CatDog wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
So much for Fulop not playing Hudson County style politics . . .

by staying out of politics that aren't in Hudson County? Huh? By not blindly supporting the party member, and not tacking along with the popular guy? What?

borisp wrote:
Quote:

jcwalkingman wrote:
Took one down tonight - another was apparently taken down by someone else on a different fence. It's a pretty heavy-duty banner (canvas material, steel rings around the holes) so I hope the "business" owner gets the message that he/she is wasting their money putting these up.

Of course you do realize that if the property owner gave his permission to place the ad, what you did was likely a felony.

If the banner's cost was above 200, taking into account the aggravated nature (a forethought), my nonprofessional guess would be one-two years.

Samir wrote:
[quote]
Azul_the_Cat wrote:
Coming from someone who grew up doing it myself i have a hard time trusting someone else to do it and not spill gas on my car or scratch the fuel filler door.

radryan03 wrote:
Clown - where have I, at any point, discussed politics?

My irritation is at folks that keep making poorly worded arguments while pandering to personal insecurity through religion and politics.

Just say - I don't like gays. They creep me out. I find the way they sexually express themselves to be disgusting. I don't think they should be allowed to get married. I find all of the above to be perfectly acceptable. It's your opinion... express it as you please.


Quote:

Monroe wrote:

Are you as angry at Obama as you may be towards Christie? Obama 'evolved' in time for the election, but has he directed Eric Holder and the Justice Department to file suit to make gay marriage a civil right, like the gay 'marriage' supporters try to imagine it? (Actually, Obama has not supported gay marriage as a civil right, so I'm not surprised-except for the silence of criticism from the gay 'marriage' advocates towards him). Carry on.

radryan03 wrote:
Logical fallacy... again.

My assertion on the basis of the definition is pretty much on - the epic fail is in the quality of your response.

Quote:

Monroe wrote:

Ah, the old throw the bigot label on someone whose views differs from yours-it's always a nice distraction from the facts. It's exactly the tactic people use to label people who oppose Obama's politics by calling them racist. Epic fail on the intellectual honesty meter though.

radryan03 wrote:
You're just being offensive and nasty - gay marriage has no similarity to marrying your pet and frankly using Russia and Civil Rights to defend you position just makes you an ass.

Practicing a religion and leveraging religion to uphold bigoted prejudice are two very different things. Your basis for argument could be used to justify any decision - this makes it a logical fallacy - this makes you a logical fallacy.

The fact here is that you carry some sort of prejudice against gays. It's not your religion, the bible's teachings, or the pope... because there are plenty of people that all aspire to the above and don't agree with your views. Let me repeat - this is 100% your bigoted prejudice.

If you choose to exclude any tax paying citizen (or a paying customer) from services that are offered to every other person you absolutely deserve to be sued. There are thousand of religions with various constructs... how can you believe that yours is so important that it deserves legal protection? Frankly - I hope you get royally sued for using prejudice in the denial of services... like destitute on the side of the road in a cardboard box.

Btw - the Salvation Army example contributes nothing to your argument. Municipal funding is discretionary at best and SF continues to fund many other religious organizations.

Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I do not care if a gay couple marries I do care about the right of being sued for following my religion. It is the point I have been making since this I responded to this thread. You can marry your pet, but I do not want to be sued for saying no like the people below. What about my rights? People on this forum refuses to recognized the first amendment that says you have the right to exercise your religion! Reading comprehension is not a strong point here.

a Methodist organization was sued in Ocean Grove, NJ when they denied a lesbian couple the use of their pavilion for a same-sex civil union. The Methodist organization lost and the state of New Jersey revoked the tax exemption for the pavilion, which will cost them around $20,000 a year;
Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by law. Catholic Charities was accused of discrimination and pulled out of the adoption business in 2006;
San Francisco dropped its $3.5 million in social services contracts with the Salvation Army because it refused to recognize same-sex partnership;
A Christian gynecologist in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship. The doctor said it violated his religious beliefs and referred his patient to his partner, but the women sued. One justice suggested the doctor take up a different business.

Beachguy wrote:
Yvonne wrote:
When voting rights were given to African-Americans in the 1960's it did not diminished the rights of the white majority, they still have the right to vote.

In your example, the correct analogy, Yvonne, would be if gay Americans were given the right to marry, it would not diminish your right to marry. Without realizing it, you have just presented a great argument against yourself.

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Plural marriages are legal and accepted in many countries around the world, don't know why having them here is any different than gay marriage. You'd think the 'progressive' gay marriage advocates would be ok with them, rather than oppose them because it doesn't fit their definition of marriage-which they've been trying to redefine to suit their own desires. It's actually pretty funny to see the proponents of gay marriage corkscrew themselves into the ground arguing against plural marriage. 'We want to change the definition of marriage, as it has been for thousands of years, but don't want it changed more once we change it'.

okay, let's do this Monroe. How is it any different? Well, when I learned to count, I remember learning that 3 was larger than 2 and in real life, if 3 people shared something, there would be less of it.

So since marriage gives you tax, insurance, and other benefits, how will marriage between 3 people work? I didn't see a "TRIPLE JOINTLY FILE" option on my tax return.

Also, since you want to go the retarded route, how can my kangaroo lover sign the IRS form to receive my medical benefits? He would have to sue the pen maker first because they don't make kangaroo shaped pens...like wtf?

You brought up the animal/incest comparison, not I. That's a stupid argument that I don't agree with.

As far as changing laws, if you can advocate change to same sex partners it would be just as easy to change the laws to make plural marriages work. What's a few more pages of tax codes to the thousands that exist?

You talk about changing the institution of marriage, making it more than 3 certainly does that. It's not just a few pages of tax code and it's not just about diving it up in 3!

Does the 2nd or 3rd wife have custody of the children? Or sole life threatening decision making ability in a medical emergency? Who receives the earned income tax credit? Who is head of household? How do you divide an estate into 4's if the man is married to 4 wives - or, how do you tax the estate to 4 people? Would the family and medical leave act be available to all 6 wives to care for 1 children?

The institution of marriage does not support polygamy. I can easily answer all these questions for gay couples though!

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Plural marriages are legal and accepted in many countries around the world, don't know why having them here is any different than gay marriage. You'd think the 'progressive' gay marriage advocates would be ok with them, rather than oppose them because it doesn't fit their definition of marriage-which they've been trying to redefine to suit their own desires. It's actually pretty funny to see the proponents of gay marriage corkscrew themselves into the ground arguing against plural marriage. 'We want to change the definition of marriage, as it has been for thousands of years, but don't want it changed more once we change it'.

okay, let's do this Monroe. How is it any different? Well, when I learned to count, I remember learning that 3 was larger than 2 and in real life, if 3 people shared something, there would be less of it.

So since marriage gives you tax, insurance, and other benefits, how will marriage between 3 people work? I didn't see a "TRIPLE JOINTLY FILE" option on my tax return.

Also, since you want to go the retarded route, how can my kangaroo lover sign the IRS form to receive my medical benefits? He would have to sue the pen maker first because they don't make kangaroo shaped pens...like wtf?

radryan03 wrote:
I desire to deny you nothing.... I'll even encourage you myopic opinion.

You desire to not bake me a fcking cake... That's bigoted

Edit - just for reference - Book of Yvonne 1:15
"As a practicing Catholic, my religion is the strongest voice against same-sex marriage, so it would be a mockery to provide services to a same sex couple (baking wedding cake, renting hall, catering, etc.)"

Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
To call someone "bigoted douchery" is a bit extreme. I never attack gays or others who believe in same sex marriage, I said I should have the right to practice without being sued. The people who advocate tolerance on same sex marriage are short on giving tolerance to others who choose to follow their faith. I see bigotry in reverse.

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Pebble, why do pro gay marriage advocates often oppose plural marriages? It's been accepted across many cultures. Shouldn't three people in love be able to marry?

Yes, let's jump to the plurality arguement. Then let's do bestiality and then incest. That's not demeaning to homosexuals at all!

A union between two people offers tax advantages through joint filing and also offers other benefits - visitation, custody, insurance etc. - Not all of those are covered under the guise of civil unions - which many in your party are also against. Marriage, at the end of the day, is a governmental service. if there is true separation of religion and govt then two people should be able to get married regardless of sexual orientation.

Btw, not all marriages are catholic marriages so stop being so pompous. Remember other religions exist - Judaism, Islam, Buddhism.

You bigots really irritate me.