Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[Czernobog]

Are you that friggen delusional that you can't understand anything in simple terms.

Marriage should be between a male and a female.

I think I've been a bit more than completely clear on this subject.

Oh, since I can hear you lil head blowing the fuck up, I will be even clearer......,

Both must be human.

You can call me whatever you want. I want you on the record saying that you believe homosexuals should have to marry people of the oppsite sex, if they want to get married. That way you can't back-pedal, and claim you "never said that", when, what comes next comes. So let's try it again:

Do you think that homosexuals who want to get married should have to marry people of the opposite sex?

I know right

The least he could do is read me my rights first!

Case in point. The cowardly bigot refuses to simply answer the question, because he knows that answering honestly proves that he has no respect for the institution of marriage.

Um, no.

He has answered it over and over, and in no way is it bigoted. It is in fact the utmost in respect for the institution of marriage.

No, he didn't he equivocated over, and over, so that he could not be held accountable for his position. There's a difference.
See, I believe that a homosexual should not be required to marry someone of the opposite sex.

See, that is answering the question. Pop pointedly refused to answer the direct question. He implied the answer. He danced around the answer. He allowed me to assume the answer. But, he never actually answered. All he has to do is answer the question as plainly as I just did.

 

[Pop23]

You can call me whatever you want. I want you on the record saying that you believe homosexuals should have to marry people of the oppsite sex, if they want to get married. That way you can't back-pedal, and claim you "never said that", when, what comes next comes. So let's try it again:

Do you think that homosexuals who want to get married should have to marry people of the opposite sex?

I know right

The least he could do is read me my rights first!

Case in point. The cowardly bigot refuses to simply answer the question, because he knows that answering honestly proves that he has no respect for the institution of marriage.

Um, no.

He has answered it over and over, and in no way is it bigoted. It is in fact the utmost in respect for the institution of marriage.

No, he didn't he equivocated over, and over, so that he could not be held accountable for his position. There's a difference.
See, I believe that a homosexual should not be required to marry someone of the opposite sex.

See, that is answering the question. Pop pointedly refused to answer the direct question. He implied the answer. He danced around the answer. He allowed me to assume the answer. But, he never actually answered. All he has to do is answer the question as plainly as I just did.

Listen F. Lee Bailey jr.

Play your little games all you want. This is how you roll, I don't care!

Gays could always marry

Males marry females

You don't get CLEARER then that!

 

[LittleNipper]

Biology can't be bigoted dumbass

Do you not know what "go with that" means?

My position has been made quite clear. Your delusions are also quite clear.

Your failure to indoctrinate me as one of your enablers is Chrystal clear.

If you have a damn point, I wish you'd make it.

What I asked had nothing to do with iology, dum ass. it's not my fault you are too cowardly to answer a simple question.

Yes or no: Is it your contention that in order to access the benefits of being married, homosexuals should be required to marry people of the opposite sex?

Now, before you bother wasting time with deflection, again, allow me to be clear. I am not asking if you thing anyone should be forced to marry against their will. I am asking what specific requirements are necessary in order to access the benefits of marriage. Now, since I was quite clear about being specific, "being married" is not a complete answer. Who can marry whom? Can homosexuals marry people of the same sex to access those benefits, or, in your opinion, must the person they marry be of the opposite sex.

Go ahead. Equivocate again, coward.

Are you that friggen delusional that you can't understand anything in simple terms.

Marriage should be between a male and a female.

I think I've been a bit more than completely clear on this subject.

Oh, since I can hear you lil head blowing the fuck up, I will be even clearer......,

Both must be human.

You can call me whatever you want. I want you on the record saying that you believe homosexuals should have to marry people of the oppsite sex, if they want to get married. That way you can't back-pedal, and claim you "never said that", when, what comes next comes. So let's try it again:

Do you think that homosexuals who want to get married should have to marry people of the opposite sex?

It is a simple question to Pop that he keeps refusing to answer with a clear statement: Should homosexuals who want to get married be required to marry people of the opposite sex?

Homosexuals should not marry. They want children. They should not be allowed to procreate, if such are unwilling to engage in marriage to the opposite sex. Homosexuals may choose to live together, but their union is not a marriage. Should a man be allowed to marry his dog? If the dog is not hurt, what is wrong with it? It is an abomination! And most all people (PRESENTLY) are still in full agreement that such is impossible to allow. It is obvious that an man can certainly get as much pleasure out of a sexual relationship with his dog as he can with another man. But pleasure is not the real reason for marriage. Marriage is the establishment of a family unit --- Husband/Wife ------ Father/Mother/Child. What homosexuality practices upon is dysfunctional. It is the enlistment of the unnatural in an attempt to give such credibility to something that is not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Pop has said or implied many times that believes that those who are same sex oriented should marry straights if they want to marry.

He makes it murky with comments about biology, procreation, and so forth, but, yes, Pop believes LGBT must marry straights if they wish to marry.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Little Nipper just destroyed the rationale for adoptions. Idiotic.

 

[Czernobog]

I know right

The least he could do is read me my rights first!

Case in point. The cowardly bigot refuses to simply answer the question, because he knows that answering honestly proves that he has no respect for the institution of marriage.

Um, no.

He has answered it over and over, and in no way is it bigoted. It is in fact the utmost in respect for the institution of marriage.

No, he didn't he equivocated over, and over, so that he could not be held accountable for his position. There's a difference.
See, I believe that a homosexual should not be required to marry someone of the opposite sex.

See, that is answering the question. Pop pointedly refused to answer the direct question. He implied the answer. He danced around the answer. He allowed me to assume the answer. But, he never actually answered. All he has to do is answer the question as plainly as I just did.

Listen F. Lee Bailey jr.

Play your little games all you want. This is how you roll, I don't care!

Gays could always marry

Males marry females

You don't get CLEARER then that!

Okay. Then we're going to just assume that you are answering "yes", to all of those requests to answer myt question.

So, your position is that homosexuals should be forced to marry people of the opposite sex.

Next question. Do you agree that homosexuals, by nature of the fact that they are homosexuals, find their romantic, and sexual satisfaction in members of the same sex?

 

[Czernobog]

What I asked had nothing to do with iology, dum ass. it's not my fault you are too cowardly to answer a simple question.

Yes or no: Is it your contention that in order to access the benefits of being married, homosexuals should be required to marry people of the opposite sex?

Now, before you bother wasting time with deflection, again, allow me to be clear. I am not asking if you thing anyone should be forced to marry against their will. I am asking what specific requirements are necessary in order to access the benefits of marriage. Now, since I was quite clear about being specific, "being married" is not a complete answer. Who can marry whom? Can homosexuals marry people of the same sex to access those benefits, or, in your opinion, must the person they marry be of the opposite sex.

Go ahead. Equivocate again, coward.

Are you that friggen delusional that you can't understand anything in simple terms.

Marriage should be between a male and a female.

I think I've been a bit more than completely clear on this subject.

Oh, since I can hear you lil head blowing the fuck up, I will be even clearer......,

Both must be human.

You can call me whatever you want. I want you on the record saying that you believe homosexuals should have to marry people of the oppsite sex, if they want to get married. That way you can't back-pedal, and claim you "never said that", when, what comes next comes. So let's try it again:

Do you think that homosexuals who want to get married should have to marry people of the opposite sex?

It is a simple question to Pop that he keeps refusing to answer with a clear statement: Should homosexuals who want to get married be required to marry people of the opposite sex?

Homosexuals should not marry. They want children. They should not be allowed to procreate, if such are unwilling to engage in marriage to the opposite sex. Homosexuals may choose to live together, but their union is not a marriage. Should a man be allowed to marry his dog? If the dog is not hurt, what is wrong with it? It is an abomination! And most all people (PRESENTLY) are still in full agreement that such is impossible to allow. It is obvious that an man can certainly get as much pleasure out of a sexual relationship with his dog as he can with another man. But pleasure is not the real reason for marriage. Marriage is the establishment of a family unit --- Husband/Wife ------ Father/Mother/Child. What homosexuality practices upon is dysfunctional. It is the enlistment of the unnatural in an attempt to give such credibility to something that is not.

You're right, but not because of any moral abhorrence, contrary to your wish that it were otherwise. Most of us have a problem with marrying your dog, because your dog cannot give consent. Most of us see that whole "consent" thing as being pretty important, because it is one of the basic requirements for "doing no harm". You see, that's what we care about. The Law is to protect me from you doing me harm. Anything else is moralistic bullshit.

 

[R.D.]

Okay. Then we're going to just assume that you are answering "yes", to all of those requests to answer myt question.

So, your position is that homosexuals should be forced to marry people of the opposite sex.

Next question. Do you agree that homosexuals, by nature of the fact that they are homosexuals, find their romantic, and sexual satisfaction in members of the same sex?

Forced? What are you smoking?

You are in way over your head, why not just stop now?

 

[Czernobog]

Okay. Then we're going to just assume that you are answering "yes", to all of those requests to answer myt question.

So, your position is that homosexuals should be forced to marry people of the opposite sex.

Next question. Do you agree that homosexuals, by nature of the fact that they are homosexuals, find their romantic, and sexual satisfaction in members of the same sex?

Forced? What are you smoking?

And this is why I wanted a straight answer to a straight question. Because now you are claiming, for him, that he does not hold the position that you insist he already claimed to hold.

If a homosexual wants to get married should they be required to marry someone on the opposite sex: yes, or no?

 

[Boss]

It's clearly against the will of the people in most places. I'm all for citizens in a state defining marriage however they want but it's tyranny for a minority to define society for everyone else.

What they want is a social issue they can polarize the electorate with because they believe this wins elections for liberals. Having the issue is more important than resolving the issue. You can't get people all worked up into an emotional frenzy over a resolved problem.

We have that. You guys handed it to us. in fact, we have several:

Women - "fetal personhood", and the end run around women's right to vote, pay equality, the delay in re-authorizing the "Violence Against Women" act.
Latino - Republican refusal to move on immigration reform
Homosexuals - Marriage Equality.
Everyone - Minimum Wage increase.

Progressives don't need to "create" polarizing issues. You guys are doing a great job of that, all on your own. Thanks for that.

And here we have the brazen honesty of a liberal revealed. The entire liberal movement is not about resolving problems for people, it's about political power through emotive issues they can divide people over. Here we have a liberal admitting that is the case and thanking me for creating these wedge issues.

 

[Czernobog]

It's clearly against the will of the people in most places. I'm all for citizens in a state defining marriage however they want but it's tyranny for a minority to define society for everyone else.

What they want is a social issue they can polarize the electorate with because they believe this wins elections for liberals. Having the issue is more important than resolving the issue. You can't get people all worked up into an emotional frenzy over a resolved problem.

We have that. You guys handed it to us. in fact, we have several:

Women - "fetal personhood", and the end run around women's right to vote, pay equality, the delay in re-authorizing the "Violence Against Women" act.
Latino - Republican refusal to move on immigration reform
Homosexuals - Marriage Equality.
Everyone - Minimum Wage increase.

Progressives don't need to "create" polarizing issues. You guys are doing a great job of that, all on your own. Thanks for that.

And here we have the brazen honesty of a liberal revealed. The entire liberal movement is not about resolving problems for people, it's about political power through emotive issues they can divide people over. Here we have a liberal admitting that is the case and thanking me for creating these wedge issues.

Actually, it is about resolving problems for the people. It is about actually doing something to help people. You know that little thing that you guys spent the last 6 years not doing - governing? It's not our fault that you spent six years doing nothing but trying to repeal Obamacare.

 

[Pop23]

Pop has said or implied many times that believes that those who are same sex oriented should marry straights if they want to marry.

He makes it murky with comments about biology, procreation, and so forth, but, yes, Pop believes LGBT must marry straights if they wish to marry.

The only thing murky is whether your ignoring me or not?

 

[Pop23]

Okay. Then we're going to just assume that you are answering "yes", to all of those requests to answer myt question.

So, your position is that homosexuals should be forced to marry people of the opposite sex.

Next question. Do you agree that homosexuals, by nature of the fact that they are homosexuals, find their romantic, and sexual satisfaction in members of the same sex?

Forced? What are you smoking?

And this is why I wanted a straight answer to a straight question. Because now you are claiming, for him, that he does not hold the position that you insist he already claimed to hold.

If a homosexual wants to get married should they be required to marry someone on the opposite sex: yes, or no?

Funny, he wants a "straight" answer

You simply can't make this shit up!

I answer the way I want too

I also won't:

A. Bark like a dog for you
2. Cluck like a chicken for you
Or
D. Oink like a pig for you (which I understand is a party game for some with your delusion. Cue dueling banjo's)

So move along lil fella

Times a wasting

 

[Pop23]

It's clearly against the will of the people in most places. I'm all for citizens in a state defining marriage however they want but it's tyranny for a minority to define society for everyone else.

What they want is a social issue they can polarize the electorate with because they believe this wins elections for liberals. Having the issue is more important than resolving the issue. You can't get people all worked up into an emotional frenzy over a resolved problem.

We have that. You guys handed it to us. in fact, we have several:

Women - "fetal personhood", and the end run around women's right to vote, pay equality, the delay in re-authorizing the "Violence Against Women" act.
Latino - Republican refusal to move on immigration reform
Homosexuals - Marriage Equality.
Everyone - Minimum Wage increase.

Progressives don't need to "create" polarizing issues. You guys are doing a great job of that, all on your own. Thanks for that.

And here we have the brazen honesty of a liberal revealed. The entire liberal movement is not about resolving problems for people, it's about political power through emotive issues they can divide people over. Here we have a liberal admitting that is the case and thanking me for creating these wedge issues.

Actually, it is about resolving problems for the people. It is about actually doing something to help people. You know that little thing that you guys spent the last 6 years not doing - governing? It's not our fault that you spent six years doing nothing but trying to repeal Obamacare.

Being an enabler rarely helps

 

[Pop23]

Okay. Then we're going to just assume that you are answering "yes", to all of those requests to answer myt question.

So, your position is that homosexuals should be forced to marry people of the opposite sex.

Next question. Do you agree that homosexuals, by nature of the fact that they are homosexuals, find their romantic, and sexual satisfaction in members of the same sex?

Forced? What are you smoking?

You are in way over your head, why not just stop now?

What he said^^^^^^

Czeeseheads delusions are incredibly entertaining

 

[Boss]

It's clearly against the will of the people in most places. I'm all for citizens in a state defining marriage however they want but it's tyranny for a minority to define society for everyone else.

What they want is a social issue they can polarize the electorate with because they believe this wins elections for liberals. Having the issue is more important than resolving the issue. You can't get people all worked up into an emotional frenzy over a resolved problem.

We have that. You guys handed it to us. in fact, we have several:

Women - "fetal personhood", and the end run around women's right to vote, pay equality, the delay in re-authorizing the "Violence Against Women" act.
Latino - Republican refusal to move on immigration reform
Homosexuals - Marriage Equality.
Everyone - Minimum Wage increase.

Progressives don't need to "create" polarizing issues. You guys are doing a great job of that, all on your own. Thanks for that.

And here we have the brazen honesty of a liberal revealed. The entire liberal movement is not about resolving problems for people, it's about political power through emotive issues they can divide people over. Here we have a liberal admitting that is the case and thanking me for creating these wedge issues.

Actually, it is about resolving problems for the people. It is about actually doing something to help people. You know that little thing that you guys spent the last 6 years not doing - governing? It's not our fault that you spent six years doing nothing but trying to repeal Obamacare.

First of all, I am not one of "you guys" and I don't know of anyone who has tried repealing Obamacare besides Ted Cruz.

No, it's not about resolving problems or you would embrace my solution and we could work together to resolve the issue. Instead, you tell me you are going to continue to fight. Okay, so maybe when you're faced with having to repeal a Constitutional amendment that says marriage is only between a man and woman, you will regret not having worked with me for a resolution to the problem?

I don't really give two shits what you do, to be honest. I presented a reasonable solution that resolves the issue for all parties involved, and if you don't want to accept that and work towards resolving the issue, that's on you. If you had rather have a long protracted fight that you're not going to ever win, then... my apologies to all the gay couples out there, I tried to be reasonable and solve the problem, and ass clowns like this messed that up for ya. Oh fucking well.

 

[Czernobog]

Okay. Then we're going to just assume that you are answering "yes", to all of those requests to answer myt question.

So, your position is that homosexuals should be forced to marry people of the opposite sex.

Next question. Do you agree that homosexuals, by nature of the fact that they are homosexuals, find their romantic, and sexual satisfaction in members of the same sex?

Forced? What are you smoking?

You are in way over your head, why not just stop now?

What he said^^^^^^

Czeeseheads delusions are incredibly entertaining

Yeah...that's what I thought. A coward who does not have the courage to admit his own positions. I am done with you. Welcome to ignore land. Buh bye. I'll check in in a few months to see if you have grown some balls by then.

 

[Czernobog]

It's clearly against the will of the people in most places. I'm all for citizens in a state defining marriage however they want but it's tyranny for a minority to define society for everyone else.

What they want is a social issue they can polarize the electorate with because they believe this wins elections for liberals. Having the issue is more important than resolving the issue. You can't get people all worked up into an emotional frenzy over a resolved problem.

We have that. You guys handed it to us. in fact, we have several:

Women - "fetal personhood", and the end run around women's right to vote, pay equality, the delay in re-authorizing the "Violence Against Women" act.
Latino - Republican refusal to move on immigration reform
Homosexuals - Marriage Equality.
Everyone - Minimum Wage increase.

Progressives don't need to "create" polarizing issues. You guys are doing a great job of that, all on your own. Thanks for that.

And here we have the brazen honesty of a liberal revealed. The entire liberal movement is not about resolving problems for people, it's about political power through emotive issues they can divide people over. Here we have a liberal admitting that is the case and thanking me for creating these wedge issues.

Actually, it is about resolving problems for the people. It is about actually doing something to help people. You know that little thing that you guys spent the last 6 years not doing - governing? It's not our fault that you spent six years doing nothing but trying to repeal Obamacare.

First of all, I am not one of "you guys" and I don't know of anyone who has tried repealing Obamacare besides Ted Cruz.

Really? So you don't know about the 52 votes in the House of Representatives to repeals Obamacare. Trust me when I tell you that Ted Cruz ws most assuredly not the only vote in favvor of that stupidity. I can get you the congressional vote rolls, if you need reminding.

No, it's not about resolving problems or you would embrace my solution and we could work together to resolve the issue. Instead, you tell me you are going to continue to fight. Okay, so maybe when you're faced with having to repeal a Constitutional amendment that says marriage is only between a man and woman, you will regret not having worked with me for a resolution to the problem?

Actually, I've said several times that I would be all in favor of doing away with the concept of marriage outside of church, for everyone. I have said repeatedly, good luck getting Christians to give up on their government recognized marriages. But, hey! If you can pull that off, I'm all with ya. I'm just not willing to have one kind of contract recognized for heterosexuals, and a different kind recognized for homosexuals.

I don't really give two shits what you do, to be honest. I presented a reasonable solution that resolves the issue for all parties involved, and if you don't want to accept that and work towards resolving the issue, that's on you. If you had rather have a long protracted fight that you're not going to ever win, then... my apologies to all the gay couples out there, I tried to be reasonable and solve the problem, and ass clowns like this messed that up for ya. Oh fucking well.

See previous response. And by the way, I don't see any actual Republican politicians making that suggestion. I only point that out because, your contention was that Liberals "created" this "polarizing" issue. However, the fact is, it wasn't even an issue until Conservatives started shitting themselves that "those damned fags are daring to get married!" In other words, Conservatives created this issue.

And, by the way, you are "those guys". When you start throwing accusations at "liberals", you self-identify, by your position, the opposition, which makes you "those guys". By identifying with "those guys", you accept responsibility for the actions "those guys" take in your name. If you don't want to be "those guys", then don't identifying with them. Guess what? You "lump me" in with Progressives, I'm not gonna flinch. I side with Progressives, so, I expect to be "lumped in" with them.

 

[LittleNipper]

I know right

The least he could do is read me my rights first!

Case in point. The cowardly bigot refuses to simply answer the question, because he knows that answering honestly proves that he has no respect for the institution of marriage.

Um, no.

He has answered it over and over, and in no way is it bigoted. It is in fact the utmost in respect for the institution of marriage.

No, he didn't he equivocated over, and over, so that he could not be held accountable for his position. There's a difference.
See, I believe that a homosexual should not be required to marry someone of the opposite sex.

See, that is answering the question. Pop pointedly refused to answer the direct question. He implied the answer. He danced around the answer. He allowed me to assume the answer. But, he never actually answered. All he has to do is answer the question as plainly as I just did.

Listen F. Lee Bailey jr.

Play your little games all you want. This is how you roll, I don't care!

Gays could always marry

Males marry females

You don't get CLEARER then that!

Okay. Then we're going to just assume that you are answering "yes", to all of those requests to answer myt question.

So, your position is that homosexuals should be forced to marry people of the opposite sex.

Next question. Do you agree that homosexuals, by nature of the fact that they are homosexuals, find their romantic, and sexual satisfaction in members of the same sex?

Homosexuality by nature is debauchery, fulfilling lustful and dark desires of the flesh without regard for eternity. It exalts materialism with abandon, and casts aside spirituality to embrace temporal pleasure --- void of the complication of a pregnancy. Sexual experimentation leads to fornication. At its worst, self gratification leads to encounters with both male and female partners. Homosexuality can begin with extramarital adulterous encounters. Pornography, self gratification, fornication, adultery ---- lead down the corruption ladder. The younger person can be initiated by a "mature" sexual predator with promises of care and friendship. The "victim" can harbor feeling of rejection by the opposite sex, or covets the seeming prowess of others of his sex -- seeing sexual humiliation/conquest as a power play game. The reality is that none of this is the ideal of marriage. It reflects the total opposite of what God intended for Adam and Eve.

 

[Pop23]

Okay. Then we're going to just assume that you are answering "yes", to all of those requests to answer myt question.

So, your position is that homosexuals should be forced to marry people of the opposite sex.

Next question. Do you agree that homosexuals, by nature of the fact that they are homosexuals, find their romantic, and sexual satisfaction in members of the same sex?

Forced? What are you smoking?

You are in way over your head, why not just stop now?

What he said^^^^^^

Czeeseheads delusions are incredibly entertaining

Yeah...that's what I thought. A coward who does not have the courage to admit his own positions. I am done with you. Welcome to ignore land. Buh bye. I'll check in in a few months to see if you have grown some balls by then.

The only "position" you know is on your knees.

If you don't know mine you are a.......


Wait for it


Wait for it




MORON