Breaking News: Supreme Court Has Chosen Not To Hear Any Of The 7 Marriage Equality Cases.

[Vigilante]

Perhaps the Bible needs to be a TEACHING TOOL for morality, ethics and principles as it was once used for. NOT to preach, but to convey a principle that has been established for multiple centuries.

The young today, are taught that SELF is MORE IMPORTANT than the whole. With only 3 or so % of the country being queer, it seems that THEY are driving the agenda for the other 97%!

I'm confused. Isn't the whole ideology of Libertarianism that the self is more important than the whole? I thought the whole premise of Libertarianism is that "society" is nothing more than a social construct comprised of a mass of individuals. has the ideology of libertarianism changed, or are you not a libertarian?

Only S are complete libertarians! And NO I am certainly not a libertarian but do follow some of their ideology.

Apparently not the part that promotes individual liberty. You know, whenever Progressives talk about "the greater good", or " the needs of the many...", or "societal gains", they get told what commies they are. Yet here you are promoting the hive (whole) over the individual. And, you're doing it over the concept of marriage equality.

Tell me, how does two guys getting married do harm, exactly, to "the whole". And please don't give me any crap about damage to the "moral structure", cuz guess what? Morality is a matter of the individual, not "the whole". So what actual demonstrable harm does gay marriage do to your "whole"?

When states continually vote down queer right agenda's and the courts nullify that vote, what do you call it?.... 2 guys can do whatever they like under a CIVIL UNION but a marriage that has been almost exclusively the domain of the religious and calls for a man and a woman to join, is a corruption of the very definition, which is, or at least until the obomanation disregarded the Constitution, covered under it! Words have meaning!

Do you not understand the distinction between civil and religious marriage? If you don't want us to get civilly married, change it to Civil Unions for everyone.

Why?....You don't recognize that there IS a difference between these? Let's call an apple an orange!

 

[Czernobog]

The Per Research Center reported 18 months ago that "Approval of same-sex marriage among young adults is at an all-time high, according to new findings from the Pew Research Center.

The poll found 70 percent of adults born in 1981 or later, often referred to as millennials, support marriage equality. That's up from 64 percent in 2012, and an increase from 51 percent since the inauguration of President Barack Obama in 2009. Slightly more, 74 percent of millennials, say they believe gay and lesbian individuals should be accepted by society, while 22 percent disagree."

The millennials which includes 16 to 33 year olds probably are in favor by at least 75% now if not higher.

Either the GOP climbs on board, or the party will continue as a minority party nationally, and in the federal congress beginning in January 2017.

Perhaps the Bible needs to be a TEACHING TOOL for morality, ethics and principles as it was once used for. NOT to preach, but to convey a principle that has been established for multiple centuries.

The young today, are taught that SELF is MORE IMPORTANT than the whole. With only 3 or so % of the country being queer, it seems that THEY are driving the agenda for the other 97%!

I'm confused. Isn't the whole ideology of Libertarianism that the self is more important than the whole? I thought the whole premise of Libertarianism is that "society" is nothing more than a social construct comprised of a mass of individuals. has the ideology of libertarianism changed, or are you not a libertarian?

Only S are complete libertarians! And NO I am certainly not a libertarian but do follow some of their ideology.

Apparently not the part that promotes individual liberty. You know, whenever Progressives talk about "the greater good", or " the needs of the many...", or "societal gains", they get told what commies they are. Yet here you are promoting the hive (whole) over the individual. And, you're doing it over the concept of marriage equality.

Tell me, how does two guys getting married do harm, exactly, to "the whole". And please don't give me any crap about damage to the "moral structure", cuz guess what? Morality is a matter of the individual, not "the whole". So what actual demonstrable harm does gay marriage do to your "whole"?

When states continually vote down queer right agenda's and the courts nullify that vote, what do you call it?

I call it the court reminding people that they don't get to deny people their constitutional rights by referendum. See, that' the thing about the Constitution - it kinda trumps popular vote.

.... 2 guys can do whatever they like under a CIVIL UNION but a marriage that has been almost exclusively the domain of the religious and calls for a man and a woman to join, is a corruption of the very definition, which is, or at least until the obomanation disregarded the Constitution, covered under it! Words have meaning!

First of all, we already established that "separate but equal" doctrine is not constitutional. Second of all, marriage has never been the domain of "the religious". Guess what you call the license that you have to get to have a church wedding. A marriage license. guess what you call the license you have to get to be married by a Justice of the Peace. a marriage license. that's right. It has always been called the exact same thing, whether it was a religious ceremony, or simply a civil ceremony. To suggest that the religious ceremony was any different than the civil one is complete bullshit.

I have to say that I find it particularly interesting that a man who claims to not be religious to be taking the position of defending religion. something tells me that someone is not nearly as "agnostic" as they would like everyone to believe. For an agnostic, your reasoning sounds an awfully lot like the ramblings of the religious zealots. Talking about queers, and the bible. Speaking of "morals" as if there is one set that is more "appropriate for everyone" rather than aknowledging that everyone's moral code is deeply personal, and therefore a matter of individual determination.

But, hey. You can call yourself whatever you'd like. Your attitudes, and positions will define who you are, not your words.

 

[Czernobog]

That question would seem to suggest you don't know the meaning of the word masturbation. I'm curious...you have had sex at least once in your life, right?

Many times lad. Simulating it with a mouth, rectum, or humping a pillow is masturbation.

Lesson over

Well, then you learned the wrong lesson, son. Masturbation is self-gratification. In other words, it does not involve the body parts of another person.

Lesson over.

You, of course have heard of mutual masturbation

Yes. which still involves self-gratification. You just happen to be gratifying yourself, with someone else there. It is still you diddling yourself, and has nothing to do with sexual caontact with another person.

Since you seem to be a bit slow, look up masturbation, coitus, and sodomy, and you will see the differences between the three.

Do you really think I give a rats butt how you, them or anyone gets off?

Life, get one

Only one type, between opposing sexes, makes babies.

And as a point of reference, that form, performed by that certain demographic is all that is required for our species to exist.

How freaking awesome is that!

As your friend Vigilante pointed out, WORDS HAVE MEANING. So, if you insist on perverting the meanings of words in order to add emotional impact to your silly arguments, you can expect to have your idiocy pointed out to you.

As far as your stupid procreation argument goes, in case you missed it, your guys already tried that in court, several times, and got laughed out of the court rooms by the judges! It was, and remains, a stupid argument that holds no validity whatsoever.

So you can keep screaming, "BUT GAYS CAN'T MAKE BABIES!!!!" as many times as you like. It still won't make you sound any less stupid.

 

[Vigilante]

Perhaps the Bible needs to be a TEACHING TOOL for morality, ethics and principles as it was once used for. NOT to preach, but to convey a principle that has been established for multiple centuries.

The young today, are taught that SELF is MORE IMPORTANT than the whole. With only 3 or so % of the country being queer, it seems that THEY are driving the agenda for the other 97%!

I'm confused. Isn't the whole ideology of Libertarianism that the self is more important than the whole? I thought the whole premise of Libertarianism is that "society" is nothing more than a social construct comprised of a mass of individuals. has the ideology of libertarianism changed, or are you not a libertarian?

Only S are complete libertarians! And NO I am certainly not a libertarian but do follow some of their ideology.

Apparently not the part that promotes individual liberty. You know, whenever Progressives talk about "the greater good", or " the needs of the many...", or "societal gains", they get told what commies they are. Yet here you are promoting the hive (whole) over the individual. And, you're doing it over the concept of marriage equality.

Tell me, how does two guys getting married do harm, exactly, to "the whole". And please don't give me any crap about damage to the "moral structure", cuz guess what? Morality is a matter of the individual, not "the whole". So what actual demonstrable harm does gay marriage do to your "whole"?

When states continually vote down queer right agenda's and the courts nullify that vote, what do you call it?

I call it the court reminding people that they don't get to deny people their constitutional rights by referendum. See, that' the thing about the Constitution - it kinda trumps popular vote.

.... 2 guys can do whatever they like under a CIVIL UNION but a marriage that has been almost exclusively the domain of the religious and calls for a man and a woman to join, is a corruption of the very definition, which is, or at least until the obomanation disregarded the Constitution, covered under it! Words have meaning!

First of all, we already established that "separate but equal" doctrine is not constitutional. Second of all, marriage has never been the domain of "the religious". Guess what you call the license that you have to get to have a church wedding. A marriage license. guess what you call the license you have to get to be married by a Justice of the Peace. a marriage license. that's right. It has always been called the exact same thing, whether it was a religious ceremony, or simply a civil ceremony. To suggest that the religious ceremony was any different than the civil one is complete bullshit.

I have to say that I find it particularly interesting that a man who claims to not be religious to be taking the position of defending religion. something tells me that someone is not nearly as "agnostic" as they would like everyone to believe. For an agnostic, your reasoning sounds an awfully lot like the ramblings of the religious zealots. Talking about queers, and the bible. Speaking of "morals" as if there is one set that is more "appropriate for everyone" rather than aknowledging that everyone's moral code is deeply personal, and therefore a matter of individual determination.

But, hey. You can call yourself whatever you'd like. Your attitudes, and positions will define who you are, not your words.

Yes, having EXACTLY the same rights, but because of different SEX'S involved is a DEFINING way of DESCRIBING the circumstances! Please, no one is going to fight what queers do today, it's simply making a distinction between apples and oranges! I presume you are also for boys and girls going to the same bathroom!

 

[Czernobog]

I'm confused. Isn't the whole ideology of Libertarianism that the self is more important than the whole? I thought the whole premise of Libertarianism is that "society" is nothing more than a social construct comprised of a mass of individuals. has the ideology of libertarianism changed, or are you not a libertarian?

Only S are complete libertarians! And NO I am certainly not a libertarian but do follow some of their ideology.

Apparently not the part that promotes individual liberty. You know, whenever Progressives talk about "the greater good", or " the needs of the many...", or "societal gains", they get told what commies they are. Yet here you are promoting the hive (whole) over the individual. And, you're doing it over the concept of marriage equality.

Tell me, how does two guys getting married do harm, exactly, to "the whole". And please don't give me any crap about damage to the "moral structure", cuz guess what? Morality is a matter of the individual, not "the whole". So what actual demonstrable harm does gay marriage do to your "whole"?

When states continually vote down queer right agenda's and the courts nullify that vote, what do you call it?.... 2 guys can do whatever they like under a CIVIL UNION but a marriage that has been almost exclusively the domain of the religious and calls for a man and a woman to join, is a corruption of the very definition, which is, or at least until the obomanation disregarded the Constitution, covered under it! Words have meaning!

Do you not understand the distinction between civil and religious marriage? If you don't want us to get civilly married, change it to Civil Unions for everyone.

Why?....You don't recognize that there IS a difference between these? Let's call an apple an orange!

Except, in the eyes of the law, there isn't. A marriage is a marriage is a marriage. It doesn't matter if it was achieved through A religious ceremony, a Justice of the Peace, or the Fake Elvis down at Billy Bob's Marriage Emporium in Vegas. They are all marriages, and they are all recognised by the government as valid.

(Note for clarity: I just made up Billy Bob's Marriage Emporium as an example. I don't really know if that particular venue exists, only that it represents a typical type of venue that does exist in Vegas.)

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm confused. Isn't the whole ideology of Libertarianism that the self is more important than the whole? I thought the whole premise of Libertarianism is that "society" is nothing more than a social construct comprised of a mass of individuals. has the ideology of libertarianism changed, or are you not a libertarian?

Only S are complete libertarians! And NO I am certainly not a libertarian but do follow some of their ideology.

Apparently not the part that promotes individual liberty. You know, whenever Progressives talk about "the greater good", or " the needs of the many...", or "societal gains", they get told what commies they are. Yet here you are promoting the hive (whole) over the individual. And, you're doing it over the concept of marriage equality.

Tell me, how does two guys getting married do harm, exactly, to "the whole". And please don't give me any crap about damage to the "moral structure", cuz guess what? Morality is a matter of the individual, not "the whole". So what actual demonstrable harm does gay marriage do to your "whole"?

When states continually vote down queer right agenda's and the courts nullify that vote, what do you call it?.... 2 guys can do whatever they like under a CIVIL UNION but a marriage that has been almost exclusively the domain of the religious and calls for a man and a woman to join, is a corruption of the very definition, which is, or at least until the obomanation disregarded the Constitution, covered under it! Words have meaning!

Do you not understand the distinction between civil and religious marriage? If you don't want us to get civilly married, change it to Civil Unions for everyone.

Why?....You don't recognize that there IS a difference between these? Let's call an apple an orange!

Marriage is the same regardless of how the contract is executed – by a member of the clergy or justice of the peace. Marriage as religious dogma has nothing to do with the issue of recognizing the equal protection rights of same-sex couples, as 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to state governments and the marriage contract laws they enact.

 

[Czernobog]

I'm confused. Isn't the whole ideology of Libertarianism that the self is more important than the whole? I thought the whole premise of Libertarianism is that "society" is nothing more than a social construct comprised of a mass of individuals. has the ideology of libertarianism changed, or are you not a libertarian?

Only S are complete libertarians! And NO I am certainly not a libertarian but do follow some of their ideology.

Apparently not the part that promotes individual liberty. You know, whenever Progressives talk about "the greater good", or " the needs of the many...", or "societal gains", they get told what commies they are. Yet here you are promoting the hive (whole) over the individual. And, you're doing it over the concept of marriage equality.

Tell me, how does two guys getting married do harm, exactly, to "the whole". And please don't give me any crap about damage to the "moral structure", cuz guess what? Morality is a matter of the individual, not "the whole". So what actual demonstrable harm does gay marriage do to your "whole"?

When states continually vote down queer right agenda's and the courts nullify that vote, what do you call it?

I call it the court reminding people that they don't get to deny people their constitutional rights by referendum. See, that' the thing about the Constitution - it kinda trumps popular vote.

.... 2 guys can do whatever they like under a CIVIL UNION but a marriage that has been almost exclusively the domain of the religious and calls for a man and a woman to join, is a corruption of the very definition, which is, or at least until the obomanation disregarded the Constitution, covered under it! Words have meaning!

First of all, we already established that "separate but equal" doctrine is not constitutional. Second of all, marriage has never been the domain of "the religious". Guess what you call the license that you have to get to have a church wedding. A marriage license. guess what you call the license you have to get to be married by a Justice of the Peace. a marriage license. that's right. It has always been called the exact same thing, whether it was a religious ceremony, or simply a civil ceremony. To suggest that the religious ceremony was any different than the civil one is complete bullshit.

I have to say that I find it particularly interesting that a man who claims to not be religious to be taking the position of defending religion. something tells me that someone is not nearly as "agnostic" as they would like everyone to believe. For an agnostic, your reasoning sounds an awfully lot like the ramblings of the religious zealots. Talking about queers, and the bible. Speaking of "morals" as if there is one set that is more "appropriate for everyone" rather than aknowledging that everyone's moral code is deeply personal, and therefore a matter of individual determination.

But, hey. You can call yourself whatever you'd like. Your attitudes, and positions will define who you are, not your words.

Yes, having EXACTLY the same rights, but because of different SEX'S involved is a DEFINING way of DESCRIBING the circumstances! Please, no one is going to fight what queers do today, it's simply making a distinction between apples and oranges!

Okay. that is just word salad gibberish. Would you like to try that again in actual English?

I presume you are also for boys and girls going to the same bathroom!

As a matter of fact, I could give two shits. Recent studies indicate that it doesn't really have any effect on development, and that grown-ups get wig out over it more than kids they insist are being "irreparably damaged" do.

 

[Vigilante]

Only S are complete libertarians! And NO I am certainly not a libertarian but do follow some of their ideology.

Apparently not the part that promotes individual liberty. You know, whenever Progressives talk about "the greater good", or " the needs of the many...", or "societal gains", they get told what commies they are. Yet here you are promoting the hive (whole) over the individual. And, you're doing it over the concept of marriage equality.

Tell me, how does two guys getting married do harm, exactly, to "the whole". And please don't give me any crap about damage to the "moral structure", cuz guess what? Morality is a matter of the individual, not "the whole". So what actual demonstrable harm does gay marriage do to your "whole"?

When states continually vote down queer right agenda's and the courts nullify that vote, what do you call it?.... 2 guys can do whatever they like under a CIVIL UNION but a marriage that has been almost exclusively the domain of the religious and calls for a man and a woman to join, is a corruption of the very definition, which is, or at least until the obomanation disregarded the Constitution, covered under it! Words have meaning!

Do you not understand the distinction between civil and religious marriage? If you don't want us to get civilly married, change it to Civil Unions for everyone.

Why?....You don't recognize that there IS a difference between these? Let's call an apple an orange!

Except, in the eyes of the law, there isn't. A marriage is a marriage is a marriage. It doesn't matter if it was achieved through A religious ceremony, a Justice of the Peace, or the Fake Elvis down at Billy Bob's Marriage Emporium in Vegas. They are all marriages, and they are all recognised by the government as valid.

(Note for clarity: I just made up Billy Bob's Marriage Emporium as an example. I don't really know if that particular venue exists, only that it represents a typical type of venue that does exist in Vegas.)

Wrong, and the court is wrong for NOT following the definition of marriage! A man and a woman, anything else is NOT a marriage, if anything it LEGAL and affords all the same benefits BUT it is a civil union!

 

[Vigilante]

Only S are complete libertarians! And NO I am certainly not a libertarian but do follow some of their ideology.

Apparently not the part that promotes individual liberty. You know, whenever Progressives talk about "the greater good", or " the needs of the many...", or "societal gains", they get told what commies they are. Yet here you are promoting the hive (whole) over the individual. And, you're doing it over the concept of marriage equality.

Tell me, how does two guys getting married do harm, exactly, to "the whole". And please don't give me any crap about damage to the "moral structure", cuz guess what? Morality is a matter of the individual, not "the whole". So what actual demonstrable harm does gay marriage do to your "whole"?

When states continually vote down queer right agenda's and the courts nullify that vote, what do you call it?

I call it the court reminding people that they don't get to deny people their constitutional rights by referendum. See, that' the thing about the Constitution - it kinda trumps popular vote.

.... 2 guys can do whatever they like under a CIVIL UNION but a marriage that has been almost exclusively the domain of the religious and calls for a man and a woman to join, is a corruption of the very definition, which is, or at least until the obomanation disregarded the Constitution, covered under it! Words have meaning!

First of all, we already established that "separate but equal" doctrine is not constitutional. Second of all, marriage has never been the domain of "the religious". Guess what you call the license that you have to get to have a church wedding. A marriage license. guess what you call the license you have to get to be married by a Justice of the Peace. a marriage license. that's right. It has always been called the exact same thing, whether it was a religious ceremony, or simply a civil ceremony. To suggest that the religious ceremony was any different than the civil one is complete bullshit.

I have to say that I find it particularly interesting that a man who claims to not be religious to be taking the position of defending religion. something tells me that someone is not nearly as "agnostic" as they would like everyone to believe. For an agnostic, your reasoning sounds an awfully lot like the ramblings of the religious zealots. Talking about queers, and the bible. Speaking of "morals" as if there is one set that is more "appropriate for everyone" rather than aknowledging that everyone's moral code is deeply personal, and therefore a matter of individual determination.

But, hey. You can call yourself whatever you'd like. Your attitudes, and positions will define who you are, not your words.

Yes, having EXACTLY the same rights, but because of different SEX'S involved is a DEFINING way of DESCRIBING the circumstances! Please, no one is going to fight what queers do today, it's simply making a distinction between apples and oranges!

Okay. that is just word salad gibberish. Would you like to try that again in actual English?

I presume you are also for boys and girls going to the same bathroom!

As a matter of fact, I could give two shits. Recent studies indicate that it doesn't really have any effect on development, and that grown-ups get wig out over it more than kids they insist are being "irreparably damaged" do.

Yes, same guys studied and said pedophilia was a life style!

 

[Vigilante]

Only S are complete libertarians! And NO I am certainly not a libertarian but do follow some of their ideology.

Apparently not the part that promotes individual liberty. You know, whenever Progressives talk about "the greater good", or " the needs of the many...", or "societal gains", they get told what commies they are. Yet here you are promoting the hive (whole) over the individual. And, you're doing it over the concept of marriage equality.

Tell me, how does two guys getting married do harm, exactly, to "the whole". And please don't give me any crap about damage to the "moral structure", cuz guess what? Morality is a matter of the individual, not "the whole". So what actual demonstrable harm does gay marriage do to your "whole"?

When states continually vote down queer right agenda's and the courts nullify that vote, what do you call it?.... 2 guys can do whatever they like under a CIVIL UNION but a marriage that has been almost exclusively the domain of the religious and calls for a man and a woman to join, is a corruption of the very definition, which is, or at least until the obomanation disregarded the Constitution, covered under it! Words have meaning!

Do you not understand the distinction between civil and religious marriage? If you don't want us to get civilly married, change it to Civil Unions for everyone.

Why?....You don't recognize that there IS a difference between these? Let's call an apple an orange!

Marriage is the same regardless of how the contract is executed – by a member of the clergy or justice of the peace. Marriage as religious dogma has nothing to do with the issue of recognizing the equal protection rights of same-sex couples, as 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to state governments and the marriage contract laws they enact.

You have equal rights shyster, the definition is different, to delineate who is involved....

 

[Czernobog]

Apparently not the part that promotes individual liberty. You know, whenever Progressives talk about "the greater good", or " the needs of the many...", or "societal gains", they get told what commies they are. Yet here you are promoting the hive (whole) over the individual. And, you're doing it over the concept of marriage equality.

Tell me, how does two guys getting married do harm, exactly, to "the whole". And please don't give me any crap about damage to the "moral structure", cuz guess what? Morality is a matter of the individual, not "the whole". So what actual demonstrable harm does gay marriage do to your "whole"?

When states continually vote down queer right agenda's and the courts nullify that vote, what do you call it?.... 2 guys can do whatever they like under a CIVIL UNION but a marriage that has been almost exclusively the domain of the religious and calls for a man and a woman to join, is a corruption of the very definition, which is, or at least until the obomanation disregarded the Constitution, covered under it! Words have meaning!

Do you not understand the distinction between civil and religious marriage? If you don't want us to get civilly married, change it to Civil Unions for everyone.

Why?....You don't recognize that there IS a difference between these? Let's call an apple an orange!

Except, in the eyes of the law, there isn't. A marriage is a marriage is a marriage. It doesn't matter if it was achieved through A religious ceremony, a Justice of the Peace, or the Fake Elvis down at Billy Bob's Marriage Emporium in Vegas. They are all marriages, and they are all recognised by the government as valid.

(Note for clarity: I just made up Billy Bob's Marriage Emporium as an example. I don't really know if that particular venue exists, only that it represents a typical type of venue that does exist in Vegas.)

Wrong, and the court is wrong for NOT following the definition of marriage! A man and a woman, anything else is NOT a marriage, if anything it LEGAL and affords all the same benefits BUT it is a civil union!

Now you see, you insist that words have meanings, and bitch about courts not following the "definition" of marriage. Yet, according to Miriam Webster, they did:

a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.

So, unless your objection is borne out of a religious perception, I don't really see your problem. Because, as has been clearly demonstrated, it certainly can't be about a lack of understanding the definition - after all that is pretty clear.

 

[Czernobog]

Apparently not the part that promotes individual liberty. You know, whenever Progressives talk about "the greater good", or " the needs of the many...", or "societal gains", they get told what commies they are. Yet here you are promoting the hive (whole) over the individual. And, you're doing it over the concept of marriage equality.

Tell me, how does two guys getting married do harm, exactly, to "the whole". And please don't give me any crap about damage to the "moral structure", cuz guess what? Morality is a matter of the individual, not "the whole". So what actual demonstrable harm does gay marriage do to your "whole"?

When states continually vote down queer right agenda's and the courts nullify that vote, what do you call it?

I call it the court reminding people that they don't get to deny people their constitutional rights by referendum. See, that' the thing about the Constitution - it kinda trumps popular vote.

.... 2 guys can do whatever they like under a CIVIL UNION but a marriage that has been almost exclusively the domain of the religious and calls for a man and a woman to join, is a corruption of the very definition, which is, or at least until the obomanation disregarded the Constitution, covered under it! Words have meaning!

First of all, we already established that "separate but equal" doctrine is not constitutional. Second of all, marriage has never been the domain of "the religious". Guess what you call the license that you have to get to have a church wedding. A marriage license. guess what you call the license you have to get to be married by a Justice of the Peace. a marriage license. that's right. It has always been called the exact same thing, whether it was a religious ceremony, or simply a civil ceremony. To suggest that the religious ceremony was any different than the civil one is complete bullshit.

I have to say that I find it particularly interesting that a man who claims to not be religious to be taking the position of defending religion. something tells me that someone is not nearly as "agnostic" as they would like everyone to believe. For an agnostic, your reasoning sounds an awfully lot like the ramblings of the religious zealots. Talking about queers, and the bible. Speaking of "morals" as if there is one set that is more "appropriate for everyone" rather than aknowledging that everyone's moral code is deeply personal, and therefore a matter of individual determination.

But, hey. You can call yourself whatever you'd like. Your attitudes, and positions will define who you are, not your words.

Yes, having EXACTLY the same rights, but because of different SEX'S involved is a DEFINING way of DESCRIBING the circumstances! Please, no one is going to fight what queers do today, it's simply making a distinction between apples and oranges!

Okay. that is just word salad gibberish. Would you like to try that again in actual English?

I presume you are also for boys and girls going to the same bathroom!

As a matter of fact, I could give two shits. Recent studies indicate that it doesn't really have any effect on development, and that grown-ups get wig out over it more than kids they insist are being "irreparably damaged" do.

Yes, same guys studied and said pedophilia was a life style!

So, now you have to just make shit up to try and win your argument?

You are dismissed.

 

[Vigilante]

When states continually vote down queer right agenda's and the courts nullify that vote, what do you call it?.... 2 guys can do whatever they like under a CIVIL UNION but a marriage that has been almost exclusively the domain of the religious and calls for a man and a woman to join, is a corruption of the very definition, which is, or at least until the obomanation disregarded the Constitution, covered under it! Words have meaning!

Do you not understand the distinction between civil and religious marriage? If you don't want us to get civilly married, change it to Civil Unions for everyone.

Why?....You don't recognize that there IS a difference between these? Let's call an apple an orange!

Except, in the eyes of the law, there isn't. A marriage is a marriage is a marriage. It doesn't matter if it was achieved through A religious ceremony, a Justice of the Peace, or the Fake Elvis down at Billy Bob's Marriage Emporium in Vegas. They are all marriages, and they are all recognised by the government as valid.

(Note for clarity: I just made up Billy Bob's Marriage Emporium as an example. I don't really know if that particular venue exists, only that it represents a typical type of venue that does exist in Vegas.)

Wrong, and the court is wrong for NOT following the definition of marriage! A man and a woman, anything else is NOT a marriage, if anything it LEGAL and affords all the same benefits BUT it is a civil union!

Now you see, you insist that words have meanings, and bitch about courts not following the "definition" of marriage. Yet, according to Miriam Webster, they did:

a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.

So, unless your objection is borne out of a religious perception, I don't really see your problem. Because, as has been clearly demonstrated, it certainly can't be about a lack of understanding the definition - after all that is pretty clear.

See, changing the definition.... You can do it in Wikipedia also!

 

[Vigilante]

When states continually vote down queer right agenda's and the courts nullify that vote, what do you call it?

I call it the court reminding people that they don't get to deny people their constitutional rights by referendum. See, that' the thing about the Constitution - it kinda trumps popular vote.

.... 2 guys can do whatever they like under a CIVIL UNION but a marriage that has been almost exclusively the domain of the religious and calls for a man and a woman to join, is a corruption of the very definition, which is, or at least until the obomanation disregarded the Constitution, covered under it! Words have meaning!

First of all, we already established that "separate but equal" doctrine is not constitutional. Second of all, marriage has never been the domain of "the religious". Guess what you call the license that you have to get to have a church wedding. A marriage license. guess what you call the license you have to get to be married by a Justice of the Peace. a marriage license. that's right. It has always been called the exact same thing, whether it was a religious ceremony, or simply a civil ceremony. To suggest that the religious ceremony was any different than the civil one is complete bullshit.

I have to say that I find it particularly interesting that a man who claims to not be religious to be taking the position of defending religion. something tells me that someone is not nearly as "agnostic" as they would like everyone to believe. For an agnostic, your reasoning sounds an awfully lot like the ramblings of the religious zealots. Talking about queers, and the bible. Speaking of "morals" as if there is one set that is more "appropriate for everyone" rather than aknowledging that everyone's moral code is deeply personal, and therefore a matter of individual determination.

But, hey. You can call yourself whatever you'd like. Your attitudes, and positions will define who you are, not your words.

Yes, having EXACTLY the same rights, but because of different SEX'S involved is a DEFINING way of DESCRIBING the circumstances! Please, no one is going to fight what queers do today, it's simply making a distinction between apples and oranges!

Okay. that is just word salad gibberish. Would you like to try that again in actual English?

I presume you are also for boys and girls going to the same bathroom!

As a matter of fact, I could give two shits. Recent studies indicate that it doesn't really have any effect on development, and that grown-ups get wig out over it more than kids they insist are being "irreparably damaged" do.

Yes, same guys studied and said pedophilia was a life style!

So, now you have to just make shit up to try and win your argument?

You are dismissed.

Why? Did you lose argument, and can't stand it?

 

[Iceweasel]

I presume you are also for boys and girls going to the same bathroom!

As a matter of fact, I could give two shits. Recent studies indicate that it doesn't really have any effect on development, and that grown-ups get wig out over it more than kids they insist are being "irreparably damaged" do.

It's pretty clear that you are sexually amoral. If it's OK for children then it should OK for adults. Your type seeks to blend genders because you can't fathom what it means and you blame others for your inability to grasp the significance.

 

[daws101]

That question would seem to suggest you don't know the meaning of the word masturbation. I'm curious...you have had sex at least once in your life, right?

Many times lad. Simulating it with a mouth, rectum, or humping a pillow is masturbation.

Lesson over

Well, then you learned the wrong lesson, son. Masturbation is self-gratification. In other words, it does not involve the body parts of another person.

Lesson over.

You, of course have heard of mutual masturbation

Yes. which still involves self-gratification. You just happen to be gratifying yourself, with someone else there. It is still you diddling yourself, and has nothing to do with sexual caontact with another person.

Since you seem to be a bit slow, look up masturbation, coitus, and sodomy, and you will see the differences between the three.

Do you really think I give a rats butt how you, them or anyone gets off?

Life, get one

Only one type, between opposing sexes, makes babies.

And as a point of reference, that form, performed by that certain demographic is all that is required for our species to exist.

How freaking awesome is that!

it's not ..it just is ...

 

[Czernobog]

I call it the court reminding people that they don't get to deny people their constitutional rights by referendum. See, that' the thing about the Constitution - it kinda trumps popular vote.
First of all, we already established that "separate but equal" doctrine is not constitutional. Second of all, marriage has never been the domain of "the religious". Guess what you call the license that you have to get to have a church wedding. A marriage license. guess what you call the license you have to get to be married by a Justice of the Peace. a marriage license. that's right. It has always been called the exact same thing, whether it was a religious ceremony, or simply a civil ceremony. To suggest that the religious ceremony was any different than the civil one is complete bullshit.

I have to say that I find it particularly interesting that a man who claims to not be religious to be taking the position of defending religion. something tells me that someone is not nearly as "agnostic" as they would like everyone to believe. For an agnostic, your reasoning sounds an awfully lot like the ramblings of the religious zealots. Talking about queers, and the bible. Speaking of "morals" as if there is one set that is more "appropriate for everyone" rather than aknowledging that everyone's moral code is deeply personal, and therefore a matter of individual determination.

But, hey. You can call yourself whatever you'd like. Your attitudes, and positions will define who you are, not your words.

Yes, having EXACTLY the same rights, but because of different SEX'S involved is a DEFINING way of DESCRIBING the circumstances! Please, no one is going to fight what queers do today, it's simply making a distinction between apples and oranges!

Okay. that is just word salad gibberish. Would you like to try that again in actual English?

I presume you are also for boys and girls going to the same bathroom!

As a matter of fact, I could give two shits. Recent studies indicate that it doesn't really have any effect on development, and that grown-ups get wig out over it more than kids they insist are being "irreparably damaged" do.

Yes, same guys studied and said pedophilia was a life style!

So, now you have to just make shit up to try and win your argument?

You are dismissed.

Why? Did you lose argument, and can't stand it?

You right wing nutters really have a problem following from point "a" to point "b", don't you? You're the second one who seems to think that dismissing you after kicking your proverbial ass so badly that you had to resort to dishonesty somehow equates to capitulation.

Well, lemme help you out.

I refuse to debate liars, and since you just pulled shit out of your ass to discredit the findings of a study you don't like, that makes you a liar.
So you are dismissed.

 

[Czernobog]

I presume you are also for boys and girls going to the same bathroom!

As a matter of fact, I could give two shits. Recent studies indicate that it doesn't really have any effect on development, and that grown-ups get wig out over it more than kids they insist are being "irreparably damaged" do.

It's pretty clear that you are sexually amoral. If it's OK for children then it should OK for adults. Your type seeks to blend genders because you can't fathom what it means and you blame others for your inability to grasp the significance.

If what is okay for kids? Using the potty? Why, yes. Yes I do approve of kids going potty. don't you?

 

[Pop23]

Many times lad. Simulating it with a mouth, rectum, or humping a pillow is masturbation.

Lesson over

Well, then you learned the wrong lesson, son. Masturbation is self-gratification. In other words, it does not involve the body parts of another person.

Lesson over.

You, of course have heard of mutual masturbation

Yes. which still involves self-gratification. You just happen to be gratifying yourself, with someone else there. It is still you diddling yourself, and has nothing to do with sexual caontact with another person.

Since you seem to be a bit slow, look up masturbation, coitus, and sodomy, and you will see the differences between the three.

Do you really think I give a rats butt how you, them or anyone gets off?

Life, get one

Only one type, between opposing sexes, makes babies.

And as a point of reference, that form, performed by that certain demographic is all that is required for our species to exist.

How freaking awesome is that!

As your friend Vigilante pointed out, WORDS HAVE MEANING. So, if you insist on perverting the meanings of words in order to add emotional impact to your silly arguments, you can expect to have your idiocy pointed out to you.

As far as your stupid procreation argument goes, in case you missed it, your guys already tried that in court, several times, and got laughed out of the court rooms by the judges! It was, and remains, a stupid argument that holds no validity whatsoever.

So you can keep screaming, "BUT GAYS CAN'T MAKE BABIES!!!!" as many times as you like. It still won't make you sound any less stupid.

Gays can have babies

You slow or what ?

Same sex's masturbating together never will

Gosh, what a huge difference

 

[Iceweasel]

If what is okay for kids? Using the potty? Why, yes. Yes I do approve of kids going potty. don't you?

Typical.