Time: Gay Marriage Already Won

I don't care if they get married or not, I just want them to stop their so called "gay pride parades". I mean, would you hug a strange man in his underwear. (and by strange here, I mean a man you never met before)

IMG_0996.JPG


Why in your underwear? Seems to me this should be more of an exhibitionist parade.

Again, how does this affect you in any way?

How do two men hugging in their underwear impact you in any way, shape or form?

Hint: They don't.
 
I don't care if they get married or not, I just want them to stop their so called "gay pride parades". I mean, would you hug a strange man in his underwear. (and by strange here, I mean a man you never met before)

Why in your underwear? Seems to me this should be more of an exhibitionist parade.


Why would you flash your boobs for some beeds?


mardi-5911.jpg




Seems to me this should be more of an exhibitionist parade.


>>>>
 

As long as God will never allow two men or two women to consummate their "marriage" vows, it doesn't matter what mortals think, says, or do. It isn't a marriage made in heaven. It is as worthless as a government who whould stand behind it.

I love a God that creates gay people and then tells them they cannot have sex with the ones they are attracted to nor can they marry them. What kind of God would do such a thing?

The same god that would plink down a tree in the middle of a garden and say..."don't touch".......:eusa_whistle:
 
Newt Gingrich, Mark Sanford, John Ensign, David Vitter, Bill Clinton, Larry Craig, Anthony Weiner, Jim Bakker, Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, Eliot Spitzer, Mark Souder, Pete Domenici, Herman Cain, Chris Lee, Tom Ganley, David Petraeus, Chip Pickering, John Edwards, Vito Fossella, Tim Mahoney, Don Sherwood, Steven C. LaTourette, Strom Thurmond, Gary Condit, Henry Hyde, Robert Livingston, Bob Barr, Dan Burton, Helen Chenoweth-Hage, Ken Calvert, Robert Packwood, Charles S. Robb, and Christ my fingers are getting too tired to go on.


These are the kinds of assholes who destroyed the institution of marriage.

Not gays.
 
As long as God will never allow two men or two women to consummate their "marriage" vows, it doesn't matter what mortals think, says, or do. It isn't a marriage made in heaven. It is as worthless as a government who whould stand behind it.

I love a God that creates gay people and then tells them they cannot have sex with the ones they are attracted to nor can they marry them. What kind of God would do such a thing?

The same god that would plink down a tree in the middle of a garden and say..."don't touch".......:eusa_whistle:

The same God who sent his only Son to pay our price for eating of that Tree.

Saint Paul condemns masturbators and homosexuals in the same breath. The Bible also says not to judge lest ye be judged. I advise homophobes to be REAL careful about judging homos if the homophobes perform a Manual Override on themselves every now and then. They might find themselves spending eternity with polesmokers. :lol:
 
Last edited:
As long as God will never allow two men or two women to consummate their "marriage" vows, it doesn't matter what mortals think, says, or do. It isn't a marriage made in heaven. It is as worthless as a government who whould stand behind it.

I love a God that creates gay people and then tells them they cannot have sex with the ones they are attracted to nor can they marry them. What kind of God would do such a thing?

The same God that demands that you hold fast to your marriage vows, even when temptation is strong. The same God that gave you the ability to reason, and to act, even when it is not in your best interest. The same God that forgives you for making those dumb mistakes.

What next? Marriage for threesomes, or foursomes? Marriage with horses, dogs or cats? How about marriage with children? After all, God made people who love animals, and people who are attacted to multiple partners or children.

Tell us why we don't have a slippery slope to those things with straight marriage?
What about bisexuals? Should they be allowed to marry one of each? After all, God made them all, didn't he?

:lol: another person who doesn't understand what being bisexual means. :lol:
 
I don't care if they get married or not, I just want them to stop their so called "gay pride parades". I mean, would you hug a strange man in his underwear. (and by strange here, I mean a man you never met before)

IMG_0996.JPG


Why in your underwear? Seems to me this should be more of an exhibitionist parade.

Been to Mardi Gras?
 
I love a God that creates gay people and then tells them they cannot have sex with the ones they are attracted to nor can they marry them. What kind of God would do such a thing?

The same god that would plink down a tree in the middle of a garden and say..."don't touch".......:eusa_whistle:

The same God who sent his only Son to pay our price for eating of that Tree.

Saint Paul condemns masturbators and homosexuals in the same breath. The Bible also says not to judge lest ye be judged. I advise homophobes to be REAL careful about judging homos if the homophobes perform a Manual Override on themselves every now and then. They might find themselves spending eternity with polesmokers. :lol:

Paul was a misogynist closet case....if he really existed. And he wasn't god now, was he?
 
I don't care if they get married or not, I just want them to stop their so called "gay pride parades". I mean, would you hug a strange man in his underwear. (and by strange here, I mean a man you never met before)

Why in your underwear? Seems to me this should be more of an exhibitionist parade.

I take it you have never been to a Mardi Gras. Or Spring Break in Florida. Would you like to see some hardcore videos of naked heteros on Spring Break, hon? Some Girls Gone Wild action?

No, no, no and no.

BTW, if you ever have plans of attending spring break in Fort Lauderdale, make sure you get your seat assignment when they sell you the ticket. Some of those flights are overbooked by more than 100 people.
 
I don't care if they get married or not, I just want them to stop their so called "gay pride parades". I mean, would you hug a strange man in his underwear. (and by strange here, I mean a man you never met before)

Why in your underwear? Seems to me this should be more of an exhibitionist parade.


Why would you flash your boobs for some beeds?


mardi-5911.jpg




Seems to me this should be more of an exhibitionist parade.


>>>>

I wouldn't, and it is.
 
So how does a gay pride parade impact you personally?

Well, if you go to the internet and search for pictures of gay parades and stuff until you find one of a guy in his underwear swapping spit with another guy, and then you look at it, and then copy it to your computer and post it on the internet, TH3 GAYZ are forcing their lifestyle on you, see. They are all up in your face with it.
 
Last edited:
I don't think people should have avatars with cats holding guns. That promotes violence in the feline community. What kind of message is that sending to the kittens of our country?
 
So how does a gay pride parade impact you personally?

Well, if you go to the internet and search for pictures of gay parades and stuff until you find one of a guy in his underwear swapping spit with another guy, and then you look at it, and then copy it to your computer and post it on the internet, TH3 GAYZ are forcing their lifestyle on you, see. They are all up in your face with it.

Oh, please, it was posted in the news on the internet at the time. I never said anything about forcing their lifestyle on anybody, I would just never hug a strange man in his underwear and indeed, I don't think they should be walking the street in their underwear. In true, such things make gays look bad. I have gay friends who won't go to the gay pride parades. They think it sets a bad example. I agree.
 
As long as God will never allow two men or two women to consummate their "marriage" vows, it doesn't matter what mortals think, says, or do. It isn't a marriage made in heaven. It is as worthless as a government who whould stand behind it.

I love a God that creates gay people and then tells them they cannot have sex with the ones they are attracted to nor can they marry them. What kind of God would do such a thing?

The same God that demands that you hold fast to your marriage vows, even when temptation is strong. The same God that gave you the ability to reason, and to act, even when it is not in your best interest. The same God that forgives you for making those dumb mistakes.

What next? Marriage for threesomes, or foursomes? Marriage with horses, dogs or cats? How about marriage with children? After all, God made people who love animals, and people who are attacted to multiple partners or children.

What about bisexuals? Should they be allowed to marry one of each? After all, God made them all, didn't he?
OMG, that's a tired old talking point.
 
The younger than 30s favor it 4 to 1: a done deal within 15 years in all of the states.



I truly love that dumb-assed attempt at logic. In 15 years that 30 year old liberal will be a 45 year old conservative.

Who took that poll, by the way, Out Magazine?
 
The same god that would plink down a tree in the middle of a garden and say..."don't touch".......:eusa_whistle:

The same God who sent his only Son to pay our price for eating of that Tree.

Saint Paul condemns masturbators and homosexuals in the same breath. The Bible also says not to judge lest ye be judged. I advise homophobes to be REAL careful about judging homos if the homophobes perform a Manual Override on themselves every now and then. They might find themselves spending eternity with polesmokers. :lol:

Paul was a misogynist closet case....if he really existed. And he wasn't god now, was he?

Neither was anyone else who wrote the books of the bible, now were they?
 
TIME ceased to be relevant about the time Carter left the White House.
March 30, 2013

Marriage Looks Different Now!

"In 1997, two prominent conservative writers, David Frum and Andrew Sullivan, debated same-sex marriage for the online magazine Slate.

Frum defended what was then the consensus conservative (and consensus national) position. Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, he argued, would explicitly sever the institution’s connection to the two interrelated realities, gender difference and procreation, that it had evolved to address. In so doing, it would replace a traditional view of matrimony with a broader, thinner, more adult-centric view, which would ultimately be less likely to bind parents to children, husbands to wives.

Sullivan countered that the “process” Frum feared was simply an established fact. Heterosexuals had already severed marriage from procreation and permanence, and so there was no more reason to deny same-sex couples marriage licenses than to deny them to the infertile and elderly. Indeed, far from being radical, gay marriage was more likely to be stabilizing, “sending a message about matrimonial responsibility and mutual caring” to gays and straights alike.

Half a generation later, Sullivan’s view has carried the day almost completely. The conservative argument still has serious exponents, but it’s now chuckled at in courtrooms, dismissed by intellectuals, mocked in the media and (in a sudden, recent rush) abandoned by politicians. Indeed, it has been abandoned by Frum himself, who is now energetically urging Republicans to embrace the redefinition of marriage he once warned against."

SmileyFinger53.gif
.
SmileyFinger53.gif
.
SmileyFinger53.gif
.
SmileyFinger53.gif


529.gif
 

Forum List

Back
Top