Topic: Gay marriage
started by: MrTarzan
Posted by MrTarzan on Feb. 21 2004,6:04 pm
\Should we jump on the bandwagon with San Franscisco and just start doing our own gay marriages? We have a lot of rules here that no one else has anyway, so maybe we could make this into a big revenue generator. It should at least keep us in the public eye. Maybe they would offer to clean up our lakes if we stop. What do you think?
Posted by Montyman on Feb. 21 2004,6:49 pm
What was the 'backslash' (\) in your post for?Californians are different.
I think we should just let them be that way and leave it at that.
Posted by minnow on Feb. 21 2004,9:41 pm
No sir...you're different. You're simply a piece of redneck white trash who's unable to see himself as he is. They aren't different, you are... 
Posted by Montyman on Feb. 21 2004,9:49 pm
How do you know I'm white?
Posted by irisheyes on Feb. 21 2004,10:47 pm
Don't worry about him, montyman. Minnow's problem is he hates white people (well... atleast one of his problem's, I mean 
). Remember the illegal immigrant thread? Go back and look at his posts from it, he never simply say's, a white person, he always says "white trash". Who know's, maybe he's white himself & just hates his own heritage.
Posted by jimhanson on Feb. 22 2004,12:18 pm
Too late to jump on the "gay marriage" bandwagon--we'll have to pick some other subject that is so controversial, so inflammatory, and makes so little sense that it can only happen in a "bizzaro" alternate universe.We've already tried building a COURTHOUSE and a SCHOOL to make people come here, we've RAISED TAXES in an attempt to attract people, and we are in the process of RAISING TAXES AGAIN for a LAKE PROJECT WITH NO DEFINED GOALS. STILL not bizzare enough to grab national attention!
A decade ago, gay marriage, black reparations, building an oversize school and courthouse, and raising millions of dollars in taxes for "cleaning up the lake" (with no idea how it should actually be spent) would have been laughable--today, it is "Cutting Edge". Perhaps we should look at other nonsensical ideas--pedohalia, bestiality, a NAMBLA center, or Midnight Basketball Tournaments to burnish our image. I'm sure David Rask Behling has a lot of others. Like California, Freeborn County is a "trendsetter" of social change--things that once were unthinkable are now mainstream here!
(sarcasm)
Posted by MrTarzan on Feb. 22 2004,5:45 pm
LOL 
jimhanson, I was hoping this posting would lighten things up a bit on the forum. Yeah, maybe we could just rename the place Bizzaro World and start doing everything backward, red light means go, green means stop, up button takes you down, stop worrying about attracting private business and just try to build more government, etc.
Posted by jimhanson on Feb. 23 2004,12:15 pm
Since the "Gay Marriage" issue has already been taken, how about if we take a page from the Mayor of San Francisco and unilaterally LEGALIZE POLYGAMY? "Loving and Committed Partners" could then be loving and committed to SEVERAL partners, of either sex! Even Utah--with a reputation of a "fun state"
hasn't come up with this one!
Posted by DelythQ on Feb. 23 2004,6:59 pm
You know, I have a hard time finding much rhyme or reason in ANYBODY's marriage... why would I want some lawmakers who don't know me telling me who I can and cannot love? Most marriages end up in divorce anyway... sorry if it's not optimistic but it's true. So what on earth is anybody trying to defend?
Posted by minnow on Feb. 23 2004,7:13 pm
You see...Albert Lean's hate change. They like it to be as it's always been. Back in the old days they could legally bash gays and descriminate...but now they feel they must except new thought and this does not compute in their old relic like brains. So they feel they must tell certain people who they can marry and who can't...not out of any logic per say...just out of the fact, it's always been that way...Albert Lea fears change...
Posted by MrTarzan on Feb. 23 2004,7:16 pm
Ya know, it is o.k. to marry many women in many cultures, so I am game. We can have a theme park called PolygamyLand where all rides seat at least three. We can bring in some of those big overseas bucks too. DelythQ, how is that going to generate income for Albert Lea. That is a tired argument, we need something edgy to bring in the pesos. San Fran beat us to the marriage hook, so we have to be creative.
Posted by irisheyes on Feb. 23 2004,7:59 pm
| Quote (DelythQ @ Feb. 23 2004,6:59:pm) |
| why would I want some lawmakers who don't know me telling me who I can and cannot love? |
When have they ever done that? That arguement would assume that you need a valid license from the government before you could love someone.
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Feb. 23 2004,8:51 pm
Minnow-- Most of the USA do not want fags getting married either(around 82%), so its just not AL.MN.Most Americans view Marriage as that between and Man and a Woman. And feel that allowing fags to marry would cheapen it.
Our Founding Fathers were VERY MUCH against sodomy, so if this were to pop up back then, oooo wee, ther'd be some hangings tonite...
They never intended nor wished for fags getting married.
Last time I checked it was Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve.
If some fags want to take the dirt road, and pole smoke each other, fine, 50% off of vasaline, and then get back into the closet..
Posted by minnow on Feb. 23 2004,11:10 pm
If I want to marry two hot lesbians it's none of your business Holmes! It's not 80%...closer to 60% and that's because of all da bubba's in da south. The majority aren't always right...and this issue proves it.
Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you should force other people to live differently than others.
Posted by jimhanson on Feb. 24 2004,10:02 am
I tell ya, if we are going to make money on this scheme, we gotta get AHEAD of the curve. EVERYBODY'S gonna start doing Gay Marriages--how about if we become the place to go for Gay Divorces?Las Vegas is the capital for "quickie" marriages AND divorces. We could do that for Gays! "Come to Southern Minnesota, for a quick, no-fault divorce! Ony a three day residency requirement. Just answer a few simple questions:"
GAYS--which one of you gets the Waterford crystal? The bedroom armoire? The Spode china? The hair remover and cosmetics? The studded collar, handcuffs, and whip? (It would be a SHAME to break up the set!)
LESBIANS--Who gets/receives alimony? The male clothes? The sex toys? Which one gets to keep the diamond?
"Just 3 days, and you'll be free again! Free to get back in the "bath house" scene, free to have multiple partners (in the same evening) again, free to "look for love" on nearby Hennepin Avenue, Loring Park, any public restroom, or the Gay Nineties."
Doesn't that sound like fun?
(sarcasm)
Posted by GEOKARJO on Feb. 24 2004,4:36 pm
I see you are double standard, "dat's da Minner fer ya"
Posted by minnow on Feb. 24 2004,4:55 pm
Can it, you stupid redneck! LOL ....moron....
Posted by MrTarzan on Feb. 24 2004,8:52 pm
It is obvious that minnow has a deep seated prejudice against southerns. The poor innocent bubba's are always getting bashed, when all they want is love like everyone else. Why do you hate so easily minnow? Why can't you just get along?I think you are on to something jimhanson, we could become the lavender star on the Rand McNally Road Atlas. Now we need to work on a really catchy slogan like maybe "Break Your Bondage in Albert Lea"? What do you think. Would it sing on a San Francisco billboard? The town will be booming soon, (no pun intended)
Posted by LisaMarie on Feb. 25 2004,8:18 am
Dragon, you're really showing your intelligence by using "fag" at least once in every sentence. Do you have anything productive to add to the conversation?
Posted by Tiger on Feb. 25 2004,9:17 am
I second that Lisa Marie!
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Feb. 25 2004,5:18 pm
Well I thought I added something to this post, but you chose only to zero in on the word 'FAG'. I offered what our Founding Fathers would have thought about this topic. But no you chose to ignore that, why not pick that apart, instead of being so damn Politically Correct. And what the hell is so wrong with the word?? UMM nothing.
If I see a spade thats what I am going to call it a spade.
I cannot and will not comply with PC...
PC, and other secularist BS is wrecking this country.....
Posted by LisaMarie on Feb. 25 2004,7:44 pm
Well, fine then. Sodomy isn't the issue, people will do that whether they're married or not, gay or not. Plus, lesbians in general don't do that, so does that mean it's okay to be a lesbian? Our founding fathers also felt it was okay to keep slaves, but do we still follow that rule?You also mentioned the Bible. I hate to break it to you, but the Bible means jack sh!t to a lot of people in this country, so why would they give a rip what it says about homosexuality? Just because our political leaders choose to follow it doesn't mean the rest of us have to. I really don't think we should be amending the constitution based on a 3000-year-old work of fiction.
Posted by irisheyes on Feb. 25 2004,8:39 pm
That brings up a good point. I have a lot of faith in the bible, and realigion. But at the same time, it bothers me when people use bible story's like Sodom & Gamorra or Paul's letter to the Romans (first chapter) as their reason for hateing gay people.Everytime I hear someone use the bible to explain how homosexual's are sinners, I'll ask if the person ever had premarital sex, or if they were ever disrespectful to their parents, if they ever lied or stole anything, etc. If everytime someone did something that the bible condemns, we stoned them to death (a common punishment in the old testament), we'd all be dead.
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Feb. 25 2004,8:42 pm
No its not ok to be a lezbo- quit with the play on words, you know darn well that I meant either a man or woman when I referenced the word FAG.So most people don't give a jack about what the good book says eh? Got facts to back it up? I say a majority of this country is still bound to Judeo-Christian beliefs, just as our Founding Fathers were.
The reason our political leaders follow it, is because of the people they represent.
Not all of the Fathers were slave owners.
Your dis-approval of a Constitutional Amendment puts you in the minority. If our Founding Fathers were still alive today, they would propose the same thing, I guarantee it.
Or is it, that the mere thought of chisling another rule into stone bothers you? Then why would the Fathers put in provisions for amending it?
Anything that references some christian belief gets you cranked don't it.
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Feb. 25 2004,8:52 pm
Irisheyes- The Bible does condemn the act of, not necessarily the person, as we are all born of sin.As for hating them, wouldn't be that way if they didn't shove their BS down our throat, and those that dis-agree with their lifestyle, are labled hatemongers. Just cause their gay doesn't mean you get all these neat lil privies cause you are some kind of special breed of minority.
Posted by MrTarzan on Feb. 25 2004,9:15 pm
Well, since there are so many stong feelings about homosexuals, (why ruin the fun word Gay), it just proves that the only way we can capitalize on it is jimhansons suggestion to become the divorce capital of the world for same sex marriage. 
If you don't agree with same sex marriage, you have to be for divoring them, so everyone is a winner and we all benefit from the divorce court fees, and the rooms they rent and food they buy. We could all be rolling in the dough selling shirts that say things like "I left my lying Lezzie in Albert Lea".
Posted by minnow on Feb. 25 2004,9:25 pm
GDragen....LOL What a pantload...You remind of Rush Limbaugh, spewing the same nonsense while booting up Oxy on a constant basis. Heck, YeR probably jacking off as we speak...
When you insist others can't have equal rights because you think it's sinful...that is hate. Yer a poser...true christians don't hate like that.
Posted by Montyman on Feb. 25 2004,9:30 pm
True Christians don't talk to people like you do, Minnow... 
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Feb. 25 2004,9:41 pm
Minow- Rush is liberal to what I belive.Well then looks like our Founding Fathers were full of hatred as well, cause i highly doubt they intended for homo's to get married, or recieve special treatment. The mere thought of that to them would make them ill..
And Im a poser?? No bud you're the poser, chooser.
You know it is very possible for someone to dis-agree with out hating, geez it think thats called an OPINION or a BELIEF.
Posted by minnow on Feb. 25 2004,9:55 pm
to get married, or recieve special treatment---->to get married does not = special treatment. You don't even know your math!
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Feb. 25 2004,10:06 pm
Put down the bong minow, and re-read.I said, to get married OR recieve special treatment.
Posted by Madd Max on Feb. 26 2004,12:26 am
| Quote (Grinning_Dragon @ Feb. 25 2004,9:41:pm) |
| Rush is liberal to what I belive. |
Heaven Help us
Posted by minnow on Feb. 26 2004,1:59 am
How is getting married special treatment?
Posted by jimhanson on Feb. 29 2004,2:36 pm
Regarding Grinning Dragon's use of the word Fag--are we now so PC that we can't even use the word? The word Fag, Fagot, or Faggot has many meanings. In addition to "metal to be beaten into other items by hammering or rolling(?) or "a bundle of sticks, twigs, or branches"--there are other meanings:From Websters
| Quote |
| to collect promiscuously. |
| Quote |
| a boy in an English public school that acts as a servant for another boy in a higher form, or class |
| Quote |
| a useless piece of wood |
How is it that we have demonized THIS word, but COMPLETELY changed the meaning of the word GAY? In the 1950s, you never heard the word--so I pulled out a copy of Webster's from 1952. There was no mention of sexual orientation in the definition--gay still meant happy and light-hearted.
Here is a Usage Note from the American Heritage dictionary, from Dictionary.com--highlighted areas are mine.
| Quote |
| Usage Note: The word gay is now standard in its use to refer to homosexuals, in large part because it is the term that most gay people prefer in referring to themselves. Gay is distinguished from homosexual primarily by the emphasis it places on the cultural and social aspects of homosexuality as opposed to sexual practice. Many writers reserve gay for males, but the word is also used to refer to both sexes; when the intended meaning is not clear in the context, the phrase gay and lesbian may be used. Like the other names of social groups derived from adjectives (for example, Black), gay may be regarded as offensive when used as a noun to refer to particular individuals, as in There were two gays on the panel; here phrasing such as gay members should be used instead. But there is no objection to the use of the noun in the plural to refer collectively either to gay men or to gay men and lesbians, so long as it is clear whether men alone or both men and women are being discussed. |
I don't see any similar useage guides for fag, fagot, or faggot--terms gays also use to refer to one another--the terms are not perjerotive or disparaging--except in the mind of those who have been TOLD that it is not PC. Use the term at will.
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Feb. 29 2004,3:28 pm
Also Jim, I don't know if Brits still use the term for cigs any more, but instead of bumming a smoke, they would bumm a FAG.And my Grandparents still use the word gay to refer to a good time, and they get the wierdest look on their face when we all start to giggle when they say "It sure was a gay ol time" hehehe
Posted by MrTarzan on Feb. 29 2004,3:59 pm
Yes Grinning_Dragon, fag is the slang for a smoke, and that is how American homos became fags, though I think I don't have to explain why. Taking a drag on a fag says it all. What the heck, though, we can name our divorce laden theme park "Gays End". I think I will make it a non-profit and start collecting money for construction immediately. Maybe I can get Colette to manage it so I know all the staff are properly diversity trained. Sparky can help because it will be a Port in a Storm of gayness, and Pam can recruit vendors from Northwood for concessions.
Posted by jimhanson on Feb. 29 2004,6:53 pm
Gays End Gives new meaning to "Fifty ways to Leave your Lover!" "Just get out of bed, TED". "Get on up to the Mall, Paul". "I'm cuttin' you Loose, Bruce". "You're gonna be Gone, Don". "I'm done being Gay, Ray". "I no longer Like, Mike". "I'm going with HIM, Tim". "You ain't doin' the JOB, Bob" "You're no longer MINE, Brian". "You just ain't my Man, Dan". "Go back to Loring PARK, Mark". "You're out of Style, Lyle", "Get up and Leave, Steve". "I'll give you the wave, Dave". "I'm sayin' So Long, John". "I've gotta be Frank, Frank" "You're no longer my Boy, Elroy" "You're out of Luck, Chuck", "I'm really Sorry, Cory" "Get a new Pal, Al", "This is gonna Hurt, Burt", "Get a new Date, Nate", "You've been such a Bitch, Rich", "Best I've ever Had, Brad", "I'll make do with Less, Wes", "I've had my Fill, Bill".
Self-Censorship precludes using the names "Chuck, Cliff, Gene, Larry, or Dick"
Maybe it shouldn't be name-specific. Take a tip from something geographical, like, "Get your Kicks on Route 66"--our version would be "Get your Heinie down Interstate 90!"
Posted by MrTarzan on Feb. 29 2004,9:48 pm
Hey that's good, you should be in marketing jimhanson, theme song for the theme park, and the slogan too.