Rightwingers, of whom I'm one, let the gay shit go

[P@triot]

How does my legal marriage of five years (to my partner of 18) do any of that Puppy? You're starting to sound unhinged again. Careful.

Watching you get angry because you know I'm right is always amusing...

I asked a simple question. Who the fuck are you to tell someone else they must choose ONE person when you demanded the "right" (which we both know doesn't exist anyway - but I digress) to marry someone of the same sex? If you don't have to recognize one man and one woman, who are you to tell someone else they must recognize a single partner?

Quick, fill the board with snarky responses while you desperately call all of your pals in the gay community looking for some sort of response to this question which exposes you as a hypocrite and pins you in the corner from which you can't escape...

I'll help her out. Mainly because I think you're wrong.

First of all, let me state that this country is full of people who only care about their "rights" whether they are actually rights or not. That is clear.

The country is also full of rapists. What's your point? Because we have over one million rapists in prison right now, we should accept rape? ?

When you're argument is - "but other bad people do it too" - then you don't have an argument.

A person who makes up rights and/or denies someone else what they themselves demanded is an asshole. Period. Rights are rights. They are spelled out in the U.S. Constitution (and yes, those are the only rights that exist) and they apply to every citizen of the U.S. equally.

I mean look at the alleged "right" to force someone to do business with you , completely ignoring the person's right to choose who they want to do business with. That is nothing new to gays either, don't think it is.

Take another argument. Legalizing MJ. Now, how do people who drink or smoke but want MJ kept illegal justify that? But on the other hand, how do people who want pot legalized but harder drugs to remain illegal justify that?

Exactly. They are assholes. So you want to point to assholes as your reason for justifying something? Really? No, really? Me? When I want to justify something, I try to point to something which is a shining example - something that is consistent, honest, and packed with integrity. But hey, if you want to point to drug addicts who are also hypocrites, have at it son. Just good luck convincing anyone you are "right" when that is your example...

Our laws are always morphing to fit the new social mores. At one time a white couldn't marry a black, now they can. Are you suggesting that those who wished to make inter racial marriage legal favored polygamy? Of course not.

I didn't "suggest" anything. I was very clear on what I stated (and we both know it). Marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman. And anyone who deviates from that has no business telling someone else they can't deviate from that.

The word marriage appears NOWHERE in the COTUS or in any of its corollary documents , and for good reason. The federal government should not have a damned thing to do with marriage. Not one thing. Marriage should not be listed on ANY government documents.

I agree 100%. So why do homosexuals insist on bringing the government into their bed when they falsely claim that they want the government out of their bedroom? (Hint - it's because they are disingenuous asshats who can't have an honest discussion about anything).

You don't want gays to have tax breaks and such that are afforded to married people? Good, do away with tax breaks and such for marriage and wham done, gays won't get tax breaks for being married.

I could give a flying fuck about a homosexuals taxes. Frankly, the evidence shows we have all been taxed back into the stone ages - so I applaud and celebrate anyone who can avoid sending even one damn dime to our unconstitutional, federal monstrosity which is a fuck'n nightmare of waste, fraud, and abuse.

You don't want an insurance company being forced by the government into covering 15 wives? Wam , done, the word marriage should not appear anywhere in any laws related to insurance.

I never gave my position on that. This is like the 3rd time now you've created a false narrative because you had your ass handed to you with facts in my previous post. I *asked* SW if she would demand that an employer be forced to provide health insurance for all 30 wives.

You either have a reading comprehension problem or an honesty problem. Which is it?

By the way, if polygamy weren't illegal, don't you imagine some insurance company would find a way to specialize in such things and make a killing? I know they would.

Great! That's the beauty of the free market. Find a need and fill it. What's your point? You're so desperate to make an argument, you're not even coherent any more. What does the fact that someone would try to meet the insurance needs of a marriage with one man and 30 wives have to do with anything?

See, the problem is YOU want YOUR definition of marriage to receive special benefits from the government, but not others. Which of course takes us full circle and makes you no better than the gays you hate.

Actually, the problem is you're talking (like most Dumbocrats) from a place of pure ignorance. I'm probably the truest conservative on this board. No, not a libertarian (fuck'n moron's), not a Sovereign Citizen (maniacs every bit as dangerous as communists) - a conservative. I've never asked for a single "benefit" from government, nor do I want any. I want the federal government to adhere to their 18 enumerated powers and not one damn thing more. And if they did that, our taxes would not need to exceed more than 10% at the federal level. And with 10% taxes, I wouldn't need a single damn perk or tax break from Uncle Sam.

I'm always amazed at how Dumbocrats weigh in on a subject despite not knowing a damn thing about it. You just made insanely inaccurate assumptions about me. All you did was damage your own credibility by doing so.

So now that you're slightly more informed here (and I do mean slightly), would you like to regroup and try again? Perhaps something this time which is coherent and accurate? You're best argument is "other people are hypocrites, so that excuses the deplorable action of hypocrisy - including when done by homosexuals". That is just weak...

 

[bodecea]

As far as Christianity goes, Jesus taught to love your neighbor, love your enemy, and turn the other cheek.

He didn't teach oppress your neighbor. He didn't teach hate people. Christianity should be an introspective religion where people do not throw around hate. Check what shirt you're wearing. If it's mixed fabric, I have some bad news. Like pork? More bad news.

Remove the plank from your own eye. Jesus made a new covenant with man. He didn't change the Law or the Prophets, but fulfilled them. Take your Christianity out of politics and take it back into your home, where Jesus had intended it to be.

Exactly. Which is why gay marriage has no business being legal.

Then straight marriages have no business being legal.

Government has no business authorizing what the church controls.

And many churches have married us BEFORE the first state made gay marriage legal.....

Show me any real conservative that says homosexuals have no right to fuck each other stupid in the privacy of their own homes? It's the homosexuals who want their marriage in government, and thus want government in their bedroom with them.

Just like straight couples already have the government in the bedroom with them.

 

[bodecea]

Actually, it comes down to wanting to encourage an institution that is beneficial for society as a whole. Neither homosexual marriages nor polygamous marriages are beneficial to society, in fact they damage it.

Also, they are not THE SAME as traditional marriage. So why on earth are we compelled to pretend they are? They are different animals...men and women who enter into polygamy and homosexual "marriages" are not being denied anything. They have the perfect right to enter into traditional marriage and be recognized by the government just as anyone else does.

They choose not to. It's a choice. They rejected traditional marriage in favor of a different situation...good for them. But we are not, and should not be, obliged to pretend it's EXACTLY THE SAME. It's not.

Prove that homosexual marriages damage society.

 

[bodecea]

So now you're admitting your a despicable hypocrite who wants to discriminate against other people?!? Wow! A rare moment of honesty from SW.

See, despite your false narrative to support your cause, I never "discriminated" against you. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Period. That's simply what marriage is. But because you want to take perks - any perks - and suck them dry for all they are worth, you insisted you were "discriminated" against and you wanted to change the definition of marriage.

Well, if we can't tell you that marriage is between a man and a woman, who the fuck are you to tell someone else that they must choose ONE person only? Who are you to "discriminate" against them like that SW?

See - you're position is REAL discrimination SW. You'll fuck the system over and turn on it's ear for what you want. But the minute you get it, you pull the ladder up behind you and stick it to everyone else.

How does my legal marriage of five years (to my partner of 18) do any of that Puppy? You're starting to sound unhinged again. Careful.

Watching you get angry because you know I'm right is always amusing...

I asked a simple question. Who the fuck are you to tell someone else they must choose ONE person when you demanded the "right" (which we both know doesn't exist anyway - but I digress) to marry someone of the same sex? If you don't have to recognize one man and one woman, who are you to tell someone else they must recognize a single partner?

Quick, fill the board with snarky responses while you desperately call all of your pals in the gay community looking for some sort of response to this question which exposes you as a hypocrite and pins you in the corner from which you can't escape...

^ Melting down

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Rottweiler every time you call me a liberal you expose yourself as a moronic rightwing loon. Just because we disagree on ONE FUCKING ISSUE doesn't automatically place someone in an opposing political spectrum as you. That kind of thinking is idiotic and narrow minded.

The republican party MUST be larger than that of the scope of your narrow minded attitude.

I NEVER said anyone had to condone anything. I simply said lets stop giving the left this stupid issue to clobber us over the head with.

Gays getting married has 0 impact on any of our lives so lets stop pissing away voters because you deem a behavior morally wrong.

 

[bodecea]

Rottweiler every time you call me a liberal you expose yourself as a moronic rightwing loon. Just because we disagree on ONE FUCKING ISSUE doesn't automatically place someone in an opposing political spectrum as you. That kind of thinking is idiotic and narrow minded.

The republican party MUST be larger than that of the scope of your narrow minded attitude.

I NEVER said anyone had to condone anything. I simply said lets stop giving the left this stupid issue to clobber us over the head with.

Gays getting married has 0 impact on any of our lives so lets stop pissing away voters because you deem a behavior morally wrong.

Well, you've got Rottie pegged.

 

[BillyZane]

Watching you get angry because you know I'm right is always amusing...

I asked a simple question. Who the fuck are you to tell someone else they must choose ONE person when you demanded the "right" (which we both know doesn't exist anyway - but I digress) to marry someone of the same sex? If you don't have to recognize one man and one woman, who are you to tell someone else they must recognize a single partner?

Quick, fill the board with snarky responses while you desperately call all of your pals in the gay community looking for some sort of response to this question which exposes you as a hypocrite and pins you in the corner from which you can't escape...

I'll help her out. Mainly because I think you're wrong.

First of all, let me state that this country is full of people who only care about their "rights" whether they are actually rights or not. That is clear.

The country is also full of rapists. What's your point? Because we have over one million rapists in prison right now, we should accept rape? ?

So you're simply confused as to the difference between consensual and non consensual?

When you're argument is - "but other bad people do it too" - then you don't have an argument.

A person who makes up rights and/or denies someone else what they themselves demanded is an asshole. Period. Rights are rights. They are spelled out in the U.S. Constitution (and yes, those are the only rights that exist) and they apply to every citizen of the U.S. equally.



Exactly. They are assholes. So you want to point to assholes as your reason for justifying something? Really? No, really? Me? When I want to justify something, I try to point to something which is a shining example - something that is consistent, honest, and packed with integrity. But hey, if you want to point to drug addicts who are also hypocrites, have at it son. Just good luck convincing anyone you are "right" when that is your example...

I of course, suggested no such thing. I merely pointed out that gays aren't the only people who do it. ALL people who do it or wrong. Pointing at gays and saying "you assholes" when doing it yourself is pathetic

I didn't "suggest" anything. I was very clear on what I stated (and we both know it). Marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman. And anyone who deviates from that has no business telling someone else they can't deviate from that.

I meant the group you, not you specifically.

I agree 100%. So why do homosexuals insist on bringing the government into their bed when they falsely claim that they want the government out of their bedroom? (Hint - it's because they are disingenuous asshats who can't have an honest discussion about anything).

Why must YOU have them in YOUR bed? Assuming your straight and married, have you rejected all benefits the government gives to married people? No, they why should gays?

I could give a flying fuck about a homosexuals taxes. Frankly, the evidence shows we have all been taxed back into the stone ages - so I applaud and celebrate anyone who can avoid sending even one damn dime to our unconstitutional, federal monstrosity which is a fuck'n nightmare of waste, fraud, and abuse.

Good for you

I never gave my position on that. This is like the 3rd time now you've created a false narrative because you had your ass handed to you with facts in my previous post. I *asked* SW if she would demand that an employer be forced to provide health insurance for all 30 wives.

You either have a reading comprehension problem or an honesty problem. Which is it?

Again, not my fault that you don't recognize that YOU can be used as a plural noun.

But do feel free to continue melting down

By the way, if polygamy weren't illegal, don't you imagine some insurance company would find a way to specialize in such things and make a killing? I know they would.

Great! That's the beauty of the free market. Find a need and fill it. What's your point? You're so desperate to make an argument, you're not even coherent any more. What does the fact that someone would try to meet the insurance needs of a marriage with one man and 30 wives have to do with anything?

Good, then what was your point in complaining about it?

See, the problem is YOU want YOUR definition of marriage to receive special benefits from the government, but not others. Which of course takes us full circle and makes you no better than the gays you hate.

Actually, the problem is you're talking (like most Dumbocrats) from a place of pure ignorance. I'm probably the truest conservative on this board. No, not a libertarian (fuck'n moron's), not a Sovereign Citizen (maniacs every bit as dangerous as communists) - a conservative. I've never asked for a single "benefit" from government, nor do I want any. I want the federal government to adhere to their 18 enumerated powers and not one damn thing more. And if they did that, our taxes would not need to exceed more than 10% at the federal level. And with 10% taxes, I wouldn't need a single damn perk or tax break from Uncle Sam.

I'm always amazed at how Dumbocrats weigh in on a subject despite not knowing a damn thing about it. You just made insanely inaccurate assumptions about me. All you did was damage your own credibility by doing so.

So now that you're slightly more informed here (and I do mean slightly), would you like to regroup and try again? Perhaps something this time which is coherent and accurate? You're best argument is "other people are hypocrites, so that excuses the deplorable action of hypocrisy - including when done by homosexuals". That is just weak...

LOL @ you talking about anyone making assumptions and then calling me a Democrat. I actually hold public office and have for 12 years and every time I run there's a big R behind my name. although in the future than may be an I, I haven't decided on that yet.

If you TRULY wanted the federal government to stick to its 18 enumerated powers you would absolutely and unequivocally state that the federal government has NOT right to define marriage PERIOD. So that was a um fib on your part.

 

[bodecea]

I'll help her out. Mainly because I think you're wrong.

First of all, let me state that this country is full of people who only care about their "rights" whether they are actually rights or not. That is clear.

The country is also full of rapists. What's your point? Because we have over one million rapists in prison right now, we should accept rape? ?

So you're simply confused as to the difference between consensual and non consensual?



I of course, suggested no such thing. I merely pointed out that gays aren't the only people who do it. ALL people who do it or wrong. Pointing at gays and saying "you assholes" when doing it yourself is pathetic


I meant the group you, not you specifically.



Why must YOU have them in YOUR bed? Assuming your straight and married, have you rejected all benefits the government gives to married people? No, they why should gays?


Good for you



Again, not my fault that you don't recognize that YOU can be used as a plural noun.

But do feel free to continue melting down



Good, then what was your point in complaining about it?

See, the problem is YOU want YOUR definition of marriage to receive special benefits from the government, but not others. Which of course takes us full circle and makes you no better than the gays you hate.

Actually, the problem is you're talking (like most Dumbocrats) from a place of pure ignorance. I'm probably the truest conservative on this board. No, not a libertarian (fuck'n moron's), not a Sovereign Citizen (maniacs every bit as dangerous as communists) - a conservative. I've never asked for a single "benefit" from government, nor do I want any. I want the federal government to adhere to their 18 enumerated powers and not one damn thing more. And if they did that, our taxes would not need to exceed more than 10% at the federal level. And with 10% taxes, I wouldn't need a single damn perk or tax break from Uncle Sam.

I'm always amazed at how Dumbocrats weigh in on a subject despite not knowing a damn thing about it. You just made insanely inaccurate assumptions about me. All you did was damage your own credibility by doing so.

So now that you're slightly more informed here (and I do mean slightly), would you like to regroup and try again? Perhaps something this time which is coherent and accurate? You're best argument is "other people are hypocrites, so that excuses the deplorable action of hypocrisy - including when done by homosexuals". That is just weak...

LOL @ you talking about anyone making assumptions and then calling me a Democrat. I actually hold public office and have for 12 years and every time I run there's a big R behind my name. although in the future than may be an I, I haven't decided on that yet.

If you TRULY wanted the federal government to stick to its 18 enumerated powers you would absolutely and unequivocally state that the federal government has NOT right to define marriage PERIOD. So that was a um fib on your part.

I see that a lot with those who compare gays and gay marriage with all those other things.

 

[BillyZane]

Rottweiler every time you call me a liberal you expose yourself as a moronic rightwing loon. Just because we disagree on ONE FUCKING ISSUE doesn't automatically place someone in an opposing political spectrum as you. That kind of thinking is idiotic and narrow minded.

The republican party MUST be larger than that of the scope of your narrow minded attitude.

I NEVER said anyone had to condone anything. I simply said lets stop giving the left this stupid issue to clobber us over the head with.

Gays getting married has 0 impact on any of our lives so lets stop pissing away voters because you deem a behavior morally wrong.

See that's how umm intellectually challenged people think though. They vote on a single issue. So they assume that others do to. I mean a person who just hates gays and votes against the Democrats on that issue alone can't possibly conceive of there being a gay person out there who might otherwise agree with conservative values, which as you suggest is stupid. Of course there are conservative gays, but when you alienate them on that issue , well they aren't going to be with you on any other issue.

I'm with you. but I don't think just the gays is enough. I think the true conservatives in the Republican party need to just forget about the social issues for awhile and concentrate on the issues that DO matter right now.

Of course truth be told, the Dems are just as much to blame , they KNOW that there policies are garbage, so they must keep the social issues at the top of the agenda to win

Straight or gay, we should all agree that this country needs serious work and who's sleeping with whom is the least of our problems.

 

[BillyZane]

The country is also full of rapists. What's your point? Because we have over one million rapists in prison right now, we should accept rape? ?

So you're simply confused as to the difference between consensual and non consensual?



I of course, suggested no such thing. I merely pointed out that gays aren't the only people who do it. ALL people who do it or wrong. Pointing at gays and saying "you assholes" when doing it yourself is pathetic


I meant the group you, not you specifically.



Why must YOU have them in YOUR bed? Assuming your straight and married, have you rejected all benefits the government gives to married people? No, they why should gays?


Good for you



Again, not my fault that you don't recognize that YOU can be used as a plural noun.

But do feel free to continue melting down



Good, then what was your point in complaining about it?

Actually, the problem is you're talking (like most Dumbocrats) from a place of pure ignorance. I'm probably the truest conservative on this board. No, not a libertarian (fuck'n moron's), not a Sovereign Citizen (maniacs every bit as dangerous as communists) - a conservative. I've never asked for a single "benefit" from government, nor do I want any. I want the federal government to adhere to their 18 enumerated powers and not one damn thing more. And if they did that, our taxes would not need to exceed more than 10% at the federal level. And with 10% taxes, I wouldn't need a single damn perk or tax break from Uncle Sam.

I'm always amazed at how Dumbocrats weigh in on a subject despite not knowing a damn thing about it. You just made insanely inaccurate assumptions about me. All you did was damage your own credibility by doing so.

So now that you're slightly more informed here (and I do mean slightly), would you like to regroup and try again? Perhaps something this time which is coherent and accurate? You're best argument is "other people are hypocrites, so that excuses the deplorable action of hypocrisy - including when done by homosexuals". That is just weak...

LOL @ you talking about anyone making assumptions and then calling me a Democrat. I actually hold public office and have for 12 years and every time I run there's a big R behind my name. although in the future than may be an I, I haven't decided on that yet.

If you TRULY wanted the federal government to stick to its 18 enumerated powers you would absolutely and unequivocally state that the federal government has NOT right to define marriage PERIOD. So that was a um fib on your part.

I see that a lot with those who compare gays and gay marriage with all those other things.

to be frank, gays don't do themselves any favors when they do shit like prance around half naked in public, or force people to bake cakes and such things .

Two sides of the same asshole.

 

[ShawnChris13]

As far as Christianity goes, Jesus taught to love your neighbor, love your enemy, and turn the other cheek.



He didn't teach oppress your neighbor. He didn't teach hate people. Christianity should be an introspective religion where people do not throw around hate. Check what shirt you're wearing. If it's mixed fabric, I have some bad news. Like pork? More bad news.



Remove the plank from your own eye. Jesus made a new covenant with man. He didn't change the Law or the Prophets, but fulfilled them. Take your Christianity out of politics and take it back into your home, where Jesus had intended it to be.

Exactly. Which is why gay marriage has no business being legal. Government has no business authorizing what the church controls.



Show me any real conservative that says homosexuals have no right to fuck each other stupid in the privacy of their own homes? It's the homosexuals who want their marriage in government, and thus want government in their bedroom with them.

Christians brought the legality of marriage into government. It's not 'right wingers' or 'conservatives' that are blocking rights. Saying that throws an unfair blanket over a large group of people.

Religious people brought marriage into the courts. Marriage is a private institution brought into the public by those claiming moral superiority over others. Lawyers and judges and congressman should not be arbiting the personal freedoms of others when it comes to marriage. Defining it as the religious oppressors wish only gives the government more freedom to restrict the rights of its citizens. And policy based on religion is theocracy, which we are not.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I didn't realize that shit had a sexual preference?

 

[bodecea]

So you're simply confused as to the difference between consensual and non consensual?



I of course, suggested no such thing. I merely pointed out that gays aren't the only people who do it. ALL people who do it or wrong. Pointing at gays and saying "you assholes" when doing it yourself is pathetic


I meant the group you, not you specifically.



Why must YOU have them in YOUR bed? Assuming your straight and married, have you rejected all benefits the government gives to married people? No, they why should gays?


Good for you



Again, not my fault that you don't recognize that YOU can be used as a plural noun.

But do feel free to continue melting down



Good, then what was your point in complaining about it?



LOL @ you talking about anyone making assumptions and then calling me a Democrat. I actually hold public office and have for 12 years and every time I run there's a big R behind my name. although in the future than may be an I, I haven't decided on that yet.

If you TRULY wanted the federal government to stick to its 18 enumerated powers you would absolutely and unequivocally state that the federal government has NOT right to define marriage PERIOD. So that was a um fib on your part.

I see that a lot with those who compare gays and gay marriage with all those other things.

to be frank, gays don't do themselves any favors when they do shit like prance around half naked in public, or force people to bake cakes and such things .

Two sides of the same asshole.

Been to a gay pride parade lately...almost none of that goes on anymore.....lots more at a Mardi Gras celebration.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So you're simply confused as to the difference between consensual and non consensual?



I of course, suggested no such thing. I merely pointed out that gays aren't the only people who do it. ALL people who do it or wrong. Pointing at gays and saying "you assholes" when doing it yourself is pathetic


I meant the group you, not you specifically.



Why must YOU have them in YOUR bed? Assuming your straight and married, have you rejected all benefits the government gives to married people? No, they why should gays?


Good for you



Again, not my fault that you don't recognize that YOU can be used as a plural noun.

But do feel free to continue melting down



Good, then what was your point in complaining about it?



LOL @ you talking about anyone making assumptions and then calling me a Democrat. I actually hold public office and have for 12 years and every time I run there's a big R behind my name. although in the future than may be an I, I haven't decided on that yet.

If you TRULY wanted the federal government to stick to its 18 enumerated powers you would absolutely and unequivocally state that the federal government has NOT right to define marriage PERIOD. So that was a um fib on your part.

I see that a lot with those who compare gays and gay marriage with all those other things.

to be frank, gays don't do themselves any favors when they do shit like prance around half naked in public, or force people to bake cakes and such things .

Two sides of the same asshole.

That would then also imply that Fred Phelps or any KKK rally represents me as they are aligned with my party.

There are morons of all faiths and walks of life. I don't know very many gay people but the ones I do know think that behavior is as bad as I think Phelps' s is.

Two sides indeed.

 

[Seawytch]

So now you're admitting your a despicable hypocrite who wants to discriminate against other people?!? Wow! A rare moment of honesty from SW.



See, despite your false narrative to support your cause, I never "discriminated" against you. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Period. That's simply what marriage is. But because you want to take perks - any perks - and suck them dry for all they are worth, you insisted you were "discriminated" against and you wanted to change the definition of marriage.



Well, if we can't tell you that marriage is between a man and a woman, who the fuck are you to tell someone else that they must choose ONE person only? Who are you to "discriminate" against them like that SW?



See - you're position is REAL discrimination SW. You'll fuck the system over and turn on it's ear for what you want. But the minute you get it, you pull the ladder up behind you and stick it to everyone else.

How does my legal marriage of five years (to my partner of 18) do any of that Puppy? You're starting to sound unhinged again. Careful.

Watching you get angry because you know I'm right is always amusing...



I asked a simple question. Who the fuck are you to tell someone else they must choose ONE person when you demanded the "right" (which we both know doesn't exist anyway - but I digress) to marry someone of the same sex? If you don't have to recognize one man and one woman, who are you to tell someone else they must recognize a single partner?



Quick, fill the board with snarky responses while you desperately call all of your pals in the gay community looking for some sort of response to this question which exposes you as a hypocrite and pins you in the corner from which you can't escape...

Except I'm not the one sounding angry and unhinged, you are.

Good luck with your plural marriage Strawman...er, fight. Polygamy has already lost at the SCOTUS level but you're welcome to keep trying.

 

[Seawytch]

Actually, it comes down to wanting to encourage an institution that is beneficial for society as a whole. Neither homosexual marriages nor polygamous marriages are beneficial to society, in fact they damage it.

Be specific. How is marriage beneficial to society but gays marrying isn't. How does my legal marriage "harm" society? Again, be specific.

Also, they are not THE SAME as traditional marriage. So why on earth are we compelled to pretend they are? They are different animals...men and women who enter into polygamy and homosexual "marriages" are not being denied anything. They have the perfect right to enter into traditional marriage and be recognized by the government just as anyone else does.

^^^Same argument used against inter-racial marriage. Those that supported the ban said it wasn't discrimination because blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites. They didn't care (like you) that they wanted to marry outside their race just like people like you don't want anyone marrying the "wrong" gender.

They choose not to. It's a choice. They rejected traditional marriage in favor of a different situation...good for them. But we are not, and should not be, obliged to pretend it's EXACTLY THE SAME. It's not.

My legal marriage is exactly the same...oh, and I did not choose who I am attracted to.

 

[bodecea]

Actually, it comes down to wanting to encourage an institution that is beneficial for society as a whole. Neither homosexual marriages nor polygamous marriages are beneficial to society, in fact they damage it.

Be specific. How is marriage beneficial to society but gays marrying isn't. How does my legal marriage "harm" society? Again, be specific.

Also, they are not THE SAME as traditional marriage. So why on earth are we compelled to pretend they are? They are different animals...men and women who enter into polygamy and homosexual "marriages" are not being denied anything. They have the perfect right to enter into traditional marriage and be recognized by the government just as anyone else does.

^^^Same argument used against inter-racial marriage. Those that supported the ban said it wasn't discrimination because blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites. They didn't care (like you) that they wanted to marry outside their race just like people like you don't want anyone marrying the "wrong" gender.

They choose not to. It's a choice. They rejected traditional marriage in favor of a different situation...good for them. But we are not, and should not be, obliged to pretend it's EXACTLY THE SAME. It's not.

My legal marriage is exactly the same...oh, and I did not choose who I am attracted to.

No marriage is exactly the same...Some marry for love (fairly new concept), some marry for money. Some marry to get away from something. Some marry for convenience...whether it's to get a green card or to hide from something within themselves. Some marry because they are needy. Some marry because their parents and/or society pressures them. Some marry because they have a baby on the way.

 

[deltex1]

Quack quack...

‘Duck Dynasty’ Star: A Vagina Is ‘More Desirable Than A Man’s Anus’
December 18, 2013 10:18 AM


?Duck Dynasty? Star: A Vagina Is ?More Desirable Than A Man?s Anus? « CBS Houston

 

[Dot Com]

mal- you mean what a guy "claimed' Christ said.... All that stuff was written, what? 30 yrs after his death at the soonest? I don't put much stock in hearsay ESPECIALLY when it was written a generation after it was supposedly spoken. Heck, 1 hr after someone says something, it can be mis-quoted.

I see organized religion as a form of control. Some people crave patriarchal institutions to control them. Me? not so much. I cannot see how women, especially, can voluntarily follow that stuff given organized religion's track record.

Then stay away from the Church... It's not hurting your Faggoty ass by beleiving what it beleives... Go after Islam you Fucking Coward.



peace...

christianity falls under "monotheism" which encompasses islam dummy

 

[Dot Com]

mal the preacher