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.
Aberration? There it is! You oppose marriage equality because you find homosexuality icky. Is that a legitimate basis to deny rights? Are you the arbiter of icky? What other human conditions do you find abhorrant? What other set of law abiding citizens should we shun?Marriage is a contract establishing a new legal entity. It is a bi-lateral contract. That means two people and only two people. Polygamy is a separate issue as it is not, by definition, bi-lateral.
If two sober, tax paying, law abiding adults without an existing next of kin relationship want to legally establish that next of kin relationship, what real harm will befall all other marriages? Will they be rendered legally exempt?
whose definition of marriage are you relying on? in many cultures marriage can include one man and multiple women, in some one woman and multiple men. It the USA marriage has always been one man and one woman.
again, why is the word 'marriage' so critical to the gay agenda? Its not really about equality is it? admit it. the gay agenda is about government forced societal acceptance of the human aberation known as homosexuality. the only way to implement this forced acceptance is by calling a gay union a marriage----------we know it, you know it.
why not admit it, so we can move the debate back into reality?
A marriage license is still limited to a male/female union in most states but has changed in others. So what it was doesn't matter. What you are really saying is that it can only change the way you want and there's no logical basis for it. If it can be changed to include same genders that obviously it can be changed to whatever. There's no Constitutional basis to limit a state to two people anymore than regulating genders.A marriage license is issued by the state as a bi-lateral contract. If a group wants to establish a contract between them, the protections of the marriage license does not extend to that particular contract.
and marriage used to be prohibited in many states for inter-racial couples.
your point?
and the law doesn't work the way you want.... constitutional rights are not up for a vote.
Sure thing. You either wear the approved track suit and sing Obama For Life or we drag you and your entire family to a DHS reeducation camp and make you watch Rachel Maddow for days on end.A marriage license is still limited to a male/female union in most states but has changed in others. So what it was doesn't matter. What you are really saying is that it can only change the way you want and there's no logical basis for it. If it can be changed to include same genders that obviously it can be changed to whatever. There's no Constitutional basis to limit a state to two people anymore than regulating genders.A marriage license is issued by the state as a bi-lateral contract. If a group wants to establish a contract between them, the protections of the marriage license does not extend to that particular contract.
exactly, one of the goals of progressives is to destroy marriage, when two people marry and form a family that family unit takes precedence over all else to those people, the progressives want people's first loyalty to be to the federal govt.
thats the same reason why progressives fight against states rights. We all must kowtow to the feds, we cannot think for ourselves, we cannot put anything or anyone above the government masters.
these silly assholes on the left have no idea what they are asking for.
A marriage license is still limited to a male/female union in most states but has changed in others. So what it was doesn't matter. What you are really saying is that it can only change the way you want and there's no logical basis for it. If it can be changed to include same genders that obviously it can be changed to whatever. There's no Constitutional basis to limit a state to two people anymore than regulating genders.A marriage license is issued by the state as a bi-lateral contract. If a group wants to establish a contract between them, the protections of the marriage license does not extend to that particular contract.
exactly, one of the goals of progressives is to destroy marriage, when two people marry and form a family that family unit takes precedence over all else to those people, the progressives want people's first loyalty to be to the federal govt.
thats the same reason why progressives fight against states rights. We all must kowtow to the feds, we cannot think for ourselves, we cannot put anything or anyone above the government masters.
these silly assholes on the left have no idea what they are asking for.
One reason to at least think twice before voting Republican is to consider the company you would be joining, as represented here.
One reason to vote Democrat is to defend the liberal principles of the Founders, not that Democrats always honor them. They just honor them more than Republicans do.
The reason to vote Republican is the fact that you aren't a totally insane freeloading tick on the ass of society. Otherwise you should vote Democrat.
The claim that Democrats honor the principles of the Founders has got to be the lie of the century.
fficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sbOne reason to at least think twice before voting Republican is to consider the company you would be joining, as represented here.
One reason to vote Democrat is to defend the liberal principles of the Founders, not that Democrats always honor them. They just honor them more than Republicans do.
The reason to vote Republican is the fact that you aren't a totally insane freeloading tick on the ass of society. Otherwise you should vote Democrat.
The claim that Democrats honor the principles of the Founders has got to be the lie of the century.
It has to do with Equal before the Law.A marriage license is still limited to a male/female union in most states but has changed in others. So what it was doesn't matter. What you are really saying is that it can only change the way you want and there's no logical basis for it. If it can be changed to include same genders that obviously it can be changed to whatever. There's no Constitutional basis to limit a state to two people anymore than regulating genders.
and marriage used to be prohibited in many states for inter-racial couples.
your point?
and the law doesn't work the way you want.... constitutional rights are not up for a vote.
The Constitution prevents discrimination based on race. It says nothing about sexual orientation. So-called "gay marriage" has nothing to do with anyone's Constitutional rights.
Does your unfavorable understanding of human sexuality justify denying access to contract law by law abiding American citizens? Can you understand how such an attitude can be compared to the attitudes of bigots in the old Jim Crow south? They opposed equal rights because they saw African Americans as icky too. An aberration. Not equal to Caucasians in intellect. Incredible, isn't it? To know that bigotry lies atop ignorance.Aberration? There it is! You oppose marriage equality because you find homosexuality icky. Is that a legitimate basis to deny rights? Are you the arbiter of icky? What other human conditions do you find abhorrant? What other set of law abiding citizens should we shun?whose definition of marriage are you relying on? in many cultures marriage can include one man and multiple women, in some one woman and multiple men. It the USA marriage has always been one man and one woman.
again, why is the word 'marriage' so critical to the gay agenda? Its not really about equality is it? admit it. the gay agenda is about government forced societal acceptance of the human aberation known as homosexuality. the only way to implement this forced acceptance is by calling a gay union a marriage----------we know it, you know it.
why not admit it, so we can move the debate back into reality?
Yes, I find two makes buttfucking icky. I find two females clit licking icky (although somewhat of a turn on).
homosexuality is not a normal human condition, it is an aberation. We could debate for weeks about whether its genetic or environmental. But either way it is abnormal
Who the fuck is Michael Fumento? He wants someone to ask the Surgeon General why more heterosexuals aren't contracting AIDS? This is your "proof"?
An opinion piece from some douchebag's blog? Jesus God damned Christ, man. What is wrong with your mind? That isn't fact, that isn't science. That's an opinion.
What you are trying to claim is that heterosexuals do not contract HIV and AIDS at as high of a rate as homosexuals, therefore heterosexuals are just entirely off the hook when it comes to the spread of the disease. That is a frighteningly irresponsible thought process, and you need to either learn or kill yourself. It is fine if you want to go shoot up or fuck whoever without a condom, but the rest of society recognizes a real threat in this disease and we want responsible social policies in place to defeat it. The rate of infection being higher for homosexuals and the black community does not mean that the heterosexual community's chances of contracting the disease are "virtually zero." It means that a good Christian heterosexual society has decided to neglect the disease as a "gay problem" or a "black problem" and not as a "human problem".
GB is obsessed with the faggots. I'll bet his computer is filled to the brim with gay porn.A marriage license is still limited to a male/female union in most states but has changed in others. So what it was doesn't matter. What you are really saying is that it can only change the way you want and there's no logical basis for it. If it can be changed to include same genders that obviously it can be changed to whatever. There's no Constitutional basis to limit a state to two people anymore than regulating genders.
exactly, one of the goals of progressives is to destroy marriage, when two people marry and form a family that family unit takes precedence over all else to those people, the progressives want people's first loyalty to be to the federal govt.
thats the same reason why progressives fight against states rights. We all must kowtow to the feds, we cannot think for ourselves, we cannot put anything or anyone above the government masters.
these silly assholes on the left have no idea what they are asking for.
The entire argument is "Framed" to highlight Gay Rights but most Liberal Progressive SocioFacists fail to understand the difeference between Gay Rights and The Gay Agenda .
They fail to understand the difference between Sex and Sodomy . Gay Sex is not true Sex, it is simply Sodomy . They fail to comprehend the difference between being Gay and being Happy. Homosexual is a Sad and sorry way to lead your life, it's not refelctive of the true meaning of Gay at all- it's an Oxymoron perpetuated by Morons.
IN effect Gay Sex = Sad Sodomy
Gay Rights = Gay Privilege or Queer Privilege
Gay Agenda =Societal Manipulation and Brain washing
It has to do with Equal before the Law.and marriage used to be prohibited in many states for inter-racial couples.
your point?
and the law doesn't work the way you want.... constitutional rights are not up for a vote.
The Constitution prevents discrimination based on race. It says nothing about sexual orientation. So-called "gay marriage" has nothing to do with anyone's Constitutional rights.
One reason to at least think twice before voting Republican is to consider the company you would be joining, as represented here.
One reason to vote Democrat is to defend the liberal principles of the Founders, not that Democrats always honor them. They just honor them more than Republicans do.
The reason to vote Republican is the fact that you aren't a totally insane freeloading tick on the ass of society. Otherwise you should vote Democrat.
The claim that Democrats honor the principles of the Founders has got to be the lie of the century.
See what I mean?
Type "porn" into your search engine and see what comes up. Click on the first site. There are millions of heterosexuals in every country all over the world having anal sex, like they have since the ancient eras, same as gay people.A marriage license is still limited to a male/female union in most states but has changed in others. So what it was doesn't matter. What you are really saying is that it can only change the way you want and there's no logical basis for it. If it can be changed to include same genders that obviously it can be changed to whatever. There's no Constitutional basis to limit a state to two people anymore than regulating genders.
exactly, one of the goals of progressives is to destroy marriage, when two people marry and form a family that family unit takes precedence over all else to those people, the progressives want people's first loyalty to be to the federal govt.
thats the same reason why progressives fight against states rights. We all must kowtow to the feds, we cannot think for ourselves, we cannot put anything or anyone above the government masters.
these silly assholes on the left have no idea what they are asking for.
The entire argument is "Framed" to highlight Gay Rights but most Liberal Progressive SocioFacists fail to understand the difeference between Gay Rights and The Gay Agenda .
They fail to understand the difference between Sex and Sodomy . Gay Sex is not true Sex, it is simply Sodomy . They fail to comprehend the difference between being Gay and being Happy. Homosexual is a Sad and sorry way to lead your life, it's not refelctive of the true meaning of Gay at all- it's an Oxymoron perpetuated by Morons.
IN effect Gay Sex = Sad Sodomy
Sure thing. You either wear the approved track suit and sing Obama For Life or we drag you and your entire family to a DHS reeducation camp and make you watch Rachel Maddow for days on end.A marriage license is still limited to a male/female union in most states but has changed in others. So what it was doesn't matter. What you are really saying is that it can only change the way you want and there's no logical basis for it. If it can be changed to include same genders that obviously it can be changed to whatever. There's no Constitutional basis to limit a state to two people anymore than regulating genders.
exactly, one of the goals of progressives is to destroy marriage, when two people marry and form a family that family unit takes precedence over all else to those people, the progressives want people's first loyalty to be to the federal govt.
thats the same reason why progressives fight against states rights. We all must kowtow to the feds, we cannot think for ourselves, we cannot put anything or anyone above the government masters.
these silly assholes on the left have no idea what they are asking for.
If you then can't praise George Soros, we shoot you and feed you to the dogs.
My point was that it's over your head. I said men were not treated the same so the racial laws were unConstitutional, therefore those laws were repealed. Now focus on this for a few minutes or hours, gay marriage is not legal in all states so how could heterosexual only marriages be a violation of the Constitution?and marriage used to be prohibited in many states for inter-racial couples.
your point?
and the law doesn't work the way you want.... constitutional rights are not up for a vote.
I've already disputed your "facts" by pointing out that it is an opinion piece. Quote the Federation of American Scientists, the Center for Disease Control, or anyone with a PhD in medicine who will confirm your claim that heterosexuals' chance of contracting HIV and AIDS is "virtually zero."Who the fuck is Michael Fumento? He wants someone to ask the Surgeon General why more heterosexuals aren't contracting AIDS? This is your "proof"?
An opinion piece from some douchebag's blog? Jesus God damned Christ, man. What is wrong with your mind? That isn't fact, that isn't science. That's an opinion.
What you are trying to claim is that heterosexuals do not contract HIV and AIDS at as high of a rate as homosexuals, therefore heterosexuals are just entirely off the hook when it comes to the spread of the disease. That is a frighteningly irresponsible thought process, and you need to either learn or kill yourself. It is fine if you want to go shoot up or fuck whoever without a condom, but the rest of society recognizes a real threat in this disease and we want responsible social policies in place to defeat it. The rate of infection being higher for homosexuals and the black community does not mean that the heterosexual community's chances of contracting the disease are "virtually zero." It means that a good Christian heterosexual society has decided to neglect the disease as a "gay problem" or a "black problem" and not as a "human problem".
It doesn't matter who Michael Fumento is. His article contains an extensive list of facts. Either dispute the facts or shut the fuck up.
What is frighteningly irresponsible is pretending that anal sex is not the primary vector for sexual transmission of HIV. That only leads to more people contracting the disease than might otherwise be the case.
As an American, I'm offended each and every time some Tea Party Republican brings up wedge issues like an opposition to marriage equality or a woman's right to choose. The fears, hatreds and suspicion from the knuckle dragging Right Wing fringe groups serves to remind me of the darkest days of the Jim Crow South.
I fail to understand how an economic issue like wage disparity is so easily dismissed by the fringe Right Wingers. It's as if they would be happy having middle class wages slip and protect the wealthy. Can't they see that a vibrant middle class is the backbone of every free society?
Each and every time some progress is made: votes for women, the right to collective bargaining, environmental clean up, civil rights etc., it's always Rabid Right Wingers providing the resistance.
I suppose unless you're fabulously wealthy, love to live in a sea of industrial filth or a John Bircher, why would you vote Republican or follow the advice laid out by the Koch Brothers or their mouthpiece Limbaugh?
As we see in the above post, the main reason to vote Democrat is you are a low information, low intelligence person. Your grasp of facts is close to nil, your ability to reason is poor, and you consistently engage in confirmation bias.
There have been how mnay discussions on gay marriage here? In every one of them the arguments against it are laid out again and again. Now, no one needs to accept those as arguments. Or he can say he finds the other side's arguments more compelling. That's OK. What's not OK is that every time the left/dem side declares the only reason to oppose gay marriage is bigotry and hate. This is after page after page of discussion.
They cannot learn. They cannot reason. What they know is wrong. Thus they vote Dem.
