Religious Right Wing Bigots Still Obsessing About Marriage-Get a Life!

[mdk]

That's not what I learned from guys I know who were in the joint and know a lot more about it that I would. In fact, there is a real distinction between the "man" in a gay marriage and the wide receiver "wife".

I love that most of what you know about gays appears to be from what your jailbird friends told you. lol. You sure seem to know a lot of criminals.

 

[G.T.]

That's not what I learned from guys I know who were in the joint and know a lot more about it that I would. In fact, there is a real distinction between the "man" in a gay marriage and the wide receiver "wife".

I love that most of what you know about gays appears to be from what your jailbird friends told you. lol. You sure seem to know a lot of criminals.

The funniest argument from the dipshits is that gays have been allowed to marry all along...its just the opposite sex, is all.


derrps like that are the type that fall down staircases checking their watch

 

[mdk]

That's not what I learned from guys I know who were in the joint and know a lot more about it that I would. In fact, there is a real distinction between the "man" in a gay marriage and the wide receiver "wife".

I love that most of what you know about gays appears to be from what your jailbird friends told you. lol. You sure seem to know a lot of criminals.

The funniest argument from the dipshits is that gays have been allowed to marry all along...its just the opposite sex, is all.


derrps like that are the type that fall down staircases checking their watch

The exact same argument was used to defend anti-miscegenation laws half a century ago. The courts weren’t that impressed then either.

 

[Correll]

It is a very general question. YOu are thus welcome to give a very general answer.


NOt sure what part of that is hard for you.


The question stands.


Are men and women different?

.....

Yes, men and women are different.....

Good. Now let Progressive answer, and I will move on to the next step in your education.

I dont require an education from someone who presumes to lack clarity in their focus in asking clarifying questions. Especially not on a debate website, you lost already when you decided that clarification was a trivial thing. You lack the discipline.

There is nothing wrong with discussing general issues, in general terms.


Try to be less of a drama queen.

Are queens different from kings


in how many ways

Yes, they are, in more ways than I can say off the top of my head.


See how easy I was able to answer a general question?

 

[Polishprince]

The funniest argument from the dipshits is that gays have been allowed to marry all along...its just the opposite sex, is all.


derrps like that are the type that fall down staircases checking their watch

I think its more than a valid argument. King James I and VI of England and Scotland was as queer as a 3 pound bill. Further, James was the absolute monarch and head of the Church of England and Scotland, didn't have a pope to answer to.

Yet, he was married to a broad, and never once even proposed the idea of Gay Marriage- although it was 100% within his rights to implement it.

Plenty of fellow who liked it up the ass, also have had no problems with marriage

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

So other people having the same access to social contracts is forcing you to do what exactly?

Apples and Oranges.

I am 100% against gay marriage and I will never recognize any so-called "marriage" between gays. In fact, as far as I am concerned, it does not even exist.

Having said that, I am fine with gays entering into contracts that provide them with the stuff they claimed they were being denied that married couples have.

America is built on "contracts". I don't care what contracts people enter into.

But to pervert the sacred institution of marriage is an entirely different thing.

Were you born hateful and ignorant, or did you choose it as a lifestyle?

Ah yes, when a liberal starts losing the argument must resort to Rules for Radicals #13. Insults start to fly when they dont get their way..

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So other people having the same access to social contracts is forcing you to do what exactly?

If homosexuals would call themselves "bum buddies" instead of spouses or husbands, it would make the difference between the Sexual Preferences clearer for young people to discern the difference

Well the faggots did remove the "wife" and Husband" from marriage certificates and replaced them with "partner 1 and partner 2". Because it might offend the queers to have to gender identify. Again that is FORCING the rest of US to change for their pansy asses, which again, makes US hate them all the more.

Really? I was under the impression that the "husband" in the gay marriage was the active member, and the "wife" was the wide receiver.

There is NO FUCKING husband and wife in a same sex marriage.!! One thing that I like about being here is that I learn so much. In this case, I learning how wrong I have been about the limits of stupidity. I now know that are none.

That's not what I learned from guys I know who were in the joint and know a lot more about it that I would. In fact, there is a real distinction between the "man" in a gay marriage and the wide receiver "wife".

The "Joint" which you seem to know a lot about....(????) has nothing to do the real outside world. It is completely stupid and dishonest - and a false equivalence logical fallacy to compare prison culture and how gay couples actually live and relate to each other in the free world

 

[G.T.]

The funniest argument from the dipshits is that gays have been allowed to marry all along...its just the opposite sex, is all.


derrps like that are the type that fall down staircases checking their watch

I think its more than a valid argument. King James I and VI of England and Scotland was as queer as a 3 pound bill. Further, James was the absolute monarch and head of the Church of England and Scotland, didn't have a pope to answer to.

Yet, he was married to a broad, and never once even proposed the idea of Gay Marriage- although it was 100% within his rights to implement it.

Plenty of fellow who liked it up the ass, also have had no problems with marriage

More than valid?

The whole issue is that the gay folks want to marry EACH OTHER.

How is it humanly possible to miss the entire notion from the starting line.

Dont check your watch near flights of stairs

 

[Polishprince]

The funniest argument from the dipshits is that gays have been allowed to marry all along...its just the opposite sex, is all.


derrps like that are the type that fall down staircases checking their watch

I think its more than a valid argument. King James I and VI of England and Scotland was as queer as a 3 pound bill. Further, James was the absolute monarch and head of the Church of England and Scotland, didn't have a pope to answer to.

Yet, he was married to a broad, and never once even proposed the idea of Gay Marriage- although it was 100% within his rights to implement it.

Plenty of fellow who liked it up the ass, also have had no problems with marriage

More than valid?

The whole issue is that the gay folks want to marry EACH OTHER.

How is it humanly possible to miss the entire notion from the starting line.

Dont check your watch near flights of stairs

King James I and VI didn't want to marry some dude. And he didn't, even though he had the absolute right to.

 

[G.T.]

The funniest argument from the dipshits is that gays have been allowed to marry all along...its just the opposite sex, is all.


derrps like that are the type that fall down staircases checking their watch

I think its more than a valid argument. King James I and VI of England and Scotland was as queer as a 3 pound bill. Further, James was the absolute monarch and head of the Church of England and Scotland, didn't have a pope to answer to.

Yet, he was married to a broad, and never once even proposed the idea of Gay Marriage- although it was 100% within his rights to implement it.

Plenty of fellow who liked it up the ass, also have had no problems with marriage

More than valid?

The whole issue is that the gay folks want to marry EACH OTHER.

How is it humanly possible to miss the entire notion from the starting line.

Dont check your watch near flights of stairs

King James I and VI didn't want to marry some dude. And he didn't, even though he had the absolute right to.

I dont care what King James the 1st or 6th fucked or married, dude. I live in America...founded on the notion that Kings are invalid.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It's a dumb question in virtue of the lack of specificity.

Men and MEN are "different," it depends on what you mean by different and why you're invoking the question.

It is a very general question. YOu are thus welcome to give a very general answer.


NOt sure what part of that is hard for you.


The question stands.


Are men and women different?

.....

Yes, men and women are different.....

Good. Now let Progressive answer, and I will move on to the next step in your education.

I dont require an education from someone who presumes to lack clarity in their focus in asking clarifying questions. Especially not on a debate website, you lost already when you decided that clarification was a trivial thing. You lack the discipline.

There is nothing wrong with discussing general issues, in general terms.


Try to be less of a drama queen.

Ok. In general terms. Men and women are different in some ways and alike in others. Now what the fuck are you going to do with that and how does it realter to the issue of same sex marriage as a civil right-which is where this all started. I can't wait to see what kind of bizarre and convoluted horseshit you -and the so called Polish Prince come up with on that.

 

[G.T.]

It is a very general question. YOu are thus welcome to give a very general answer.


NOt sure what part of that is hard for you.


The question stands.


Are men and women different?

.....

Yes, men and women are different.....

Good. Now let Progressive answer, and I will move on to the next step in your education.

I dont require an education from someone who presumes to lack clarity in their focus in asking clarifying questions. Especially not on a debate website, you lost already when you decided that clarification was a trivial thing. You lack the discipline.

There is nothing wrong with discussing general issues, in general terms.


Try to be less of a drama queen.

Ok. In general terms. Men and women are different in some ways and alike in others. Now what the fuck are you going to do with that and how does it realter to the issue of same sex marriage as a civil right-which is where this all started. I can't wait to see what kind of bizarre and convoluted horseshit you -and the so called Polish Prince come up with on that.

Its going to be such poor, convoluted logic that it's visceral and it will miss the underlying point of the entire issue and reason most folks favor more freedom and less restriction on consenting adults that arent infringing on others.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The funniest argument from the dipshits is that gays have been allowed to marry all along...its just the opposite sex, is all.


derrps like that are the type that fall down staircases checking their watch

I think its more than a valid argument. King James I and VI of England and Scotland was as queer as a 3 pound bill. Further, James was the absolute monarch and head of the Church of England and Scotland, didn't have a pope to answer to.

Yet, he was married to a broad, and never once even proposed the idea of Gay Marriage- although it was 100% within his rights to implement it.

Plenty of fellow who liked it up the ass, also have had no problems with marriage

You just really can't get away from that up the ass obsession. I think that you were in the big house and were forced to play house and that you were profoundly damaged by that .

 

[Correll]

It is a very general question. YOu are thus welcome to give a very general answer.


NOt sure what part of that is hard for you.


The question stands.


Are men and women different?

.....

Yes, men and women are different.....

Good. Now let Progressive answer, and I will move on to the next step in your education.

I dont require an education from someone who presumes to lack clarity in their focus in asking clarifying questions. Especially not on a debate website, you lost already when you decided that clarification was a trivial thing. You lack the discipline.

There is nothing wrong with discussing general issues, in general terms.


Try to be less of a drama queen.

Ok. In general terms. Men and women are different in some ways and alike in others. Now what the fuck are you going to do with that and how does it realter to the issue of same sex marriage as a civil right-which is where this all started. I can't wait to see what kind of bizarre and convoluted horseshit you -and the so called Polish Prince come up with on that.

So, men and women are different.


So, if an institution, such as MARRIAGE, is designed with those differences in mind, with a role for a man, and a role for a woman,


it is not "arbitrary" to restrict the man role to men, and the woman role to women.



That makes this whole debate, NOT about rights.

 

[G.T.]

.....

Yes, men and women are different.....

Good. Now let Progressive answer, and I will move on to the next step in your education.

I dont require an education from someone who presumes to lack clarity in their focus in asking clarifying questions. Especially not on a debate website, you lost already when you decided that clarification was a trivial thing. You lack the discipline.

There is nothing wrong with discussing general issues, in general terms.


Try to be less of a drama queen.

Ok. In general terms. Men and women are different in some ways and alike in others. Now what the fuck are you going to do with that and how does it realter to the issue of same sex marriage as a civil right-which is where this all started. I can't wait to see what kind of bizarre and convoluted horseshit you -and the so called Polish Prince come up with on that.

So, men and women are different.


So, if an institution, such as MARRIAGE, is designed with those differences in mind, with a role for a man, and a role for a woman,


it is not "arbitrary" to restrict the man role to men, and the woman role to women.



That makes this whole debate, NOT about rights.

Just like I thought, garbo clean-up.....aisle 5!

Newsflash, odd ass...institutions are free to change in an open and evolving society...and as a society does evolve, so should the equal treatment of the good citizens encompassing said society.

Your only argument is you're being a fuckin' ninny. Nose stuck in the air at those icky others. Well adjusted adults dont go around giving 2 shits who grown folks marry.

 

[mdk]

gAyS iN AmEriCA dOn'T nEeD tO mArRy b/C KiNg JaMeS!

 

[Correll]

Good. Now let Progressive answer, and I will move on to the next step in your education.

I dont require an education from someone who presumes to lack clarity in their focus in asking clarifying questions. Especially not on a debate website, you lost already when you decided that clarification was a trivial thing. You lack the discipline.

There is nothing wrong with discussing general issues, in general terms.


Try to be less of a drama queen.

Ok. In general terms. Men and women are different in some ways and alike in others. Now what the fuck are you going to do with that and how does it realter to the issue of same sex marriage as a civil right-which is where this all started. I can't wait to see what kind of bizarre and convoluted horseshit you -and the so called Polish Prince come up with on that.

So, men and women are different.


So, if an institution, such as MARRIAGE, is designed with those differences in mind, with a role for a man, and a role for a woman,


it is not "arbitrary" to restrict the man role to men, and the woman role to women.



That makes this whole debate, NOT about rights.

Just like I thought, garbo clean-up.....aisle 5!

Newsflash, odd ass...institutions are free to change in an open and evolving society...and as a society does evolve, so should the equal treatment of the good citizens encompassing said society.

Your only argument is you're being a fuckin' ninny. Nose stuck in the air at those icky others. Well adjusted adults dont go around giving 2 shits who grown folks marry.

True, institutions are free to change, especially in an open and evolving society.


All you have to do, is make the argument that such a change is called for.


But that is not what you lefties did.


You mis-characterized the debate as a civil rights movement.

 

[G.T.]

gAyS iN AmEriCA dOn'T nEeD tO mArRy b/C KiNg JaMeS!

The bending over backwards because they secretly enjoy imposing their own morality on others is hysterical

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Watered Down Political Science For Simpletons "

* Sanction By Government Not Required *

The exact same argument was used to defend anti-miscegenation laws half a century ago. The courts weren’t that impressed then either.

The facets of self ownership ( free roam , free association , procreation ) and self determination ( private property , willful intents ) are intrinsic with individualism and limited by non violence principles .

Thus , individuals are entitled to paraphilia ( non procreative behavior ) , or to disposition their private property ( civil unions ) as they see fit .

However , the public is confused by the fabrication known as " equal wrights " , because " equal protection " ( specifically from government at that ) is the actual constitutional guarantee and " equal protection " does not directly translate into or guarantee " equal endowment " .

The meaning of an after life is passing on ones genetic identity onto ones offspring ; and , for example , to be married by the catholic church , spouses must attest an intent to procreate .

Thus , a unique and discerning characteristic of sex distinguishes between social civil contracts ( civil unions ) that are functionally capable of perpetuating genetic identity by the partners and social civil contracts ( civil unions ) which cannot , which is alleged to be delineated by the term " marriage " .

That is , it must be established that " unequal endowment " , based upon distinctions between styles of social civil contract , violates " equal protection " ; and , that does not necessarily always seem to be an easy thing to prove .

 

[G.T.]

I dont require an education from someone who presumes to lack clarity in their focus in asking clarifying questions. Especially not on a debate website, you lost already when you decided that clarification was a trivial thing. You lack the discipline.

There is nothing wrong with discussing general issues, in general terms.


Try to be less of a drama queen.

Ok. In general terms. Men and women are different in some ways and alike in others. Now what the fuck are you going to do with that and how does it realter to the issue of same sex marriage as a civil right-which is where this all started. I can't wait to see what kind of bizarre and convoluted horseshit you -and the so called Polish Prince come up with on that.

So, men and women are different.


So, if an institution, such as MARRIAGE, is designed with those differences in mind, with a role for a man, and a role for a woman,


it is not "arbitrary" to restrict the man role to men, and the woman role to women.



That makes this whole debate, NOT about rights.

Just like I thought, garbo clean-up.....aisle 5!

Newsflash, odd ass...institutions are free to change in an open and evolving society...and as a society does evolve, so should the equal treatment of the good citizens encompassing said society.

Your only argument is you're being a fuckin' ninny. Nose stuck in the air at those icky others. Well adjusted adults dont go around giving 2 shits who grown folks marry.

True, institutions are free to change, especially in an open and evolving society.


All you have to do, is make the argument that such a change is called for.


But that is not what you lefties did.


You mis-characterized the debate as a civil rights movement.

No, you got your head twisted when it was up its own ass and failed to realize that keeping them from civil marriage was based solely on being an irrational cocksucker...and most good folks don't act that way, and its especially less and less as time goes.