Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

[JoeB131]

See, I knew he couldn't go a thread without screaming "Communist". He justcan't help hisself....

 

[Seawytch]

See that cartoon in the upper right corner? The one about Roe vs. Wade? Infanticide? Well....

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”.

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say - Telegraph

Ethicists Argue in Favor of ?After-Birth Abortions? as Newborns ?Are Not Persons? | TheBlaze.com

?Ethicists? justify after birth abortion ? Glenn Beck

Oops! Guess that slope is just a bit more slippery than you thought, uh stupid? No wonder you fell all the way down it and flat on your ignorant face.

Oh for god's sake. You aren't starting from anywhere resembling a rational position. The overwhelming majority of abortions performed in the US are in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and most of them before the 9th week. Abortion is not killing a child, it is a fetus, not a living, breathing child.

I'd like to see there never again be the need for a woman to have an abortion ever...I just prefer that it is done through science, education and easy access to contraception.

And seriously? The Telegraph? Glenn Beck's site AND the Blaze? Come on.

 

[Seawytch]

IF America is worse off, it's because wealth has shifted from the working class to the 1%.

Yeah well...gays get blamed for hurricanes, earthquakes and even bombers. Why not that too?

JoeB.(iden) - the greedy, lazy, self-professed communist complaining about wealth. Shocking....

Please don't align yourself with self-professed communists Seawytch - you've got enough problems.

Exqueeze me? When did I profess to be a Communist? Perhaps you could link me to that post, comrade. Am I a mole like Kevin Costner in that movie with Sean Young? Oh, he was Navy though, not Coast Guard.

 

[P@triot]

How can I explain something that hasn't happened. We haven't progressed past the Constitution (unless you count the Patriot Act) How do you progress past morals?

"We haven't progressed past the Constitution... unless you count the Patriot Act" You just proved we have "progressed" past the Constitution after claiming we haven't. Liberals can even complete a single sentence any more without contradicting themsleves.

By the way - Obamacare "progressed" past the Constitution by forcing American citizens to purchase a good or service - a power the federal government simply does not have.

And then there are the wide range of arms that have been banned and ares where other arms are outlawed because libtards just like you claim the Constitution is "outdated" and "doesn't apply anymore".

You look back with myopic nostalgia to the 1950s where gays stayed in the closet, Congress critters asked other Congress critters if they were Communists, minorities and women knew their place, and women stayed in marriages where their husbands beat and raped them nightly. Some of us are very glad those days are gone. I think that makes us more, not less moral a nation.

Actually, the 1950's make me sick. I look back on 1776 with nostalgia - where a bunch or repressed people fought for their freedom and had the foresight to write the greatest documents in world history - providing freedom to all of us - because they understood oppression, having suffered under it. And while far from perfect (so spare me the "slavery" babble), we had some actual morals.

As far as communists - well, I wouldn't expect a liberal lesbian with her head in the sand because she prefers the "ignorance is bliss" approach to life to comprehend anything about what really has gone on, the communist manifesto, out real history. So I'll skip educating you on this part since it would take too long and derail the thread.

As far as getting out of bad marriages - please stop trying to guess what I think because it exposes you as an epic fool. I 100% support women getting out of any marriage where they suffer abuse. But how does that correlate to redefining marriage in your twisted mind?

Allowing gay and lesbian non familial consenting adults to legally marry each other does not mean that you will then be able to marry your goat.

And I never said it would. I never even implied it (it will mind you, but I had not said that previously). Because you can't see the forest for the trees (in anything) you were too short sighted to realize the question was about hypocrisy.

Once you scream about "bigotry", "homophobia", and "rights" as your dumb ass has, you've permanently forfeited all grounds to speak out against or try to prevent people from marrying children, animals, or even inanimate objects. Because you are then a true bigot for screaming at others about preventing certain forms of marriage (ie hypocrisy - what you libtards do best) while you turn around and do the exact same thing.

See, I've been very consistent from day 1. Marriage is between a man and a woman (that's simply what it is) and I refuse to accept anything else. So when the sicko's come calling for their marriage "rights" to animals, children, etc., I'll be able to stand tall and be consistent in my stance that there idea of marriage is wrong and unacceptable. While you, my dear, will not be able to. You will be a hypocrite for "discriminating" against them after crying you were "discriminated" against on the same issue.

It's definitely coming back to my state, CA and all the other gay and lesbian couples here will be able to be legally married just like I am. (See, happiness for fellow Americans. Will you be as joyful at the prospect?)

You don't even see how unhinged you are. California just shot down gay marriage. The most ultra libtard state in the union won't even accept gay marriage

You're so uninformed, you're not even aware of Prop 8 in your own state!

Not only that, but all the gays in the most populous state in the union will also be recognized as legally married by the Federal government. How freaking cool is that? My legal spouse will now be able to get a military dependents I.D. card that entitles her to ALL the EXACT same benefits of any other retiree's spouse...including my Social Security Run for the hills!

I love your false bravado and swagger in your attempt to wish something into reality

As they say - wish in one hand, shit in the other... see which one fills up first!

 

[P@triot]

Yeah well...gays get blamed for hurricanes, earthquakes and even bombers. Why not that too?

JoeB.(iden) - the greedy, lazy, self-professed communist complaining about wealth. Shocking....

Please don't align yourself with self-professed communists Seawytch - you've got enough problems.

Exqueeze me? When did I profess to be a Communist? Perhaps you could link me to that post, comrade. Am I a mole like Kevin Costner in that movie with Sean Young? Oh, he was Navy though, not Coast Guard.

Perhaps you could develop some reading comprehension so we could have a normal discussion? JoeB. is the self-professed communist - I simply told you not to align yourself with him. Good grief...

 

[P@triot]

See that cartoon in the upper right corner? The one about Roe vs. Wade? Infanticide? Well....

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”.

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say - Telegraph

Ethicists Argue in Favor of ?After-Birth Abortions? as Newborns ?Are Not Persons? | TheBlaze.com

?Ethicists? justify after birth abortion ? Glenn Beck

Oops! Guess that slope is just a bit more slippery than you thought, uh stupid? No wonder you fell all the way down it and flat on your ignorant face.

Oh for god's sake. You aren't starting from anywhere resembling a rational position. The overwhelming majority of abortions performed in the US are in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and most of them before the 9th week. Abortion is not killing a child, it is a fetus, not a living, breathing child.

I'd like to see there never again be the need for a woman to have an abortion ever...I just prefer that it is done through science, education and easy access to contraception.

And seriously? The Telegraph? Glenn Beck's site AND the Blaze? Come on.

Oh for God's sake - are you REALLY trying to claim this story is fake? Oh please say that. Do it! Please officially state this story is "fake". I would love to tear you apart piece by piece on this one!

 

[P@triot]

See that cartoon in the upper right corner? The one about Roe vs. Wade? Infanticide? Well....

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”.

"BABIES (after they are BORN) ARE NOT PEOPLE AND HAVE NO MORAL RIGHT TO LIFE" Seawytch?!?

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say - Telegraph

Ethicists Argue in Favor of ?After-Birth Abortions? as Newborns ?Are Not Persons? | TheBlaze.com

?Ethicists? justify after birth abortion ? Glenn Beck

Oops! Guess that slope is just a bit more slippery than you thought, uh stupid? No wonder you fell all the way down it and flat on your ignorant face.

 

[Nosmo King]

How about someone marrying his sister?

Marriage establishes a legal next of kin relationship where no previous blood relationship existed. Sibling s have no need for the marriage contract because they already enjoy a next of kin relationship.

I have 6 brothers and sisters. Who will inherit my estate when I die?

If you have no will, think about these two words: Probate Court.

 

[WillowTree]

The fact is that kids do not need a mother and a father. If they did, it would be illegal to be a single parent. Instead, single women have babies all the time, and no one bats an eye.

your logic is pure shit. homogenized shit.

 

[bripat9643]

Marriage establishes a legal next of kin relationship where no previous blood relationship existed. Sibling s have no need for the marriage contract because they already enjoy a next of kin relationship.

I have 6 brothers and sisters. Who will inherit my estate when I die?

If you have no will, think about these two words: Probate Court.

In other words, marriage is not like a sibling relationship. If I'm married, my wife automatically inherits my entire estate. She also collects my Social Security payments, which is something no sibling can do.

 

[Ernie S.]

The fact is that kids do not need a mother and a father. If they did, it would be illegal to be a single parent. Instead, single women have babies all the time, and no one bats an eye.

Perhaps you should set your eyes to batting.

The 1987 "Survey of Youth in Custody" found that 70% did not grow up with both parents. Another 1994 study of Wisconsin juveniles was even more stark: only 13% grew up with their married parents. Here's the conclusion of Cynthia Harper and Sara McLanahan, the doyenne of researchers about single parenthood: "[C]ontrolling for income and all other factors, youths in father-absent families (mother only, mother-stepfather, and relatives/other) still had significantly higher odds of incarceration than those from mother-father families."

 

[Nosmo King]

I have 6 brothers and sisters. Who will inherit my estate when I die?

If you have no will, think about these two words: Probate Court.

In other words, marriage is not like a sibling relationship. If I'm married, my wife automatically inherits my entire estate. She also collects my Social Security payments, which is something no sibling can do.

Marriage, specifically the marriage license and contract, establishes, in the eyes of the law, a new legal 'entity'. A partnership, if you will. And that partnership is one that is recognized by the courts as a next of kin partnership.

Probate court will determine how your estate is divided and who gets what share if you neglect to file a legal last will and testament. Nothing is "automatic" in Probate court.

 

[Seawytch]

How can I explain something that hasn't happened. We haven't progressed past the Constitution (unless you count the Patriot Act) How do you progress past morals?

"We haven't progressed past the Constitution... unless you count the Patriot Act" You just proved we have "progressed" past the Constitution after claiming we haven't. Liberals can even complete a single sentence any more without contradicting themsleves.

You claimed it was “liberals” destroying the Constitution. The Patriot Act was not a “liberal” bill, darlin’ so there is no contradiction.

By the way - Obamacare "progressed" past the Constitution by forcing American citizens to purchase a good or service - a power the federal government simply does not have.

The SCOTUS (including conservative Justice Robers), whose job it is to decide these things, disagreed with you.

And then there are the wide range of arms that have been banned and ares where other arms are outlawed because libtards just like you claim the Constitution is "outdated" and "doesn't apply anymore".

Again, quite clearly within Constitutional bounds to outlaw certain “arms”. Why does the “well regulated” part get ignored by ya’ll?

Ever been to Monticello? This is inscribed there:

” I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors”

You know who said that, right? Well, he was a liberal after all. The Conservative position was to keep on going with Mother England.

You look back with myopic nostalgia to the 1950s where gays stayed in the closet, Congress critters asked other Congress critters if they were Communists, minorities and women knew their place, and women stayed in marriages where their husbands beat and raped them nightly. Some of us are very glad those days are gone. I think that makes us more, not less moral a nation.

Actually, the 1950's make me sick. I look back on 1776 with nostalgia - where a bunch or repressed people fought for their freedom and had the foresight to write the greatest documents in world history - providing freedom to all of us - because they understood oppression, having suffered under it. And while far from perfect (so spare me the "slavery" babble), we had some actual morals.

And you would die from the stomach flu and could own people. Great times! Save you the slavery “babble”? Really? Owning people is not moral. Women being subservient to men is not moral. The original document they wrote did not provide freedom to all of us. It had to be amended to give freedom to all of us, proving that we progress morally, not regress.
Since you’re a “conservative”, are you sure you would have taken the very liberal (and treasonous) position of going against your mother country?

As far as communists - well, I wouldn't expect a liberal lesbian with her head in the sand because she prefers the "ignorance is bliss" approach to life to comprehend anything about what really has gone on, the communist manifesto, out real history. So I'll skip educating you on this part since it would take too long and derail the thread.

Oh please. McCarthy saw communists around every corner. He was unhinged. (Rather like Bachman, West and Cruz today)

As far as getting out of bad marriages - please stop trying to guess what I think because it exposes you as an epic fool. I 100% support women getting out of any marriage where they suffer abuse. But how does that correlate to redefining marriage in your twisted mind?

I was referring to what went on in the 1950s that some dream of going back to. It was even worse in the 1770s. Women had no rights of any kind in the 1770s and were essentially just property of their husbands. Good times!

You don't think divorce has redefined marriage already?

And I never said it would. I never even implied it (it will mind you, but I had not said that previously). Because you can't see the forest for the trees (in anything) you were too short sighted to realize the question was about hypocrisy.

Once you scream about "bigotry", "homophobia", and "rights" as your dumb ass has, you've permanently forfeited all grounds to speak out against or try to prevent people from marrying children, animals, or even inanimate objects. Because you are then a true bigot for screaming at others about preventing certain forms of marriage (ie hypocrisy - what you libtards do best) while you turn around and do the exact same thing.

How is it hypocrisy to be for consenting adult non familial couples legally marrying and against you marrying your goat? I'm for a doctor slicing open a patient, but I'm against you slicing open the same person. (Yes, I'm making the assumption you're not a doctor). If you consider that hypocrisy, fine, I'm a hypocrite. You're crazy, but whatever.

See, I've been very consistent from day 1. Marriage is between a man and a woman (that's simply what it is) and I refuse to accept anything else. So when the sicko's come calling for their marriage "rights" to animals, children, etc., I'll be able to stand tall and be consistent in my stance that there idea of marriage is wrong and unacceptable. While you, my dear, will not be able to. You will be a hypocrite for "discriminating" against them after crying you were "discriminated" against on the same issue.

LOL...you will be standing tall all by your lonesome 'cause it ain't gonna happen. They might try, but it won't fly. I hope the pedophiles do try to sue though...makes 'em easier to lock up. The polygamists might be able to sway me to their cause. I was a huge fan of "Big Love". As long as they are all consenting adults.

Know what would really get me on their side? If they passed a polygamy law that if a man wanted more than one wife, she would have to be over 40.

It's definitely coming back to my state, CA and all the other gay and lesbian couples here will be able to be legally married just like I am. (See, happiness for fellow Americans. Will you be as joyful at the prospect?)

You don't even see how unhinged you are. California just shot down gay marriage. The most ultra libtard state in the union won't even accept gay marriage

You're so uninformed, you're not even aware of Prop 8 in your own state!

Just? Darlin', that was over four years ago. Do you know how much has changed in those four years? Gay marriage has over 60% support in CA and went over the 50% mark nationwide like a year ago. Where ya been, Rip Van Winkle? It won't matter. The SCOTUS is going to either strike down Prop 8 or they'll just send it back to the lower court...who already ruled it unconstitutional. Come June, the most populous state in the US will have gay marriage. You really need to catch up with the times.

To top it off, the SCOTUS will be ruling on Section 3 of DOMA...which is clearly unconstitutional. When they strike it down, all legally married gays will be legally married in the eyes of the Federal government. Good stuff coming in June. Dust off the dresses and suits, June is a great month to get gay married!

Not only that, but all the gays in the most populous state in the union will also be recognized as legally married by the Federal government. How freaking cool is that? My legal spouse will now be able to get a military dependents I.D. card that entitles her to ALL the EXACT same benefits of any other retiree's spouse...including my Social Security Run for the hills!

I love your false bravado and swagger in your attempt to wish something into reality

As they say - wish in one hand, shit in the other... see which one fills up first!

I said I'm willing to bet siggys or avatars. Again for the record...I say:

Prop 8 gone and Sec 3 of DOMA gone.

You say?

 

[Seawytch]

JoeB.(iden) - the greedy, lazy, self-professed communist complaining about wealth. Shocking....

Please don't align yourself with self-professed communists Seawytch - you've got enough problems.

Exqueeze me? When did I profess to be a Communist? Perhaps you could link me to that post, comrade. Am I a mole like Kevin Costner in that movie with Sean Young? Oh, he was Navy though, not Coast Guard.

Perhaps you could develop some reading comprehension so we could have a normal discussion? JoeB. is the self-professed communist - I simply told you not to align yourself with him. Good grief...

Eats shoots leaves. Ever read it? Couldn't tell if you speaking of me or to me. Either way, you're crazy...again. Neither of us are Communists.

 

[Seawytch]

See that cartoon in the upper right corner? The one about Roe vs. Wade? Infanticide? Well....

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”.

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say - Telegraph

Ethicists Argue in Favor of ?After-Birth Abortions? as Newborns ?Are Not Persons? | TheBlaze.com

?Ethicists? justify after birth abortion ? Glenn Beck

Oops! Guess that slope is just a bit more slippery than you thought, uh stupid? No wonder you fell all the way down it and flat on your ignorant face.

Oh for god's sake. You aren't starting from anywhere resembling a rational position. The overwhelming majority of abortions performed in the US are in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and most of them before the 9th week. Abortion is not killing a child, it is a fetus, not a living, breathing child.

I'd like to see there never again be the need for a woman to have an abortion ever...I just prefer that it is done through science, education and easy access to contraception.

And seriously? The Telegraph? Glenn Beck's site AND the Blaze? Come on.

Oh for God's sake - are you REALLY trying to claim this story is fake? Oh please say that. Do it! Please officially state this story is "fake". I would love to tear you apart piece by piece on this one!

I didn't say it was fake, I merely implied that those could hardly be considered reputable sources. The story is irrelevant since no one is committing infanticide as a result of abortion, no matter the opinions of a small group of people.

 

[Redfish]

Oh for god's sake. You aren't starting from anywhere resembling a rational position. The overwhelming majority of abortions performed in the US are in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and most of them before the 9th week. Abortion is not killing a child, it is a fetus, not a living, breathing child.

I'd like to see there never again be the need for a woman to have an abortion ever...I just prefer that it is done through science, education and easy access to contraception.

And seriously? The Telegraph? Glenn Beck's site AND the Blaze? Come on.

Oh for God's sake - are you REALLY trying to claim this story is fake? Oh please say that. Do it! Please officially state this story is "fake". I would love to tear you apart piece by piece on this one!

I didn't say it was fake, I merely implied that those could hardly be considered reputable sources. The story is irrelevant since no one is committing infanticide as a result of abortion, no matter the opinions of a small group of people.

Gosnell was committing infanticide and calling it abortion.

 

[Seawytch]

See that cartoon in the upper right corner? The one about Roe vs. Wade? Infanticide? Well....

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”.

"BABIES (after they are BORN) ARE NOT PEOPLE AND HAVE NO MORAL RIGHT TO LIFE" Seawytch?!?

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say - Telegraph

Ethicists Argue in Favor of ?After-Birth Abortions? as Newborns ?Are Not Persons? | TheBlaze.com

?Ethicists? justify after birth abortion ? Glenn Beck

Oops! Guess that slope is just a bit more slippery than you thought, uh stupid? No wonder you fell all the way down it and flat on your ignorant face.

It is an opinion, it is not happening. They are clearly wrong and what they are suggesting is immoral, unreasonable and unethical.

What was the "moral" position on deformed children in your Utopian 1770s?

 

[Seawytch]

Gosnell was committing infanticide and calling it abortion.

Yes he was committing infanticide...and he will either spend the rest of his life in prison for it or he will die as a result.

No slippery slope.

 

[P@triot]

You claimed it was “liberals” destroying the Constitution. The Patriot Act was not a “liberal” bill, darlin’ so there is no contradiction.

Uh, the Patriot Act is a liberal bill sweetie... Who was more liberal than George W. Bush? He grew government considerably (a staple of the libtards), he pissed on the U.S. Constitution with the Patriot Act (another staple of the libtards), and he spent recklessly like a drunken sailor (the ultimate staple of the libtards). If GWB didn't have an "R" behind his name, you libtards would have been fellating this guy 24x7.

Why do you think the Tea Party came to life? Because 95% of the Republican Party are just Kennedy-era big government liberals (and sadly the Democrat Party has been hijacked by radical commuinists - JFK wouldn't even recognize his party today).

The SCOTUS (including conservative Justice Robers), whose job it is to decide these things, disagreed with you.

You know who else disagrees with me? Adolf Hitler. Rapists. Alcoholics. What's your point? Right is right and wrong is wrong. Just because the Supreme Court is stacked with radical libtards doesn't make their decisions right or ok.

I defy you to show me where in the U.S. Constitution it grants the Supreme Court the power to make laws or the power to interpret the U.S. Constitution itself (you don't have to show me both - just one).

See - you've never read the U.S. Constitution sweetie (which is why you are so wrong on nearly every debate). But I have - thoroughly and many times. In fact, I'm so certain that you'll be unable to show me where the Supreme Court holds these powers that I pledge the following:

I will either permanently leave USMB or replace my signature & avatar with what ever you choose and I will cast all of my votes at your direction.

Again, quite clearly within Constitutional bounds to outlaw certain “arms”.

Uh, no it's not my dear. No where in the Constitution does it say government can "outlaw certain arms". In fact, quite the opposite it says arms "shall not be infringed". It leaves zero wiggle room for outlawing anything with regards to firearms.

Why does the “well regulated” part get ignored by ya’ll?

Because the why - when arguing this part of the issue with libtards - is largely irrelevant. What matters is that our right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed" - and it makes no stipulation as to the fact that some or any arms may be outlawed as you falsely claimed. Why, exactly, do you feel the need to make stuff up?

Ever been to Monticello? This is inscribed there:

” I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors”

Ok - so ammend the U.S. Constitution to meet the need to "keep pace with the times". See, our founders were smarter than libtards and they built in a legal process to update the Constitution as applicable. They did not grant libtards the power to usurp the ultimate law of the land as they see fit.

Save you the slavery “babble”? Really? Owning people is not moral.

No shit genius - neither is killing babies and yet you fully support that immoral criminal act. It's also completely immoral to give a child two moms or two dads and yet you support that immoral insanity. It's also completely immoral to not be in a monogamous relationship and you support that as well. I could pretty much go on all day.

Can I give you some friendly advice? As a liberal, the last thing you should ever bring up is "morals" as nothing defines a liberal more than their complete and total immorality (promiscuity, drugs, etc.).

Women being subservient to men is not moral.

And yet you're the first to completley support muslims and sharia law on USMB

Oh please. McCarthy saw communists around every corner. He was unhinged. (Rather like Bachman, West and Cruz today)

And as I've already stated above, the Dumbocrat Party has been completely hijacked by communists. The Communist Party U.S.A. is on record stating "we have a friend in the White House". 'Nough said sweetie...

You don't think divorce has redefined marriage already?

While I wouldn't say "redefined" it - I think I get what you're saying and it's a very valid point. But how does actually redefining marriage help that problem? We need to educate people on what marriage really means (ie the seriousness of the pledge, the commitment to monogamy, etc.) - not further skew what marriage means when enough people are already having an issue comprehending it properly.

How is it hypocrisy to be for consenting adult non familial couples legally marrying and against you marrying your goat? I'm for a doctor slicing open a patient, but I'm against you slicing open the same person. (Yes, I'm making the assumption you're not a doctor). If you consider that hypocrisy, fine, I'm a hypocrite. You're crazy, but whatever.

Amazing..! Simply amazing... I'm for traditional marriage (ie a doctor performing surgery) and against gay marriage (ie against someone not licensed as a physician performing surgery) - and for that you falsely accuse me as a "homophobe" and a host of other ugly terms. But you do the exact same thing and it's ok in your mind!!!

If you believe that marriage is not just between a man and a woman, then who the fuck are you to discriminate against people who want to engage in sexual acts and marry animals? At least I'm consistent - marriage is between a man and a woman and nothing else is acceptable. You want to open it up - but only to people like you. Fuck everybody else... Hypocrite!

Just? Darlin', that was over four years ago. Do you know how much has changed in those four years?

Uh, nothing You're so delusional with your wishes that you want to sit here and act like 4 years is the same thing as 144 years... People don't radically change their views in 4 years sweetie. In fact, most people don't change their views at all. It takes subsequent generations who disagree with them. I'm sorry, are you under the impression that an entire generation or two have gone by in 4 years?

To top it off, the SCOTUS will be ruling on Section 3 of DOMA...which is clearly unconstitutional.

Sweetie, you wouldn't know "constitutional" or "unconstitutional" if it shoved it's foot up your bottom. You've never read the U.S. Constitution and we both know it.

I said I'm willing to bet siggys or avatars. Again for the record...I say:

Prop 8 gone and Sec 3 of DOMA gone.

You say?

I say wish in one hand, shit in the other... see which one fills up first

 

[P@triot]

See that cartoon in the upper right corner? The one about Roe vs. Wade? Infanticide? Well....

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”.

"BABIES (after they are BORN) ARE NOT PEOPLE AND HAVE NO MORAL RIGHT TO LIFE" Seawytch?!?

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say - Telegraph

Ethicists Argue in Favor of ?After-Birth Abortions? as Newborns ?Are Not Persons? | TheBlaze.com

?Ethicists? justify after birth abortion ? Glenn Beck

Oops! Guess that slope is just a bit more slippery than you thought, uh stupid? No wonder you fell all the way down it and flat on your ignorant face.

It is an opinion, it is not happening. They are clearly wrong and what they are suggesting is immoral, unreasonable and unethical.

What was the "moral" position on deformed children in your Utopian 1770s?

That's exactly what libtards said about abortion at one time. How did that work out? You seriously can't see past the end of your nose on any issue (unless, of course, it's something you want - then you suddenly become Nostradamus making predictions years in advance ).