Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Now that marriage can be defined as anything , why discriminate against children getting "married" ???
Marriage can be defined as anything?
How does that work?
As far as I'm aware, it merely means you idiots cannot be bigoted anymore about THINGS THAT DO NOT INVOLVE YOU, between two consenting adults.
See that's the problem with your argument.
When it as a private relationship between two consenting adults, no one cared.
It's when they try to force the rest of us to recognize their private relationship that it involves us. Why? BECAUSE YOUR TRYING TO GET US TO VALIDATE THE RELATIONSHIP.
You can't claim it's a private relationship while demanding everyone else validate it. Be definition if you want others to recognize it, it's not longer private.
You seem somewhat confused. The vast majority of pedos are Republicans and we all know Dems won't want to protect Republicans.Consenting adults..eh, why not..
Lawyers would love it..
The left and Democrats won't stop there either. They will try to protect pedophiles, too......oh wait....Democrats have already done that. Remember how Democrats Alcee Hastings and Jackie Speirer wanted pedophilia classified as a sexual orientation and protected under the Hate Crimes bill? Republican rep. Steve King did everything he could to block this heinous act, but the Democrat controlled House, and Senate passed the "Pedophile Protection Act" and Democrat president Obama signed it into law. Ha.....the party "for the children".....yeah "for" children being sexual objects for sick-minded perverts. Give the left and Democrats time....children are next.
Really? Show me.
I do not tolerate homophobes and Christians who love to judge others by their own morals. Other than that, show me where I am intolerant to religion.
Seriously? Other than where im intolerant show me where Im intolerant? Seriously?
So I should tolerate homophobes and judgmental Christians?
Like I said I don't tolerate nuts. It's pretty clear.
Now that marriage can be defined as anything , why discriminate against children getting "married" ???
Marriage can be defined as anything?
How does that work?
As far as I'm aware, it merely means you idiots cannot be bigoted anymore about THINGS THAT DO NOT INVOLVE YOU, between two consenting adults.
See that's the problem with your argument.
When it as a private relationship between two consenting adults, no one cared.
It's when they try to force the rest of us to recognize their private relationship that it involves us. Why? BECAUSE YOUR TRYING TO GET US TO VALIDATE THE RELATIONSHIP.
You can't claim it's a private relationship while demanding everyone else validate it. Be definition if you want others to recognize it, it's not longer private.
I am tolerant to religion not to nuts.
Some of your posts on the board present evidence to the contrary.
Really? Show me.
I do not tolerate homophobes and Christians who love to judge others by their own morals. Other than that, show me where I am intolerant to religion.
This is exactly my problem. We aren't trying to make you validate anything, we are trying to give them equal rights.
And you wonder why people are intolerant.
You want us to validate your intolerant views by denying someone the right to marry who they choose.
Okay, right after you provide the stats that back up "they will try to protect pedophiles"You seem somewhat confused. The vast majority of pedos are Republicans and we all know Dems won't want to protect Republicans.The left and Democrats won't stop there either. They will try to protect pedophiles, too......oh wait....Democrats have already done that. Remember how Democrats Alcee Hastings and Jackie Speirer wanted pedophilia classified as a sexual orientation and protected under the Hate Crimes bill? Republican rep. Steve King did everything he could to block this heinous act, but the Democrat controlled House, and Senate passed the "Pedophile Protection Act" and Democrat president Obama signed it into law. Ha.....the party "for the children".....yeah "for" children being sexual objects for sick-minded perverts. Give the left and Democrats time....children are next.
Id love to see the stats backing that. I've never thought to ask pedophiles their political affiliations.
Are you kidding? Family law seriously sucks. It's bad enough as it is without making it 5000 times more complicated with multiple partners and attorneys
So, I can't marry my 2 true loves because of some extra paper work that may or may not happen? thats selfish.
No. I just said lawyers wouldnt love it because it's a pain in the ass to deal with complicated cases full of drama.
Okay, right after you provide the stats that back up "they will try to protect pedophiles"You seem somewhat confused. The vast majority of pedos are Republicans and we all know Dems won't want to protect Republicans.
Id love to see the stats backing that. I've never thought to ask pedophiles their political affiliations.
Seriously? Other than where im intolerant show me where Im intolerant? Seriously?
So I should tolerate homophobes and judgmental Christians?
Like I said I don't tolerate nuts. It's pretty clear.
If you think tolerance is a virtue than you should tolerate everyone.
Ah, I see, you just cherry pick who you challenge.Okay, right after you provide the stats that back up "they will try to protect pedophiles"Id love to see the stats backing that. I've never thought to ask pedophiles their political affiliations.
Ive never made the claim.
This is exactly my problem. We aren't trying to make you validate anything, we are trying to give them equal rights.
And you wonder why people are intolerant.
You want us to validate your intolerant views by denying someone the right to marry who they choose.
They already have equal rights. No one can prevent them from entering into whatever relationship they want.
But it no longer is private when you try to get the rest of society to validate the relationship.
I seriously dislike hypocrites like yourself.
Ah, I see, you just cherry pick who you challenge.Okay, right after you provide the stats that back up "they will try to protect pedophiles"
Ive never made the claim.
This is exactly my problem. We aren't trying to make you validate anything, we are trying to give them equal rights.
And you wonder why people are intolerant.
You want us to validate your intolerant views by denying someone the right to marry who they choose.
They already have equal rights. No one can prevent them from entering into whatever relationship they want.
But it no longer is private when you try to get the rest of society to validate the relationship.
I seriously dislike hypocrites like yourself.
Hypocrites like myself? I am not preventing you from marrying who you want, I am not preventing you from practicing your religion. I am not denying you any rights based on your lifestyle.
Allowing them to marry is not forcing you to validate anything. It is giving everyone the same equal rights.
Before this a same sex married couple in say Washington State could not collect federal benefits from their spouse. That isn't equal rights.
The only way I would be a hypocrite is if I was trying to deny you federal benefits based on your lifestyle. Am I doing that?
They already have equal rights. No one can prevent them from entering into whatever relationship they want.
But it no longer is private when you try to get the rest of society to validate the relationship.
I seriously dislike hypocrites like yourself.
Hypocrites like myself? I am not preventing you from marrying who you want, I am not preventing you from practicing your religion. I am not denying you any rights based on your lifestyle.
Allowing them to marry is not forcing you to validate anything. It is giving everyone the same equal rights.
Before this a same sex married couple in say Washington State could not collect federal benefits from their spouse. That isn't equal rights.
The only way I would be a hypocrite is if I was trying to deny you federal benefits based on your lifestyle. Am I doing that?
Sort of.. the a gay marriage contract is not the same as a hetero marriage contract. You would have to remove gender to make the contract the same. Gays can have a hetero marriage today. What you are asking for is a change to the government marriage laws. You are asking for inclusion by changing the right of having your marriage contract recognized by the state, as a new type of marriage contract, such as a civil union or some other kind of marriage not previously recognized by the state such as a combination of hetero and or gay marriages as recognized by the state. IOW you want the current citizen rights to be changed, to include gay sex partners as equal to hetero sex partners in the eyes of the law.
I'm hetero, and on your side but the terms you use have led many hetero's to thinking you mean to change the definition of their marriage.
They already have equal rights. No one can prevent them from entering into whatever relationship they want.
But it no longer is private when you try to get the rest of society to validate the relationship.
I seriously dislike hypocrites like yourself.
Hypocrites like myself? I am not preventing you from marrying who you want, I am not preventing you from practicing your religion. I am not denying you any rights based on your lifestyle.
Allowing them to marry is not forcing you to validate anything. It is giving everyone the same equal rights.
Before this a same sex married couple in say Washington State could not collect federal benefits from their spouse. That isn't equal rights.
The only way I would be a hypocrite is if I was trying to deny you federal benefits based on your lifestyle. Am I doing that?
Sort of.. the a gay marriage contract is not the same as a hetero marriage contract. You would have to remove gender to make the contract the same. Gays can have a hetero marriage today. What you are asking for is a change to the government marriage laws. You are asking for inclusion by changing the right of having your marriage contract recognized by the state, as a new type of marriage contract, such as a civil union or some other kind of marriage not previously recognized by the state such as a combination of hetero and or gay marriages as recognized by the state. IOW you want the current citizen rights to be changed, to include gay sex partners as equal to hetero sex partners in the eyes of the law.
I'm hetero, and on your side but the terms you use have led many hetero's to thinking you mean to change the definition of their marriage.
Okay, right after you provide the stats that back up "they will try to protect pedophiles"Id love to see the stats backing that. I've never thought to ask pedophiles their political affiliations.
Ive never made the claim.
its quite obvious that you don't. the perversions were not prevalent in the beginning of those cultures, they came after the people had achieved some degree of material success, then the perversions came and the downfall began.
and for the record, homosexuality is a perversion. It may be biological or environmental and its victims may have no choice, but it is a perversion of the human condition no matter how many times your try to call it "normal" its not.
Are you joking? Homosexuality was huge in Rome hundreds of years before even Jesus was staked at the cross. That is nearly 700 years before rome began to fracture.
and it continues today, Berliscouni is going to jail. at least the Italians will prosecute their leaders for such things, we celebrate clinton and his cigar/pussey activities in the oval office.
Deterioration of morals has an effect on all of us.
Again, how does it affect you? Directly?
Of yes, it doesn't.
Gay people are icky. And if we allow gays to get married I may be tempted to marry my dog. And my chair. And my dog's chair. And... I should stop posting drunk...
the same logic that the left uses to promote gay marriage will be used to promote group marriage, mother daughter marriage, sister/brother marriage, father son marriage, and any other combination that the human mind can come up with.
To deny these variations but to approve gay marriage would be a contradiction. If love and committment is the only criteria for marriage, then any form of marriage must be allowed.
the lawyers will get richer and our culture will be destroyed.
