• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

VOTE AGAINST

this is really getting fucking stupid. seriously, who takes the time to make these parodies? god damn. it's not that I'm a massive RJ fan or anything, it's just get a fucking life. this whole board doesn't have to revolve around one poster, from parodies to tags and beyond.
 
Please quit calling me names and saying I have no life.. It's really annoyinnf and im going to go over to DV7s basement and tell him that you are beeeing mean and he's going to really punish you. This is absolutely ridiculous
 
BarcaDeac said:
this is really getting fucking stupid. seriously, who takes the time to make these parodies? god damn. it's not that I'm a massive RJ fan or anything, it's just get a fucking life. this whole board doesn't have to revolve around one poster, from parodies to tags and beyond.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily arguing with you, but they did name the entire politics forum after him...
 
Liquid Karma said:
Not necessarily arguing with you, but they did name the entire politics forum after him...
Click to expand...

right, which I think is part of the problem. I'm just sick of everything on this board devolving into RJ vs. the world. yeah he brings a lot of it on himself, but really, do people not have anything better to do than make parodies of him? this is what, the 3rd parody so far with a perverted spelling of his name?
 
BarcaDeac said:
right, which I think is part of the problem. I'm just sick of everything on this board devolving into RJ vs. the world. yeah he brings a lot of it on himself, but really, do people not have anything better to do than make parodies of him? this is what, the 3rd parody so far with a perverted spelling of his name?
Click to expand...

They wouldn't be as popular if he didn't get so upset about them. Im sure if he starts ignoring them they will stop appearing.
 
I've really never been as disgusted with people as I am when I see this issue pop up. To me, when we start legislating to take away rights from people (which, clearly, we have been doing since the Bush Administration), then the American dream is dead. In this new world, you only get to pursue happiness if you look the right way and worship the right God.
 
I think I would vote against this even though most of you know I stand way right of center on gay marriage. You must have an opportunity for civil unions and you must give partners visitation rights.

Bad legislation.
 
DreamOnDemOn said:
Should the majority of eligible voters be able to force me to pay for whorefucker's abortion disguised as a "d&c"?
Click to expand...

The reality is you don't pay for them. It's been illegal to use tax dollars for abortions for over thirty-five years.

As usual you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
 
Deadbolt said:
An amendment can be challenged in court, can't it? Serious question...I'm a scientist, not a lawyer.
Click to expand...

I thought that they may be making a mistake by putting it up for a vote because it would likely get challenged whereas, right now, the existing law isn't being challenged. But I think the case will go to the supreme court via a challenge of some other state's legislation first (obviously California with prop 8, but I think those implications are going to be limited because the argument is that they gave those people that right then took it away whereas NC has never given that right). NC is putting this is the constitution so that it will be harder to be overturned by a judge (than a law). State constitutional amendments have been challenged in federal court before and I am sure will again in the future.
 
RJKarl said:
The reality is you don't pay for them. It's been illegal to use tax dollars for abortions for over thirty-five years.

As usual you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
Click to expand...

The government most certainly does pay for abortions. State governments do it openly and the Federal government does it by slight of hand. The measures they pass to make it look like taxes forced out of me do not go to abortions are easily skirted and you know it. As usual, you are being a shithead.
 
RChildress107 said:
I am a north carolina voter. I believe homosexuality is a sin. I am not married. I am not going to vote for this ammendment because it's redundant and I'm lazy. Convince me to go vote against it without calling me a bigot, an idiot, a homosexual, or insinuating that my existence makes you want to vomit. Do not reference the civil rights movement, the religious right, or abortion. Do not speak in absolutes, unless you are a Sith Lord. Go.
Click to expand...


There are plenty of things people do that I don't like. I don't like couples who sit on the same side of the booth at a restaurant. I don't like families who dress their children alike. I don't like the spelling "Aymie" for the name Amy. I could form a religion based solely on the belief that these things are wrong. If I tried to put something in place making these things unconstitutional, people would flip a shit because the idea of it is just ridiculous. My religious beliefs should not be able to dictate others' personal decisions to sit where they want, do what they want, etc. To me, this issue is exactly the same... but because it's Christians raising a stink and there is enough support, it might actually go somewhere. Peoples' religious beliefs should not have any legal clout over what others are or are not able to do. Period.

or, another simple reason:
We get three things. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. If you think those are good founding principles, allow your gay citizens the ability to pursue happiness.


*edit to add: I guess the last line of my first bit is an absolute... sorry.
 
Last edited:
Also factor in that this ends domestic partnerships. This doesn't just hurt gays by preventing marriage, it also punishes heterosexual adults who choose not to marry by removing DP rights. So the unmarried couple that's been together for 30 years can no longer make medical decisions, have visitation rights, etc. This is pure and simple a group of people trying to impose their will on others for no logical benefit.
 
lbE08 said:
There are plenty of things people do that I don't like. I don't like couples who sit on the same side of the booth at a restaurant. I don't like families who dress their children alike. I don't like the spelling "Aymie" for the name Amy. I could form a religion based solely on the belief that these things are wrong. If I tried to put something in place making these things unconstitutional, people would flip a shit because the idea of it is just ridiculous. My religious beliefs should not be able to dictate others' personal decisions to sit where they want, do what they want, etc. To me, this issue is exactly the same... but because it's Christians raising a stink and there is enough support, it might actually go somewhere. Peoples' religious beliefs should not have any legal clout over what others are or are not able to do. Period.

or, another simple reason:
We get three things. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. If you think those are good founding principles, allow your gay citizens the ability to pursue happiness.


*edit to add: I guess the last line of my first bit is an absolute... sorry.
Click to expand...

So would you be totally fine with polygamy as well? After all, monogamy is a religious construct I think.
 
DeacDiggler said:
So would you be totally fine with polygamy as well? After all, monogamy is a religious construct I think.
Click to expand...

Plenty of people do it, but nobody in Congress is going out of their way to single them out so they can "defend" marriage.

As long as it doesn't hurt anybody or infringe on the rights of others, I don't see the issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top