Deleted
Joined on: Sept 27, 2024 23:49:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2010 14:21:10 GMT -5
Separate but equal is unconstitutional bunghole.
|
|
|
Post by spamdfms101 on Aug 7, 2010 14:51:42 GMT -5
Ban him for his opinion? Mk that makes a lot of sense. The entire post wasn't about gay marriage. So I doubt his purpose was to troll
I don't care about it one way or the other. I mean gay people do deserve the same rights as others but it doesn't affect me so I'm not going to flip out if they aren't allowed to.
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Aug 7, 2010 14:58:21 GMT -5
can't say i agree, california seems good to me.
|
|
|
Post by Yeezy's Mullet: Team X Blades on Aug 7, 2010 15:03:03 GMT -5
Ban him for his opinion? Mk that makes a lot of sense. The entire post wasn't about gay marriage. So I doubt his purpose was to troll I don't care about it one way or the other. I mean gay people do deserve the same rights as others but it doesn't affect me so I'm not going to flip out if they aren't allowed to. Thank You. His rant wasn't all that bad, or offensive. He just decided to put it in the words of a twelve year old redneck. That's probably why everyone's pitching a fit. There's no reson to ban this guy. If Slappy can drop into the hip-hop thread JUST to tell everyone in there how much he thinks it sucks(which IS trolling), then this guy can make his rant.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Aug 7, 2010 15:23:26 GMT -5
I have no problem with people having their own opinion.
But in America, we do not vote on constitutional rights. Equality is a constitutional right.
|
|
|
Post by Yeezy's Mullet: Team X Blades on Aug 7, 2010 15:26:31 GMT -5
I have no problem with people having their own opinion. But in America, we do not vote on constitutional rights. Equality is a constitutional right. Hey, I never said he was correct in his statements. I know that part. But people are saying "BAN HIM" for speaking his mind, which is ridiculous considering some of the posting that WF's oldest members do here.
|
|
|
Post by carly1988 on Aug 7, 2010 15:41:02 GMT -5
oh look...ANOTHER thread about people complaining about gay marriage. I havent seen one of these in 2 days.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Aug 7, 2010 15:56:16 GMT -5
Ban him for his opinion? Mk that makes a lot of sense. The entire post wasn't about gay marriage. So I doubt his purpose was to troll I don't care about it one way or the other. I mean gay people do deserve the same rights as others but it doesn't affect me so I'm not going to flip out if they aren't allowed to. Thank You. His rant wasn't all that bad, or offensive. He just decided to put it in the words of a twelve year old redneck. That's probably why everyone's pitching a fit. There's no reson to ban this guy. If Slappy can drop into the hip-hop thread JUST to tell everyone in there how much he thinks it sucks(which IS trolling), then this guy can make his rant. Mr. PPV was not being serious when he said ban him, because Mr. PPV hates gay people, so he wouldn't want to ban someone who shares the same opinion as him.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Aug 7, 2010 16:03:37 GMT -5
Move...problem solved.
|
|
|
Post by Sleeping Like An Angel on Aug 7, 2010 16:12:42 GMT -5
Damn the world to hell! Why on earth should I be treated the same as everybody else? My love is different, it's all gross and icky. I mean, how am I to live a normal life that doesn't gross people out? I shouldn't be allowed marriage equality, ever. It's just gross. Marriage is slowly being ruined by gayness! How will America survive!!! ?!!!! !!!?? Stop the madness before it's too late!!! Oh, and don't get me started on the guys. That's even worser!!!
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Aug 7, 2010 16:42:13 GMT -5
It's getting to the point where it's not even worth arguing anymore, meaning with those who have their panties in a wad over Prop 8 being overturned. They just completely ignore the fact that it is discriminatory.
|
|
|
Post by tnajeffhardy13 on Aug 7, 2010 17:01:39 GMT -5
Not being able to marry is unconstitutional. It doesn't give the same rights to a different group of people, that's why Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by King Shocker the Monumentous on Aug 7, 2010 23:55:05 GMT -5
My take:
It was wrong to have been voted on in the first place.
It's also wrong for the democratically chosen will of the people to be overturned on the whim of a single person.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Aug 7, 2010 23:55:56 GMT -5
My take: It was wrong to have been voted on in the first place. It's also wrong for the democratically chosen will of the people to be overturned on the whim of a single person. Would it be ok if it were overturned by the whim of 5 out of 9 people? If we allowed voting on rights, we might still not have inter-racial marriages. Women might not be able to vote. Hell, we could still have slavery. So a judge or a panel of judges has to come down on the side of rights to protect minorities from majority rule.
|
|
|
Post by Deep Figure Value on Aug 8, 2010 0:03:35 GMT -5
NO GIRLY MEN!!!
|
|
|
Post by King Shocker the Monumentous on Aug 8, 2010 0:11:34 GMT -5
My take: It was wrong to have been voted on in the first place. It's also wrong for the democratically chosen will of the people to be overturned on the whim of a single person. Would it be ok if it were overturned by the whim of 5 out of 9 people? If we allowed voting on rights, we might still not have inter-racial marriages. Women might not be able to vote. Hell, we could still have slavery. So a judge or a panel of judges has to come down on the side of rights to protect minorities from majority rule. I'm not saying it was right to vote on it, I'm just saying the judge's actions set a dangerous precedent. It doesn't matter whether or not it should've been voted on in the first place, but it was. To allow the decisions of one man to reverse it jeopardizes the democratic system. But then again, whether or not we even live in a democracy is still up for debate. So yes, 5 out of 9, who were elected on a national level, would be better. But of course, that will lead to another argument about states' rights. And last time we had a major argument about states' rights, there was a civil war.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Aug 8, 2010 0:17:27 GMT -5
Would it be ok if it were overturned by the whim of 5 out of 9 people? If we allowed voting on rights, we might still not have inter-racial marriages. Women might not be able to vote. Hell, we could still have slavery. So a judge or a panel of judges has to come down on the side of rights to protect minorities from majority rule. I'm not saying it was right to vote on it, I'm just saying the judge's actions set a dangerous precedent. It doesn't matter whether or not it should've been voted on in the first place, but it was. To allow the decisions of one man to reverse it jeopardizes the democratic system. But then again, whether or not we even live in a democracy is still up for debate. So yes, 5 out of 9, who were elected on a national level, would be better. But of course, that will lead to another argument about states' rights. And last time we had a major argument about states' rights, there was a civil war. The 5 out of 9 aren't elected, they are appointed by the President or in a state's case, the Governor. Just like the judge who ruled on this case was appointed by Reagan and then defeated because he was too conservative and then appointed by HW Bush and was confirmed.
|
|
|
Post by Angel Beast on Aug 8, 2010 18:33:21 GMT -5
NO GIRLY MEN!!! Funny you should post that since Arnie said the over ruling was a good thing.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 27, 2024 23:49:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2010 19:39:33 GMT -5
You might as well live in North Korea if you are against human rights.
|
|
gawd6sic6™
Main Eventer
" I cross the lines you love to hate "
Joined on: Jan 13, 2009 13:50:08 GMT -5
Posts: 4,868
|
Post by gawd6sic6™ on Aug 8, 2010 19:49:14 GMT -5
ill stick with the marriage thing... half of the marriages between a man and a woman in america end in divorce... what a sacred thing... lets keep it that way... [/sarcasm]
|
|