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.
But when do we take the next step and let libs marry their pet goat?????Gays are happy...you are miserableAnd ditto to you, heathen.Amazing what conservatives sink to when their hatreds are challengedFuck you too, heathen faggot.I mean a private life is exactly that, a private life. Who are you to judge someone else's love? What great calamity happens when you meet a homosexual?
In point of fact, you personally know homosexuals as neighbors, business associates, friends and family. Are you safe? Did they deign to mention your sexual behavior? Does it matter to them? Then why does it matter to you?
And there is plenty of heterosexual anal acts. Are heterosexuals just too straight laced to be kinky? Are you sure you have an Internet connection?
Opinions, they say, are similar to anuses. We all have one and yours stinks.
I don't want to run out a string about your attitude. It's not a good color on you dear. Keep it to yourself. Feel what it's like to get 'closeted'.
Seems like a fair trade
After all, you are supposed to be anything you want in this country, according to the Libs, and the poor goats probably just think they're a human trapped in an animal body.....
Possibly.... That means that the Libs have to allow goat marriage, since refusing it would be downright racist under that scenario...But when do we take the next step and let libs marry their pet goat?????Gays are happy...you are miserableAnd ditto to you, heathen.Amazing what conservatives sink to when their hatreds are challengedFuck you too, heathen faggot.
Seems like a fair trade
After all, you are supposed to be anything you want in this country, according to the Libs, and the poor goats probably just think they're a human trapped in an animal body.....
The white goats identify as black goats
That makes NO damned sense at all. Only the government has to recognize the marriage. No one is going to make the churches do anything. You really can't be serious with thatHappy Queers Day, I knew the USMB assclown brigade would be happy. Now they can celebrate a government forcing everyone to recognize their religious ceremonies. So much for separation of church and state!
Happy Queers Day, I knew the USMB assclown brigade would be happy. Now they can celebrate a government forcing everyone to recognize their religious ceremonies. So much for separation of church and state!
Now you're changing the subject. First of all they get away with engaging in politics all the time. They should lose their tax exempt status for that but I don't know of a single time when any did. But, you made the statement that they would be forced to recognize gay marriages, and that is just horseshitThe government already imposes gag orders on churches. Do you know that churches who address their congregation and encourage any sort of side taking on political issues and it is found out they will lose their non profit tax exempt status. It goes for evangelists on tv as well.That makes NO damned sense at all. Only the government has to recognize the marriage. No one is going to make the churches do anything. You really can't be serious with thatHappy Queers Day, I knew the USMB assclown brigade would be happy. Now they can celebrate a government forcing everyone to recognize their religious ceremonies. So much for separation of church and state!
Happy Queers Day, I knew the USMB assclown brigade would be happy. Now they can celebrate a government forcing everyone to recognize their religious ceremonies. So much for separation of church and state!
Just like we demanded that the Catholic Church marry non-Catholics and divorced Catholics.Can you guarantee the Church will be exempt? Because you fucking libs and gay atheists will demand it in the courts."Will the Catholic Church be told they must marry gays?
No, stupid.
So, since you know, you must be part of the gay underground. You can come above ground now. It is ok that you are gay.Told ya. Right on time. They will deny it, but the gay culture underground know those colors for what they stand for to them.The original meaning for the flags colors have been lost to time and the economy:
Gilbert Baker is said to have gotten the idea for the rainbow flag from this flag[5] in borrowing it from the Hippie movement of that time[6] largely influenced by pioneering gay activist Allen Ginsberg. The flag consisted of eight stripes; Baker assigned specific meaning to each of the colors:
hot pink: sexuality
red: life
orange: healing
yellow: sunlight
green: nature
turquoise: magic/art
indigo/blue: serenity/harmony
violet: spirit
Thirty volunteers hand-dyed and stitched the first two flags for the parade.[7]
To meet demand, the Paramount Flag Company began selling a version of the flag using stock rainbow fabric consisting of seven stripes of red, orange, yellow, green, turquoise, blue, and violet. As Baker ramped up production of his version of the flag, he too dropped the hot pink stripe because of the unavailability of hot-pink fabric. Also, San Francisco-based Paramount Flag Co. began selling a surplus stock of Rainbow Girls flags from its retail store on the southwest corner of Polk and Post, at which Gilbert Baker was an employee.[8]
In 1979 the flag was modified again. When hung vertically from the lamp posts of San Francisco's Market Street, the center stripe was obscured by the post itself. Changing the flag design to one with an even number of stripes was the easiest way to rectify this, so the turquoise stripe was dropped, which resulted in a six stripe version of the flag — red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and violet.[8]
In 1989, the rainbow flag came to nationwide attention in the United States after John Stout sued his landlords and won when they attempted to prohibit him from displaying the flag from his West Hollywood, California, apartment balcony.
~ I do not personally know any LGBT's who assign anything to the actual stripes, merely the flag as a whole.
Unwin is as much an idiot as you are.First great error of the day: "The downfall of many a great civilization involved the rampant immoral sexuality and perversion in that culture." No, it did not.
In Sex and Culture, a study of 86 human civilizations ranging from Rome to Tahiti, J.D. Unwin found that a society’s destiny is tied inseparably to the limits it imposes on sexual expression. The highest levels of social development are reached only by cultures that practice what Unwin called “absolute monogamy,” in which marriage is limited to one man and one woman,
They just got saved....from immoral bigots like you demanding that they live according to your perverted morals.Gays are happy...you are miserable
Seems like a fair trade
Unless they get saved, they better enjoy their happiness here on Earth, because they will be miserable for eternity.....
And you just proved that you know more about Unwin than Bonzi, who never read his book or anything other than some blurb on a right wing nut job site.The downfall of many a great civilization involved the rampant immoral sexuality and perversion in that culture.
Such as?
In Sex and Culture, JD Unwin studied 80 primitive tribes and 6 known civilizations through 5,000 years of history and found a positive correlation between the cultural achievement of a people and the sexual restraint they observe.
Well I am unfamiliar with Mr. Unwins work, but "primitive tribes" are hardly "great civilizations". What I can gather from the few sources that are online about this book is that it was written in 1934 in Great Britain during a time when British women were gaining more rights and freedoms. Mr. Unwin apparently believed that women should remain subservient and thus published his work in an effort to provide an argument that women should should revert back to their status of Victorian England. The book doesn't seem to be one that is widely referenced by scholarship and, from the little I have been able to find, those that do consider it a study in the manipulation of data in order to establish a pre-conceived, political agenda.
"In order to attain this absolute correlation, he has had to manipulate his definitions of both sexual restrictions and of cultural achievement. His restrictions, in fact, only concern the limitation of pre-nuptual freedom in women and the nature of religious rites...in defining cultural achievement the standard is surprising. The lowest level recognized is that characterized by religion without post-funeral honor of the individual dead or without worship in temples, these two being the criteria of the middle and highest levels of primitive cultural achievement. For a culture to rise from the lowest plane to the next highest level it is only necessary to restrict pre-nuptual freedom of women; to rise to the highest level, where they will be capable of building temples, it is only necessary to demand tokens of virginity. It is not necessary for all restrictions to be enforced on all females of a society....
It is impossible within the limits of a brief review to criticize the long list of absurdities that are involved in the correlations of this volume.....This volume is an extreme example of the manipulation of anthropological material to support private programs of social reform, in this case, a program of return to the immediate Victorian past. It makes clear, as has already been abundantly demonstrated in anthropological literature, that any thesis, no matter how unlikely, can be upheld by a suitable rearrangement of cultural facts from primitive peoples. Only insistence upon a greater scrupulousness and a greater intelligence can prevent the recurrence of such volumes of special pleading"
-Dr. Ruth Benedict, Ph.D.
Columbia University, Department of Anthropology
GENERAL Sex and Culture. J. D. Unwin. - Benedict - 2009 - American Anthropologist - Wiley Online Library
.Dr. Benedict also mentions in her review, that Unwin completely ignored several tribes that were in the immediate area and time frame of other tribes he did consider that would have totally destroyed his hypothesis such as the Cheyenne and Menomini. So, it appears that you are supporting your thesis by quoting a source that was designed to subjugate women and appears to be the 1930's British equivalent of AGW; i.e. 'we will only consider data that supports our political aims and we will ignore the rest'.
Everything has consequences. Has anyone thought of common law marriage and how this will come into play. There are many homosexual men that each make a large amount of money. If they live together as husband and husband whether they are married or not will this be considered as common law marriage. If their combined salary is over 400,000 a year will their tax rate not sky rocket.Same sex marriage is constitutional.
Those of you who don't like it: sux to be you, huh?
Do you really think it is that simple?They will resolve it the same way straight couples do today. No biggie. And I am sure that they don't hate marriage either. Think, please.
Sounds like you looking to conjure up problems just to say "I told you so" Divorce and alimony are touchy and difficult subjects for all couples of all kinds. Alimony reform is long over due. I would guess that there is a need to develop case and statutory law to deal with new situations. It is not a reason to say that gays are going to regret marriage any more than a lot of straight people do at some point. Now be nice and wish them well.Everything has consequences. Has anyone thought of common law marriage and how this will come into play. There are many homosexual men that each make a large amount of money. If they live together as husband and husband whether they are married or not will this be considered as common law marriage. If their combined salary is over 400,000 a year will their tax rate not sky rocket.Same sex marriage is constitutional.
Those of you who don't like it: sux to be you, huh?
What happens when two men live together and then split up in the states that have spousal support laws? This marriage thing will or could affect the situation where homosexual men or homosexual women live together even though they are not married. I am sure many homosexuals will be financially disappointed by this law and many will wish it did not exist.
Lol at this nerdy faggot.Same sex marriage is constitutional.
Those of you who don't like it: sux to be you, huh?
Drama queen
Steinie, you are a drama queen we like to tease. Never go away.Lol at this nerdy faggot.Same sex marriage is constitutional.
Those of you who don't like it: sux to be you, huh?
Drama queen
Everything has consequences. Has anyone thought of common law marriage and how this will come into play. There are many homosexual men that each make a large amount of money. If they live together as husband and husband whether they are married or not will this be considered as common law marriage. If their combined salary is over 400,000 a year will their tax rate not sky rocket.Same sex marriage is constitutional.
Those of you who don't like it: sux to be you, huh?
What happens when two men live together and then split up in the states that have spousal support laws? This marriage thing will or could affect the situation where homosexual men or homosexual women live together even though they are not married. I am sure many homosexuals will be financially disappointed by this law and many will wish it did not exist.
