We're Getting Married!

[Seawytch]

Yes, you probably would say that, but that is because you are a homophobic bigot who gets their talking points from Fox.

Fox News, Keith Ablow Misinform About Transgender Child

I don't even watch Fox News you moron

And I don't fear, or hate gays.

I think 75% of gays are idiots, no different than the general population. It is your logical fallacy which states that because I think YOU are an idiot and scum that I think that about all gays. Completely untrue.

Oh, and you can post all the links you want idiot, how is an 11 year old suddenly able to consent to something as life altering as hormone blockers? He didn't consent. He can't consent. Moron.

Ya are, Blanche, ya are a homophobic bigot. Anyone that so liberally uses the F-word for gay man is a homophobic bigot.

Read the link Dumb as Fuck. What they are doing is what is recommended by medical professionals who deal with gender dysphoria. The child's treatment has nothing to do with her parents being gay other than they are, hopefully, better equipped to handle than someone, say, like you.

I don't use "the f word" which by the way , the f word is fuck, not faggot, to describe gay men.. Ask Howey if I've ever called him a faggot.

I use the term to degrade faggots of either gender who are stupid. No different than I have NEVER called Mad_Cabbie a n!gger, but certainly would call a stupid black person a n!gger in a heart beat. Yes, it's meant to degrade , so is you calling me dumber than dirt bear, want to give a logical explanation of the difference? You of course can't.

SeaBytch, you will NEVER be able to corner me in a debate, you are simply stupid. You admit that the government has always defined marriage, all the while screaming that the government shouldn't be allowed to define marriage. How stupid is that?

You use the term, that makes you a homophobic bigot. That gays make you feel icky and that you have an aversion to them makes you a homophobic bigot.

When did I say that the government shouldn't be allowed to define marriage?

Um, there was already a thread on this stupid, most people here agree, using a derogatory term doesn't make one a homophobe.

Oh, and as for when you said that a government shouldn't be allowed to define marriage , how about in the thread about CA Prop 8 which DEFINED marriage? LOL you truly are stupid.

Gosh, there was a whole thread on it? And most of the douches on this message board think using the F word for gay man doesn't make you a bigot? Wow, I'm convinced.

Not.

Prop 8 was not "the government" now was it? No, that was a people's initiative that was unconstitutional. But you knew that already.

 

[Seawytch]

Yes, you probably would say that, but that is because you are a homophobic bigot who gets their talking points from Fox.

Fox News, Keith Ablow Misinform About Transgender Child

In your world men are not needed. In your world some men are not men, and some women are not women. In your world people cutting off perfectly good body parts because they have obvious psychological issues should be supported, and no doubt paid for by the government or insurance companies (the people). This is the problem with lefitst in general there are no absolutes anymore.

I see that in your world, you still aren't providing any facts or studies to back up your assertions. Funny that...

You wait for studies. I state the obvious, but you cant see through your agenda. Typical liberal ideologue. I don't need a study to tell me who are men and who are women

You stated your opinion...which is not supported by any actual evidence. I provided you the evidence, you choose to ignore it because it doesn't fit your world view.

So, you believe that what studies show about children of same sex parents is the most important factor?

The most important factor of what? Marriage equality? No, because children are not a prerequisite for civil marriage.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I don't even watch Fox News you moron

And I don't fear, or hate gays.

I think 75% of gays are idiots, no different than the general population. It is your logical fallacy which states that because I think YOU are an idiot and scum that I think that about all gays. Completely untrue.

Oh, and you can post all the links you want idiot, how is an 11 year old suddenly able to consent to something as life altering as hormone blockers? He didn't consent. He can't consent. Moron.

Ya are, Blanche, ya are a homophobic bigot. Anyone that so liberally uses the F-word for gay man is a homophobic bigot.

Read the link Dumb as Fuck. What they are doing is what is recommended by medical professionals who deal with gender dysphoria. The child's treatment has nothing to do with her parents being gay other than they are, hopefully, better equipped to handle than someone, say, like you.

I don't use "the f word" which by the way , the f word is fuck, not faggot, to describe gay men.. Ask Howey if I've ever called him a faggot.

I use the term to degrade faggots of either gender who are stupid. No different than I have NEVER called Mad_Cabbie a n!gger, but certainly would call a stupid black person a n!gger in a heart beat. Yes, it's meant to degrade , so is you calling me dumber than dirt bear, want to give a logical explanation of the difference? You of course can't.

SeaBytch, you will NEVER be able to corner me in a debate, you are simply stupid. You admit that the government has always defined marriage, all the while screaming that the government shouldn't be allowed to define marriage. How stupid is that?

You use the term, that makes you a homophobic bigot. That gays make you feel icky and that you have an aversion to them makes you a homophobic bigot.

When did I say that the government shouldn't be allowed to define marriage?

Um, there was already a thread on this stupid, most people here agree, using a derogatory term doesn't make one a homophobe.

Oh, and as for when you said that a government shouldn't be allowed to define marriage , how about in the thread about CA Prop 8 which DEFINED marriage? LOL you truly are stupid.

Gosh, there was a whole thread on it? And most of the douches on this message board think using the F word for gay man doesn't make you a bigot? Wow, I'm convinced.

Not.

Prop 8 was not "the government" now was it? No, that was a people's initiative that was unconstitutional. But you knew that already.

OMG ,that truly may be the dumbest thing I've ever read on this message board.

 

[Syriusly]

I was going by the definition of immutable:

im·mu·ta·ble
adjective \(ˌ)i(m)-ˈmyü-tə-bəl\
: unable to be changed
: not capable of or susceptible to change

Where, legally, has religion been declared an immutable characteristic?

Are bi-sexual "immutable" should they be allowed one spouse of each gender?

You only get to marry one person at a time here, anything else is illegal. Do you find more than just your current spouse attractive?

why is multiple marriage illegal? What legal rationale do you have that supports denying the rights of these people to marry who they love and want to commit to?

Why do you support discriminating against polygamists and use discrimination as the main argument for gay marriage?

I don't. I don't care one way or the other. Your desire for polygamists to have civil marriage in this country is separate from gays and lesbians having equal access to existing laws. Current law does not allow for polygamist marriages. If it is something you feel strongly about, good luck.

Actually, it is EXACTLY the same you dumb fuck.

The ONLY difference is YOUR morality says polygamy is wrong. That is the total sum difference.

Which of course is the point. You're fine with morality being part of marriage, as long as it is YOUR morality.

No it isn't exactly the same you 'dumb fuck'. Only a 'dumb fuck' would think so.

She isn't arguing that polygamy is bad. She is arguing that marriage equality for same gender couples is good- and right.

It is the bigots who bring up the issue of polygamy- because they oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

In your world men are not needed. In your world some men are not men, and some women are not women. In your world people cutting off perfectly good body parts because they have obvious psychological issues should be supported, and no doubt paid for by the government or insurance companies (the people). This is the problem with lefitst in general there are no absolutes anymore.

I see that in your world, you still aren't providing any facts or studies to back up your assertions. Funny that...

You wait for studies. I state the obvious, but you cant see through your agenda. Typical liberal ideologue. I don't need a study to tell me who are men and who are women

You stated your opinion...which is not supported by any actual evidence. I provided you the evidence, you choose to ignore it because it doesn't fit your world view.

So, you believe that what studies show about children of same sex parents is the most important factor?

The most important factor of what? Marriage equality? No, because children are not a prerequisite for civil marriage.

No, I'm asking you do you believe studies are the most important thing to consider when deciding whether gay couples should be allowed to have children?

I don't care if gays "get married" , however, if studies show that children are being neglected in such relationships, that's a different matter, because children can't consent to being neglected.

 

[Seawytch]

Ya are, Blanche, ya are a homophobic bigot. Anyone that so liberally uses the F-word for gay man is a homophobic bigot.

Read the link Dumb as Fuck. What they are doing is what is recommended by medical professionals who deal with gender dysphoria. The child's treatment has nothing to do with her parents being gay other than they are, hopefully, better equipped to handle than someone, say, like you.

I don't use "the f word" which by the way , the f word is fuck, not faggot, to describe gay men.. Ask Howey if I've ever called him a faggot.

I use the term to degrade faggots of either gender who are stupid. No different than I have NEVER called Mad_Cabbie a n!gger, but certainly would call a stupid black person a n!gger in a heart beat. Yes, it's meant to degrade , so is you calling me dumber than dirt bear, want to give a logical explanation of the difference? You of course can't.

SeaBytch, you will NEVER be able to corner me in a debate, you are simply stupid. You admit that the government has always defined marriage, all the while screaming that the government shouldn't be allowed to define marriage. How stupid is that?

You use the term, that makes you a homophobic bigot. That gays make you feel icky and that you have an aversion to them makes you a homophobic bigot.

When did I say that the government shouldn't be allowed to define marriage?

Um, there was already a thread on this stupid, most people here agree, using a derogatory term doesn't make one a homophobe.

Oh, and as for when you said that a government shouldn't be allowed to define marriage , how about in the thread about CA Prop 8 which DEFINED marriage? LOL you truly are stupid.

Gosh, there was a whole thread on it? And most of the douches on this message board think using the F word for gay man doesn't make you a bigot? Wow, I'm convinced.

Not.

Prop 8 was not "the government" now was it? No, that was a people's initiative that was unconstitutional. But you knew that already.

OMG ,that truly may be the dumbest thing I've ever read on this message board.

You don't read your own posts then obviously. Prop 8 was unconstitutional...you did realize that right?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Are bi-sexual "immutable" should they be allowed one spouse of each gender?

You only get to marry one person at a time here, anything else is illegal. Do you find more than just your current spouse attractive?

why is multiple marriage illegal? What legal rationale do you have that supports denying the rights of these people to marry who they love and want to commit to?

Why do you support discriminating against polygamists and use discrimination as the main argument for gay marriage?

I don't. I don't care one way or the other. Your desire for polygamists to have civil marriage in this country is separate from gays and lesbians having equal access to existing laws. Current law does not allow for polygamist marriages. If it is something you feel strongly about, good luck.

Actually, it is EXACTLY the same you dumb fuck.

The ONLY difference is YOUR morality says polygamy is wrong. That is the total sum difference.

Which of course is the point. You're fine with morality being part of marriage, as long as it is YOUR morality.

No it isn't exactly the same you 'dumb fuck'. Only a 'dumb fuck' would think so.

She isn't arguing that polygamy is bad. She is arguing that marriage equality for same gender couples is good- and right.

It is the bigots who bring up the issue of polygamy- because they oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.

Hey stupid, I don't oppose gay "marriage" LOL in fact I argue that the government has NO place defining marriage, which would include not just between races, or genders, but as into how many people should be allowed to enter into said marriage. Her claim that she doesn't believe government should define marriage is BOGUS. She CLEARLY believes that defining it as two people is perfectly okay.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I don't use "the f word" which by the way , the f word is fuck, not faggot, to describe gay men.. Ask Howey if I've ever called him a faggot.

I use the term to degrade faggots of either gender who are stupid. No different than I have NEVER called Mad_Cabbie a n!gger, but certainly would call a stupid black person a n!gger in a heart beat. Yes, it's meant to degrade , so is you calling me dumber than dirt bear, want to give a logical explanation of the difference? You of course can't.

SeaBytch, you will NEVER be able to corner me in a debate, you are simply stupid. You admit that the government has always defined marriage, all the while screaming that the government shouldn't be allowed to define marriage. How stupid is that?

You use the term, that makes you a homophobic bigot. That gays make you feel icky and that you have an aversion to them makes you a homophobic bigot.

When did I say that the government shouldn't be allowed to define marriage?

Um, there was already a thread on this stupid, most people here agree, using a derogatory term doesn't make one a homophobe.

Oh, and as for when you said that a government shouldn't be allowed to define marriage , how about in the thread about CA Prop 8 which DEFINED marriage? LOL you truly are stupid.

Gosh, there was a whole thread on it? And most of the douches on this message board think using the F word for gay man doesn't make you a bigot? Wow, I'm convinced.

Not.

Prop 8 was not "the government" now was it? No, that was a people's initiative that was unconstitutional. But you knew that already.

OMG ,that truly may be the dumbest thing I've ever read on this message board.

You don't read your own posts then obviously. Prop 8 was unconstitutional...you did realize that right?

That's irrelevant to the discussion stupid. The people of CA wanted to , via the government, define marriage and you were against that, even though you just said you never said you were against the government defining marriage.

And don't try to fool anyone into believing that your objection was the fact that it was unconstitutional , or you'll just go on ignore right this instant.

You objected because you want GAYS to be allowed to marry PERIOD.

 

[Seawytch]

I see that in your world, you still aren't providing any facts or studies to back up your assertions. Funny that...

You wait for studies. I state the obvious, but you cant see through your agenda. Typical liberal ideologue. I don't need a study to tell me who are men and who are women

You stated your opinion...which is not supported by any actual evidence. I provided you the evidence, you choose to ignore it because it doesn't fit your world view.

So, you believe that what studies show about children of same sex parents is the most important factor?

The most important factor of what? Marriage equality? No, because children are not a prerequisite for civil marriage.

No, I'm asking you do you believe studies are the most important thing to consider when deciding whether gay couples should be allowed to have children?

I don't care if gays "get married" , however, if studies show that children are being neglected in such relationships, that's a different matter, because children can't consent to being neglected.

Allowed to have children? Would you like to stop them? How you gonna stop 'em fascist?

 

[Seawytch]

You use the term, that makes you a homophobic bigot. That gays make you feel icky and that you have an aversion to them makes you a homophobic bigot.

When did I say that the government shouldn't be allowed to define marriage?

Um, there was already a thread on this stupid, most people here agree, using a derogatory term doesn't make one a homophobe.

Oh, and as for when you said that a government shouldn't be allowed to define marriage , how about in the thread about CA Prop 8 which DEFINED marriage? LOL you truly are stupid.

Gosh, there was a whole thread on it? And most of the douches on this message board think using the F word for gay man doesn't make you a bigot? Wow, I'm convinced.

Not.

Prop 8 was not "the government" now was it? No, that was a people's initiative that was unconstitutional. But you knew that already.

OMG ,that truly may be the dumbest thing I've ever read on this message board.

You don't read your own posts then obviously. Prop 8 was unconstitutional...you did realize that right?

That's irrelevant to the discussion stupid. The people of CA wanted to , via the government, define marriage and you were against that, even though you just said you never said you were against the government defining marriage.

And don't try to fool anyone into believing that your objection was the fact that it was unconstitutional , or you'll just go on ignore right this instant.

You objected because you want GAYS to be allowed to marry PERIOD.

Sorry sweetie, but Prop 8 was unconstitutional...just like if the people of CA had, through a people's initiative, banned all guns in California. Unconstitutional.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You wait for studies. I state the obvious, but you cant see through your agenda. Typical liberal ideologue. I don't need a study to tell me who are men and who are women

You stated your opinion...which is not supported by any actual evidence. I provided you the evidence, you choose to ignore it because it doesn't fit your world view.

So, you believe that what studies show about children of same sex parents is the most important factor?

The most important factor of what? Marriage equality? No, because children are not a prerequisite for civil marriage.

No, I'm asking you do you believe studies are the most important thing to consider when deciding whether gay couples should be allowed to have children?

I don't care if gays "get married" , however, if studies show that children are being neglected in such relationships, that's a different matter, because children can't consent to being neglected.

Allowed to have children? Would you like to stop them? How you gonna stop 'em fascist?

That doesn't answer my question. DO you contend that studies are the most important thing when determing whether gay parents are bad for children? Yes or no?

Or do you simply not care about the welfare of children when compared to your concern for your gay agenda?

And call me a fascist if you wish, my chief concern is, and always will be, the children of the world, Indeed I would remove every child from every neglectful household in America and throw the worthless pieces of shit who were neglecting them right in jail.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Um, there was already a thread on this stupid, most people here agree, using a derogatory term doesn't make one a homophobe.

Oh, and as for when you said that a government shouldn't be allowed to define marriage , how about in the thread about CA Prop 8 which DEFINED marriage? LOL you truly are stupid.

Gosh, there was a whole thread on it? And most of the douches on this message board think using the F word for gay man doesn't make you a bigot? Wow, I'm convinced.

Not.

Prop 8 was not "the government" now was it? No, that was a people's initiative that was unconstitutional. But you knew that already.

OMG ,that truly may be the dumbest thing I've ever read on this message board.

You don't read your own posts then obviously. Prop 8 was unconstitutional...you did realize that right?

That's irrelevant to the discussion stupid. The people of CA wanted to , via the government, define marriage and you were against that, even though you just said you never said you were against the government defining marriage.

And don't try to fool anyone into believing that your objection was the fact that it was unconstitutional , or you'll just go on ignore right this instant.

You objected because you want GAYS to be allowed to marry PERIOD.

Sorry sweetie, but Prop 8 was unconstitutional...just like if the people of CA had, through a people's initiative, banned all guns in California. Unconstitutional.

You're like a child. No shit it was ruled unconstitutional. That isnt what I asked you , you dolt. I asked if you opposed the people trying to do it? Of course you did,your simply too dishonest to write "yes I opposed that"

 

[Syriusly]

Then I'm sure you can find a reputable study that appears in a peer reviewed journal that supports your claim, right? I provided you a half dozen that say our children are at no disadvantage to yours.

Shut up.

I'd say the poor little boy who's "mommies" want to get him a sex change at what age 10, are at a disadvantage.

Yes, you probably would say that, but that is because you are a homophobic bigot who gets their talking points from Fox.

Fox News, Keith Ablow Misinform About Transgender Child

In your world men are not needed. In your world some men are not men, and some women are not women. In your world people cutting off perfectly good body parts because they have obvious psychological issues should be supported, and no doubt paid for by the government or insurance companies (the people). This is the problem with lefitst in general there are no absolutes anymore.

I see that in your world, you still aren't providing any facts or studies to back up your assertions. Funny that...

You wait for studies. I state the obvious,

Right- you reject facts and appeal to 'what is obvious'.

Rather a typical answer from the position of bigotry.

 

[Seawytch]

You stated your opinion...which is not supported by any actual evidence. I provided you the evidence, you choose to ignore it because it doesn't fit your world view.

So, you believe that what studies show about children of same sex parents is the most important factor?

The most important factor of what? Marriage equality? No, because children are not a prerequisite for civil marriage.

No, I'm asking you do you believe studies are the most important thing to consider when deciding whether gay couples should be allowed to have children?

I don't care if gays "get married" , however, if studies show that children are being neglected in such relationships, that's a different matter, because children can't consent to being neglected.

Allowed to have children? Would you like to stop them? How you gonna stop 'em fascist?

That doesn't answer my question. DO you contend that studies are the most important thing when determing whether gay parents are bad for children? Yes or no?

Or do you simply not care about the welfare of children when compared to your concern for your gay agenda?

And call me a fascist if you wish, my chief concern is, and always will be, the children of the world, Indeed I would remove every child from every neglectful household in America and throw the worthless pieces of shit who were neglecting them right in jail.

No, the studies showing that our children are at no disadvantage to yours are not the "most important" thing, but they do counter the bigots and the homophobes like you.

 

[Seawytch]

Gosh, there was a whole thread on it? And most of the douches on this message board think using the F word for gay man doesn't make you a bigot? Wow, I'm convinced.

Not.

Prop 8 was not "the government" now was it? No, that was a people's initiative that was unconstitutional. But you knew that already.

OMG ,that truly may be the dumbest thing I've ever read on this message board.

You don't read your own posts then obviously. Prop 8 was unconstitutional...you did realize that right?

That's irrelevant to the discussion stupid. The people of CA wanted to , via the government, define marriage and you were against that, even though you just said you never said you were against the government defining marriage.

And don't try to fool anyone into believing that your objection was the fact that it was unconstitutional , or you'll just go on ignore right this instant.

You objected because you want GAYS to be allowed to marry PERIOD.

Sorry sweetie, but Prop 8 was unconstitutional...just like if the people of CA had, through a people's initiative, banned all guns in California. Unconstitutional.

You're like a child. No shit it was ruled unconstitutional. That isnt what I asked you , you dolt. I asked if you opposed the people trying to do it? Of course you did,your simply too dishonest to write "yes I opposed that"

Yes, I opposed the people trying to pass an unconstitutional law that took rights away from gays and lesbians. And?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Shut up.

I'd say the poor little boy who's "mommies" want to get him a sex change at what age 10, are at a disadvantage.

Yes, you probably would say that, but that is because you are a homophobic bigot who gets their talking points from Fox.

Fox News, Keith Ablow Misinform About Transgender Child

In your world men are not needed. In your world some men are not men, and some women are not women. In your world people cutting off perfectly good body parts because they have obvious psychological issues should be supported, and no doubt paid for by the government or insurance companies (the people). This is the problem with lefitst in general there are no absolutes anymore.

I see that in your world, you still aren't providing any facts or studies to back up your assertions. Funny that...

You wait for studies. I state the obvious,

Right- you reject facts and appeal to 'what is obvious'.

Rather a typical answer from the position of bigotry.

So, I'll ask you the same question SeaBytch is too dishonest to answer. Do you consider studies to be vitally important when determining whether children should be in households with gay parents?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

OMG ,that truly may be the dumbest thing I've ever read on this message board.

You don't read your own posts then obviously. Prop 8 was unconstitutional...you did realize that right?

That's irrelevant to the discussion stupid. The people of CA wanted to , via the government, define marriage and you were against that, even though you just said you never said you were against the government defining marriage.

And don't try to fool anyone into believing that your objection was the fact that it was unconstitutional , or you'll just go on ignore right this instant.

You objected because you want GAYS to be allowed to marry PERIOD.

Sorry sweetie, but Prop 8 was unconstitutional...just like if the people of CA had, through a people's initiative, banned all guns in California. Unconstitutional.

You're like a child. No shit it was ruled unconstitutional. That isnt what I asked you , you dolt. I asked if you opposed the people trying to do it? Of course you did,your simply too dishonest to write "yes I opposed that"

Yes, I opposed the people trying to pass an unconstitutional law that took rights away from gays and lesbians. And?

That's not what I asked. Did you oppose "the people" trying to define marriage? Yes, or no?

 

[Seawytch]

You don't read your own posts then obviously. Prop 8 was unconstitutional...you did realize that right?

That's irrelevant to the discussion stupid. The people of CA wanted to , via the government, define marriage and you were against that, even though you just said you never said you were against the government defining marriage.

And don't try to fool anyone into believing that your objection was the fact that it was unconstitutional , or you'll just go on ignore right this instant.

You objected because you want GAYS to be allowed to marry PERIOD.

Sorry sweetie, but Prop 8 was unconstitutional...just like if the people of CA had, through a people's initiative, banned all guns in California. Unconstitutional.

You're like a child. No shit it was ruled unconstitutional. That isnt what I asked you , you dolt. I asked if you opposed the people trying to do it? Of course you did,your simply too dishonest to write "yes I opposed that"

Yes, I opposed the people trying to pass an unconstitutional law that took rights away from gays and lesbians. And?

That's not what I asked. Did you oppose "the people" trying to define marriage? Yes, or no?

No, I opposed people trying to pass an unconstitutional law that took rights away from gays and lesbians. Do you not understand English?

The government defines marriage within the confines of the Constitution. So far, polygamy bans have been found to be Constitutional. Maybe that won't always be the case. I don't care.

 

[Howey]

Shut up.

I'd say the poor little boy who's "mommies" want to get him a sex change at what age 10, are at a disadvantage.

Yes, you probably would say that, but that is because you are a homophobic bigot who gets their talking points from Fox.

Fox News, Keith Ablow Misinform About Transgender Child

I don't even watch Fox News you moron

And I don't fear, or hate gays.

I think 75% of gays are idiots, no different than the general population. It is your logical fallacy which states that because I think YOU are an idiot and scum that I think that about all gays. Completely untrue.

Oh, and you can post all the links you want idiot, how is an 11 year old suddenly able to consent to something as life altering as hormone blockers? He didn't consent. He can't consent. Moron.

Ya are, Blanche, ya are a homophobic bigot. Anyone that so liberally uses the F-word for gay man is a homophobic bigot.

Read the link Dumb as Fuck. What they are doing is what is recommended by medical professionals who deal with gender dysphoria. The child's treatment has nothing to do with her parents being gay other than they are, hopefully, better equipped to handle than someone, say, like you.

I don't use "the f word" which by the way , the f word is fuck, not faggot, to describe gay men.. Ask Howey if I've ever called him a faggot.

I use the term to degrade faggots of either gender who are stupid. No different than I have NEVER called Mad_Cabbie a n!gger, but certainly would call a stupid black person a n!gger in a heart beat. Yes, it's meant to degrade , so is you calling me dumber than dirt bear, want to give a logical explanation of the difference? You of course can't.

SeaBytch, you will NEVER be able to corner me in a debate, you are simply stupid. You admit that the government has always defined marriage, all the while screaming that the government shouldn't be allowed to define marriage. How stupid is that?

You use the term, that makes you a homophobic bigot. That gays make you feel icky and that you have an aversion to them makes you a homophobic bigot.

When did I say that the government shouldn't be allowed to define marriage?

Oh Seawytch...You are family in a way, so I hate to disagree. When did SmarterThanTheAverageBear say gays make him feel icky and so forth? (To be honest I know a few too who turn my stomach). I also know lesbians who are hateful bitches, but only a few.

Oh. Me, my husband and friends call each other "fags" occasionally. It's meant to dilute the effect of words used by real homophobes and bigots.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes, you probably would say that, but that is because you are a homophobic bigot who gets their talking points from Fox.

Fox News, Keith Ablow Misinform About Transgender Child

In your world men are not needed. In your world some men are not men, and some women are not women. In your world people cutting off perfectly good body parts because they have obvious psychological issues should be supported, and no doubt paid for by the government or insurance companies (the people). This is the problem with lefitst in general there are no absolutes anymore.

I see that in your world, you still aren't providing any facts or studies to back up your assertions. Funny that...

You wait for studies. I state the obvious,

Right- you reject facts and appeal to 'what is obvious'.

Rather a typical answer from the position of bigotry.

So, I'll ask you the same question SeaBytch is too dishonest to answer. Do you consider studies to be vitally important when determining whether children should be in households with gay parents?

I think that studies should be considered on determining whether children should be in the households of any parents.

But not all studies are equal, and someone has to determine what the preponderance of evidence is.

And applying the same standards to all parenting- 'what is best for children'- rather than just 'can we find evidence against gay parents'