Metal Sludge Gossip Board

Posted: **Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:06 pm**

slzrocker wrote:Okay if you look it up, the power to declare war lies with congress. Congress does not have the power to declare what is and is not marriage.

Nobody should have that right. Either everyone gets married or no one gets married. I learned about that kind of fairness when I was 4 years old. Apparently it takes some people awhile to catch up.

slzrocker wrote:and again you must admit the hypocrisy that lies with you bitching about christians thinking the world should live by their rules, when you are saying that people are horrible if they do not live by yours.

I'm not basing my beliefs on any religious dogma, that's the difference. It's a simple belief that HATE IS WRONG. America believes that hate is wrong, it just takes us awhile to wake up sometimes.

America has had a history of hate and intolerance but we've always stepped aside and went "What are we doing? We're acting like assholes!" And we're going to do it again. Trust me, this whole gay marriage debate is going to look mighty stupid in 20 years.

Bigotry is stupidity. History has proven this to be true and will prove it again and again.

Posted: **Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:24 pm**

deathcurse wrote:
slzrocker wrote:Okay if you look it up, the power to declare war lies with congress. Congress does not have the power to declare what is and is not marriage.
Nobody should have that right. Either everyone gets married or no one gets married. I learned about that kind of fairness when I was 4 years old. Apparently it takes some people awhile to catch up.

slzrocker wrote:and again you must admit the hypocrisy that lies with you bitching about christians thinking the world should live by their rules, when you are saying that people are horrible if they do not live by yours.
I'm not basing my beliefs on any religious dogma, that's the difference. It's a simple belief that HATE IS WRONG. America believes that hate is wrong, it just takes us awhile to wake up sometimes.

America has had a history of hate and intolerance but we've always stepped aside and went "What are we doing? We're acting like assholes!" And we're going to do it again. Trust me, this whole gay marriage debate is going to look mighty stupid in 20 years.

Bigotry is stupidity. History has proven this to be true and will prove it again and again.

I also wasnt even taught that guys even have relationships with guys until late elementary school. Fairness wasnt taught with that. If you want to look at it from a medical standpoint the ass just isnt made for sex. Its not self lubricating, there are rips and tears and stds are more easily transmitted. but if yall vote to allow it then thats what the people decide. but im going to go talk to my future wife so goodnight to all.

Posted: **Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:27 pm**

slzrocker wrote:but im going to go talk to my future wife so goodnight to all.

Don't be a hypocrite - ONLY put it in her vagina. Not her mouth, not her hand, and certainly not her ass. The penis was only made for the vagina.

Better put your foreskin back on too. God didn't make your dick that way.

Oh and you should probably know that gay men don't exclusively have anal sex. Some don't have anal sex at all. They have preferences, just like you and me!

Posted: **Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:20 am**

deathcurse wrote:
slzrocker wrote:but im going to go talk to my future wife so goodnight to all.
Don't be a hypocrite - ONLY put it in her vagina. Not her mouth, not her hand, and certainly not her ass. The penis was only made for the vagina.

Better put your foreskin back on too. God didn't make your dick that way.

Oh and you should probably know that gay men don't exclusively have anal sex. Some don't have anal sex at all. They have preferences, just like you and me!

Isn't that awesome how he had to try to wash the gay off of himself by mentioning his future wife? Whew! For a moment there I thought he might be gay and repressing, but now I'm assured of his straightness.

I'm surprised we didn't have an "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" in there.

On a related note, at work the other day there was a guy wearing a shirt that said "Marriage is between a man and a woman!" and had silhouettes of a man and (presumably, it could have been a man in a dress) woman. I can certainly anticipate the "well, they're trying to shove THEIR lifestyle down our throat so this is a little of their own medicine!" argument - because straight people have it so hard - but seriously: people on both sides of the issue need to stop making such a big deal about it. All that does is bring the idiots out.

Posted: **Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:02 am**

drloveschild wrote:
bane wrote:
I tend to equate it to the civil rights movement. It was the will of the people that blacks move to the back of the bus. The attitude was "I don't have a problem with black people, I like em fine. They have their water fountains and I have mine." etc. It took a lot of time and a lot of very dedicated people who often times came across as strident as all hell to change that attitude. This is the exact same thing IMO.
That is insulting. The black civil rights movement and the people who endured it were put through hell....nothing like gay right activists. Not even close. They were enslaved...beaten, raped and treated less than human. Only to be "freed" and still have no rights. There is not even a remote similarity.
Gay people are not being stopped from the pursuit of happiness. I never once mentioned majority perception...because it doesn't make it right. I mentioned the failed attempt to push to change what marriage means...and has meant since it's conseption. No one is treating them poorly because of the fact that they are gay. They simply do not want to change the meaning of THAT word. That is reasonable.... So go for a different slant. Ask for a legal binding unionship....and I bet it will pass. Why won't the gay and lesbian groups do that?

There's nothing "insulting" about my analogy. It's accurate. The opposition to gay marriage is simply bigotry. It's mandated morality based on a religious conviction. THAT is "insulting". Bigots suck.

Posted: **Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:12 pm**

bane wrote:
drloveschild wrote:
bane wrote:
I tend to equate it to the civil rights movement. It was the will of the people that blacks move to the back of the bus. The attitude was "I don't have a problem with black people, I like em fine. They have their water fountains and I have mine." etc. It took a lot of time and a lot of very dedicated people who often times came across as strident as all hell to change that attitude. This is the exact same thing IMO.
That is insulting. The black civil rights movement and the people who endured it were put through hell....nothing like gay right activists. Not even close. They were enslaved...beaten, raped and treated less than human. Only to be "freed" and still have no rights. There is not even a remote similarity.
Gay people are not being stopped from the pursuit of happiness. I never once mentioned majority perception...because it doesn't make it right. I mentioned the failed attempt to push to change what marriage means...and has meant since it's conseption. No one is treating them poorly because of the fact that they are gay. They simply do not want to change the meaning of THAT word. That is reasonable.... So go for a different slant. Ask for a legal binding unionship....and I bet it will pass. Why won't the gay and lesbian groups do that?
There's nothing "insulting" about my analogy. It's accurate. The opposition to gay marriage is simply bigotry. It's mandated morality based on a religious conviction. THAT is "insulting". Bigots suck.

Your analogy is absolutley insulting. My involvement in this debate (as is many others) is ONLY about changing what the definition of marriage has ALWAYS been. Marriage wasn't created out of biggotry. No one had power over someone else and no one was "kept out" of this ceremony when it was put together. So there is no comparison to the black civil movement. That is it.
The debate is that it was created for a man and a woman. That is what the definition IS. IF you are a same sex couple...I am all for you having your own union...but where is the respect for what exists for a man and woman? If people want to brain wash themselves into believeing the only reason anyone could possibly oppose this is simply because they MUST be a biggot...well, you're an idiot.

Posted: **Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:37 pm**

drloveschild wrote: you're an idiot.

You can try and spin it any way you like, but, you're still a bigot, really, you are. All of your arguments are weak attempts at propping up a flawed philosophy that is based on prejudice. The fact that you are concerned about something as retarded as a fine point definition is indicative of your prejudice. Cling to that definition straw argument because that's all you've got. It's a weak argument, just as weak as "I don't mind the coloreds, they've got their place". Discrimination is discrimination, whether it's based on race, sex, religion, or orientation. The fact that you can't even admit it to yourself makes YOU the idiot here.

Posted: **Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:14 pm**

drloveschild wrote:Some things you will be excluded from....because they exist for a different reason. Simple. It isn't judging you. The term marriage is between a bride and groom. A male and female. I don't hate you....negate you....or even wish you not to have the benefits with your life partner as married couples do.

Boy scouts will never be turned into the kids scouts....there are boy scouts and girl scouts. NFL, NBA and several other professional sports teams do not contract women to play in certain leagues. Is this being sexist? Can things exist that are exclusive? My recommendation is to push for your own term. Civil unions? Trying to change the term is getting you very little. After all...it is the benefits you are seeking, right? Or is it?

Here is what was passed in Ohio in 2004

"Section 11. Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."

Posted: **Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:20 pm**

deathcurse wrote:
slzrocker wrote:but im going to go talk to my future wife so goodnight to all.
Don't be a hypocrite - ONLY put it in her vagina. Not her mouth, not her hand, and certainly not her ass. The penis was only made for the vagina.

He said future wife. There may still even be laws on the books prohibiting them from doing anything more than holding hands.

Posted: **Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:00 pm**

drloveschild wrote:If people want to brain wash themselves into believeing the only reason anyone could possibly oppose this is simply because they MUST be a biggot...well, you're an idiot.

You're all hung up on the definition of "marriage" but clearly don't have a grasp on what bigotry is.

Also, bigots aren't allowed to define what the word means. That's only for non-bigots. That's just how nature intended it, sorry.

Posted: **Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:17 pm**

deathcurse wrote:Here's a compromise -

How about all the religious freaks shut their fucking pieholes for once and respect that the world doesn't revolve around their goofy fucking superstitions? I think it's ludicrous that a gay couple can't legally marry because a bunch of fucking retards think their way has to be everyone else's way.

Obviously I'm not referring to all Christians - just the ones who have their heads up their asses and can't accept that it's fucking 2009.

You're a SINNER deathcurse!!

Posted: **Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:50 pm**

ijwthstd wrote:
deathcurse wrote:
slzrocker wrote:but im going to go talk to my future wife so goodnight to all.
Don't be a hypocrite - ONLY put it in her vagina. Not her mouth, not her hand, and certainly not her ass. The penis was only made for the vagina.
He said future wife. There may still even be laws on the books prohibiting them from doing anything more than holding hands.

No she just turned 18 a couple days ago and im 19. so its all good =)

Posted: **Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:35 pm**

i said to rename it, and claim it.

i don't know why it's such a conquest for the word 'marriage' it's rooted in so many religions, why do you want a part of that?
look for another union with equal rights, i wouldn't be surprised if that would be a way in 10, 20 years down the line.

people, pick your battles.

Posted: **Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:22 am**

absolutely fabulous wrote:look for another union with equal rights

"Coloreds Only" drinking fountains were the same drinking fountains as all the others, they just had a different name.

Posted: **Sat Nov 07, 2009 1:13 pm**

absolutely fabulous wrote:i said to rename it, and claim it.

Specifically prohibited by at least the Ohio state constitution and possibly others.

Posted: **Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:04 am**

JakeYonkel wrote:It's a state issue and almost every time the people have spoken in opposition to it, even in "liberal" states. So don't blame this one on the right wing. The majority of Americans oppose it.

Nobody wants to give up traditions in order to appease a certain portion of society.

Posted: **Wed Nov 25, 2009 8:14 am**

deathcurse wrote:Here's a compromise -

How about all the religious freaks shut their fucking pieholes for once and respect that the world doesn't revolve around their goofy fucking superstitions? I think it's ludicrous that a gay couple can't legally marry because a bunch of fucking retards think their way has to be everyone else's way.

Obviously I'm not referring to all Christians - just the ones who have their heads up their asses and can't accept that it's fucking 2009.

This is America. If we're not going to prove ourselves to be better than the religious zealots we're fighting in the Middle East, we might as well give up.

Agreed. What, marriage is only between a man and a woman because "the bible told me so"? Why should anyone have to live up to & be oppressed by that moral standard if they don't believe in that standard in the first goddamn place? Sep·a·ra·tion of church and state gets stomped by these exclusive laws. Adam should be able to push Steve's turds up to his small intestine in the bonds of legal marriage. Who wants to know about it, and why should anyone care?

Posted: **Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:54 pm**

HeavyMetalZombie666 wrote:
JakeYonkel wrote:It's a state issue and almost every time the people have spoken in opposition to it, even in "liberal" states. So don't blame this one on the right wing. The majority of Americans oppose it.
Nobody wants to give up traditions in order to appease a certain portion of society.

Who is giving up their traditions? Straight people can still be married and their marriage doesn't mean any less or is affected in any way if gays can marry as well.

Posted: **Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:57 pm**

NickasInSaltLick wrote:
HeavyMetalZombie666 wrote:
JakeYonkel wrote:It's a state issue and almost every time the people have spoken in opposition to it, even in "liberal" states. So don't blame this one on the right wing. The majority of Americans oppose it.
Nobody wants to give up traditions in order to appease a certain portion of society.
Who is giving up their traditions? Straight people can still be married and their marriage doesn't mean any less or is affected in any way if gays can marry as well.

It is a thought process issue. Many people in the united state equate marriage with a man and a woman. Marriage will always be traditionally associated with a man and a woman marrying.

Posted: **Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:20 pm**

HeavyMetalZombie666 wrote:
NickasInSaltLick wrote:
HeavyMetalZombie666 wrote:Nobody wants to give up traditions in order to appease a certain portion of society.
Who is giving up their traditions? Straight people can still be married and their marriage doesn't mean any less or is affected in any way if gays can marry as well.
It is a thought process issue. Many people in the united state equate marriage with a man and a woman. Marriage will always be traditionally associated with a man and a woman marrying.

You know, HMZ, sometimes I read your posts and almost think "This guy's got a good head on his shoulders". Then I watch the "Hollis Quotes" video on youtube and I realize how fleeting some thoughts can be.

Posted: **Wed Nov 25, 2009 11:17 pm**

and...

this

http://www.yakima-herald.com/stories/20 ... rimination

Posted: **Sat Nov 28, 2009 1:45 pm**

go to dictionary.com. type in a word. how many definitions do you get? there's no straight up definition for almost every word.

now type in marriage. why can't we have a couple definitions? like maybe 1) in most religious sects, this is a union between a man and a woman. then make number 2 something about fags and lesbos. problem solved. it's just a word.

Posted: **Sat Nov 28, 2009 4:03 pm**

absolutely fabulous wrote:and...

this

http://www.yakima-herald.com/stories/20 ... rimination

I really loathe the phrase "reverse discrimination." There is no such thing. That implies that some people/groups/whatever are incapable of discriminating.

Discrimination is discrimination, no matter who is doing it or who it is being done to. There is no "reverse" involved. "Reverse discrimination" would be no discrimination at all.

/rant

Posted: **Sat Nov 28, 2009 9:50 pm**

The thing is Whitehouse is that people won't let things die. They have to keep a paper trail going and won't let things go and then it leaks over here and I am trying to avoid that shit. But what can you do when the moderator of an unoffical board tarnishes a band's name with the shit that goes on. Metallica and Megadeth would never allow that shit to happen. The moderator should have shut down the day he lost official board status. I love this board a lot because they don't put up with that bullshit drama at that shithole.

Posted: **Sun Nov 29, 2009 12:06 am**

tin00can wrote:
absolutely fabulous wrote:and...

this

http://www.yakima-herald.com/stories/20 ... rimination

I really loathe the phrase "reverse discrimination." There is no such thing. That implies that some people/groups/whatever are incapable of discriminating.

Discrimination is discrimination, no matter who is doing it or who it is being done to. There is no "reverse" involved. "Reverse discrimination" would be no discrimination at all.

/rant

that wasn't my point in posting it..

i was trying to emphasize that something that was suppose to be for people that can't get married is now being exploited by others so that they can preserve their ss benefits and dare i say, take advantage of their mates healthcare.

( iknow.. this is a perfect set up for healthcare reform advocacy..)

Posted: **Sun Nov 29, 2009 12:09 am**

deathcurse wrote:
absolutely fabulous wrote:look for another union with equal rights
"Coloreds Only" drinking fountains were the same drinking fountains as all the others, they just had a different name.

why not add in the holocaust, too?

same difference.

Posted: **Sun Nov 29, 2009 6:30 am**

absolutely fabulous wrote:
deathcurse wrote:
absolutely fabulous wrote:look for another union with equal rights
"Coloreds Only" drinking fountains were the same drinking fountains as all the others, they just had a different name.
why not add in the holocaust, too?

same difference.

you are wrong it is different they didn't get drinking fountains

owned

Metal Sludge Gossip Board

Gay Marriage loses again..

Re: Gay Marriage loses again..

Re: Gay Marriage loses again..

Re: Gay Marriage loses again..

Re: Gay Marriage loses again..

Re: Gay Marriage loses again..

Re: Gay Marriage loses again..

Re: Gay Marriage loses again..

Re: Gay Marriage loses again..

Re: Gay Marriage loses again..

Re: Gay Marriage loses again..

Re: Gay Marriage loses again..

Re: Gay Marriage loses again..

Re: Gay Marriage loses again..

Re: Gay Marriage loses again..

Re: Gay Marriage loses again..

Re: Gay Marriage loses again..

Re: Gay Marriage loses again..

Re: Gay Marriage loses again..

Re: Gay Marriage loses again..

Re: Gay Marriage loses again..

Re: Gay Marriage loses again..

Re: Gay Marriage loses again..

Re: Gay Marriage loses again..

Re: Gay Marriage loses again..

Re: Gay Marriage loses again..

Re: Gay Marriage loses again..

Re: Gay Marriage loses again..