March For Marriage Draws Tens, But Promises Ultimate Victory Over Obergefell

[Iceweasel]

Oh, so its not ALL about children, but having children (making babies) is the prerequisite for marriage?

Your brain is gone. It cannot receive what it doesn't already believe. The words can't be seen. You poor bastard.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Not a surprising turnout considering the event last year only drew a couple hundred. Their numbers are dwindling as more and more people move on from this issue to more important matters.

True. Other things are more important. That doesn't mean anyone has changed their mind.

 

[Iceweasel]

It's bizarre that a sexual preference has a logo and gets thrown in people's faces so often. Who else does that?

 

[WinterBorn]

Oh, so its not ALL about children, but having children (making babies) is the prerequisite for marriage?

Your brain is gone. It cannot receive what it doesn't already believe. The words can't be seen. You poor bastard.

YOu have not presented any argument that has not been presented numerous times befor

 

[Iceweasel]

Oh, so its not ALL about children, but having children (making babies) is the prerequisite for marriage?

Your brain is gone. It cannot receive what it doesn't already believe. The words can't be seen. You poor bastard.

YOu have not presented any argument that has not been presented numerous times befor

I don't recall making the claim. I guess not reading the posts helps you know what has been posted numerous times before though.

 

[Moonglow]

Every state that voted on this voted AGAINST same sex marriage, so your side STOLE your victory, just like you STOLE victory with Roe v. Wade.

Kinda like a president that is given the victory through the Electoral College and not by popular vote..

name a president that won the office via popular vote since 1804.

i'll wait.

None, even before 1804, your vote doesn't count.

it's the system we've gone by for a long long time. just some only bitch when it doesn't go your way. THEN and ONLY THEN is it wrong.

that gets old, sorry.

I have accepted that fact and lived by it..But what is more annoying about it is the bullshit rhetoric of illegals voting for president, if they did, it doesn't matter...

 

[iceberg]

Every state that voted on this voted AGAINST same sex marriage, so your side STOLE your victory, just like you STOLE victory with Roe v. Wade.

Kinda like a president that is given the victory through the Electoral College and not by popular vote..

name a president that won the office via popular vote since 1804.

i'll wait.

None, even before 1804, your vote doesn't count.

it's the system we've gone by for a long long time. just some only bitch when it doesn't go your way. THEN and ONLY THEN is it wrong.

that gets old, sorry.

I have accepted that fact and lived by it..But what is more annoying about it is the bullshit rhetoric of illegals voting for president, if they did, it doesn't matter...

a lot of things don't matter people keep carrying on about as if that will change things.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

And that is exactly why your idiotic idea will fail. Who the hell is going for that?

Everyone with a brain should. No business or government (that the people are forced to pay for) should be compelled to foot the bill for a homophile's "spouse". Benefits were given because nature provide for future workers and tax payers. Now that's off the table to accommodate political correctness. Once the government promotes the idea gender no longer matters it's become too corrupt to be involved.

So all gov't benefits for married couples is to encourage creating future tax payers? WTF?

I find it amusing that so many claim that reproduction is the basis for marriage and for the benefits married people receive. And yet, having children is neither required nor even mentioned in marriage rituals or where benefits are concerned.

God wanted traditional marriage between a man and woman. It's imperative that we blessed heterosexual children of the Lord Almighty abide by those moral guidelines.

Then don't suck any dick or get gay married.

Your post confirms you reek with perversion.

Thank you

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Third parties, businesses and governments would NOT be compelled to offer benefits to spouses, THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT! DUH. WTF is wrong with you?

And that is exactly why your idiotic idea will fail. Who the hell is going for that?

Everyone with a brain should. No business or government (that the people are forced to pay for) should be compelled to foot the bill for a homophile's "spouse". Benefits were given because nature provide for future workers and tax payers. Now that's off the table to accommodate political correctness. Once the government promotes the idea gender no longer matters it's become too corrupt to be involved.

So all gov't benefits for married couples is to encourage creating future tax payers? WTF?

I find it amusing that so many claim that reproduction is the basis for marriage and for the benefits married people receive. And yet, having children is neither required nor even mentioned in marriage rituals or where benefits are concerned.

You are amusing yourself then and denying a basic fact of life. It's how mankind came into being, survived and grew as a species. Fun stuff once you rip the political filters off.

No, not all married couples bear offspring, but it usually is what happens. People always knew this, now they don't. That's why I say government needs to just step out at this point. There's nothing to stop a guy and thee women or men from marrying, but more importantly why should single people subsidize married people anymore? Another reason is that far more are single these days, something like half, when it used to be quite rare.

I'm going to try just one more time to cut through the bullshit that you keep tossing at the wall in the hope that something sticks. None of this has a fucking thing to do with "how we came into existence" We are talking about FACT that gay couples have children in their care and it does not matter how they got there. Given that FACT answer this:

Do you advocate denying the financial benefits, legal protections and social status that goes with having married parents to the children of gays. ?? If so why??

And don't even bother to try to make it about single people not having benefits, That is a separate topic and your using as a logical fallacy- an appeal to pity-trying to get people to accept a conclusion by making them feel sorry for someone.-the single person in this case. Single people may have some legitimate gripes, but the reality is that all married people have benefits, singles do not.

Given that reality, answer the question!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

And that is exactly why your idiotic idea will fail. Who the hell is going for that?

Everyone with a brain should. No business or government (that the people are forced to pay for) should be compelled to foot the bill for a homophile's "spouse". Benefits were given because nature provide for future workers and tax payers. Now that's off the table to accommodate political correctness. Once the government promotes the idea gender no longer matters it's become too corrupt to be involved.

So all gov't benefits for married couples is to encourage creating future tax payers? WTF?

I find it amusing that so many claim that reproduction is the basis for marriage and for the benefits married people receive. And yet, having children is neither required nor even mentioned in marriage rituals or where benefits are concerned.

You are amusing yourself then and denying a basic fact of life. It's how mankind came into being, survived and grew as a species. Fun stuff once you rip the political filters off.

No, not all married couples bear offspring, but it usually is what happens. People always knew this, now they don't. That's why I say government needs to just step out at this point. There's nothing to stop a guy and thee women or men from marrying, but more importantly why should single people subsidize married people anymore? Another reason is that far more are single these days, something like half, when it used to be quite rare.

And same sex couples DO have children now. They require assistance or medical intervention. But they do have children.

I know they adopt but you missed the point, they don't make said babies.

SO WHAT ! That is the point. No one but you is missing it

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Everyone with a brain should. No business or government (that the people are forced to pay for) should be compelled to foot the bill for a homophile's "spouse". Benefits were given because nature provide for future workers and tax payers. Now that's off the table to accommodate political correctness. Once the government promotes the idea gender no longer matters it's become too corrupt to be involved.

So all gov't benefits for married couples is to encourage creating future tax payers? WTF?

I find it amusing that so many claim that reproduction is the basis for marriage and for the benefits married people receive. And yet, having children is neither required nor even mentioned in marriage rituals or where benefits are concerned.

God wanted traditional marriage between a man and woman. It's imperative that we blessed heterosexual children of the Lord Almighty abide by those moral guidelines.

Then don't suck any dick or get gay married.

Your post confirms you reek with perversion.

Thank you

You're prideful of your homosexual perversion aren't you?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Trump sucks!

Trump's Latest Legal Hire Has Extensive Anti-LGBT History

A mainstay of the religious right is the newest member of the legal team advising Donald Trump as he faces investigation into possible collusion between his presidential campaign and the Russian government.

Jay Sekulow, who joined Trump’s team this month, is chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, a far-right legal group founded by no less than Pat Robertson and based at Robertson’s Regent University in Virginia. Sekulow holds a Ph.D. from Regent and is a professor at its law school. His law degree is from another university that claims to promote “Judeo-Christian” values, Georgia’s Mercer University. He’s a frequent commentator on Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network and Fox News Channel.

The ACLJ has represented many anti-LGBT and antichoice clients and causes. “ACLJ’s materials are often explicitly homophobic, and their fundraising emails signed by Sekulow have warned that the homosexual agenda is ‘bent on destroying our communities’ and ‘the family as we know it,’” the Human Rights Campaign reported in a 2014 press release.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Pride in Numbers: Everything that happened at Capital Pride 2017 - Metro Weekly

That vs the so called march for marriage

 

[Iceweasel]

Everyone with a brain should. No business or government (that the people are forced to pay for) should be compelled to foot the bill for a homophile's "spouse". Benefits were given because nature provide for future workers and tax payers. Now that's off the table to accommodate political correctness. Once the government promotes the idea gender no longer matters it's become too corrupt to be involved.

So all gov't benefits for married couples is to encourage creating future tax payers? WTF?

I find it amusing that so many claim that reproduction is the basis for marriage and for the benefits married people receive. And yet, having children is neither required nor even mentioned in marriage rituals or where benefits are concerned.

You are amusing yourself then and denying a basic fact of life. It's how mankind came into being, survived and grew as a species. Fun stuff once you rip the political filters off.

No, not all married couples bear offspring, but it usually is what happens. People always knew this, now they don't. That's why I say government needs to just step out at this point. There's nothing to stop a guy and thee women or men from marrying, but more importantly why should single people subsidize married people anymore? Another reason is that far more are single these days, something like half, when it used to be quite rare.

And same sex couples DO have children now. They require assistance or medical intervention. But they do have children.

I know they adopt but you missed the point, they don't make said babies.

SO WHAT ! That is the point. No one but you is missing it

Wrong asshole. I mentioned it and that made you spin off into .... but but but ....they ADOPT. So no, you don't get it. Grade school biology is out of your reach.

 

[Iceweasel]

Third parties, businesses and governments would NOT be compelled to offer benefits to spouses, THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT! DUH. WTF is wrong with you?

And that is exactly why your idiotic idea will fail. Who the hell is going for that?

Everyone with a brain should. No business or government (that the people are forced to pay for) should be compelled to foot the bill for a homophile's "spouse". Benefits were given because nature provide for future workers and tax payers. Now that's off the table to accommodate political correctness. Once the government promotes the idea gender no longer matters it's become too corrupt to be involved.

So all gov't benefits for married couples is to encourage creating future tax payers? WTF?

I find it amusing that so many claim that reproduction is the basis for marriage and for the benefits married people receive. And yet, having children is neither required nor even mentioned in marriage rituals or where benefits are concerned.

You are amusing yourself then and denying a basic fact of life. It's how mankind came into being, survived and grew as a species. Fun stuff once you rip the political filters off.

No, not all married couples bear offspring, but it usually is what happens. People always knew this, now they don't. That's why I say government needs to just step out at this point. There's nothing to stop a guy and thee women or men from marrying, but more importantly why should single people subsidize married people anymore? Another reason is that far more are single these days, something like half, when it used to be quite rare.

I'm going to try just one more time to cut through the bullshit that you keep tossing at the wall in the hope that something sticks. None of this has a fucking thing to do with "how we came into existence" We are talking about FACT that gay couples have children in their care and it does not matter how they got there. Given that FACT answer this:

Do you advocate denying the financial benefits, legal protections and social status that goes with having married parents to the children of gays. ?? If so why??

And don't even bother to try to make it about single people not having benefits, That is a separate topic and your using as a logical fallacy- an appeal to pity-trying to get people to accept a conclusion by making them feel sorry for someone.-the single person in this case. Single people may have some legitimate gripes, but the reality is that all married people have benefits, singles do not.

Given that reality, answer the question!

I SAID EVERYONE YOU BRAIN DEAD IDIOT.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

View attachment 134391

Pride in Numbers: Everything that happened at Capital Pride 2017 - Metro Weekly

What a lost opportunity since so many were there at once!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

And that is exactly why your idiotic idea will fail. Who the hell is going for that?

Everyone with a brain should. No business or government (that the people are forced to pay for) should be compelled to foot the bill for a homophile's "spouse". Benefits were given because nature provide for future workers and tax payers. Now that's off the table to accommodate political correctness. Once the government promotes the idea gender no longer matters it's become too corrupt to be involved.

So all gov't benefits for married couples is to encourage creating future tax payers? WTF?

I find it amusing that so many claim that reproduction is the basis for marriage and for the benefits married people receive. And yet, having children is neither required nor even mentioned in marriage rituals or where benefits are concerned.

You are amusing yourself then and denying a basic fact of life. It's how mankind came into being, survived and grew as a species. Fun stuff once you rip the political filters off.

No, not all married couples bear offspring, but it usually is what happens. People always knew this, now they don't. That's why I say government needs to just step out at this point. There's nothing to stop a guy and thee women or men from marrying, but more importantly why should single people subsidize married people anymore? Another reason is that far more are single these days, something like half, when it used to be quite rare.

I'm going to try just one more time to cut through the bullshit that you keep tossing at the wall in the hope that something sticks. None of this has a fucking thing to do with "how we came into existence" We are talking about FACT that gay couples have children in their care and it does not matter how they got there. Given that FACT answer this:

Do you advocate denying the financial benefits, legal protections and social status that goes with having married parents to the children of gays. ?? If so why??

And don't even bother to try to make it about single people not having benefits, That is a separate topic and your using as a logical fallacy- an appeal to pity-trying to get people to accept a conclusion by making them feel sorry for someone.-the single person in this case. Single people may have some legitimate gripes, but the reality is that all married people have benefits, singles do not.

Given that reality, answer the question!

I SAID EVERYONE YOU BRAIN DEAD IDIOT.

Having to call me names indicates to me that you're becoming unhinged. I know that you said that no one should get benefits. I asked, " Given the fact -the reality - that married couples do in fact get benefits and that is not likely to change, do you advocate the removal of benefits from same sex couples (Overturn Obergefell) and penalize the children while hetro couples retain the marriage benefits and why??

Be honest . You are just being a coward for not answering that. You have repeated said things that clearly indicate that you don't see the same value in families that don't have children the way that most people do, so I suspect that I know the answer.

 

[Iceweasel]

Everyone with a brain should. No business or government (that the people are forced to pay for) should be compelled to foot the bill for a homophile's "spouse". Benefits were given because nature provide for future workers and tax payers. Now that's off the table to accommodate political correctness. Once the government promotes the idea gender no longer matters it's become too corrupt to be involved.

So all gov't benefits for married couples is to encourage creating future tax payers? WTF?

I find it amusing that so many claim that reproduction is the basis for marriage and for the benefits married people receive. And yet, having children is neither required nor even mentioned in marriage rituals or where benefits are concerned.

You are amusing yourself then and denying a basic fact of life. It's how mankind came into being, survived and grew as a species. Fun stuff once you rip the political filters off.

No, not all married couples bear offspring, but it usually is what happens. People always knew this, now they don't. That's why I say government needs to just step out at this point. There's nothing to stop a guy and thee women or men from marrying, but more importantly why should single people subsidize married people anymore? Another reason is that far more are single these days, something like half, when it used to be quite rare.

I'm going to try just one more time to cut through the bullshit that you keep tossing at the wall in the hope that something sticks. None of this has a fucking thing to do with "how we came into existence" We are talking about FACT that gay couples have children in their care and it does not matter how they got there. Given that FACT answer this:

Do you advocate denying the financial benefits, legal protections and social status that goes with having married parents to the children of gays. ?? If so why??

And don't even bother to try to make it about single people not having benefits, That is a separate topic and your using as a logical fallacy- an appeal to pity-trying to get people to accept a conclusion by making them feel sorry for someone.-the single person in this case. Single people may have some legitimate gripes, but the reality is that all married people have benefits, singles do not.

Given that reality, answer the question!

I SAID EVERYONE YOU BRAIN DEAD IDIOT.

Having to call me names indicates to me that you're becoming unhinged. I know that you said that no one should get benefits I asked, " Given the fact -the reality - that married couples do in fact get benefits and that is not likely to change, do you advocate the removal of benefits from same sex couples (Overturn Obergefell) and penalize the children while hetro couples retain the marriage benefits?? Be honest . You are just being a coward for not answering that. You have repeated said things that clearly indicate that you don't see the same value in families that don't have children the way that most people do, so I suspect that I know the answer.

You insulted me numerous times and now you want to pretend you're on the high road? No, I don't have to call you names. I want to. You earned it.

I don't give a fuck about Obergefell, rainbow flags or anything else you want to spin off on. I said what I believe and why and do not need some dishonest asshole's permission.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So all gov't benefits for married couples is to encourage creating future tax payers? WTF?

I find it amusing that so many claim that reproduction is the basis for marriage and for the benefits married people receive. And yet, having children is neither required nor even mentioned in marriage rituals or where benefits are concerned.

You are amusing yourself then and denying a basic fact of life. It's how mankind came into being, survived and grew as a species. Fun stuff once you rip the political filters off.

No, not all married couples bear offspring, but it usually is what happens. People always knew this, now they don't. That's why I say government needs to just step out at this point. There's nothing to stop a guy and thee women or men from marrying, but more importantly why should single people subsidize married people anymore? Another reason is that far more are single these days, something like half, when it used to be quite rare.

And same sex couples DO have children now. They require assistance or medical intervention. But they do have children.

I know they adopt but you missed the point, they don't make said babies.

SO WHAT ! That is the point. No one but you is missing it

Wrong asshole. I mentioned it and that made you spin off into .... but but but ....they ADOPT. So no, you don't get it. Grade school biology is out of your reach.

I'll take that to mean that you believe that adopted children , and those who are conceived by artificial means do not have the same value as human beings to society. Brilliant. Is that equally true of children who are adopted children , and those who are conceived by artificial means who are in the care of hetero vs. homosexual parents??

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So all gov't benefits for married couples is to encourage creating future tax payers? WTF?

I find it amusing that so many claim that reproduction is the basis for marriage and for the benefits married people receive. And yet, having children is neither required nor even mentioned in marriage rituals or where benefits are concerned.

You are amusing yourself then and denying a basic fact of life. It's how mankind came into being, survived and grew as a species. Fun stuff once you rip the political filters off.

No, not all married couples bear offspring, but it usually is what happens. People always knew this, now they don't. That's why I say government needs to just step out at this point. There's nothing to stop a guy and thee women or men from marrying, but more importantly why should single people subsidize married people anymore? Another reason is that far more are single these days, something like half, when it used to be quite rare.

I'm going to try just one more time to cut through the bullshit that you keep tossing at the wall in the hope that something sticks. None of this has a fucking thing to do with "how we came into existence" We are talking about FACT that gay couples have children in their care and it does not matter how they got there. Given that FACT answer this:

Do you advocate denying the financial benefits, legal protections and social status that goes with having married parents to the children of gays. ?? If so why??

And don't even bother to try to make it about single people not having benefits, That is a separate topic and your using as a logical fallacy- an appeal to pity-trying to get people to accept a conclusion by making them feel sorry for someone.-the single person in this case. Single people may have some legitimate gripes, but the reality is that all married people have benefits, singles do not.

Given that reality, answer the question!

I SAID EVERYONE YOU BRAIN DEAD IDIOT.

Having to call me names indicates to me that you're becoming unhinged. I know that you said that no one should get benefits I asked, " Given the fact -the reality - that married couples do in fact get benefits and that is not likely to change, do you advocate the removal of benefits from same sex couples (Overturn Obergefell) and penalize the children while hetro couples retain the marriage benefits?? Be honest . You are just being a coward for not answering that. You have repeated said things that clearly indicate that you don't see the same value in families that don't have children the way that most people do, so I suspect that I know the answer.

You insulted me numerous times and now you want to pretend you're on the high road? No, I don't have to call you names. I want to. You earned it.

I don't give a fuck about Obergefell, rainbow flags or anything else you want to spin off on. I said what I believe and why and do not need some dishonest asshole's permission.

You did not say what you believe regarding the children of gays and marital benefits for the parents, given that fact and reality that hetero couples will continue to get those benefits, despite your inane blathering about doing away with marriage all together. You really are a coward! Now go clean yourself up and wipe the spit off your chin.