Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

[Seawytch]

It wasn't Kennedy's plan, idiot, it was Eisenhower's.

Kennedy officiallly took office at noon on January 20, 1961.

The Opertaions Northwoods memo is dated March 13, 1962:
And the Bay of Pigs operation was April 17, 1961

You are a mountain of misinformation....

Before his inauguration, John F. Kennedy was briefed on a plan by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) developed during the Eisenhower administration to train Cuban exiles for an invasion of their homeland. The plan anticipated that the Cuban people and elements of the Cuban military would support the invasion. The ultimate goal was the overthrow of Castro and the establishment of a non-communist government friendly to the United States.

Bay of Pigs

But please, don't let facts get in the way of your rantings. This is too much fun.

 

[Seawytch]

There you go again...missing huge chunks. Bush sent troops to Somalia weeks before Clinton took office. Again, not his idea.

Man... you are giving me some monster laughs today! I can't thank you enough.



First of all, the actual cluster-fuck I was referring to (commonly known as "Black Hawk Down") occurred on October 3, 1993. Remind me again who was president on that day?

Second - "not his idea"? No really - "not his idea"? Did you really just give the excuse "not his idea"?

Holy hell, I've got tears in my eyes and my stomach is hurting from laughing at your desperate attempt to protect all things liberal. So Clinton couldn't order the troops home? Once Bush "sent" them, he had no choice but leave them and declare "hey, it wasn't my idea"?

My God you are a tool.....

Again, going into Somalia was not his idea.

Just weeks before Clinton took office, President George H. W. Bush had deployed American soldiers to Somalia, a coastal nation on the Horn of Africa, where people were suffering and dying from starvation and civil war.

Foreign policy of the Bill Clinton administration

 

[Seawytch]

You realize you're just proving to the rest of us just how far right nutty you are.

Bush was not only Conservative, but the most Conservative in history.

Uh, no he wasn't... like most Republican's, he was a liberal Republican. He grew the federal government (fact), he usurped the U.S. Constitution (fact), he stripped American citizens of their rights (fact), and he spent recklessly (fact). He could not have been more liberal and you would worship him had he had a "D" behind his name.

No amount of your dancing and ducking the issue will change the FACTS - so I will just continue posting them. Now, which one of these big ticket items are "conservative"? Exactly...

The FACT that the most conservative President in history isn't conservative enough for you, proves my point about you being insane.

 

[Seawytch]

So in Poodle's world, Bush was a liberal and I'm a communist....

Right.

Okay, man, just too funny. YOu are like a parody of a right winger they came up with at Daily Kos, aren't you?

That's what I was thinking. He is so much a caricature, it's Poe's law incarnate. Of course, there's a lot of that around here...so crazy, you're sure it's gotta be fake. I mean, really, who sees Joseph McCarthy as a hero?

Except that JoeB. flat out admitted to being a communist in another thread and it is STILL up there for everybody to see....

Sorry, you can run to him for "comfort" on this ass-kicking you are taking, but he's a self-admitted communist who openly bashes captialism 24x7 (wonder if he'll deny that as well? ).

And yet you didn't provide the link to this alleged admission so until I see it in writing, you're full of shit.

 

[Seawytch]

That's how the SCOTUS interpreted it, as a tax. Who am I to disagree? Why did you ignore this?

You are either the most ignorant, misinformed moron on USMB or you are a liar. Please decide which it is and let the rest of us know.

It was NOT the Supreme Court who decided it was a "tax". It was the Obama Administration that presented their case to the Supreme Court as a tax. And that was after screaming for nearly 4 years that it was not a tax. I know you hate facts (because they prove you are on the wrong side of them), but these are the undeniable, indisputable FACTS.

You are simply incapable of acknowledging any lie, scandal, mistake, or bad policy by a liberal. For a self-described "lesbian", you sure love sucking Barack Obama off for all you are worth.

No, the administration argued that it was a penalty, Justice Roberts decided it was a tax.

 

[Seawytch]

Hey Rotty, I notice you've completely abandoned the original premise of your thread. Care to return to it and tell us what YOU think the consequences are of "redefining" marriage?

 

[Redfish]

Hey Rotty, I notice you've completely abandoned the original premise of your thread. Care to return to it and tell us what YOU think the consequences are of "redefining" marriage?

where ya been twytchy?

redefining marriage? IMO its a slippery slope. if gays are allowed to marry then why not two men and one woman, or two women and one man, or 3 women and 3 men, or a father and daughter, mother and son, brother and sister, man and dog, woman and ape?

where does it end? you and I both know that if gay marriage is sanctioned then the loonies and the crazies will be getting the ACLU to file suits for them, and SCOTUS will be forced to use the gay precedent to permit all kinds of aberations.

A civil union gives you the rights that you are seeking, insurance, inheritence, etc.

But thats not your real goal, is it? you are trying to force the rest of us to accept your lifestyle as normal by calling it marriage---------why not tell the truth about it?

 

[Seawytch]

Hey Rotty, I notice you've completely abandoned the original premise of your thread. Care to return to it and tell us what YOU think the consequences are of "redefining" marriage?

where ya been twytchy?

redefining marriage? IMO its a slippery slope. if gays are allowed to marry then why not two men and one woman, or two women and one man, or 3 women and 3 men, or a father and daughter, mother and son, brother and sister, man and dog, woman and ape?

where does it end? you and I both know that if gay marriage is sanctioned then the loonies and the crazies will be getting the ACLU to file suits for them, and SCOTUS will be forced to use the gay precedent to permit all kinds of aberations.

The Fallacy Files

A civil union gives you the rights that you are seeking, insurance, inheritence, etc.

But thats not your real goal, is it? you are trying to force the rest of us to accept your lifestyle as normal by calling it marriage---------why not tell the truth about it?

No, the "real goal" is still equality. If you don't like us calling legal marriage a marriage, change the law. Make all non familial consenting adults get a civil union and I'd be perfectly fine with it. Having one type of marriage for the STR8s and another for the gheys isn't going to cut it.

 

[Redfish]

Hey Rotty, I notice you've completely abandoned the original premise of your thread. Care to return to it and tell us what YOU think the consequences are of "redefining" marriage?

where ya been twytchy?

redefining marriage? IMO its a slippery slope. if gays are allowed to marry then why not two men and one woman, or two women and one man, or 3 women and 3 men, or a father and daughter, mother and son, brother and sister, man and dog, woman and ape?

where does it end? you and I both know that if gay marriage is sanctioned then the loonies and the crazies will be getting the ACLU to file suits for them, and SCOTUS will be forced to use the gay precedent to permit all kinds of aberations.

The Fallacy Files

A civil union gives you the rights that you are seeking, insurance, inheritence, etc.

But thats not your real goal, is it? you are trying to force the rest of us to accept your lifestyle as normal by calling it marriage---------why not tell the truth about it?

No, the "real goal" is still equality. If you don't like us calling legal marriage a marriage, change the law. Make all non familial consenting adults get a civil union and I'd be perfectly fine with it. Having one type of marriage for the STR8s and another for the gheys isn't going to cut it.

how does the word "marriage" create instant equality for you? answer: it doesn't.

you claim its all about equality, but everything you post proves that its all about the use of the word "marriage".

you know it, I know it, everyone who is engaged in this debate knows it. but you will never admit that is what its all about.

 

[Seawytch]

where ya been twytchy?

redefining marriage? IMO its a slippery slope. if gays are allowed to marry then why not two men and one woman, or two women and one man, or 3 women and 3 men, or a father and daughter, mother and son, brother and sister, man and dog, woman and ape?

where does it end? you and I both know that if gay marriage is sanctioned then the loonies and the crazies will be getting the ACLU to file suits for them, and SCOTUS will be forced to use the gay precedent to permit all kinds of aberations.

The Fallacy Files

A civil union gives you the rights that you are seeking, insurance, inheritence, etc.

But thats not your real goal, is it? you are trying to force the rest of us to accept your lifestyle as normal by calling it marriage---------why not tell the truth about it?

No, the "real goal" is still equality. If you don't like us calling legal marriage a marriage, change the law. Make all non familial consenting adults get a civil union and I'd be perfectly fine with it. Having one type of marriage for the STR8s and another for the gheys isn't going to cut it.

how does the word "marriage" create instant equality for you? answer: it doesn't.

Creating a completely different arrangement for gay couples is certainly not equality and, in fact, is a step backward from equality. Equality isn't a one action seals the deal kind of proposition. Any minority can tell you that.

you claim its all about equality, but everything you post proves that its all about the use of the word "marriage".

Sorry amigo, but we aren't the ones making a big deal about the word, y'all are. Call it any name you want, but the civil marriage license granted by the state must be the same for all non familial consenting adult couples. You get a drivers license, I get a drivers license. Call it a commitment license, call it chicken soup, I don't care. So, tell me that story again about how it's the gheys hung up on the word?

you know it, I know it, everyone who is engaged in this debate knows it. but you will never admit that is what its all about.

No, you've convinced yourself of that despite, not just facts not in evidence, but actual facts to the contrary.

 

[Redfish]

The Fallacy Files



No, the "real goal" is still equality. If you don't like us calling legal marriage a marriage, change the law. Make all non familial consenting adults get a civil union and I'd be perfectly fine with it. Having one type of marriage for the STR8s and another for the gheys isn't going to cut it.

how does the word "marriage" create instant equality for you? answer: it doesn't.

Creating a completely different arrangement for gay couples is certainly not equality and, in fact, is a step backward from equality. Equality isn't a one action seals the deal kind of proposition. Any minority can tell you that.

you claim its all about equality, but everything you post proves that its all about the use of the word "marriage".

Sorry amigo, but we aren't the ones making a big deal about the word, y'all are. Call it any name you want, but the civil marriage license granted by the state must be the same for all non familial consenting adult couples. You get a drivers license, I get a drivers license. Call it a commitment license, call it chicken soup, I don't care. So, tell me that story again about how it's the gheys hung up on the word?

you know it, I know it, everyone who is engaged in this debate knows it. but you will never admit that is what its all about.

No, you've convinced yourself of that despite, not just facts not in evidence, but actual facts to the contrary.

its a waste of time to continue this. time will tell who has it right.

I will always believe that homosexuality is an aberration of the human condition, you will always believe it is normal.

we will never agree, so why waste more typing on it?

 

[Seawytch]

how does the word "marriage" create instant equality for you? answer: it doesn't.

Creating a completely different arrangement for gay couples is certainly not equality and, in fact, is a step backward from equality. Equality isn't a one action seals the deal kind of proposition. Any minority can tell you that.



Sorry amigo, but we aren't the ones making a big deal about the word, y'all are. Call it any name you want, but the civil marriage license granted by the state must be the same for all non familial consenting adult couples. You get a drivers license, I get a drivers license. Call it a commitment license, call it chicken soup, I don't care. So, tell me that story again about how it's the gheys hung up on the word?

you know it, I know it, everyone who is engaged in this debate knows it. but you will never admit that is what its all about.

No, you've convinced yourself of that despite, not just facts not in evidence, but actual facts to the contrary.

its a waste of time to continue this. time will tell who has it right.

I will always believe that homosexuality is an aberration of the human condition, you will always believe it is normal.

we will never agree, so why waste more typing on it?

I will always believe that your beliefs don't matter when it comes to being treated equally under the law.

I will always believe that red hair, being left handed and picking your nose are all aberrations, but I would never deny them the right to legally marry because of it.

Time has already told this story. We know how it ends. Rejoice!

 

[Redfish]

Creating a completely different arrangement for gay couples is certainly not equality and, in fact, is a step backward from equality. Equality isn't a one action seals the deal kind of proposition. Any minority can tell you that.



Sorry amigo, but we aren't the ones making a big deal about the word, y'all are. Call it any name you want, but the civil marriage license granted by the state must be the same for all non familial consenting adult couples. You get a drivers license, I get a drivers license. Call it a commitment license, call it chicken soup, I don't care. So, tell me that story again about how it's the gheys hung up on the word?



No, you've convinced yourself of that despite, not just facts not in evidence, but actual facts to the contrary.

its a waste of time to continue this. time will tell who has it right.

I will always believe that homosexuality is an aberration of the human condition, you will always believe it is normal.

we will never agree, so why waste more typing on it?

I will always believe that your beliefs don't matter when it comes to being treated equally under the law.

I will always believe that red hair, being left handed and picking your nose are all aberrations, but I would never deny them the right to legally marry because of it.

Time has already told this story. We know how it ends. Rejoice!

butch or fem, twychy? you never did tell us which role you play.

hair color or which hand you write with are not comparable to an aberration that places two mammals of the same sex in a sexual relationship. nose picking ? really? you equate nose picking to gay sex------what exactly do you and your partner do? no, never mind, I don't want to know.

spin all you want, biology says you are an aberration of the human animal.

 

[sfcalifornia]

its a waste of time to continue this. time will tell who has it right.

I will always believe that homosexuality is an aberration of the human condition, you will always believe it is normal.

we will never agree, so why waste more typing on it?

I will always believe that your beliefs don't matter when it comes to being treated equally under the law.

I will always believe that red hair, being left handed and picking your nose are all aberrations, but I would never deny them the right to legally marry because of it.

Time has already told this story. We know how it ends. Rejoice!

butch or fem, twychy? you never did tell us which role you play.

hair color or which hand you write with are not comparable to an aberration that places two mammals of the same sex in a sexual relationship. nose picking ? really? you equate nose picking to gay sex------what exactly do you and your partner do? no, never mind, I don't want to know.

spin all you want, biology says you are an aberration of the human animal.

You're an aberration of human intellect.

Blather all you want, gay people aren't going away and equal rights will prevail.

 

[KevinWestern]

its a waste of time to continue this. time will tell who has it right.

I will always believe that homosexuality is an aberration of the human condition, you will always believe it is normal.

we will never agree, so why waste more typing on it?

I will always believe that your beliefs don't matter when it comes to being treated equally under the law.

I will always believe that red hair, being left handed and picking your nose are all aberrations, but I would never deny them the right to legally marry because of it.

Time has already told this story. We know how it ends. Rejoice!

butch or fem, twychy? you never did tell us which role you play.

hair color or which hand you write with are not comparable to an aberration that places two mammals of the same sex in a sexual relationship. nose picking ? really? you equate nose picking to gay sex------what exactly do you and your partner do? no, never mind, I don't want to know.

spin all you want, biology says you are an aberration of the human animal.

Not very kind. If I was a neg rep kinda person I would give you one.

Thing is, you're entitled to your opinion in hating gay people - that's America and the first Amendment.

But what I can't understand is why you want to make everyone else around you behave just like you (with strictly defined rules).

I'm a supporter of small gov't and think that folks should be able to do what they like so long as no harm is being done to anyone else.

What about you?


.

 

[bendog]

maybe it's ok to let them marry so long as they don't want guns too.

 

[bodecea]

maybe it's ok to let them marry so long as they don't want guns too.

Too late. We're married AND we have guns.

 

[KevinWestern]

maybe it's ok to let them marry so long as they don't want guns too.

The Second Amendment applies to ALL Americans, FYI.


.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

No. Pagans like you don't bat an eye. The vast majority of single-parent households live in poverty, and the children of such are more likely than their counterparts to dropout of school or go to prison. You don't know what you're talking about. Fatherlessness in this country is a ravaging plague, particularly among blacks.

 

[bendog]

maybe it's ok to let them marry so long as they don't want guns too.

The Second Amendment applies to ALL Americans, FYI.


.

Yeah, but it's one thing to have an angry married lesbian, and quite another to have an armed, angry married lesbian. (-: I mean none of the gays will want guns cause they're all effite intellectual sobs, but some of those lesbians look dangerous.