Watch live: Biden signs gay marriage bill with drag queens, Pelosi, Cyndi Lauper, Homophobe GOP Rep Vicki Hartzler's gay nephew & others in attendance

[LordBrownTrout]

Yes, a thief is a thief. And those that are not thieves, are not.

Yes, he did hire a transgender person that stole luggage. That person is no longer a part of the government.

That part of your claim is not in question. What is in question is your bigoted idea that one person doing it makes the entire group gulity. Would you blame every male in the country because one male raped a woman?

No, it has to do with the company you keep. Your last question is goofy. Come up with something interesting. I know you can.

 

[jknowgood]

Another win for the good guys. That so many are pissed off about it from the right is just extra credit and running up the score.

Yes making marriage obsolete. Means nothing now, only took liberalism to do it.

 

[DBA]

That is just stupid. The Heisman Trophy is based upon performance and is earned. Marriage is neither. Marriage is a civil contract, nothing more.

Not a direct metaphor, but the point stands. If marriage between a man and a women, which has been the case for how many centuries, is sacred, then changing the very basis of the union diminishes it. If you don’t believe it is sacred, then you have a point.

As soon as a dog can legally consent to something, we can have this discussion.

Not sure why that should matter. Changing the law is changing the law.

Well, it used to be not all that rare. But today it would take changing the laws to allow 12 year olds to legally sign contracts.

Again, if you are going to change the law then nothing is off limits.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

No, it has to do with the company you keep. Your last question is goofy. Come up with something interesting. I know you can.

You claim that every single transgender person is now guilty of theft because this one person did it. If it works for them, why not all males being guilty for the actions of one male?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Not a direct metaphor, but the point stands. If marriage between a man and a women, which has been the case for how many centuries, is sacred, then changing the very basis of the union diminishes it. If you don’t believe it is sacred, then you have a point.

There is nothing sacred about a civil marriage, but its very nature it cannot be sacred since we are not a theology.

Not sure why that should matter. Changing the law is changing the law.

As I said, as soon as they change the laws to allow a dog to legally able to sign a contract, we can have this discussion.

Again, if you are going to change the law then nothing is off limits.

True. As I said, once being married at 12 would not have seemed odd. Now it seems gross and wrong. Who knows what the future may hold

 

[LordBrownTrout]

You claim that every single transgender person is now guilty of theft because this one person did it. If it works for them, why not all males being guilty for the actions of one male?

No, your assumption was wrong.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

No, your assumption was wrong.

No, your assumption that one transgender person doing something illegal makes them all guilty is what is wrong.

 

[candycorn]

Yes making marriage obsolete. Means nothing now, only took liberalism to do it.

Sucks to be you.

 

[jknowgood]

Sucks to be you.

Not at all, I'll never get married again. But if you want, it means nothing at all now.

 

[WinterBorn]

I type it over and over because it is just that. It keeps men at a higher percentage responsible for the children they produce. Over the decades more and more women have made the government their sugar daddies as the children daddies took a flyer. The ghettos are proof and there is a lot more.

Then the fault is with the deadbeat dads. Hold them responsible.

 

[WinterBorn]

Not at all, I'll never get married again. But if you want, it means nothing at all now.

It certainly means something to the people getting married.

 

[WinterBorn]

In a similar same way as it would dimish the Heisman Trophy if they handed it out to every player in the country. What is going to happen when this continues to ”progress” into multiple people getting married to each other? What about marrying your dog? Does it really matter anymore? How about when two 12 year old besties start complaining that they can’t be married? Are we to allow that as well? There is a sanctity to it and this most certainly removes at least a portion of that as well as opening the door to further reaches by any and all self-proclaimed marginalized groups.

Same sex marriage has always been about consenting adults.

 

[jknowgood]

It certainly means something to the people getting married.

Let them, but in reality they could also let their dog be in the marriage.

 

[WinterBorn]

What bigotry? Explain. A marriage between a man and woman excludes no one except those to young, to closely related and those unable to consent.

It’s pretty all inclusive.

And now it includes same sex couples. They marry for the same reasons hetero couples do.

Now marriage is even more inclusive.

 

[WinterBorn]

Let them, but in reality they could also let their dog be in the marriage.

As soon as you can show informed consent from the dog, sure.

 

[22lcidw]

Then the fault is with the deadbeat dads. Hold them responsible.

Now you typed that. All of the teenage girls who have children out of wedlock with no accusations and charges against the male who inseminated them that is ongoing is a reality. For decade after decade after decade. And this is the wound that has screwed over African Americans and created endless ghettos. Other groups and individuals are affected also. Not at that percentage.

 

[HeyNorm]

And now it includes same sex couples. They marry for the same reasons hetero couples do.

Now marriage is even more inclusive.

How do you make something more inclusive than 100% eligibility?

 

[candycorn]

Not at all, I'll never get married again. But if you want, it means nothing at all now.

Perhaps what you're saying is that yours never meant anything if some government action can render the institution "obsolete".

 

[HeyNorm]

As soon as you can show informed consent from the dog, sure.

Consent of property is normally given by the owner of same. It sounds odd, but to many of us, gay marriage is also odd.

And, for the record, I oppose inter species marriage.

 

[WinterBorn]

Consent of property is normally given by the owner of same. It sounds odd, but to many of us, gay marriage is also odd.

And, for the record, I oppose inter species marriage.

If one party is considered property, then it is not a marriage. We have moved beyond a spouse being property. At least I hope we have.