Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I know, I know, another gay thread. Couldn't pass up the comic value of this one.

Right-wing blowhard JD Heyworth is challenging McCain in the Republican Primary.

Former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.) said Sunday that the expansion of state laws allowing gay marriage could lead to people marrying horses.

Hayworth, during an interview with an Orlando, Fla., radio station explained: "You see, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, when it started this move toward same-sex marriage, actually defined marriage - now get this - it defined marriage as simply, 'the establishment of intimacy.'"


"Now how dangerous is that?" asked Hayworth, who is challenging Sen. John McCain from the right in Arizona's GOP Senate primary.

"I mean, I don't mean to be absurd about it, but I guess I can make the point of absurdity with an absurd point," he continued. "I guess that would mean if you really had affection for your horse, I guess you could marry your horse."

The former Republican congressman then insisted that the "only way" to prevent men from marrying horses is to create a federal marriage amendment. Hayworth noted that he supports such an amendment.

In fact, the 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling striking down a ban on gay marriage defined marriage as "the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others."

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... itico.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

JSO's running for Senate in AZ?

JD Hayworth used to the local NBC affiliate's sports man back in the early 80s and was just as big a blowhard on sports then as he is politics now.

danefan wrote:JSO's running for Senate in AZ?

Haywarth's ad was pretty interestig though:

Why would he want to tie himself down to one horse when there are so many other horses out there for him to blow? I'll have to assume that's what he's thinking about anyway.

Sorry Jonboy...Hayworth is accurate. There are tons of cases of animal/human marriage around the world...none in the U.S. because the laws don't allow it.

We've had this discussion before. Once the marital definition is expanded beyond hetero, the pandora's box of redefining marriage as a function of affection rather than gender opens the door for marital codification to include ANYTHING OR ANYONE. Polygamy, human/animal, human/object. Who's to say a person's love can only be towards another single human? Isn't that just as restrictive as opposite gender only law?

Will job benefits include a low deductible veterinary plan? Are milkbones covered? And when it comes time for the late woman's snake to sign the survivors benefit claims form...will insurers accept slither?

You're right...it sounds absurd...but from a legal view, he's accurate.







(...no jokes about "snake" tribute signatures...)

catamount man wrote:JD Hayworth used to the local NBC affiliate's sports man back in the early 80s and was just as big a blowhard on sports then as he is politics now.

He was on the Greenville channel

Did he really say that, I mean really say that

travelinman67 wrote:Sorry Jonboy...Hayworth is accurate. There are tons of cases of animal/human marriage around the world...none in the U.S. because the laws don't allow it.

We've had this discussion before. Once the marital definition is expanded beyond hetero, the pandora's box of redefining marriage as a function of affection rather than gender opens the door for marital codification to include ANYTHING OR ANYONE. Polygamy, human/animal, human/object. Who's to say a person's love can only be towards another single human? Isn't that just as restrictive as opposite gender only law?

Will job benefits include a low deductible veterinary plan? Are milkbones covered? And when it comes time for the late woman's snake to sign the survivors benefit claims form...will insurers accept slither?

You're right...it sounds absurd...but from a legal view, he's accurate.


(...no jokes about "snake" tribute signatures...)

How is he accurate from a legal view? The Mass law is limited to human unions. So legally he's not accurate. He may be legaly insance though.

travelinman67 wrote:Sorry Jonboy...Hayworth is accurate. There are tons of cases of animal/human marriage around the world...none in the U.S. because the laws don't allow it.

We've had this discussion before. Once the marital definition is expanded beyond hetero, the pandora's box of redefining marriage as a function of affection rather than gender opens the door for marital codification to include ANYTHING OR ANYONE. Polygamy, human/animal, human/object. Who's to say a person's love can only be towards another single human? Isn't that just as restrictive as opposite gender only law?

Will job benefits include a low deductible veterinary plan? Are milkbones covered? And when it comes time for the late woman's snake to sign the survivors benefit claims form...will insurers accept slither?

You're right...it sounds absurd...but from a legal view, he's accurate.







(...no jokes about "snake" tribute signatures...)

You've officially lost it.

If you reallly think this, then there is really no help for you.

dbackjon wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:Sorry Jonboy...Hayworth is accurate. There are tons of cases of animal/human marriage around the world...none in the U.S. because the laws don't allow it.

We've had this discussion before. Once the marital definition is expanded beyond hetero, the pandora's box of redefining marriage as a function of affection rather than gender opens the door for marital codification to include ANYTHING OR ANYONE. Polygamy, human/animal, human/object. Who's to say a person's love can only be towards another single human? Isn't that just as restrictive as opposite gender only law?

Will job benefits include a low deductible veterinary plan? Are milkbones covered? And when it comes time for the late woman's snake to sign the survivors benefit claims form...will insurers accept slither?

You're right...it sounds absurd...but from a legal view, he's accurate.







(...no jokes about "snake" tribute signatures...)

You've officially lost it.

If you reallly think this, then there is really no help for you.

See if you can defend your position with facts rather than digressing to a D1B playground posture.

It's simple.

Are current marital contracts a function of gender?

Won't it become necessary to remove that function to facilitate same-sex marriage?

Is the argument for removal based upon equal rights of individuals to love whom they choose and contractually bind that relationship?

If the freedom to choose is paramout, then how can non-human bonds be denied?

Comparing bestiality to homosexuality is retarded.

Animals can't consent. Adult humans can.

First off, show me ONE instance where a human LEGALLY married an animal.

Go ahead, and do it.

Second, the leap from going between two consenting adults of opposite sex to two consenting adults of the same sex is VERY SMALL. Anything thing else is a HUGE, HUGE leap.

you are smarter than this, T-man.

Skjellyfetti wrote:Comparing bestiality to homosexuality is retarded.

Animals can't consent. Adult humans can.

Bingo! (And since D isn't around...)

Tman:

Skjellyfetti wrote:Comparing bestiality to homosexuality is retarded.

not if your name is jso

Skjellyfetti wrote:Comparing bestiality to homosexuality is retarded.

Animals can't consent. Adult humans can.

...and they can't get tax cuts or use human hospitals

Skjellyfetti wrote:Comparing bestiality to homosexuality is retarded.

Animals can't consent. Adult humans can.

Negative.

Meet Kanzi...

[youtube][/youtube]

...if she can communicate, she can consent.

I'm going to propose to her as soon as she gets a full-body wax.







And I'd love to hear someone argue that's operant conditioning...

...I'll rebut most men's motivation for marriage results from operant (...or in some cases, classical )conditioning.

Reach of the year nomination #1: T-man

...to save time.


Grazzle, hd, mj, douchebag...

...go find somewhere else to play. I don't have time to listen to your ideologic vomit today and it contributes nothing to debate.

I think SE may be starting a new board.

dbackjon wrote:Reach of the year nomination #1: T-man

...still no response...

...because you KNOW I'm right...

...just as I was last time we had this debate.

How are you right? Absolutely NO connection.

Face it, you tried to be a smart-ass, and got your ass handed to you.

Was he referring to http://www.sarahjessicaparkerlookslikeahorse.com?

travelinman67 wrote:...to save time.


Grazzle, hd, mj, douchebag...

...go find somewhere else to play. I don't have time to listen to your ideologic vomit today and it contributes nothing to debate.

I think SE may be starting a new board.

I didn't even post on this thread, azzhole.

blueballs wrote:Was he referring to http://www.sarahjessicaparkerlookslikeahorse.com?

That site is tremendous.