Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: CCTAU on July 31, 2015, 11:39:44 AM
-
I was talking to someone the other day and they relayed that their gay friend was all upset.
The company he worked for sent out an email claiming that since gay marriage was now legal in his state...
His domestic partnership agreement relating to company benefits was being terminated. If he wanted the benefits to continue, there needs to be a wedding.
I kinda chuckled at this. There are many gay couples out there who did not weigh in on the issue and were just fine with their lives. The loud militant ones of the group got what they wanted without thinking it through.
While I agree this is correct in a legal sense, you would think the company would give more than 2 months to make a decision....
It seems the loudest of us all are getting their way today, while we quiet ones sit back and take it.
-
Does Jawja recognize common law marriage?
-
Does Jawja recognize common law marriage?
I wondered that also.
It does seem a bit harsh to expect someone to make a decision on getting married just to have benefits.
Although, they were getting benefits under the presumption that they would have gotten married if legal.
I also wondered if straight couples were allowed to have domestic partnership benefits at the same time.
Like I said, unintended consequences.
-
I was talking to someone the other day and they relayed that their gay friend was all upset.
The company he worked for sent out an email claiming that since gay marriage was now legal in his state...
His domestic partnership agreement relating to company benefits was being terminated. If he wanted the benefits to continue, there needs to be a wedding.
I kinda chuckled at this. There are many gay couples out there who did not weigh in on the issue and were just fine with their lives. The loud militant ones of the group got what they wanted without thinking it through.
While I agree this is correct in a legal sense, you would think the company would give more than 2 months to make a decision....
It seems the loudest of us all are getting their way today, while we quiet ones sit back and take it.
Tis what being gay is all about.
-
The most surprising thing to me in all of this re: your gay friend is to learn that the gays are now allowed into the klan.
-
The most surprising thing to me in all of this re: your gay friend is to learn that the gays are now allowed into the klan.
Between the sheets, and now in the sheets too?
-
This is just the start. There are MANY more unintended things that will rear their heads in the months and years to come as things develop. Like the Lion crap and other things (shootings)....everyone flies off the handle and demands an immediate action/remedy based off emotion.
-
This is just the start. There are MANY more unintended things that will rear their heads in the months and years to come as things develop. Like the Lion crap and other things (shootings)....everyone flies off the handle and demands an immediate action/remedy based off emotion.
Unintended consequences?
Y'all are acting like these guys have been intentionally skirting the law but now they can't take advantage of us anymore. That's ridiculous...
They now have rights that everyone else has. And have to obey the laws...and tax laws...like everyone else has too. It's why this shit shouldn't have been a fucking issue in the first place. Let the gays marry, and the government needs to stay the fuck out of it. They have every right to have insurance and be able to file being married to get tax benefits. Now if they don't want to get married, fuck them, they have no marriage rights.
I don't see why this is so difficult for some people to handle...
-
Unintended consequences?
Y'all are acting like these guys have been intentionally skirting the law but now they can't take advantage of us anymore. That's ridiculous...
They now have rights that everyone else has. And have to obey the laws...and tax laws...like everyone else has too. It's why this shit shouldn't have been a fucking issue in the first place. Let the gays marry, and the government needs to stay the fuck out of it. They have every right to have insurance and be able to file being married to get tax benefits. Now if they don't want to get married, fuck them, they have no marriage rights.
I don't see why this is so difficult for some people to handle...
It's difficult because many of us were raised to believe that the EXIT ONLY part of our body was just that!
As for having rights, they could have had the same rights with a civil union. Marriage is between one man, one woman. The bastardization of the definition does not change that.
This was never about rights. It was about legitimizing a disgusting life choice.
So now they are seeing that sometimes what you want, is not what you expected.
The SCOTUS took a huge dump on the tenth amendment. And in the process proclaimed that a lifestyle choice is now defined as a genetically detectable race.
It was a sad day for the constitution.
As GH said, more to come!
-
This was never about rights. It was about legitimizing a disgusting life choice.
That's about as ignorant a statement as I have ever heard...
-
That's about as ignorant a statement as I have ever heard...
He's back, ladies and gentlemen.
-
That's about as ignorant a statement as I have ever heard...
Happy to supply you with new material. Now pick up your rainbow flag and March!
-
Happy to supply you with new material. Now pick up your rainbow flag and March!
You're right.
It amazes me that some people want the government to protect people's rights that they believe in (like carry a firearm) but want the government to limit people's human rights (like gay marriage). You can't have it both ways. Either you want a government that controls everything or nothing. You can't pick and choose what you believe in and expect them to enforce that...
-
You're right.
It amazes me that some people want the government to protect people's rights that they believe in (like carry a firearm) but want the government to limit people's human rights (like gay marriage). You can't have it both ways. Either you want a government that controls everything or nothing. You can't pick and choose what you believe in and expect them to enforce that...
Lifestyle choice is NOT a human right! You are sorely confused. If you think it is, be prepared for all of the other deviants wanting theirs also.
-
Lifestyle choice is NOT a human right! You are sorely confused. If you think it is, be prepared for all of the other deviants wanting theirs also.
Surely it falls somewhere in one of these categories of inalienable right: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
-
Surely it falls somewhere in one of these categories of inalienable right: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
No. No it doesn't.
The gays are alive, nobody's killing them these days much.
The gays are free. They're not being jailed unless they commit crimes.
They can pursue whatever they want. Doesn't say, mean or intend that whatever they pursue must be federally protected, funded, given the same weight as anything else, legalized, etc.
Choosing to be a pedophile isn't federally endorsed. That's a lifestyle choice. One guy chose to pork a pig in the Wal Mart bathroom. Lifestyle choice. Arrested. Even if he'd taken Petunia Pig home and diddled her -- what he does in his own home is his own business, right? -- he'd be subject to arrest and incarceration. What if it makes me happy to be naked in airports and shit in mall kiosks? Can I pursue that? What if it makes me happy to climb into the store window at Macys in NYC during the Thanksgiving parade and jerk off furiously as Santa passes? Lifestyle choice. I choose to be a Santa fancier.
Once you open the door for one deviation, you can't close it for others.
Idiots in the courts and legal profession have twisted the very meaning of the protections we were provided. At no point was that meant to be interpreted as "anything goes..."
-
No. No it doesn't.
The gays are alive, nobody's killing them these days much.
The gays are free. They're not being jailed unless they commit crimes.
They can pursue whatever they want. Doesn't say, mean or intend that whatever they pursue must be federally protected, funded, given the same weight as anything else, legalized, etc.
Choosing to be a pedophile isn't federally endorsed. That's a lifestyle choice. One guy chose to pork a pig in the Wal Mart bathroom. Lifestyle choice. Arrested. Even if he'd taken Petunia Pig home and diddled her -- what he does in his own home is his own business, right? -- he'd be subject to arrest and incarceration. What if it makes me happy to be naked in airports and shit in mall kiosks? Can I pursue that? What if it makes me happy to climb into the store window at Macys in NYC during the Thanksgiving parade and jerk off furiously as Santa passes? Lifestyle choice. I choose to be a Santa fancier.
Once you open the door for one deviation, you can't close it for others.
Idiots in the courts and legal profession have twisted the very meaning of the protections we were provided. At no point was that meant to be interpreted as "anything goes..."
Hyuck-yuck...them gays gonna lead us to beastiality.
Typical.
-
Hyuck-yuck...them gays gonna lead us to beastiality.
Typical.
Another of your typical holier than thou comments.
He hit it spot on and that is all ya got?
If the gay lifestyle choice has rights, then you cannot deny other lifestyle choice individuals their rights.
This was a horrible legal decision by SCOTUS. It violated the tenth amendment horribly.
-
Another of your typical holier than thou comments.
He hit it spot on and that is all ya got?
If the gay lifestyle choice has rights, then you cannot deny other lifestyle choice individuals their rights.
This was a horrible legal decision by SCOTUS. It violated the tenth amendment horribly.
I'll spare you the boring details, but the difference between your red herring and gay marriage is the tiny issue of consent. Your right to pursue happiness doesn't exist in a void.
-
I'll spare you the boring details, but the difference between your red herring and gay marriage is the tiny issue of consent. Your right to pursue happiness doesn't exist in a void.
This.
The leap from gay marriage to beatiality or pedophilia is ridiculous. Animals and children can't give fucking consent...I don't see how this is so hard...
-
Lifestyle choice is NOT a human right! You are sorely confused. If you think it is, be prepared for all of the other deviants wanting theirs also.
See...this is where we are different. I just don't know if it is a choice or not. I am leaning toward it not being a choice but I really don't know. Why would a dude choose to be gay? It just doesn't make sense to me.
But, what if it is not a choice. What if you are wrong and being gay was something in the DNA or was something in the psyche? Why deny them a choice to be happy?
Unlike you guys, I can honestly say with 100% certainty that I have no fucking clue. I don't know if they are born like that or if it is a choice for them? And I can also say with 100% certainty that you guys don't either. So with that said, why not let them enjoy their lives like we do?
-
See...this is where we are different. I just don't know if it is a choice or not. I am leaning toward it not being a choice but I really don't know. Why would a dude choose to be gay? It just doesn't make sense to me.
But, what if it is not a choice. What if you are wrong and being gay was something in the DNA or was something in the psyche? Why deny them a choice to be happy?
Unlike you guys, I can honestly say with 100% certainty that I have no fucking clue. I don't know if they are born like that or if it is a choice for them? And I can also say with 100% certainty that you guys don't either. So with that said, why not let them enjoy their lives like we do?
Got 100X more exposure to teh gays than most on here. Let the jokes begin. Don't care. I've had honest discussions with several and if you think that most make a "lifestyle choice"...then you are mistaken. If someone chooses to experiment and try the "I kissed a girl and I liked it" then yeah, you're making a "choice". But please explain to me how someone can honestly say, "I am in no way attracted to the opposite sex. Not sexually, emotionally, physically etc." and you think they're making a choice. Just taking a hetero man's perspective here....Take the emotions that you feel towards a woman...you find her attractive...you find her sexy...you connect on a different level....there's something there that makes you feel like you want to be with her on more than just a casual basis. Now take a man who can say with 100% certainty that he feels none of that for any woman. No way shape or form does he feel that for any woman. But he does for a man.
Did he make a choice? Did he choose to feel that way? Or did he just decide that well, things aren't working out with the whole woman dating thing....I think I'll just choose the gay lifestyle? Come on, you people are smarter than that.
I consider myself a Christian. I attend a huge Methodist church here in Dothan. With all the events coming down lately with the SCOTUS ruling for gay marriage, I asked our pastor his views on it and where he stands on the issue. He said he's studied it from every perspective possible and can't say definitively that it's right or wrong. Adam Hamilton is the pastor of the biggest Methodist church in America. He says exactly the same thing. Look, I'm just telling you that I've asked the hard (oops) questions from several gay people. It's NOT a choice for the majority of them. It's the way they were born. THEY didn't have a choice. Just like YOU didn't have a choice. Do you think God loves a child born with Down's Syndrome any less because he/she was born that way? Did that child have a choice?
Bottom line, I keep hearing the word "choice"..."Choosing a lifestyle". The gay people I have asked the pointed questions of say it has zero to do with choice. They didn't "decide" to opt for men over women. That's been their make up from birth. That's the way they were "created". What would you have them do?
-
Got 100X more exposure to teh gays than most on here. Let the jokes begin. Don't care. I've had honest discussions with several and if you think that most make a "lifestyle choice"...then you are mistaken. If someone chooses to experiment and try the "I kissed a girl and I liked it" then yeah, you're making a "choice". But please explain to me how someone can honestly say, "I am in no way attracted to the opposite sex. Not sexually, emotionally, physically etc." and you think they're making a choice. Just taking a hetero man's perspective here....Take the emotions that you feel towards a woman...you find her attractive...you find her sexy...you connect on a different level....there's something there that makes you feel like you want to be with her on more than just a casual basis. Now take a man who can say with 100% certainty that he feels none of that for any woman. No way shape or form does he feel that for any woman. But he does for a man.
Did he make a choice? Did he choose to feel that way? Or did he just decide that well, things aren't working out with the whole woman dating thing....I think I'll just choose the gay lifestyle? Come on, you people are smarter than that.
I consider myself a Christian. I attend a huge Methodist church here in Dothan. With all the events coming down lately with the SCOTUS ruling for gay marriage, I asked our pastor his views on it and where he stands on the issue. He said he's studied it from every perspective possible and can't say definitively that it's right or wrong. Adam Hamilton is the pastor of the biggest Methodist church in America. He says exactly the same thing. Look, I'm just telling you that I've asked the hard (oops) questions from several gay people. It's NOT a choice for the majority of them. It's the way they were born. THEY didn't have a choice. Just like YOU didn't have a choice. Do you think God loves a child born with Down's Syndrome any less because he/she was born that way? Did that child have a choice?
Bottom line, I keep hearing the word "choice"..."Choosing a lifestyle". The gay people I have asked the pointed questions of say it has zero to do with choice. They didn't "decide" to opt for men over women. That's been their make up from birth. That's the way they were "created". What would you have them do?
Welp, there's yer problem (Methodists love them some kweers)
You cannot say it is not a choice - it is not just some pre-disposition to buttseks. It can be a learned thing. Yes, I recall some sissy types from school and sure enough they are gay in their adult selves at the 20-year reunion. But, what made them that way in the first place - were they born with it, did they pick it up through certain cues and events, was it pounded into their ass - ok, you get the idea. It's like saying Jimmy is an alcoholic strictly because Big Jim was and Jimmy just inherited the drunk gene - nope, Jimmy learned to be a drunk from Big Jim.
I have no qualm if they want to be homosexual, but just like other people loudly calling for "equality", what they really want is to be super-equal - they want to have their cake (cock?) and eat it too. Tolerance does not mean approval.
And comparing it to Down's is a horrid analogy. (Don't get excited, I didn't say anal whore, VV)
-
Got 100X more exposure to teh gays than most on here. Let the jokes begin. Don't care. I've had honest discussions with several and if you think that most make a "lifestyle choice"...then you are mistaken. If someone chooses to experiment and try the "I kissed a girl and I liked it" then yeah, you're making a "choice". But please explain to me how someone can honestly say, "I am in no way attracted to the opposite sex. Not sexually, emotionally, physically etc." and you think they're making a choice. Just taking a hetero man's perspective here....Take the emotions that you feel towards a woman...you find her attractive...you find her sexy...you connect on a different level....there's something there that makes you feel like you want to be with her on more than just a casual basis. Now take a man who can say with 100% certainty that he feels none of that for any woman. No way shape or form does he feel that for any woman. But he does for a man.
Did he make a choice? Did he choose to feel that way? Or did he just decide that well, things aren't working out with the whole woman dating thing....I think I'll just choose the gay lifestyle? Come on, you people are smarter than that.
I consider myself a Christian. I attend a huge Methodist church here in Dothan. With all the events coming down lately with the SCOTUS ruling for gay marriage, I asked our pastor his views on it and where he stands on the issue. He said he's studied it from every perspective possible and can't say definitively that it's right or wrong. Adam Hamilton is the pastor of the biggest Methodist church in America. He says exactly the same thing. Look, I'm just telling you that I've asked the hard (oops) questions from several gay people. It's NOT a choice for the majority of them. It's the way they were born. THEY didn't have a choice. Just like YOU didn't have a choice. Do you think God loves a child born with Down's Syndrome any less because he/she was born that way? Did that child have a choice?
Bottom line, I keep hearing the word "choice"..."Choosing a lifestyle". The gay people I have asked the pointed questions of say it has zero to do with choice. They didn't "decide" to opt for men over women. That's been their make up from birth. That's the way they were "created". What would you have them do?
First. You need to run fast from that pastor. The methodist convention that just concluded did not agree with what he is teaching.
Second. If its genetic, it is a well hidden trait. No one has found it yet and you know they are out there looking hard.
People are born with many depraved thoughts. That does not make those thought OK to act upon. There is your "choice"!
-
First. You need to run fast from that pastor. The methodist convention that just concluded did not agree with what he is teaching.
Second. If its genetic, it is a well hidden trait. No one has found it yet and you know they are out there looking hard.
People are born with many depraved thoughts. That does not make those thought OK to act upon. There is your "choice"!
Nice of you to try but you won't change these queers.
-
Nice of you to try but you won't change these queers.
No, yur a queer you looser.
-
I totally agree that people make lifestyle choices, including the decision to engage in teh ghey butt secks or Lebanese carpet munch.
I also believe that despite the absence of some rogue gene, that some are born that way and have no control over the fact that they in no way shape or form have any attraction to the opposite sex. It's not their environment. It's not conditioning. It's not brainwashing. Never had it, never will.
In addition, I'm not running from my pastor because he can't definitively say where the Bible comes down on the issue. Nor will I disregard the position of one of the more influential Methodist pastors in the nation because he says it's okay to question the Bible. Neither are saying, much less teaching that GBS or LCM are okay. Just that they don't see it as clear cut as some believe.
-
I have grown up in the Southern Baptist church and I don't know exactly what the SBC officially says regarding the gays but I think we are supposed to beat the hell out of them. Whatever it takes to keep them out of the church, I guess.
-
I totally agree that people make lifestyle choices, including the decision to engage in teh ghey butt secks or Lebanese carpet munch.
I also believe that despite the absence of some rogue gene, that some are born that way and have no control over the fact that they in no way shape or form have any attraction to the opposite sex. It's not their environment. It's not conditioning. It's not brainwashing. Never had it, never will.
In addition, I'm not running from my pastor because he can't definitively say where the Bible comes down on the issue. Nor will I disregard the position of one of the more influential Methodist pastors in the nation because he says it's okay to question the Bible. Neither are saying, much less teaching that GBS or LCM are okay. Just that they don't see it as clear cut as some believe.
This is where I stand. I don't see it as clear cut. How people can condemn other people is beyond me. But whatever.
You cannot say it is not a choice - it is not just some pre-disposition to buttseks.
See, that's what snaggle is talking about. It's not just sex that gay people enjoy. It's everything you find attractive about a woman, they find attractive about a person of the same sex. You guys are too hung up on the sex part...
I have no qualm if they want to be homosexual, but just like other people loudly calling for "equality", what they really want is to be super-equal - they want to have their cake (cock?) and eat it too.
Huh? What the fuck is the definition of "super-equal"? Is that more than equal? They want to fucking marry...so that's "super-equal"? You may have just topped CCTAU with the most ignorant comment...
-
But, what if it is not a choice. What if you are wrong and being gay was something in the DNA or was something in the psyche? Why deny them a choice to be happy?
Then you search for the cure.
Not that difficult a concept.
-
Not that difficult a concept.
it's like shootin' lions in a barrel.
-
If it were indeed genetic, then please explain why less than 10% of the siblings of Gay Identical twins, are gay themselves?
If it were genetic and identical twins by definition have the exact same DNA should they both not be gay?
-
If it were indeed genetic, then please explain why less than 10% of the siblings of Gay Identical twins, are gay themselves?
If it were genetic and identical twins by definition have the exact same DNA should they both not be gay?
You just have to take SCOTUS' word on it...
They deemed homosexuals to be a new race and that is what you must believe too.
-
They deemed homosexuals to be a new race
Intentionally misleading or just stupid?
Probably "b".
-
Not sure why you have to find a gene or a cause for homosexuality. Maybe these are not the droids you are looking for.
-
Intentionally misleading or just stupid?
Probably "b".
Just because you are too stupid to understand the original intent of the 14th amendment and how this ruling affects the 10th, well that petty much reflects on you, not me.
There is no other way to see it. In order to use the 14th amendment in this case, you must equate homosexuals with blacks. One has a genetic marker that can be found. The other, not so much.
You are pretty much a pompous asshole that thinks they are smarter than some of the rest of us. But you never really back up your idiot statements. Very telling. Do you drive a big shiny red corvette also...
-
Hey Jim, let's rub our wieners together. Come on you sumbitch, I won't tell nobody.
Definitely not a Con Law expert by any means. My understanding of the original intent of the 14th Amendment was to address the rights of former slaves, giving them equal protection under the laws. I think it's logical that the Courts would expand that premise to give equal protection to any and all citizens and it seems they have down through the years. Is the argument that it should only apply to an identifiable class of people? Maybe that's in some of the opinions but like I said, I don't know enough about it to debate the issue.
-
Do you drive a big shiny red corvette also...
Up your butt, joeboo.
-
Up your butt, joeboo.
Offer him cigar, rum. He will come.
-
Huh? What the fuck is the definition of "super-equal"? Is that more than equal? They want to fucking marry...so that's "super-equal"? You may have just topped CCTAU with the most ignorant comment...
"ignernt" come on now, spell it like you said it
-
Hey Jim, let's rub our wieners together. Come on you sumbitch, I won't tell nobody.
Definitely not a Con Law expert by any means. My understanding of the original intent of the 14th Amendment was to address the rights of former slaves, giving them equal protection under the laws. I think it's logical that the Courts would expand that premise to give equal protection to any and all citizens and it seems they have down through the years. Is the argument that it should only apply to an identifiable class of people? Maybe that's in some of the opinions but like I said, I don't know enough about it to debate the issue.
That's the gist. Now we'll get a "lesson" on those damned activist judges.
-
Unintended consequences?
Y'all are acting like these guys have been intentionally skirting the law but now they can't take advantage of us anymore. That's ridiculous...
They now have rights that everyone else has. And have to obey the laws...and tax laws...like everyone else has too. It's why this shit shouldn't have been a fucking issue in the first place. Let the gays marry, and the government needs to stay the fuck out of it. They have every right to have insurance and be able to file being married to get tax benefits. Now if they don't want to get married, fuck them, they have no marriage rights.
I don't see why this is so difficult for some people to handle...
Ummm glad you got all of that from what I said.
If you would read closer you would see that you agree with me. The govt getting IN the business of marriage and regulating it is what causes the unintended consequences and will continue to do so. Since this has been ruled on, there is a precedent at the fed gov level. It's also tied to tax statuses and other things. Things the govt has interjected itself into. And those are where the consequences will happen. This stuff is all intertwined. And why? Because the govt has put itself in this business.
I personally like Rand Paul's idea. Govt get out of it entirely. Let a clergyman do it. Or get a witness or notary to sign it. Simple as that. Govt has never had the right to grant who you can or can't be or live with - in a civil contract kind of way. Marriage is simply a civil contact.
-
Marriage is simply a civil contact.
Civil as long as you let her think she is right.
-
Marriage is simply a civil contact.
Civil as long as you let him/her/it think he/she/it is right.
fixt (translated from α --> β)
-
Here's an unintended consequence.
Staying at a resort in Arizona this week. Six of the most fucked up looking Justin Bieberish women you've ever seen come to the pool. Wearing board shorts, flip flops and strap t-shirts. Some had heads shaved on the side with dyed whoops up on top. Two of them had adopted the ugly ass Big Boo look from Orange is the New Black.
Sort of hard to tell what they actually were, frankly. Ugly effeminate men? Ugly vaguely masculine women? Disgusting.
This kind of gross shit
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/8d/7d/03/8d7d03310e1b910107d8491ac24420ee.jpg)
That's bad enough. Kids don't need to see that and be told it's "normal" or an acceptable choice.
To make matters worse, two of these hideous creatures started tongue wrestling while sitting on the same lounge chair.
The sick fucks don't stay behind closed doors where nobody would care. They drag their abominations out in public and force the world to look. They dare anybody to say anything.
I'm really not a violent person, but if I'd had a flame thrower and there were no mortal consequences I would have burned the entire group off the face of the earth. I doubt anybody would have noticed.
-
Here's an unintended consequence.
...
I'm really not a violent person, but if I'd had a flame thrower and there were no mortal consequences I would have burned the entire group off the face of the earth. I doubt anybody would have noticed.
So the glass-half-full take would be - there was almost some hot girl-on-girl action at the pool today....