Why gay marriage is wrong!

[hipeter924]

It's no coincidence that the heart of the resistance to marriage and racial equality has been in the South. The South has a long history intolerance and inequality. It's no coincidence that the southern states unlike most other states only accepted women's suffrage when it was forced on them by the 19th amendment. Nor is it a coincidence that the Equal Rights Amendment failed because not a single southern state would ratify it. In small southern towns Jews, Catholics, and foreigners were regarded with suspension throughout most of the 19th and 20th century. The Klan repeated pressured local and state government to ban government hiring of Catholics and Jews.. Although the South has changed a lot in the last hundred years, much of the old intolerance and bigotry of the past still exists.

I don't see why it's so hard for people to understand.

I absolutely loathe the way the current 'Republicans' consider themselves to be members of the 'Party of Lincoln.'

What an embarrassment. If he were resurrected today, he'd be a registered Democrat by tomorrow.



My rule of thumb when it comes to social issues: If the majority of South agrees with it, it should probably be banned.

Since Lincoln was a bloodthirsty mass murdering tyrant, I also loath it.

Ha ha, fail. You need to get over the ass kicking you got during the civil war, and focus on reality.

Lincoln had his flaws, but being bloodthirsty or power hungry weren't it. The real irony is that if the South had remained in the union, then it would have taken till the 1960s just to free all the slaves - as northern states would have probably conceded to compromise.

Instead the South had a temper tantrum and left the union, and went secessionist wanting to build their own country.

So rather than blaming the North and Lincoln, you should look to those politicians that left the government, and surrendered the political representation of their states.

 

[bripat9643]

It's no coincidence that the heart of the resistance to marriage and racial equality has been in the South. The South has a long history intolerance and inequality. It's no coincidence that the southern states unlike most other states only accepted women's suffrage when it was forced on them by the 19th amendment. Nor is it a coincidence that the Equal Rights Amendment failed because not a single southern state would ratify it. In small southern towns Jews, Catholics, and foreigners were regarded with suspension throughout most of the 19th and 20th century. The Klan repeated pressured local and state government to ban government hiring of Catholics and Jews.. Although the South has changed a lot in the last hundred years, much of the old intolerance and bigotry of the past still exists.

I don't see why it's so hard for people to understand.

I absolutely loathe the way the current 'Republicans' consider themselves to be members of the 'Party of Lincoln.'

What an embarrassment. If he were resurrected today, he'd be a registered Democrat by tomorrow.



My rule of thumb when it comes to social issues: If the majority of South agrees with it, it should probably be banned.

Since Lincoln was a bloodthirsty mass murdering tyrant, I also loath it.

Ha ha, fail. You need to get over the ass kicking you got during the civil war, and focus on reality.

Lincoln had his flaws, but being bloodthirsty or power hungry weren't it. The real irony is that if the South had remained in the union, then it would have taken till the 1960s just to free all the slaves - as northern states would have probably conceded to compromise.

Instead the South had a temper tantrum and left the union, and went secessionist wanting to build their own country.

So rather than blaming the North and Lincoln, you should look to those politicians that left the government, and surrendered the political representation of their states.

Lincoln invaded the South and started a war that led to the deaths of 850,000 people. He had people executed without a trial. His troops raped, pillaged and murdered millions of American citizens. They burned a number of Southern cities to the ground. The claim that Lincoln didn't condone these actions is utterly fatuous.

Your post is little more than intellectual scat. It's meaningless shit, in other words.

 

[bodecea]

It's no coincidence that the heart of the resistance to marriage and racial equality has been in the South. The South has a long history intolerance and inequality. It's no coincidence that the southern states unlike most other states only accepted women's suffrage when it was forced on them by the 19th amendment. Nor is it a coincidence that the Equal Rights Amendment failed because not a single southern state would ratify it. In small southern towns Jews, Catholics, and foreigners were regarded with suspension throughout most of the 19th and 20th century. The Klan repeated pressured local and state government to ban government hiring of Catholics and Jews.. Although the South has changed a lot in the last hundred years, much of the old intolerance and bigotry of the past still exists.

I don't see why it's so hard for people to understand.

I absolutely loathe the way the current 'Republicans' consider themselves to be members of the 'Party of Lincoln.'

What an embarrassment. If he were resurrected today, he'd be a registered Democrat by tomorrow.



My rule of thumb when it comes to social issues: If the majority of South agrees with it, it should probably be banned.

Since Lincoln was a bloodthirsty mass murdering tyrant, I also loath it.

Ha ha, fail. You need to get over the ass kicking you got during the civil war, and focus on reality.

Lincoln had his flaws, but being bloodthirsty or power hungry weren't it. The real irony is that if the South had remained in the union, then it would have taken till the 1960s just to free all the slaves - as northern states would have probably conceded to compromise.

Instead the South had a temper tantrum and left the union, and went secessionist wanting to build their own country.

So rather than blaming the North and Lincoln, you should look to those politicians that left the government, and surrendered the political representation of their states.

Lincoln invaded the South and started a war that led to the deaths of 850,000 people. He had people executed without a trial. His troops raped, pillaged and murdered millions of American citizens. They burned a number of Southern cities to the ground. The claim that Lincoln didn't condone these actions is utterly fatuous.

Your post is little more than intellectual scat. It's meaningless shit, in other words.

The South shouldn't have started something they couldn't finish, eh?

 

[hipeter924]

It's no coincidence that the heart of the resistance to marriage and racial equality has been in the South. The South has a long history intolerance and inequality. It's no coincidence that the southern states unlike most other states only accepted women's suffrage when it was forced on them by the 19th amendment. Nor is it a coincidence that the Equal Rights Amendment failed because not a single southern state would ratify it. In small southern towns Jews, Catholics, and foreigners were regarded with suspension throughout most of the 19th and 20th century. The Klan repeated pressured local and state government to ban government hiring of Catholics and Jews.. Although the South has changed a lot in the last hundred years, much of the old intolerance and bigotry of the past still exists.

I don't see why it's so hard for people to understand.

I absolutely loathe the way the current 'Republicans' consider themselves to be members of the 'Party of Lincoln.'

What an embarrassment. If he were resurrected today, he'd be a registered Democrat by tomorrow.



My rule of thumb when it comes to social issues: If the majority of South agrees with it, it should probably be banned.

Since Lincoln was a bloodthirsty mass murdering tyrant, I also loath it.

Ha ha, fail. You need to get over the ass kicking you got during the civil war, and focus on reality.

Lincoln had his flaws, but being bloodthirsty or power hungry weren't it. The real irony is that if the South had remained in the union, then it would have taken till the 1960s just to free all the slaves - as northern states would have probably conceded to compromise.

Instead the South had a temper tantrum and left the union, and went secessionist wanting to build their own country.

So rather than blaming the North and Lincoln, you should look to those politicians that left the government, and surrendered the political representation of their states.

Lincoln invaded the South and started a war that led to the deaths of 850,000 people. He had people executed without a trial. His troops raped, pillaged and murdered millions of American citizens. They burned a number of Southern cities to the ground. The claim that Lincoln didn't condone these actions is utterly fatuous.

Your post is little more than intellectual scat. It's meaningless shit, in other words.

Blah. Blah. Blah.

You really need to get a chill pill, though doubt they stock one that can last a few centuries.

Lincoln didn't start it, visit the Smithsonian Museum here in D.C. and read up on who fired first - and it wasn't the union.

What of the millions the South enslaved, what of the murders of blacks by racist southerners, over the course of centuries?

If you are going to bring up what was moral and what was right, you can start by explaining how the South was morally justified in enslaving millions.

Lincoln did what was needed to be done to win the war, but in all wars there are excesses - just like the Napoleonic wars, ww1, and ww2.

If Lincoln is 'bloodthirsty', then so are Roosevelt, Churchill, and the founding fathers of America. Because if you think a civil war can be won without carnage, you must have lived in a cave for the last two decades.

 

[-S-]

Blah. Blah. Blah.

You really need to get a chill pill, though doubt they stock one that can last a few centuries.

Lincoln didn't start it, visit the Smithsonian Museum here in D.C. and read up on who fired first - and it wasn't the union.

What of the millions the South enslaved, what of the murders of blacks by racist southerners, over the course of centuries?

If you are going to bring up what was moral and what was right, you can start by explaining how the South was morally justified in enslaving millions.

Lincoln did what was needed to be done to win the war, but in all wars there are excesses - just like the Napoleonic wars, ww1, and ww2.

If Lincoln is 'bloodthirsty', then so are Roosevelt, Churchill, and the founding fathers of America. Because if you think a civil war can be won without carnage, you must have lived in a cave for the last two decades.

"But... but that doesn't matter! All that matters is that big, scary federal oversight took away our free workers! That's unconstitutional! Stay out of our lives, government, and leave our private property alone! YEEEE-haw, conservative values!" - The South

 

[hipeter924]

It's no coincidence that the heart of the resistance to marriage and racial equality has been in the South. The South has a long history intolerance and inequality. It's no coincidence that the southern states unlike most other states only accepted women's suffrage when it was forced on them by the 19th amendment. Nor is it a coincidence that the Equal Rights Amendment failed because not a single southern state would ratify it. In small southern towns Jews, Catholics, and foreigners were regarded with suspension throughout most of the 19th and 20th century. The Klan repeated pressured local and state government to ban government hiring of Catholics and Jews.. Although the South has changed a lot in the last hundred years, much of the old intolerance and bigotry of the past still exists.

I don't see why it's so hard for people to understand.

I absolutely loathe the way the current 'Republicans' consider themselves to be members of the 'Party of Lincoln.'

What an embarrassment. If he were resurrected today, he'd be a registered Democrat by tomorrow.



My rule of thumb when it comes to social issues: If the majority of South agrees with it, it should probably be banned.

Since Lincoln was a bloodthirsty mass murdering tyrant, I also loath it.

Ha ha, fail. You need to get over the ass kicking you got during the civil war, and focus on reality.

Lincoln had his flaws, but being bloodthirsty or power hungry weren't it. The real irony is that if the South had remained in the union, then it would have taken till the 1960s just to free all the slaves - as northern states would have probably conceded to compromise.

Instead the South had a temper tantrum and left the union, and went secessionist wanting to build their own country.

So rather than blaming the North and Lincoln, you should look to those politicians that left the government, and surrendered the political representation of their states.

Lincoln invaded the South and started a war that led to the deaths of 850,000 people. He had people executed without a trial. His troops raped, pillaged and murdered millions of American citizens. They burned a number of Southern cities to the ground. The claim that Lincoln didn't condone these actions is utterly fatuous.

Your post is little more than intellectual scat. It's meaningless shit, in other words.

The South shouldn't have started something they couldn't finish, eh?

Some Southerners will just hate the North, just how in other countries some groups look back and blame another country for something that happened centuries ago. Sad, but true that hatred dies hard.

I am not butthurt over the fact, that my American side won a revolution against my British side. It was a terrible war, and that's all that really needs to be said.

I have forgiven the Japanese for what they did to my grandfather, and to America and other countries.

But it seems some in the South, can never let go and accept what happened, or that nothing will bring people back.

 

[bodecea]

I don't see why it's so hard for people to understand.

I absolutely loathe the way the current 'Republicans' consider themselves to be members of the 'Party of Lincoln.'

What an embarrassment. If he were resurrected today, he'd be a registered Democrat by tomorrow.



My rule of thumb when it comes to social issues: If the majority of South agrees with it, it should probably be banned.

Since Lincoln was a bloodthirsty mass murdering tyrant, I also loath it.

Ha ha, fail. You need to get over the ass kicking you got during the civil war, and focus on reality.

Lincoln had his flaws, but being bloodthirsty or power hungry weren't it. The real irony is that if the South had remained in the union, then it would have taken till the 1960s just to free all the slaves - as northern states would have probably conceded to compromise.

Instead the South had a temper tantrum and left the union, and went secessionist wanting to build their own country.

So rather than blaming the North and Lincoln, you should look to those politicians that left the government, and surrendered the political representation of their states.

Lincoln invaded the South and started a war that led to the deaths of 850,000 people. He had people executed without a trial. His troops raped, pillaged and murdered millions of American citizens. They burned a number of Southern cities to the ground. The claim that Lincoln didn't condone these actions is utterly fatuous.

Your post is little more than intellectual scat. It's meaningless shit, in other words.

The South shouldn't have started something they couldn't finish, eh?

Some Southerners will just hate the North, just how in other countries some groups look back and blame another country for something that happened centuries ago. Sad, but true that hatred dies hard.

I am not butthurt over the fact, that my American side won a revolution against my British side. It was a terrible war, and that's all that really needs to be said.

I have forgiven the Japanese for what they did to my grandfather, and to America and other countries.

But it seems some in the South, can never let go and accept what happened, or that nothing will bring people back.

They were crushed...and needed a scapegoat. Just like Germany was crushed after WWI and needed a scapegoat.

 

[bripat9643]

It's no coincidence that the heart of the resistance to marriage and racial equality has been in the South. The South has a long history intolerance and inequality. It's no coincidence that the southern states unlike most other states only accepted women's suffrage when it was forced on them by the 19th amendment. Nor is it a coincidence that the Equal Rights Amendment failed because not a single southern state would ratify it. In small southern towns Jews, Catholics, and foreigners were regarded with suspension throughout most of the 19th and 20th century. The Klan repeated pressured local and state government to ban government hiring of Catholics and Jews.. Although the South has changed a lot in the last hundred years, much of the old intolerance and bigotry of the past still exists.

I don't see why it's so hard for people to understand.

I absolutely loathe the way the current 'Republicans' consider themselves to be members of the 'Party of Lincoln.'

What an embarrassment. If he were resurrected today, he'd be a registered Democrat by tomorrow.



My rule of thumb when it comes to social issues: If the majority of South agrees with it, it should probably be banned.

Since Lincoln was a bloodthirsty mass murdering tyrant, I also loath it.

Ha ha, fail. You need to get over the ass kicking you got during the civil war, and focus on reality.

Lincoln had his flaws, but being bloodthirsty or power hungry weren't it. The real irony is that if the South had remained in the union, then it would have taken till the 1960s just to free all the slaves - as northern states would have probably conceded to compromise.

Instead the South had a temper tantrum and left the union, and went secessionist wanting to build their own country.

So rather than blaming the North and Lincoln, you should look to those politicians that left the government, and surrendered the political representation of their states.

Lincoln invaded the South and started a war that led to the deaths of 850,000 people. He had people executed without a trial. His troops raped, pillaged and murdered millions of American citizens. They burned a number of Southern cities to the ground. The claim that Lincoln didn't condone these actions is utterly fatuous.

Your post is little more than intellectual scat. It's meaningless shit, in other words.

The South shouldn't have started something they couldn't finish, eh?

Lincoln invaded Virginia. The South didn't invade the Union. You are the kind that would tell a woman being raped that she shouldn't have worn the slinky outfit.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

This is a loser issue for the gop

It's natural law. You either fight to maintain your cultures adherence to it, or you concede your culture to the evil which needs to separate your culture from it, toward the goal of destroying your culture.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

 

[Syriusly]

You keep telling yourself that....maybe you'll finally believe it someday.

Every intelligent rational person believes it.

Does that go along with your "civil rights are fictions..."? That "every intelligent rational person believes those two things?

Unfortunately plenty of intelligent rational people have swallowed the liberal Kool-Aid and believe so-called "Civil Rights" are actually rights.

Yet you are completely unable to explain why you believe that- or provide any rational explanation.

Again.

I have explained it many times. Whenever I ask a queer to explain his/her theory of rights, they run away like the cowardly bodecea runs away.

I have yet see you explain anything. Whenever challenged, you cower and whine like bigots always do.

 

[bripat9643]

It's no coincidence that the heart of the resistance to marriage and racial equality has been in the South. The South has a long history intolerance and inequality. It's no coincidence that the southern states unlike most other states only accepted women's suffrage when it was forced on them by the 19th amendment. Nor is it a coincidence that the Equal Rights Amendment failed because not a single southern state would ratify it. In small southern towns Jews, Catholics, and foreigners were regarded with suspension throughout most of the 19th and 20th century. The Klan repeated pressured local and state government to ban government hiring of Catholics and Jews.. Although the South has changed a lot in the last hundred years, much of the old intolerance and bigotry of the past still exists.

I don't see why it's so hard for people to understand.

I absolutely loathe the way the current 'Republicans' consider themselves to be members of the 'Party of Lincoln.'

What an embarrassment. If he were resurrected today, he'd be a registered Democrat by tomorrow.



My rule of thumb when it comes to social issues: If the majority of South agrees with it, it should probably be banned.

Since Lincoln was a bloodthirsty mass murdering tyrant, I also loath it.

Ha ha, fail. You need to get over the ass kicking you got during the civil war, and focus on reality.

Lincoln had his flaws, but being bloodthirsty or power hungry weren't it. The real irony is that if the South had remained in the union, then it would have taken till the 1960s just to free all the slaves - as northern states would have probably conceded to compromise.

Instead the South had a temper tantrum and left the union, and went secessionist wanting to build their own country.

So rather than blaming the North and Lincoln, you should look to those politicians that left the government, and surrendered the political representation of their states.

Lincoln invaded the South and started a war that led to the deaths of 850,000 people. He had people executed without a trial. His troops raped, pillaged and murdered millions of American citizens. They burned a number of Southern cities to the ground. The claim that Lincoln didn't condone these actions is utterly fatuous.

Your post is little more than intellectual scat. It's meaningless shit, in other words.

Blah. Blah. Blah.

You really need to get a chill pill, though doubt they stock one that can last a few centuries.

Lincoln didn't start it, visit the Smithsonian Museum here in D.C. and read up on who fired first - and it wasn't the union.

Wrong. South Carolina chased some trespassers out of its territory. Lincoln is the one who invaded. He also established a blockade, which is an act of war also.

What of the millions the South enslaved, what of the murders of blacks by racist southerners, over the course of centuries.

How does that equate to an act of war?

If you are going to bring up what was moral and what was right, you can start by explaining how the South was morally justified in enslaving millions.

Northern states also had slaves, moron. And Lincoln stated many times that he didn't invade to end slavery. He invaded to force the Southern states back into the Union.

Lincoln did what was needed to be done to win the war, but in all wars there are excesses - just like the Napoleonic wars, ww1, and ww2.

Every dictator claims his crimes were "needed." There was no need to have the war in the first place. Lincoln had no justification for invading Virginia. None.

If Lincoln is 'bloodthirsty', then so are Roosevelt, Churchill, and the founding fathers of America. Because if you think a civil war can be won without carnage, you must have lived in a cave for the last two decades.

True, Roosevelt and Churchill were both quite bloodthirsty. Furthermore, it wasn't a Civil War. It was an invasion of states that had lawfully seceded from the Union.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It's no coincidence that the heart of the resistance to marriage and racial equality has been in the South. The South has a long history intolerance and inequality. It's no coincidence that the southern states unlike most other states only accepted women's suffrage when it was forced on them by the 19th amendment. Nor is it a coincidence that the Equal Rights Amendment failed because not a single southern state would ratify it. In small southern towns Jews, Catholics, and foreigners were regarded with suspension throughout most of the 19th and 20th century. The Klan repeated pressured local and state government to ban government hiring of Catholics and Jews.. Although the South has changed a lot in the last hundred years, much of the old intolerance and bigotry of the past still exists.

I don't see why it's so hard for people to understand.

I absolutely loathe the way the current 'Republicans' consider themselves to be members of the 'Party of Lincoln.'

What an embarrassment. If he were resurrected today, he'd be a registered Democrat by tomorrow.



My rule of thumb when it comes to social issues: If the majority of South agrees with it, it should probably be banned.

Since Lincoln was a bloodthirsty mass murdering tyrant, I also loath it.

Ha ha, fail. You need to get over the ass kicking you got during the civil war, and focus on reality.

Lincoln had his flaws, but being bloodthirsty or power hungry weren't it. The real irony is that if the South had remained in the union, then it would have taken till the 1960s just to free all the slaves - as northern states would have probably conceded to compromise.

Instead the South had a temper tantrum and left the union, and went secessionist wanting to build their own country.

So rather than blaming the North and Lincoln, you should look to those politicians that left the government, and surrendered the political representation of their states.

The civil war was not fought to free the dam' slaves.

And it should be noted that it was not a 'civil war'. It was a war by the United States; A sovereign nation, which invaded the Confederate States; a sovereign nation. The consequences of which was the United States conquering the Confederacy.

Had it been an actual Civil war... The south would have prevailed. The civil war which is about to start will demonstrate that...

 

[bripat9643]

Since Lincoln was a bloodthirsty mass murdering tyrant, I also loath it.

Ha ha, fail. You need to get over the ass kicking you got during the civil war, and focus on reality.

Lincoln had his flaws, but being bloodthirsty or power hungry weren't it. The real irony is that if the South had remained in the union, then it would have taken till the 1960s just to free all the slaves - as northern states would have probably conceded to compromise.

Instead the South had a temper tantrum and left the union, and went secessionist wanting to build their own country.

So rather than blaming the North and Lincoln, you should look to those politicians that left the government, and surrendered the political representation of their states.

Lincoln invaded the South and started a war that led to the deaths of 850,000 people. He had people executed without a trial. His troops raped, pillaged and murdered millions of American citizens. They burned a number of Southern cities to the ground. The claim that Lincoln didn't condone these actions is utterly fatuous.

Your post is little more than intellectual scat. It's meaningless shit, in other words.

The South shouldn't have started something they couldn't finish, eh?

Some Southerners will just hate the North, just how in other countries some groups look back and blame another country for something that happened centuries ago. Sad, but true that hatred dies hard.

I am not butthurt over the fact, that my American side won a revolution against my British side. It was a terrible war, and that's all that really needs to be said.

I have forgiven the Japanese for what they did to my grandfather, and to America and other countries.

But it seems some in the South, can never let go and accept what happened, or that nothing will bring people back.

They were crushed...and needed a scapegoat. Just like Germany was crushed after WWI and needed a scapegoat.

Who is this "scapegoat," and for what purpose?

 

[Syriusly]

I don't see why it's so hard for people to understand.

I absolutely loathe the way the current 'Republicans' consider themselves to be members of the 'Party of Lincoln.'

What an embarrassment. If he were resurrected today, he'd be a registered Democrat by tomorrow.



My rule of thumb when it comes to social issues: If the majority of South agrees with it, it should probably be banned.

Since Lincoln was a bloodthirsty mass murdering tyrant, I also loath it.

Ha ha, fail. You need to get over the ass kicking you got during the civil war, and focus on reality.

Lincoln had his flaws, but being bloodthirsty or power hungry weren't it. The real irony is that if the South had remained in the union, then it would have taken till the 1960s just to free all the slaves - as northern states would have probably conceded to compromise.

Instead the South had a temper tantrum and left the union, and went secessionist wanting to build their own country.

So rather than blaming the North and Lincoln, you should look to those politicians that left the government, and surrendered the political representation of their states.

Lincoln invaded the South and started a war that led to the deaths of 850,000 people. He had people executed without a trial. His troops raped, pillaged and murdered millions of American citizens. They burned a number of Southern cities to the ground. The claim that Lincoln didn't condone these actions is utterly fatuous.

Your post is little more than intellectual scat. It's meaningless shit, in other words.

The South shouldn't have started something they couldn't finish, eh?

Lincoln invaded Virginia. The South didn't invade the Union. You are the kind that would tell a woman being raped that she shouldn't have worn the slinky outfit.

- Southern States secede and form a seperete government.
- Southern States attack a Federal fortification and Federal troops.
- And then the legitimate government of the United States invaded the rebellious territory that had attacked Federal troops.

You are the kind that would shoot someone, but only wing them, and then whine and sue the person you shot because the person beat the holy crap out of you for shooting them.

 

[Syriusly]

It's no coincidence that the heart of the resistance to marriage and racial equality has been in the South. The South has a long history intolerance and inequality. It's no coincidence that the southern states unlike most other states only accepted women's suffrage when it was forced on them by the 19th amendment. Nor is it a coincidence that the Equal Rights Amendment failed because not a single southern state would ratify it. In small southern towns Jews, Catholics, and foreigners were regarded with suspension throughout most of the 19th and 20th century. The Klan repeated pressured local and state government to ban government hiring of Catholics and Jews.. Although the South has changed a lot in the last hundred years, much of the old intolerance and bigotry of the past still exists.

I don't see why it's so hard for people to understand.

I absolutely loathe the way the current 'Republicans' consider themselves to be members of the 'Party of Lincoln.'

What an embarrassment. If he were resurrected today, he'd be a registered Democrat by tomorrow.



My rule of thumb when it comes to social issues: If the majority of South agrees with it, it should probably be banned.

Since Lincoln was a bloodthirsty mass murdering tyrant, I also loath it.

Ha ha, fail. You need to get over the ass kicking you got during the civil war, and focus on reality.

Lincoln had his flaws, but being bloodthirsty or power hungry weren't it. The real irony is that if the South had remained in the union, then it would have taken till the 1960s just to free all the slaves - as northern states would have probably conceded to compromise.

Instead the South had a temper tantrum and left the union, and went secessionist wanting to build their own country.

So rather than blaming the North and Lincoln, you should look to those politicians that left the government, and surrendered the political representation of their states.

The civil war was not fought to free the dam' slaves.
...

The Civil War was fought because the South feared that they would lose the right to own slaves.

No one in the North went to war to free the slaves- the South went to war to ensure that they could keep their slaves.

 

[Mr.Right]

10 Reasons Why Homosexual Marriage is Harmful and Must be Opposed

1. It Is Not Marriage
2. It Violates Natural Law
3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother
4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle
5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right
6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union
7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage
8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society
9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution
10. It Offends God

LOL.

1 and 7 are the same point.
2, 3, and 6 are the same point.
4,5,8, and 10 are practically the same point.




but number 10 is the only true reason anybody makes a stink over it.

if number 10 were the only reason, it would be reason enough.

 

[bripat9643]

Every intelligent rational person believes it.

Does that go along with your "civil rights are fictions..."? That "every intelligent rational person believes those two things?

Unfortunately plenty of intelligent rational people have swallowed the liberal Kool-Aid and believe so-called "Civil Rights" are actually rights.

Yet you are completely unable to explain why you believe that- or provide any rational explanation.

Again.

I have explained it many times. Whenever I ask a queer to explain his/her theory of rights, they run away like the cowardly bodecea runs away.

I have yet see you explain anything. Whenever challenged, you cower and whine like bigots always do.

Ask bodecea to explain her theory of rights. If she stops running away from that, then perhaps I'll explain mine. I've actually already explained it in this forum at least 100 times.

 

[bripat9643]

It's no coincidence that the heart of the resistance to marriage and racial equality has been in the South. The South has a long history intolerance and inequality. It's no coincidence that the southern states unlike most other states only accepted women's suffrage when it was forced on them by the 19th amendment. Nor is it a coincidence that the Equal Rights Amendment failed because not a single southern state would ratify it. In small southern towns Jews, Catholics, and foreigners were regarded with suspension throughout most of the 19th and 20th century. The Klan repeated pressured local and state government to ban government hiring of Catholics and Jews.. Although the South has changed a lot in the last hundred years, much of the old intolerance and bigotry of the past still exists.

I don't see why it's so hard for people to understand.

I absolutely loathe the way the current 'Republicans' consider themselves to be members of the 'Party of Lincoln.'

What an embarrassment. If he were resurrected today, he'd be a registered Democrat by tomorrow.



My rule of thumb when it comes to social issues: If the majority of South agrees with it, it should probably be banned.

Since Lincoln was a bloodthirsty mass murdering tyrant, I also loath it.

Ha ha, fail. You need to get over the ass kicking you got during the civil war, and focus on reality.

Lincoln had his flaws, but being bloodthirsty or power hungry weren't it. The real irony is that if the South had remained in the union, then it would have taken till the 1960s just to free all the slaves - as northern states would have probably conceded to compromise.

Instead the South had a temper tantrum and left the union, and went secessionist wanting to build their own country.

So rather than blaming the North and Lincoln, you should look to those politicians that left the government, and surrendered the political representation of their states.

The civil war was not fought to free the dam' slaves.
...

The Civil War was fought because the South feared that they would lose the right to own slaves.

No one in the North went to war to free the slaves- the South went to war to ensure that they could keep their slaves.

Wrong. Lincoln didn't invade Virginia to free the slaves. The South did not start the war. Lincoln did.

 

[Syriusly]

I don't see why it's so hard for people to understand.

I absolutely loathe the way the current 'Republicans' consider themselves to be members of the 'Party of Lincoln.'

What an embarrassment. If he were resurrected today, he'd be a registered Democrat by tomorrow.



My rule of thumb when it comes to social issues: If the majority of South agrees with it, it should probably be banned.

Since Lincoln was a bloodthirsty mass murdering tyrant, I also loath it.

Ha ha, fail. You need to get over the ass kicking you got during the civil war, and focus on reality.

Lincoln had his flaws, but being bloodthirsty or power hungry weren't it. The real irony is that if the South had remained in the union, then it would have taken till the 1960s just to free all the slaves - as northern states would have probably conceded to compromise.

Instead the South had a temper tantrum and left the union, and went secessionist wanting to build their own country.

So rather than blaming the North and Lincoln, you should look to those politicians that left the government, and surrendered the political representation of their states.

Lincoln invaded the South and started a war that led to the deaths of 850,000 people. He had people executed without a trial. His troops raped, pillaged and murdered millions of American citizens. They burned a number of Southern cities to the ground. The claim that Lincoln didn't condone these actions is utterly fatuous.

Your post is little more than intellectual scat. It's meaningless shit, in other words.

The South shouldn't have started something they couldn't finish, eh?

Lincoln invaded Virginia. The South didn't invade the Union. You are the kind that would tell a woman being raped that she shouldn't have worn the slinky outfit.

It is not merely coincidence that the defenders of the Confederacy also happen to be big homophobic bigots.

 

[Syriusly]

Does that go along with your "civil rights are fictions..."? That "every intelligent rational person believes those two things?

Unfortunately plenty of intelligent rational people have swallowed the liberal Kool-Aid and believe so-called "Civil Rights" are actually rights.

Yet you are completely unable to explain why you believe that- or provide any rational explanation.

Again.

I have explained it many times. Whenever I ask a queer to explain his/her theory of rights, they run away like the cowardly bodecea runs away.

I have yet see you explain anything. Whenever challenged, you cower and whine like bigots always do.

Ask bodecea to explain her theory of rights. If she stops running away from that, then perhaps I'll explain mine. I've actually already explained it in this forum at least 100 times.

I have yet see you explain anything. Whenever challenged, you cower and whine like bigots always do.