Keizer_Ghidorah
WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE RESPONDING TO LETROLE?
He posts the same copypasted shiat in every gay thread. His name is french for "The troll". Stop giving him the time of day.

First of all, people do what the furk thay want. They really get arsey when a nobody furkwit leaps up and berates them. Second, this shiat is not made of pasta, or whatever term you morons use for "shiat i don't like". Third, your mother dresses you funny. Fourth, your heart pumps shiat. Last, your feet don't match.

Hobodeluxe: FlashHarry: WTF is his problem? does he really think he's going to be vice president?

No he wants this to be a referendum on the ballot to drive the fundies to the polls in what is going to be a seemingly lackluster turnout for the GOP this year as their candidates are all uninspiring.

While that's certainly the plan, I can't conceive of a scenario where NJ could decide the election.

If it's even in play, the GOP will already have a landslide.

FloydA: It's a weighty issue, and I'm not surprised to see him take such a heavy handed approach. After all, the legislature shouldn't be eating up so much time expanding entitlements like this, they should be trimming the fat from the bloated budget.

Removing discrimination is not an entitlement, and if anything, it'd be an industry creator.STRYPERSWINE: He was/is still my first choice for the presidency, in a field full of lightweights (heh). I see nothing wrong with this (but then again, I'm one of those guys that doesn't think the government should be handling marriage/baptism/etc in the first place)

A Government registration of marriages is important for legal concerns about inheritance and power of attorney of a person's estate.

And this is why this is important, because the Government is refusing to give legal recognition to some marriages and not other.

theknuckler_33: Secondly, I'll assume that the 'other person' in your 'argument' is the state. The problem is the state is ALREADY giving assistance for marriage. They will not be doing anything new at all. They will be giving the exact same assistance they have always given.


The 'other person' is obviously the bride or groom. Before a marriage can take place, two people have to cooperate. If your pursuit requires assistance, if you cannot execute and achieve it on your own, it is not a right.

Any time that Rights are qualified, such as Voting Rights, Civil Rights, Property Rights, Reproductive Rights, these are generally not rights, but rather privileges that have been chosen to be protected by consensus.

FreakinB: "if he's going national then he can't he can't have it on his record that he passed a gay marriage bill. Not that I agree with it, but that's the sad reality."

Unfortunately, this.
He's going to have a hard enough time trying to live down his defense of a mooslim.

sendtodave: "As a middle class white male, I say we embrace our nature. Sure, some people are richer than me, and thus can look down on me. I accept that! Because I can to look down on every other race, creed, nationality, sexual orientation, and even gender. Plus poor people."

Poe's law is a biatch.

Kudos to Gov Christie. It's good to see someone standing against this minority wave of perverts.

theknuckler_33: First of all, you didn't answer my question. What adults (outside of, say, felons), do we deny the ability to vote? Noone. So why are we denying marriage to consenting adults because of their choice of partner?

under 18
aliens
felons
unable to prove identity
mentally handicapped

Good for him. I wish we had more governors like him. This is an issue that should be decided by the vote of the people. Eh, but what is point? Liberal activist judges forcing thier will on us just overturn votes they don't like. Thanks a lot.

Guvner' Chris Christie, just another Repub in denile.

letrole: The American Constitution does not give you any rights. It only enumerates rights that someone has seen fit to specify. Your rights are endless and endowed by your Creator.

And what if we live in the 21st century and don't believe in that nonsense? And blah blah blah something something separation of church and state........equality.......*yawn* you know what, I don't have the energy anymore.

I'll just accept that you're some religious bigot troll and move on. Gays will get their rights some day. The times are a changin' and whatnot.

Passive Aggressive Larry: letrole: The American Constitution does not give you any rights. It only enumerates rights that someone has seen fit to specify. Your rights are endless and endowed by your Creator.

And what if we live in the 21st century and don't believe in that nonsense? And blah blah blah something something separation of church and state........equality.......*yawn* you know what, I don't have the energy anymore.

I'll just accept that you're some religious bigot troll and move on. Gays will get their rights some day. The times are a changin' and whatnot.

LOL WUT? You don't believe ine the flying spaghetti monster in the sky?

letrole: I find your disingenuous response to be refreshing.

Because someone finally bit. Otherwise you'd have to come up with fresh material for a new account.

letrole: The American Constitution does not give you any rights. It only enumerates rights that someone has seen fit to specify. Your rights are endless and endowed by your Creator.

Passive Aggressive Larry: And what if we live in the 21st century and don't believe in that nonsense? And blah blah blah something something separation of church and state........equality.......*yawn* you know what, I don't have the energy anymore.


http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=endowed+by+their+creator (new window)


/you're welcome

The day I stopped trying to be a good "christian" was the best day of my life. I used to buy into all that bs until I realized what an incredible bunch of hypocrites a good portion of them are. First, you have to believe there's an invisible guy dictating your life. Then you have to believe he had a book written so everyone knows how to act. Then you have to believe they modified the book to change the rules after his kid came down for a while. Then you have to believe that it's OK to refer back to the old version just so you can pick out a few items that suit your cause and twist them to your purpose. Then you have to overlook that an omnipotent being who says being gay is an abomination, but goes ahead and creates gay people anyway. Oh wait, that's right - satan makes people gay. Then you have a country that has separation of church and state so that the church can't influence the state's business, but overlook that little inconvenient fact and go ahead and kill a bill because being gay is against god. I used to hate gays because I was told that's what I was supposed to do. I think I'm a better person now, without religion, than I ever was before. This guy is a dbag.

letrole: I find your disingenuous response to be refreshing.

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Because someone finally bit. Otherwise you'd have to come up with fresh material for a new account


I've reversed the leads on my irony meter and now I'm using it to power my laptop.

Keizer_Ghidorah: WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE RESPONDING TO LETROLE?

He posts the same copypasted shiat in every gay thread. His name is french for "The troll". Stop giving him the time of day.

This. I have my doubts there's even a human there, it posts like a badly-written bot.

My Bologna Has A Maiden Name: words.

I don't care what you wrote, but I nominate you for the "Best Fark Handle of Forever" award.

Too Pretty For Prison: The day I stopped trying to be a 'wharrgarbl' was the best day of my life. I used to wharrgarbl all that wharrgarbl until I wharrgarbl what an incredible bunch of wharrgarbl a good portion of them are. First, you have to believe there's wharrgarbl dictating your wharrgarbl. Then wharrgarbl he had a wharrgarbl so everyone knows how to wharrgarbl. Then you wharrgarbl they modified the wharrgarbl to change the wharrgarbl after his wharrgarbl came down for a while. Then you have to believe that it's wharrgarbl to the old wharrgarbl just so you can pick out a few items that suit your cause and twist them to your purpose. Then you have to wharrgarbl that wharrgarbl who says wharrgarbl, but goes ahead and creates wharrgarbl. Oh wait, that's right - wharrgarbl makes wharrgarbl. Then you have a wharrgarbl that has separation of wharr and garbl so that the wharrgarbl can't influence the wharrgarbl, but overlook that little inconvenient wharrgarbl and go ahead and wharrgarbl because being wharrgarbl is wharrgarbl. I used to hate wharrgarbl because I was told that's what I was supposed to do. I think I'm a wharrgarbl now, without wharrgarbl, than I ever was before. This wharrgarbl is wharrgarbl.

Le Trôle: I second that emotion. Testify.

peterquince: Wouldn't we all like to see the gays focus on sending out cute little Christmas photos with our asian babies than having syphilitic oral sex of Route 9?

Not really. At least there you're doing truckers some good.

/voted for gay marriage
//doesn't care what you do with whom in your house
/would even vote to let you wed a turtle ;)

ctt1wbw: Did the people vote for it? I heard he vetoed it because he wants it to be up to the people to decide and not the legislature. Which, iirc, is the way the government should work. Right?

Not if you are a FarkProg®. All things they agree with should be made law from on high and fark what the people want.

Vindibudd: ctt1wbw: Did the people vote for it? I heard he vetoed it because he wants it to be up to the people to decide and not the legislature. Which, iirc, is the way the government should work. Right?

Not if you are a FarkProg®. All things they agree with should be made law from on high and fark what the people want.

Exactly. Mob rule is not a desirable thing, nor is Tyranny of the majority.

ctt1wbw: Did the people vote for it? I heard he vetoed it because he wants it to be up to the people to decide and not the legislature. Which, iirc, is the way the government should work. Right?

To paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke, (not your basic lefty)
"Democracy is not a matter of 'majority rule', otherwise, we'd all eat pizza every night.

FloydA: ctt1wbw: Did the people vote for it? I heard he vetoed it because he wants it to be up to the people to decide and not the legislature. Which, iirc, is the way the government should work. Right?


Civil rights are not supposed to be subject to popular whim. Several parts of the Constitution were written specifically to prevent majorities from voting away the rights of minorities.

If we lived in a true "majority rule" democracy, you would be correct, but the US is a constitutional democratic republic, in which specific limitations on majority rule are in place, explicitly to prevent things like putting other people's civil rights up to a popular vote.

There is no civil right for two men or two women to marry each other. That type of relationship is deviant, and there is no reason why society should sanction or legitimize it in any way.

Vindibudd: ctt1wbw: Did the people vote for it? I heard he vetoed it because he wants it to be up to the people to decide and not the legislature. Which, iirc, is the way the government should work. Right?

Not if you are a FarkProg®. All things they agree with should be made law from on high and fark what the people want.

The US Constitution is based on the idea that certain rights are "inalienable" and not subject to the whim of the majority. Most people would say that marriage is such a right.

Do you disagree? If 53 percent of the US population wanted it to be illegal for whites to marry blacks, would you be ok with it since that is what the majority wanted?

FloydA: moops: FloydA: It's a weighty issue, and I'm not surprised to see him take such a heavy handed approach. After all, the legislature shouldn't be eating up so much time expanding entitlements like this, they should be trimming the fat from the bloated budget.

That's such a ham-fisted statement. You're focusing on the fat of the issue and avoiding the girth of controversy. Gay marriage is a massive controversy which cannot be swallowed in a single bite.

Chris Christie is fat.

The libs can blubber all they want and there will be whaling and gnashing of teeth in the capitol rotund a, but unless they want to bring a law suet against the governor, he can just sit and drink another stout.

Took me a minute, but bravo!

MoxieLover: There is no civil right for two men or two women to marry each other. That type of relationship is deviant, and there is no reason why society should sanction or legitimize it in any way.

Let me turn your argument around: By what logic should two men wanting to marry be treated in law any differently than a man and a woman who want to marry each other? Do you have any argument against it other than "it's icky"?

TheBigJerk: Isn't he supposed to give, like, a reason for when he vetoes shiat?

He did. His reason was that he felt the issue should be addressed by a referendum and not be the legislature. "An issue of this magnitude and importance, which requires a constitutional amendment, should be left to the people of New Jersey to decide." (new window) Christie was being a disingenuous asshole when he said that. We live in a representative democracy, and the voice of the voters was heard when their representatives wrote and voted on the bill that passed both houses.

Now, the people's voice is also represented by the veto powers of the governor, and the people of New Jersey gave that power to Christie. But he's basically trying to find a way to NOT go on record as being against gay marriage in a fairly liberal state, so that he can 1) be re-elected, and/or 2) stay on the short list for Republican VP.

Oh Republicans: keep on keepin' on the wrong side of history, biatchtits.

letrole: Homosexual marriage is pursued as a means to an end. Homosexuals, by an exceedingly large margin, do not wish to get married or to form civil unions. Rather, they want to be accepted as normal. Their hope is that public approval of homosexuality will follow the legal establishment of homosexual marriages.

Being interested in sexual activity with someone of your own gender is, and will always be deviant. Right thinking people can never accept as equal those who have sex with their own gender. Gay marriage is, and will always be if eventually legislated, just "gay marriage."

ciberido: MoxieLover: There is no civil right for two men or two women to marry each other. That type of relationship is deviant, and there is no reason why society should sanction or legitimize it in any way.

Let me turn your argument around: By what logic should two men wanting to marry be treated in law any differently than a man and a woman who want to marry each other? Do you have any argument against it other than "it's icky"?

The government has a responsibility to prevent sanction of deviant behavior. That is why there are laws against public nudity, deviant sexual practices (frottage, voyeurism, hanging around playgrounds even if the person never approaches the children, etc.) Marriage is about a male marrying a female. End of story. For the government to legitimize deviant sexual desires (not to mention behavior) by allowing entry into the respectable institution of marriage demeans both the institution and society.

ciberido: Vindibudd: ctt1wbw: Did the people vote for it? I heard he vetoed it because he wants it to be up to the people to decide and not the legislature. Which, iirc, is the way the government should work. Right?

Not if you are a FarkProg®. All things they agree with should be made law from on high and fark what the people want.

The US Constitution is based on the idea that certain rights are "inalienable" and not subject to the whim of the majority. Most people would say that marriage is such a right.

Do you disagree? If 53 percent of the US population wanted it to be illegal for whites to marry blacks, would you be ok with it since that is what the majority wanted?

As long as it is a white or black man marrying a black or white woman, no problem at all! That's normal.

LordJiro: MoxieLover

Being interested in sexual activity with someone of another race is, and will always be deviant. Right thinking people can never accept as equal those who have sex outside their own race. Interracial marriage is, and will always be if eventually legislated, just "interracial marriage."

FTFY.

/Your bigoted ideology is dying, fundies. Perhaps once it does, we can actually progress as a society instead of being held back by people stuck in the Bronze age.

Your FTFY does not apply. Being interested in someone of the opposite gender, regardless of race, is not perverted. Wanting sex with someone of your own gender is.

MoxieLover: ciberido: MoxieLover: There is no civil right for two men or two women to marry each other. That type of relationship is deviant, and there is no reason why society should sanction or legitimize it in any way.

Let me turn your argument around: By what logic should two men wanting to marry be treated in law any differently than a man and a woman who want to marry each other? Do you have any argument against it other than "it's icky"?

The government has a responsibility to prevent sanction of deviant behavior. That is why there are laws against public nudity, deviant sexual practices (frottage, voyeurism, hanging around playgrounds even if the person never approaches the children, etc.) Marriage is about a male marrying a female. End of story. For the government to legitimize deviant sexual desires (not to mention behavior) by allowing entry into the respectable institution of marriage demeans both the institution and society.

Interracial marriage was once considered 'deviant' as well. Women having any say in the marriage was considered 'deviant' as well.

FloydA: MoxieLover:

There is no civil right for two men or two women to marry each other. That type of relationship is deviant, and there is no reason why society should sanction or legitimize it in any way.

I am sorry that you will never, ever, in your life, have a meaningful and satisfying sexual experience with anyone that is not your hand. But some of us do, and your complete and utter failure to be even remotely appealing to another human being is not really anyone's problem but your own

Have you considered sepuku?

Married for years. And happily. May that not ever apply to you.

Have you considered suicide? Oh, noes, because if you did, that is because society made you do it!

MoxieLover: LordJiro: MoxieLover

Being interested in sexual activity with someone of another race is, and will always be deviant. Right thinking people can never accept as equal those who have sex outside their own race. Interracial marriage is, and will always be if eventually legislated, just "interracial marriage."

FTFY.

/Your bigoted ideology is dying, fundies. Perhaps once it does, we can actually progress as a society instead of being held back by people stuck in the Bronze age.

Your FTFY does not apply. Being interested in someone of the opposite gender, regardless of race, is not perverted. Wanting sex with someone of your own gender is.

Not too long ago, 'being interested in someone of another race' was considered just as perverted and deviant as homosexuality is today.