: babs at October 03, 2005 04:11 PM (fAmiP)
45
These guys will not be happy until Stephen can give David a blow job in the Nordstrom shoe department as a greeting. Sort of like how we shake hands now.
When I oppose that as law in 2007, I will be called small minded and ignorant.
Posted by: Brad at October 03, 2005 04:12 PM (3OPZt)
46
They way I see it is one of two ways.
If marriage is a sacrament, (which is defined as a religious ritual, usually Christian), the government should have nothing to do with it. (Separation of Church and State.) There should be a tax break for either everyone or no one. A simple will, which usually is not that expensive, should be binding in court for all involved. Each church could then determine what is a marriage, so the First Filthy Allah temple could defined marry between man and woman, man and goat. And The Rusty Tabernacle could defined it as between man and woman, and hot woman and a hot woman.
(Rusty ugly woman + hot woman = Bad or Good?)
Now if it is not a sacrament, and just a legal issue, then it should be applied evenly to all people, regardless of Race, Color, Creed or sexual orientation. IF both people
pay taxes, then they should both be treated equally the same.
Posted by: Butch at October 03, 2005 04:44 PM (Gqhi9)
47
Brad,
HeHeHe, oh you of the small mind! Indeed, sir, you are correct, much like I am called that because I have made it a habit to shine the light of day upon the relationship between the Left and the Islamists. But, Brad, it is not a great burden, especially if you think about your children.
And that is what I must do, so all you Pisa Mixa's and Matokos must excuse jj while he goes to watch his #2 son play the most excellent game of high school(junior varsity) football. This is most important activity down here in the State of Texas.
Posted by: jesusland joe at October 03, 2005 05:46 PM (rUyw4)
48
Joe,
IÂ’m off to cross country practice. My son won his race yesterday and the finals are next week.
Good luck in your football game.
BTW lookin like RustyÂ’s Trojans and your Longhorns in the big game in Jan.
Posted by: Brad at October 03, 2005 05:53 PM (3OPZt)
49
Hey, Brad, we won 28-20. Good luck to your son in the finals.
Posted by: jesusland joe at October 03, 2005 10:13 PM (rUyw4)
50
I shall see to it that Rusty's Trojans are turned into condoms.
Posted by: jesusland joe at October 03, 2005 10:18 PM (rUyw4)
51
Joe,
Congrats on your game.
Who would have thought that talking about Trojans on this thread would be about football?
Posted by: Brad at October 03, 2005 10:29 PM (6mUkl)
52
Can't believe one turkey on here is pro gay marriage and pro abortion in the ninth month. Must be a child hater. Sick, sick, sick.
Posted by: greyrooster at October 05, 2005 06:18 AM (ywZa8)
53
Just realized my puny IQ of 128 isn't enough to receive an answer. So I'll just continue on using common sense. Does common sense and success count anymore? I used to have a guy with an IQ of 185 working for me. Finished college in two years. Poor guy always had a bruised head from running into doors. We kept telling him he needed to open them first. Never could get him to believe it. One time he wrecked his car by running into the wall in the parking garage. Said his mind was preoccupied and didn't think to use the brake. He's doing fine now. At Christmas the office brought him a helmet. Now if we can get him to talk to a women.
CHRISTMAS!!! Now there's a reason to be a Christian.
What do ragheads do for Christmas. Instead of giving gifts I hear they steal them.
Ah shit!! I know, I know. The racist part of me showing again. What!! No way. Hating a religion is racist? According to muslims anyone disaproves of their barbaric actions is a racist. So I guess I am a racist. I disaprove of them being on my planet.
Posted by: greyrooster at October 05, 2005 09:45 PM (ywZa8)
54
Matoka: I have a thing for Japanese American women. And I never exaggerate about my most important organ. With an IQ of only 128 its easy to see that my growth hormons spent most of their time somewhere else.
By the way exaggerate has two of the letter g. Gotcha! and by the worse speller on the internet.
What is a grrrl? Never had one of them before. But then again, I drink a lot so maybe I have.
I not i damn it. See obvious I need to teach you some things.
Posted by: greyrooster at October 05, 2005 10:02 PM (ywZa8)
49kb generated in CPU 0.0329, elapsed 0.189 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.1689 seconds, 303 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
119 queries taking 0.1689 seconds, 303 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
