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.
An idiot is one who equates gay with race or gender. Homosexuallity is a choice, which should be left in the bedroom by the way, and not shoved down our throats.Just like so many things that are embarrasing in our history, this one will be right there. The ones who opposed equal rights for blacks and women are the same idiots who are against this.
Once again, intolerance and ignorance shows its ugly face. Oh and speaking of the bible...didnt it say something about divorce? Why is that ignored by these same idiots. Divorce, fidelity etc.
Guess what, because the Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman. Lev.20:13 "if man lies with another man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own hands." You see, it is because the Bible says it that it is wrong. It is not shoving religion down anyones throat, it is the truth spoken in God's word, period.Well, New York has done the right thing. Which brings to mind a question.
Can any person here who is "opposed to gay marriage" come forward and justify their position on the basis of anything other than intolerance and bigotry? Seriously.
Please don't start with "the Bible does not condone same sex marriage." Perhaps it doesn't. So WHAT? Let's say the Bible contained a passage which said: "Marriage is only between a man and a woman. If thou shalt marry one of the same sex as yourself, thou shalt burn in the fiery pits of HELL!" So what? Isn't invoking the Bible just another way of shoving religion down the throats of other people? Yup. In other words, intolerance and bigotry.
No, my friends - we all know what is really involved here, don't we? I am wondering if there is anyone here who has the stones to come right out and tell it like it is: "I am opposed to same sex marriage because I hate gays everything they stand for. No other reason."
Intolerance and bigotry. There really does not seem to be any other reason.
I said two committed, loving, sober taxpaying adult citizens. Not a gaggle of Mormons. Bodecea believes polygamy could be argued legally. I believe the Marriage License as issued by the state should remain exclusively a contract made between two consenting adults, not more.Why? If you can't defend it, maybe it's something that shouldn't be defended....that's how our civil rights go.....government cannot restrict it without a compelling reason...if you can't come up with compelling reasons to restrict polygamy (just like the government cannot come up with compelling reasons to restrict gay marriage), maybe it will be legalized.
You are the one that is defining marriage as being between "Two committed, loving, sober taxpaying adult citizens. Not a gaggle of Mormons." All I am asking for is your basis for that definition, why are you trying to turn that into an attack on me?
What does the divorce rate have to do with the traditional idea of a sacred bond? Another non sequitur.
Gays have the same rights as straight people. Go check it out. Surely you've been schooled on this enough times we dont have to go through it yet again.
Yup, especially when their partner is dying in a hospital room and the doc says immediate family only can come in to visit. Thats fair. Oh yeah, same rights.
When you are with a person for 20 years and cant get them on your health insurance plan because you are not married. Oh yeah, same rights.
i guess we dont get it because somehow we have been schooled on this issue before.....
Notice how he wont actually address this issue though and is falling back to tired old arguments?
I agree with you. But I want to warn you. At one point I wrote that I didn't find it difficult to understand that a marriage should be between two consulting adults. Sounds reasonable doesn't it? Well (hahahahaha) then a wingnut accused me of being for incest.
So please be clear...a marriage is between two consenting, unrelated adults.
Personally I don't care if they are non-loving and drunk. HAHAHAHA! I find it's none of my business.
There are nit pickers here, too, Susan? The ADULT and UNRELATED we can legislate, the drunk and non-loving, nothing can be legislated about THAT part, as you and I know, my friend, other than to ban alcohol, and I think we TRIED that once!
Responsible adult freedoms love a democracy; legislative limitations upon responsible adult freedoms seem to be doomed every time in a democracy. Limitations upon who can marry whom, obviously as outdated as legislative prohibition on liquor for responsible adults. I M O
Where is it written that marriage is a "right"? It is not a "right" (otherwise people could be forced into marriage to fullfill another's "right"). Marriage is the partnership between one man and at least one woman. The definition has stood for centuries. There is no reason to twist, mock, confuse that word. Do those that want a homosexual partner legally reject the ability for themselves to have a 'raditional' marriage? If not, his is special treatment (an additional privilege for people of a sexual preference is not equality).
From the conversations that I have had about this topic, the main reason "homosexuals" want to be defined as "married" is to have access to gov't monies that belong to their partner. If this is true, this country is broke and cannot afford that "drain" on the taxpayer dime. The reason the gov't started giving money to widows was because the husband 'was' the sole money maker, and the wife was left with no form of income. Homosexuals have no reason to not to be 'productive members of society', they cannot procreate without 'influences from outside the partnership'. If they choose to have children, they must rely on persons of the opposite sex to assist them in this matter.
Homosexuals should not be able to "marry" for those reasons. If they want to make a new category of legal definition, possibly, common law partner or bound partner, I have no objections. If they want to make a "special" legal joiner that all taxpayers will be forced to support thru the gov't, then it should be put on a ballot.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Where is it written that marriage is a "right"?
The first thing a liberal does in any discussion of homosexuality is accuse his opponent of being a fag. Then he accuses him of being "intolerant" and spouting "hate."
Liberal? Me!You really are a dumb fucker ain't you!
you too?......he called me one too Colin.....
Guess what, because the Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman. Lev.20:13 "if man lies with another man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own hands." You see, it is because the Bible says it that it is wrong. It is not shoving religion down anyones throat, it is the truth spoken in God's word, period.Well, New York has done the right thing. Which brings to mind a question.
Can any person here who is "opposed to gay marriage" come forward and justify their position on the basis of anything other than intolerance and bigotry? Seriously.
Please don't start with "the Bible does not condone same sex marriage." Perhaps it doesn't. So WHAT? Let's say the Bible contained a passage which said: "Marriage is only between a man and a woman. If thou shalt marry one of the same sex as yourself, thou shalt burn in the fiery pits of HELL!" So what? Isn't invoking the Bible just another way of shoving religion down the throats of other people? Yup. In other words, intolerance and bigotry.
No, my friends - we all know what is really involved here, don't we? I am wondering if there is anyone here who has the stones to come right out and tell it like it is: "I am opposed to same sex marriage because I hate gays everything they stand for. No other reason."
Intolerance and bigotry. There really does not seem to be any other reason.
If we were intended to mate with the same sex we would have evolved that way. It is unnatural to say the least. Apparently mother nature, god, or just plain ole evolution is the biggest bigot of all.
Personally I consider the desire to perform such acts as a mental abnormality.
Having said that I only wish all left wing nuts practiced this lifestyle because eventually they would become extinct through the innability to reproduce.
Exactly, it is the leftwing idiot loonbats who are always calling names, throwing things, and getting violent. But they think they are on the right side of things, boy are they going to be surprised when they meet their maker.Well, New York has done the right thing. Which brings to mind a question.
Can any person here who is "opposed to gay marriage" come forward and justify their position on the basis of anything other than intolerance and bigotry? Seriously.
Please don't start with "the Bible does not condone same sex marriage." Perhaps it doesn't. So WHAT? Let's say the Bible contained a passage which said: "Marriage is only between a man and a woman. If thou shalt marry one of the same sex as yourself, thou shalt burn in the fiery pits of HELL!" So what? Isn't invoking the Bible just another way of shoving religion down the throats of other people? Yup. In other words, intolerance and bigotry.
No, my friends - we all know what is really involved here, don't we? I am wondering if there is anyone here who has the stones to come right out and tell it like it is: "I am opposed to same sex marriage because I hate gays everything they stand for. No other reason."
Intolerance and bigotry. There really does not seem to be any other reason.
How about this one.
I can imagine a way out a truce. In the end, the truce would look like this:
- That same-sex marriage be legalized and recognized federally and
- Every one of us remains free to raise our children in the way that we choose, including the ability to express a preference for opposite-sex relationships, without the name-calling, business boycotts, demonization, and social condemnation that have become the tools of the pro-gay-marriage zealots.
Unfortunately, I dont believe the left is capable of agreeing to #2, and if they are, I dont believe they will do it sincerely and, eventually, they will return to calling families that choose a preference for opposite-sex marriage bigots. Since I have no confidence that #2 will ever come to pass, I remain on the side of traditional marriage and civil unions. My position is not taken out of ideology, but is taken as a consequence of the politicized tactics of the left.
The Heathen Republican: Politicizing Gay Marriage
Some of the proponents of same sex marriage do more to make the case against it than any opponent could by insisting that the only argument against it comes from intolerance and bigotry.
That does not mean thee is not a case that revolves around other things though.
The Heathen Republican: The Non-Faith-Based Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
Change for the sake of change is not always a good thing.
I guess that makes you one king-sized hypocrite!Where is it written that marriage is a "right"? It is not a "right" (otherwise people could be forced into marriage to fullfill another's "right"). Marriage is the partnership between one man and at least one woman. The definition has stood for centuries. There is no reason to twist, mock, confuse that word. Do those that want a homosexual partner legally reject the ability for themselves to have a 'raditional' marriage? If not, his is special treatment (an additional privilege for people of a sexual preference is not equality).
From the conversations that I have had about this topic, the main reason "homosexuals" want to be defined as "married" is to have access to gov't monies that belong to their partner. If this is true, this country is broke and cannot afford that "drain" on the taxpayer dime. The reason the gov't started giving money to widows was because the husband 'was' the sole money maker, and the wife was left with no form of income. Homosexuals have no reason to not to be 'productive members of society', they cannot procreate without 'influences from outside the partnership'. If they choose to have children, they must rely on persons of the opposite sex to assist them in this matter.
Homosexuals should not be able to "marry" for those reasons. If they want to make a new category of legal definition, possibly, common law partner or bound partner, I have no objections. If they want to make a "special" legal joiner that all taxpayers will be forced to support thru the gov't, then it should be put on a ballot.
According to the Supreme Court marriage is a civil right not a privilege. This is the ruling from Loving v VA
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There is no reason to think this would not apply to gay people too.
HAHAHAHA!! I actually enjoy nit pickers like that one, they make me laugh. I was called a commie the other day and almost fell on the floor laughing.
I don't mind a few limitations. But they ought to stay out of our personal lives. I'm really surprised that the governor on FL got a law passed so that people have to be drug tested for various things, and he has a financial interest in it too. It leaves me scratching my head and wondering why people that are cutting funds to schools are willing to spend $9M on drug testing. I guess they just have to have a finger in other people's lives and that extends to marriage too.
Glad I mad you laugh on my first day here! You seem like a jovial type that will be fun to discuss issues with. What is a Communist? I thought those folks only existed in the USSR and maybe in Cuba and some other nation.
Do Communists still exist in the USA or are they all now corporate tax lawyers getting government handouts for their client companies? (You're not a lawyer, are you? You're sure as insightful as to the law as one would be!...Certainly you don't do tax law for corporations as Michele Bachmann supposedly used to do!)
If we were intended to mate with the same sex we would have evolved that way. It is unnatural to say the least. Apparently mother nature, god, or just plain ole evolution is the biggest bigot of all.
Personally I consider the desire to perform such acts as a mental abnormality.
Having said that I only wish all left wing nuts practiced this lifestyle because eventually they would become extinct through the innability to reproduce.
Would you say this is an example of intolerance or bigotry? Or both?
The bible was written by man.
Where is it written that marriage is a "right"? It is not a "right" (otherwise people could be forced into marriage to fullfill another's "right"). Marriage is the partnership between one man and at least one woman. The definition has stood for centuries. There is no reason to twist, mock, confuse that word. Do those that want a homosexual partner legally reject the ability for themselves to have a 'raditional' marriage? If not, his is special treatment (an additional privilege for people of a sexual preference is not equality).
From the conversations that I have had about this topic, the main reason "homosexuals" want to be defined as "married" is to have access to gov't monies that belong to their partner. If this is true, this country is broke and cannot afford that "drain" on the taxpayer dime. The reason the gov't started giving money to widows was because the husband 'was' the sole money maker, and the wife was left with no form of income. Homosexuals have no reason to not to be 'productive members of society', they cannot procreate without 'influences from outside the partnership'. If they choose to have children, they must rely on persons of the opposite sex to assist them in this matter.
Homosexuals should not be able to "marry" for those reasons. If they want to make a new category of legal definition, possibly, common law partner or bound partner, I have no objections. If they want to make a "special" legal joiner that all taxpayers will be forced to support thru the gov't, then it should be put on a ballot.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival
Guess what, because the Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman. Lev.20:13 "if man lies with another man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own hands." You see, it is because the Bible says it that it is wrong. It is not shoving religion down anyones throat, it is the truth spoken in God's word, period.Well, New York has done the right thing. Which brings to mind a question.
Can any person here who is "opposed to gay marriage" come forward and justify their position on the basis of anything other than intolerance and bigotry? Seriously.
Please don't start with "the Bible does not condone same sex marriage." Perhaps it doesn't. So WHAT? Let's say the Bible contained a passage which said: "Marriage is only between a man and a woman. If thou shalt marry one of the same sex as yourself, thou shalt burn in the fiery pits of HELL!" So what? Isn't invoking the Bible just another way of shoving religion down the throats of other people? Yup. In other words, intolerance and bigotry.
No, my friends - we all know what is really involved here, don't we? I am wondering if there is anyone here who has the stones to come right out and tell it like it is: "I am opposed to same sex marriage because I hate gays everything they stand for. No other reason."
Intolerance and bigotry. There really does not seem to be any other reason.
An idiot is one who equates gay with race or gender. Homosexuallity is a choice, which should be left in the bedroom by the way, and not shoved down our throats.Just like so many things that are embarrasing in our history, this one will be right there. The ones who opposed equal rights for blacks and women are the same idiots who are against this.
Once again, intolerance and ignorance shows its ugly face. Oh and speaking of the bible...didnt it say something about divorce? Why is that ignored by these same idiots. Divorce, fidelity etc.
I said two committed, loving, sober taxpaying adult citizens. Not a gaggle of Mormons. Bodecea believes polygamy could be argued legally. I believe the Marriage License as issued by the state should remain exclusively a contract made between two consenting adults, not more.You are the one that is defining marriage as being between "Two committed, loving, sober taxpaying adult citizens. Not a gaggle of Mormons." All I am asking for is your basis for that definition, why are you trying to turn that into an attack on me?
Why not? Once you fiddle with the traditional definition in the Western world, why stop with 2 people? The Jewish and Muslim cultures both have practiced polygamy for millennia. Why should you discriminate against them?
What about incestuous marriage? Why should you deny their rights?
Once you open the bottle you cannot shove the genie back ion.
