The Quandary Christians Put Gays In

[Syriusly]

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough.

You first.

It IS a civil contract.

I know. But he wants to retain one moniker for straight marriage, and another moniker for gay marriage, so as to fundamentally retain a distinction between them. Telling someone they should be satisfied with "separate but [allegedly, though not really] equal" marriage substitute demonstrates that people really don't want gay couples to receive the same recognition and dignity as heterosexual couples.

What's your problem? Hell, they give gays MORE rights than straights. Same sex partners are welcome in gender exclusive areas while a straight partner could be arrested in some.

LOL......yeah.....well if you decide to marry your best male buddy, even though you are not gay- then you can have your straight partner in the locker room with you.

Meanwhile- gender segregation is based upon gender- not sexual orientation- but you knew that- you just felt like dragging that particularly lumpy straw man out.

Now real rights- Christians are protected by law against discrimination in all 50 states. Gays are protected in a few states.

Christians have more access to public accommodations than Gays.

That is a real discrepancy in rights.

 

[Flash Farley]

You do see how your argument leads to polygamous and incestuous marriage, right?

That is what you keep claiming- despite all evidence to the contrary.

Hmmmm, you've yet to defeat one?

You created them, remember?

Like I said- you keep making those claims- and have yet to provide any evidence to support your claim.

And when evidence is there you will refuse to acknowledge it. That's what I've experienced after dealing with lefties.

Flash, if you ever offer evidence regarding anything let us all know, so we can cheer you on for that new breakthrough for you.

Naw. I don't bother. I'm not looking for an award from the left.

 

[Flash Farley]

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough.

You first.

It IS a civil contract.

I know. But he wants to retain one moniker for straight marriage, and another moniker for gay marriage, so as to fundamentally retain a distinction between them. Telling someone they should be satisfied with "separate but [allegedly, though not really] equal" marriage substitute demonstrates that people really don't want gay couples to receive the same recognition and dignity as heterosexual couples.

What's your problem? Hell, they give gays MORE rights than straights. Same sex partners are welcome in gender exclusive areas while a straight partner could be arrested in some.

LOL......yeah.....well if you decide to marry your best male buddy, even though you are not gay- then you can have your straight partner in the locker room with you.

Meanwhile- gender segregation is based upon gender- not sexual orientation- but you knew that- you just felt like dragging that particularly lumpy straw man out.

Now real rights- Christians are protected by law against discrimination in all 50 states. Gays are protected in a few states.

Christians have more access to public accommodations than Gays.

That is a real discrepancy in rights.

Do you ever feel like Christians are raping your mind?

 

[SwimExpert]

Never has Being Gay been part of the public record.

That's right, it's a secret.

We are talking MARRIED COUPLES.

I think we're talking about the fact that nobody wants to marry you and it makes you sad, so you don't want anyone else to be married either.

Gays have GREATER access to public accomodations than straights!

Bakery refused to give you a doughnut because you're straight? Poor baby.

Swim expert has been reduced to a troll

Look, I took another progressive down!

Swim Expert is not a progressive. He is also on an entirely higher level than you are capable of understanding. You are the troll. You're just too much of a troll to even realize it.

 

[Pop23]

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough.

You first.

It IS a civil contract.

I know. But he wants to retain one moniker for straight marriage, and another moniker for gay marriage, so as to fundamentally retain a distinction between them. Telling someone they should be satisfied with "separate but [allegedly, though not really] equal" marriage substitute demonstrates that people really don't want gay couples to receive the same recognition and dignity as heterosexual couples.

What's your problem? Hell, they give gays MORE rights than straights. Same sex partners are welcome in gender exclusive areas while a straight partner could be arrested in some.

LOL......yeah.....well if you decide to marry your best male buddy, even though you are not gay- then you can have your straight partner in the locker room with you.

Meanwhile- gender segregation is based upon gender- not sexual orientation- but you knew that- you just felt like dragging that particularly lumpy straw man out.

Now real rights- Christians are protected by law against discrimination in all 50 states. Gays are protected in a few states.

Christians have more access to public accommodations than Gays.

That is a real discrepancy in rights.

Please explain this as it is not in most public accomodations law that I can find that I must be forced to marry a male to be granted equal access.

But then again, I reduced you to a troll quite awhile ago, so what else should I expect.

You have just admitted that gay same sex married couples have greater access to public accomodations than straights.

Don't worry though, it's the same opinion that the civil rights attorney I spoke to had.

Welcome to the winning side.

 

[Pop23]

Never has Being Gay been part of the public record.

That's right, it's a secret.

We are talking MARRIED COUPLES.

I think we're talking about the fact that nobody wants to marry you and it makes you sad, so you don't want anyone else to be married either.

Gays have GREATER access to public accomodations than straights!

Bakery refused to give you a doughnut because you're straight? Poor baby.

Swim expert has been reduced to a troll

Look, I took another progressive down!

Swim Expert is not a progressive. He is also on an entirely higher level than you are capable of understanding. You are the troll. You're just too much of a troll to even realize it.

^^^^ troll doing what trolls do ^^^^^

 

[Pop23]

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough.

You first.

It IS a civil contract.

I know. But he wants to retain one moniker for straight marriage, and another moniker for gay marriage, so as to fundamentally retain a distinction between them. Telling someone they should be satisfied with "separate but [allegedly, though not really] equal" marriage substitute demonstrates that people really don't want gay couples to receive the same recognition and dignity as heterosexual couples.

What's your problem? Hell, they give gays MORE rights than straights. Same sex partners are welcome in gender exclusive areas while a straight partner could be arrested in some.

LOL......yeah.....well if you decide to marry your best male buddy, even though you are not gay- then you can have your straight partner in the locker room with you.

Meanwhile- gender segregation is based upon gender- not sexual orientation- but you knew that- you just felt like dragging that particularly lumpy straw man out.

Now real rights- Christians are protected by law against discrimination in all 50 states. Gays are protected in a few states.

Christians have more access to public accommodations than Gays.

That is a real discrepancy in rights.

You realize gender = sex under public accomodations, right? Or are you simply stupid.

 

[Syriusly]

That is what you keep claiming- despite all evidence to the contrary.

Hmmmm, you've yet to defeat one?

You created them, remember?

Like I said- you keep making those claims- and have yet to provide any evidence to support your claim.

Yes, until a case is won, I cant. But until then I can simply argue merit, and you've yet to find any argument of mine you can defeat, therefore showing mine have merit.

You haven't argued merit at all. You have presented no more cogent argument than:

"Gay marriage is legal so therefore sibling marriage and polygamous marriage must be made legal also."

That is the extent of your argument.

Why not? Five lawyers just redefined marriage. Why stop with same sex marriage?

Flash, you are amazingly ignorant. Even for a bigot like you.

Or maybe you are knowingly lying?

Homosexuals have been legally marrying in the United States for over 10 years, starting first in Massachusetts, when the Massachusetts State Supreme Court said that banning same gender couples from marrying violated the Massachusetts Constitution.

In addition some 2 dozen State and Federal judges came to the same conclusion. As did the Judges for 3 Appellate courts.

And voters in 3 states said that marriage included same gender couples.
And the legislatures in 7 or 8 States passed legislation legalizing the marriage including same gender couples.

5 Supreme Court Justices- the highest judges in the United States- redefined nothing. They were behind the opinion of the American public, behind the states that had recognized the marriage of same gender couples and were in agreement with the dozens of judges who had previously found that Americans who happen to be gay have the same constitutional right to marriage as my wife and I have.

 

[Syriusly]

Never has Being Gay been part of the public record.

That's right, it's a secret.

We are talking MARRIED COUPLES.

I think we're talking about the fact that nobody wants to marry you and it makes you sad, so you don't want anyone else to be married either.

Gays have GREATER access to public accomodations than straights!

Bakery refused to give you a doughnut because you're straight? Poor baby.

Swim expert has been reduced to a troll

Look, I took another progressive down!

Swim Expert is not a progressive. He is also on an entirely higher level than you are capable of understanding. You are the troll. You're just too much of a troll to even realize it.

^^^^ troll doing what trolls do ^^^^^

Well you are an expert in trolling, that is for sure.

 

[Syriusly]

You first.

It IS a civil contract.

I know. But he wants to retain one moniker for straight marriage, and another moniker for gay marriage, so as to fundamentally retain a distinction between them. Telling someone they should be satisfied with "separate but [allegedly, though not really] equal" marriage substitute demonstrates that people really don't want gay couples to receive the same recognition and dignity as heterosexual couples.

What's your problem? Hell, they give gays MORE rights than straights. Same sex partners are welcome in gender exclusive areas while a straight partner could be arrested in some.

LOL......yeah.....well if you decide to marry your best male buddy, even though you are not gay- then you can have your straight partner in the locker room with you.

Meanwhile- gender segregation is based upon gender- not sexual orientation- but you knew that- you just felt like dragging that particularly lumpy straw man out.

Now real rights- Christians are protected by law against discrimination in all 50 states. Gays are protected in a few states.

Christians have more access to public accommodations than Gays.

That is a real discrepancy in rights.

You realize gender = sex under public accomodations, right? Or are you simply stupid.

Gender = sex (sex being gender- not the act of sex or sexual orientation)

LOL......yeah.....well if you decide to marry your best male buddy, even though you are not gay- then you can have your straight partner in the locker room with you.

Meanwhile- gender segregation is based upon gender- not sexual orientation- but you knew that- you just felt like dragging that particularly lumpy straw man out.

Now real rights- Christians are protected by law against discrimination in all 50 states. Gays are protected in a few states.

Christians have more access to public accommodations than Gays.

That is a real discrepancy in rights

 

[Syriusly]

FLASH FARLEY SAID:

“Marriage is a male and female and has been since the dawn of civilization.”

Religious marriage rituals are perceived by some as being between a male and female, but that has nothing to do with the right of same-sex couples to enter into marriage contracts.

As a fact of law marriage is the union of two equal, adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex. (Obergefell v. Hodges)

That something is believed to be 'historic' or 'traditional' is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, and in no way 'justifies' denying gay Americans their civil rights. (Lawrence v. Texas)

Funny, the number of participants are only valid as a traditional number. It is now simply arbitrary unless you can name another type of contract that is legally limited to two participants..

So once again- you are admitting that the only argument you have- apparently the only objection you have to polygamous marriage is 'Tradition'?

If that is the case- you had lost that argument once Loving v. Virginia shot down 'Tradition' as a valid argument.

I really wonder why you and your sort even are against sibling marriage and polygamous marriage since you can't seem to articulate a reason why you are against it.

Your objection to sibling marriage is 'procreation'- but when I ask you whether sterile a sterile brother should be able to marry his sister, you act like a speed skater being chased by a bear in avoiding the answer.

And you can't seem to come up with any argument about why you are against polygamous marriage other than 'tradition'.

The sad thing is- if you ever read any of the court cases- you might learn some other reason.

But you refuse to 'pollute' your mind with actual legal arguments, and prefer just to keep making your specious claims as you whine about 'gay marriage'.

Dear poor idiot, I have never claimed to be in favor of incest, I've always claimed that since the courts recent ruling I can see no legal argument denying them access.

You?

You dumb bigot,

I didn't say you were in favor of incest- I was saying you can't articulate why you are against incestuous marriage- or polygamous marriage- and your post demonstrates that again.

So once again- you are admitting that the only argument you have- apparently the only objection you have to polygamous marriage is 'Tradition'?

If that is the case- you had lost that argument once Loving v. Virginia shot down 'Tradition' as a valid argument.

I really wonder why you and your sort even are against sibling marriage and polygamous marriage since you can't seem to articulate a reason why you are against it.

Your objection to sibling marriage is 'procreation'- but when I ask you whether sterile a sterile brother should be able to marry his sister, you act like a speed skater being chased by a bear in avoiding the answer.

And you can't seem to come up with any argument about why you are against polygamous marriage other than 'tradition'.

The sad thing is- if you ever read any of the court cases- you might learn some other reason.

But you refuse to 'pollute' your mind with actual legal arguments, and prefer just to keep making your specious claims as you whine about 'gay marriage'

 

[Pop23]

Hmmmm, you've yet to defeat one?

You created them, remember?

Like I said- you keep making those claims- and have yet to provide any evidence to support your claim.

Yes, until a case is won, I cant. But until then I can simply argue merit, and you've yet to find any argument of mine you can defeat, therefore showing mine have merit.

You haven't argued merit at all. You have presented no more cogent argument than:

"Gay marriage is legal so therefore sibling marriage and polygamous marriage must be made legal also."

That is the extent of your argument.

Why not? Five lawyers just redefined marriage. Why stop with same sex marriage?

Flash, you are amazingly ignorant. Even for a bigot like you.

Or maybe you are knowingly lying?

Homosexuals have been legally marrying in the United States for over 10 years, starting first in Massachusetts, when the Massachusetts State Supreme Court said that banning same gender couples from marrying violated the Massachusetts Constitution.

In addition some 2 dozen State and Federal judges came to the same conclusion. As did the Judges for 3 Appellate courts.

And voters in 3 states said that marriage included same gender couples.
And the legislatures in 7 or 8 States passed legislation legalizing the marriage including same gender couples.

5 Supreme Court Justices- the highest judges in the United States- redefined nothing. They were behind the opinion of the American public, behind the states that had recognized the marriage of same gender couples and were in agreement with the dozens of judges who had previously found that Americans who happen to be gay have the same constitutional right to marriage as my wife and I have.

..........and greater access to public accomodations than you and your wife.

There I fixed it

So tell me, what makes gays more acceptable than polygamy or incest?

I fail to see the remarkable difference that you claim the law should have?

Incestuous children could just as easily claim, AND have supportive evidence that they were actually BORN INTO THERE SITUATION.

Gays do not, we have to take there word for it.

 

[Pop23]

FLASH FARLEY SAID:

“Marriage is a male and female and has been since the dawn of civilization.”

Religious marriage rituals are perceived by some as being between a male and female, but that has nothing to do with the right of same-sex couples to enter into marriage contracts.

As a fact of law marriage is the union of two equal, adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex. (Obergefell v. Hodges)

That something is believed to be 'historic' or 'traditional' is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, and in no way 'justifies' denying gay Americans their civil rights. (Lawrence v. Texas)

Funny, the number of participants are only valid as a traditional number. It is now simply arbitrary unless you can name another type of contract that is legally limited to two participants..

So once again- you are admitting that the only argument you have- apparently the only objection you have to polygamous marriage is 'Tradition'?

If that is the case- you had lost that argument once Loving v. Virginia shot down 'Tradition' as a valid argument.

I really wonder why you and your sort even are against sibling marriage and polygamous marriage since you can't seem to articulate a reason why you are against it.

Your objection to sibling marriage is 'procreation'- but when I ask you whether sterile a sterile brother should be able to marry his sister, you act like a speed skater being chased by a bear in avoiding the answer.

And you can't seem to come up with any argument about why you are against polygamous marriage other than 'tradition'.

The sad thing is- if you ever read any of the court cases- you might learn some other reason.

But you refuse to 'pollute' your mind with actual legal arguments, and prefer just to keep making your specious claims as you whine about 'gay marriage'.

Dear poor idiot, I have never claimed to be in favor of incest, I've always claimed that since the courts recent ruling I can see no legal argument denying them access.

You?

You dumb bigot,

I didn't say you were in favor of incest- I was saying you can't articulate why you are against incestuous marriage- or polygamous marriage- and your post demonstrates that again.

So once again- you are admitting that the only argument you have- apparently the only objection you have to polygamous marriage is 'Tradition'?

If that is the case- you had lost that argument once Loving v. Virginia shot down 'Tradition' as a valid argument.

I really wonder why you and your sort even are against sibling marriage and polygamous marriage since you can't seem to articulate a reason why you are against it.

Your objection to sibling marriage is 'procreation'- but when I ask you whether sterile a sterile brother should be able to marry his sister, you act like a speed skater being chased by a bear in avoiding the answer.

And you can't seem to come up with any argument about why you are against polygamous marriage other than 'tradition'.

The sad thing is- if you ever read any of the court cases- you might learn some other reason.

But you refuse to 'pollute' your mind with actual legal arguments, and prefer just to keep making your specious claims as you whine about 'gay marriage'

Dear dummy;

If I demand that a heterosexual couple PROVE sterility, yet, NOT DEMAND THAT BOTH GAYS BE STERILE. I grant greater access TO MARRIAGE to the gay couple.

Oh, I think the gay couple WOULD WIN THE SUIT DEMANDING THEY BE STERILE.

Got it now!

If you can't demand of one, you can't demand of the other

THATS HOW RIGHTS WORK!

So, back to, I do not want legal incest, but can't see a legal defense.

Are you really this dense?

 

[SwimExpert]

If I demand that a heterosexual couple PROVE sterility, yet, NOT DEMAND THAT BOTH GAYS BE STERILE. I grant greater access TO MARRIAGE to the gay couple.

Oh, I want to play! Okay, here we go: If a unicorn farts rainbows, does that mean that they will shit skittles?

You know.....nevermind. I think I'll just stick with reality.

 

[Syriusly]

Like I said- you keep making those claims- and have yet to provide any evidence to support your claim.

Yes, until a case is won, I cant. But until then I can simply argue merit, and you've yet to find any argument of mine you can defeat, therefore showing mine have merit.

You haven't argued merit at all. You have presented no more cogent argument than:

"Gay marriage is legal so therefore sibling marriage and polygamous marriage must be made legal also."

That is the extent of your argument.

Why not? Five lawyers just redefined marriage. Why stop with same sex marriage?

Flash, you are amazingly ignorant. Even for a bigot like you.

Or maybe you are knowingly lying?

Homosexuals have been legally marrying in the United States for over 10 years, starting first in Massachusetts, when the Massachusetts State Supreme Court said that banning same gender couples from marrying violated the Massachusetts Constitution.

In addition some 2 dozen State and Federal judges came to the same conclusion. As did the Judges for 3 Appellate courts.

And voters in 3 states said that marriage included same gender couples.
And the legislatures in 7 or 8 States passed legislation legalizing the marriage including same gender couples.

5 Supreme Court Justices- the highest judges in the United States- redefined nothing. They were behind the opinion of the American public, behind the states that had recognized the marriage of same gender couples and were in agreement with the dozens of judges who had previously found that Americans who happen to be gay have the same constitutional right to marriage as my wife and I have.

..........and greater access to public accomodations than you and your wife.
.

My wife and I have full access to public accommodations- we of course use gender specific restrooms and locker rooms when they are gender specific- and if they are not gender specific we can use the same accommodations.

Meanwhile- Christians have greater access to public accommodations than Gays- since they are legally protected against discrimination in all 50 states.

 

[Syriusly]

FLASH FARLEY SAID:

“Marriage is a male and female and has been since the dawn of civilization.”

Religious marriage rituals are perceived by some as being between a male and female, but that has nothing to do with the right of same-sex couples to enter into marriage contracts.

As a fact of law marriage is the union of two equal, adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex. (Obergefell v. Hodges)

That something is believed to be 'historic' or 'traditional' is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, and in no way 'justifies' denying gay Americans their civil rights. (Lawrence v. Texas)

Funny, the number of participants are only valid as a traditional number. It is now simply arbitrary unless you can name another type of contract that is legally limited to two participants..

So once again- you are admitting that the only argument you have- apparently the only objection you have to polygamous marriage is 'Tradition'?

If that is the case- you had lost that argument once Loving v. Virginia shot down 'Tradition' as a valid argument.

I really wonder why you and your sort even are against sibling marriage and polygamous marriage since you can't seem to articulate a reason why you are against it.

Your objection to sibling marriage is 'procreation'- but when I ask you whether sterile a sterile brother should be able to marry his sister, you act like a speed skater being chased by a bear in avoiding the answer.

And you can't seem to come up with any argument about why you are against polygamous marriage other than 'tradition'.

The sad thing is- if you ever read any of the court cases- you might learn some other reason.

But you refuse to 'pollute' your mind with actual legal arguments, and prefer just to keep making your specious claims as you whine about 'gay marriage'.

Dear poor idiot, I have never claimed to be in favor of incest, I've always claimed that since the courts recent ruling I can see no legal argument denying them access.

You?

You dumb bigot,

I didn't say you were in favor of incest- I was saying you can't articulate why you are against incestuous marriage- or polygamous marriage- and your post demonstrates that again.

So once again- you are admitting that the only argument you have- apparently the only objection you have to polygamous marriage is 'Tradition'?

If that is the case- you had lost that argument once Loving v. Virginia shot down 'Tradition' as a valid argument.

I really wonder why you and your sort even are against sibling marriage and polygamous marriage since you can't seem to articulate a reason why you are against it.

Your objection to sibling marriage is 'procreation'- but when I ask you whether sterile a sterile brother should be able to marry his sister, you act like a speed skater being chased by a bear in avoiding the answer.

And you can't seem to come up with any argument about why you are against polygamous marriage other than 'tradition'.

The sad thing is- if you ever read any of the court cases- you might learn some other reason.

But you refuse to 'pollute' your mind with actual legal arguments, and prefer just to keep making your specious claims as you whine about 'gay marriage'

Dear dummy;

If I demand that a heterosexual couple PROVE sterility, yet, NOT DEMAND THAT BOTH GAYS BE STERILE. I grant greater access TO MARRIAGE to the gay couple.

Oh, I think the gay couple WOULD WIN THE SUIT DEMANDING THEY BE STERILE.

Got it now!

If you can't demand of one, you can't demand of the other

THATS HOW RIGHTS WORK!

So, back to, I do not want legal incest, but can't see a legal defense.

Are you really this dense?

You dumb bigot- once again you dance away- and demonstrate that you are against legal sibling marriage- and polygamous marriage- you just can't say WHY you are against them.

I didn't say you were in favor of incest- I was saying you can't articulate why you are against incestuous marriage- or polygamous marriage- and your post demonstrates that again.

So once again- you are admitting that the only argument you have- apparently the only objection you have to polygamous marriage is 'Tradition'?

If that is the case- you had lost that argument once Loving v. Virginia shot down 'Tradition' as a valid argument.

I really wonder why you and your sort even are against sibling marriage and polygamous marriage since you can't seem to articulate a reason why you are against it.

Your objection to sibling marriage is 'procreation'- but when I ask you whether sterile a sterile brother should be able to marry his sister, you act like a speed skater being chased by a bear in avoiding the answer.

And you can't seem to come up with any argument about why you are against polygamous marriage other than 'tradition'.

The sad thing is- if you ever read any of the court cases- you might learn some other reason.

But you refuse to 'pollute' your mind with actual legal arguments, and prefer just to keep making your specious claims as you whine about 'gay marriage'

 

[Syriusly]

Like I said- you keep making those claims- and have yet to provide any evidence to support your claim.

Yes, until a case is won, I cant. But until then I can simply argue merit, and you've yet to find any argument of mine you can defeat, therefore showing mine have merit.

You haven't argued merit at all. You have presented no more cogent argument than:

"Gay marriage is legal so therefore sibling marriage and polygamous marriage must be made legal also."

That is the extent of your argument.

Why not? Five lawyers just redefined marriage. Why stop with same sex marriage?

Flash, you are amazingly ignorant. Even for a bigot like you.

Or maybe you are knowingly lying?

Homosexuals have been legally marrying in the United States for over 10 years, starting first in Massachusetts, when the Massachusetts State Supreme Court said that banning same gender couples from marrying violated the Massachusetts Constitution.

In addition some 2 dozen State and Federal judges came to the same conclusion. As did the Judges for 3 Appellate courts.

And voters in 3 states said that marriage included same gender couples.
And the legislatures in 7 or 8 States passed legislation legalizing the marriage including same gender couples.

5 Supreme Court Justices- the highest judges in the United States- redefined nothing. They were behind the opinion of the American public, behind the states that had recognized the marriage of same gender couples and were in agreement with the dozens of judges who had previously found that Americans who happen to be gay have the same constitutional right to marriage as my wife and I have.

So tell me, what makes gays more acceptable than polygamy or incest?
.

What makes gays (gays being people) more acceptable than polygamy(which is an association) or incest(which is is an illegal sex act)?

What makes you even compare people with an association with an illegal sex act?

 

[Pop23]

Yes, until a case is won, I cant. But until then I can simply argue merit, and you've yet to find any argument of mine you can defeat, therefore showing mine have merit.

You haven't argued merit at all. You have presented no more cogent argument than:

"Gay marriage is legal so therefore sibling marriage and polygamous marriage must be made legal also."

That is the extent of your argument.

Why not? Five lawyers just redefined marriage. Why stop with same sex marriage?

Flash, you are amazingly ignorant. Even for a bigot like you.

Or maybe you are knowingly lying?

Homosexuals have been legally marrying in the United States for over 10 years, starting first in Massachusetts, when the Massachusetts State Supreme Court said that banning same gender couples from marrying violated the Massachusetts Constitution.

In addition some 2 dozen State and Federal judges came to the same conclusion. As did the Judges for 3 Appellate courts.

And voters in 3 states said that marriage included same gender couples.
And the legislatures in 7 or 8 States passed legislation legalizing the marriage including same gender couples.

5 Supreme Court Justices- the highest judges in the United States- redefined nothing. They were behind the opinion of the American public, behind the states that had recognized the marriage of same gender couples and were in agreement with the dozens of judges who had previously found that Americans who happen to be gay have the same constitutional right to marriage as my wife and I have.

So tell me, what makes gays more acceptable than polygamy or incest?
.

What makes gays (gays being people) more acceptable than polygamy(which is an association) or incest(which is is an illegal sex act)?

What makes you even compare people with an association with an illegal sex act?

How are two straight males, wanting shared insurance benefits an illegal sex act? And since when is three an association and 2 not?

Pretzel much?

 

[Seawytch]

No- not really- I dislike aspects of more of Islam than I dislike aspects of Christianity. However, as long as Muslims or Christians are not trying to impose their faith on me, or trying to harm others, I am not too concerned with either faith.

Do you treat Muslims and Christians equally?

I treat everyone the same until they give me a reason not to. Islam is an evil hateful doctrine from the devil. Christianity is the Word of God. That's my belief.

Has a Christian forced you to read a bible or attend their church? You seem to have a case of Christophobia. It's quite common among the left.

Actually yes- I was forced to read the bible and yes I was forced to go to church. I continue to read the bible because I enjoy reading it, and I find it useful when dealing with faux Christians like yourself.

You seem to have a case of both homophobia and Muslim bigotry- which is quite common- but bizarre since homophobes and extremist Muslims share the same views on homosexuals.

Seeing Christians who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle in the same light as Muslims who hang them in the street is your own special version of bizarre.

Why are you comparing American Christians to Muslims in other countries? Here in America, it's the evangelical Christians that like gays the least. Oh...and Christians in other countries kill gays too, just like the Muslims in other countries.

"They Could Kill Me Anytime"

The 25 Most Shocking Anti Gay Stories from Russia

So why do you defend Islam?

Do you harm yourself eating pudding with a rubber spoon?

 

[Flash Farley]

I treat everyone the same until they give me a reason not to. Islam is an evil hateful doctrine from the devil. Christianity is the Word of God. That's my belief.

Has a Christian forced you to read a bible or attend their church? You seem to have a case of Christophobia. It's quite common among the left.

Actually yes- I was forced to read the bible and yes I was forced to go to church. I continue to read the bible because I enjoy reading it, and I find it useful when dealing with faux Christians like yourself.

You seem to have a case of both homophobia and Muslim bigotry- which is quite common- but bizarre since homophobes and extremist Muslims share the same views on homosexuals.

Seeing Christians who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle in the same light as Muslims who hang them in the street is your own special version of bizarre.

Why are you comparing American Christians to Muslims in other countries? Here in America, it's the evangelical Christians that like gays the least. Oh...and Christians in other countries kill gays too, just like the Muslims in other countries.

"They Could Kill Me Anytime"

The 25 Most Shocking Anti Gay Stories from Russia

So why do you defend Islam?

Do you harm yourself eating pudding with a rubber spoon?

Have Christians ever raped your mind?