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

Stupid fucking hypocritical cunt

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/06/hawaii ... tml?hpt=T1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"This is a decision that should not be made by one person sitting in her office or by members of the Majority Party behind closed doors in a legislative caucus, but by all the people of Hawaii behind the curtain of the voting booth," Lingle said in a statement.

How horrible of her.

89Hen wrote:

"This is a decision that should not be made by one person sitting in her office or by members of the Majority Party behind closed doors in a legislative caucus, but by all the people of Hawaii behind the curtain of the voting booth," Lingle said in a statement.

How horrible of her.

Yes it is. History has shown that the voters are incapible of voting on Civil Rights. We'd still have Jim Crow laws if we waited for the voters to overturn them.

dbackjon wrote:We'd still have Jim Crow laws if we waited for the voters to overturn them.

Wasn't it state and local legislators that enacted Jim Crow laws in the first place?

"This is a decision that should not be made by one person sitting in her office or by members of the Majority Party behind closed doors in a legislative caucus, but by all the people of Hawaii behind the curtain of the voting booth," Lingle said in a statement.

Isn't that kind of what she just did?

Expect more and more decisions like this as religious conservatives get more entrenched in government positions......especially at the state level. That is why the Supreme Court will be ruling on this matter sooner rather than later........

dbackjon wrote:Yes it is. History has shown that the voters are incapible of voting on Civil Rights. We'd still have Jim Crow laws if we waited for the voters to overturn them.

This is a Civil Rights issue?

Sorry, dback, you have been taught this lesson before. You have the same rights as everyone else. Nobody has denied you anything.
Move along.

89Hen wrote:

dbackjon wrote:We'd still have Jim Crow laws if we waited for the voters to overturn them.

Wasn't it state and local legislators that enacted Jim Crow laws in the first place?

Hey asshole, who gives a fuck you snickety prick?

One question you smug fuck pompous ass fat piece of hypocritical greedy shit - What would Jesus do?

SMFH at violent catholic dumbfucks like Hen and Hogan who say they believe in the values of jesus yet fail, time after time, to practice them.

Baldy wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Yes it is. History has shown that the voters are incapible of voting on Civil Rights. We'd still have Jim Crow laws if we waited for the voters to overturn them.

This is a Civil Rights issue?

Sorry, dback, you have been taught this lesson before. You have the same rights as everyone else. Nobody has denied you anything.
Move along.

Wow.

Baldy wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Yes it is. History has shown that the voters are incapible of voting on Civil Rights. We'd still have Jim Crow laws if we waited for the voters to overturn them.

This is a Civil Rights issue?

Sorry, dback, you have been taught this lesson before. You have the same rights as everyone else. Nobody has denied you anything.
Move along.

So by that logic, it would be okay to pass laws requiring same color marriages. Whites can only marry whites, blacks can only marry blacks etc...

After all, every one has the same rights.

Wouldn't equal rights be:
Any adult being allowed to many any other consenting adult..?

Baldy wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Yes it is. History has shown that the voters are incapible of voting on Civil Rights. We'd still have Jim Crow laws if we waited for the voters to overturn them.

This is a Civil Rights issue?

Sorry, dback, you have been taught this lesson before. You have the same rights as everyone else. Nobody has denied you anything.
Move along.

We'd still have Jim Crow if we had to wait for people to overturn them? Baloney. Instead of being overturned in the 50s and 60s they would have been in the 70s and 80s.

Civil Rights issue? Right You know how a lot of blacks get pissed off when the gays try to equate the gay rights movement with the Civil Rights movement.

Chizzang wrote:Wouldn't equal rights be:
Any adult being allowed to many any other consenting adult..?

That would make too much sense.

Baldy wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Yes it is. History has shown that the voters are incapible of voting on Civil Rights. We'd still have Jim Crow laws if we waited for the voters to overturn them.

This is a Civil Rights issue?

Sorry, dback, you have been taught this lesson before. You have the same rights as everyone else. Nobody has denied you anything.
Move along.

So gay couples get the same treatment as any other couple when it comes time to file income tax?

OSBF wrote:

Baldy wrote: This is a Civil Rights issue?

Sorry, dback, you have been taught this lesson before. You have the same rights as everyone else. Nobody has denied you anything.
Move along.

So gay couples get the same treatment as any other couple when it comes time to file income tax?

Yes, but that isn't news.

I don't get why some heteros care if homos got married. How are they affected?

Gay marriages will be legalized within 10-15 years. I've met very people from younger generations, including religious ones, that oppose the idea. It's a very accepted idea at this point when you talk to teens and college kids, so the tides will eventually shift for sure. It's just having to play the waiting game right now.

BlueHen86 wrote:

Baldy wrote: This is a Civil Rights issue?

Sorry, dback, you have been taught this lesson before. You have the same rights as everyone else. Nobody has denied you anything.
Move along.

So by that logic, it would be okay to pass laws requiring same color marriages. Whites can only marry whites, blacks can only marry blacks etc...

After all, every one has the same rights.

Again, everyone has the same rights.

I can get married, you can get married, Jon can get married, and even Travis can get married. The only stipulation is that, by law, you can't marry a man, I can't marry a man, Jon can't marry a man, and yes even Travis can't marry a man. So exactly what in either of those scenarios is unequal?

Baldy wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
So by that logic, it would be okay to pass laws requiring same color marriages. Whites can only marry whites, blacks can only marry blacks etc...

After all, every one has the same rights.

Again, everyone has the same rights.

I can get married, you can get married, Jon can get married, and even Travis can get married. The only stipulation is that, by law, you can't marry a man, I can't marry a man, Jon can't marry a man, and yes even Travis can't marry a man. So exactly what in either of those scenarios is unequal?

The fact that you have no desire to marry a man, whereas Jon and Travis (potentially) do. What's so complicated about this, Baldy?

Grizalltheway wrote:

Baldy wrote: Again, everyone has the same rights.

I can get married, you can get married, Jon can get married, and even Travis can get married. The only stipulation is that, by law, you can't marry a man, I can't marry a man, Jon can't marry a man, and yes even Travis can't marry a man. So exactly what in either of those scenarios is unequal?

The fact that you have no desire to marry a man, whereas Jon and Travis (potentially) do. What's so complicated about this, Baldy?

And I might (potentially) have the desire to drive 75 in a 55, but it's illegal. too.
Your point?

D1B wrote:Hey asshole, who gives a fuck you snickety prick?

One question you smug fuck pompous ass fat piece of hypocritical greedy shit - What would Jesus do?

SMFH at violent catholic dumbfucks like Hen and Hogan who say they believe in the values of jesus yet fail, time after time, to practice them.

Your irony is not lost on me.

Baldy wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
The fact that you have no desire to marry a man, whereas Jon and Travis (potentially) do. What's so complicated about this, Baldy?

And I might (potentially) have the desire to drive 75 in a 55, but it's illegal. too.
Your point?

The point is that requiring marriage to between a man and a woman is arbitrary. Other than ignorance and homophobia there is no logical reason against allowing any two consenting adults to get married.

Just because everyone has the same rights doesn't make it right. If the government took away our right to vote we'd all have the same rights, but I don't think we'd be happy about it.

Baldy wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
The fact that you have no desire to marry a man, whereas Jon and Travis (potentially) do. What's so complicated about this, Baldy?

And I might (potentially) have the desire to drive 75 in a 55, but it's illegal. too.
Your point?

The majority WILL drive 75 in a 55. They can't marry at all, that's the difference. Gay marriages DOES NOT ever affect straight ones, period.

∞∞∞ wrote:I don't get why some heteros care if homos got married. How are they affected?

They will lose their special rights.

BlueHen86 wrote:

Baldy wrote: And I might (potentially) have the desire to drive 75 in a 55, but it's illegal. too.
Your point?

The point is that requiring marriage to between a man and a woman is arbitrary. Other than ignorance and homophobia there is no logical reason against allowing any two consenting adults to get married.

Just because everyone has the same rights doesn't make it right. If the government took away our right to vote we'd all have the same rights, but I don't think we'd be happy about it.

Actually, there not a fundamental right to vote in federal elections, but that is a different topic.

Baldy wrote:Again, everyone has the same rights.

I can get married, you can get married, Jon can get married, and even Travis can get married. The only stipulation is that, by law, you can't marry a man, I can't marry a man, Jon can't marry a man, and yes even Travis can't marry a man.

Baldy......is this due to religious beliefs?