Gov't Drops Defense of Anti-Gay Marriage Law

FuzzyKen

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Posts
2,045
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
193
Gender
Male
I'll admit to it. I shed a few tears of happiness when I heard this news break. I now believe that the Federal Government WILL eventually recognize my LEGAL marriage to my husband of 34 years.

Thanks Industrial. Maybe I can if they follow through get mine now headed for 12 years recognized! Congrats on 34!
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
you will probably fuck me.

Being with the same man for seven years as of this month and with the options one is given for sex partners in New York if we ever decided to get adventurous, nor do I have to be on conversion duty to want to fuck a "99% straight" guy who is afraid to post their images on a message board, but I don't mercy date either. Don't flatter yourself, kid. :rolleyes:

i do not mind if men are having anal sex. I happy being with a woman and never happy being with a man. a night with a hot woman changed everything for me.

Whatever... I've been with women too. However, I know what I prefer and that's what I go after. Besides, whether or not you have a liking for pussy or dick has nothing to do with this issue so stop acting so ignorant and stupid around here.
 

midlifebear

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Posts
5,789
Media
0
Likes
174
Points
133
Location
Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
straight people never talk about Gay Marriage. most people get marred to have kids. Gay Marriage is kind of sad. two men marred so thay can get reamed up the ass in gods name.

My legal husband and I are quite happy. Although we don't live in the USA we enjoy more rights and freedoms in Spain and Argentina than I do as a single man living in the USA. Sorry, hungshyman, as welcome as you are to your opinion on the subject I find your remarks offensive and less than civilized. You're remarks are so offensive I don't even feel pity for you.
 

vince

Legendary Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
8,271
Media
1
Likes
1,674
Points
333
Location
Canada
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
straight people never talk about Gay Marriage. most people get marred to have kids. Gay Marriage is kind of sad. two men marred so thay can get reamed up the ass in gods name.

In accordance with the amended Political Forum rules, the following warning is being issued.

hungshyman-

By a consensus of the Moderating Team it has been determined that your posts in this thread are in violation of the Terms of Service and the Rules of the Politics forum. Specifically, the section regarding Hate speech and general trolling.

This is an official Warning to you from the Moderation Team.

We suggest you read the ToS and especially the section regarding hate speech. Another infraction of this rule in any of the LPSG forums will jeopardize your status as a member of LPSG. (in other words.. do it again and you'll be banned)
 

BoyCordoba

Experimental Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Posts
101
Media
9
Likes
18
Points
338
Location
Cordoba (Argentina)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
straight people never talk about Gay Marriage. most people get marred to have kids. Gay Marriage is kind of sad. two men marred so thay can get reamed up the ass in gods name.


Being the troll he is, he deserves no answer. Just point at him and laugh. He has probably done that to gays anyways.
 

B_OtterJoq

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Posts
912
Media
0
Likes
38
Points
163
Location
Minneapolis
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
straight people never talk about Gay Marriage. most people get marred to have kids. Gay Marriage is kind of sad. two men marred so thay can get reamed up the ass in gods name.

Nobody is marred by gay marriage.

Did your mom have any kids who survived?

Why do conservatives have such poor communication skills?
 

cruztbone

Experimental Member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Posts
1,284
Media
0
Likes
11
Points
258
Age
70
Location
Capitola CA USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Obama dropped the DOMA because the end of DADT makes DOMA even more indefensible in court. in addition, surveys indicate attitudes are changing, except for hungshyman and others like him, in favor of same sex marriage. BTW, hungshyman, i am a foster parent twice , and that has nothing to do with my being gay. nonetheless, i had to prove to the Monterey county social services dept. and the Salinas police dept. in 1989 and 1991 that i was "safe" to be a gay single foster parent. at the same time i had to prove to my school district employer that i was not a pedophile. others predicted that i would lose my teaching credentials and my job. WRONG ON BOTH COUNTS. WHAT I PROVED WAS SEXUALITY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WANTING OR RAISING CHILDREN. and lest we forget, that wonderful heterosexual, Charlie Sheen, is a parent . God have mercy on his kids!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

NCbear

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2006
Posts
1,975
Media
0
Likes
2,613
Points
343
Location
Greensboro (North Carolina, United States)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
It's not about what kind of consensual sex people engage in, it's about not discriminating against some citizens based upon whom they have fallen in love with.

It's also not about your disgust, or your childish "ewww," or your socially-dictated and highly conventional response to what is already and has always been natural to a small group of people as an exclusive orientation.

Regardless of your earlier experimentation. :rolleyes:

Why do gay and lesbian people exist? Dunno. Nature or nurture? Dunno. But we're here, and we've been here throughout recorded history. So we've always and already a part of it all.

As long as "marriage"--the religiously-blessed and -pronounced state of romantic longterm loving-kindness with another human being--is publicly promoted by my government via special legal privileges, then HELL YES! I will continue to argue that I deserve those special legal privileges associated with marriage, too.

. . . . Although given the wording of the U.S. Constitution, it'd be smarter--both politically and constitutionally--if religiously-understood and -promoted marriage were de-linked from its government-promoted legal privileges. That way, everyone would receive the legal privileges associated with a civil union, while only religious organizations would be able to call any such union a "marriage."

Which has been proposed on this board and in the larger public environment many times.

What's stopping us from agreeing on that point?

NCbear (who knows a few Unitarian ministers who'd happily bless my marriage to my man--which may be one reason why some of my fellow citizens are practically frothing at the mouth at the prospect of having to agree to this compromise, thus answering my question :rolleyes::irked:)
 

cocktaste

Superior Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Posts
3,254
Media
0
Likes
5,372
Points
593
Location
Chadds Ford Township, PA, United States of America
I think with all the issues surrounding the budget, Obama figured this was a good time to drop this case. Too many other things he's got on his plate.
And this is how he should frame it. He should basically turn the tables and say that the Right is more interested in pushing their social agenda than creating jobs. That would shut them right up in no time. I swear, sometimes I think I should be hired by these people to pass them notes on the most basic of political framing and response to the other side. It's so obvious.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
And this is how he should frame it. He should basically turn the tables and say that the Right is more interested in pushing their social agenda than creating jobs. That would shut them right up in no time. I swear, sometimes I think I should be hired by these people to pass them notes on the most basic of political framing and response to the other side. It's so obvious.

As much sense as this makes, I think the reason why they don't do this is that they want to be recognized as being the administration that tried to negotiate and push for bipartisan support despite what every critic says come 2012. It's a political strategy to try and look like the "grown-up" among a fiery group of complainers from the far left and the far right. IMO, most presidents of recent memory who enact their most radical of legislation do so in the second term since they know they won't be re-elected regardless if it's necessary for our nation's survival. From that angle, why risk doing something so partisan and being a one term president if the goal is to be in the White House for 8 years?
 

Rikter8

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Posts
4,353
Media
1
Likes
125
Points
283
Location
Ann Arbor (Michigan, United States)
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
As much as I deplore the propaganda of 'the right', I hold the mainstream media and those on 'the left' and in 'the center' equally accountable for their failure to prepare for and effectively counter the steady stream of misinformation, disinformation, blatant lies and hypocrisy coming from 'the right'.

I have to agree with you.

If a republican president was speaking and called a liar as happened to Obama - the shouter would have been fired on the spot.
I never understood why many democrats in general don't speak up for their rights. It's like they just take the crap, and Dismiss it rather than counter it with truth and law.

The media likes dirt. When the Japan earthquake hit and caused a nuclear crisis, every reporter tried to pry the words "Meltdown" or "End of the world" out of so called professionals mouths so they could get the headline news first.
It's disgusting, but the mass population is dumb, and they like dirt.
 
Last edited:

NoH8

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Posts
644
Media
1
Likes
225
Points
438
Location
Byron Bay (New South Wales, Australia)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
As long as "marriage"--the religiously-blessed and -pronounced state of romantic longterm loving-kindness with another human being--is publicly promoted by my government via special legal privileges, then HELL YES! I will continue to argue that I deserve those special legal privileges associated with marriage, too.

. . . . Although given the wording of the U.S. Constitution, it'd be smarter--both politically and constitutionally--if religiously-understood and -promoted marriage were de-linked from its government-promoted legal privileges. That way, everyone would receive the legal privileges associated with a civil union, while only religious organizations would be able to call any such union a "marriage."
@ NCbear thanks for elucidating my position exactly. Although for myself I don't believe in marriage of either flavour homosexual or heterosexual, I feel that there are contained in it certain privileges that should be available to all. If this could be done by civil unions leaving apart the religious blessing strictly for believers then that would be my ideal.
 

NCbear

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2006
Posts
1,975
Media
0
Likes
2,613
Points
343
Location
Greensboro (North Carolina, United States)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Glad to help the thread get back on topic. :biggrin1:

NCbear (who also would advocate eliminating easy divorces, if the intent is truly to "save" or "protect" the institution of marriage--and who'd make the law retroactive to 1950, just to give a nod to the people who want to reverse marriage reforms and go back to that era . . . . who cares if a few Republican [and Democratic] lawmakers were then charged with bigamy?:cool:)