Who Needs This In America?

[Katzndogz]

Why should polygamous marriage only be for gays. It should be for everyone. Warren Jeffs should be released from prison immediately. All he is guilty of is premature new morality.

 

[emilynghiem]

If polygamous gay marriage is good enough for Thailand it's good enough for us. Sort of like Thai child brothels.

Once a society starts on the road of depravity it doesn't stop until the end.

They'll destroy your argument by screaming "Slippery slope fallacy!"

Because that's what it is.

Next, the drunk dog washer will say if gays are allowed to marry, people will soon be marrying their piano.

And that's the best of what will happen.

Handy Map Demonstrates Where You Can Marry Your Cat But Not Your Girlfriend

Handy map shows where you can marry your cat

 

[emilynghiem]

Why should polygamous marriage only be for gays. It should be for everyone. Warren Jeffs should be released from prison immediately. All he is guilty of is premature new morality.

Personal terms of marriage should remain private and out of the hands of states to decide (unless the public consents).

Civil unions and contracts, estate, property and custody issues are civil matters of the state
but the laws can be written neutrally so as to AVOID any religious political or personal beliefs in conflict otherwise.
Similar to how Atheists sue to remove references to God and the Bible that are not neutral but religiously charged,
the terms Marriage can be removed and replaced with secular terms that all parties agree to.

If you want to make objectors CHANGE what marriage means to them so this word can be
used in a secular civil contest, that's like asking Atheists to CHANGE what God means to them so this word can be used.

If people AGREE not to sue, that is their free choice, but govt cannot be abused to force people to change their beliefs.

The insistence of liberals and Democrats on defending the free choice of Atheists not to be offended by words
deemed religious in meaning, but to deny the same freedom of Christians offended by words that have religious meaning
shows a double standard that when implemented by state laws constitutes DISCRIMINATION BY CREED.

The Democrats should denounce and stop this behavior and abuse of govt to discriminate by creed.
If the Party system continues to be used to deprive citizens of equal protections of the laws,
this constitutes "conspiracy to violate civil rights."

At this point, with ACA and gay marriage, there should be enough proof to show that Democrats
are not only guilty of implementing discriminatory laws through govt, but are abusing party influence,
structures, funding and operations to conspire and commit to violate the equal civil rights of citizens of other creeds,
particularly Christian beliefs that are not respected and protected equally but penalized and targeted for harassment.

 

[midcan5]

Have some consideration for 1stRambo, he is fighting the internal urges that push him to behaviors his social training finds abhorrent. He may one day open up and be the person he is destined to be. We wish him good journey.

Could it be that those obsessed with gays are secretly gay? That could explain why they see something everywhere, you only see what you want to, you only see where your mind leads you. "Jesse Bering has written a thought provoking article for the magazine, January 30, 2009 issue of the magazine, Scientific American Mind. In it he cites two pieces of empirical research that support the notion of homophobic young men harbor secret homosexual impulses. Both research studies were published in the distinguished publication, Journal of Abnormal Psychology. The first study was done in 2006 by Henry Adams and his team at the University of Georgia. Complete descriptions of the works can be found on Scientific American Mind but you may have to pay for the article or buy the magazine."

Clinical Depression, Separation Anxiety: Allan Schwartz, Ph.D.

"However, there is no evidence that the introduction of same-sex marriage will change any other elements of this social meaning. Moreover, this social meaning has already changed radically over the years.... Marriage used to be generally understood as an unequal partnership, with the wife being subordinated to her husband, whereas now — at least in law and in most of mainstream culture — marriage is viewed as a partnership of equals. In general, the social meaning of marriage must change whenever such changes are necessary to avoid injustice; so this social meaning must now be changed so that it no longer excludes the participation of same-sex couples." Ralph Wedgwood http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/marriage-meaning-and-equality/

Sodomites Kicked Out Of Texas Bar For Dancing With Each Other To Country Music US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[emilynghiem]

Have some consideration for 1stRambo, he is fighting the internal urges that push him to behaviors his social training finds abhorrent. He may one day open up and be the person he is destined to be. We wish him good journey.

Could it be that those obsessed with gays are secretly gay? That could explain why they see something everywhere, you only see what you want to, you only see where your mind leads you. "Jesse Bering has written a thought provoking article for the magazine, January 30, 2009 issue of the magazine, Scientific American Mind. In it he cites two pieces of empirical research that support the notion of homophobic young men harbor secret homosexual impulses. Both research studies were published in the distinguished publication, Journal of Abnormal Psychology. The first study was done in 2006 by Henry Adams and his team at the University of Georgia. Complete descriptions of the works can be found on Scientific American Mind but you may have to pay for the article or buy the magazine."

Clinical Depression, Separation Anxiety: Allan Schwartz, Ph.D.

"However, there is no evidence that the introduction of same-sex marriage will change any other elements of this social meaning. Moreover, this social meaning has already changed radically over the years.... Marriage used to be generally understood as an unequal partnership, with the wife being subordinated to her husband, whereas now — at least in law and in most of mainstream culture — marriage is viewed as a partnership of equals. In general, the social meaning of marriage must change whenever such changes are necessary to avoid injustice; so this social meaning must now be changed so that it no longer excludes the participation of same-sex couples." Ralph Wedgwood http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/marriage-meaning-and-equality/

Sodomites Kicked Out Of Texas Bar For Dancing With Each Other To Country Music US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

OK midcan5
That's like arguing that liberals against Tea Party are secretly Constitutionalists fighting to come out of their political closets.
And those against Klan and racists are secretly racists.
Oh wait, people DO argue that Blacks are racists, yet they are getting slammed for that!
Never mind, this only works if you're the liberal calling someone else a closet racist or gay.
Carry on...

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Why should polygamous marriage only be for gays. It should be for everyone. Warren Jeffs should be released from prison immediately. All he is guilty of is premature new morality.

Your post is your usual nasty, lying garbage and there is no way that even YOU can make a case to release Jeffs.



Post a link to "polygamous marriage ... for gays".

 

[emilynghiem]

Why should polygamous marriage only be for gays. It should be for everyone. Warren Jeffs should be released from prison immediately. All he is guilty of is premature new morality.

Your post is your usual nasty, lying garbage and there is no way that even YOU can make a case to release Jeffs.



Post a link to "polygamous marriage ... for gays".

All a distraction, I agree Luddly Neddite this has nothing to do with the real issue.

Why don't you show links to any liberals or Democrats agreeing with me
that separation of church and state should be enforced consistently for secular and religious beliefs?
Such as for both sides of the marriage debate?

I can only find instances of you attacking me for bringing up this issue.

To the credit of humanists, Tom Wayburn did finally agree that anyone's beliefs
can constitute a religion and violate the same concept by imposing them through govt.
he was arguing that prochoice was a lie because it was not applied to legalization of drugs consistently
as to abortion.
Now I am arguing it is not applied equally to freedom of choice in health care that is not a crime to pay for other ways besides federal insurance mandates.

What about you Luddly Neddite?
Do you agree that prochoice and separation of church and state should be enforced equally?
Or only for beliefs and choices that YOU believe in, and not for other people's beliefs about choices?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

A. This is in Thailand, not the U.S.

B. If they aren't hurting me directly I don't care what they do or how they choose to live. Why do you?

Yo, its not normal in the human eye for me, or kids!!!

"GTP"

"OBAMA HATES AMERICA"

Maybe it isn't normal, but I still don't see how that makes it any of your business.

 

[Siete]

it's abnormal to rant about issues that have no effect on your life just for attention.