Are really sure you want gay marriage?

[hazlnut]

Think about it. I mean, look at the divorce rate. Over fifty percent. Then you have alimony and child support. Speaking of which, how would you decide who pays? It's usually the husband who pays. Which one is the husband? With two guys, I guess it would be the pitcher. But which of the lesbos would be the husband? So, if you really want all the problems of marriage, I can be a good little liberal on this one. I believe in the equal sharing of misery. Have at it.

Yes.

And I'm in favor of chemical castration of homophobes and bigots. They too often reproduce and brain wash their kids with filthy and ignorant beliefs.

 

[g5000]

For one thing, it entitles them to government benefits, which means my taxes will increase. They will get tax deductions and SS survivor benefits.

I don't give a damn what they do in their bedrooms. I care about what they put on their 1040.

Straight marriages get way, way, way, way more government cash and prizes than gay marriages ever will.

It is precisely because straights have been demanding these government prizes for so very long that we are even discussing the gay marriage issue.

Why was their no whining about your taxes increasing all this time that straights were getting these government gifts?

Now that gays want the exact same thing, the cost is suddenly a problem!

 

[bripat9643]

Personally, I see martial law by 2016.

Yeah, that's idiotic, and not gonna happen.

Two reasons it could happen. A economic collapse. Or a rash of terrorist attacks on US soil. Either one is a distinct possibility. If our country loses its reserve currency status, were screwed. Social and economic collapse will be the result. And do you really think that Mexicans are the only ones crossing our southern border? No one really knows how many terrorists are in this country.

Yeah, and Jesus could return as well but try to stick with reality. The terrorists are a little too busy at the moment, taking over their side of the world.

Conservative estimates claim that there are at least 100 million terrorists. How many would it take to plan and conduct terrorist attacks in the US? A couple hundred? And how easy would it be to sneak them across the border? Then there's the fact of home grown terrorists that would be more than happy to help them out. We're sitting ducks. Do you have any idea how vulnerable our power grid is? There have already been a few attacks on them. Practice runs, maybe?

"Conservative estimates"? You mean you pulling crap out of your ass? There are an estimated 2 billion Muslims in the world- and you think that 5% of every Muslim man, woman and child is a terrorist?

Since when have Americans become such cowards?

And what the hell does your fear of terrorists have to do with this thread?

There are only 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, so who's talking out his ass?

 

[bripat9643]

Think about it. I mean, look at the divorce rate. Over fifty percent. Then you have alimony and child support. Speaking of which, how would you decide who pays? It's usually the husband who pays. Which one is the husband? With two guys, I guess it would be the pitcher. But which of the lesbos would be the husband? So, if you really want all the problems of marriage, I can be a good little liberal on this one. I believe in the equal sharing of misery. Have at it.

Yes.

And I'm in favor of chemical castration of homophobes and bigots. They too often reproduce and brain wash their kids with filthy and ignorant beliefs.

We're not surprised that you want to chemically mutilate people who have committed no crime.

That is so beautifully liberal!

 

[bripat9643]

For one thing, it entitles them to government benefits, which means my taxes will increase. They will get tax deductions and SS survivor benefits.

I don't give a damn what they do in their bedrooms. I care about what they put on their 1040.

Straight marriages get way, way, way, way more government cash and prizes than gay marriages ever will.

It is precisely because straights have been demanding these government prizes for so very long that we are even discussing the gay marriage issue.

Why was their no whining about your taxes increasing all this time that straights were getting these government gifts?

Now that gays want the exact same thing, the cost is suddenly a problem!

I oppose benefits for straight marriages as well. That doesn't mean I want to compound the problem by adding more groups who qualify. Of course, one of your ilk said it isn't "practicable" to eliminate the legal benefits for marriage.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bripat is quite willingly to torture and terrorize those with whom he disagrees. He will admit it

 

[bripat9643]

Government sanctioned marriage needs to be relegated to the ashcan of history, and replaced by contracts between consenting adults.

If churches want to sanction these contracts after they are signed, by performing a religious rite, then more power to them.

That's pointlessly complicated. Its far simpler and more effective to simply recognize gays and lesbians as part of the existing union rather than scrap all government sanctioned marriages, and the elaborate system of benefits associated with them.

The later is the right thing to do. The former is just a scheme for gays to get government benefits and social respectability.

Nope. The latter is a tantrum. The pseudo-legal equivilant of overturning a chessboard because you don't like the outcome of the game.

The former is equal protection under the law. Its cheaper, faster, simpler, and far more effective. By every measure, it works better.

Nope. Gays already have equal protection under the law.

Gays do have equal protection under the law- they are going to court to enforce that protection where they are being illegally discriminated against.

Bottom line: Adam has no right to marry Steve. They both have dicks and therefore can't produce children. Such "marriages" are utterly pointless from the viewpoint of society.

 

[Skylar]

For one thing, it entitles them to government benefits, which means my taxes will increase. They will get tax deductions and SS survivor benefits.

I don't give a damn what they do in their bedrooms. I care about what they put on their 1040.

Straight marriages get way, way, way, way more government cash and prizes than gay marriages ever will.

It is precisely because straights have been demanding these government prizes for so very long that we are even discussing the gay marriage issue.

Why was their no whining about your taxes increasing all this time that straights were getting these government gifts?

Now that gays want the exact same thing, the cost is suddenly a problem!

I oppose benefits for straight marriages as well. That doesn't mean I want to compound the problem by adding more groups who qualify. Of course, one of your ilk said it isn't "practicable" to eliminate the legal benefits for marriage.

Where was all this opposition to state sanctioned marriage BEFORE gays were seeking the same recognition as straights?

 

[Skylar]

That's pointlessly complicated. Its far simpler and more effective to simply recognize gays and lesbians as part of the existing union rather than scrap all government sanctioned marriages, and the elaborate system of benefits associated with them.

The later is the right thing to do. The former is just a scheme for gays to get government benefits and social respectability.

Nope. The latter is a tantrum. The pseudo-legal equivilant of overturning a chessboard because you don't like the outcome of the game.

The former is equal protection under the law. Its cheaper, faster, simpler, and far more effective. By every measure, it works better.

Nope. Gays already have equal protection under the law.

Gays do have equal protection under the law- they are going to court to enforce that protection where they are being illegally discriminated against.

Bottom line: Adam has no right to marry Steve. They both have dicks and therefore can't produce children. Such "marriages" are utterly pointless from the viewpoint of society.

Bottom line, that's your opinion. And while you're welcome to it, we're not basing any ruling on your personal opinion.

Worse, your reasoning is absurd. No one, repeat *no one* is required to have kids or be able to have kid to get married. Why then would we exclude gays based on their failure to meet a standard that applies to no one?

Obviously, we wouldn't.

 

[bripat9643]

Of course it sounds like a win-win to you? You're someone who wipes his ass on the Constitution and takes dick up your ass.

'Dicks up the ass', I leave to you. As for the constitution, the 14th amendment protects the rights of gays as much as any other American.

As it should.

True, but there is no right for Adam to marry Steve. Marriage is for people with the correct combination of biological equipment. Any claims to the contrary are pure sophistry.

Courts disagree with you, as they certainly should.

How many times do I have to explain to you that the courts are not the final arbiters of truth?

How many times do I have to tell you that what you think about it is meaningless.

Here's a picture of you shopping:

 

[Syriusly]

That's pointlessly complicated. Its far simpler and more effective to simply recognize gays and lesbians as part of the existing union rather than scrap all government sanctioned marriages, and the elaborate system of benefits associated with them.

The later is the right thing to do. The former is just a scheme for gays to get government benefits and social respectability.

Nope. The latter is a tantrum. The pseudo-legal equivilant of overturning a chessboard because you don't like the outcome of the game.

The former is equal protection under the law. Its cheaper, faster, simpler, and far more effective. By every measure, it works better.

Nope. Gays already have equal protection under the law.

Gays do have equal protection under the law- they are going to court to enforce that protection where they are being illegally discriminated against.

Bottom line: Adam has no right to marry Steve. They both have dicks and therefore can't produce children. Such "marriages" are utterly pointless from the viewpoint of society.

You are not society. Bottom line is we all have a right to marry- and the courts have found repeatedly that Adam does have the right to marry Steve.

 

[bripat9643]

For one thing, it entitles them to government benefits, which means my taxes will increase. They will get tax deductions and SS survivor benefits.

I don't give a damn what they do in their bedrooms. I care about what they put on their 1040.

Straight marriages get way, way, way, way more government cash and prizes than gay marriages ever will.

It is precisely because straights have been demanding these government prizes for so very long that we are even discussing the gay marriage issue.

Why was their no whining about your taxes increasing all this time that straights were getting these government gifts?

Now that gays want the exact same thing, the cost is suddenly a problem!

I oppose benefits for straight marriages as well. That doesn't mean I want to compound the problem by adding more groups who qualify. Of course, one of your ilk said it isn't "practicable" to eliminate the legal benefits for marriage.

Where was all this opposition to state sanctioned marriage BEFORE gays were seeking the same recognition as straights?

Libertarians have always been opposed to state sanctioned marriage

 

[Syriusly]

Yeah, that's idiotic, and not gonna happen.

Two reasons it could happen. A economic collapse. Or a rash of terrorist attacks on US soil. Either one is a distinct possibility. If our country loses its reserve currency status, were screwed. Social and economic collapse will be the result. And do you really think that Mexicans are the only ones crossing our southern border? No one really knows how many terrorists are in this country.

Yeah, and Jesus could return as well but try to stick with reality. The terrorists are a little too busy at the moment, taking over their side of the world.

Conservative estimates claim that there are at least 100 million terrorists. How many would it take to plan and conduct terrorist attacks in the US? A couple hundred? And how easy would it be to sneak them across the border? Then there's the fact of home grown terrorists that would be more than happy to help them out. We're sitting ducks. Do you have any idea how vulnerable our power grid is? There have already been a few attacks on them. Practice runs, maybe?

"Conservative estimates"? You mean you pulling crap out of your ass? There are an estimated 2 billion Muslims in the world- and you think that 5% of every Muslim man, woman and child is a terrorist?

Since when have Americans become such cowards?

And what the hell does your fear of terrorists have to do with this thread?

There are only 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, so who's talking out his ass?

LOL- okay if the number I looked up was wrong then his number is even more hilarious- then 10% of every Muslim man, woman, child, and infant would be a terrorist......

 

[bripat9643]

The later is the right thing to do. The former is just a scheme for gays to get government benefits and social respectability.

Nope. The latter is a tantrum. The pseudo-legal equivilant of overturning a chessboard because you don't like the outcome of the game.

The former is equal protection under the law. Its cheaper, faster, simpler, and far more effective. By every measure, it works better.

Nope. Gays already have equal protection under the law.

Gays do have equal protection under the law- they are going to court to enforce that protection where they are being illegally discriminated against.

Bottom line: Adam has no right to marry Steve. They both have dicks and therefore can't produce children. Such "marriages" are utterly pointless from the viewpoint of society.

Bottom line, that's your opinion. And while you're welcome to it, we're not basing any ruling on your personal opinion.

Worse, your reasoning is absurd. No one, repeat *no one* is required to have kids or be able to have kid to get married. Why then would we exclude gays based on their failure to meet a standard that applies to no one?

Obviously, we wouldn't.

I've dispatched this argument at least 100 times already. You aren't required to drive if you get a driver's license. However, we know driver's licenses exist to ensure safety on the roads. Your "logic" isn't worthy of a low-grade moron.

The "standard" is that you have the biological equipment necessary to reproduce. All your weaselling will never get around that irrefutable fact.

 

[bripat9643]

The later is the right thing to do. The former is just a scheme for gays to get government benefits and social respectability.

Nope. The latter is a tantrum. The pseudo-legal equivilant of overturning a chessboard because you don't like the outcome of the game.

The former is equal protection under the law. Its cheaper, faster, simpler, and far more effective. By every measure, it works better.

Nope. Gays already have equal protection under the law.

Gays do have equal protection under the law- they are going to court to enforce that protection where they are being illegally discriminated against.

Bottom line: Adam has no right to marry Steve. They both have dicks and therefore can't produce children. Such "marriages" are utterly pointless from the viewpoint of society.

You are not society. Bottom line is we all have a right to marry- and the courts have found repeatedly that Adam does have the right to marry Steve.

The courts are populated by political hacks put their to implement the leftwing agenda. Truth has nothing to do with with their decisions.

 

[g5000]

For one thing, it entitles them to government benefits, which means my taxes will increase. They will get tax deductions and SS survivor benefits.

I don't give a damn what they do in their bedrooms. I care about what they put on their 1040.

Straight marriages get way, way, way, way more government cash and prizes than gay marriages ever will.

It is precisely because straights have been demanding these government prizes for so very long that we are even discussing the gay marriage issue.

Why was their no whining about your taxes increasing all this time that straights were getting these government gifts?

Now that gays want the exact same thing, the cost is suddenly a problem!

I oppose benefits for straight marriages as well. That doesn't mean I want to compound the problem by adding more groups who qualify. Of course, one of your ilk said it isn't "practicable" to eliminate the legal benefits for marriage.

I am for gay marriages receiving the exact same government gifts straight marriages do.

And you well know I am opposed to all tax expenditures.

These two firm beliefs are not mutually exclusive.

So long as straight marriages receive government cash and prizes, so should gay marriages. Should the American people finally realize that tax expenditures are the biggest threat to our financial survival and do away with them, then straights and gays should lose those gifts together.

There are other legal protections for marriage which should remain for both, regardless of the tax expenditure problem.

 

[Syriusly]

Nope. The latter is a tantrum. The pseudo-legal equivilant of overturning a chessboard because you don't like the outcome of the game.

The former is equal protection under the law. Its cheaper, faster, simpler, and far more effective. By every measure, it works better.

Nope. Gays already have equal protection under the law.

Gays do have equal protection under the law- they are going to court to enforce that protection where they are being illegally discriminated against.

Bottom line: Adam has no right to marry Steve. They both have dicks and therefore can't produce children. Such "marriages" are utterly pointless from the viewpoint of society.

Bottom line, that's your opinion. And while you're welcome to it, we're not basing any ruling on your personal opinion.

Worse, your reasoning is absurd. No one, repeat *no one* is required to have kids or be able to have kid to get married. Why then would we exclude gays based on their failure to meet a standard that applies to no one?

Obviously, we wouldn't.

I've dispatched this argument at least 100 times already. You aren't required to drive if you get a driver's license. That "logic" isn't worthy of a low grade moron.

The "standard" is that you have the biological equipment necessary to reproduce. All your weaselling will never get around that irrefutable fact.

Nope- no requirement for that at all.

If a soldier gets his nads blown off in Iraq he can still get married.

If a woman has a full hysterectomy, she can still get married.

There is no requirement that anyone 'have the biological equipment necessary to reproduce" in order to marry.

 

[Syriusly]

Nope. The latter is a tantrum. The pseudo-legal equivilant of overturning a chessboard because you don't like the outcome of the game.

The former is equal protection under the law. Its cheaper, faster, simpler, and far more effective. By every measure, it works better.

Nope. Gays already have equal protection under the law.

Gays do have equal protection under the law- they are going to court to enforce that protection where they are being illegally discriminated against.

Bottom line: Adam has no right to marry Steve. They both have dicks and therefore can't produce children. Such "marriages" are utterly pointless from the viewpoint of society.

You are not society. Bottom line is we all have a right to marry- and the courts have found repeatedly that Adam does have the right to marry Steve.

The courts are populated by political hacks put their to implement the leftwing agenda. Truth has nothing to do with with their decisions.

The boards are filled with ideologues like yours- truth has nothing do with your posts.

 

[hazlnut]

View attachment 38313

Are really sure you want gay marriage?

Yes, we do. Real Americans value Equality. You aren't one so you won't understand.

So. Your argument is that I'm not a real American? Seriously?

That is correct. You are an American in Name Only. It's a Liberal nation. If you aren't a liberal then you are un-American.

If you're not a liberal by the age of twenty, you have no heart.

If you're not a conservative after twenty, you don't have a brain.

BTW, how old are you?

People who post tired moronic sayings are idiots.

Any more unoriginal things you want to post?

 

[Skylar]

For one thing, it entitles them to government benefits, which means my taxes will increase. They will get tax deductions and SS survivor benefits.

I don't give a damn what they do in their bedrooms. I care about what they put on their 1040.

Straight marriages get way, way, way, way more government cash and prizes than gay marriages ever will.

It is precisely because straights have been demanding these government prizes for so very long that we are even discussing the gay marriage issue.

Why was their no whining about your taxes increasing all this time that straights were getting these government gifts?

Now that gays want the exact same thing, the cost is suddenly a problem!

I oppose benefits for straight marriages as well. That doesn't mean I want to compound the problem by adding more groups who qualify. Of course, one of your ilk said it isn't "practicable" to eliminate the legal benefits for marriage.

Where was all this opposition to state sanctioned marriage BEFORE gays were seeking the same recognition as straights?

Libertarians have always been opposed to state sanctioned marriage

And yet you almost never hear them talk about disbanding all state sanctioned marriage save in the context of a gay marriage debate.

Strange that. I mean, think of the odds.