WBC Greeted By Long Beach CA Residents

Submitted by: madest 6 years ago in

Crank it up!
There are 244 comments:
Male 10,855
[quote] The Law does not say, "women can do this while men can do that"[/quote]

Yes it does you in fact pointed it out earlier.
0
Reply
Male 8,415
Cajun247-"both men AND women have to go through the same test."

Unfortunately, this is not true. There are many instances where the female is subject to less stringent testing. (for example, the Army has lower physical requirements for women) For that matter, there are also such requirements based on race also.

While I dissagree with both, the fact is they do exist and are policy.


Cajun247-"No it isn`t, (keyword: opposite)"

And that keyword: opposite is enforced accross the board. (i.e. The Law does not say, "women can do this while men can do that". It say a person (either sex) can not marry someone of the same sex.)

So, the LAW is enforce equally accross the genders.

Cajun247-"we also have hermaphrodites...what is opposite of that?"

Well, regardless of the appearance of both male and female genetalia, every human hermaphrodite actually DOES have a gender. It`s based on t
0
Reply
Female 2,761
Would you two give it a rest
0
Reply
Male 10,855
I`d also like to bring up the fact that we also have hermaphrodites, people with both sets of fully functional genatalia. I ask you what is opposite of that?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Yes I know of the physiological difference between men and women, I`ve known that since kindergarden. I also know that not all men have the same emotional needs and the same desires. Not all women have the same emotional needs and desires.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]That`s why they fight for lower physical testing requirements for women testing for firefighting. If they were truly equal, then they would be required to pass the same exact physical tests as the men.[/quote]

If they are expected to do the same tasks as men, then this is a bad idea. Now IF said organization is privately run, then there is no issue. If it isn`t then both men AND women have to go through the same test. Likewise if women want to serve in the military they should be held to the same standards as men.

[quote]That limit is the same accross the board.[/quote]

No it isn`t, (keyword: opposite)
0
Reply
Male 8,415
fgreatwest-"I would like to think the same thing would happen if no one paid WBC any attention."

Man, it would be great if it were that simple.

I did like the response that was given them in this video though.
0
Reply
Male 8,415
Cajun247-"promote traditional gender roles IS discriminatory as it implies that men and women are not the same in all respects."

You DO know that men and women are NOT the same in all respects, right? Even women`s groups realize that. That`s why they fight for lower physical testing requirements for women testing for firefighting. If they were truly equal, then they would be required to pass the same exact physical tests as the men.

By the same token, a women can qualify for special treatement under the American Disability Act if she has complications during her pregnancy. THERE`S a law the effects one gender but not the other.

In fact there are MANY laws that treat women different from men, and mose were pushed by women`s `equal opportunity` groups.

Your mom should have taught you this already.
0
Reply
Male 8,415
Cajun247-"No I want the OPPURTUNITIES to be equal."

Male and female have the same oppOrtunity under the law. They can both marry someone of the opposite sex.

Cajun247-"law requires that I marry someone that is a member of the opposite sex "

Incorrect. The law does not require you to marry ANYONE, but does limit who you may marry. That limit is the same accross the board. (thus, no 14th relevence)
0
Reply
Male 102
Man, it`s hard out there for a "hate" group.
--------------------

This reminds me of a Simpson`s Treehouse of Horros episode about the marketing mascots that come to life. In the end, if you pay them no attention, they will go away. I would like to think the same thing would happen if no one paid WBC any attention.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Lastly, if you believe that I`m arguing the sexual segregation IPSO FACTO is discriminatory, you`re mistaken. Sexual segregation with the intent to promote traditional gender roles IS discriminatory as it implies that men and women are not the same in all respects.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]and there should be no `Mens` & `Womens` rooms[/quote]

I`m saying the law shouldn`t mandate it. In this case, it doesn`t even need to. Any private entity with a building large enough to need separate facilities would lose business simply because of a lack of said facilities.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]EVERYone is subject to the same law.[/quote]

Yes and everyone IS obviously. But equal enforcement does not simply mean that everyone is subject to the law but rather law sees everyone the same (a person). The census bureau or the State of Texas may ask you what is your gender/ethnicity/sexual orientation, those characteristics have NO legal bearing whatsoever.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Another FACT:

Take a snippet from Brown v BOE:

[quote]Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does... Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn.[/quote]

In the case of marriage laws it denotes the "inferiority" of homosexuals.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]unable to actually argue the facts[/quote]

FACT: The law requires that I marry someone that is a member of the opposite sex as opposed to another person.

Also I`ve also made reference to case law where text of the law being questioned was simply `differential`.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]for a simpleton you have proven yourself to be[/quote]

Ad hominem
0
Reply
Male 10,855
The commission of a crime is not a category of a person, it is a merit. So those laws have nothing to do with this argument.

[quote]YOU, on the other hand, want the RESULTS to be equal[/quote]

No I want the OPPURTUNITIES to be equal.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]The law differentiates between sexes all the time[/quote]

That`s the problem, discrimination does have to be `preferential` but simply `differential`.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]That`s equivilant to saying that Sex Offender Laws are unconstitutional because they effect pedophiles more than the average law abiding citizen.[/quote]

Those laws are based on merit (acts) not category (sex).

[quote]Many states have laws that require any new building to have 50% more Female restrooms than male.[/quote]

Guess what they are.
0
Reply
Male 8,415
Cajun247-"Therefore you tacitally admit that the law does not treat people the "same in all respects"."

I did no such thing. (but I recognize your attempt to `read` something into the argument as you are unable to actually argue the facts).

Making it perfectly simple (for a simpleton you have proven yourself to be):

Relevent portion of the 14th: No State shall ...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (i.e. All laws shall be enforced the same to everyone.)

In this case, they are. YOU, on the other hand, want the RESULTS to be equal. That`s equivilant to saying that Sex Offender Laws are unconstitutional because they effect pedophiles more than the average law abiding citizen. The laws are the same for everyone, but in reality are only relevent to those that would break them (which could be said about 99% of the laws, such as those concerning speeding, burglery and homicide).
0
Reply
Male 8,415
Cajun247-"So the law isn`t treating a female as a female as opposed to a person?"

The law differentiates between sexes all the time, and there`s nothing unconstitutional about it.

Many states have laws that require any new building to have 50% more Female restrooms than male. According to your `logic`, these laws are unconstitutional, and there should be no `Mens` & `Womens` rooms.

But, no matter how you try to weasil the wording, the law is not applied any differently between genders.

EVERYone is subject to the same law. You have not been able to prove otherwise.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Therefore you tacitally admit that the law does not treat people the "same in all respects".

Thank you proving me right.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]See, equality under the law.[/quote]


Again no, the word "opposite" implies that all people are "not the same in all respects".
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]stated (incorrectly) that the genders were not being treated equally, which is why I argued that there was no descrimination based on gender[/quote]


So the law isn`t treating a female as a female as opposed to a person?

Sorry but the law is to see males and females as people. It is supposed to see a male as a person and a female as a person. Thus a person should be allowed to marry another person. Not limited to someone of the "opposite sex". Treating EVERYONE the "same in all respects" means I am NOT restricted to someone of the opposite sex. So no I stated it perfectly.
0
Reply
Male 8,415
krisley-"Grendel it`s a sexuality issue not a gender issue ffs. "

No, it is a law issue. The Law is being enforced equally. It`s not a 14th issue.

Cajun247 stated (incorrectly) that the genders were not being treated equally, which is why I argued that there was no descrimination based on gender. I`m glad you agree.

But, basing it on Sexuality.

Sexuality: Straight. Able to marry someone of the opposite sex, but not of the same sex.
Sexuality: Gay. Able to marry someone of the opposite sex, but not of the same sex.
See, equality under the law. All you have to do is change the law. Happens all the time.

And your statement "Able to marry any person of the sex that they are attracted to." is incorrect. I am attracted to the female sex. Jessical Alba is a member of the female sex (i.e. any person of that sex). Yet, strangely enough, I can not marry her. (I know what you meant, and am being facetious, but ambigu
0
Reply
Male 39,531

Are you in politics?
You should`a been.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Gerry: As I said, I don`t care about how the term has been misused. Phobia a clinical term in psychiatry, it being misused as a non-clinical term is what I have a problem with.

It`s being used a misnomer to make rational normal people seem insane, period.

You don`t call someone phobic just because they have an aversion to something, unless you also want to make the assertion that they are irrational as well.

And I didn`t side-step a damn thing, the only point I wanted to make was this misnomer.

I`ve answered those other questions in past submissions, there is no point in running `round the rabbit hole yet again.
0
Reply
Male 39,531

@ Crakr: according to Miram Webster dictionary

Homophobia: [quote]irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals [/quote]
So I have excepted the entire meaning. But I`m not stuck on one part of it as you are. It`s not just deathly fear... it`s "aversion" also...and that`s you.

And you still have not answered the basic question. Nice side stepping there.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Gerry: [quote]You have to accept the entire meaning of the word Phobia.[/quote]

THAT`S WHAT I`VE BEEN TRYING TO GET YOU TO DO !

pho·bi·a / noun
a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.

There is the entire meaning, sans the corruption activists have turned it into. Please note the `irrational fear` part at the very beginning.
0
Reply
Male 526
Grendel it`s a sexuality issue not a gender issue ffs.

Sexuality: Straight. Able to marry any person of the sex that they are attracted to
Sexuality: Gay. Not able to marry any person of the sex that they are attracted to.
That is where the inequality lies, not in the gender.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
equal (adj) The same in all respects

These laws do NOT treat genders the same "in all respects".

If it did there would be no mention of the words "opposite" or "same".
0
Reply
Male 10,855
As I already pointed out on September 09, 2011 4:08:03 PM you`re arguing semantics.
0
Reply
Male 8,415
Cajun247-"you`re trying to escape the FACT that both genders are treated separately"

Gender: Female: Can legally marry someone of the opposite gender, but not of the same gender.
Gender: Male: Can legally marry someone of the opposite gender, but not of the same gender.

Please point out where the inequality is.
0
Reply
Male 526
I only see two reasons that gay marriage should not be allowed. 1.) you`ve convinced yourself somehow that the Bible`s view on gay marriage should be enforced (even though all the other wacky laws in Deuteronomy and the like can be ignored). However, marriage isn`t solely a religious thing. Gays don`t want marriage so they can `fit in` with the other Christians. They want it so that they have the same legal rights and the like as hetero couples. Or, 2.) you think that the advent of homosexual marriage will somehow cause the downfall of civilization. Not only is this reasoning irrational, it is, if not homophobic, very ignorant and intolerant.
0
Reply
Female 1,427
I saw Kevin Smith when he was showing "Red State" over in Houston.

After the movie, he went on and on about the WBC. Amazing stuff.

This video, and other counter-protest videos, make me want to hug kittens or something.
0
Reply
Male 639
@CrakrJak, I actually have to agree with you here. I don`t like the term homophobia because of the stigma attached to people who disagree with gay relationships. I don`t like tomatoes, but it doesn`t make me a tomatophobe. I`m not scared of them... I just don`t like them.

So, I like to stray away from this whole semantic debate and ask you your opinion on gay relationships/marriage. You seem like a rational guy and so I`m genuinely interested in what it is you disagree with. I don`t care if you think it`s wrong/sick/disgusting, I just want to know why you don`t think it`s acceptable for 2 men/women to get married with one another.
0
Reply
Male 39,531

CrakrJak [quote]"Why won`t you acknowledge the true meaning of the root word phobia" [/quote]
Why won`t you acknowledge the full meaning of the word and not just focus on one bit? "Phobia" as in aracnaphobia, does not mean you run and scream when you see a spider. You might, or you might just have an aversion to them. You cannot just pick and choose the parts of the definition you like, as in the Bible. You have to accept the entire meaning of the word Phobia.

Now, back to my original question which is...

The question is not "why should same sex marriage be allowed?"
The question is "Why should it be baned?"
0
Reply
Male 17,512
davymid: Latin and ancient Greek DO NOT EVOLVE SIR, that`s the whole freaking point of why we use them in our legal system and in contracts, so that `terms` don`t get confused by slow changes in common language.

I don`t care if millions of people started calling oranges `apples`, that doesn`t mean that it`s correct use of the language.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
davymid: Words mean things, they shape conversations and the way the word `homophobic` has shaped the issue is in a bad way.

I`m very serious and this isn`t just about `semantics`. The word phobia evokes images of people running in terror, having panic attacks, being irrational.

Sorry, if you don`t believe it, but the term was intentionally chosen to make people look like they are crazy if they don`t support gay rights. I don`t care how much the term has been misused and abused, it`s WRONG.

If you don`t think it`s wrong then I`m going to start using the term Heterophobic to describe gays from now on. You want to abuse the English language, then fine, we can play that game too.
Damn marriage-usurpers.
0
Reply
Male 36
This is class. WELL DONE
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote] I`m arguing facts.[/quote]

No you`re trying to escape the FACT that both genders are treated separately by using different words (ergo semantics).
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote] you`re free to point out where either of the genders is not having the law enforced the same as the other.[/quote]

Separate but equal treatment is NOT equal treatment never has, never will be. As Perry v Schwarzeneggar pointed such laws are based on outdated notions of marriage and gender roles.
0
Reply
Male 1,268
I can only hope when I reach the ripe age of 45 I can display my maturity as flawlessly as the other forty-somethings have in this thread.
0
Reply
Male 8,415
madest-"You`d more likely have an intelligent conversation with Trig Palin"

I realize you have a need to belittle and pick on special needs children, Madest, as even they can out-logic you in a debate. And, of course, it also makes you feel all superior to be arguing with someone who `might` have taken longer to potty train than yourself. Of course, Trig is only three, so it`ll be another five years before we find out if he beats your success in that area.

Let me guess, back in school you were brave enough to bully children with Cerebral Palsy because you knew you could outrun their wheelchairs when you ran way.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
"Homophobic" is a term that has entered the vernacular (hey, language evolves) to describe people who have an issue with homosexuality. People like you. Get over it, and like I said, stop arguing over f*cking semantics.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Oh, for drat sake.

I`ve watched this thread with interest, without participating. Crakrjak, stop arguing semantics, you fool. Homophobia/Homophobe is a common word now in the English language. It describes someone who is opposed to homosexuality. I don`t know of any person who thinks of "homophobia" is afraid of gay people, or irrational/insane in the same way as "agorophobia" or "arachnophobia" or any other thing. When we talk of someone who is "homophobic", we know exactly what they mean. They`re people like you, who disagree with homosexuality.

A relevant counter-example: The word "Gay" used to mean happy. Then it meant people who indulged in homosexuality. Then (in playground parlance) in meant anything that was lame.
0
Reply
Male 8,415
Cajun247-"my article is very relevant to this conversation"

Okay, the first line of the article was, "I haven’t even begun to dig into Judge Walker’s 138-page (!) opinion.."

Which, he`s basically saying, "I`m totally ignorant about what I am about to write about, but I`m going to write about it anyway, as the opinion has lots of big words and I don`t really need to read it to judge it."

But, an article written in ignorance IS totally appropriate to your argument.

Cajun247-"(and you probably didn`t bother reading it)."

I did, and came to the conclusion that it is a `Badly written opinion piece.`.

Now, if he had wanted to write a Well written opinion piece, he would have studied the opinion (i.e. educate himself on the subject matter) and THEN written an article. It would have THEN be a WELL RESEARCHED opinion piece.
0
Reply
Male 8,415
Cajun247-"You`re arguing semantics."

I`m arguing facts.

But, you`re free to point out where either of the genders is not having the law enforced the same as the other.
0
Reply
Male 3,310
Yeah, that probably worked better as a spliced together video montage put to music. Oh wait, that`s what we got! Cheers!
0
Reply
Female 30
These guys came to my home town when Kevin Smith made a movie. We did the same thing! http://vimeo.com/19735043
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Gerry: Why won`t you acknowledge the true meaning of the root word phobia, instead of the abused misnomer that activists have turned it into ?

If you can`t see that the term homophobia is used to falsely malign rational normal people, just because they aren`t cheerleaders for gay rights, as being insane, then you`re part of the problem of adding to the inflammatory rhetoric.
0
Reply
Female 192
Haha :) so much love for this video.
0
Reply
Male 1,646
They are on bourbon street in New Orleans every Mardi Gras, a little group of "god hates fags" sign holders with police barricades around them. It`s pretty much tradition to throw beer and beads at them now.
0
Reply
Female 3,598
lol check yoself before you subsequently wreck yoself... i like it. also... BRING BACK ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT!!
0
Reply
Male 1,268
"I think it is *theologically* sound for a Christian to consider homosexuality acceptable"

This should go without saying, just as it should a christian today could (essentially always do) find the act of a public stoning reprehensible, vs a christian 1800 years ago.

There`s nothing wrong with christians/jews/muslims when they have a brain and can accept times change. It`s the human beings without brains clinging desperately to ancient words who go out and seek superiority in some fashion or another. Anti-gay marriage is one of their agenda`s.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
I was considering counter-protesting WBC when they came here. It would have been amusing to hit them with the religious argument I mentioned below. But they were forbidden permission to come here because they`re a hate group and unworthy of entry to this country. Which is true.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
I can`t be bothered to read all the posts on something that has already been done here dozens of times, so I`ll just ask:

Have we gone through the argument about whether or not the Christian bible is really opposed to homosexuality this time? I noticed people on the first page arguing that it`s absolutely, unequivocally and extremely against it and I was going to make the counter-argument yet again, but no point doing so if it`s already been done in this thread.

Just in case it isn`t clear:

I think it is *theologically* sound for a Christian to consider homosexuality acceptable *within the context of Christianity*, i.e. that the traditional position is not necessarily correct. I can do chapter and verse and all that. Not a rational or moral argument (neither of which are relevant to a religious belief), but a religious one.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
You`d more likely have an intelligent conversation with Trig Palin than you will MeGrendel, Cajun.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@MeGrendel

[quote]Here`s an article[/quote]


You have presented a red herring, my article is very relevant to this conversation (and you probably didn`t bother reading it).
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Both males and females, gay and straight, are bound by the same laws[/quote]

Both whites and non-whites were bound by the same anti-miscegenation laws. Yet there WAS a constitutional issue.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Under the anti-miscegenation laws:

Whites can marry someone of the same classification, but not others.
Colored people can marry someone of the same classification, but not others.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Female can marry someone of the opposite sex, but not the same sex.
Male can marry somone of the opposite sex, but not the same sex.[/quote]


You`re arguing semantics.
0
Reply
Male 8,415
Cajun247-"it denies due process to homosexuals."

`Due process`: the legal principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law.

Both males and females, gay and straight, are bound by the same laws. So no due process problems here.

Cajun247-"Here`s an article"

Badly written opinion piece.

Here`s an article

Cajun247-"since the genders are treated differently under the law it thus makes it a 14th amendment issue."

Okay: two genders: Male, Female.

Female can marry someone of the opposite sex, but not the same sex.
Male can marry somone of the opposite sex, but not the same sex.

Guess what. Both genders are treated exactly the same under the law concerning marriages. You have pr
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Say where else have we seen "Separate but equal"?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
From the same ruling another snippet:

[quote]Rather, the evidence
shows that Proposition 8 harms the state’s interest in equality,
because it mandates that men and women be treated differently based
only on antiquated and discredited notions of gender.[/quote]
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Here`s a snippet from the Perry v Schwarzeneggar decision

[quote]The evidence shows that domestic partnerships were
created as an alternative to marriage that distinguish same-sex
from opposite-sex couples.[/quote]

Here`s another example that the law is not enforced equally:

[quote]Domestic partnerships
are not open to opposite-sex couples unless one partner is at least
sixty-two years old. Cal Fam Code § 297(b)(5)(B).[/quote]

From the same court decision mind you.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Furthermore separate but equal treatment is NOT equal at all, and since the genders are treated differently under the law it thus makes it a 14th amendment issue.
0
Reply
Male 39,531

Crakr: if you aren`t going to read the actual definition of a word, then you have no right being offended when someone uses it.

But I do understand you point of view...why bother confusing the issue with facts.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@MeGrendel

Actually it does

Since marriage is granted through due process, it denies due process to homosexuals.
0
Reply
Male 2,376
i watched easy rider for the first time yesterday.. just thought i`d let you know
0
Reply
Male 2,345
grew up in and around LBC...great to see they still have the same strong spirit as ever there!
0
Reply
Male 1,744
yo dawg, we heard you like protesting, so put some protests to your protests so you can be protested while you protest!
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Invisible man in the sky put those words in your mouth?
0
Reply
Male 17,512
madest: Troll away UFO boy, It`s what you`re best at.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Nobody forced you to comment. Certainly wasn`t me. You`re light in the loafers like Marcus Bachmann. What 100% straight man would be so consumed with stopping gay sex that he would spend his time "counselling" gay people out of it? I know who and I suspect you do too.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
madest: I have avoided quite a lot of `Gay` posts on IAB. At this point I believe most of them are posted as `Bait` to start arguments.

If I decide to not play `play along` with your polemic don`t get all butt-hurt about it and continue with your harassment. Sorry, but I`m not a dog that you can tease into barking.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
If you weren`t homophobic CJ you wouldn`t care about posts that deal with equality. There isn`t a gay rights posting on this site that doesn`t have your anti-equality position. You don`t want same sex marriage? Don`t marry someone of the same sex. That simple.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Gerry: The phobia misnomer was the only issue I had, with you, I`m not going back to read several pages of other peoples arguments and try and jump-in now. Besides I`ve stated my opinion about the WBC before.

The bottom line is, a phobia is an irrational fear of something, since most all people being lambasted with the term of `homophobic` are not irrational and not fearful of gays then the whole term is false, slanderous, and intentionally inflammatory. The sooner the term is dropped, the more civil the discussions will become and the less militant the gay rights movement will appear.
0
Reply
Male 25,417
wow.. people have big comments, im happy mine is so short!
0
Reply
Male 663
>>The miscegenation laws restrictions restricted who can marry who based on race. Whites could only marry whites (plus the obvious gender distinction). <<<

Not exactly. The law that was addressed in the Supreme court ruling was that whites could not marry non whites. Asians could marry blacks, blacks could marry native Americans. Thus a black could marry a black a native american could marry a black but a white could not. This is the equal protection violation used by the supreme court to rule against miscegenation laws.

The state recognized some marriages between a man and a woman, but would not recognize others BASED on race, specifically protected by the 15th.
0
Reply
Male 663
>>>There are laws restricting who can marry who based on gender.<<<

No there are not.

There are laws that define marriage, just as there are laws that define how we drive.
0
Reply
Male 663
>>Constitution doesn`t address civil rights for black people nor does it address a womens right to vote<<

What do you think the 15th and 19th were about???

>> no matter what your backwood redneck neighbors think.<<

As for the name calling..... on second thought go ahead as it fully supports your argument.
0
Reply
Male 8,415
Cajun247-"aren`t said laws actually are discriminating against gays and lesbians as per the definition?"

Only if they are not enforced equally.

Cajun247-"you could argue that laws against miscegenation were also not unconstitutional?"

Such laws have been repealled so the question of the Constitutionality are now moot. But dang007 covered that well.

Try and do the same with Marriage laws. But the 14th does not apply.

Cajun247-"Since it there is different `treatment` for each sex (`category`) then there IS discrimination."

Sorry, no. Everyone is covered by the same law.

Cajun247-"Females can not marry females. Females can only marry males. Males can not marry males. Males can only marry females. "

So, everyone falls under the same laws and they are enforced equally? Great, you just proved that the 14ths amendment does not apply.
0
Reply
Male 8,415
HalfPintRoo-"I could have SWORN that the constitution had something to do with rights and freedoms for all American citizens."

Try reading it sometime. You are not free to rob a bank, and that goes for all. Just as the laws for marriage are applied for all. Don`t like them, change them. But don`t claim something is unconstitutional just because you don`t like it.
0
Reply
Male 8,415
HalfPintRoo- "Your disapproval of their basic human rights"

Actually, you have no idea of my approval or dissapproval of any of their rights. I have not stated them. I`m just arguing the insanity of trying to apply the 14th Amendment to it.

HalfPintRoo- "which are covered in the constitution"

Please point out where that`s covered in the Constitution. I`ve already pointed out that the 14th is not applicable.
0
Reply
Male 526
Arguing against gay marriage/rights is like arguing FOR the existence of bigfoot or UFO`s. It`s just different sides of the lunacy coin.
0
Reply
Female 73
I live in Long Beach and was at the protest at Wilson High School since it`s literally two blocks from my house (the part of the video dubbed with The Jackson Five). In fact, my friends kids are in the video (the kid with blacked out eyes holding the sign that says "Paper Hates Scissors"). It was super awesome, there was such a great vibe, like the community was really coming together against these A-Holes.

This is why I love Long Beach so much!
0
Reply
Male 759
Oh snap! I just read the rest of these posts. I don`t want any part of this. And my post was only about counter protestors blocking roads causing more chaos than the wbc... keep me out of this mess.
0
Reply
Male 759
facepalm for feeling like you did something when you did nothing. A much more effective counter-protest would be to not go anywhere near them. pretend they don`t exist at all.

But hey whatever. If you feel good about it then that`s all that matters, right? Even if whatever it was turned out to be entirely useless and in fact caused more problems than the original problem... but you feel good.
0
Reply
Male 39,531

@ CrakrJak - again, it`s not a slander, it`s a description. It`s only slanderous if it`s untrue. Since the definition covers "aversion" and "discriminatory attitute towards" then I`d say it accurately describes you without being untrue.

That said, if I am wrong, I humbly take it back.

Okay, now how about you address all the stuff you ignored/avoided by hiding behind the "I`m offended by `phobia` " thing ?
0
Reply
Female 4,039
What`s all this talk about slander? You`re all taking this forum a bit too seriously. Though I have to admit, it`s entertaining.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
[quote]Still waiting for for how the constitution addresses gay marriage.[/quote]
---------------
Constitution doesn`t address civil rights for black people nor does it address a womens right to vote but we have eventually lived up to the wording of the constitution (to a degree). Same sex marriage is the next hurdle which will come eventually no matter what your backwood redneck neighbors think.
0
Reply
Male 438
say what you want but im glad that people who are tolerant and have a sense of humor outnumber the hateful pricks among us.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
LazyMe: [quote]we`ll slander you as insane whatever rights you think you have.[/quote]

Until I start slandering you right back, right ? Then you`ll get all upset and want a mod to come defend `your right` to not be slandered.

You yell EQUALITY, but don`t want any for those that have opposing views, sorry but that`s being a hypocrite of the 1st magnitude.
0
Reply
Female 2,761
The rights available to straight married couples are due to gays as well. That`s the last I`m going to say on the topic here. It is unimaginable to me that so many people want to take away the rights of their fellow citizens.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]No more than I can not drive on the left side of the road.[/quote]

There is no law saying who specifically can drive on the left side of the road.
There is no law saying:
Only whites can...
Only males can...
Only females can...

There are laws restricting who can marry who based on gender.
0
Reply
Female 1,743
I can`t believe this is turning into a gay marriage debate.
Can`t we all just agree WBC are a-holes and move on?

Anyway, this video was fun. I loved the police officer`s faces. xD
0
Reply
Male 10,855
The miscegenation laws restrictions restricted who can marry who based on race. Whites could only marry whites (plus the obvious gender distinction). The current marriage laws restricts who can marry who based on gender.
0
Reply
Male 663
>>>Females can not marry females. Females can only marry males.
Males can not marry males. Males can only marry females.

Don`t tell me THAT isn`t a restriction.<<<

No more than I can not drive on the left side of the road.
0
Reply
Male 663
Sorry I have to run. Let me say this.

As long as the government needs to have something it calls marriage and gives people in that category special rights and obligations, then two men and or two women should be allowed to marry. However, I do not support this based on a 14th amendment argument but on the premise that a law that supports a behavior should only exist if that behavior benefits society as a whole. A law that restricts some behavior should only exist if that behavior harms society in significant way. Marriage between a man and a man does not meet the test of harming society, anymore than marriage between a man and a woman meets the test of benefiting society.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
[quote] I have God given right to use both without being slandered as insane. [/quote]
Hahaaa. *wipes tear* oh Crackr, we`ll slander you as insane whatever rights you think you have. No one is immune to criticism.

"God gave me the right to be protected from contradicting viewpoints!"

Where have I heard that before?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Is it females that can not marry or males?[/quote]

Females can not marry females. Females can only marry males.
Males can not marry males. Males can only marry females.

Don`t tell me THAT isn`t a restriction.
0
Reply
Male 663
>>...and as I point there are restrictions based on gender not sexual orientation.<<<

I seem to have missed these restrictions based on gender. Is it females that can not marry or males?
0
Reply
Male 663
>>A consenting adult should be allowed to marry a consenting adult. Period.<<<

How about "A consenting adult should be allowed to do anything with another consenting adult and the government should stop labeling things."
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@dang

...and as I point there are restrictions based on gender not sexual orientation.
0
Reply
Male 663
>>>@dan007 My bad, I could have SWORN that the constitution had something to do with rights and freedoms for all American citizens. Something about a bill of rights... <<<

Yes Again I do not see the argument that the current legislation violates the 14th. Does it violate another part of the constitution?
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Gerry: [quote]Next you`ll say you don`t hate fags, but let`s face it...you aren`t our biggest fan.[/quote]

You`re right I don`t hate gays, but I don`t have to be a cheerleader either in order to not be slandered with the term `homophobic`.

According to your definition anyone that is `averse to` homosexuality is a homophobe. Sorry, but if that`s so the correct term would be `homo-averse`, but that`s not inflammatory enough right ? You have to hurl the Adj. Phobic into it to make normal rational heteros seem like they are insane and that is what initiates my ire.

Again, I don`t have the power or authority to discriminate against anyone, I have one vote just as you and one opinion as well, and I have God given right to use both without being slandered as insane.
0
Reply
Female 8
So....does anyone know where Fred Phelps is or if he`s even alive? When`s the last time anyone saw him?
0
Reply
Male 663
>>>On the other hand with that logic you could argue that laws against miscegenation were also not unconstitutional.<<<

Interesting point. Careful with this argument however as the supreme court noted that the reason these laws violated the 14th was that they applied only to marriages of whites. "The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."

The current laws do not say a marriage is not legal because one person is homosexual. They only say that marriage between two men / two women is not recognized, or that marriage is only between a man or a woman. No restrictions on sexual orientation are mentioned.
0
Reply
Female 2,761
@dan007 My bad, I could have SWORN that the constitution had something to do with rights and freedoms for all American citizens. Something about a bill of rights...

On your other post however, I agree 100% with what you said:

" I have not yet heard a convincing argument that allowing gay marriage would harm society. Having said that I also have yet to hear a convincing argument that the government should have any laws regarding marriage at all."

A consenting adult should be allowed to marry a consenting adult. Period.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]have any laws regarding marriage at all[/quote]


Fine by me. Stop treating the individual sexes differently.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Furthermore here`s a more fitting definition:

[quote]treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit[/quote]

Since it there is different `treatment` for each sex (`category`) then there IS discrimination.
0
Reply
Male 663
>>>which are covered in the constitution<<<

No no no.
0
Reply
Male 663
>>Freedom. I don`t believe anything should be disallowed unless you can show it would be harmful in some way. <<<

Now you are talking my language.

I have not yet heard a convincing argument that allowing gay marriage would harm society. Having said that I also have yet to hear a convincing argument that the government should have any laws regarding marriage at all.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
Yay. It worked, but only after an assload of people showed up and an equal assload of effort was expended.

1 Water cannon and 1 income tax audit is all it takes to get rid of the WBC.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@MeGrendel

Then aren`t said laws actually are discriminating against gays and lesbians as per the definition?

On the other hand with that logic you could argue that laws against miscegenation were also not unconstitutional.
0
Reply
Female 2,761
@MeGrendel I am sorry I assumed that if you are not. Someone who has such negative feelings towards someones sexual orientation is usually labeled as a homophobe. Your disapproval of their basic human rights (which are covered in the constitution) made me ASSUME you were being a homophobic jerk.
0
Reply
Male 1,268
"How is anyone harmed with same sex marriage?"

Anti-christian/jewish/muslim. That`s got to be the only reason. Back to "Why is religion dictating our law?(today)"
0
Reply
Male 39,531

The question is not "why should same sex marriage be allowed?"
The question is "Why should it be baned?"

Freedom. I don`t believe anything should be disallowed unless you can show it would be harmful in some way.

So, please, someone enlighten me. How is anyone harmed with same sex marriage?
0
Reply
Male 1,268
I fail to understand the desire to debate the legality of anti-gay marriage laws as a pro-gay marriage supporter. Particularly when you`re debating this issue with a wall.

If you`re just talking to a wall anyway, wouldn`t debating the benefit of changing the laws be more productive?
0
Reply
Male 8,415
Cajun247-"we`re not just discriminating against gays and lesbians, we`re also discriminating against men and women regardless of sexual orientation."

If we`re discriminating against EVERYBODY, then it does not meet the definition of `discrimination`. `Discrimination` (in this context), by it`s very definition, is `making a distinction in favor of or against a person based on the group, class or category`. If it`s Universal, it`s not `discrimination`.
0
Reply
Male 8,415
HalfPintRoo-"I`m entitled to my opinion and my opinion is you`re a Homophobic jerk."

And your opinion bares no resemblance on reality. If you`re can`t be accurate, at least try to be entertaining. So far you`re only tedious. (btw..on what do you base the fact that I`m `homophobic`? I haven`t said anything against homosexuals at all. Truth be told, I thought what they did against WBC was great. I`m just disagreeing with some who try to make this a 14th amendment issue..oh yes, I forgot, my opinion differs from yours so I MUST be: Racist, homophobic, sexist, bigot or all of the above. I forgot the `Rules for Debating without any Facts`.)
0
Reply
Male 663
>>>strong enough to trump the constitution.<<<

Still waiting for for how the constitution addresses gay marriage.
0
Reply
Female 2,761
@Cajun247 I wasn`t attempting to debate. I was simply saying that it isn`t cool to be a homophobic jerk.

@madest That is interesting!!!
0
Reply
Male 219
I`ve never agreed with race/religion/sexuality being in any law ever.

The only thing you can even prove is someone`s race, not their religion nor sexuality. It`s not physical at all, I don`t understand.
0
Reply
Male 8,415
madest-"If it`s necessary to spell out the obvious"

`Obvious` is right up there with `Everybody Knows`. Neither have any legal standing and nor belong in a debate. If you `mean` something, then state it outright at the beginning. You basically make a bad point, and try to cover up that the `meaning of what I said was obvious`, when in fact it was just a bad (or incorrect) point.

madest-" Same sex marriage is a 14th amendment issue."

The relevent portion of the 14th amendment is: `[No state shall] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.`

You have yet to point out which law is being enforced on gays that is not being enforced on others.

Unless you can produce one, you have no basis to claim it is a 14th amendment issue.

If you don`t LIKE the law, get it changed. That`s the way the system is designed.
0
Reply
Male 1,312
"I doubt it`s the case, but I like to pretend global religious upbringing is on a steady decline."

One can only hope
0
Reply
Male 219
>>madest

You basically just did the exact same thing you claim to disagree with.

>>BoredFrank

Word.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@HalfPintRoo

I`m entitled to my opinion and that it is you`re wrong and you`re a sore debate loser.
0
Reply
Male 2,670
Let`s all step back for a moment, take a deep breath, and agree that the entire Phelps family is composed of inbred hillbilly sheetheads who delight in acts of buggery with domestic cattle.

Isn`t it nice when we can all agree?
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Interesting to me that all the homophobes and racists of the nation are from the midwest and south. The south was forced kicking and screaming to accept black peoples equality. The same will happen with gay marriage. Your Bible isn`t strong enough to trump the constitution.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@MeGrendel

Arguably we`re not just discriminating against gays and lesbians, we`re also discriminating against men and women regardless of sexual orientation. While women can marry other men and vice versa men cannot marry other men women cannot marry other women.
0
Reply
Male 219
>>HalfPintRoo

Yet your opinion means absolutely nothing because you`ve contributed nothing to the conversation other than pitiful insults and "I`m right you`re wrong".
0
Reply
Female 2,761
@MeGrendel I`m entitled to my opinion and my opinion is you`re a Homophobic jerk.
0
Reply
Male 663
>>>I bet some of the people on this thread were really pissed when black folks gained equal civil rights. Same thing, isn`t it? Gay people wanting to marry, black people wanting the vote -- different times, same issues, same tired arguments against both. <<<

Yet the 14th amendment was specific to this VERY ISSUE. You can not deny a right to a group based on the color of their skin. The right was voting.
Laws were written such that blacks had a much more difficult time voting, indeed often completely prevented from voting. The 14th addressed this. It did not say that if I disagree with a law, stopping at a stop sign for example, I get to ignore it and claim equal protection.
0
Reply
Male 663
>>>How about this. Name one way your life would be adversely affected by another couples marriage.<<<

That is NOT the point of the 14th amendment. Try again.

The point, that obviously missed, about road laws is that they are applied EQUALLY TO ALL. The same way that flaws about marriage are applied EQUALLY TO ALL.

Again the 14th DOES NOT APPLY.
0
Reply
Male 8,415
BoredFrank-"It is a good point -- if you`ve recently suffered a severe untreated head injury."

The ONLY point when discussing the 14th Amendment is if the law is being enforce equally. In this case it is. Don`t like the outcome, change the law. If you get the law changed, and it is applied equally, there`d be no problem.


HalfPintRoo-"being a homophobic jerk isn`t cool anymore"

Someone having a different opinion than yours does not equate to them being a `homophobic jerk`. Try debating without name calling (if possible).


HalfPintRoo-"It might help you in being kinder to other humans."

If someone wants to be `less than kind` to other humans, that`s their right. Some people just want to be offensive (such as yourself, when namecalling). Some want a debate. Some enjoy pointing out the fallacy of other`s arguments.
0
Reply
Male 2,670
I bet some of the people on this thread were really pissed when black folks gained equal civil rights. Same thing, isn`t it? Gay people wanting to marry, black people wanting the vote -- different times, same issues, same tired arguments against both.

But have fun being bigots and hiding behind the terms of the debate.
0
Reply
Male 1,268
And the question "Why not?(change the law)" has nothing to do with the people who wrote the laws. I have no problems acknowledging "Stonings were okay in 100 AD because it was 100 AD. Gay marriage was bad in 1800 because it was 1800." There is nothing wrong with the people who agreed with stonings or disagreed with gay marriage in THEIR time. The question still remains "Why is religion dictating our law?(today)"
0
Reply
Male 7,378
If it`s necessary to spell out the obvious in order to have a conversation with you then I`ll make a note and not waste my time in the future. Same sex marriage is a 14th amendment issue. If you`re incapable of seeing that then you don`t understand the constitution. Same sex marriage will be legal all across America probably within the next 5 years. The supreme court will be the arbiters. Religious whackos like the WBC will freak out. Normal people will cheer or not care.
0
Reply
Male 1,268
"I think everything was founded on religion, so I guess it would be hard to just sweep the tablecloth out from under the table after it`s set"

But not impossible. Yes, my parents were exposed to religious dogma as children, but thanks to limited media exposure, I can say for certain I didn`t understand the concept of "God" till I was around seven, I believe, with the added complexities religions around the idea bring to it taking longer for me to comprehend and personally refute.

I doubt it`s the case, but I like to pretend global religious upbringing is on a steady decline.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
LOL @ 46s
0
Reply
Male 8,415
BoredFrank-" it`s fair?"

No one said life`s fair. Life is not/has never been/will never be either cheap, fair or easy. We`re talking law. Everyone is subject to the same law. Now show me where some law is being is being enforced on one section of the populatoin and not on another and you`d have a 14th amendment claim.

Scuzoid-"Why is religion dictating our law?"

A society defines its morality. It also defines its law. Our Constitution, Bill or Rights and our law were written by people who were, for the most part, religious followers. Their beliefs are reflected in thier creations. (After all, religious persecution was one of the reasons this country was founded.)

Our system is fairer than most. You have the freedom of religion. You can choose to believe (or not) any religion you desire.
0
Reply
Male 219
>>HalfPintRoo

You can`t insult someone for having an opinion different than you, all that does is make you the jerk.
0
Reply
Female 2,761
All you people on here still stuck in the dark ages, are you this way in person or only where you can hide on the internet? Just so you know, being a homophobic jerk isn`t cool anymore (I`m not sure it ever was?) so go find some inner peace. It might help you in being kinder to other humans.
0
Reply
Male 8,415
madest-"I was speaking of consenting adults who want to marry."

If that`s what you meant, state that. That`s not what you said.

madest-"Name one way your life would be adversely affected by another couples marriage"

It won`t. Never said it would. Nor have I said that I am against gay-marriage. I`m just pointing out that it`s not a 14th amendment issue as everyone is subject to the same laws. If you don`t like the laws, try and get them changed. We even have a mechanism for you to do so.
0
Reply
Male 219
just so everyone knows I have no real opinion on any of this, I couldn`t care either way.

I just like hearing people make good arguments for what they believe, and insulting someone over their point just proves you don`t have the mental capacity to show them why you believe they are wrong. ;)

I think everything was founded on religion, so I guess it would be hard to just sweep the tablecloth out from under the table after it`s set
0
Reply
Female 2,761
That was the best counter protest of the WBC yet!!!!! Awesome! I hope that many people come out that peacefully each and every time they show up somewhere! :)
0
Reply
Male 2,670
It is a good point -- if you`ve recently suffered a severe untreated head injury.

Otherwise, it`s bullpoo.
0
Reply
Female 2,674
"Bring back Arrested Development" was my favorite sign.
0
Reply
Male 1,268
"He did make a good point."

If he`s auditioning for the debate team, sure. In reality, the question "Why not?(change the law)" exists. And thus far the only real answers are "Because it`s not the christian/jewish/muslim way." Thus the question becomes, "Why is religion dictating our law?"
0
Reply
Male 1,268
Legal arguments aside (And lets be real here, Marriage sucks and all men and manly women should be discouraged from seeking it) someone`s point about blacks giving the right to marry other races holds true. If gays REALLLLLLY want to marry that badly (And subsequently divorce.) the argument against letting them do so doesn`t make much sense outside of the courtroom.
0
Reply
Male 219
>>Wait -- so because the law says gay folks can`t marry, and that same law applies to straights in that if they are gay they can`t marry either, it`s fair?

The point he was making is regardless of sexual orientation, no one can marry same-sex.

He did make a good point.
0
Reply
Male 2,670
Wait -- so because the law says gay folks can`t marry, and that same law applies to straights in that if they are gay they can`t marry either, it`s fair?

I want some of what you`re drinking, dude.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
When you find yourself incapable of making an argument that supports your opinion and you`re forced to resort to nonsensical statements about wanting to drive on the wrong side of the road at the speed limit of your choosing then you have no argument what-so-ever. Go ahead and drive on the wrong side of the road at the speed you wish and hope that you don`t get a ticket or die in the process... Duh.

How about this. Name one way your life would be adversely affected by another couples marriage.
0
Reply
Male 663
The law says that hey if you want and are a woman you can marry a guy and the government will recognize that, conversely if you are a guy you can marry a women and the government will recognize that. Every one has this right no 14th amendment issue.

By the same token. If you want to drive on the right side of the highway at a sped below such and such, you have that right. But you do not have the right to drive 95 going the wrong way.

By the way MADEST I do not believe that marriage should be limited to man and women, but I do completely disagree with any 14th amendment argument to that effect.
0
Reply
Male 219
>By your logic I am being denied my right to drive on the side of the road that I want or the speed I want, because legislation "DEFINES" were to drive and how fast you can go.

wat
0
Reply
Male 663
>>They don`t have the right to marry the person of their choosing. They are the one class of people who are denied the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts.<<<

But they do have the right to get married in the same fashion as anyone else. By your logic I am being denied my right to drive on the side of the road that I want or the speed I want, because legislation "DEFINES" were to drive and how fast you can go.
0
Reply
Male 219
I put no thought into this name, it was just a random word when I registered.

and no, it`s an opinion. There is no difference.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
[quote]EVERYONE does not have the right to marry the person of their choosing. Someone may `choose Jessica Alba`, doesn`t mean it`s going to happen.[/quote]
----------------
Well that`s about as retarded as a Palin child. I was speaking of consenting adults who want to marry. The constitution was written for Americans not Christian heterosexuals. If you keep your arguments centered on logic instead of nonsense you`ll go far.
0
Reply
Male 39,531
@Victim - there`s a differance between inapropriate "labels" and correct, descriptive words.



p.s. - interesting name you chose... a label?
0
Reply
Male 39,531

CrakrJak- Now who`s making words up? [quote] "Would it be fair to say that you are Hetero-phobic because you are averse to heterosexual sex ?" [/quote]
No, I`m not heterophobic. I have no discriminatory tendancies for your people. I believe you have the right to marry, adopt children and even teach in public schools.

The flaw in your comment is that you are equating orientation with sexual congress. Many straight men have gay sex in prison, but they are still straight men. Just as gay men in denial {& republicans} have straight sex with their wives but they are still gay.

"Homophobia" is used because it`s not nice to call people of your inclination "Fag Haters". Next you`ll say you don`t hate fags, but let`s face it...you aren`t our biggest fan.
0
Reply
Male 219
gerry I doubt you like being labeled either
0
Reply
Male 219
that was an interesting way to put it Grendel

well said
0
Reply
Male 8,415
BoredFrank-"Tell that to the thousands of gays who can`t legally get married"

They can legally get married, as long as they follow the law. Heterosexuals are not able to marry someone of the same sex, either. So everyone follows the same law. That equality before the law.

madest-"They don`t have the right to marry the person of their choosing."

EVERYONE does not have the right to marry the person of their choosing. Someone may `choose Jessica Alba`, doesn`t mean it`s going to happen.

And in this case, both Gays and Heterosexuals are subject to the same laws concerning marriage. Both are subject to the same laws that you can get married to consenting adults of opposite sex. Neither can marry a Monkey nor a cartoon character. Same laws apply to all.

And when the laws change to allow gay marriage (which I have no problem with), those laws will be applied equally to all Americans.

So, currently, they all have th
0
Reply
Male 50
God hates FIGS!! brilliant :)
0
Reply
Male 219
I`m not sure marriage is an actual right

as far as I know it`s a religious thing
0
Reply
Male 7,378
They don`t have the right to marry the person of their choosing. They are the one class of people who are denied the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts. Minus the 5 states and the district where same sex marriage is legal. Their plight is no different from blacks winning the right to marry someone of another race in the 70`s. The sky didn`t fall then, it won`t fall over this.
0
Reply
Male 2,670
Really, MeGrendel?

Tell that to the thousands of gays who can`t legally get married in their states because the bible thumpers are agin` it.

0
Reply
Female 123
If I`m going to hell for not giving a poo about whether someone is gay or not, I`m glad I`ll get to be with these people. The look like fun.
0
Reply
Male 8,415
madest-"the 14th amendments equal protection clause gets trumped by your religious beliefs"

Okay, specifically, what `right` are gays being denied? They have the same exact rights as everyone else.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
[quote]We have been through this before. Equal protection does not mean special rights.[/quote]

--------------
Equality is not special it`s constitutional.
0
Reply
Male 8,415
Lordborg909-"your first amendment rights count for nothing when the message is displeasing to you"

How do you figure? The WBC idiots got to exercise their right. As did everyone else there.

The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law". I don`t see in this video where the law was coming down on WBC.

The First Amendments says you can say what you want. It does not say that we must provide you a venue, that anyone has to listen to your rants, nor that you are free from ridicule when you say stupid things.

WBC are idiots. They got to say what they wanted. And everyone else got to respond. Great country.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
lordastral Male, 30-39 [quote]The time is the 1970`s and 1980`s... So a bunch of guys like me volunteered their time to hang out with our own baseball bats and drive around.[/quote]

Sorry, but the math isn`t adding up to your story. You claim to "Drive around" in the 70`s and 80`s and your age is 30-39 ? I don`t think so, unless you were driving around at age 9 in the 80`s.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
lordastral: You`re comparing me to people that have committed crimes against homosexuals ? Seriously ? Wow.

Way to amp up the rhetoric there man, Now everyone that isn`t a cheerleader for gays is akin to those that beat up gays with bats.

Take it down a notch man, I`ve never even thought of doing such a thing to anyone, let alone gays. Get a grip, seems to me you have an irrational fear yourself that needs some attention.
0
Reply
Male 1,832
This was nice to see first thing in the morning.
0
Reply
Male 663
>>>14th amendments equal protection clause gets trumped by your religious beliefs<<<

We have been through this before. Equal protection does not mean special rights.
0
Reply
Male 5,141

0
Reply
Male 45
homophobic -

Let me tell you a bit about homophobia, down here in Texas. The time is the 1970`s and 1980`s, and the place is "Oak Lawn", the gay community in Dallas.

See, we had a real problem in Dallas. non-nice individuals like you , CrakrJak, would jump in their pickup trucks and drive around and then randomly jump out and beat the poo out of some poor gay guy, sometimes with fists, sometimes with baseball bats.

non-nice individuals like you put a fair number of gay men in the hospital, for no other reason then that they were gay. And the cops did nothing, because they were non-nice individuals just like you.

So a bunch of guys like me volunteered their time to hang out with our own baseball bats and drive around. We would jump out of our cars and help defend the lives of those poor gay men. We got into fistfights and worse - one man I know of got stabbed - in order to protect the right of those guys simply to remain alive.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
madest: If there is anyone here that`s `irrational` it`s you with your UFO/Aliens conspiracy nuttiness. So please drop the BS.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Gerry: Would it be fair to say that you are Hetero-phobic because you are averse to heterosexual sex ?

I don`t think it would be, So please let`s drop the terms designed to make rational people seem `insane` alright ?
0
Reply
Male 2,670
Damn, the WBC is sure an ugly bunch.

Inbreeding, I suppose.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
I found Shirley Phelps glamore shots!!!!


Really though what religion isn`t homophobic??
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Not responding is equally as telling.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Gerry: It`s an overused misnomer, period. I`m not `irrational` nor do I fear gays. I`ve also never held a position of authority to discriminate against anyone that is gay. So it`s a slander all the way around, no matter how you look at it.

Madest: as for your obvious troll, it was obvious, not even going to respond to it.
0
Reply
Male 39,531

WBC - Water Boarding Center
WBC - Warner Brothers Channel
WBC - Would Be Cool. " OMG WBC 2go surfing! "
WBC - Wash Both Cajones
WBC - Why Be Cruel
WBC - White Boys Church or Club
0
Reply
Male 7,378
CJ, You are homophobic. You cite the constitution at every chance but the 14th amendments equal protection clause gets trumped by your religious beliefs. If you were really religious you would not eat shellfish or wear clothing of mixed material. If you are such a constitutionalist you would be fighting for their equality. The most vociferous anti-gay people are in my eye trying to hide something. That wood you get at gym isn`t just inconvenient, it`s telling.
0
Reply
Male 39,531

CrakrJak - [quote]"I`m not `homophobic`, that`s a made up slander that homosexuals use against people that don`t agree with their lifestyle to make them seem insane" [/quote]
All words were made up at some point. But according to Merriam-Webster you are homophobic...

Homophobia: [quote]"irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" [/quote]
I`m sure you don`t go running in fear, but I`d say you were covered on the "aversion to" & "discrimination" bits. And it`s not "a made up slander ". It`s more like an accurate description.
0
Reply
Male 132
At 1:20 I swore she was a butterfly.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Jowsh: A sure sign of `irrationality is when someone uses inflammatory, escalating, or derogatory terms when communicating. You`ve demonstrated that irrationality with your own words. If you choose to discuss this further I suggest you learn and use the proper terms, and not the ones taught to you by those with the agenda of making normal heterosexuals seem `insane` for not agreeing with their lifestyle.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Jowsh: I`m not `homophobic`, that`s a made up slander that homosexuals use against people that don`t agree with their lifestyle to make them seem insane.

Homo-averse would be the proper term, phobia is defined as an irrational fear that produces a conscious avoidance of the feared subject. Someone who has arachnophobia is fearful to the point of `irrationality`, they can`t even look at a spider without being scared for their life.

That is why `Homophobic` is such a misnomer. Do you honestly believe that the people you call `homophobic` are so scared that they run away in terror upon seeing a gay person ? Even these WBC idiots aren`t like that, as you can see.

Now that I`ve very rationally torn down the `homophobic` slur, let me address the `rant` accusation. Rant is defined as, to speak or declaim extravagantly or violently or talk in a wild or vehement way.

That obviously is a misnomer as well, again meant to make me seem crazy.
0
Reply
Male 164
Agreed, Chainsaw. Many friends of mine are Patriot Guard Riders, and I find the behavior of the WBC abhorred with their inlamatory "God Hates Soldiers" b.s. PGRs have a strict rule about getting physical with these jerks that I wish would be lifted. But mocking Jesus and to go so far as grinding on a representation of him as in this protest, just takes it too far. Just my opinion. While I am Christian, I would never mock someone elses God. I might open a can of on-the-spot whoopass, but I wouldn`t mock their beliefs.
0
Reply
Male 3,099
Really wish they`d hurry up and drink the Kool-Aid already, or pull a good `ol group self immolation. Bring a new meaning to `Flash Mob`.
0
Reply
Male 266
Jeemo88: exactly my point. You`d think the inerrant word of god wouldn`t be able to be exploited for evil. And btw, the "out of context argument" is bogus. There is no possible context in which a command to kill your children if they are unruly is good and just, or a judgement based on thoughts instead of actions to be moral.
Of course, to anyone who gives half a poo about truth, whether scientific or historical, what the bible in itself is irrelevant, but these people make it relevant.
Trust me, i have read the bible, i may have taken a lot of things out of context, but a lot of the nastiest things there are crystal-clear and there`s no way to concile them with actual scientific knowledge, or post-enlightenment moral standards.
0
Reply
Male 741
infantry0, I`m going to go out on a limb and guess that you are serving or have served our country in the military. What do you think of how the WBC protests at the funerals of soldiers? To me that one aspect of their methods rates well above "a-hole".
0
Reply
Male 164
Granted, WBC are a bunch of a-holes, but is it really always necessary to make such a mockery of Jesus. I mean come on, humping on Jesus. It disgusts me.
0
Reply
Male 96
AMERICA, fudge YEAH!!!!
0
Reply
Male 165

Shirley Phelps-Roper and Brent Roper-Phelps
Sam Phelps-Roper
3640 S.W. Churchilll
Topeka, Kansas 66604
home: 785-273-1445/273-0277/272-1619
Shirley’s work: 785-233-4162
Brent’s work (Foot Locker) 785-273-0068

Jonathan and Paulette Phelps
840 S.W. Watson
Topeka, Kansas 66606
Jonathan’s work: 785-233-4162
Elizabeth Phelps
2001 S.W. 2nd Street
Topeka, Kansas 66606
home: 785-234-9694
work: 785-233-0822

Abigail Phelps
3636 S.W. Churchill
Topeka, Kansas 66604
785-273-7262
work: 785-296-7709

Charles W. and Mary Hockenbarger
711 N.W. Page
Topeka, Kansas 66617
home: 785- 246-1567

Rachel Phelps Hockenbarger and Charles F. Hockenbarger
1284 S.W. Hillsdale
Topeka, Kansas 66604
home: 785-271-1619

Tim and LeAnn Phelps
3743 S.W. 12th Street
Topeka, Kansas 66604
home: 785-273-4780
Tim’s work: 785-291-5100
LeannR
0
Reply
Male 77
@yoda And when Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness, so did he. It`s about knowing the whole of the scriptures, and not just taking one or two versus out of context. It`s really long to get into while typing...
0
Reply
Male 165
Fred W. and Margie M. Phelps, Sr.
Westboro Baptist Church
3701 S.W. 12th Street
Topeka, Kansas 66604
phone: 785-273-0325 and 785-273-0338
fax: 785-273-9228

Karl and Deborah Kay Hockenbarger
James Hockenbarger/Jennifer Hockenbarger
1929 S.W. Lane
Topeka, Kansas 66604
home: (913) 233-1848
K-K-Karl’s work: 785-296-3959

Fred W. Phelps. Jr. and Betty Phelps
3600 S. W. Holly Lane
Topeka, Kansas 66604
home: 785-272-4135
Jr.’s work: 785-296-3195

Margie J. Phelps
3734 S.W. 12th
Topeka, Kansas 66604
home: 785-273-7380
work: 785-296-3317

Ben Phelps
3632 S.W. Churchill
Topeka, Kansas 66604
home: 785-233-4162

Rebekah Phelps-Davis and Chris Davis-Phelps
1216 S.W. Cambridge
Topeka, Kansas 66604
home: 785-272-7741
0
Reply
Male 1,678
The only people more retarded than the WBC are the people who think the best way to stop their propaganda is to give it free publicity. Just ignore the idiots and they`ll eventually die out.
0
Reply
Male 3,477
I HATE HATE! LOL
0
Reply
Male 266
You know what`s the funniest thing? the WBC seems to have a bible passage to justify each and every action they do. It`s time for the moderates to realize that and stop passively enabling the radicals by supporting christianity in any way.
0
Reply
Male 77
I can`t stand WBC, they are to christians what Islamic terrorists do to Islam (on a slightly lesser scale). They and all of the scandals get ALL of the publicity. God is love, and just because I don`t agree with the action doesn`t mean that I instantly hate you. I have gay friends as a Christian. Let your life speak for you and how you interact with others.

I think the thing that hurts the Christian message is people are turned off by this type of radical Christianity. "A soft answer turns away wrath" and they are just invoking it.
0
Reply
Male 1,237
CrakrJak: "The best way to handle the WBC idiots is to just ignore them, making a spectacle and acting like the stereotypes they claim is just egging them on."

Oh darn, I knew there was a better way to respond to your homophobic rant the other day about homosexuality being a CHOICE that is "going against nature".. Thanks CrakrJak, now I know the best way to deal with these homophobic idiots! Don`t you just hate them, man?
0
Reply
Male 219
Christianity also says `Judge not lest thee be judged.` So, while Christians aren`t supposed to condone homosexuality, they also aren`t supposed to be judgemental...so don`t lump WBC in with the rest of Christians, or you`re just as bad as they are.
0
Reply
Male 184
@jimbobsthebe well said sir. The bible clearly discriminates against homosexuals and any Christian who suggests that it does not is failing. WBC are right on the money with their interpretation of this clear, black and white, section of the bible.

If you disagree with them, you disagree with Christianity. And so you should.
0
Reply
Male 15
This looks like the most fun ever.
0
Reply
Male 6
Ahh America,your first amendment rights count for nothing when the message is displeasing to you.... Cranks like these people? Ignore them, they go away......
0
Reply
Male 639
"Of course, anyone who gives half a sh*t about truth knows that the bible should be offered no more credence than fairy tales and nursery rhymes."

Oh absolutely. But in some respects I have more respect for people like these than I do for people who believe in the bible but disregard what it says. I just can`t see how Christians can disagree on things like this. If the Bible says something is wrong... it is wrong.

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13).

Now, taking in to consideration that following this would be breaking at least 2 of the 10 commandments, it makes the statement fairly redundant. However, it does describe homosexuality of an `abomination`.

All I`m saying... don`t hate the WBC members, hate the religion.
0
Reply
Male 1,397
First amendment, folks.....languish in it whilst you still can!(about another year, by my reckoning)
0
Reply
Male 17,512
The best way to handle the WBC idiots is to just ignore them, making a spectacle and acting like the stereotypes they claim is just egging them on.
0
Reply
Female 9
Before I say this, i LOVED that, that was a perfect response to their disgusting behaviour. However, they have had every reaction in the book now, aggression, defiance, and mocking. Maybe, just maybe its time to NOT give them a reaction. They want attention and they love it when they are met with anger and bitterness, they think it makes their point even clearer. Stop giving them the attention they want. Do you KNOW how much i would laugh at a ten minute video of them stood somewhere doing what they do while EVERYONE around them just carried on as normal?? As if they were not there? Trust me, they would go home a lot quicker.
0
Reply
Male 914
"Don`t get me wrong, I`m not religious. But I think if I was a true Christian, I would have to agree with the basic principle that being gay is a sin. If the bible is holy, then every word must me the truth... right?"

What you seem to fail to understand is that these people DON`T treat the bible as inerrant and truthful. They pretend that all those other parts of the bible don`t exist. You know, the parts about how menstruating women should never be touched and that rape victims should be stoned to death.

Of course, anyone who gives half a sh*t about truth knows that the bible should be offered no more credence than fairy tales and nursery rhymes.
0
Reply
Male 639
As much as I think they are idiots... they do have a point. The bible does seem to sway towards the idea that homosexuality is wrong and sinful.

Don`t get me wrong, I`m not religious. But I think if I was a true Christian, I would have to agree with the basic principle that being gay is a sin. If the bible is holy, then every word must me the truth... right?
0
Reply
Male 4,902
WBC should try West Hollywood next.
0
Reply
Male 1,268
"Ha I like the sign `bring back arrested development`"

I was sooooo bummed when I heard (three or so years late) Portia DeRossi was gay. Even moreso when I found out she was gay with Ellen. I mean, I could totally look like Ellen if I wanted to.
0
Reply
Male 15,172
Love the rabbit.

I think it`s a testament to tolerance that the WBC doesn`t experience more martyrdom.
0
Reply
Male 83
Go home?? We don`t want them in KS either!
0
Reply
Male 36
heh, I thought the two cops at 0:33 where cuddling together on one bike.
0
Reply
Male 688
"If everybody ignored them they`d just be a dozen assh0les with stupid signs."

Someone who`s committed to a cause will never just go away without publicity, they will continue to prey on the weak and attempt to convert the easily influenced, hence how religion is so popular in modern days.

If you want to defeat people dedicated to a cause you have to discredit it and resist it at every turn, make it appear that if you support it you are a crazy lunatic and a complete loser. Stop their recruiting efforts and slowly their numbers dwindle.

Targeted assassinations are also good. However you have to have a significant majority of the population on your side. It`s also best to make it seem like a suicide, Koolaid packets are also a nice touch.
0
Reply
Female 1,623
This was awesome! I would have loved to be there!
0
Reply
Male 1,263
I lost my poo at "God hates Figs".
0
Reply
Male 1,116
Funny, but I think the best thing to to is just ignore them.
0
Reply
Female 39
Ha I like the sign `bring back arrested development`
0
Reply
Male 2,796
I agree with WBC... I hate bags too.

What? Oh FAGS?? My bad... no, they`re alright. Bags suck though.
0
Reply
Male 15,510

0
Reply
Male 904
This is fun and all but I`m with cloud7zero. If everybody ignored them they`d just be a dozen assh0les with stupid signs. Those idiots thrive on attention. Aside from self-righteousness and lunatic ideas that`s pretty much all they have.
0
Reply
Male 1,215
It`s great seeing people stand up to those hate mongers.
0
Reply
Male 955
that`s exactly how you beat them, beat them at their own game.
0
Reply
Male 1,313
Those songs are gay
0
Reply
Male 639
They are trolls. The only survive if you feed them. If everybody ignored them they would have no voice.
0
Reply
Male 5,314
that`s how you deal with those f*ckers.
and i completely agree 100%, bring back Arrested Development!!!!
0
Reply
Female 57
i lived in radcliff ky, right next door to ft knox. a military town. they had the balls to come and protest a soldiers funeral. i have never seen so many ppl line the streets of dixie hwy protesting WBC. i cant wait for these stupid people to go away. how about this, protest WBC. they protest everyone else for stupid reasons, why not protest them???
0
Reply
Male 2,841
This makes me want to move there.
0
Reply
Male 1,195


That is all.
0
Reply
Male 101
i completely forgot about the wbc, cant we just ignore them
0
Reply
Male 2,440
The "I heart Vagina nom nom nom" sign made me smile. If I ever saw the WBC nearby, I would just ignore them. They`re not worth the time and effort.
0
Reply
Male 1,085
That`s awesome. I want WBC to come to PHILLY. Then they`ll REALLY stop their hatred. Don`t mess with PHILLY!
0
Reply
Female 4,225
that music was fabulous. No pun intended. It did actually make me feel cheery

and yes, as we all know, God hates 2all regions that are prone to earthquakes and hurricanes *rolls eyes*
0
Reply
Male 373
Damn, if only I had known what day they were coming...
0
Reply
Female 4,447
Woo, party!!! You know though...this makes me sad. These vids always do, because there`s at least one kid with the WBC. Why would you want to teach your kids to hate? WHY?!
0
Reply
Male 7,378
0
Reply